D&D 5E Spell Versatility is GONE. Rejoice!

[Minigiant]

I heard rumbling of a beta Dragon Sorcerer in the playtests that gained more and more draconic aspects as they spent sorcery points, but that whole concept was scrapped at the last possible minute to give us the Sorcerer we ended up with. I think they just went with too 'safe' a design for the Sorcerer and as a result the Wizard also suffered from that lack of differentiation. I find the Wizard terribly boring, but it's also that familiar design Wizard fans want, so, really, the Sorcerer is the one that should have been overhauled.

Also, about prep time, "Batman can beat anybody with enough time to prepare".

It was more that

1. Dragonic was a poor choice of bloodline to use to preview in a playtest as Dragon Scale and Dragon Strength are very much against the image of the 3e and 4e sorcerers.
2. They went too far with the bloodline powers and because of (1), it didn't feel like a sorcerer we knew

Basically, if they playtested a Storm Sorcerer or Shadow Sorcerer, they would have gotten more favorable freeback to build up the aspect of bloodline in the base sorcerer.

 

[MoonSong]

It was more that

1. Dragonic was a poor choice of bloodline to use to preview in a playtest as Dragon Scale and Dragon Strength are very much against the image of the 3e and 4e sorcerers.
2. They went too far with the bloodline powers and because of (1), it didn't feel like a sorcerer we knew

Basically, if they playtested a Storm Sorcerer or Shadow Sorcerer, they would have gotten more favorable freeback to build up the aspect of bloodline in the base sorcerer.

I had mixed feelings on that preview,

However, work on the sorcerer stopped not because of the preview sorcerer, but rather because at the time the brand new Neovancian casting was previewed in the cleric, and wizard players wanted it. So they somehow had to stop working on the sorcerer until wizard was "done right". Then they had the "great" idea of merging everything under Mage and wasted even more development time.

 

[MoonSong]

Sorcerers are not weak nor are they limited in utility options... relative to other classes. Relative to wizards, yes, but if we go buffing every class that feels weak next to a wizard in their current state we'll never be done.

Why compare sorcerers to wizards? Because the designers told us wizard was the baseline to compare them to. They designed with wizard as the benchmark. Parties are less likely to pick the sorcerer if given the choice between a sorcerer and a wizard.

But let's not get bogged in that comparison. A sorcerer brings very few options to a table compared to every other caster class. Even warlocks have more options thanks to invocations. And beyond four combos (two of which require divine soul or multiclassing and one which requires warlock multiclassing) there is nothing that makes the trade off worthy (I haven't gotten Tasha's yet, so I can't confirm if things get better. However if both the feat for more metamagic and the new metamagics made it it, things are going to be better, it'll just cost a feat)

Don't get me wrong, I love the class. But again, only because the flavor it brings to the table. It is despite its mechanics, not because of them. The class is very unforgiving and can be very frustrating to play. It needs a buff, but not because it isn't on par with wizards, or because it isn't even on par with every other full caster, but because the class is just on the weak side in general. Don't forget this was the least playtested class during development, and that many times when it seemed the class was good, we were just interpreting the rules wrong. (And we learned of it when the designers were quick to errata these interpretations away)

 

[SkidAce]

Who are you again? Moosesomething?

My sister was bitten by a moose....

 

[Asisreo]

Sorcerers are a clear mix of bard and wizard.

They have a condensed wizard spell list and a way to recover spell slots in a similar, yet faster version while having a charisma spellcasting ability and the same number of spells known as a bard up until level 10 (include cantrips).

They have a few unique aspects to them. Despite having the 1d6 HD of a wizard, they also have constitution saves which is something they're incentivized to put good stats into more than a wizard. They also have metamagic, which allows them to manipulate their spells in clear ways.

I feel a sorcerer being a mix between a bard and a wizard is about right. Their force of self exudes the presence of a bard while their desire to manipulate this force and optimize their powers resembles the meticulousness of a wizard.

 

[Maxperson]

My sister was bitten by a moose....

All this moose talk has me wanting to use the custom origin rules to make Bulltwinkle the bipedal Moose Man Star Circle Druid. And then give him a small squirrel companion.

 

[Micah Sweet]

See, the limited spell selection of sorcerers never bothered me, because I don't really see sorcerers so much as spellcasters as I do people with super powers. Ever since 3rd ed, to me sorcerers were "the mutant menace", a la Marvel comics. They had a limited selection of powers (which I always felt should be themed) and were born with them, which led to social issues growing up as they displayed and learned to control them. Meta magic allows sorcerers to adjust their existing powers and learn new tricks with them.

It's my head canon, but I've always had fun with it.

 

[MoonSong]

and the same number of spells known as a bard up until level 10 (include cantrips).

Not really. Bards start with more spells and learn more over these 10 levels due to magical secrets.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Sorcerers are a clear mix of bard and wizard.

They have a condensed wizard spell list and a way to recover spell slots in a similar, yet faster version while having a charisma spellcasting ability and the same number of spells known as a bard up until level 10 (include cantrips).

They have a few unique aspects to them. Despite having the 1d6 HD of a wizard, they also have constitution saves which is something they're incentivized to put good stats into more than a wizard. They also have metamagic, which allows them to manipulate their spells in clear ways.

I feel a sorcerer being a mix between a bard and a wizard is about right. Their force of self exudes the presence of a bard while their desire to manipulate this force and optimize their powers resembles the meticulousness of a wizard.

I would have given them a d8 HD, personally, but the Con save prof is really nice for a caster.

I really think that all they're missing is more metamagic options, more metamagics known, and more sorcery points. I'd say that if you add proficiency bonus to sorcery points and to number of metamagics known, the class absolutely sings like a lark.

And its not a weak class, to begin with. It's just limited enough in its spells and sorcery points and metamagics known that it feels a bit frustrating in play.

 

[Asisreo]

Not really. Bards start with more spells and learn more over these 10 levels due to magical secrets.

Bards don't get magical secrets until level 10. And when they do get this feature, the spells do count against their spells known. So a level 10 bard still only has 1 more spell-known than a sorcerer.

(This excludes the Lore Bard, which gets 2 spells known at 6th-level without taking their spells known).