D&D 5E Proficiencies don't make the class. Do they?

[MoonSong]

Yeah...again this "swiss army knife" thing comes across as a pretty wan distinction. Rituals I can grant as something important--an entire sphere of mechanical effect that is, by and large, denied to the Sorcerer--but "I'm a caster with ALL THE SPELLS" vs. "I'm a caster with JUST THE BEST SPELLS" wasn't enough of a difference in 3e, and it doesn't come across as a difference in 5e either.

So it basically boils down to "Sorcerers have spell points, Wizards have rituals." What's to prevent there being a Sorcerer who can learn rituals (perhaps in a way analogous to that one Tome Warlock invocation?), or a Wizard "school of metamagic" that gives spell points? And what would that do to the difference between the classes?

Well, maybe in charop world the sorcerer can only have the super optimal best spells, but the 3e sorcerer isn't "I have only the best spells", the 3e sorcerer is "I don't always have the right spell, but when I have it I use it without limits". In 5e metamagic expresses this, the only problem is the lack of more longterm magical effects that restricts character concepts.

Thematically a sorcerer who picks ritual caster at first level is going against the essence of the sorcerer, a categorical traitor, and is wasting away resources, if you really want to use books to do your magic that bad, the wizard is that other way. As for a wizard gaining metamagic through schools, I don't see it happening ever, adding metamagic to them would unbalance them

"The Arcane Traditions serve three purposes[...]: encouraging the casting of certain kinds of spells, providing utility that is unique to specialists of a particular kind of magic and that cannot be found within spells, and subtly altering the play style of the wizard without fundamentally drawing the thrust of the class away from spellcasting"

Out imaginary school of Metamagic would have to be limited to certain spells, provide unique utility -and since the sorcerer already has it, it ain't unique anymore-, and make subtle changes to the class -and metamagic isn't subtle at all-

I'd basically agree with this. Though I think a prime stat can have a distinct effect on how something plays in practice, "having a different prime stat" isn't really sufficient to make a class different from another class IMO.
[....]
It'd erode the in-play distinctions rather significantly. A variant human sorcerer at 1st level with the Ritual Caster feat already east most of the wizard's cake, and that's just with 1st-level rituals. A wizard still has more flexibility, but that might not even show itself at level 1.

Well, tell me of a class that as a single class has two different casting stats depending of path. So far it only exist as a theory, but no class has ever shown this. So until the designers give us a subclass that changes the casting stat, it remains a valid difference.

Like I said a Sorcerer picking ritual caster isn't that overpowered, wizard ritual casting is still better, and free. I would say that wizard is actually more flexible at low level and it doesn't show that much because of the xp charts, not because the wizard doesn't have twice the spells of the sorcerer at any time.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Well, tell me of a class that as a single class has two different casting stats depending of path. So far it only exist as a theory, but no class has ever shown this. So until the designers give us a subclass that changes the casting stat, it remains a valid difference.

It's mostly a cosmetic difference - especially between Int/Cha, where the only real effects aside from skills are which oft-unused saving throw you're not lousy at. I don't think that "I'm exactly like the sorcerer but I use Int for spellcasting" would be big enough for a whole new class, IMO.

Like I said a Sorcerer picking ritual caster isn't that overpowered, wizard ritual casting is still better, and free. I would say that wizard is actually more flexible at low level and it doesn't show that much because of the xp charts, not because the wizard doesn't have twice the spells of the sorcerer at any time.

It's not overpowered, but keep in mind level 1 lasts a day - on that one adventure, how often will the wizard's extra spells known make a difference? Not a lot. But "variant human taking one particular feat in one particular circumstance" is pretty much a theory problem without much actual chance of ever being a real problem.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Well, maybe in charop world the sorcerer can only have the super optimal best spells, but the 3e sorcerer isn't "I have only the best spells", the 3e sorcerer is "I don't always have the right spell, but when I have it I use it without limits". In 5e metamagic expresses this, the only problem is the lack of more longterm magical effects that restricts character concepts.

Thematically a sorcerer who picks ritual caster at first level is going against the essence of the sorcerer, a categorical traitor, and is wasting away resources, if you really want to use books to do your magic that bad, the wizard is that other way. As for a wizard gaining metamagic through schools, I don't see it happening ever, adding metamagic to them would unbalance them

Wow, "categorical traitor"? Really? Pretty strong words for something trivially easily done at 1st level...particularly if said Sorcerer is (for example) someone who flunked out of Wizard school, but kept the books because "why not, I already own them and they're useful."

Out imaginary school of Metamagic would have to be limited to certain spells, provide unique utility -and since the sorcerer already has it, it ain't unique anymore-, and make subtle changes to the class -and metamagic isn't subtle at all-

1: Uh...no it wouldn't? The hypothetical "School of Metamagic" would just need to encourage certain spells--for example, perhaps you must pick two metamagic effects and can't ever get any more. Then you'll be encouraged to apply them to those spells which can be metamagic'd in those ways, and the school-provided spells would be ones amenable to as many forms of metamagic as possible.
2: It's unique to the Wizard, so I don't see the problem there. Particularly because the power of metamagic "cannot be found within spells," which you notably left unbolded--emphasizing a different side of the same sentence would make it fully compatible.
3: I don't see metamagic as being that un-"subtle." Particularly when compared to the School of Divination's Portent (a very powerful ability) or Evocation's Sculpt Spells (which is, itself, effectively a form of always-on metamagic--shaping areas).

Well, tell me of a class that as a single class has two different casting stats depending of path. So far it only exist as a theory, but no class has ever shown this. So until the designers give us a subclass that changes the casting stat, it remains a valid difference.

"Valid" and "significant" are two different things.

 

[MoonSong]

It's mostly a cosmetic difference - especially between Int/Cha, where the only real effects aside from skills are which oft-unused saving throw you're not lousy at. I don't think that "I'm exactly like the sorcerer but I use Int for spellcasting" would be big enough for a whole new class, IMO.

"Valid" and "significant" are two different things.

You may not think it makes that much of a difference, but it does. Between "I got fooled by this illussion" and "I got vanished to another plane of existence!" there's a world of difference. And beyond that, your primary stat changes the way you play your PC, as a sorcerer you can be smart, or not smart, you could go to Hogwarts, or not, funnily the origin of your internal powers is external to you so you aren't bound to any kind of background, you could even go the full scholar route, pick ritual caster and be so much like a wizard. But a wizard? a wizard can't just be not smart, however you phrase it there is always a book in your past and present. Not being limited by that gives you a lot of RP freedom.

It's not overpowered, but keep in mind level 1 lasts a day - on that one adventure, how often will the wizard's extra spells known make a difference? Not a lot. But "variant human taking one particular feat in one particular circumstance" is pretty much a theory problem without much actual chance of ever being a real problem.

And who says it is a problem? unless your definition of sorcerer is "lame wizard" it shouldn't be a problem.

Wow, "categorical traitor"? Really? Pretty strong words for something trivially easily done at 1st level...particularly if said Sorcerer is (for example) someone who flunked out of Wizard school, but kept the books because "why not, I already own them and they're useful."

Probably I sounded harsher than I intended, I'm really not interested in wizard characters so I don't see the point to pick Ritual Caster as a sorcerer. But If I wanted a scholarly caster I would use a wizard, it ain't happening ever, but that is what I would do.

1: Uh...no it wouldn't? The hypothetical "School of Metamagic" would just need to encourage certain spells--for example, perhaps you must pick two metamagic effects and can't ever get any more. Then you'll be encouraged to apply them to those spells which can be metamagic'd in those ways, and the school-provided spells would be ones amenable to as many forms of metamagic as possible.
2: It's unique to the Wizard, so I don't see the problem there. Particularly because the power of metamagic "cannot be found within spells," which you notably left unbolded--emphasizing a different side of the same sentence would make it fully compatible.
3: I don't see metamagic as being that un-"subtle." Particularly when compared to the School of Divination's Portent (a very powerful ability) or Evocation's Sculpt Spells (which is, itself, effectively a form of always-on metamagic--shaping areas).

MEtamagic is the backbone of the sorcerer class, it changes how the class plays in a strong way, without it it would be crippled. And it only gets like three of them. And yes sculpt spell is like a metamagic, but by being equivalent to it, it shows the limits of arcane traditions, any school giving metamagic can only give one metamagic, and it has to be so that it doesn't overshadows Evokers. So I don't see it happening any time soon, wizard players, you already have most of the sorcerer's toys, leave what little is left alone.

 

[I'm A Banana]

You may not think it makes that much of a difference, but it does. Between "I got fooled by this illussion" and "I got vanished to another plane of existence!" there's a world of difference. And beyond that, your primary stat changes the way you play your PC, as a sorcerer you can be smart, or not smart, you could go to Hogwarts, or not, funnily the origin of your internal powers is external to you so you aren't bound to any kind of background, you could even go the full scholar route, pick ritual caster and be so much like a wizard. But a wizard? a wizard can't just be not smart, however you phrase it there is always a book in your past and present. Not being limited by that gives you a lot of RP freedom.

Right, but I can play a high-Charisma Wizard or a high-Int Sorcerer tomorrow and have a similar effect, and a few niche saving throws aren't going to result in a lot of in-play distinctions. It's a difference, but not one significant enough to earn the page count necessary for an entirely new class by itself.

 

[Minigiant]

A School of Metamagic kind of breaks the wizards style. Currently wizards get one free metamagic (portent, sculpt spells, alter memories). It's costs nothing extra and is very powerful. The drawback is that the free metamagic only works on some spells.

So the wizard can have tons of spells available but the school encouraged preparing certain spells. Having a "frexible subclass" instead of a "restrictive subclass" breaks the theme and maybe the class.

It's the same with the sorcerer. Even though the favored soul and the storm sorcerer add spells, the spells have a theme and the subclasses add no power. A "flexible subclass" breaks flavor andsybe the class as well.

 

[MoonSong]

Right, but I can play a high-Charisma Wizard or a high-Int Sorcerer tomorrow and have a similar effect, and a few niche saving throws aren't going to result in a lot of in-play distinctions. It's a difference, but not one significant enough to earn the page count necessary for an entirely new class by itself.

But the RP that comes from different base stats is different.

 

[nomotog]

But the RP that comes from different base stats is different.

Wouldn't that be about the same difference between a dex fighter and a str fighter? Hmm Now that I think about it the difference between a bow fighter and a sword and board fighter might be bigger then the difference between a sorcerer and a wizard?

 

[MoonSong]

Wouldn't that be about the same difference between a dex fighter and a str fighter? Hmm Now that I think about it the difference between a bow fighter and a sword and board fighter might be bigger then the difference between a sorcerer and a wizard?

STR and DEX are physical stats, they have nothing to do with personality, and tell us nothing about how brave, kind, dumb or wise they are, just with things characters can do, Int and Cha are mental stats and have everything to do with personality, of course you can dump charisma and still rp being supersuave, but for my playstyle that is doing it wrong. These are fairly different comparisons, one is a comparison about what they do, not how or why they do it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You may not think it makes that much of a difference, but it does.

Kamikaze covered my responses to this quite nicely, so I'll just say that I agree with what was said there. I also think that it's...humorous, to say that physical scores have no effect on RP while mental scores dramatically do. All stats affect RP--and at the same time, a character is not beholden to them either. You can totally make a character with crap-tastic Charisma who always tries to schmooze his way through things; they might be in deep denial about or simply oblivious to what others think of them, it's called being a blowhard. You can make a character with low Intelligence who strives to show off her wit and charm; that variably works out as a know-nothing who considers herself a know-it-all (like Shakespeare's Polonius) or a constant "malaproper" in TVTropes terms (like Juliet's nurse). And you can totally have a hyper-smart person who hates thinking, a strong or graceful person who is too lazy to make an effort, a charismatic misanthrope, etc. Stats define what you're good at doing, not what you like to do.

MEtamagic is the backbone of the sorcerer class, it changes how the class plays in a strong way, without it it would be crippled. And it only gets like three of them.

Four, actually. Two at 3rd level, another at 10th, another at 17th. Unless you meant three for the vast majority of the game and for most groups, since levels 15+ are uncommon; that I would totally agree with.

So the wizard can have tons of spells available but the school encouraged preparing certain spells. Having a "frexible subclass" instead of a "restrictive subclass" breaks the theme and maybe the class.

The School of Metamagic might progress very slowly with the metamagic, though. And they could even (potentially) be different kinds of metamagic. For example, casting two different concentration spells would be a unique and powerful feature. Further, since this is a subclass component rather than a basal component, the progression could be smaller and slower: perhaps half as many points in total, and not allowing them to be used to recover spell slots (since the Wizard already has a feature for that).

And it's not like the "free metamagic" is actually much different anyway. Sculpt Spells is actually a superior form of Careful Spell, since it outright *excludes* targets/locations rather than enabling particular targets to auto-succeed saving throws. The fact that some schools already get abilities that are metamagic-like, but better AND without resource cost doesn't really persuade me that a "School of Metamagic" is such a problem.

I mean, just a couple months back, I'd bet most people would have been pretty skeptical of giving the Sorcerer not only extra spells known, when that is specifically one of the class's limitations, but further being able to *select* those spells via a bloody Cleric domain. Yet the designers were completely comfortable doing that. They--and you--don't seem to think that transferring domains, which is a major part of the Cleric, is a huge abrogation of the Cleric class. Why should transferring metamagic, which is apparently a major part of the Sorcerer, be that much different?

It's the same with the sorcerer. Even though the favored soul and the storm sorcerer add spells, the spells have a theme and the subclasses add no power. A "flexible subclass" breaks flavor andsybe the class as well.

Given how many people are specifically harping the limited number of spells known to the Sorcerer, and the nearly immediate fan reaction that the new Sorcerer origins are a major power boost specifically because they get free spells known, I'm not so sure I agree with you here. And then the new ones even get straight-up improvements on what the original origins got (e.g. the Storm Sorc's flight feature is pretty much out-and-out better than the Dragon Sorc's, what with the party buff element).