D&D 5E Was there a mistake with the sorcerer weapons? (sorcerer and simple weapons)

[MoonSong]

One of the things that has disappointed me the most as a sorcerer player is that they weren't given simple weapons to play with. For those of you that have never touched a sorcerer this might be weird, but this is kind of a big deal, from the very first time a sorcerer was rolled one of the most notable differences with wizards was access to the full suite of simple weapons as oppossed to just "wizard weapons" and both 3.5 and 4e incarnations had it. It is completely baffling that one of the subtlest but key differences got erased -and for the worse- all of my sorcerers have always carried some kind of weapon beyond a dagger/staff, merely axes, spears, sickles and the like, and know they just won't be proficient with any of them.

However when perusing a copy of the phb -I will likely buy mine next week- I noticed an oddity when reading the equipment it says something like choose a crossbow with 20 bolts or any simple weapon. In contrast the wizard entry clearly says "staff or dagger". I mean why give you the choice of any simple weapon if you just aren't proficient with them period? And on a second read the block of text containing the basic item proficiencies armor-weapon-tool is verbatim word for word the same as the wizard. Could this be a sign they lazily copypasted it then forgot to check if indeed that was the design intention? I mean there is a historical basis for all simple weapons and the equipment suggested includes any simple weapon but no proficiency? This has to be the only class that receives weapons they aren't proficient with and that is indeed an anomaly.

Thoughts?

 

[Kobold Stew]

Good catch -- this would seem to be an(other) actual mistake, that WOTC should clarify.

 

[Li Shenron]

I noticed the same when the Sorcerer preview came out IIRC, and I too thought it was a weird design choice, considering the previous editions.

That said, I couldn't care less for a Sorcerer's or a Warlock's weapon proficiencies. For me those are always primary spellcasters (the blade pact Warlock being an exception, as far as I can tell), so their weapons are of minor importance. Had I designed the first incarnation of the Sorcerer in 3.0, I would have probably given it the same proficiencies as Wizard. Alternatively, they could have also given both Sorcerer and Wizard all simple weapon proficiencies. Really, as long as they don't get full martial weapon proficiencies by default, it's not a major concern IMHO.

I am rather sorry there isn't a way to get single additional weapon/armor proficiencies (at a cost) besides feats which give you a lot more.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It's possible that this was an intentional change. One of the things about how 3E worked was that, even though they had proficiency in simple weapons, Sorcerers were terrible with them because they had such a lousy Base Attack Bonus.

What with the unification of progression rates into the Proficiency bonus, it's possibly that a Sorcerer with a spear would be much better at melee combat than they were intended to be.

 

[HabitualErrant]

The suggested equipment part is strange. I'd agree that it's probably a mistake on the part of WoTC, but I wouldn't like to speculate on whether the class should have the proficiency added or the suggested equipment removed. My guess is that WoTC toyed with both ideas and whatever the mistake is it's a remnant of that testing

 

[MoonSong]

That said, I couldn't care less for a Sorcerer's or a Warlock's weapon proficiencies. For me those are always primary spellcasters (the blade pact Warlock being an exception, as far as I can tell), so their weapons are of minor importance. Had I designed the first incarnation of the Sorcerer in 3.0, I would have probably given it the same proficiencies as Wizard. Alternatively, they could have also given both Sorcerer and Wizard all simple weapon proficiencies. Really, as long as they don't get full martial weapon proficiencies by default, it's not a major concern IMHO.

It's possible that this was an intentional change. One of the things about how 3E worked was that, even though they had proficiency in simple weapons, Sorcerers were terrible with them because they had such a lousy Base Attack Bonus.

What with the unification of progression rates into the Proficiency bonus, it's possibly that a Sorcerer with a spear would be much better at melee combat than they were intended to be.

Well for me is a concern, as I say I don't play wizards I play sorcerers and part of being a sorcerer is having the choice of using meaningful weapons. It is easy not to care about them with the old "but you were bad at it anyway" which just isn't true, in 3e a sorcerer wielding weapons was perfectly viable at the lower levels, and by the time you were starting to lag behind other options to keep you relevant if you wanted came online.

In 4e you also had that possibility, maybe you never got weapon powers (beyond those restricted to daggers), but if you were a dragon/cosmic sorcerer you indeed had a good mba by default and could use spears and some light meleeing at low cost.

In both editions it was one thing that as a sorcerer you could indeed do better than a wizard, no walking sticks and miniature blades, but spears, maces and sickles. If a wizard wanted into the game, it costed him a feat, but didn't have the advantages you had in each respective edition (More HP and better AC in 4e, tactical versatility for gishing in 3.x, a high level sorcerer could easily slaughter enemies by a combination of swift melee spells and the right buffs on demand). But more importantly, it was an option you had as a sorcerer.

And come on, the original iconic sorcerer has a spear! why take it away?

 

[Paraxis]

No harm in giving them simple weapons, I mean between shocking grasp and a ranged attack cantrip they should never ever need to use it, especially after level 5.

 

[77IM]

It's possible that this was an intentional change. One of the things about how 3E worked was that, even though they had proficiency in simple weapons, Sorcerers were terrible with them because they had such a lousy Base Attack Bonus.

What with the unification of progression rates into the Proficiency bonus, it's possibly that a Sorcerer with a spear would be much better at melee combat than they were intended to be.

Quarterstaff does as much damage as spear, and is one of the best simple melee weapons. (Quarterstaff can't be thrown, but it counts as a focus even if you wield it in two hands. At least that's my interpretation of the Components rules on p.203.)

 

[The Crimson Binome]

And come on, the original iconic sorcerer has a spear! why take it away?

That was actually the first thing I thought of, and it seems like an odd choice to intentionally change that. Of course, they made scimitars un-dual-wield-able in 3E, so that goes to show how much they care about such icons.

If melee weapons were a thing for sorcerers in 4E, then that's even more reason why they should have kept them in 5E. I'm curious what the designers would say, if asked.

 

[GameDoc]

FWIW, I took the phrase "or any [simple/martial] weapon" in each class entry to imply "with which you a proficient". This would limit you to those provided by your class and any racial weapon training.

In 3e, the extra weapon proficiencies seemed to be part of the trade off for a more limited range of spells compared to the wizard. In 5e, the sorcerous heritage features seem to occupy that space.

But yeah, aesthetically it was cool to have sorcerers carrying fierce looking weapons compared to wizards. It added to the exotic profile of the class.