Tallifer
Hero
Forsooth. The 4E Sorcerer was a Class in its own right. The Pathfinder and 5E sorcerers are just alternate Wizardlings. I especially liked the 4E distinction between Wizards as Controllers and Sorcerers as Strikers.
D&D 5E [poll] Sorcerer Satisfaction Survey
Forsooth. The 4E Sorcerer was a Class in its own right. The Pathfinder and 5E sorcerers are just alternate Wizardlings. I especially liked the 4E distinction between Wizards as Controllers and Sorcerers as Strikers.
Midknightsun
Explorer
I am currently playing a dragon sorcerer and I can tell you he is pretty powerful. He can off-tank when needed, brings a boat load of damage to the table, and can buff party members all with a handful of spells. I do think, though, their spell list should be very different from the wizard list. This would go a long way to making them more unique, and you could build the "raw barely controlled magical power" into those spell effects. Spells that inflict damage on the sorcerer, but do more damage for their level, spells that have a degree of unpredictability, etc. You wouldn't have to change the skeleton of the class at all and could achieve a much more unique flavor.
Treantmonklvl20
Explorer
Easily my biggest issue with the class. The Sorcerer spell list is a poor man's wizard spell list. It appears as though they took the wizard spell list, chopped off 1/3 of it, and slapped 'Sorcerer spell list" at the top.
psychophipps
Explorer
Huh, Stan the Storm Master never seems underspelled or underpowered to me. Sorcerors are theme-based casters not kitchen sink casters. Sounds to me like the people that are seeing issues just want Wizards with Sorcery points.
Last edited:
Jefe Bergenstein
Legend
The wizard honestly pays too little a premium for his versatility. Generalist George can be 90% of a storm master after a long nap, or better since he has ritual casting and a ton more spells.
To me, the sorc as written is a waste of space. It's yet another 9 level daily arcane caster, and not a terribly good one. It's functional, but 5E baseline is such easymode a 10 strength champion dual wielding turkey legs can also sail through adventures.
They should have generic'd up the wizard even more (letting you pick your casting stat and source of powers as a fluff option) and had the sorc class be the "kid brother button masher" class for magic. Mostly at-will magical effects with short rest refueled power ups in a tight theme. The go to class for those wanting to be an ice mage, as opposed to a caster that uses ice spells. Right now the sorc would be considered an ice mage only by virtue of having so few spells they can't do much else...
Treantmonklvl20
Explorer
It's exactly the similarity that is the problem. I wish the sorcerer had unique spells, or abilities that made them stand out more.
Naturally when you have a 9 level arcane caster, it's not power that is the issue. But when I play a warlock, I can see significant ways my character differentiates from other arcane casters
TwoSix
Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
While I do think that the sorcerer as written is pretty fine (and I think the gameplay of managing very limited spells known is actually quite fun), I think making the sorcerer more themed and more of an at-will caster (like this warmage) would have been a better direction.
pming
Legend
Hiya!
I'm (and my group, actually) quite happy about every class in the PHB. I guess if I had to pick one that seems 'off', it would have to be the Monk. I think it's the whole number of Ki points available, vs the single most iconic thing a Monk does: get's multiple attacks. One day I'll probably house rule something, but most of my players tend towards the Fighter (champion), Rogue (Theif), Wizard (Evoker or Illusionist), Cleric (all equal) side, with Sorcerer (dragonblood) and Barbarian (all equal) being the runners up.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
I'm (and my group, actually) quite happy about every class in the PHB. I guess if I had to pick one that seems 'off', it would have to be the Monk. I think it's the whole number of Ki points available, vs the single most iconic thing a Monk does: get's multiple attacks. One day I'll probably house rule something, but most of my players tend towards the Fighter (champion), Rogue (Theif), Wizard (Evoker or Illusionist), Cleric (all equal) side, with Sorcerer (dragonblood) and Barbarian (all equal) being the runners up.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
psychophipps
Explorer
Monks without anything else going on can attack three times per round. Two mains level 5+ and one bonus any time they want at level 1+.
pming
Legend
Hiya!
Yes, I know the Attack + Bonus Action Attack is from level 1. And yes, at 5th he gets an Extra Attack. So that's three. And that's the limit. Three. Respectable, sure, but he has to use a very limited amount of his Ki points to do that...and at 5th level, what is that...3 maybe? (don't have the book at hand). After a Monk uses all his Ki abilities he starts to look like a masochist.
To me, a Monk should get consistent attacks based on level, and they should be getting more attacks than anyone else (open hand here). Their damage should be "ok", start at 1d4 and maybe climbing to something like 3d6 or 2d10 at 20th. I'd be happy with pretty much leaving everything else as-is, really...remove the Ki abilities to get 'more attacks', obviously...as the Ki points used for pulling off special stuff seems like it would be about right. Of course, it would have to be specifically mentioned that when a monk uses his Open Handed Attack number and damage they can't use any other 'thing' that says "uses an Attack action"; Open Handed Attack would be the special case. If a monk wants to use a lajatang, fine, but he drops to his maximum of 2 attacks a round and does 1d10 slashing (or was a lajatang from 1e OE more of a piercing weapon?...1e didn't distinguish the whole S/P/B stuff).
Anyway, as I said, for ME, the Monk is the only one that felt like a bit of a let down for it's key monk'ness. I do however love the addition of the Ki for doing special stuff related to the Monks 'school' (Shadow or Elemental is it?). That's some cool shpoot there!
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Yes, I know the Attack + Bonus Action Attack is from level 1. And yes, at 5th he gets an Extra Attack. So that's three. And that's the limit. Three. Respectable, sure, but he has to use a very limited amount of his Ki points to do that...and at 5th level, what is that...3 maybe? (don't have the book at hand). After a Monk uses all his Ki abilities he starts to look like a masochist.
To me, a Monk should get consistent attacks based on level, and they should be getting more attacks than anyone else (open hand here). Their damage should be "ok", start at 1d4 and maybe climbing to something like 3d6 or 2d10 at 20th. I'd be happy with pretty much leaving everything else as-is, really...remove the Ki abilities to get 'more attacks', obviously...as the Ki points used for pulling off special stuff seems like it would be about right. Of course, it would have to be specifically mentioned that when a monk uses his Open Handed Attack number and damage they can't use any other 'thing' that says "uses an Attack action"; Open Handed Attack would be the special case. If a monk wants to use a lajatang, fine, but he drops to his maximum of 2 attacks a round and does 1d10 slashing (or was a lajatang from 1e OE more of a piercing weapon?...1e didn't distinguish the whole S/P/B stuff).
Anyway, as I said, for ME, the Monk is the only one that felt like a bit of a let down for it's key monk'ness. I do however love the addition of the Ki for doing special stuff related to the Monks 'school' (Shadow or Elemental is it?). That's some cool shpoot there!
^_^
Paul L. Ming
