D&D 5E Sorcerer Changes

[ManBagel]

Why not Constitution? I personally think it makes it more interesting as a caster. Sorcerers have 15 spells and 6 cantrips at most. With there limited spells they should have Constitution as there spellcasting modifier. This make them have better concentration and it gives them a bit of an edge that other casters wouldn’t have. Extra Hit Points and better concentration would make more balanced with the limited spells.
A bard gets 16 spells+ Magical Secrets and other class features. Wizards can cast on the fly 43 spells if they get all ritual spells access to them. Warlocks get invocations and other class features and they are a different type of spell caster. Sorcerer would be interesting if it had 20 spells and Constitution would make it not as limited. Clerics have 35 spells. 15 vs 35 is a huge gap without any other class features.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I could see fueling sorcery points from HP or HD. I don't like the idea of using Con to determine attack bonus or saving throw, though. That doesn't make sense to me.

Bunch of interesting ideas here, but as is often the case when somebody tries to fix a class, I think the net result is that it also just makes it more powerful. My main beef with Sorcerer is that it's not different enough from Wizard, but I think the overall power level is fine. So I'm interested in new interesting/flavorful mechanics, but not buffs.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Why not Constitution? I personally think it makes it more interesting as a caster. Sorcerers have 15 spells and 6 cantrips at most. With there limited spells they should have Constitution as there spellcasting modifier. This make them have better concentration and it gives them a bit of an edge that other casters wouldn’t have. Extra Hit Points and better concentration would make more balanced with the limited spells.
A bard gets 16 spells+ Magical Secrets and other class features. Wizards can cast on the fly 43 spells if they get all ritual spells access to them. Warlocks get invocations and other class features and they are a different type of spell caster. Sorcerer would be interesting if it had 20 spells and Constitution would make it not as limited. Clerics have 35 spells. 15 vs 35 is a huge gap without any other class features.

Sorcerers already have a great concentration save. You can already focus concentration over charisma depending on your choice of spells. I think not having obvious choices makes the game more interesting.

 

[MoonSong]

There are two reasons against this, one thematic and one mechanical. Charisma has changed over the years to represent not just your personality but also your sense of self. A high Charisma person usually (not always, but usually) a powerful presence, which makes sense for them to use Charisma to use that sense of self to draw upon magic.

Also, Sorcerer is the original charisma caster and has never not been charisma based. Bard became charisma based at the same time, but had been wisdom and intelligence based in previous editions (and I think that if sorcerer had never been invented, bard would have remained an Int-caster). Warlock started as charisma based, but in 4e could also be constitution based. Paladin only got Charisma based in fourth edition and was Wisdom based in previous editions. I know that we have too many charisma casters in 5th edition, but, if any class should stop having charisma as casting stat, is any of the other guys, not the sorcerer.

 

[bedir than]

I remain in the Sorcerers should be a CON caster. Their abilities don't come from their sense of self, but their blood and lineage, no matter what they think of themselves. The fiction isn't about believing in their own powers. The fiction says they have those powers no matter what, sometimes to effect of not being able to control them.

 

[jsaving]

My table hates the sorcerer as written and we're looking into adapting the Pathfinder 2 Sorcerer to D&D5.

This is exactly what we've done. Our group dropped Pathfinder for 5e because we disliked most of PF2e's innovations, but we like its new sorcerer a great deal and now use it in our 5e campaign.

 

[MoonSong]

This is exactly what we've done. Our group dropped Pathfinder for 5e because we disliked most of PF2e's innovations, but we like its new sorcerer a great deal and now use it in our 5e campaign.

How does that work? (I mean how do you make it work?)

 

[Benjamin Olson]

If I was going to change the Sorcerer I'd give them metamagic at second level and the spell slot buying business at third level when they A) have enough sorcery points to use it for something other than buying one level 1 spell slot, and B) already have the full-caster excitement of gaining second level magic and having their number of spell slots double. As is Sorcerers have the single lamest second level in the game, a point at which they are almost strictly worse than Wizards.

I'd also give them a couple extra sorcery points a day, because they still need something to make them up to par in the first tier of play, I'd give them a few extra subclass spells (seriously Storm Sorcerer's need to be able to Call Lightning, it's about the most Storm Sorcerery spell there is), and I'd give them a few more spells in general. At the very least I'd make Mage Armor and Shield class abilities that spend spell slots or recharge for free on short rests or something so that they wouldn't have to spend two precious spells known just to have a viable AC. As is I always feel compelled to take a multiclass level for more first level spells or for armor in order to make Sorcerers viable, which just slows down the Sorcerer's already anemic progression and screws with the character lore.

However, I don't really buy Con casting for Sorcerers. For one thing I think the connotation of Con is wrong for most people's sense of what con means. Secondly Con has no more link to heritage than anything else in a world where one's race usually bestows particular stat bonuses. Thirdly, I like being able to decide to what extent a Sorcerer is physically weak or strong. I like their Con saving throw proficiencies because it plays well with a sort of supernatural toughness beyond their physical constraints.

Truth be told there is really no right casting stat for a Sorcerer. Their power comes from being in touch with some mystical innate magicness in their own being. Charisma and Wisdom come closest to this, neither really satisfies. I think Charisma won out because of the social skills it is the one that, in the general meaning of the word as some sort of inexplicable magnetism of personality, one is often thought of to be somehow born with. It doesn't work so well for that though in a game where Charisma is the general term for all social ability.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

First, what is wrong with Sorcerers as written? They are already a popular choice at many tables.

I think popularity is overly dependent on people liking the lore and them becoming very strong at later levels. They are easily the least effective class in the game at level 2, still lame at level 3 if you aren't playing a 15 minute adventuring day, and really don't feel worthwhile until some later level, with mileage depending on how much combat or other spellcasting situations you have a day. At the highest levels they are, of course, godlike. And no, I don't need them to be "the most powerful" per se, or even as powerful as other classes, but if metamagic is the distinctive mechanical and lore feature I want to be able to use it early and not have it be a once or twice a day thing until second tier play.

When I DM I find my Sorcerer players impatient to get to level three and "be a real Sorcerer" much more than anyone else. Well, anyone else who isn't a necromancer. And having your campaign fizzle early is a big enough bummer if you haven't just got your character to a level where you actually like them.

Which is all to say that the nostalgist in me kind of likes them as the most quadratic of all classes in 5e, but I'd have to be rolling up a high level one or know the campaign was in it for the long-haul to actually play one.

But everyone likes what they like, and mileage may vary. Nevertheless, even if you have fun with something it can be a poorly designed thing. A pure Bladesinger build isn't very effective at the frontline spellsword action they are supposed to be dedicated to since at the end of the day they have d6 hit die. They are still a strong Wizard subclass not using that anemic melee prowess because they are the nigh unhitable Wizard option with the best con saves and extra mobility. I really enjoy them, but design wise they are a hot mess.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Secondly, and more importantly, as long as Constitution give bonus HP every level, there should never be a class that uses Constitution as its primary ability score. Constitution is already the secondary or tertiary ability score for every other character, so it's obviously an important ability score already.

I don't think that argument works when you can stack so much weight on DEX or CHA, and relatively easily too.

Plus the fact that it's secondary or tertiary actually works against your argument - if that's the case, already probably 14 when the main stat is 16, and will go up after the main stat does, so it doesn't make a huge different go off CON. Again, CHA and DEX can have tons and tons of stuff stacked on them, whereas all CON does is give you a save and HP.