D&D (2024) The sorcerer shouldn't exist

[Undrave]

I think the NEXT playlets Sorcerer would have been far more interesting.

This conception more or less only makes sense in the context of Dungeons & Dragons and games that ape its style.

Most conceptions of magic in fantasy-themed media, especially so far in the 21st century, go the other way 'round. If anything, it's sorcerers and warlocks that best fit the archetypes of magic-users, and wizards that are the bland and increasingly unjustified archetype.

Of course, to my mind the game is big enough to fit all three conceptions of an arcane or arcane-adjacent spellcaster.

Down with the Wizard and its bizarre book hogging all the Spell slinging.

You know, looking at the Order of the Stick prequels, it occurs to me that there's a decent model there for the sorcerer/wizard divide:

Planning doesn't matter. Strategy doesn't matter. Only two things matter: Force in as great a concentration as you can manage, and style. And in a pinch, style can slide. Energy Drain!

In any battle, there's always a level of force against which no tactics can succeed. For example, all I need to do is keep smacking you with Energy Drains, and soon you won't be able to cast any of your fancy spells at all. Energy Drain!

Because yes, I am a sorcerer -- and this magic is in my bones, not cribbed off of "Magic for Dummies". And I can keep casting the same friggin' spell at you until you roll over and die. You can have your finely-crafted watch -- give me the sledgehammer to the face any day. ENERGY DRAIN!

That should be how it feels to play a sorcerer, IMO.

Then the question is how to accomplish it. In 3E, wizards had plenty of spell slots; their ability to "cast the same friggin' spell at you until you roll over and die" was limited by what they had prepared. In 5E, neo-Vancian gives them more flexible casting, but they are tightly constrained by spell slots at the higher levels. So sorcerers' signature power ought to be generating more spell slots at X level than the wizard... which leads us to either beefing up Font of Magic and making it the primary focus of the class, or a full-fledged spell point model. I know they got negative feedback on spell points in the runup to 5E, but that was ten years ago; it might be worth revisiting.

It's almost closer to a Warlock...hmm...

 

[Neonchameleon]

I agree the wizard looks pretty boring storywise compared to the sorcerer and warlock nowadays. Its story is a relic from a different era of fantasy writing and Gary Gygax' gamist effort to make a class with truly impressive magic and strong limitations on using it. But the spells have been downgraded since that time, and the limitations have been diluted to ribbons.

The ability to have unlimited spells known, and to invent new spells are still key to the class. But "inventing spells" should be much more flexible than the pseudo-metamagic Modify Spell. I think the new ability to swap out prepared spells during the day is actually a pretty exciting addition to the class.

Agreed on all points. But I'd say that "the ability to have unlimited spells known, and to invent new spells" are perfect as the subclass gimmicks for a sorcerer subclass.

I'd also say that "the ability to have unlimited spells known" actively dilutes most of the wizard subclasses, like the Illusionist and the necromancer. And that's why I want them demoted to a subclass; their class being a class actively undermines the theme of almost all their subclasses. Not that it will ever happen.

With this line of thinking, as much as I love to play them, why should Barbarians exist? The Barbarian is just a Fighter that wears less armor and has anger management issues.

Because it's no longer 2007. The Barbarian is the primally empowered class, almost a martial mirror to the sorcerer. That person who got hit by the lightning at the heart of the century storm? If empowers them magically they are a sorcerer, if they channel its power into their body they are a barbarian. One of the many many improvements 4e made to the lore was to enable barbarians and sorcerers to strike out on their own rather than just be there.

Or why should Paladins exist? A Paladin is just a War Domain Cleric prone to Proselytizing.

No they aren't. Again it's no longer 2007.

 

[Stalker0]

Well, I can't speak for anyone else... but for me the reason is simple-- NO D&D mechanics adequately represent flavor. So the Sorcerer is no different than any other class and why I don't really care.

I mean, what is "Rage"? A +2 to damage, resistance to regular weapons, and advantage on STR checks and saves. Now to me, I see those three features and they do not in any way, shape or form denote ANY sort of "anger-based" ability in my opinion. Sure, if you squint real hard and also remember that this is what Rage has kinda always been... we all accept that yeah, this is what "Rage" for a barbarian is... but they're not, really. +2 to damage, damage resistance, and you can do STR things better? That could easily mean you are done up in a set of magical armor like a D&D Iron Man. You could be a polymorphed or wildshaped big animal. You could be a martial artist. There's any number of characterizations or identities that those three numeric functions could represent. We just happen to have decided "Oh yeah, those three abilities in conjunction mean that this character has gotten really, really, REALLY mad."

I have had several players at my table try out the barbarian, and all of them agree. On paper, the barb looks pretty meh, in play its incredilbe.

I've watched normally reserved players go buck wild playing a barbarian, just screaming, tearing things to bits. The mechanics all work together brilliantly.

Reckless Attack: I am encouraged to go wild, and let people hit me while I tear into them.
Half Damage: Allows me to throw myself into situations no sane person would....and come out the other side.
Rage: Advantge on strength checks makes you a grappling machine, and I've watched many a barb just wrestle an opponent into submission.

The barb mechanics actually evokes an incredible flavor in actual play, and all of my players who have played or seen one in action agree.


But the sorc...I've had a few players play a sorc, and none of them were impressed. Its not that its wasnt' powerful enough, it just wasn't interesting. They didn't feel any of the "raw innate power", it was just a simple spellcaster with some metamagic things.

 

[Mecheon]

(I know the Wizard Necromancer is a thing historically in D&D, but instead, I would rather the Warlock and Cleric get all of the necromancy stuff. In this context, "necromancy" includes Undead, Fiend, and Aberration. Typically, the Warlock is bargaining with the necromantic beings and Cleric is combating them, but the reverse can be true.)

The necromantic wizard is a thing in fiction, so its something they should be able to do ingame, probably moreso than the other schools. They study forgotten magics to bring back the dead or break them down, its not dealing with necromantic beings like what a warlock would do.

Its always been a failing of D&D that clerics have a better time being the ones commanding hordes of undead than wizards as that's, basically the opposite of how the fiction goes. Heck, if anything, I'd be kneecapping necromancy focused clerics. That's a pure D&Dism

 

[Yaarel]

The necromantic wizard is a thing in fiction, so its something they should be able to do ingame, probably moreso than the other schools. They study forgotten magics to bring back the dead or break them down, its not dealing with necromantic beings like what a warlock would do.

Its always been a failing of D&D that clerics have a better time being the ones commanding hordes of undead than wizards as that's, basically the opposite of how the fiction goes. Heck, if anything, I'd be kneecapping necromancy focused clerics. That's a pure D&Dism

There are many kinds of magic in fiction.

In old school D&D, the Wizard (1e Magic-User or 2e Mage) did all of them. The Wizard was the "every kind of magic" class. It was literally the class used for concepts like "warlock", "sorcerer", "wizard", "witch", and so on. For example, some of the old school Githyanki Wizards were called "warlocks". If it was a magic concept at all, then the 1e "Magic-User" did it.

But in new school D&D, the Wizard has evolved and radiated into separate classes. Today, the Players Handbook "mages" include: Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, and Bard. Really Cleric and Druid are also mages in the sense of competent full casters.

It is now a problem if the Wizard class does every kind of magic. Some of the "Magic-User" tradition should split away to inform and flavor the other full caster classes.

When thinking about what themes and tropes make the Wizard a "wizard", I feel the salient themes are: Evocation, Transmutation, Illusion, plus force effects.

 

[Gorck]

Because it's no longer 2007. The Barbarian is the primally empowered class, almost a martial mirror to the sorcerer. That person who got hit by the lightning at the heart of the century storm? If empowers them magically they are a sorcerer, if they channel its power into their body they are a barbarian. One of the many many improvements 4e made to the lore was to enable barbarians and sorcerers to strike out on their own rather than just be there.

No they aren't. Again it's no longer 2007.

I wasn’t even remotely being serious with those two examples. They were highly steeped in sarcasm. If you can’t tell by my avatar, I love playing Barbarians (and Paladins are much more tolerable in 5e than they were in 3e).

 

[Neonchameleon]

I have had several players at my table try out the barbarian, and all of them agree. On paper, the barb looks pretty meh, in play its incredilbe.

I've watched normally reserved players go buck wild playing a barbarian, just screaming, tearing things to bits. The mechanics all work together brilliantly.

Reckless Attack: I am encouraged to go wild, and let people hit me while I tear into them.
Half Damage: Allows me to throw myself into situations no sane person would....and come out the other side.
Rage: Advantge on strength checks makes you a grappling machine, and I've watched many a barb just wrestle an opponent into submission.

The barb mechanics actually evokes an incredible flavor in actual play, and all of my players who have played or seen one in action agree.


But the sorc...I've had a few players play a sorc, and none of them were impressed. Its not that its wasnt' powerful enough, it just wasn't interesting. They didn't feel any of the "raw innate power", it was just a simple spellcaster with some metamagic things.

A big part of this I think is level and how the different classes scale. None of the casters really feel good at low level. Also the barb feels great at low level but that half damage falls off hard. It's a great class at up to level 5 but it (and the fighter) fall off hard after that.

The sorcerer I agree could be far better. So could most other classes (and they've homogenised the warlock in the playtest)

 

[Neonchameleon]

I wasn’t even remotely being serious with those two examples. They were highly steeped in sarcasm. If you can’t tell by my avatar, I love playing Barbarians (and Paladins are much more tolerable in 5e than they were in 3e).

Sorry. It's just something I have seen people seriously say, so didn't spot you weren't being. Mea culpa.

 

[Stalker0]

A big part of this I think is level and how the different classes scale. None of the casters really feel good at low level. Also the barb feels great at low level but that half damage falls off hard. It's a great class at up to level 5 but it (and the fighter) fall off hard after that.

The sorcerer I agree could be far better. So could most other classes (and they've homogenised the warlock in the playtest)

You've never seen sleep at 1st level have you?

Also I have seen a barbarian played at 20th level, and they had a blast. They literally ran up to a lich with a staff of power, grabbed it like it was a toothpick, snapped it, and took the raw force damage right in the face, not even carring. The lich died, the barb stayed standing

Honestly indomitable might is insanely good. An automatic 24 athletics check basically means you can immobilize or restrain anything in the game that you want, no save needed. The barb in question just sat on a pit fiend and then started beating it to death while the rest of the party joined in with advantage. Not to mention the time he got a potion of storm giants strength

Now I will never say that a barb can alter the battlefield like a high level wizard can, but people really underestimate how fun it is:

• To be nigh unkillable.
• To be able to walk around and apply a condition to things at-will with practically no save.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You've never seen sleep at 1st level have you?

The spell that on an only slightly below average roll I've seen fail to affect more than three kobolds? One of whom was immediately slapped awake? Yeah, I've seen it.

Also I have seen a barbarian played at 20th level, and they had a blast. They literally ran up to a lich with a staff of power, grabbed it like it was a toothpick, snapped it, and took the raw force damage right in the face, not even carring. The lich died, the barb stayed standing

Honestly indomitable might is insanely good. An automatic 24 athletics check basically means you can immobilize or restrain anything in the game that you want, no save needed. The barb in question just sat on a pit fiend and then started beating it to death while the rest of the party joined in with advantage. Not to mention the time he got a potion of storm giants strength

To be fair I've not seen L18 play. And most of the barbarians I've seen have dropped after about level 6. And that sounds exceptionally specific and I have to ask how the barbarian got the extra action (one to grab the staff and one to break it).