D&D 5E The Soul of the Sorcerer

[Ristamar]

I would have thought one of the options would be "Masters of Metamagic." All fluff aside, that seemed to be the design goal. They have a more narrow focus than the wizard, yet a higher degree of flexibility within that focus.

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

But why? Why does it have to be just about destroying stuff? If "raw magic" is the whole set of forces from which all spells come from, then it also includes all mind-affecting powers, divination/lore, illusions, creations, summoning, transmutation, protections etc. "Striker" is just one tiny option among all options.

 

[Li Shenron]

I would have thought one of the options would be "Masters of Metamagic." All fluff aside, that seemed to be the design goal. They have a more narrow focus than the wizard, yet a higher degree of flexibility within that focus.

Unfortunately the difference is small. Four metamagic effects in the course of 20 levels hardly qualify them as "masters", except that (so far) nobody else can learn even one of them.

 

[Minigiant]

I never used the word "Tank"

I used "blaster" and "striker" because or what they mean.

Is the sorcerer a thematic blaster? Does the sorcerer just "shoot out spells" of a theme because that's all sorcery is good due to it's source and origin.

OR

Is the sorcerer an arcane striker? Does the sorcerer just attack and escape with magic because sorcery is too hard, raw, and stupid to do anything else.

OR

Is the sorcerer just an alternate wizard

OR

Is the sorcerer a blunt hammer? Is the sorcerer's magic tied to their mind and they use the same magical effects for everything.

 

[MoonSong]

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.

YOu were this close to get xp from me, but no you had to go to "Warlocks rules"....

But why? Why does it have to be just about destroying stuff? If "raw magic" is the whole set of forces from which all spells come from, then it also includes all mind-affecting powers, divination/lore, illusions, creations, summoning, transmutation, protections etc. "Striker" is just one tiny option among all options.

Yes, this bothers me, the whole "second class caster" that exists since 4e. You either are a wizard -I really hate the wizard lore- or a lame monster who can only smash things.

 

[Li Shenron]

Maybe I just misinterpreted the question... I thought you were asking us what we think the concept of a Sorcerer should be / should have been, in order to make it shine on its own compared to other classes, instead of keep being just a derivative class as it originally was in 3e. But perhaps you are asking what the 5e Sorcerer currently is, as a consequence of how it ended up designed in the PHB.

If that's what you mean, my short answer would be "a missed opportunity".

My long answer is, pretty much again a derivative class, with a little more flexibility compared to a Wizard (not even sure right now how much advantage it has in daily slots if any, considering that the Sorcerer has spell points but the Wizard has arcane recovery) at the expense of a lot less strategic edge. Basically the Wizard is a Sorcerer minus metamagic but with the option to change her "known spells" every day by choosing them from a list that is often four times larger.

 

[Minigiant]

But why? Why does it have to be just about destroying stuff? If "raw magic" is the whole set of forces from which all spells come from, then it also includes all mind-affecting powers, divination/lore, illusions, creations, summoning, transmutation, protections etc. "Striker" is just one tiny option among all options.

Because in this mindset, the sorcerer don't use arcane formula or have dieties give them magic.

There's no Seal of Kaganunu to transfer magic to create tiny portals and conjure ice overhead.
No Theory of Eli the Enchanter to modify only specific memories.
No Garmax's Law to find the voice of the person you want to implant on an illusionary image.

So to this mindset, sorcery is too raw to do anything but "Point fingers, Get Mad, Shoot Fire." for burning hands.

 

[Li Shenron]

Because in this mindset, the sorcerer don't use arcane formula or have dieties give them magic.

There's no Seal of Kaganunu to transfer magic to create tiny portals and conjure ice overhead.
No Theory of Eli the Enchanter to modify only specific memories.
No Garmax's Law to find the voice of the person you want to implant on an illusionary image.

So to this mindset, sorcery is too raw to do anything but "Point fingers, Get Mad, Shoot Fire." for burning hands.

Then why does it have access to the vast majority of Wizard spells?

 

[Ristamar]

Unfortunately the difference is small. Four metamagic effects in the course of 20 levels hardly qualify them as "masters", except that (so far) nobody else can learn even one of them.

While not technically Metamagic, I also view subclass abilities powered by sorcery points to fall under the metamagic umbrella.

 

[Minigiant]

Then why does it have access to the vast majority of Wizard spells?

Only in 3rd edition.

In 4th, they don't share any spells.
In 5th, sorcerer don't have many of the "complex" or "scholary" spells. No Alarm, illusionary script, locate object, etc. Most divination, most transmutation, and many many other aren't sorcerer spells.

That's the point.
What is the "Logic" of the sorcerer.

• The natural wizard
  
  13 votes 39.39%
  
  
• The arcane striker
  
  
  2 votes 6.06%
  
  
• The thematic blaster
  
  
  11 votes 33.33%
  
  
• The blunt hammer
  
  
  7 votes 21.21%
  
  
• Lunch!!
  
  6 18.18%