D&D General One thing I hate about the Sorcerer

[Chaosmancer]

I'm not saying that all their subclasses are perfectly identical. I'm saying that almost all of their subclasses could easily work for either class thematically.

• Aberrant Mind and Great Old One are both influence from a far realm entity.

The Fighter Psy Knight and the Rogue Soulknife could also be the influence of a Far Realm entity. I could make a "blight warp" barbarian that does the same thing. Or pull the Astral Self into this.

• Archfey is a warlock patron, but you could easily have a sorcerer with a fey bloodline.

Druid Circle of Dreams, Bard College of Glamour, Ranger Fey Wanderer all have explicit fey connections, and the Oath of Ancients Paladin also pulls on Fey imagery and is a common Fey knight. I believe the Wild Magic Barbarian does the same.

Almost anything which is a sorcerer bloodline can be a warlock pact, and almost anything which is a warlock pact can be a sorcerer bloodline purely from a lore perspective. I didn't state that those equivalent subclasses are in game right at this moment.

Or a Fighter Martial Archetype (Hell Knight), A Rogue subclass (Moonlight Thief), a Barbarian Path (Rage of Undeath), Paladin Oath (Oath of the Seas), ect ect ect ect.

This is a non-point.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The Wizard, Cleric, Druid, and Warlock are only casters with special proper mechanics.

The Warlock and Druid ones from 2014 don't work and got heavily play tested in 2023 because of it.

Not exactly sure what you are defining as "special proper mechanics" and why those four have them but the Bard and Sorcerer do not... but okay. I don't see it personally, but everyone likes what they like.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I think my solution would be an improvement on the current situation and compared to that nothing of value would be lost. The only thing that would be lost is the potential to do your pipe dream sorcerer instead. But they’re not gonna do that anyway. Nor are they gonna combine these classes like I want. So in that sense we’re in the same boat. :shug:

So, if both are impossible and WoTC isn't going to do either, that isn't a consideration.

Therefore, what of value is lost by giving the Sorcerer better mechanics? You say "nothing of value" would be lost by combining the sorcerer and warlock, but that isn't nothing being lost. Just nothing you value. So, what is it that you lose by a mechanically better sorcerer? What are you losing in that scenario?

 

[Chaosmancer]

We are talking in the context of an edition or half edition revamp where things would be rewritten anyway. That's the only context in which the sort of big changes we want would make sense.

So, you think cutting a class out of the game would give more room for subclasses for other classes? Sure, I guess. I'm sure if the developers cut out fighters we could get more barbarian and paladin subclasses, but that seems like a rather pointless endeavor, since we would lose things that the fighter alone is best to support.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

The Fighter Psy Knight and the Rogue Soulknife could also be the influence of a Far Realm entity. I could make a "blight warp" barbarian that does the same thing. Or pull the Astral Self into this.



Druid Circle of Dreams, Bard College of Glamour, Ranger Fey Wanderer all have explicit fey connections, and the Oath of Ancients Paladin also pulls on Fey imagery and is a common Fey knight. I believe the Wild Magic Barbarian does the same.



Or a Fighter Martial Archetype (Hell Knight), A Rogue subclass (Moonlight Thief), a Barbarian Path (Rage of Undeath), Paladin Oath (Oath of the Seas), ect ect ect ect.

This is a non-point.

Except with sorcerer, it even has the same lore reasons as warlock for getting said powers. It even mentions draconic sorcerers getting their power via a pact with a dragon. Which is the exact definition of a warlock. While simultaneously being a gimped wizard with the metamagic feat as their entire mechanical class identity.

I'm pretty sure that we don't have a dragon patron warlock simply because it would walk over sorcerer simply by existing.

Soul knife rogue, astral self monk, and psi warrior fighter all share 'psionic power' as their influence, but each at least has completely unique mechanics and individual themes within 'far realm psionics'.

While warlock and sorcerer are both 'a far realm entity influenced you and gave you psionic power'. The difference only being that the warlock class has unique mechanics, while the sorcerer is just a wizard clone.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

So, you think cutting a class out of the game would give more room for subclasses for other classes? Sure, I guess. I'm sure if the developers cut out fighters we could get more barbarian and paladin subclasses, but that seems like a rather pointless endeavor, since we would lose things that the fighter alone is best to support.

In a new half edition like 1dnd, a class definitely shouldn't be randomly dropped.

When I talk about deleting classes, I'm referring to some hypothetical 6e down the road. In which there is no guarantee we would even have the same class-subclass system as 5e.

 

[SkidAce]

I would be fine with killing the Sorcerer, giving metamagic back to the Wizard, and just letting spell points be an alternate way to cast. The inborn or study question is largely narrative, and can be represented by making the ability connected to casting spells selectable.

Elegant solution, seems workable.

Not sure I want to implement in my current campaign, cause I use spell points for PSI, but in a different setting maybe.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So, if both are impossible and WoTC isn't going to do either, that isn't a consideration.

Therefore, what of value is lost by giving the Sorcerer better mechanics? You say "nothing of value" would be lost by combining the sorcerer and warlock, but that isn't nothing being lost. Just nothing you value. So, what is it that you lose by a mechanically better sorcerer? What are you losing in that scenario?

More coherent metaphysics as well as my preferred version of sorcerer; the one using warlock-like chassis. Plus anything the writers have no time to write when they spend their time writing superfluous classes.

But like I said before, I can see a setup where they would be separate classes, but then their fluff would need o be refocused and their mechanics completely redone in way that would somewhat resemble swapping them between the two classes. So the sorcerer is the inherently magical being and becomes short rest based cantrip blaster with always-on magical features whereas the warlock focuses on being the occultist that meddles with forbidden knowledge, thus resembling the wizard more by being a traditional caster with some additional tricks. The role of the warlock would be the hexer, an anti-bard. A caster whose forte is debuffing the enemies as opposed to buffing allies. I would also see summoning to being a big part of their repertoire. Though I'm not quite sure that this is worth a full class either, as one could just see this as a creepy wizard.

 

[Minigiant]

Not exactly sure what you are defining as "special proper mechanics" and why those four have them but the Bard and Sorcerer do not... but okay. I don't see it personally, but everyone likes what they like.

Defined mechanics tailored to class lore.

Sorcerer has a castoff mechanic.
Bard is literally "give bonus" and "learn 2 nonbard spell."

 

[DEFCON 1]

Defined mechanics tailored to class lore.

Sorcerer has a castoff mechanic.
Bard is literally "give bonus" and "learn 2 nonbard spell."

How is "give bonus" of the Bard any different than "do thing" of the Cleric?

Channel Divinity is no great defined class lore ability while Bardic Inspiration is just some rando feature arbitrarily handed out. That's you looking at things through your own rose-colored glasses.

And what's the "defined mechanic" tailored to the Wizard? The spellbook? A thing that isn't even a mechanic, it's just an alternative way of calculating how many spells the class can have in their pocket.