D&D 5E (2014) Sorcerer vs. Wizard: Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better?

[Mistwell]

Even if it seems more powerful at first or second glance... I'm of the opinion you're probably still better off trying it and using it so you actually have a Warlord at your disposal in your game, rather than not using it and waiting hope against hope that WotC gets around to it. After all... in the years it would take for you to finally see a WotC-designed Warlord get published, you and your tables could be running and playtesting the Level Up Marshal and balancing it as needed as you go along. Heck, in truth you'd probably get it balanced for your table's needs way before WotC will actually get around to releasing theirs.

So if having a Warlord is really such a big deal to you and your game... I say don't wait! Take what's available and run with it. (Same holds true for any Psion or Arcane-Half-Caster stans out there.)

It's obviously not a big deal to me. It's on my want list, but it's not on my must-have list or else I wouldn't have been playing without one all these years and would have just made one up.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's obviously not a big deal to me. It's on my want list, but it's not on my must-have list or else I wouldn't have been playing without one all these years and would have just made one up.

Since you said you didn't read closely, I want to note that Level Up characters make meaningful choices at every "level up". Many of the abilities you were looking at are either/or.

 

[Mistwell]

Since you said you didn't read closely, I want to note that Level Up characters make meaningful choices at every "level up". Many of the abilities you were looking at are either/or.

Yeah I got that. It's basically a caster disguised as a melee character.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah I got that. It's basically a caster disguised as a melee character.

Except they don't use magic. What's your definition of a melee character?

 

[Mistwell]

Except they don't use magic. What's your definition of a melee character?

Yes it's a non-magical spellcaster class. Spellcaster meaning a class operating essentially off a slot system which increases with levels, and the slots are used to use a power which controls something, or damages something, or heals something, etc... This just looks like a melee based non-magic spellcaster. Which to me was not the Warlord and which is not the same as a melee character like a barbarian.

 

[cbwjm]

Yes it's a non-magical spellcaster class. Spellcaster meaning a class operating essentially off a slot system which increases with levels, and the slots are used to use a power which controls something, or damages something, or heals something, etc... This just looks like a melee based non-magic spellcaster. Which to me was not the Warlord and which is not the same as a melee character like a barbarian.

Considering the warlord came out in 4e, they were most definitely a non magical spellcaster, because everyone was a spellcaster with limit "slots" in the way of encounter and daily powers.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Some thought-provoking questions to consider:

• If you gave them the same exact spell list, spellcasting ability score, and/or skill/weapon/armor proficiency list, would they still be different? How?
• If you took a subclass out of one and dumped it in the other, would it still work? Does it still make sense?
• How would you help someone who has never played D&D before choose between these classes?
• How often does the difference come up in play? In what situations would it be clear that the class is different? In what situations would they do basically the same thing?
• If you were to make them MORE THE SAME how would you do it? If you were to make them MORE DIFFERENT how would you do it?
• Would a member of one class with a different race/background be the same as the member of another class? (Ie: is a sorcerer who took the Scholar background basically doing the same thing as a wizard? Or is a wizard with the Noble background the same thing as a Sorcerer?)

1. Yes, I think they would. Metamagic is a bit slim, but still solid, and 5.5e added Innate Sorcery which very much helps (and makes Sorcerers feel more aggressive than Wizards). Subclass features could be flavored as Wizard school effects, but many are a bit scattershot relative to Wizard schools and thus would be hard to justify within the 5e school conception.
2. No. Several are specifically connected to metamagic. Can't really do metamagic stuff if the metamagic feature isn't present.
3. Boil it down to their two most distinct characteristics each. "Wizards are very smart, and can learn a LOT of spells even if they can't cast them all the time. Sorcerers are very charming, and can make significant tweaks to the smaller number of spells they learn."
4. Intelligence vs Charisma is certainly a big difference, but metamagic as an alternative option (which you can invest as little or as much as you want into) is very helpful, while spell schools are...often limited, but you paid that limitation in order to have a (potentially) vast library to draw from.
5. More the same? Give Wizards metamagic and beef up Sorcerers by having actual class features that involve bonus spells or free spellcasting. More different? Make their spell lists more innately distinct (non-Evoker Wizards would have fewer direct damage spells and those spells would be less versatile e.g. no chromatic orb). Give Wizards ACTUAL class features that represent their hybrid "Hermetic enlightenment-seeker"/"member of a collaborating academic community" nature. Rework the existing Sorcerer to be more like the playtest Sorcerer, which was AWESOME.
6. A Sorcerer with the Scholar background isn't really any more like a Wizard because Wizards don't actually have features that meaningfully give them scholarly elements, they just have high Intelligence. If being a Scholar makes a Sorcerer into a Wizard, then being a Scholar makes any spellcaster into a Wizard--and nobody seems to be making claims that Lore Bars are coming to replace our Wizards. Conversely, a high-Cha background like Entertainer does cover a bit of turning a Wizard into a Sorcerer, but it's not really very thematic. (The issue, here, is more that both classes did not get enough mechanics to back up their flavor, not that the two archetypes are too similar.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

Considering the warlord came out in 4e, they were most definitely a non magical spellcaster, because everyone was a spellcaster with limit "slots" in the way of encounter and daily powers.

Yeah, if that's your definition, 4e was all spellcasters.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Considering the warlord came out in 4e, they were most definitely a non magical spellcaster, because everyone was a spellcaster with limit "slots" in the way of encounter and daily powers.

Oh god, not this old chestnut again.

Suffice it to say this is an extremely controversial take.

 

[cbwjm]

Oh god, not this old chestnut again.

Suffice it to say this is an extremely controversial take.

Whether you agree or not, the fact that all powers, no matter the class were fire and forget made them all similar to casters in previous editions. Doesn't matter that they might recharge after an encounter or a day, it all seemed like casters.