Just teasing out what seem like the big complaints:
1. Sorcerers can't fill a niche!
...there is more to the sorcerer class than only blasting. Of course they will never be swiss army knives, they had never been. But they used to be very flexible specialized tools, you wouldn't be a solve-it-all magic box -though I've seen some sorcerers played like that-, but you were instead a magical something in a way no wizard could ever hope: a magical thief, a magical conman, a magical explorer, a magical diplomat, a magical warrior.
As a sorcerer you picked a niche and ran with it. Now you don't have the spells known, or the spell list, or the weapons to fill a niche that well
I don't agree. 4 cantrips and 2 first level spells is plenty to fill a niche at 1st level.
- A Magical Thief: Friends, Mage Hand, Minor Illusion, Prestidigitation / Disguise Self, Expeditious Retreat
- A Magical Conman: Friends, Message, Minor Illusion, Prestidigitation / Charm Person, Disguise Self
- A Magical Explorer: Light, Mage Hand, Mending, Prestidigitation / Jump, Feather Fall
- A Magical Diplomat: Friends, Message, Minor Illusion, Prestidigitation / Charm Person, Comprehend Languages
- A Magical Warrior: Blade Ward, Fire Bolt, Shocking Grasp, True Strike / Shield, Thunderwave
That holds up well in comparison to, say, a 1st level Arcane Trickster, or a 1st level Bard.
2. Not having weapons means I HAVE TO blast!
Having simple weapons to fall on helped you to not have to focus too many resources on combat.
Currently the sorcerer isn't very good at it, first the lack of weapons forces you to dedicate your few spells to blasting
No, that's a choice. If you've got an evoker or an assassin or a barbarian or whatever in the party, you can spam
minor illusion all day long and beat things with a stick and no one will care. Hell, even if you DON'T have a damage-dealer, you can still do that, you'll just have to be clever in how you approach the dungeon.
Nothing in the rules prohibits a sorcerer from taking exactly the load out of spells I outline above (or something similary. If you choose different spells, it is just that -- a choice. If it is more important for you to be well-rounded or have some blasting capability than it is to be a magical diplomat or whatever, it is not something the RAW is doing to you, it is your own choice.
3. WIZARDS, man, they are JUST BETTER
and given the changes to the wizard they now can run with your niche and still do other things, and do something different the next day.
Again I don't want sorcerers to be like wizards, all I want them is to be like sorcerers, to have the ability to pick a niche, run with it, and being good at it without someone else casually dabbling into my niche and being better at it while still being able to do way more at the same time.
a wizard who prepared the right spells today can fill your niche, be better at it than you
If some hypothetical wizard with access to every spell on their class list existed in the same party, and loaded out the exact same spells as a sorcerer that day (for some reason?), this would be the main difference:
The sorcerer has a higher AC/HP or auto-Advantage, one more cantrip than the wizard, and a better Charisma check. The wizard could use rituals, and has a better Int check.
This is not clearly "better." It is different, but rituals hardly make up for the defensive bonuses or advantage, and the flexibility of the at-will cantrip. Not to mention that if you want to be a magical diplomat or a magical conman, the higher CHA and auto-Advantage would give the Sorcerer the edge, while if you wanted to be a magical warrior or a magical explorer, the higher defenses would make the Sorcerer the better choice (who do YOU want taking the attack or the trap damage between these two?).
Yeah, the wizard could do something else tomorrow, but if the wizard goes to do something else, then they aren't playing in your chosen role anymore, so
mission frickin' accomplished, you have a diverse party that each has their unique skills.
This looks like solid balancing to me. There's differences between the classes when they try to do the same thing. Both Sorcerers and Wizards can be played as, for instance, magical diplomats, if they want, and if they both do, they're both about as strong as each other. Both could also be played as magical blasters, and if they both do, they're both about as strong as each other. Or one could be played as a magical blaster and one as a magical diplomat and they both contribute something unique. Sorcerers can be good at what they want to be good at, but they're not an obviously better choice than other classes at those things. Exactly where it should be.
4. I can't house rule as a player!
See up there again, when I DM, I'm a tinkering Monty Haul that likes to say yes all the time. But it helps not and means nothing when I'm a player -the moment I'm more concerned with classes-, and of course not in Adventure League or Encounters or in Conventions.
In talking about a specific character you might make, there's solutions to the problems that crop up, but the prerequisite question then becomes, what kind of experience are you
actually looking for with the character? If your answer is, "I want to be a 3e sorcerer," you're probably hitting a wall, but if what you want to be is a character with magic in their blood who is gishy, there's ways to accomplish that, and if you want to be a character who weilds a spear and casts spells, there's ways to accomplish that, and if you want to be a sorcerer who is capable in melee, there's ways to accomplish that. If you want a particular result, you can do it in several ways.
But if not being able to be a spear-wielding sorcerer from 1st level in Official Games kills the whole class experience for you, it sounds a bit like you're being kind of a precious little princess with a pea in her mattress. Not being able to (currently) do that is only a problem if that specific thing is your only goal. Be an elf and use a sword, re-fluff a quarterstaff (or tie a dagger on the end of one!), be a warlock and re-fluff your origin story, be an arcane trickster, be a bard, be a human and pick up a feat that gives you proficiency, there are a million ways to skin this cat depending on your goal.
5. Final Note: On Strings
A sorcerer is someone mundane who gets to be magical at the same time. Unlike the wizards or warlocks who imply magic is this impossible and hard thing you have to bargain for or dedicate your whole life to, being a sorcerer has no strings attached, it is a way to have a magical character without it being overwhelmed by a strict and strong flavor and have it be focused on what you want to be focused at. With a wizard everything is about magic, it is a voluntary thing, and it is very rigid and restricting. (Also someone else said sorcerers are the x-men of D&D!)
"No strings attached" doesn't match any character in any campaign that I've ever run, and it sounds like a boring character to play. I don't need a blank slate and a nude chassis. I want complications, back-stories, interesting hooks embedded into every bit of character creation. All the better to eradicate rootless murderhobos who act like violent toddlers instead of like some semblance of a character in a fantasy world. Wizards and Bards and Sorcerers and Warlocks all get strings attached.
Which is just to say that the level of strings is campaign-dependent, not class-dependent. You cannot choose any character who has no strings attached in my campaigns. If you choose a sorcerer in an effort to get out of character commitments and attachments, you will be sorely disappointed IMC (draconic ancestors and mutant magic are not going to be silent background events!). Perhaps in others, a DM never bothers to pluck ANY of the strings anyone attaches to their characters regardless of class because you're just running through convention adventures that don't care who you are as a character. Even if you choose a dedicated wizard loaded with hooks to local wizarding establishments, it might not ever come up in play except as a background event.
