D&D 5E Please someone explain to me

[TrippyHippy]

I don’t think any aspect of the 3E Sorcerer, including spears, was iconic as much as the ideas about what a Sorcerer represented were still in a formative stage. There isn’t any iconic sorcerer in fantasy fiction, as far as I am aware, that uses a spear as a signature weapon.

I simple terms, the Sorcerer would be a bit overpowered now if they were allowed to use simple weapons. Moreover, they are balanced in other ways too - unlimited attacking cantrips for example - so why any Sorcerer would burden themselves with a spear is a question most Sorcerers wouldn’t bother to ask. They don’t need it! Moreover, even if they did have a bit more weapon proficiency, they don’t really get the armour or the HP to match, so it’s a bit of a waste in tactical terms. Sorcerers, like Wizards, are much better at blasting from a distance.

There are also other character options in 5e that weren’t present in the same way in 3E. In 5e you can play more actual magic-using martial Classes, rather than the fudgey attempt to make 3E Sorcerers a bit tougher. You can play Bards (which are much more magical in theme than they were), Warlocks (Elric-style sorcerers, in effect), and even Eldritch Knights or Arcane Tricksters all of which can do the fighter/magic-user schtick a lot better than just giving Sorcerers a spear. Moreover, there are probably feats you can customise your Sorcerer with if you still desperately wanted to give them more weapon proficiencies.

To me, 5E Sorcerers are for those players who want innate flexibility in their magic to be able to adjust spells with a bit more spontaneity, rather than learn by rote in the manner of classic Wizards. That’s the iconic essence of the Class. It meets that objective pretty well. The whole issue of which weapon proficiencies they have is a very minor one to me.

 

[MoonSong]

If you are concerned about not having your proficiency bonus I am assuming you care about the numbers, if you care about the numbers why on earth would you want to use a spear when it has to use strength to hit and damage, but you could just use a dagger and use your dexterity which for a sorcerer 99 times out of a 100 is going to be higher than strength.

I care not about numbers, but about meanings, flavor. If I want to be proficient with the spear is because I want to be proficient with it -and all other simple weapons-. I want to feel like I'm proficient with a spear, that I'm contributing with it. Caring for the numbers is but a secondary effect of it, I want the numbers to match what I want to play, not dissociate one from the other or having to play what the numbers say. Proficiency means something, and it isn't just about numbers.

And maybe you didn't meant it, but I feel attacked by your words. I can't help it but read "you either suck it up or you are a munchkin" between the lines. Like I said, why is it so wrong to want to use a weapon for combat and save the magic for things I consider truly important?

(And you mentioning the str thing, it isn't that uncommon for sorcerers to have a good str. Double so in 4e)

 

[Paraxis]

And maybe you didn't meant it, but I feel attacked by your words. I can't help it but read "you either suck it up or you are a munchkin" between the lines. Like I said, why is it so wrong to want to use a weapon for combat and save the magic for things I consider truly important?

(And you mentioning the str thing, it isn't that uncommon for sorcerers to have a good str. Double so in 4e)

First didn't mean to make you feel attacked. It wasn't meant to be a munchkin vs roleplay thing, more of a play to the strengths of your character or do your own thing.

In 3e, sorcerers could take the dragon disciple prestige class and there were strength based builds.
In 4e, again a couple sorcerers had strength as their secondary ability score and so that was valid.
In 5e, there might be some multi-class combination that could possibly benefit from a high strength and charisma maybe paladin, but then you will get the weapon proficiency when you multiclass.

In 5e, strength is a dump stat for sorcerers, they don't need it for armor minimums, don't need it for melee attacks, it is not a common save. Dexterity on the other hand is extra AC, initiative, the most common save, and if you use a dagger attack and damage bonus.

As has been mentioned multiple times by multiple people, the solution is to talk to your DM, I would let you be proficient with a spear and so would lots of other DM's if you talk about it as a flavor thing.

The fact the game doesn't give them proficiency isn't a big deal though, they have other options, better options.

 

[MoonSong]

I don’t think any aspect of the 3E Sorcerer, including spears, was iconic as much as the ideas about what a Sorcerer represented were still in a formative stage. There isn’t any iconic sorcerer in fantasy fiction, as far as I am aware, that uses a spear as a signature weapon.

I simple terms, the Sorcerer would be a bit overpowered now if they were allowed to use simple weapons. Moreover, they are balanced in other ways too - unlimited attacking cantrips for example - so why any Sorcerer would burden themselves with a spear is a question most Sorcerers wouldn’t bother to ask. They don’t need it! Moreover, even if they did have a bit more weapon proficiency, they don’t really get the armour or the HP to match, so it’s a bit of a waste in tactical terms. Sorcerers, like Wizards, are much better at blasting from a distance.

There are also other character options in 5e that weren’t present in the same way in 3E. In 5e you can play more actual magic-using martial Classes, rather than the fudgey attempt to make 3E Sorcerers a bit tougher. You can play Bards (which are much more magical in theme than they were), Warlocks (Elric-style sorcerers, in effect), and even Eldritch Knights or Arcane Tricksters all of which can do the fighter/magic-user schtick a lot better than just giving Sorcerers a spear. Moreover, there are probably feats you can customise your Sorcerer with if you still desperately wanted to give them more weapon proficiencies.

To me, 5E Sorcerers are for those players who want innate flexibility in their magic to be able to adjust spells with a bit more spontaneity, rather than learn by rote in the manner of classic Wizards. That’s the iconic essence of the Class. It meets that objective pretty well. The whole issue of which weapon proficiencies they have is a very minor one to me.

And what about the players who liked the 3e sorcerer despite all its flaws?

Look it from my perspective, in 2e I would never ever touch a mage, not even with the tip of a 10' pole. All bards and clerics for me. When I discovered the sorcerer I approached it as a cleric player, weapons played a big role on it, spells are for utility or whatever the focus of the character is (one of them would typically go to mage armor), Simple weapons were the only clear indication that this class indeed was different from wizards. Simple weapons were about the only constant between editions. And a spear isn't even that overpowered, it causes the same damage as a staff, except it is piercing damage and you can throw it (and it is a symbol of the peasantness of sorcerers, only someone too dettached from the world wouldn't know how to use them. This is something important, sorcerers are a part of the world, they don't necessarily look down upon others or are too disconnected by years of study, who cares about the secrets of the universe? I can do something special, but beyond that I'm fairly normal).

How could that be overpowered? check the difference between a 1st level sorcerer and a first level wizard, same hp, same weapons, same number of skills, bit the wizards know three times the number of spells, have two times the availability of them, have more slots per day, and can cast rituals without slots. Sorcerers instead get a cantrip and talk to dragons/be a walking timebomb. Or compare bard with sorcerer, same number of spells per day, but bards have more hp, armor, more weapons (including martial ones) more skills and know more spells (twice the amount) and they only have two cantrips less. Sure simple weapons would break sorcerers, who wants a sorcerer who has a viable option of not blasting? As you have said, it takes more than just proficiency to be a battlefield beast, how comes a simple +2 breaks what is about the weakest caster at low levels?

 

[TrippyHippy]

And what about the players who liked the 3e sorcerer despite all its flaws?

I would say that each edition presents Classes with different advantages and disadvantages and you should make your decisions about what you like accordingly. I think a number of players who chose 3e Sorcerers didn’t have any other choice back then as an alternative to Wizards, and would actually feel the Warlock say works better as a more combative type of spell caster in the current edition. There are more alternatives in 5e than in 3e, and more options to get the characters the way you want them. If you take the Weapon Master feat for example, you can indeed play a Sorcerer with more weapon proficiencies.

Look it from my perspective, in 2e I would never ever touch a mage, not even with the tip of a 10’ pole. All bards and clerics for me. When I discovered the sorcerer I approached it as a cleric player, weapons played a big role on it, spells are for utility or whatever the focus of the character is (one of them would typically go to mage armor), Simple weapons were the only clear indication that this class indeed was different from wizards. Simple weapons were about the only constant between editions. And a spear isn't even that overpowered, it causes the same damage as a staff, except it is piercing damage and you can throw it (and it is a symbol of the peasantness of sorcerers, only someone too dettached from the world wouldn't know how to use them. This is something important, sorcerers are a part of the world, they don't necessarily look down upon others or are too disconnected by years of study, who cares about the secrets of the universe? I can do something special, but beyond that I’m fairly normal).

Like I say, the actual core thematic difference I noted for 3E Sorcerers over Wizards was that they were attempting to find a more spontaneous alternative to Wizards - rather than any fixation with any specific trappings (including Spears). The symbolism you see are your own perspectives rather than anything formalised in the game. 3E Sorcerers were a formative idea for the class, not the teleological conclusion of it. In 3e, Sorcerers couldn’t cast unlimited cantrips and had a d4 HD. Do you want to return to that too?

How could that be overpowered? check the difference between a 1st level sorcerer and a first level wizard, same hp, same weapons, same number of skills, bit the wizards know three times the number of spells, have two times the availability of them, have more slots per day, and can cast rituals without slots. Sorcerers instead get a cantrip and talk to dragons/be a walking timebomb. Or compare bard with sorcerer, same number of spells per day, but bards have more hp, armor, more weapons (including martial ones) more skills and know more spells (twice the amount) and they only have two cantrips less. Sure simple weapons would break sorcerers, who wants a sorcerer who has a viable option of not blasting? As you have said, it takes more than just proficiency to be a battlefield beast, how comes a simple +2 breaks what is about the weakest caster at low levels?

Sorcerers, exclusively in 5E, operate with Sorcery points and metamagic. A number of advantages don’t kick in till later levels, admittedly, but when they do the advantages are huge. They can do things that no other spell caster can do. This is a significant change from 3E, and a reason for a general appraisal on the comparable balance of the class. Once the player has mastered the nuances of metamagic, the use or non use of simple weapons is such a minor issue it barely registers for any character.

 

[MoonSong]

I would say that each edition presents Classes with different advantages and disadvantages and you should make your decisions about what you like accordingly. I think a number of players who chose 3e Sorcerers didn’t have any other choice back then as an alternative to Wizards, and would actually feel the Warlock say works better as a more combative type of spell caster in the current edition. There are more alternatives in 5e than in 3e, and more options to get the characters the way you want them. If you take the Weapon Master feat for example, you can indeed play a Sorcerer with more weapon proficiencies.

And what about half-orc sorcerers? or if the DM won't allow feats? The sorcerer was mostly fine, a little on the weak side when not blasting, and waiting an extra level was bad, but hey, at least I could go everywhere on a floating disk pushed by two unseen servants. talking with my raven familiar.

Like I say, the actual core thematic difference I noted for 3E Sorcerers over Wizards was that they were attempting to find a more spontaneous alternative to Wizards - rather than any fixation with any specific trappings (including Spears). 3E Sorcerers were a formative idea for the class, not the teleological conclusion of it. In 3e, Sorcerers couldn’t cast unlimited cantrips and had a d4 HD. Do you want to return to that too?

Would I get more slots and access to the fun spells again? and my pet cat or raven? how about more than just 15 spells known? As I told you simple weapons= the bare minimum.

Sorcerers, exclusively in 5E, operate with Sorcery points and metamagic. A number of advantages don’t kick in till later levels, admittedly, but when they do the advantages are huge. They can do things that no other spell caster can do. This is a significant change from 3E, and a reason for a general appraisal on the comparable balance of the class. Once the player has mastered the nuances of metamagic, the use or non use of simple weapons is such a minor issue it barely registers for any character.

but meanwhile the simple weapons give options, the option to not blast, to do something different. I would like to see a truly overpowered sorcerer some edition. They are harder to overdo than it would seem. YOu have said it, it would barely register, except it is somethin that would help at lower levels, part of the legacy f the class -wasn't conversion a goal?-, and helps differentiate sorcerers from wizards

 

[TrippyHippy]

And what about half-orc sorcerers? or if the DM won't allow feats? The sorcerer was mostly fine, a little on the weak side when not blasting, and waiting an extra level was bad, but hey, at least I could go everywhere on a floating disk pushed by two unseen servants. talking with my raven familiar.

Well, I thought it was rubbish actually. It was basically a watered down version of the Wizard - and had no features that I considered enough to distinguish it as it’s own Class. But, hey, we’re all different. If the DM won’t allow feats then take it up with him/her, and I wonder how many 3e half orc sorcerers there were with Charisma penalties?

Would I get more slots and access to the fun spells again? and my pet cat or raven? how about more than just 15 spells known? As I told you simple weapons= the bare minimum.

Sorcerers have plenty of fun spells. So do Wizards, Warlocks and Bards. Take your picks and make your choices.

but meanwhile the simple weapons give options, the option to not blast, to do something different. I would like to see a truly overpowered sorcerer some edition. They are harder to overdo than it would seem. You have said it, it would barely register, except it is something that would help at lower levels, part of the legacy f the class -wasn’t conversion a goal?-, and helps differentiate sorcerers from wizards

Cry me a river. If you want to see a weapon wielding magic user, then look at the options available (which are plentiful!) and build it accordingly. The Sorcerer is a fun and distinct Class to play at all levels - and it doesn’t need a pointy stick to make it so.