Mecheon
Sacabambaspis
In my defence that thread also does get like, 30 pages a day so its a littttle hard to keep up with the current topic there at times
D&D (2024) The sorcerer shouldn't exist
Yes, that's kinda my point. It doesn't matter what "fluff" that sorcerer has if the mechanics are pretty much anewgame+ version of basically the entire wizard spell list plus a few extra nonspell features to make up for losing access to gems like wall of sand magical aura & faithful hound. For whatever reason wotc built the 5e sorcerer substituting almost every worthwhile wizard spell for "arcane caster" & then gave the sorcerer a bunch of extra features to make up for losing access to gems like wall of sand. That's kinda my point.
As long as that remains true the sorcerer has lost any reason to exit as a base class rather than subclass
Mecheon
Sacabambaspis
I disagree entirely. If we were deleting classes based on not having interesting mechanics, then Barbarian and Bard wouldn't have made it past 1E and Monk wouldn't have lasted past 3E, but those are three absolute mainstays of the game at this point that you can't just sub-class away.
The game not managing to express a class mechanically well in one edition isn't justification for removing its fluff potential and shoving it in another class, none of which hit anything approaching the themes of the sorcerer. Sorcerer was mechanically fine in 4E, and its fluff is still absolutely strong enough to justify its continued inclusion
I don't believe that my post had anything to do with if they had "interesting" mechanics or not. Can you point me to what part of the last couple posts I wrote that was so misleading? Wizard but hot is a wizard subclass not a full class.
MoonSong
Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
But you are making a categorical mistake. Sorcerer isn't Wizard but hot. Wizard is Sorcerer but
Mecheon
Sacabambaspis
You're saying "Ditch the sorcerer because the mechanics aren't great". I'm pointing out previous classes that had downright disruptive mechanics to the game (Barbarian's whole no magic items and go after other party members BS) or just didn't work on a mechanically equal level to the same classes (Monk infamously being the weakest of the PHB classes in 3E)
Sorcerers are not "wizards but hot". Wizards are book studiers who glean magic through study and knowledge. Sorcerers are born with inherant magic and don't need to study to gain more magic, they don't use books, they don't even use the same stats. How are they the same thing?
You're saying it wrong.
WotC's mechanics for the sorcerer has no reason to exist.
WotC's lore for the sorcerer has a good reason to exist.
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
For anyone who isn't familiar with the taco commercial, "¿Por qué no los dos?" means "Why not both?" (literally "Why not the two?")
Nothing saying the conversation can't be about both not letting the Fighter have nice things and enforcing that whatever nice things the Fighter gets have to be supernatural.
Vaalingrade
Legend
Forcing everything fantastical to be magical is not a nice thing.
What difference does that make? The lore doesn't matter if the mechanics are using"wizard but x" instead and wotc is not willing to build a class with mechanics matching that lore. Until WotC is willing to build sorcerer mechanically for that lore instead of building a wizard subclass into a base class there is no reason for sorcerer to be wasting page space in the next edition.
