D&D General One thing I hate about the Sorcerer

[Shadowedeyes]

So, going to devil's advocate for the idea of combining the Warlock and Sorcerer for a minute, since I did post earlier that I thought the idea was interesting. This might be a bit long though.

There are two considerations for doing this, the mechanics and the flavor. You can't ignore either, which is my personal issue with some of the proposed class mergers that have been presented in this thread. So, I'm going to make some arguments for both here.

First let's look at the flavor side of things. In current 5e the sorcerer is someone who has been altered, to a degree, giving them an innate sort of magic. In the core player's handbook the two examples that are used for it's subclasses are a draconic themed sorcerer, who may be descended from dragons or had their lineage infused with a dragon's power. Wild Magic is the other option, and the examples include exposure to otherworldly energies or a blessing from a fey creature. The Warlock, on the other hand, is actually kind of similar, in that they also gain magic, but the explanation differs slightly in that a specific entity is the source, the core subclass examples include a powerful fiend, fey or great old one. While the sorcerer does have a wider explanation, both dragon and wild magic subclasses mention an entity being the source of the sorcerer magic as an option. Both also flavor their subclass's mechanics by the source of the magic. So, I think they could fall under the same umbrella with only minor tweaks.

Mechanics are the more difficult part IMO. The Sorcerer is much more standard while the Warlock plays much differently from the other casters in the game. Combining the two classes would necessarily result in having to choose which way to go, and I acknowledge that no matter what you do some people are not going to be happy with that choice. Given that, if I were to do this, I would probably choose to go with the Warlock's method of casting and here is why. The sorcerer, when introduced in 3e, did have a very unique casting style in comparison to the rest of the full casters, who were all vancian in comparison to the sorcerer's spontaneous. This brings back the sorcerer as something mechanically unique, which it lost in subsequent editions. The only unique mechanic it currently has, metamagic, could probably be folded into the invocation system the warlock has, but also seems like the least important part of sorcerer regadless, and doesn't have a mechanical legacy directly tied to sorcerer anyway.

So, that is my thoughts on that. I mentioned it before, but I don't necessarily think it's the best idea, or even only idea, but I do think it's interesting, so I figured I would note down why.

 

[ezo]

So you gave warlock invocations to a full caster class?

Obviously.

You made the Twilight cleric blush in shame!

LOL, hardly!

• 300' darkvision, which you can share with likely 3-5 others for an hour? At 1st level?
• Giving any one creature you choose advantage on initiative rolls until combat begins? Oh, and after that combat, you can do it again, and again, and again... Or you can change your mind and give it to someone else before combat starts. Otherwise, no time limit.
• For 10 rounds you can give every allied creature within 30 ft of you, even if you move, an average of 5+ temporary hit points each round. Since it increases with your level, by 12th level that is 15 or so temp hp every round.
• You can make yourself fly for 1 minute by using your bonus action at 6th level, basically 3 or more times a "day".

And all that for a full caster. It should hid its head in shame already.

They both look broken as hell.

Look being the operative word, here.

Like ridiculously OP.

Nope.

How did your players not overshadow everyone and everything?

Pretty darn easily, actually. Warlocks are already full-casters, so nothing new there. Clerics CD is often mediocre at best IME, and since it is used to evoke their pacts, which warlocks got all the time, and stops them from using Turn Undead (or vice versa) as much, it balances out. Invocations are good, but 90% of the time the same ones get taken.

There really isn't anything OP going on about it.

Sorceres also remain full casters, so ditto on that score. They still get metamagic, but can ritual casting. A larger spell list is pretty much useless since the vast majority of the spells are never taken. And now they don't quite struggle as much with limited sorcery points.

I know 5 people I'd NEVER EVER let use that.

Pity. You should show them and let one try each subclass (Warlock and Sorcerer). I think you'll find it is not anywhere close to as bad as you think. It never bothered anyone in either of our groups, and made the classes (as subclasses) more appealing.

That's not a sorcerer. That's a wizard wielding sorcerer's toys.

Yeah, you and I already did this dance several pages ago upthread. Tell me how this isn't a sorcerer?

If the lack of CHA as a spellcasting ability bothers you, I can understand that, but frankly you can use this subclass perfectly well and simply changes it to CHA instead of INT. Drop the spellbook, too, if you want. All of that is really just the fluff. Most of the warlock and sorcerer subclasses where absorbed by other classes, so they are still around if you want to play them.

I mean the wizard's already there so that ship? Sailed.

Yeah, you say stuff like this all the time, but there are very few ways in which a Wizard is any more "OP" than other spellcasters. I'll readily agree there is a difference between martials and casters, but among casters Wizards are barely more powerful IME. I guess yours just differs so much?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So, going to devil's advocate for the idea of combining the Warlock and Sorcerer for a minute, since I did post earlier that I thought the idea was interesting. This might be a bit long though.

There are two considerations for doing this, the mechanics and the flavor. You can't ignore either, which is my personal issue with some of the proposed class mergers that have been presented in this thread. So, I'm going to make some arguments for both here.

First let's look at the flavor side of things. In current 5e the sorcerer is someone who has been altered, to a degree, giving them an innate sort of magic. In the core player's handbook the two examples that are used for it's subclasses are a draconic themed sorcerer, who may be descended from dragons or had their lineage infused with a dragon's power. Wild Magic is the other option, and the examples include exposure to otherworldly energies or a blessing from a fey creature. The Warlock, on the other hand, is actually kind of similar, in that they also gain magic, but the explanation differs slightly in that a specific entity, the core subclass examples include a powerful fiend, fey or great old one. While the sorcerer does have a wider explanation, both dragon and wild magic subclasses mention an entity being the source of the sorcerer magic as an option. Both also flavor their subclass's mechanics by the source of the magic. So, I think they could fall under the same umbrella with only minor tweaks.

Mechanics are the more difficult part IMO. The Sorcerer is much more standard while the Warlock plays much differently from the other casters in the game. Combining the two classes would necessarily result in having to choose which way to go, and I acknowledge that no matter what you do some people are not going to be happy with that choice. Given that, if I were to do this, I would probably choose to go with the Warlock's method of casting and here is why. The sorcerer, when introduced in 3e, did have a very unique casting style in comparison to the rest of the full casters, who were all vancian in comparison to the sorcerer's spontaneous. This brings back the sorcerer as something mechanically unique, which it lost in subsequent editions. The only unique mechanic it currently has, metamagic, could probably be folded into the invocation system the warlock has, but also seems like the least important part of sorcerer regadless, and doesn't have a mechanical legacy directly tied to sorcerer anyway.

So, that is my thoughts on that. I mentioned it before, but I don't necessarily think it's the best idea, or even only idea, but I do think it's interesting, so I figured I would note down why.

Thank you, very well articulated. This is exactly my reasoning regarding the topic. Literally couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I mean the wizard's already there so that ship? Sailed.

the are degrees of overpowered like that some infinities are larger than others

 

[MoonSong]

Yeah, you and I already did this dance several pages ago upthread. Tell me how this isn't a sorcerer?

If the lack of CHA as a spellcasting ability bothers you, I can understand that, but frankly you can use this subclass perfectly well and simply changes it to CHA instead of INT. Drop the spellbook, too, if you want. All of that is really just the fluff. Most of the warlock and sorcerer subclasses where absorbed by other classes, so they are still around if you want to play them.

The PHB is still around though.

This subclass can't tell any of the stories and backgrounds of the sorcerer. No "grandma was a dragon", no "I'm just magic", no "please how can I stop this and be normal". And I don't see how you shifting the themes from the known subclasses onto other clases helps. You can't have the same characters if the elements can't be put together


If your argument on favor of this being a sorcerer is that you can houserule it into being one, then it isn't one. And the spellbook is far from a pure ribbon. And even ribbons are fictional space that matters. I know we've interacted over this before, but you keep claiming the same thing and I remain completely unconvinced.

Mine and @CreamCloud0's subclasses get closer -way closer- to place the wizard under sorcerer than your subclass does. And I admit they fail to capture all of the wizard themes and characters. The subclass you show doesn't even try.

 

[Minigiant]

Pretty darn easily, actually. Warlocks are already full-casters, so nothing new there. Clerics CD is often mediocre at best IME, and since it is used to evoke their pacts, which warlocks got all the time, and stops them from using Turn Undead (or vice versa) as much, it balances out. Invocations are good, but 90% of the time the same ones get taken.

Here's the question...

Does you version offer Eldritch Blast and Agonizing Blast?

If yes, it's broken.
If no, you failed to replicate the warlock playstyle.

The issue isn't full casting. It is that pact magic and the Warlock spell list was carefully tailored to not be extremely strong with a boosted eldritch blast.

It's not that the warlock isn't a full caster it's a nerfed full caster in which EB balanced the weaknesses out

That's why the whole combined in classes thing never work because you're taking half of the class's power and giving it to another class that has 90% of his power in its base class. So essentially you are having a class that has ~140% of its power in this two choices of class and subclass.

Same thing with the Wizard. The Wizard subclasses suck because the Wizard main class is very very very powerful. It has the biggest spell list and allows you to cast rituals off their spellbook without preparing them. You are giving them sorcery points on top of that. And metamaagic.

That's broken my dude.
You made Twilight cleric and blade singer look like PHB beastmaster ranger.

I'd never let a player use those subclasses unless the player is so new that I'm 100% sure they could never break it. Never.

 

[Mephista]

One thing I hate about the Sorcerer...
Is that it doesn't have an associated INT skill.

Wizards and Arcana. Clerics and Religion. Druids and Nature. this one is probably controversial, but if anyone does History, it's the class that sings and tells atories about people.

All the full casters* but Sorcerer get something. And Investigate just doesn't feel right. Though, upon reflection, that would be an interesting direction to tae the class. Sorcerers, the riddle masters and puzzle champions.

* no, I don't consider pact magic to be full caster-hood

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The issue isn't full casting. It is that pact magic and the Warlock spell list was carefully tailored to not be extremely strong with a boosted eldritch blast.

It's not that the warlock isn't a full caster it's a nerfed full caster in which EB balanced the weaknesses out

Which is bad design. Not necessarily having powerful cantrips, but that this cantrip is always eldritch blast because it is OP. It is just boring and then people just level multiclass to get this one bit or take them via feats.

Warlock chassis is good, but what they actually do with it is less so. If the concept is having powerful blasty cantrips, then at least allow some variety in that!

 

[Mephista]

Which is bad design. Not necessarily having powerful cantrips, but that this cantrip is always eldritch blast because it is OP. It is just boring and then people just level multiclass to get this one bit or take them via feats.

Warlock chassis is good, but what they actually do with it is less so. If the concept is having powerful blasty cantrips, then at least allow some variety in that!

Good news. 1dnd UA warlock let you apply agonizing blast onto any cantrip.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Good news. 1dnd UA warlock let you apply agonizing blast onto any cantrip.

It unfortunately isn't enough. I did that in my houserules, but EB still remains the obvious choice, as it is several separate bolts and AB gets applied to each.