Sorcerer (Playtest 7)

[TwoSix]

I know there is zero chance of this for One D&D as a result of the enormous traction of "tradition," but I wish that WotC would take a step back and critically reexamine what archetypes are mechanically or thematically needed for D&D for much the same reason as you mention here. I don't think that the whole "where you get magic from" is really strong enough of a thematic difference if there is only marginal mechanical difference: e.g., spells known vs. spells prepared. IMHO, there are more robust thematic archetypes that D&D could use for its classes.

I think "magic origin" could be a possible differentiator, but it would have to be in the context of a game where the number of classes exists in the multiple dozens, not a baker's dozen.

 

[Stalker0]

One thing that flabbergasts me is the exclusion of an "elemental sorcerer" subclass. Its such a common stereotype, the "fire mage" the "ice mage". The fact that this is isn't supported by any subclass right now just floors me.

 

[Remathilis]

One thing that flabbergasts me is the exclusion of an "elemental sorcerer" subclass. Its such a common stereotype, the "fire mage" the "ice mage". The fact that this is isn't supported by any subclass right now just floors me.

We had tests of fire, water, and earth sorcerers in UA for Xanathar, but only the previously published storm/air made it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

One thing that flabbergasts me is the exclusion of an "elemental sorcerer" subclass. Its such a common stereotype, the "fire mage" the "ice mage". The fact that this is isn't supported by any subclass right now just floors me.

There's the Storm Sorcerer - but would you want an Earthbender to use the same rules as a Firebender or should they be multiple subclasses?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Mmmm... There's a level of diminishing returns round the number of spells known (which is why I dislike the warlock getting their patron spells for free). Four spells per spell level feels fine. But the sorcerer needs to know at least as many spells as the wizard can prepare at one time.

I agree with sorcerers getting about 26 spells.

I disagree with your opinions on Warlock patron spells. While, yes, there are diminishing returns, I'm so much happier being able to have those spells that are iconic and connected to your patron rather than not having them.

And I'm fine with there being at least one subclass like this.

I'd prefer every subclass has a wow factor.

A "wild magic table" that's boring and faffy is something the D&D designers have been trying to foist on us since at least the 90s. I like chaos in my magic (as in post-1e WFRP) - but not this "one size fits all table to slow the game down just for random nonsense" approach. The rest is fine but the table is the core of the subclass.

Well, I looked up alternate tables years ago, and I mix and match them. I'm far more concerned with the other abilities than the table.

I've never liked Clockwork thematically but Aberrant Psion is great. But this gives an opportunity to give feedback on the extra spells known mechanic.

Yeah, I don't mind them existing, they have some real fun thematics. I've just never looked at one and thought "That's who I want to play"

 

[Chaosmancer]

One thing that flabbergasts me is the exclusion of an "elemental sorcerer" subclass. Its such a common stereotype, the "fire mage" the "ice mage". The fact that this is isn't supported by any subclass right now just floors me.

Yeah, it is helped a little bit by some KibblesTasty elemental spells, but I'd love some actual class support for something other than "Fire"

 

[TwoSix]

There's the Storm Sorcerer - but would you want an Earthbender to use the same rules as a Firebender or should they be multiple subclasses?

I mean, ideally there would be a class like the PF/PF2 kineticist. Without that, I think there's enough differentiation in expectation that each element should have its own subclass.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Just remembered. Does anyone know why they knee-capped the new version of Distant spell? It was actually really cool with the 30 ft per level. I could actually see using that. Double the range is just... bad.

 

[Gorck]

Just remembered. Does anyone know why they knee-capped the new version of Distant spell? It was actually really cool with the 30 ft per level. I could actually see using that. Double the range is just... bad.

If I had to make a flat-out guess, I'd say they reverted back due to simpler calculation (2 x RANGE is much easier than 30 x LEVEL). Not everybody can make those computations quickly and having to whip out a calculator slows down combat.

 

[Chaosmancer]

If I had to make a flat-out guess, I'd say they reverted back due to simpler calculation (2 x RANGE is much easier than 30 x LEVEL). Not everybody can make those computations quickly and having to whip out a calculator slows down combat.

But Eldritch Spear went from the 300 ft to 30 x Level. So if it was determined that range calculation was too hard, why give it to the Warlock?

I know it is just your best guess, but I'm just struggling to make sense of the situation.