D&D 5E Sorcerer spell selection

[Lerysh]

The main point here I think is it use to be the "Wizard/Sorcerer List" and now they've been separated. Clearly by intent, the sorc has a more limited selection. If you believe that selection is enough then kudos. Some don't.

4e had Wizards getting Ritual Casting at 1st level, while Sorcs had to blow a feat on it if they wanted it, but everyone was so cookie cutter same in 4e that it grew boring. I like the diversity between wizard and sorcerer, although I do wish they hadn't taken QUITE the axe to the spell list they did. They hit most the high points, but still, if I want to play a sorc who specializes in abjuration that should be a thing.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

For me, mechanically, the Sorcerer doesn't look distinct enough from the Wizard. The class just isn't very appealing. Thematically, I can understand the appeal of playing someone who's naturally gifted at magic, but in play, Sorcerers are just also-ran spellcasters, with very little flavor of their own.

 

[steeldragons]

I guess it boils down to your view on house rules. Are you a RAW warrior?

lol. Not even a little. I have changed things all of the time, for ages.

If your sorcerer player had an idea outside the box on the list, there's the spell list p. 209. And why? Because...they certainly don't warrant altering the class mechanics or spell selection to accommodate.

Right. THe player's choice was to be a sorcerer. You get the sorcerer stuff. You don't say "I want to be a sorcerer...but I want it this way and I want that too...and this over here -because concept."

You say it yourself below, it's about the toolbox.

It is not wrong to think that way. It is just different than I do. I do not say here is the tool box build within the constraints only. I would say here is the tool box and look I added on this little side pouch and the tools in there are very cool too. Build your vision, that is cool.

Whereas I see the whole point of HAVING the toolbox is to work within its constraints. By all means, get creative! I don't want to play "make believe" with unimaginative people. Think outside the box as much as you want...then work with what you have in the box to make it happen. If that means to get closest to the concept you want maybe a sorcerer isn't the best option for a class, then do that.

For me, Houserules are like porn. I know what needs 'em when I see it..and the sorcerer spell list just isn't one of those things.

If you choose to be a sorcerer, then be a sorcerer. Don't say "I have to be a sorcerer ...but I want it this way."

And IF such a fresh can of "bend the rules for meeee" worms is opened for some reason, you can bet your bottom copper piece the DM [me] is taking those worms and throwing them all over the damned place. So do be careful what you wish for.

The sorcerer is a limited version of the wizard with a few add on things. Thematically the sorcerer is unique and does have a lot of rich theme. Mechanically it is just as good as a blaster wizard and avoids all of the other stuff a wizard could do.
<space added by me for added clarity>
For me, this reinforces the idea, why not allow sorcerers to learn any spell.

Where for me, that does not logically follow at all. "Sorcerers are xyz...So it reinforces the idea, why not let Sorcerers be a-w?"

When I play D&D, I almost exclusively play wizards. This edition has tempted me to break the mold. We are still in our Age of Worms 3e game but when we play 5e and if I do not DM I will certainly play a wizard again. Tempted... but not duped. Sorcerer is second class again in this edition by RAW.

<emphasis mine.>
Right. Sooooo letting them choose any spells they want is what...pity?

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

The main point here I think is it use to be the "Wizard/Sorcerer List" and now they've been separated. Clearly by intent, the sorc has a more limited selection. If you believe that selection is enough then kudos. Some don't.

I think it would be more palatable if they had a couple of spells on their list that Wizards don't have access to.

 

[Cyan Wisp]

I think it would be more palatable if they had a couple of spells on their list that Wizards don't have access to.

Not exactly earth-shattering (apart from earthquake), but Sorcerers have Daylight(3rd), Dominate Beast (4th), Insect Plague (5th), Fire Storm (7th) and Earthquake (8th), which are not on the Wizzies list.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Not exactly earth-shattering (apart from earthquake), but Sorcerers have Daylight(3rd), Dominate Beast (4th), Insect Plague (5th), Fire Storm (7th) and Earthquake (8th), which are not on the Wizzies list.

Really? Well, I wasn't aware of that. Just ignore me, I don't know what I'm talking about.

 

[EroGaki]

I think it would be more palatable if they had a couple of spells on their list that Wizards don't have access to.

I think they get one: Enhance Ability.

 

[Lerysh]

Pretty sure Wizards get Enhance Ability.

 

[Sadrik]

For me, Houserules are like porn. I know what needs 'em when I see it..and the sorcerer spell list just isn't one of those things.

For me house rules are not just errata at the table. I will set up a house rules document to go for a feel I am looking for in the campaign. There may be some errata type house rules in there but mostly looking for a theme. My 3e house rules document has a lot of changes to classes to allow the classes to gain more options. Example: rogue features become feats and rogue gains a crap load of feats. We appear to approach house rules differently.

If you choose to be a sorcerer, then be a sorcerer. Don't say "I have to be a sorcerer ...but I want it this way."

And IF such a fresh can of "bend the rules for meeee" worms is opened for some reason, you can bet your bottom copper piece the DM [me] is taking those worms and throwing them all over the damned place. So do be careful what you wish for.

Your sense is do as the designers say. They know best. If you had a player who was set on the theme of innate prodigy and wanted to have a spell not on the list because it made sense to them to have that you would say no, and further you would say I bend the rules for no one.

Where for me, that does not logically follow at all. "Sorcerers are xyz...So it reinforces the idea, why not let Sorcerers be a-w?"

This will not assuage you but it does follow the logic. Sorcerer = sub-par in many areas (they are an adequate blaster), so therefore one solution to bring them up to par in some missing areas is to grant them access to potentially learning every spell. This is not the only solution of course but it makes a good deal of sense from the theme angle.

 

[MonkeezOnFire]

I'm a little torn between the side of me that appreciates flavor and the side of me that appreciates fairness in game balance.

On one hand it makes sense that the sorcerer gets access to less spells than the wizard. A farm boy with access to magic probably has no idea who Tenser or Bigby or Mordenkainen are so why would they be able to access their spells? To me these spells feel like they have a history, requiring more elegance or finesse with magic to develop. The sorcerer bends magic through sheer force of their will, so they don't have the knowledge of the mechanics of magic to make these spells work (of course YMMV, this is just the way I've always thought about sorcerers).

On the other hand I agree that on paper the sorcerer class seems lacking. I haven't played with a sorcerer so I can't speak from experience on this, but there's no reason I would pick a sorcerer over a wizard. Less spell selection, a laughable number of spells learned over the course of your career, and lackluster archetype features.

I wouldn't give a sorcerer in my game any extra buffs from the start, instead choosing to watch and see how they perform. If the player feels the class is underwhelming I'd probably work with the player to come up with some kind of solution. Maybe access to some of the druid or cleric spells to help differentiate from the wizard.