D&D General One thing I hate about the Sorcerer

[Gorck]

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

The way I've always seen it is:

Wizards study books to get their magic = INT
Warlocks make a pact with a powerful being (begging and pleading helps) to get their magic= CHA
Sorcerers are born with an innate ability to cast their magic (it is a part of their very essence) = CON

 

[FrogReaver]

The way I've always seen it is:

Wizards study books to get their magic = INT
Warlocks make a pact with a powerful being (begging and pleading helps) to get their magic= CHA
Sorcerers are born with an innate ability to cast their magic (it is a part of their very essence) = CON

Okay. But then those thematics bounce off the actual game mechanics HARD.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Sorcerers are born with an innate ability to cast their magic (it is a part of their very essence) = CON

Except they got their being born with magic taken away from them.

Now it's akin to having grown up next to a toxic waste dump.

 

[Gorck]

Except they got their being born with magic taken away from them.

Now it's akin to having grown up next to a toxic waste dump.

If they had just gone with the first and third paragraph it would be pretty straightforward:

but they included that second paragraph (especially the second half of it, starting with "The touch of a demon . . . ") that kind of makes it confusing (at least for my simple brain). As others have said, it sounds half Warlock and half Cleric:

I feel like that middle paragraph is filler just to take up space in the Class Description. If they had just left it out and put in another piece of artwork or something, it would have been much less convoluted.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I just don't think the relationship with the patron is a big deal. It would be, but it doesn't need to and often isn't. And same would be true for the combined class as well. If you wanted a story where the source of your power was more personally involved, you still could.

And I really don't think that as written the warlock expects the patron to be a big deal. Like it doesn't at all detail how this relationship would even work. Is the cooperation of the patron required for acquiring new powers or is it just one and done deal? No one knows, and most don't care. Can the patron revoke the powers? Again, completely unaddressed. Most of the time the patron is just one sentence in your backstory, and that's it.

Just because you chose to ignore option, doesn't mean it isn't there. Sure, the game doesn't give mechanics for it, but that is like saying that you don't think the relationship with a Deity is a big deal to a cleric, because there are no details on how it would even work, and a lot of the time it is just a one sentence backstory from player's who don't care to explore that story. All of that is true, and yet I wouldn't say the concept of a Deity is a minor and easily ignored part of the Cleric story.

Lacking straitjacket mechanics just makes it easy to fill in what the player wants from their story.

I've made a warlock who was forced into a pact, because the Demon would otherwise destroy their hometown. I've made another warlock who was aligned with a proto-deity, who would eat their soul if they disobeyed. I have made another warlock whose patron thought they were just the most adorable little thing, and saw them like a cute pet. None of that based in mechanics.

And sure, yes, since it isn't based in mechanics I could do that with a fighter as well. A fighter could totally have been given their training with the sword and their arcane powers after making a deal with a demon who threatened to destroy their village... but that isn't a fighter story. That relationship isn't inherent in the way the fighter is portrayed. I'm doing a lot more narrative heavy lifting that way.

 

[Chaosmancer]

i know that sometimes people just want to play their class as the mechanics it is but i think it's a loss to gameplay the degree to which the class' narratives have been turned into just supplimental fluff, the warlock's patron doesn't come calling for favours, the monk doesn't have to abstain from their luxuries, the wizard isn't researching fragments of spells from lost scrolls.

Well, that's because some of this is tied to the story the player wants to tell.

I've had Warlock Patrons coming and calling in favors, with consequences for the player if they choose to ignore their patron. Most players LOVE that stuff, because that was why they picked a warlock.

But, I wouldn't want a rule that forced monks to abstain from luxuries, because that isn't part of the story for some of the monks I want to play.

I agree, some of this stuff would be nice to have more guidance on (can wizards research spells over extended periods of time? How?) but the Patron stuff I prefer to be loose so I can play with it, and other things just wouldn't fit if they were baked into a class.

 

[Chaosmancer]

So, we actually agree that a character's theme, or narrative story is heavily impacted by those details. Where we disagree is that we need two classes for that I think. For a hypothetical example, let's say we have Jack, who made a deal with with a devil for magical powers, and Jill, who found out that she has the bloodline of a fiend in her family tree, and so she can naturally access magic through it.

Narratively speaking, Jack and Jill's stories should indeed play out differently. But a lot of that doesn't really connect to the mechanics of their class. Jack's patron might come a-knocking, and Jack will need to decide what to do about that. Jill doesn't have that story beat, but might have to wrestle with more inner demons, to make a bit of a pun. A lot of this though is going to be handled outside of the mechanics of the classes however, with the class just there to give the flavor of "I gained magical powers through x" some concrete rules.

So, do they need different mechanics for the powers they gained? Depends on your point of view I guess. Going to your example, Constantine and Raven may have a similar source, but they do have very different powersets. In a hypothetical game with them as characters, separate classes make sense. If Jack and Jill want fiendish themed abilities and spells, they probably are going to have more overlap than Constantine and Raven would however, and so it might make sense to simply have them use the same class. Or not, since the issue I think combining the two classes solves is giving the sorcerer a mechanical distinctiveness it currently lacks, but there are certainly other ways to do so.

But by this same token, you don't need the Paladin class, or the Ranger class. You could have the paladin be a subclass of the fighter with divine spellcasting, or a cleric domain. Rangers could be folded into rogues or fighters. Monks could be folded into fighters. Barbarians... ect ect ect.

Mechanics are important to the class, and I agree that the Sorcerer mechanics are currently lacking. No disagreement on that, but classes are also stories. And the story beats of the Warlock and the Sorcerer are completely at odds with each other. Instead of diluting those stories, which is the natural conclusion when you start combining classes (eventually ending up with Fighter, Priest, Mage), I would much rather focus on giving Sorcerers stronger and more robust mechanical identities.

 

[ezo]

@Gorck

Yeah, the last image you have reads like options for clerics (gift of a diety of magic, Arcane Domain anyone?), druids (exposure to the elemental forces of the Inner planes) or warlocks (or the maddening chaos of Limbo, Great Old One patron?).

 

[Chaosmancer]

For anyone thinking the sorcerer lacks mechanical distinctions, do you thing the right thing to do to solve that issue (without merging them with another class) is lean harder into what they can do with metamagic or go for something else?

For the metamagic angel I made a suggestion a couple of pages ago now about a mechanic of memorising innate-metamagiced spells for a conundrum of locking in certain spell-metamagic combinations for long term sorcery point efficiency of repeated use versus having a larger pool available for in the moment flexibility.

For a new direction i think reducing sorcerers base spell list in return for subclasses leaning much harder into giving you much more themed spell access, like the divine soul thing of accessing other spell lists or something like the storm sorcerer can learn any spell that deals lightning or thunder damage

Both?

See, to me, Metamagic has always been a false promise. Metamagic says that you can use fewer spells, but use them in unique ways to make up for that. This is false, and has always been false. You cannot use Metamagic to alter how a fireball is used in a combat (or find a way to use it in a social situation). Sure, increase the damage, increase the range, use it as a bonus action... it is still a fireball. You can't take your fire magic and use it to fly instead of exploding people, or pulling back the explosive nature of the fireball to create an 8 hour tropical warmth emanating from an orb in your hand to counter a blizzard.

So, there is a part of me that wants to unleash Metamagic and go even further with it. Put every single aspect of a spell up for grabs to be modified. But, I also understand that that is a lot, and probably best handled by a new system. Which is why I also like the idea of a system where you can take "Fire Magic" and then spend points to custom craft effects that make sense within that realm.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Why? They would both be using X flavoured magic.

What is "Fiend Flavoured Magic"? Fiends use charm spells, illusion spells, lightning, cold, fire, poison, acid, necromancy, divination magics. There is no such thing in the game as "fiend flavoured magic" just like there isn't "giant flavoured magic" or "aberration flavoured magic"

We have Arcane, Divine and Primal magic. And if you are going to start saying that all fire spells are fiend flavoured magic... then wizards and druids are using fiend flavoured magic.

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!

Um... no? Did you not read the entire sentence?

"sorcerers with this origin trace their descent back to a mighty sorcerer of ancient times who made a bargain with a dragon"

Your sorcerer did not make a bargain with a dragon, your ANCESTOR who was ALREADY A SORCERER made a bargain, and your magic shifted to be draconic magic. That is very different from a pact that you yourself signed.