D&D General One thing I hate about the Sorcerer
- Thread starter cbwjm
- Start date
Mind of tempest
(he/him)advocate for 5e psionics
It wasn't an agenda specifically against sorcerer.
The agenda was a list of priorities that sucked up all the initial design space and most of the future design space.
The 5e team mostly focused on the Classic 4 classes: Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard. They mostly hit the nail on the head on Cleric and Rogue and proceeded to spend all the time designing Fighter and Wizard. So anything that didn't hit the 80% satisfaction threshold was mostly revert to a hard 5e conversion of their 3e forms.
This is how the Ranger and Monk that almost no one actually wanted got published. Focus was spent elsewhere unwisely.
The Sorcerer never made it onto the agenda. They just converted the 3e one and gave it Metamagic. People were so excited to see Metamagic they didn't question the lack of mechanical and flavor support until it was printed. The cool ideas from the playtest were not attempt again nor was any other new ideas.
Now after the PHB, going 10 years with weak flavor and only 2 additions to Metamagic and 1 unique spell is raw apathy. It's obvious bias seeing the support for the other casters.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
How do you mean? They certainly exist on this forum, and I can prove it.
D&D 5E - Spell Versatility is GONE. Rejoice!
I'm so happy that sanity prevailed and Spell Versatility as we knew it from the UA is dead as Dillinger in Tasha's. I'd have been OK with it on the Ranger, but that's only because the Ranger should've just been a prepared caster, anyway. But the full casters who stood to get it? Nope. No...
www.enworld.org
That thread is full of exactly what we're talking about. Sorcerers getting a genuinely small buff was presented, without a trace of hyperbole, as "stepping on Wizard toes with a stiletto heel." In the weeks leading up to this announcement, you had folks here, and on at least two other forums I know, utterly outraged at the idea that any spellcaster could be a better illusion specialist than an Illusionist Wizard, or a better blaster than an Evoker, or a better summoner than a Conjurer, etc. It was NOT merely trying to see that Wizards remained strong and relevant; they specifically had to be better than Sorcerers, or else.
Wizard fanatics "rejoice" when other classes don't get buffs that might threaten their hegemony. I've never seen that behavior from the fans of any other class; not even remotely so.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
It was not made "fairly quickly." The public playtesting process alone was over two years. They had at least six months prep time before that, and around the same amount (plus printing/shipping time) after.
The reason 5e has rushed elements is because the designers pissed away three quarters of their public playtesting period just fumbling about with basic, fundamental design, and then had to fill in the remainder with slapdash efforts when they realized they needed to be having actual physical books within the next six months or else they'd suffer financial disaster. They'd spend six months or more utterly committed to one design concept (e.g. remember "Specialties"?) only to totally abandon it and then have to come up with a replacement. Or, half the time, not even bother and thus leave more and more things in the lurch.
Crimson Longinus
Legend
Spell versatility was terrible idea as it made already samey caster classes even more samey, not because it buffed sorcerers. Sorcerers are terrible and if we cannot get rid of them they need a buff, but it must be something that makes them more unique, not less.How do you mean? They certainly exist on this forum, and I can prove it.
D&D 5E - Spell Versatility is GONE. Rejoice!
I'm so happy that sanity prevailed and Spell Versatility as we knew it from the UA is dead as Dillinger in Tasha's. I'd have been OK with it on the Ranger, but that's only because the Ranger should've just been a prepared caster, anyway. But the full casters who stood to get it? Nope. No...
That thread is full of exactly what we're talking about. Sorcerers getting a genuinely small buff was presented, without a trace of hyperbole, as "stepping on Wizard toes with a stiletto heel."
The playtest surveys.
WOTC conducted and organized the 2013 and 2023 playtest surveys in a way that united fandom of the Wizard could harm the disorganized fandom of the Sorcerer or Fighter.
Because it isn't that the fandom of Wizards is evil, malicious, or bribing the designers. It's that they are mostly united.
That Unity causes the Wizard to always score high on certain aspects of the game. And because WOTC wont touch things that score high and will revert quickly if a high satisfaction element dips in score, it hold aspects of the game hostage.
The "Wizard gets all the non-healing spells" comments getting positive marks means every nondivine nonprimal spell and magic element in 5e is tagged to the wizard. Almost every new "arcane" spell is a wizard spell. Often they share with others but Wizard is tagged the most.
WOTC made sure they pleased the Wizard fanbase. Even sometimes to the detriment of other classes.
Other classes got attention like this. Unfortunately for Fighters, Rangers, Druids and Monks, their fanbases were not united and pleasing everyone required more work and trouble than WOTC was willing to put out until 2024.
The Sorcerer fanbase was never given such attention.
The Wizard fanbase demanded that the Arcane spell-list is taken from Sorcerer and now we don't even know how the 2024 sorcerer will really look. So the class will likely remain less than its 3e version as there was a minimal attempt to make its identity and mechanics match.
MoonSong
Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
I'm one of those who have argued for putting wizard under sorcerer, but I must admit I did it in more of a bad faith and as a way to demonstrate some of my points rather than because I don't want wizards to exist as a separate class (I do prefer the split, if anything I might argue in favor of splitting sorcerer even further).
My points are:
- The Wizard isn't generic, and thematically it is very narrow. While the sorcerer is a thematically broader -if undersupported- class.
- To counteract the argument "Oh, but wizards can have an inherent/inborn gift for magic too, so sorcerer tottes is a flavor of wizard." I don't subscribe to that argument (that traditionally wizards have an innate gift too) and I've never played with someone claiming that, but if it is true, the conclusion is that wizard is a flavor of sorcerer not the other way around.
- To showcase the mechanical and thematic versatility of the sorcerer, under current D&D rules it is almost trivial to get something wizard-like out of the sorcerer while it is hard to do it the other way around.
- To show that these efforts will always come short. Neither mine nor @CreamCloud0 's subclasses preserve everything wizardly about the wizard, and that is with for a class that is already thematically narrow using a subclass that has a lot of thematic and mechanical room. Putting the thematically more diverse sorcerer into the more narrow wizard with less room in the subclasses for it will only get an even worse result.
- In part to bait someone else to post their own as a rebuttal that somehow misses the point. (And this time someone did)
- And because I suspect deep down that people calling for a merger just want to kill the sorcerer and give wizards the spoils (aka metamagic)
But I like wizards separate. I just want sorcerers to be propperly supported.
Last edited:
MoonSong
Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
History repeats. All I know is that moving subclass choice from first to third level is like three steps backwards, likely to make things worse not better.
