D&D General One thing I hate about the Sorcerer

Chaosmancer

Legend
That to me was the biggest hangup.

They presented Sorcerer wasn't a Focused Caster.

Had they playtested the Wild Magic Sorcerer first as a more traditional caster, it might have been accepted with a Draconic Gish and Divine Healer later.

Possibly.

The 3.5 Sorcerer WAS more martial than the Wizard. I don't remember if they had leather armor (I think they did) but I know that they had more weapons, including spears, because they didn't need to study their magic as deeply as wizards did. I think that both was something the Team felt was important to the Sorcerer identity (Note that essentially every single Unearthed Arcana Sorcerer until Clockwork and Aberrant had Gish elements, Stone Sorcerer, Giant Sorcerer, ect) but also gave them a clear avenue to differentiate from the Wizard. A more traditional caster take could have potentially been seen as too similar to the Wizard.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


CreamCloud0

One day, I hope to actually play DnD.
Possibly.

The 3.5 Sorcerer WAS more martial than the Wizard. I don't remember if they had leather armor (I think they did) but I know that they had more weapons, including spears, because they didn't need to study their magic as deeply as wizards did. I think that both was something the Team felt was important to the Sorcerer identity (Note that essentially every single Unearthed Arcana Sorcerer until Clockwork and Aberrant had Gish elements, Stone Sorcerer, Giant Sorcerer, ect) but also gave them a clear avenue to differentiate from the Wizard. A more traditional caster take could have potentially been seen as too similar to the Wizard.
never played anything before 5e but i've often thought myself how it's a bit odd that that 5e sorcerer isnt innately a bit more sturdy and battle capable than the wizard if they don't have to spend all that time studying and have magic reinforcing them, a d8 hit die or something.
 


never played anything before 5e but i've often thought myself how it's a bit odd that that 5e sorcerer isnt innately a bit more sturdy and battle capable than the wizard if they don't have to spend all that time studying and have magic reinforcing them, a d8 hit die or something.
Warlock has that. Another reason why warlock is better sorcerer than the sorcerer.
 


This is why I wish they would have just stuck with MU instead of trying to split it up. They tried to split up the MU into three different things, and messed it up completely. Wizard, Sorcerer, and Warlock use to just be level names, indicating what level you were. Warlock meant you were level 8, Sorcerer meant you were level 9, and Wizard was anything from 11 and onward. Warlock was the easiest they could have split from it, as warlocks from history have always been associated with making deals with devils or the devil himself. They had a rich history there and could have done a great class, but instead if feels like they got three different people working on it that had no clue what anyone was doing with the class. Sorcerers from history was anyone, including a person once called a Wizard, that used their magic for only bad things and harming people. Wizards in history were considered wise men that weren't clerics, but were blessed with abilities to use their magic for only good and helping people. WoTC could have easily played with the history of the two, instead they just decided to split MU and make a very small amount of changes and leave it at that. There is no real distinct different in them outside of the flavor text in how they come across their powers, and how they gain spells, that's pretty much it. Oh, and Wizards get the biggest spell list, but Sorcerer is not too far behind them in terms of having the second biggest spell list. Sure, Sorcerer gets the sorcerey points, but thats because without something like that, Wizard and Sorcerer would feel like playing the exact same class. it adds just enough to the class to make it feel like it's something different, even though it's really not. They could have had an easier time making something like Necromancer, Warlock, and leaving MU as it was. At least the three would feel very different. I mean, that's just my opinion when I read through the three classes, not saying it's right.
 



Undrave

Legend
never played anything before 5e but i've often thought myself how it's a bit odd that that 5e sorcerer isnt innately a bit more sturdy and battle capable than the wizard if they don't have to spend all that time studying and have magic reinforcing them, a d8 hit die or something.
they should have made their casting stat Constitution. Not only making them sturdier, but also making them the easiest class to MC, something that I feel makes sense if anybody can suddenly manifest a sorcerous origin. Going full sorcerer would represent actually investing time to develop your gift, while a MC dip would represent refusing to do so. Lots of story potential in that.
 

Remove ads

Top