D&D General One thing I hate about the Sorcerer

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm going to disagree with this one. "I made a deal with an X" and "I'm part X" shouldn't be the same spells.

Why? They would both be using X flavoured magic.

If you have powers from being part dragon, you should be sprouting wings or scaled armor

You mean it would be cool if you gained permanent magical features as your magic transforms you? Guess which class has a feature for this? Yes, it is the warlock. Different magical origins could have bespoke invocations that fit their theme.

 

[Mecheon]

Why? They would both be using X flavoured magic.

One is making a deal with X, the other is you are X and you are entitled to that power as your birthright.

You mean it would be cool if you gained permanent magical features as your magic transforms you? Guess which class has a feature for this? Yes, it is the warlock. Different magical origins could have bespoke invocations that fit their theme.

Warlock shouldn't be sprouting dragon wings because the blood of dragons flows through you. They shouldn't get those

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It works great for some other systems though. It typically requires rather broad general purpose class abilities that then allow subsequent choices to specialize down further. That’s not a d&d class which starts as a super specialized mass of level gated abilities and gives you a tiny bit of specialization within.

I did specify "21st century D&D" rather than other games; if abandoning the commitments required by "D&D" games, it's certainly more viable, but you've also removed the context that makes it such a siren song.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Why? They would both be using X flavoured magic.

Because making a deal results in a different lived experience from discovering what your innate capabilities are.

Because we tell different kinds of stories about people who bargain for power versus people who discover that they have great power already inside them.

Because there are ways in which the concept of bargaining results in sensible acquisition of elements that wouldn't make sense for innate abilities, and vice-versa.

Because it leads to more interesting gameplay to separate these things rather than trying to kludge them together simply because they share a small amount of thematic overlap.

You mean it would be cool if you gained permanent magical features as your magic transforms you? Guess which class has a feature for this? Yes, it is the warlock. Different magical origins could have bespoke invocations that fit their theme.

Nnnnope.

Your invocations do not change you as you use your magic. They are bargained-for bolt-on addenda. Completely different, to the point that your argument sounds almost intentionally obtuse.

 

[FrogReaver]

I did specify "21st century D&D" rather than other games; if abandoning the commitments required by "D&D" games, it's certainly more viable, but you've also removed the context that makes it such a siren song.

I was adding not disagreeing…

 

[Crimson Longinus]

One is making a deal with X, the other is you are X and you are entitled to that power as your birthright.


Warlock shouldn't be sprouting dragon wings because the blood of dragons flows through you. They shouldn't get those

Your innate magic comes from draconic magic that was
mingled with your blood or that of your ancestors. Most
often, sorcerers with this origin trace their descent
back to a mighty sorcerer of ancient times who made a
bargain with a dragon or who might even have claimed
a dragon parent. Some o f these bloodlines are well
established in the world, but most are obscure. Any
given sorcerer could be the first of a new bloodline, as a
result of a pact or some other exceptional circumstance.

Except you literally already don't need to have a dragon ancestor to be a draconic sorcerer, you may have gained to powers via a pact just like a warlock!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Because making a deal results in a different lived experience from discovering what your innate capabilities are.

Because we tell different kinds of stories about people who bargain for power versus people who discover that they have great power already inside them.

Because there are ways in which the concept of bargaining results in sensible acquisition of elements that wouldn't make sense for innate abilities, and vice-versa.

Good thing that you could still choose your spells and invocations to finetune for minute details like these.

And as noted, the bargaining fluff literally already exists for sorcerers too, and there are warlocks who gain power without interacting with their patron, so this thematic divide between these classes doesn't even actually exits.

Because it leads to more interesting gameplay to separate these things rather than trying to kludge them together simply because they share a small amount of thematic overlap.

Disagree. It is better to have fewer strong classes than a legion of lacklustre ones.

Nnnnope.

Your invocations do not change you as you use your magic. They are bargained-for bolt-on addenda. Completely different, to the point that your argument sounds almost intentionally obtuse.

I mean they do so just as much as the current sorcerer features. So not at all. Now if we are talking about some hypothetical non-existent rules, then that could change for invocations just as easily too.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Good thing that you could still choose your spells and invocations to finetune for minute details like these.

It's not "fine tuning." I don't get why you would assert it is.

And as noted, the bargaining fluff literally already exists for sorcerers too, and there are warlocks who gain power without interacting with their patron, so this thematic divide between these classes doesn't even actually exits.

Where??? You keep saying this but it just isn't true. I haven't seen a single bit of how a Warlock pact can be in the blood except for people headcanoning it. And the "bathe in a dragon's blood" thing very clearly isn't a transaction.

Disagree. It is better to have fewer strong classes than a legion of lacklustre ones.

Then you actually need to prove they're lackluster first.

I mean they do so just as much as the current sorcerer features. So not at all. Now if we are talking about some hypothetical non-existent rules, then that could change for invocations just as easily too.

No, they don't? I genuinely don't get where you're coming from with this. It's not a growth--it's a bargaining. Period. Sorcerer is in fact actually like...physically manifesting a body part. That's a pretty friggin different thing.

 

[Gorck]

After careful* consideration, my fixes for the Sorcerer would be thus:

1) Change them from being CHA-based to CON-based.
2) Change their Vancian casting to the Spell Points in the DMG.
3) Get rid of Sorcery Points and have Metamagic deplete Hit Points instead.
3.5) maybe up their hit die to a d8.

*I'm only half reading the threads while watching the Red Sox pregame show.

 

[FrogReaver]

Ive never understood the fascination with con based casting in d&d.