D&D 5E The Soul of the Sorcerer

[Minigiant]

Flavorwise, we know what the sorcerer is. The sorcerer is a magic user with inherent spellcasting granted by a magical bloodline, gift, or phenomenon.

However I find that some people disagree with how the flavor translates to mechanics. I see this happening partly from how the class changed a bit in the 3 editions of its existences as well as the classes it absorbed: wild mage, favored soul.

But I also see the differences in view coming from the differences of view of how people seeing how D&D magic works.

Sorcerer as the natural wizard.
Some people see the sorcerer as just as as an alternate version of the wizard. A natural spellcaster. This is 3rd edition's influence. The sorcerer in in mindset should have almost identically spell access as the wizard but a smaller pool of known spells. In this eye, the sorcerer learns magic spells differently in a process that takes longer but doesn't need refreshers from spellbooks.

Harold the Fantastic spells at level 1:
light, mage hand, ray of frost, prestidigitation,
magic missile, fog cloud

Sorcerer as the arcane striker.
Some see the sorcerer as a "striker" primarily. This view is heavily 4th and 5th edition influenced. In this eye, the sorcerer controls raw magical energy. However without the rigidness of wizard formulas, the sorcerer can most only channel it as energy attacks and magical influence. In this mindset, the sorcerer would not have the same list of the wizard but have most of the attack and charm spells of every class list.

Mad Maggie's spells at level 1
acid splash, fire bolt, light, shocking grasp,
magic missile, shield

Sorcerer as the thematic blaster.
There is a school of though that the theme comes first for the sorcerer. This is heavily 4th edition based but some comes from 3rd as well. In this view, the sorcerer is heavily influenced by their origin. The silver dragon sorcerer uses cold spells, paralysis spells, and flight spells. The wild mage uses chaotic spells. the favored soul of the god of life sues radiant spells and healing spells. In this viewpoint, the sorcerer would have features that heavily incentive spells of the theme or grant them for free.

Smith, Son of the Storm's spells at level 1
gust, light, thunderclap, shocking grasp,
burning hands, fog cloud (bonus), thunderwave (bonus), witchbolt,

Sorcerer as the blunt hammer.
In the final view, the sorcerer is defined by what he or she isn't: a wizard. The wizard is a toolboox. The sorcerer is just a hammer. But it's the best hammer ever. This is heavily based on metamagic and thus influenced by the editions with them. In this mindset the sorcerer makes due with what they have and what they learned. The door is burned down with burning hands over unlocked with knock as the sorcerer doesn't know the latter abut can do the former with else. In this mindset the sorcerer has the ability to learn a lot of spells but chooses the most flexible and use them for everything.

Enforcer Jarg's spells at level 1.
fire bolt, mage hand, minor illusion, shocking grasp,
charm person, ice knife

So what is you view of the sorcerer? In which way should WOTC go in for the sorcerer's future?

 

[Mouseferatu]

Definite combo of thematic blaster and hammer.

But I don't see this poll being very useful to anyone, since the results are hidden.

 

[Li Shenron]

So what is you view of the sorcerer? In which way should WOTC go in for the sorcerer's future?

None of your suggestions.

In general, I detest every attempt at shoehorning a class into a specific combat role such as "striker", "tank", "blaster" etc. That's not really what classes are meant to be in a game about adventures, it is only valid when the game is merely about combat which is a huge huge lessening of the potential of a RPG.

The only acceptable concept from this list for me is "Natural Wizard", but I would go further and say that the Sorcerer could rather be a raw mage i.e. someone who, because of her inborn powers, directly controls the raw energies and mechanisms of magic.

Unfortunately that had never had a representation in any edition of D&D (not counting some possible supplements I am not aware of), because all magic in D&D is defined by spells or otherwise spell-like abilities. Either way, the effects of these are always defined to the details. "Raw magic" would rather imply some completely different rules for combining and controlling some "basic effects". For example, a Sorcerer could unlock the power of fire, or time, or foresight and so on, and flexibly create useful effects on the spot. Way too far from the standard spellcasting rules of D&D.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I voted Arcane Striker and Thematic Blaster, without reading the descriptions. I can't help but note that those are the two that the OP describes as being 4e-influenced

Fundamentally, I see the Wizard as being the master of rigorous and tricky magic. Their ways are subtle, after all! Wizard spellcasting requires a certain kind of meticulous thought. It need not always be associated with a meticulous person--how many professors are there out there, who argue in deft and precise ways, only to have an office that looks like the Tasmanian Devil drops by on a daily basis? Meticulous thought and meticulous lifestyle need not always come hand-in-hand. By comparison, the Sorcerer is the master of flashy and expressive magic--at least in general. It's entirely possible for a Sorcerer to focus on illusions and subterfuge--just as a Wizard can prepare Fireball--but the overall nature of their method is one that favors the bold and powerful.

To use a bit of M:TG terminology, the Wizard is a Johnny class, while the Sorcerer is a Timmy class. Johnny cares about the cleverness of his plays, the creativity of his solutions; he loves eking out an unlikely victory through unorthodox means. Timmy, on the other hand, likes things big and impressive; he doesn't really care about efficiency (that's Spike's thing), nor about guile per se (that's more Johnny), but rather about dramatic shows of force and sudden, sweeping changes. Thus, although it is entirely possible for a Wizard to be focused on hardcore destruction, and a Sorcerer to be focused on misdirection and deception, their ways of going about it IMO should reflect their fundamentally distinct nature. The blaster Wizard, in 5e, can carve out spaces for their allies to be safe--a perfect example of a clever ploy that "Johnny" players would love. The guile Sorcerer, in 5e, I'm less sure about--though that seems like a perfect place to explore interesting new design space. How can you make "flashy" stealth, or "dramatic" deception? I'm not sure! But I'd legitimately love to find out, and that's not a common thing for me to say about 5e.

But I don't see this poll being very useful to anyone, since the results are hidden.

This seems to be happening a lot, lately. I'm not sure I care for it, even if it does lead to (slightly) superior statistical significance. There's nothing stopping people from sharing and discussing their votes, nor changing their minds and thus their votes with the Unvote button, so it's really only a minor difference all told.

 

[Minigiant]

None of your suggestions.

In general, I detest every attempt at shoehorning a class into a specific combat role such as "striker", "tank", "blaster" etc. That's not really what classes are meant to be in a game about adventures, it is only valid when the game is merely about combat which is a huge huge lessening of the potential of a RPG.

The only acceptable concept from this list for me is "Natural Wizard", but I would go further and say that the Sorcerer could rather be a raw mage i.e. someone who, because of her inborn powers, directly controls the raw energies and mechanisms of magic.

Unfortunately that had never had a representation in any edition of D&D (not counting some possible supplements I am not aware of), because all magic in D&D is defined by spells or otherwise spell-like abilities. Either way, the effects of these are always defined to the details. "Raw magic" would rather imply some completely different rules for combining and controlling some "basic effects". For example, a Sorcerer could unlock the power of fire, or time, or foresight and so on, and flexibly create useful effects on the spot. Way too far from the standard spellcasting rules of D&D.

Then... arcane striker. Maybe I should have called it channeler.

My options are less about combat roles and more about method. The "arcane striker" mindset says the sorcerer has raw magic within them but can't convert it into anything complex. The best they can do it fire of blasts of lightning or waves of charm. Think non-wizard practitioners of the Dredenverse or mutants in the X-Men. They can only do like 3 things with their powers due to mental and physical limitations.

Personally, I wish they was a "Raw Mage" origin where you can spend points to fire blasts of arcane energy, grow tendrils or wings of pure force, or charge weapons and armor with energy.

 

[Minigiant]

But I don't see this poll being very useful to anyone, since the results are hidden.

I noticed that. I don't want them hidden. Is there are way to change that.

As of now:

The natural wizard
6 33.33%

The arcane striker
2 11.11%

The thematic blaster
7 38.89%

The blunt hammer
5 27.78%

Lunch!!
2 11.11%

I voted Arcane Striker and Thematic Blaster, without reading the descriptions. I can't help but note that those are the two that the OP describes as being 4e-influenced

Fundamentally, I see the Wizard as being the master of rigorous and tricky magic. Their ways are subtle, after all! Wizard spellcasting requires a certain kind of meticulous thought. It need not always be associated with a meticulous person--how many professors are there out there, who argue in deft and precise ways, only to have an office that looks like the Tasmanian Devil drops by on a daily basis? Meticulous thought and meticulous lifestyle need not always come hand-in-hand. By comparison, the Sorcerer is the master of flashy and expressive magic--at least in general. It's entirely possible for a Sorcerer to focus on illusions and subterfuge--just as a Wizard can prepare Fireball--but the overall nature of their method is one that favors the bold and powerful.

To use a bit of M:TG terminology, the Wizard is a Johnny class, while the Sorcerer is a Timmy class. Johnny cares about the cleverness of his plays, the creativity of his solutions; he loves eking out an unlikely victory through unorthodox means. Timmy, on the other hand, likes things big and impressive; he doesn't really care about efficiency (that's Spike's thing), nor about guile per se (that's more Johnny), but rather about dramatic shows of force and sudden, sweeping changes. Thus, although it is entirely possible for a Wizard to be focused on hardcore destruction, and a Sorcerer to be focused on misdirection and deception, their ways of going about it IMO should reflect their fundamentally distinct nature. The blaster Wizard, in 5e, can carve out spaces for their allies to be safe--a perfect example of a clever ploy that "Johnny" players would love. The guile Sorcerer, in 5e, I'm less sure about--though that seems like a perfect place to explore interesting new design space. How can you make "flashy" stealth, or "dramatic" deception? I'm not sure! But I'd legitimately love to find out, and that's not a common thing for me to say about 5e.

4th edition was the first edition with sorcerers and wizards having completely different spell list (arcane striker) and thematic subclassses (thematic blaster)

Flashy stealth= Quickened darkness spell
Dramatic deception= Subtle charm person spell

 

[MarkB]

The way I always saw the difference is that a wizard chooses magic, but for a sorcerer it's the other way around.

For whatever reason, a sorcerer channels magical forces through their body and soul, and it's not something they chose, it's something that has happened to them.

What they do with that power - simple or complex, subtle or flashy - is up to them.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I've always felt that to play a sorcerer as a sorcerer... the very first thing you should do would be to strip the spell names off of all of your abilities.

A wizard has learned a formula combining objects, hand motions, and incantations to create a specific magical effect called a 'fireball'. And anyone who has ever studied and learned "spellcasting" call it a 'fireball', because that is the universal name for this particular formula's effect.

Whereas a sorcerer just can manifest a giant burst of flame. Out there. At some point beyond his body. Why? Who knows? Is there a rhyme or reason to it? Nope! The sorcerer can just do it. Sometimes he can do it at a greater distance than any wizard has been able to replicate. Sometimes the sorcerer can do it faster than any wizard has been able to replicate. Sometimes the sorcerer can do it without moving or saying a word. Or create effects that last much longer than any wizard has been able to replicate.

To me... that's what a sorcerer is doing, and not "Casting a fireball spell and using my metamagic to increase the range." A Player speaking that sort of description (while granted, is completely needed by the DM to understand how to adjudicate the effects of the mechanics) goes against in my mind what the sorcerer really is doing or should be thinking about how their magic is manifesting.

It's the same feeling I have towards other parts of the book where characters manifest magic but are not really "casting spells" (despite the game using spell descriptions as a shorthand for the DM to identify how to adjudicate it.) So for instance... high elves-- for my money, none of them "cast cantrips". Instead, high elves are just so infused with magic and are such a part of them that some can just instinctively move objects with their minds, or create images that fool the senses, or are preternaturally accurate with a weapon. And in a "best case scenario" that is how the player of the high elf would narrate their character and its magical manifestation. Not "And now I'm going to cast True Strike".

But of course... playing with that kind of narrative mindset is really, really hard, simply because using the shorthand of spell names is so easy to do and so necessary for the DM to have in order to make rulings. So as a result... a high elf cleric player will narrate the use of their high elf "wizard cantrip" in the same exact way they narrate the castings of the clerical prayers, despite the fact they really are two completely different magical manifestations and should be described that way.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Sorcerers are horrible at thematic blasting if the theme isn't fire. Their spell list is gimped to even exclude wizard list spells in some elements. If you go with thunder and lightening, without the Elemental book (even with it, you'd have to add wind to get a theme, and those spells are situational at best), you'd be very hard pressed to even find spells of many levels that have [thunder] or [lightening] effects; they don't exist on the sorcerer list.

I'd much rather the sorcerers get a focused mechanic to show how they manipulate the raw forces of the multiverse than be gimped spell list wizards with a few different unique abilities to use their gimped spell list in different ways. The sorcerer core functionality is exactly the same as the wizard -- they cast the same spells, sorcerers just have fewer options.

 

[Mercule]

None of the above. I guess "natural wizard" is closest, but only because that's the fluff assigned to the class in the PHB. The Sorcerer is really an odd duck.

In 3E, it was presented with fairly light fluff (which was strengthened, slightly, in 3.5). It was clearly introduced as a variant Wizard for people who wanted to cast spells but not have to deal with the strange prognostication around daily spell selection (i.e. folks like me). Mechanically, it fit that niche extremely well. My group pretty much treated it like a specialist Wizard whose focus was on ditching the spell book. They could study at a college, learn from a hedge mage, etc. The whole "blood of dragons" thing was an rumor that was generally ignored or just gave an excuse for why the character could learn a spell permanently, instead of having to have it re-imprinted every day.

I didn't play 4E very long, but I remember the unified powers system to be a benefit to the Sorcerer, in terms of flavor. It no longer had to use the same tools as a Wizard, so the fluff was allowed to shine. That kinda redefined (or fully defined, not sure) the class as having a non-mechanical reason to exist. Again, 4E really didn't resonate with my group, so the impact on me is pretty mild.

The 5E Sorcerer flails around without purpose. With the revised preparation/slots mechanic for Wizards, the Sorcerer's mechanical niche from 3E has been removed. In theory, the flavor is a natural-born arcanist. Their abilities are supposed to show up somewhat untrained, even if they can be improved with practice. The mechanics really, really suck at representing that, though. Why would a "font of magic", someone with "magical power coursing through" them and "infusing [them] with arcane magic" manifest that as cataloged, named spells that can be reliably replicated by someone who learns how to harness external power from a book? I get the simplicity of saying "as spell XXX", but the whole VSM thing is weird for Sorcerers.

Sorcerers do have the possibility of gaining their power from somewhere other than birth: a fey blessing, "an event in your past", etc. Aren't those the sort of thing handled by the Warlock class? The Warlock class, BTW, has sufficiently different mechanics that it feels more alien than the Sorcerer, despite also having spells.

Actually, what I've done, IMC, is convert the Sorcerer sub-classes to Warlock patrons and ditch the Sorcerer class altogether. The dragon-blooded Warlock is blade-pact, but I'd happily create a "blood pact" for a PC who wanted to actually be born that way. The pact would give an "out" to at least the material components that can be replaced with a focus, as well as saying "Blood-born Warlocks often use words and gestures in their magic, but these take the form of plain-spoken threats and obvious motions (like pointing where a magical bolt should fly), rather than the concrete and precise formulas used by Wizards. Often, the particulars vary from casting to casting by the same Warlock. The magic flows from the soul of the blood-born, with the components being just the subconscious motions of releasing the power." I suppose you could add the same text to the Sorcerer class, but the Warlock class just feels more complete, especially since I don't care for wild mages (leaving only one sub-class to port, from the PHB).

You'll note that there are no references in my opinion to "striker", "tank", etc. I agree with [MENTION=1465]Li Shenron[/MENTION]: Those terms are combat terms and should not be directly tied to particular classes. Some classes will clearly lend them to certain styles of play better than others, but that flows from the class build, rather than informing it. Doing it the opposite way was one of the worst sins of 4E.