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

[AtomicPope]

Proficiencies do matter to classes. Proficiencies, by their very name, tell us of the competence in a particular area or focus. In the realm of D&D you wouldn't be a Fighter if you didn't know how to use Simple and Martial weapons. That does tell us the minimum it takes to be a D&D Fighter. That doesn't mean there is no variation, it just means you must be qualified to do your job because D&D does have some expectations for players.

The skill proficiencies of 5e I disagree with. For example, you don't need to know anything about 'arcana' to be a Wizard, 'nature' to be a Druid or Ranger, and you don't need 'religion' to be a Cleric. On the other hand, you do need proficiency in Musical Instruments to be a Bard and Thieves' Tools to be a Rogue, while Druids are proficient in Herbalism Kits? A Wizard's tool is obviously his spell book, a Fighter's tools are his weapons and armor, a Barbarian his Rage, but I think some things have been glossed over a bit.

I suppose the 'skills' could be part of the variety, not locking down knowledge to a specific class might open them up a bit. A Ranger or Druid may know more about the Planes than about Nature, like a Horizon Walker, while a Vengeance Paladin needs to know more about History (Noble Families, Wars, Criminal Syndicates).

 

[Leatherhead]

Looking back over the PrCs and Paragon Paths from past editions, the Self-Forged Artificers giving themselves artificial body parts was a thing.

 

[Shasarak]

But how does it kill orcs?

That's the key question?
A class's creature killing feature is one of its biggest class feature. Often the biggest.

So how does a level 6 artificer kill an orc?
Cast fireball?
Make a wand of fireball?
Attack twice with a +1 sword via Extra Attack?
Attack once with a +1 sword and 3d6 Sneak Attack?

It would be cool if the different sub-classes of Artificers could do either one of the above options depending on what they specialise in.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You were incorrect. <snip> I'd suggest sticking to the strict reading.

Perhaps I should. Perhaps it would also be helpful to be a little bit more clear? It wasn't obvious, from reading that post alone (since, as stated, I missed some of your prior posts) that you actually thought mechanics meant much of anything. It is now obvious that you do, so there's that.

With all due respect, I think I'll be the arbiter of what is necessary or not in my posts. If my use of italics and bolding bothered you, that was wholly your choice of interpretation. There was no such intention in my choice of language or accents.

If it bothers you that much, perhaps you shouldn't read my posts.

Perhaps you shouldn't tell people what to read or not read? The italics and bolding came across as rude. That's all. If you didn't mean to be rude, that's fine, but it felt rude to me. That's what I was trying to say.

Like with your example of the Bard, the Bard most certainly did exist before the mechanics. The Bard first existed as a concept; both historical and fictional. Then someone decided to express it mechanically for inclusion in a game. As a game construct, it's grown beyond it's historical and fictional origins. Designers have added mechanical functionality that is wholly original to RPG's. Designers have also created narratives to inform and expand those unique mechanics.

It's the chicken and egg question, where the answer is Yes to both.

I believe I have been unclear. In a philosophical sense, I completely agree that "which came first, the narrative or the mechanic?" is (often) a chicken-or-the-egg question.

In the context of what exists within the game, however, I think it's quite clear. Nothing--I repeat, *nothing*--exists within the game proper, the game-as-game, unless it has mechanics. If it has no mechanics, it has no existence. It may exist in the play, because play is (far, far, far) more than just mechanics, but it does not exist within the game proper; to make an analogy, "Minsc" did not exist in the game "Baldur's Gate 2" until there was code to *make* him exist, at which point fluff (voice files, for instance) could be applied to those code hooks. Fluff exists outside of "the game" until it has a mechanical hook to attach to. Your ethnicity example is just that. It is written in the book, but it is not "part of the game." It has no meaning, other than what players feel it should have in the actual moments of play. In that sense, it is like the names of the player characters in Clue (or Cluedo, for UK players); their names, and their backstories, are written into the books and such, but those names have no bearing on the game Clue itself. You could literally just replace those names with Yellow, Red, Blue, etc. and the game would play exactly as it had before. People would--almost assuredly--feel different about identifying Red as the killer than they would about identifying Miss Scarlet as the killer, but that feel is something that exists during *play,* not in the the game Clue.

Perhaps I am drawing an excessively fine distinction, but I think it's profoundly important--particularly if we're considering a designer's perspective--to separate "the content of the game" (which includes mechanics, and the narrative attached to them) from "all content in the books" (which includes all sorts of stuff that is unrelated to the game), and both of those from "the content of play," which is an infinitely broad horizon of narrative (and, for those amenable to house rules, mechanics as well). I am speaking, exclusively, about the first thing: the content of the game. A narrative, in that sense, does not exist "in the game" until it has a mechanical hook to attach to; otherwise it is, at best, "content of play," and at worst merely content of the books which supports the existence of the other content without actually participating in that other content.

Like a lot of 5e, this kind of knowledge is resistant to "just reading the books" to discover. In play, a sorcerer and a wizard in 5e are VERY distinct, even if on paper you wouldn't really know it. Same with a fighter and a paladin, or a warlock and a sorcerer or a ranger and a rogue. Natural Explorer is far beyond what an Outlander can do ("Hi, I have expertise in 80% of my skills."). These aren't niche-protection mechanics, but they are absolutely niche-enhancement mechanics.

So if you don't see a lot of difference between these classes already, you're not going to see the threshold that an artificer or a psion or a warlord needs to meet as being all that high. That would make sense in a context where the class differences weren't really all that significant to begin with. And of course there I would look like I'm demanding more of an artificer or a psion or a warlord than I would of other classes.

But I think the mistake there is in assumption that these classes aren't distinct in their mechanics - that anything wizards can do sorcerers can do and vice-versa. That simply does not match my experience with this game even a little bit. It is a claim I see little evidence for, and a wealth of counter-evidence against.

So the first thing I might have to do is a little more of a deep dive into the 5e class distinctions, to find out if I'm full of crap, or not.

Might be a wise idea. And, on the subject of going with wise ideas, before I respond to the meat of your post here, I have two questions I'd like to ask.

1: Would you say you have played (very roughly) as much 5e as you have 4e? That is, would you say you have, again in a rough sense, equal familiarity with the two systems, or are you more familiar with one than the other?
2: Do you feel that 4e made sufficient distinction between different classes, or not, and either way, why?

 

[El Mahdi]

Perhaps it would also be helpful to be a little bit more clear? It wasn't obvious, from reading that post alone (since, as stated, I missed some of your prior posts) that you actually thought mechanics meant much of anything.

My post was clear. It was concise to the comment I was making at that time and to what I was responding to. As I said before, I'm not going to restate everything I've said throughout a thread in every post of that thread, nor am I going to provide a comprehensive...and wholly unnecessary...expression of every thought, belief, or opinion I have about a subject.

It's very simple: attempting to read between the lines of posts is just asking for trouble. I'm not going to engage in attempting to craft a post that is immune to someone reading between the lines. I don't have that kind of time, nor is it something that's really even possible.

Perhaps you shouldn't tell people what to read or not read?

And that's the end of the conversation. I didn't tell anyone to do anything. It was clearly written as a suggestion.

I don't understand why you insist on attempting to read-between-the-lines of my posts. I have my suspicions, but I'm not going to engage in psycho-analysis here or attempt mind-reading myself.

I won't be responding to your posts again, nor to quotes or mentions. I don't put people on ignore, as one never knows when someone is going to post something insightful or useful...and I don't want to miss those...but responding to you is something I feel is no longer in my best interest.


Goodbye and Game On.

 

[I'm A Banana]

1: Would you say you have played (very roughly) as much 5e as you have 4e? That is, would you say you have, again in a rough sense, equal familiarity with the two systems, or are you more familiar with one than the other?

Much more familiar with 4e, but I had 8 years or so on 4e, and not even 8 months on 5e. 4e I could tweak to whatever. 5e is more opaque in some of its guts.

2: Do you feel that 4e made sufficient distinction between different classes, or not, and either way, why?

In general, no, I feel like 4e's distinctions between classes were even more academic and meaningless than they could be in 3e. The ADEU system homogenized play so thoroughly that classes struggled to break out of it, and distinctions relied on rather obtuse fiddly bits that were, IMXP, ultimately kind of meaningless most of the time.

FWIW, I think 3e's classes were by and large more distinct, but not every class was distinct. The division between the OA Samurai and the Fighter, for instance, was largely cosmetic, but the difference between the Fighter and the Barbarian was more prominent in 3e than it was in 4e.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Much more familiar with 4e, but I had 8 years or so on 4e, and not even 8 months on 5e. 4e I could tweak to whatever. 5e is more opaque in some of its guts.

In general, no, I feel like 4e's distinctions between classes were even more academic and meaningless than they could be in 3e. The ADEU system homogenized play so thoroughly that classes struggled to break out of it, and distinctions relied on rather obtuse fiddly bits that were, IMXP, ultimately kind of meaningless most of the time.

FWIW, I think 3e's classes were by and large more distinct, but not every class was distinct. The division between the OA Samurai and the Fighter, for instance, was largely cosmetic, but the difference between the Fighter and the Barbarian was more prominent in 3e than it was in 4e.

Okay. In that case, I feel justified in saying: There's more than a small amount of irony in the argument you're making. Specifically...

Like a lot of 5e, this kind of knowledge is resistant to "just reading the books" to discover. In play, a sorcerer and a wizard in 5e are VERY distinct, even if on paper you wouldn't really know it.

This sounds literally exactly the same as the arguments I've heard, and even made myself, to people saying that 4e classes were "samey." That is, the difference is borne out through play experience rather than through reading. So...I can't help but see a significant irony there, telling 4e fans that the differences ARE "academic and meaningless," but the NEW differences in 5e are very meaningful.

To actually tackle this in a way amenable to discussion, rather than simply pointing out something I find almost painfully ironic...

What would you say it is that a Sorcerer can do that a Wizard cannot, or vice versa? That is, you've said that they're "VERY distinct" (emphasis in original)--in fact, so distinct that you have never seen a SINGLE thing to suggest that they're the same, instead a "wealth of counter-evidence" to that claim. What, exactly, is it that one can do which the other can't do, which doesn't get borne out on paper?

 

[I'm A Banana]

OThis sounds literally exactly the same as the arguments I've heard, and even made myself, to people saying that 4e classes were "samey." That is, the difference is borne out through play experience rather than through reading. So...I can't help but see a significant irony there, telling 4e fans that the differences ARE "academic and meaningless," but the NEW differences in 5e are very meaningful.

There's at least two things wrapped up there that should probably be disentangled.

The first is that "it plays different than it looks" isn't always a convincing argument. It's fair that it's not convincing, but it's also almost tautological in games. The extent to which it is true varies and if you suspect it might not be true, it's pretty easy to test. 4e did generally work differently in play than it seemed on paper (for one, it was a lot less rigid in practice than it seemed). 5e does too. So have 3e, and 2e, and 1e, and OD&D, and....most every game ever. The degree differs. I find 5e to be pretty high on the "it plays different than it looks" scale - something I don't think I'm alone in.

Second is that this argument is being used to say that the classes in 5e aren't as samey as they may appear. The fact that I still saw 4e classes and many 3e classes as samey after 8-10 years and don't see the 5e classes as very samey after 6 months should tell you I have a high threshold for "samey" - a threshold not met by 4e classes or every 3e class that is met by 5e classes. Presuming I'm a reasonably rational actor here, one might conclude that the differences between classes in 5e could be more substantial than they were in 4e.

That first thing might be wrong, or that second thing might be wrong, or they might both be wrong, or they might both be right, and just because the argument was used in 4e and you didn't find it convincing doesn't mean it's not true about 5e, since they are different games.

What would you say it is that a Sorcerer can do that a Wizard cannot, or vice versa? That is, you've said that they're "VERY distinct" (emphasis in original)--in fact, so distinct that you have never seen a SINGLE thing to suggest that they're the same, instead a "wealth of counter-evidence" to that claim. What, exactly, is it that one can do which the other can't do, which doesn't get borne out on paper?

I mean, there is this thread with 5 pages of replies that goes into a lot of discussion about how/why/if they're different from a variety of perspectives. Notably, there isn't a single vote on that poll for "really only different cosmetically," which I wouldn't expect if a lot of folks felt that the differences between the two came down to "paint."

As I pointed out with the ranger and the fighter or the bard and the wizard or whatever, the bulk of the difference lies in the impact of (sometimes seemingly inoccuous) class features.

For sorcerers, sorcery points carry a lot of the weight for the class in general. This affects the dynamic of playing a sorcerer by helping the player to avoid the loss aversion of spellcasting - you have sorcery points, you can afford to convert them to spell slots in a pinch (notably you always have enough sorcerery points at a given level to be able to swap at least some of them into your highest-level spell slot, up until you get 6th level spells). You aren't as concerned in play with the conservative use of power, which goes on to encourage you to play a little more brashly and recklessly with your spells than a wizard, which ultimately leads to more spellcasting, which helps the distinction by making you a constant source of something magical happening, in pretty much any situation where you know a tangentially useful spell.

This is notably distinct from Arcane Recovery, because AR only activates on a rest, while sorcery points can be used on the fly. You can start off the fight with a fireball because you always have an ace in the hole if the fight is suddenly joined by a new wave. Other spellcasters need to more carefully understand the strategy of their spell-use.

Additionally, someone who isn't as loss-averse or who doesn't have as many encounters can use those points for metamagic, which encourages you to use spells in situations where you normally wouldn't, or to use spells more efficiently in more situations, again producing a spellcaster who casts spells more often. It also produces a spellcaster who manipulates magic in more efficient ways, which you'd expect out of a character who is born with magic in their blood (vs. one who understands it intellectually).

If sorcerers were INT-based and had the same spell list as wizards, those sorcery points would still remain a meaningful point of distinction, because they would result in more spells being cast by the character with them than without them, and/or those spells being distinctly changed through metamagic

On the wizard side, the big distinction is the spellbook. It's a very short paragraph, and a sidebar, but it is probably the wizard's most distinct feature, because no other class has the possibility for the variety of spells that a wizard does. Ritual casting enhances that by making a variety of spells more useful (not consuming resources). Because wizards can afford to learn nearly every spell they come across, they build up an assortment of effects and magical abilities that are useful in more niche cases, or if more time is taken to craft them. A wizard is your crazy perpared batman, always with the right tool for the job. They learn more about their jobs, they know more about the niche uses of spells, they don't let hyper-specialization bog them down.

If wizards were CHA-based and had the same spell list as wizards, the spellbook + ritual casting would remain a meaningful point of distinction, and would still lead to more magical solutions to in-play roadblocks. A wizard would still be a swiss-army-knife that a sorcerer just wouldn't be.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That first thing might be wrong, or that second thing might be wrong, or they might both be wrong, or they might both be right, and just because the argument was used in 4e and you didn't find it convincing doesn't mean it's not true about 5e, since they are different games.

That's fair--just noting how it seems so funny that detractors (which, from what I gather, wouldn't include you) complained about how "samey" 4e classes seemed, and didn't feel they NEEDED to give 4e a chance beyond reading it, while you are not the only person I've heard directly tell me "you have to give 5e a chance in play, it plays better than it reads." That 4e often did not get such a chance, whereas people seem immediately willing to give 5e such a chance *and* expect others to do the same, annoys me greatly.

I mean, there is this thread with 5 pages of replies that goes into a lot of discussion about how/why/if they're different from a variety of perspectives. Notably, there isn't a single vote on that poll for "really only different cosmetically," which I wouldn't expect if a lot of folks felt that the differences between the two came down to "paint."

Humorously, in reading through the comments in the thread itself, I actually think a lot of people voted differently than their expressed perspectives. That is, SEVERAL people have noted that at levels 1-5 (very roughly) there is essentially no difference between the two, except in their prime stat. They seem to take that prime-stat difference as important enough to be "not merely cosmetic," but for me it totally is. Everyone has a prime stat, so the fact that it's different between the two classes is not, to me, sufficient to say they're particularly distinct.

As I pointed out with the ranger and the fighter or the bard and the wizard or whatever, the bulk of the difference lies in the impact of (sometimes seemingly inoccuous) class features.

For sorcerers, sorcery points carry a lot of the weight for the class in general. This affects the dynamic of playing a sorcerer by helping the player to avoid the loss aversion of spellcasting - you have sorcery points, you can afford to convert them to spell slots in a pinch (notably you always have enough sorcerery points at a given level to be able to swap at least some of them into your highest-level spell slot, up until you get 6th level spells). You aren't as concerned in play with the conservative use of power, which goes on to encourage you to play a little more brashly and recklessly with your spells than a wizard, which ultimately leads to more spellcasting, which helps the distinction by making you a constant source of something magical happening, in pretty much any situation where you know a tangentially useful spell.

That's...really strange, because the comparison between Warlock and Wizard in other threads is almost always "Wizards are the ones consistently flinging spells." Perhaps I am misunderstanding, or conflating two different meanings of "consistently" here, but it's difficult for me to accept "Wizards aren't using spells very much" here when it's been so thoroughly discussed as the *opposite* of that in the Warlock threads I've participated in.

I also don't (really) see "I can cast 3-4 more spells per day" as a strong distinction between classes. I mean, for Warlocks it's significant because "3-4 less" means "often no spells for at least one encounter a day," but for both the Wizard and the Sorcerer, they've got plenty of spell slots for casting 1-2 spells in every combat, so going from an average of 1.5 to an average of 1.8 (or whatever) really doesn't seem like the kind of distinction you're describing.

This is notably distinct from Arcane Recovery, because AR only activates on a rest, while sorcery points can be used on the fly. You can start off the fight with a fireball because you always have an ace in the hole if the fight is suddenly joined by a new wave. Other spellcasters need to more carefully understand the strategy of their spell-use.

Yeah, this sounds like a highly academic difference to me. I mean, yes, it is a difference of what is available to the player when, but "I can cast an extra Fireball right away" vs. "I can cast an extra Fireball next fight" is...not something that makes the classes actually seem different to me. Particularly since there's still a hard limit on how many Fireballs one can fling in a day.

Perhaps it also helps that I utterly loathe the "a short rest is one full hour" concept, so the difference between "right now" and "next fight" is not as big in my mind as it might be in..."baseline" 5e.

It also produces a spellcaster who manipulates magic in more efficient ways, which you'd expect out of a character who is born with magic in their blood (vs. one who understands it intellectually).

Ironically, in other discussons I've heard about this, the concept was exactly reversed: that is, it did not make sense that someone who instinctively casts magic would be able to make the precision tweaks and modifications, but should rather have one intuitively-grasped, tried-and-true way of doing things which would be difficult to modify because it is "instinctual." The Wizard, on the other hand, knows all the variables and has spent countless hours perfecting the formulae, so she has the ability to modify parameters in a controlled, consistent, logical fashion, within the mathematical limitations of the formulae themselves.

I'm not sure I necessarily buy either argument per se, but the "intellectual understanding gives precision control" argument is the more convincing if I *had* to pick one.

If wizards were CHA-based and had the same spell list as wizards, the spellbook + ritual casting would remain a meaningful point of distinction, and would still lead to more magical solutions to in-play roadblocks. A wizard would still be a swiss-army-knife that a sorcerer just wouldn't be.

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?

 

[I'm A Banana]

That's fair--just noting how it seems so funny that detractors (which, from what I gather, wouldn't include you) complained about how "samey" 4e classes seemed, and didn't feel they NEEDED to give 4e a chance beyond reading it, while you are not the only person I've heard directly tell me "you have to give 5e a chance in play, it plays better than it reads." That 4e often did not get such a chance, whereas people seem immediately willing to give 5e such a chance *and* expect others to do the same, annoys me greatly.

I can sympathize with the idea that it's not a persuasive argument, but theorycraft is hollow for a reason - unless you're DOING it, you've only got a vague idea of what it's like to DO it. That idea may be farther from or closer to reality, but it can't be reality - any anecdote of actual experience immediately trumps all theorycraft. If it disagrees at all with your impressions, you must accept your impressions as flawed (which is part of why I admit my perspective on 4e classes isn't The Truth, it's just the way I feel - I understand not everyone feels that way).

They seem to take that prime-stat difference as important enough to be "not merely cosmetic," but for me it totally is. Everyone has a prime stat, so the fact that it's different between the two classes is not, to me, sufficient to say they're particularly distinct.

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.

That's...really strange, because the comparison between Warlock and Wizard in other threads is almost always "Wizards are the ones consistently flinging spells." Perhaps I am misunderstanding, or conflating two different meanings of "consistently" here, but it's difficult for me to accept "Wizards aren't using spells very much" here when it's been so thoroughly discussed as the *opposite* of that in the Warlock threads I've participated in.

It's not hard for both of these to be true. They can be on a continuum. Warlock < Wizard < Sorcerer. It's not a binary state.

I also don't (really) see "I can cast 3-4 more spells per day" as a strong distinction between classes. I mean, for Warlocks it's significant because "3-4 less" means "often no spells for at least one encounter a day," but for both the Wizard and the Sorcerer, they've got plenty of spell slots for casting 1-2 spells in every combat, so going from an average of 1.5 to an average of 1.8 (or whatever) really doesn't seem like the kind of distinction you're describing.

It basically boils down to "how many rounds are you relying on cantrips vs. how many rounds are you relying on spell slots."

In a session that has, I dunno, 20 rounds, the sorcerer is spending most of those rounds using spell slots. A wizard is using less. A warlock, less still. Additionally, during exploration, a wizard is using rituals, and a sorcerer isn't.

This creates real differences in play. There are parts of the game that wizards can access thanks to rituals that sorcerers pay a higher price to enter. There are approaches open to sorcerers that are less viable for wizards. Problem-solving takes different considerations. Your approach is different.

By way of analogy, if in a shooting game that requires 4 shots to win, I have a gun that holds 6 bullets, and I have 8 bullets on me, that is going to be a different approach to the problems I have than if I have a gun that holds 6 bullets, but I only have four bullets on me. I will take more risks with the former. I will more carefully plan the latter. That's a play difference so huge that entire genres can be made out of it. It's a tremendous change in the psychology.

(and the warlock is a game where I have two bullets on me, but I can get at least one of them back every time I shoot).

Yeah, this sounds like a highly academic difference to me. I mean, yes, it is a difference of what is available to the player when, but "I can cast an extra Fireball right away" vs. "I can cast an extra Fireball next fight" is...not something that makes the classes actually seem different to me. Particularly since there's still a hard limit on how many Fireballs one can fling in a day.

In practice, it has a huge impact on the risks you'll take and the frequency with which you'll burn spells, because you don't need to be conservative - if a wizard is one spell short at the end of a fight, they're boned. If a sorcerer is one spell short at the end of a fight, they win.

Perhaps it also helps that I utterly loathe the "a short rest is one full hour" concept, so the difference between "right now" and "next fight" is not as big in my mind as it might be in..."baseline" 5e.

The short rest being an hour is a significant consideration for pacing in 5e, and one of the major ways that classes in 5e achieve distinction - and one of the ways that 4e classes looked all the same - is in having different paces, different daily beats, different ways of thinking about resource management.

Ironically, in other discussons I've heard about this, the concept was exactly reversed: that is, it did not make sense that someone who instinctively casts magic would be able to make the precision tweaks and modifications, but should rather have one intuitively-grasped, tried-and-true way of doing things which would be difficult to modify because it is "instinctual." The Wizard, on the other hand, knows all the variables and has spent countless hours perfecting the formulae, so she has the ability to modify parameters in a controlled, consistent, logical fashion, within the mathematical limitations of the formulae themselves.

I'm not sure I necessarily buy either argument per se, but the "intellectual understanding gives precision control" argument is the more convincing if I *had* to pick one.

I mean, I'm not the make sense police, I just think it's a strong area of distinction in how they play. It'd still be a strong area of distinction if wizard could do it and sorcerers couldn't.

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.

Sorcerers can't get just the best spells - their pool of known spells is too limited for them to get all the best spells. They have to carefully choose which of the best spells they get and they're always leaving some on the wayside.

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?

You're forgetting about spellbooks, but anyway...

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.