D&D General One thing I hate about the Sorcerer

[DEFCON 1]

The merging of Warlock and Sorcerer is not going to happen. Not by WotC. Not in any version of 5E. So it doesn't matter how one argues for or against it-- if you want to see it happen, then do it yourself in your own game. It's as simple as that.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The merging of Warlock and Sorcerer is not going to happen. Not by WotC. Not in any version of 5E. So it doesn't matter how one argues for or against it-- if you want to see it happen, then do it yourself in your own game. It's as simple as that.

I did.

But what WotC should do if they want to keep them separate is to define their identity more and stop writing stuff that obviously overlaps.

 

[Minigiant]

I wished 5e kept 4e'simplement proficiency.

Warlocks used rods, wands, and pact blades which showed an image of them using a weird item to use weird magic.

Sorcerer used staffs and daggers and displayed them using a common item as the implement was just a mere point to focus on.

Wizards had wand, staves, tomes, and orbs and had the academic arcane item vibe.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I did.

But what WotC should do if they want to keep them separate is to define their identity more and stop writing stuff that obviously overlaps.

Or we can take the basics designs and ideas they give us and use our own decision-making process to define these classes more fully ourselves, in the manner we wish to use them.

Why do people insist on WotC defining everything for us? Why are we so reticent to just make the game our own, rather than wanting for WotC to create this hyperspecific closed game that we either take or leave? Especially when 99.99% of us won't like how they define it and will end up changing it anyway?

Is it purely ego? The need some people have to get WotC to define the game in the manner THEY want, just so they can sit back and feel comfortable that WotC is listening to them? And their needs?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I did.

But what WotC should do if they want to keep them separate is to define their identity more and stop writing stuff that obviously overlaps.

And the fans should stop crapping on thematic expressions that would actually keep them separate.

Because that's really the problem here. There is a contingent of the fanbase, a vocal minority overrepresented in survey data because it is strongly opinionated and united in purpose, which opposes any form of such specificity for several classes, not just Sorcerer and Warlock. Wizard, Fighter, and (to an extent) Monk and Druid are all stuck in that limbo where despite being outnumbered two to one, such respondents can hold the game and the rest of the fanbase hostage.

It's precisely the same as why we don't have a Psion even though WotC spent easily three entire years working on one.

Arbitrary satisfaction targets, plus the expectation that an idea will get tons of positive reactions immediately rather than needing time to develop and iterate, have painted the 5e designers into numerous design corners they could have avoided.

 

[Minigiant]

I did.

But what WotC should do if they want to keep them separate is to define their identity more and stop writing stuff that obviously overlaps.

The problem is that WOTC doesn't have any Warlock or Sorcerer fans in leadership. They originally were not going to include either as classes.

The community FORCED them to make the classes and like every class they didn't care about, the mechanics and lore were weak.

I saw the same thing happen in Hearthstone. The designer team clearly didn't care about certain classes and their cards always sucked or were boringly OP. Not until they hire Class Specialist Designers, did it get better but at that point fans got fed up and left.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It's precisely the same as why we don't have a Psion even though WotC spent easily three entire years working on one.

Reason why we don't have psion is that nothing WotC offered was never good enough to the psion fans, so they just concluded that it's not worth the effort as these people could never be satisfied anyway.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The problem is that WOTC doesn't have any Warlock or Sorcerer fans in leadership. They originally were not going to include either as classes.

The community FORCED them to make the classes and like every class they didn't care about, the mechanics and lore were weak.

I saw the same thing happen in Hearthstone. The designer team clearly didn't care about certain classes and their cards always sucked or were boringly OP. Not until they hire Class Specialist Designers, did it get better but at that point fans got fed up and left.

Sure. And perhaps that being case it might have been better to just not do these classes, if no one had passion or vision for them.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

It's not just D&D. "Blood magic" and other such themes are popular with a lot of people, because it feels thematically strong. But, well...

My group tried some homebrew HP casters back in 3e/3.5 and it never ended well. Either too much of a death spiral, or the cost was so minimal it was incredibly overpowered.

This. As with most design conundrums, the problem is that this creates an extremely narrow balance point which may not be replicable across different situations. That is, the design space is dynamically unstable. Costs too high, characters just die trying to be normally effective. Costs too low, there's no actual risk, and so you've just been great power for no actual risk.

4e did (sort of) solve this problem, with its Vampire class, but I find that for at least a portion of the fans, the fact that it IS a problem is what makes them interested. As soon as you solve it, you take away the "ooh I'm being baaad and breaking the game!" feel, which means even though you're casting from HP, you're not actually any stronger than someone else with similar optimization skill who doesn't do that. I knew a couple friends back in WoW who felt that way about the Warlock, it was specifically the power of being able to turn damage into healing and health into damage that drew them in, if it had been properly balanced compared to the far more fragile and risky Mage class, they would have lost most of their interest.

Ironically, 4e also had an actual Con caster, the Elementalist Sorcerer subclass. And it was quite good! Actual simplicity in a caster class. Pick your element. You have now made one of the like three actually relevant choices (other than feats) you will make for your character's entire career, congratulations. It was as simple as the Champion is simple, and yet better-designed because it didn't fall behind other Sorcerer subclasses.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Reason why we don't have psion is that nothing WotC offered was never good enough to the psion fans, so they just concluded that it's not worth the effort as these people could never be satisfied anyway.

Only because each effort could please perhaps 50% to 60%, but never that magic 70%+. Which was precisely the point. The arbitrary threshold ensured no possibility of progress. They could not simply declare "this is what Psionics is now, please help us make it the best it can be." Instead, every psionics fan had huge motivation to pursue their perfect option instead of accepting an okay option and working to make it better. The perfect was the enemy of the good, and it resulted in everyone losing out.