Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sword of Spirit" data-source="post: 6950471" data-attributes="member: 6677017">There were some thoughts on another sorcerer thread that got me wanting to actually find the simplest solution to the sorcerer problem that could be made. The sorcerer problem here is that they seem to get too little. Take your pick of too few spells known, spells on the sorcerer list, sorcery points, metamagic options available, or metamagic options known. Most of us don't feel that sorcerers need more of all of these, but that they need more of some of these to feel, frankly, as fun as the other classes (to distill the real argument out of the mechanical arguments).If you do not feel the sorcerer has any issues that need fixed, then this may not be the thread for you, but there is at least one other thread with debate about the premise going on right now.So, here is my philosophy on how I like to make simple house rules fixes.1) Fulcrum point tweaks. I like to find the point where I can have the greatest effect with the least amount of change. If I need more than a sentence or two to describe the rule, I have probably failed.2) Authentic feel. It needs to feel like it's something that could have been in the PHB, rather than something innovative. I'm looking for a patch, not a rewrite.3) 5e Precedent. I like my rules to be patterned after some sort of mechanic that already exists in the game--preferably as core as possible (not hard in the current low product count). This is closely tied to number 2.4) Lack of invalidation. I do not like to change or invalidate previous rules elements of the game. Ie, I wouldn't just add an existing spell to the sorcerer spell list, for example, because it tampers with the spell as much as it tweaks the sorcerer.5) Feels right. Obviously this is highly subjective, but it is a consideration in my house fixes.Some thoughts I have so far.I feel like I need to fix more than one thing. But first, let's look at what doesn't need fixed.WotC will likely print more spells for the sorcerer, so directly adding to their spell list isn't necessary. Likewise, they will likely either create new metamagic options, or intentionally not do so based on well considered assessment that they aren't needed. (Ie, I think they intentionally limited them to a very small number of options that does all they want them to be able to do.) So I don't think either of those are needed.More spells known seems to me absolutely essential. I just can't get around it.Now, my most satisfying option for that would likely be domain like lists for each kind of sorcerer. But that is most definitely not the sort of simple solution that I'm talking about here. Maybe WotC will give us that option in next year's mechanics book, but I'm not really all that interested in a non-official version.The suggestion that seems to fit all my criteria on this one is add Charisma modifier to known spells. This means they might have more spells on their available list per day than 1st level wizards (depending on if they took rituals) or 1st level druids, but that can be considered balanced out by the fact that 1st level wizards and druids will always have a larger selection of spells available to choose from. And, of course, at higher levels all prepared casters (and bards) will also have more spells available on their list per day than sorcerers, so the benefit is an out of the gate thing--that can actually thematically fit how sorcerer's magic is more intuitive than learned.Any downsides to that, or better solutions?For the next part, I feel like they need more oomph, and the simplest way to do that is more sorcery points. Here is where I find myself struggling to determine what the right number of points are to give them and how to deliver them by following those criteria above.The suggestion of adding Constitution modifier to sorcery points is one I really liked. But...I feel like there are fatal flaws to it. While Constitution is a great secondary stat for anyone, most characters are content to get it to about 14 and call it good. If sorcery points benefit from it though, sorcerers will likely feel an urge to get it as high as possible. The downside of this is that it will make sorcerer's ability scores start looking more two dimensional. Instead of taking Charisma and then being relatively free to pick other stats on the basis of personal preference and role-playing, they're going to feel that draw to go Constitution, and have to choose between concept (I want be an Intelligent sorcerer!) or mechanical excellence, which is a tension many of us feel should not exist (it doesn't exist to that great of an extent for most classes).The alternative of also basing bonus sorcery points on Charisma feels wrong too. Although most casters will want to max a casting stat, with that much riding on Charisma, sorcerers are going to, again, have an unusually strong drive to max a certain stat. It just feels wrong to me. Of course you're probably going to max Cha--so it's silly for the rules to tie more to it than they do for any other class.Now, when I was staring at their chart, I saw proficiency bonus right there and thought, "Hmm...that's a number that might work." Adding proficiency bonus to sorcery points is enough to matter, but modest enough not to risk throwing balance off. However, it fails criterion 3 (and hence 2). I can't think of any other place (except Beastmaster, sort of, but that doesn't count) where a proficiency bonus is directly added to a class's resources. It is added to attack rolls and save DCs, and doubled for Expertise, but never added to points, or X known, or any such thing. While there is some potential balance issue (dipping two levels of sorcerer could net you extra sorcery points this way), I think the actual effect would be negligible in that regard (not nearly as good as dipping two levels of some other classes!) However, unless someone can think of a precedent I'm forgetting, it still fails the stated criteria.The other possibilities I've thought of include:A) Gain half level sorcery points.B) Gain one third level sorcery points.C) Gain ability to recover half level sorcery points during a short rest 1/day.D) Gain sorcery points equal to the highest spell level you can cast. (Ie, spell level itself.)Option A is probably the simplest. The two issues I have with it is that it is basically a round about way of overwriting the method of sorcery point determination so it is weak on criterion 4. I'm also not sure if it feels right on the number of points. I'm concerned (perhaps needlessly) that 10 points at 20th level is perhaps pushing the envelop of change to the class.Option B provides a similar number to proficiency bonus, but scales more smoothly with sorcerer level, and can be added at 3rd level along with metamagic (when it could actually be useful with the right metamagic). That makes it not quite as bad as option A on criterion 4, but it's still pushing it. The other problem with it is that it is weak on criterion 3. The only precedent for one third level that immediately occurs to me is how many effective spellcaster levels an eldritch knight or arcane trickster contributes as a multiclass character. If there is any other precedent, please let me know, because it might put this one as a winner.Option C is similar to Arcane Recovery and Natural Recovery. However, the comparison feels a little off to me. Call it weak on criteria 3 and 5. It's also too messy I think, so I'm failing it on criterion 1.Option D is interesting. No immediate precedent is occurring to me, but it kind of feels like there is some sort of at least conceptual precedent I'm forgetting. It's a bit messy though, so unless there is some wonderful precedent I am missing, it fails on criterion 1.So, any other thoughts? Suggestions? Critique of my own thoughts, as well as alternatives that fit those criteria (or even that fit your own criteria for what you consider a simple fix) are greatly appreciated.</blockquote>

Verification