D&D 5E Please someone explain to me

[Paraxis]

If it is about effectiveness in combat why would most sorcerers go with spear it is not a finesse weapon, so you would have to have a strength score giving you a higher bonus than you dex to get a benefit from spear.

Sorcerer with 13 strength, spear proficient at level 1 = +3 to hit and 1d6+1 damage.
Sorcerer with 15 dexterity, dagger at level 1 = +4 to hit and 1d4+2 damage, also better AC, initiative, dex saves, and crossbow use.
Either of those sorcerers is better served by attack cantrips, especially at level 5 and higher.

So sure give sorcerers simple weapon proficiency they will still use daggers as it is the only finesse weapon on that list, and almost all sorcerers are going to have higher dexterity than strength.

 

[MoonSong]

Just teasing out what seem like the big complaints:

1. Sorcerers can't fill a niche!



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

Many of those spells got hit hard, they aren't as useful as they used to be. Not saying they are useless, or good for a wizard casually dabbling into an area. But they aren't that good when you want to fill a niche, specialize on it.

2. Not having weapons means I HAVE TO blast!

The RAW doesn't forbid me from that, but the ecosystem where I play does limit what I can play. Basically I need to contribute to combat somehow or I won't get to play at all. It all comes to weapons, blasting or not playing. (Who would you rather pick? the player who wants to play a straight blaster without houserules, the one who is asking you to make an effort and houserule just to get something not that powerful, but that can still somehow contribute to combat or the one who wants to play a special snowflake that won't contribute to combat?)

3. WIZARDS, man, they are JUST BETTER

But they are, many of the concepts above would greatly benefit from either alarm, unseen servant, find familiar or floating disk, spells sorcerers cannot cast anymore, but that wizards can without needing to use a slot or prepare them. And the number of spells they can prepare is twice the amount a sorcerer can. In other words wizards get to cover a niche better, do more and spend less slots on it (and they have more slots at first level).

4. I can't house rule as a player!

...
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.

If I'm making it a big deal, is because it is a big deal to me. Organized play is about the only place where my characters don't have to pass through a casting in order to be there. not being able to play a sorcerer as I have always played them in the only place where I can play freely what I truly want to play is sad.

5. Final Note: On Strings

What I meant was: no mandatory nerdiness, no compulsory years cloistered in the dark tower reading dusty tomes, no inherent evilness/moral ambiguity, no compulsory obsession with hidden secrets and finding scrolls. Yes, dragon ancestors can be a pain, but they have nothing to do with my character's personal history and personality, unlike a wizard, a sorcerer can literally come from anywhere, have any kind of personality, have any kind of approach to magic, any kind of social origin, and any kind of goals. A sorcerer's magic simply is, instead of being a voluntary act by necessity. Those are the strings I talk about (and a reason I don't play wizards)

 

[I'm A Banana]

Many of those spells got hit hard, they aren't as useful as they used to be. Not saying they are useless, or good for a wizard casually dabbling into an area. But they aren't that good when you want to fill a niche, specialize on it.

Who is better at being a level 1 magical diplomat than a Wild Sorcerer with that spell load out and proficiency in their Cha skills and auto-advantage on a skill check of their choice? Even the bard could be jealous of that! What the heck more do you need to feel like you're actually filling that niche?

The RAW doesn't forbid me from that, but the ecosystem where I play does limit what I can play. Basically I need to contribute to combat somehow or I won't get to play at all. It all comes to weapons, blasting or not playing. (Who would you rather pick? the player who wants to play a straight blaster without houserules, the one who is asking you to make an effort and houserule just to get something not that powerful, but that can still somehow contribute to combat or the one who wants to play a special snowflake that won't contribute to combat?)

Sounds like a restrictive, narrow ecosystem. That'll take a lot of kinds of characters off the table, if they don't just hand out free combat capability. Any character who isn't damage or support focused would be written out there. But the game isn't designed with one particular ecosystem in mind, it's designed to appeal to lots of different kinds of games, so to answer the question in the OP, the explanation would be, in part, "Because for most games, it's not relevant."

I've got no problem picking the special snowflake who isn't a combatant over Boring Pants who declares "I shoot it" every round. My games are not just one-pillar affairs.

But they are, many of the concepts above would greatly benefit from either alarm, unseen servant, find familiar or floating disk, spells sorcerers cannot cast anymore, but that wizards can without needing to use a slot or prepare them. And the number of spells they can prepare is twice the amount a sorcerer can. In other words wizards get to cover a niche better, do more and spend less slots on it (and they have more slots at first level).

Many of them could also benefit from the extra cantrip, extra survivability/auto-Advantage, or Cha-based skill selection of the Sorcerer. Plus, it doesn't really matter how many spells a wizard can prepare. They can only ever actually use three of them in a given day. Rituals are HUGELY campaign-dependent. It's not at all obvious to me that the wizards are "better" at this. They seem roughly equivalent, and a little different. They've got more versatility, but they don't have more raw power, and sorcerers get some things that wizards would be very interested in. Being a magic warrior with permanent Mage Armor and more than 6 HP? Being a magic conman with auto-Advantage and actual training in Deception? Man, who cares about a pet cat or an invisible butler, how is THAT going to help me cement those roles?

If I'm making it a big deal, is because it is a big deal to me. Organized play is about the only place where my characters don't have to pass through a casting in order to be there. not being able to play a sorcerer as I have always played them in the only place where I can play freely what I truly want to play is sad.

I'm not denying that it's a big deal to you, I'm just questioning why this specific vision of a sorcerer is so sacrosanct that for you to be unable to play it in organized play is an intolerable burden and not maybe more of a minor inconvenience. That seems a little hyper-sensitive to me, a little narrowly focused on kind of hollow mechanical elements. I don't know what you're missing that dual-wielding daggers and taking CHA-based skills wouldn't fix, and your complaints seem to blow up minor things (like spears and the find familiar ritual) to the point where they're game-breaking for you.

What I meant was: no mandatory nerdiness, no compulsory years cloistered in the dark tower reading dusty tomes, no inherent evilness/moral ambiguity, no compulsory obsession with hidden secrets and finding scrolls. Yes, dragon ancestors can be a pain, but they have nothing to do with my character's personal history and personality, unlike a wizard, a sorcerer can literally come from anywhere, have any kind of personality, have any kind of approach to magic, any kind of social origin, and any kind of goals. A sorcerer's magic simply is, instead of being a voluntary act by necessity. Those are the strings I talk about (and a reason I don't play wizards)

This seems like an overly artificial distinction. I've certainly played non-nerdy wizards who haven't been cloistered in dark towers reading dusty tomes. I've played warlocks firmly on the side of Good, who have little interest in the hidden world these days. I've played Sorcerers who can name their personal draconic ancestor and who roar when they cast spells, in settings where Sorcerers are a specific thing (nobles from particular high houses) where their magic has come from intense programs of research and dedication. This is wildly campaign-dependent, at worst.

 

[Authweight]

Why not just play a wizard and only switch out spells when leveling? The 5e wizard is already basically a mashup of all the good parts of the 3e wizard and 3e sorcerer, combining spontaneous casting with spell prep.

I understand the standard wizard fluff is oriented more towards the "dusty tome" archetype, but I feel like most DMs out there will be fine with you saying your wizard casts innately in the manner of a sorcerer, particularly if you're willing to stick to the plan of not switching out spells. If you want to carry a weapon to free up more cantrip slots, you can always be a human and take a feat, or play a race with free weapon proficiencies. Or wait until level 4 and use your feat.

 

[BigVanVader]

This seems like an overly artificial distinction. I've certainly played non-nerdy wizards who haven't been cloistered in dark towers reading dusty tomes. I've played warlocks firmly on the side of Good, who have little interest in the hidden world these days. I've played Sorcerers who can name their personal draconic ancestor and who roar when they cast spells, in settings where Sorcerers are a specific thing (nobles from particular high houses) where their magic has come from intense programs of research and dedication. This is wildly campaign-dependent, at worst.

Yeah, when we finally get the 5e books way down the road, a buddy wants to run a dark ages sort of game where I'm gonna be a Necromancer, and I'm gonna be playing him pretty Bardy. You know, living on the road with his raven, taking flak from villagers while giving them a bit of sarcasm, and traveling pretty far from the whole 'musty tome-reading nerd who lived in Hogwarts all his life.' kind of archetype.

(Still gonna have black hooded robes, though. You gotta respect some of the classics!)

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Why not just play a wizard and only switch out spells when leveling?

Certainly an option. And if the paladin sucked I could play a fighter/cleric too. But honestly if they're going to spend precious PHB pages on a class, shouldn't it do what it's supposed to do?

 

[MoonSong]

Why not just play a wizard and only switch out spells when leveling? The 5e wizard is already basically a mashup of all the good parts of the 3e wizard and 3e sorcerer, combining spontaneous casting with spell prep.

I heard almost the same argument word by word back in 4e. Or how sorcerers weren't less magical in 4e, after all they all could take ritual caster feat, hunt for scrolls and use gold to produce magic, just like everybody else!

The problem with feeling the sorcerer is a weaker wizard won't be solved by playing an actual weaker wizard. I'm complaining that they don't feel different enough, and that some of the differences are actual disadvantages.

I understand the standard wizard fluff is oriented more towards the "dusty tome" archetype, but I feel like most DMs out there will be fine with you saying your wizard casts innately in the manner of a sorcerer, particularly if you're willing to stick to the plan of not switching out spells. If you want to carry a weapon to free up more cantrip slots, you can always be a human and take a feat, or play a race with free weapon proficiencies. Or wait until level 4 and use your feat.

Again I don't want a wizard, I'd prefer sorcerers to feel more like sorcerers. Exclusive spells, access to more long-term effects, more spells known (at least so they can know 2/ spell level), access to all simple weapons or at least spears -spears are part of the iconic image of a sorcerer-, no material components period, more bloodlines. things that were obvious for sorcerer fans but got overlooked by designers.

Who is better at being a level 1 magical diplomat than a Wild Sorcerer with that spell load out and proficiency in their Cha skills and auto-advantage on a skill check of their choice? Even the bard could be jealous of that! What the heck more do you need to feel like you're actually filling that niche?

Everybody can get the Lucky feat and get auto advantage whenever they want three times a day and without their magic turning unreliable. And diplomacy spells are actually bad for diplomacy, unless you want an instant enemy.

Sounds like a restrictive, narrow ecosystem. That'll take a lot of kinds of characters off the table, if they don't just hand out free combat capability. Any character who isn't damage or support focused would be written out there. But the game isn't designed with one particular ecosystem in mind, it's designed to appeal to lots of different kinds of games, so to answer the question in the OP, the explanation would be, in part, "Because for most games, it's not relevant."

That's all I've got... I have to roll with it. You know, three simple words could have made a world of difference.

I've got no problem picking the special snowflake who isn't a combatant over Boring Pants who declares "I shoot it" every round. My games are not just one-pillar affairs.

Sadly you are not my DM.

Many of them could also benefit from the extra cantrip, extra survivability/auto-Advantage, or Cha-based skill selection of the Sorcerer. Plus, it doesn't really matter how many spells a wizard can prepare. They can only ever actually use three of them in a given day. Rituals are HUGELY campaign-dependent. It's not at all obvious to me that the wizards are "better" at this. They seem roughly equivalent, and a little different. They've got more versatility, but they don't have more raw power, and sorcerers get some things that wizards would be very interested in. Being a magic warrior with permanent Mage Armor and more than 6 HP? Being a magic conman with auto-Advantage and actual training in Deception? Man, who cares about a pet cat or an invisible butler, how is THAT going to help me cement those roles?

If you are a magical thief you really miss, the disk, the cat and the invisible butler...

I'm not denying that it's a big deal to you, I'm just questioning why this specific vision of a sorcerer is so sacrosanct that for you to be unable to play it in organized play is an intolerable burden and not maybe more of a minor inconvenience. That seems a little hyper-sensitive to me, a little narrowly focused on kind of hollow mechanical elements. I don't know what you're missing that dual-wielding daggers and taking CHA-based skills wouldn't fix, and your complaints seem to blow up minor things (like spears and the find familiar ritual) to the point where they're game-breaking for you.

Flavor, the spear (or other similar weapon) as a symbol of what you are and can do. In 3.x as a sorcerer you had lots of limits, specially on spells known and being limited on certain effects, and not being able to quicken spells. but at least your spells were yours, they couldn't be taken away from you, you were a specialist, a good specialist who could act as almost any spot but healer in the party, and no wizard could out do you in your niche of choice, and if things got nasty, you could still have the satisfaction of murdering him with your own hands and stuff his head on a chest with pages form his own spellbook.

I love this archetype, it has given me lots of fun over the years and not being able to play it anymore is a let down -and it is frustrating-, normally if there is something I cannot play on OP it is because I cannot play it anywhere else. I know I am too dramatic and special and there are tons of snowflake concepts I know I will never get to play, -it is ok, I can be happy playing clerics, rogues and bards- but having this beloved kind of character join the ranks of unplayable may be too much. 4e taught me to enjoy blasters to an extent, but they still don't make me as happy.

This seems like an overly artificial distinction. I've certainly played non-nerdy wizards who haven't been cloistered in dark towers reading dusty tomes. I've played warlocks firmly on the side of Good, who have little interest in the hidden world these days. I've played Sorcerers who can name their personal draconic ancestor and who roar when they cast spells, in settings where Sorcerers are a specific thing (nobles from particular high houses) where their magic has come from intense programs of research and dedication. This is wildly campaign-dependent, at worst.

Maybe it is just me, but I've never liked wizards, they feel like a nerdish power fantasy. I am already quite nerdish in real life, I don't want to play pretend being a nerd I prefer to enjoy the fantasy -and my ideal fantasy involves lots of book burning- . The sorcerers in the other hand are free from that baggage and I love them, they allow me to play magical characters and have it feel like true escapism instead of feeling as if I'm playing someone else's power trip.

 

[steeldragons]

Maybe it is just me, but I've never liked wizards, they feel like a nerdish power fantasy. I am already quite nerdish in real life, I don't want to play pretend being a nerd I prefer to enjoy the fantasy -and my ideal fantasy involves lots of book burning- ....

May...be... I don't really know how to respond to this. Anyone else wanna take a swing?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Everybody can get the Lucky feat and get auto advantage whenever they want three times a day and without their magic turning unreliable.

Not at level 1, they can't. Unless they're an alt-human, maybe? But then they can't get as high of an ability score bonus as other races or the other perks of other races (such as, for instance, the weapon proficiencies of the elves). And a human Sorc could do that and double-up and be EVEN BETTER!

And diplomacy spells are actually bad for diplomacy, unless you want an instant enemy.

Then the only mechanical thing you can do to be "good at" diplomacy is to have a high CHA and train Persuasion. Sorcerers, who can train Persuasion, are CLEARLY better than the wizards, who cannot, and are on par with arcane tricksters and bards (the latter of which is tailor made for diplomancing). Rituals and cantrips don't help you convince anyone of anything.

If you are a magical thief you really miss, the disk, the cat and the invisible butler...

It is not clear at all that this is more important than, say, auto-advantage when you're sneaking through the orc camp.

Flavor, the spear (or other similar weapon) as a symbol of what you are and can do. In 3.x as a sorcerer you had lots of limits, specially on spells known and being limited on certain effects, and not being able to quicken spells. but at least your spells were yours, they couldn't be taken away from you, you were a specialist, a good specialist who could act as almost any spot but healer in the party, and no wizard could out do you in your niche of choice, and if things got nasty, you could still have the satisfaction of murdering him with your own hands and stuff his head on a chest with pages form his own spellbook.

That's a weirdly adversarial vision of what you want out of a sorcerer: "Someone who can do whatever they want to do better than a wizard, and also kill them in hand-to-hand combat."

How often do you have to fight PC wizards in your games? Why is THIS the relevant thing to be able to do?

Maybe it is just me, but I've never liked wizards, they feel like a nerdish power fantasy. I am already quite nerdish in real life, I don't want to play pretend being a nerd I prefer to enjoy the fantasy -and my ideal fantasy involves lots of book burning- . The sorcerers in the other hand are free from that baggage and I love them, they allow me to play magical characters and have it feel like true escapism instead of feeling as if I'm playing someone else's power trip.

The entire game is a nerdy power trip, and everything comes with some baggage.

 

[KarinsDad]

May...be... I don't really know how to respond to this. Anyone else wanna take a swing?

Nope.


This does remind me of a questionnaire in Dragon magazine in the late 70s or early 80s where one question asked what type of PC did people want to play and one of the answers was something like "In real life, I can trip over a garbage can. I want to play a Dwarf in platemail who can leap over downed foes to get to his enemies.".