D&D 5E Sorcerer Changes

[Redwizard007]

All analysis of the Sorcerer I've ever seen, including my own, together with my experience of them in play. There was some claim that on GitP they "believed otherwise", but searching that found nothing, so if there is stuff that's showing how the Sorcerer is actually solid-to-amazing rather than "meh" I wait to see it.

Why Ever use Sorcerer

I was thinking about the sorcerer class and how it needs to be fixed and then I thought why even bother going sorcerer in the first place. There are already other good spellcasting classes like Bard or wizard. What makes it worth it to go sorcerer as opposed to wizard. Wizard has more spell...

forums.giantitp.com

This would be a small sample. It basically boils down to their ability never be counter spelled and to nova so much harder than wizards. Sorry for the delay. Mother's day stuff

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Why Ever use Sorcerer

I was thinking about the sorcerer class and how it needs to be fixed and then I thought why even bother going sorcerer in the first place. There are already other good spellcasting classes like Bard or wizard. What makes it worth it to go sorcerer as opposed to wizard. Wizard has more spell...

forums.giantitp.com

This would be a small sample. It basically boils down to their ability never be counter spelled and to nova so much harder than wizards. Sorry for the delay. Mother's day stuff

No worries re: delay, I'm not on the clock! That is literally a thread that came about because Sorcerers aren't very good (which many people in it seem to agree with), with some extremely bad arguments about niche stuff they can do which as you boils down to:

A) Silent spell on spells when you're unseen/invisible (or the spell has no Somatic component) is impossible to Counterspell.

To which I would respond, how many times, exactly, in your entire adventuring career in 5E, have you been counterspelled? Because in my group, over what hundreds or thousands of encounters, it's twice. Ever.

To say that is thus "niche" would be a gross understatement. We're talking something applicable to far less than 1% of fights. It has more applicability outside combat, but very little that can't be accessed other ways.

B) You can nova really hard.

To which I say, yeah, with a 5MWD. Everyone who has daily spell slots is an absolute menace in a 5MWD. 5MWDs do happen in some campaigns - but 5E is not intended to be balanced in such situations.

The only strong non-5MWD example is a SorLock, which yes, is a strong MC combo (because it solves the "can't do much damage with cantrips" issue Sorcerers have), but isn't a Sorcerer (and using CON as the Sorcerer stat would make SorLocks less viable, not more).

Even several of the people offering ways Sorcerers aren't rubbish also feel the need to say they "have issues" or the like! And the vast majority of people saying "metamagic is great!" have zero examples (I mean literally give no examples, at all). Several people cast some doubt on Sorcerers generally. And I dunno if I need to go through all the pages or what, but I'm not seeing anything where, even with hyperbole, anyone is saying anything remotely like:

I feel obligated to direct you to another forum involving giants and playgrounds where they swear up and down about how incredibly OP sorcerers are, and how anyone playing a wizard has some sort of mental handicap.

Like, maybe this isn't the thread you meant. But the thread you've linked is just people pushing a few somewhat dubious situational things Sorcerers can do. Metamagic is sadly largely unimpressive (esp. compared to 3.XE), particularly if you actually follow the rules (which admittedly a lot of people do not, but my groups tend to). A couple of people claim they become much better in T3/4 when they have more Sorcery points, but also people in the thread claim they're still behind other casters in those Play-Tiers. So... I'm not saying this "you'd have to be dumb to play a Wizard!".

Again though, Sorcerers aren't "trash" or anything, they're just a bit "meh" in terms of actual capabilities. SorLocks are a goddamn menace though.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Rangers, ‘play’ pretty well at the table, like sorcerers.

I dunno. Post-Class Feature Variant they do. We didn't ever have a Ranger before that, because everyone avoided them like the plague, but the Class Feature Variants make them very solid, even exciting to play.

Hypnotic Pattern combined with Careful Spell, is a great combo....and the warlock class amply demonstrates that a class that basically consists of spamming killer combos can be effective.

The best status effect for your enemies to have is dead, which is what Warlocks deliver in spades, with terrifying EB+AB+Hex blasting.

Hypnotic Pattern is available to all Arcane casters. Most of the time you can cast it without nailing your allies anyway, so you don't need Careful Spell. This is another good example of a niche situation being presented as a norm to try and make Sorcerer metamagic not look weak (and given how few metamagics Sorcerers have, and the other choices, many/most Sorcerers won't have Careful Spell, especially not at lower levels).

That's not a "killer combo" the way EB+AB+Hex is. Which y'know, literally kills people, and gets rolling at Level 1 or 2, depending on how vital you think AB is, and is used every single encounter. Instead starting at a dead minimum of 5th, when you can use it twice per adventuring day, rather than many rounds in every fight (you can't initially use Hex in every fight, admittedly, but it gets there). More importantly, Hypnotic Pattern isn't a Sorcerer-specific spell. So it's not even your "thing". That's just careful spell - so you can place it more carelessly - but that, in my experience, will rarely be necessary.

 

[Redwizard007]

Oh, I'm sorry. I'm not arguing that any of what was posted is "right" or "wrong." If I gave you that impression then I apologize. What I am saying is that the assertion that sorcerors are in need of a fix because there is a problem with the class AND THAT THIS IS A POPULAR AND ACCEPTED VIEW is rubbish.

Edit: auto correct got me

 

[Ruin Explorer]

What I am saying is that the assertion that sorcerors are in need of a fix because there is a problem with the class AND THAT THIS IS A POPULAR AND ACCEPTED VIEW is rubbish.

And yet it is literally the premise of the thread you quoted, and many people in the thread agree with it, including people offering reasons you might play a Sorcerer.

So you've disproven your own claim there. It clearly is a popular and accepted view. It's not the only viewpoint, sure, but there are people out there who claim LF/QW isn't real, and will claim it to their dying day. I've never suggested that it's the only view.

 

[Redwizard007]

And yet it is literally the premise of the thread you quoted, and many people in the thread agree with it, including people offering reasons you might play a Sorcerer.

So you've disproven your own claim there. It clearly is a popular and accepted view. It's not the only viewpoint, sure, but there are people out there who claim LF/QW isn't real, and will claim it to their dying day.

I'm guessing you aren't used to people calling you on your naughty word. Did you read the post? It was a crap-storm of the "Sorcerer is too powerful because..." and an equal whine-fest of "nuh-uh, its too weak," all wrapped up in a nice big bow "zero consensus."

Thats the point you refuse to admit. There is zero consensus on if the Sorcerer needs adjustment and further, there is zero consensus among those who DO feel it needs adjustment on what that adjustment should be and why. Go back and read the first page of comments in THIS thread its obvious.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm guessing you aren't used to people calling you on your naughty word. Did you read the post? It was a crap-storm of the "Sorcerer is too powerful because..." and an equal whine-fest of "nuh-uh, its too weak," all wrapped up in a nice big bow "zero consensus."

Thats the point you refuse to admit. There is zero consensus on if the Sorcerer needs adjustment and further, there is zero consensus among those who DO feel it needs adjustment on what that adjustment should be and why. Go back and read the first page of comments in THIS thread its obvious.

Well that's extremely rude, and it feels like you didn't actually read my post.

I read the first two pages of that thread, and the last one. This whole "zero consensus" thing you're insulting me about is meaningless, because you could argue that about literally anything in D&D (as we frequently see). There's clearly some agreement that sorcerers aren't as strong as other classes. As I said, even several of the people offering reasons you might want to play a sorcerer, mechanically, note that it has serious problems.

Obviously there's no complete consensus. There isn't about anything in D&D. That's a completely unreasonable bar, and if you're saying that I said there was, you're simply lying about what I've said. I'm saying that it's a common belief, and one that is not unreasonable to have, that Sorcerers are a bit sub-par for a full caster. It is also one that is fairly easy to support (given the claim is merely "sub-par", as in "below average" not "trash" or something extreme). The too-limited spell list and lack of spells known is the main issue - didn't you yourself say this might be seen as a genuine concern?

What I can't see any examples of in that thread are:

the "Sorcerer is too powerful because..."

Where in that thread, specifically, are the posts that say the Sorcerer is "too powerful" in a broad sense (i.e. not in one niche situation). I couldn't find a single such post. I already asked a similar question once. If you fail to answer this again, after insulting me about this, I will regard that as the end of my discussions with you and as an admission that the posts don't actually exist. So please, if people actually said that, point out the posts.

 

[TwoSix]

Thats the point you refuse to admit. There is zero consensus on if the Sorcerer needs adjustment and further, there is zero consensus among those who DO feel it needs adjustment on what that adjustment should be and why. Go back and read the first page of comments in THIS thread its obvious.

You don't need consensus to get a feel for the conventional wisdom. The CW is that sorcerer is on the weaker side. Nobody jumps in and says the paladin is underpowered the same way they do for the sorcerer. It's quite possible to understand broad social trends while disagreeing or only agreeing in part with them.

For me, personally, I like the sorcerer (I played one for 2 years up to 16th level), but I can also agree that they're on the weaker end for full casters. Personally, I'd rather not see them get more spells (as metamagic gets more useful the more spells you have); I'd rather see them get more thematic spells, as well as more metamagic purchases and a broader menu of what "metamagic" could be used for. More of a menu of ways to spend sorcery points, similar to what invocations offer to warlocks.

 

[Guest 6801328]

You don't need consensus to get a feel for the conventional wisdom. The CW is that sorcerer is on the weaker side. Nobody jumps in and says the paladin is underpowered the same way they do for the sorcerer. It's quite possible to understand broad social trends while disagreeing or only agreeing in part with them.

For me, personally, I like the sorcerer (I played one for 2 years up to 16th level), but I can also agree that they're on the weaker end for full casters. Personally, I'd rather not see them get more spells (as metamagic gets more useful the more spells you have); I'd rather see them get more thematic spells, as well as more metamagic purchases and a broader menu of what "metamagic" could be used for. More of a menu of ways to spend sorcery points, similar to what invocations offer to warlocks.

I know I've seen a lot of posts saying Sorcerers are weak. And...

• It's not clear to me that it's a lot of different posters. It could be the same people beating one of their favorite drums. Even if it's 20 people...that would feel like a lot, but it's only 20 people who are motivated to post about it.
• In general I don't assume that the sentiments of Enworld zealots echo the sentiments of the larger community, or that they are more valid. (C.f. Champion.)
• A lot of the specific complaints I see are hard to quantify and thus hard to defend/refute.
• It would not be unprecedented to find somebody trying to make a logical argument out of their aesthetic preference.

Now, having played Sorcerers I'll agree that, for some reason, they aren't a lot of fun. At least, the subclasses I've played. (I have yet to play a Shadow Sorcerer...that has some potential, at least when the Hound is up.). I will readily agree that the Sorcerer should have been more distinct from the Wizard than it is, in more interesting ways.

But underpowered? I'm not convinced.

 

[jgsugden]

You don't need consensus to get a feel for the conventional wisdom.

So people rampantly disagreeing can still mean there is clear conventional wisdom? It literally means that there is a generally accepted theory or belief. That is pretty much a consensus - a general agreement between people.

The CW is that sorcerer is on the weaker side. Nobody jumps in and says the paladin is underpowered the same way they do for the sorcerer.

Paladin is likely overpowered. However, that does not make sorcerer underpowered.

It's quite possible to understand broad social trends while disagreeing or only agreeing in part with them.

For me, personally, I like the sorcerer (I played one for 2 years up to 16th level), but I can also agree that they're on the weaker end for full casters.

I've played 2 sorcerers. The DMs complained both were overpowered.[/quote] Personally, I'd rather not see them get more spells (as metamagic gets more useful the more spells you have); I'd rather see them get more thematic spells, as well as more metamagic purchases and a broader menu of what "metamagic" could be used for. More of a menu of ways to spend sorcery points, similar to what invocations offer to warlocks.
[/QUOTE]There is room to add another spellcasting class with a different structure, but there is no reason to nuke this version of the sorcerer.

All classes in 5E are intended to have limitations. Limitations only matter if they are felt. You feel the limited spell list of the sorcerer a lot. It requires players to be a bit inventive in how they use their spells. That is a feature, not a bug, of the sorcerer. While sorcerer remains a great class to multiclass into for 3 levels to steal the metamagic feats, it is also a great class to play all the way through.

People will disagree. I know differing groups of people that complain about the rogue, barbarian, ranger, artificer, monk, fighter, cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard, and bard - all claiming that a class is underpowered because of reasons that make sense to them. In truth, I can build hyper efficient PCs in any of these classes using RAW. I can also build less efficient, but very fun, versions of these classes that I'd revel in playing for 20 levels. That, inherently, tells me that they are not bad designs.