D&D 5E What is the Sorcerer?

[GMMichael]

. . . Despite what some people will claim, 5e classes are NOT defined by their mechanics . . .

The sorcerer mechanics are all meant to support that main trick.

Yes, each class has a generic trick that it's supposed to support. And how well that happens is debatable. But 5e classes are defined by their rules to the extent that the players and DMs follow those rules. Since, I would say, the players and DMs follow the rules to the exclusion or detriment of the main tricks... 5e classes actually are defined by their "mechanics."

Have you ever heard a DM say, "I know that's what the sorcerer description says, but you can't do that, because it's not what a sorcerer could do?"

IMHO, Sorcerer has the best chassis . . .

Taking this "mechanic" thing to the next level, huh?

Seems to me the biggest thing sorcerers need is a concrete identity?

Can it only be "innate spellcasting"? It is enough?

At what cost? Where is the balance? Who would play a caster that relies on magic from "outside" if a caster that relies on magic from "within" is available?

This conversation could be reframed to, "why did WotC let wizards start casting spells like they're sorcerers?" The sorcerer doesn't have a problem if the wizard isn't stepping on his toes.

 

[Mephista]

Wizards are more than a spellbook. The spellbook is just a limitation(and feature) of the class, not the class itself.

No, no, wizards are their book. Just like a fighter is their weapon. And a cleric is their holy symbol. Nothing else matters. Its like how barbarians are just different flavors of giant axes. Rogues get to be sneaky and be TWO things - a set of lockpicks and their stabby blade! They're lucky.

The only one that's more than just a tool is the monk, and that's because they actually get to use their head (to headbutt people, but that counts! Its using their head!)

 

[Mephista]

Have you ever heard a DM say, "I know that's what the sorcerer description says, but you can't do that, because it's not what a sorcerer could do?"

Nope.

 

[Maxperson]

Rogues get to be sneaky and be TWO things - a set of lockpicks and their stabby blade!

Two?

 

[Vaalingrade]

Wizards are more than a spellbook.

What is a wizard without a spellbook?

A guy who remembers having a spellbook.

 

[Maxperson]

What is a wizard without a spellbook?

A guy who remembers having a spellbook.

In 5e, he's a wizard with class abilities and as many as 25 spells still castable every day of the week, and 4 times on Sunday. Remember, you don't lose your memorized spells when you cast them. Losing your spellbook just costs you some your versatility for a while, until you recover your book or buy a new one with new spells in it(plus the ones you write in it from your head).

 

[Stalker0]

hehe this feels like one of those threads that is "solved", aka I think we pretty much answered the OP question, is there anything more to talk about?

We could of course get in to how well mechanics fit that Sorcerer's theme of the "innate gift", but then its just like everyone of a dozen other sorcerer threads.

 

[Vaalingrade]

In 5e, he's a wizard with class abilities and as many as 25 spells still castable every day of the week, and 4 times on Sunday. Remember, you don't lose your memorized spells when you cast them. Losing your spellbook just costs you some your versatility for a while, until you recover your book or buy a new one with new spells in it(plus the ones you write in it from your head).

Is this not remembering you have a spellbook?

The wizard is nothing but a spellbook and thinking about a spellbook.

 

[Maxperson]

Is this not remembering you have a spellbook?

The wizard is nothing but a spellbook and thinking about a spellbook.

You don't forget the spells you have memorized, so you can keep casting those forever. No need of a spellbook. It's not as if when you lose your spellbook you can't cast spells any longer. And, again, they have class and subclass abilities.

The wizard's class concept is learned spellcaster, not spellbook.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Sorcerers to me are the "generic" spellcaster class that has no thematic or narrative identity in the class itself, and all its flavor comes from its subclasses. The same way the Fighter is the generic martial combat class, and the Rogue is the generic skills class. All three classes have no flavor on their own, and are merely just the buckets of mechanics in which the individual flavors of characters come out of via their subclasses.

This is why I think so many people say Wizards and Warlocks could just be Sorcerer subclasses... because they both have a narrative identity in the class themselves and thus their narrative flavor could fit into the "generic" bucket of the Sorcerer as flavored subclasses. The same way the Barbarian and Paladin could be flavored subclasses of the Fighter and the Ranger and Bard could be flavored subclasses of the Rogue.