D&D 5E Which UA Sorcerors do you like?

[Ganymede81]

Cool imagery! What would be their differentiators - in other words, what makes them unique mechanically instead of just a reskin on an existing?

No clue... I was just spitballing interesting bloodlines.

Regarding the Storm Sorcerer you mentioned above, it has been (unofficially) superseded by the Sea Sorcery origin to make it less about lightning and lightning alone.

 

[cbwjm]

No clue... I was just spitballing interesting bloodlines.

Regarding the Storm Sorcerer you mentioned above, it has been (unofficially) superseded by the Sea Sorcery origin to make it less about lightning and lightning alone.

I don't see how the sea sorcerer supersedes the storm sorcerer. One is for air, the other water. Storm sorcerer also deals with thunder damage, not just lightning.

 

[Ganymede81]

I don't see how the sea sorcerer supersedes the storm sorcerer. One is for air, the other water. Storm sorcerer also deals with thunder damage, not just lightning.

I really don't care that much about it, it was just my personal perspective.

 

[Blue]

Regarding the Storm Sorcerer you mentioned above, it has been (unofficially) superseded by the Sea Sorcery origin to make it less about lightning and lightning alone.

Storm Sorcerer is published in SCAG, official, and AL-legal. Sea Sorcerer is a playtest document that is not AL-legal and is up to DMs if they want to try it. UA playtests are still at an early stage of development and have not gone to the later polish and balance steps (as per Mike Mearls on the flow), and you can expect changes before it's out in an official format.

You (and I) may like the Sea Sorcerer more, but it in no way supersedes the official Storm Sorcerer for general play.

 

[Ganymede81]

Yeah, I didn't say it did, and am hoping I didn't come across that way.

To me, Sea Sorcery seems like a spiritual successor to Storm Sorcerers, a second crack at tackling that theme.

 

[GlassJaw]

That Storm sorcerer has been superseded by an officially published storm Sorcerer in SCAG.

It's ... not as powerful.

Looks like they just removed the bonus spells in the SCAG version. *shrugs* I don't see the big balance issue. I'd probably keep them. Sorcerers need a boost and it adds flavor.

 

[Blue]

Looks like they just removed the bonus spells in the SCAG version. *shrugs* I don't see the big balance issue. I'd probably keep them. Sorcerers need a boost and it adds flavor.

Whatever works for your table. Since it was there and they intentionally removed it, you could guess that they found an issue with it - be it balance, player feedback, whatever. Could be that it was eclipsing the other sorcerer subclasses to much. But if it's a good fit at your table, go for it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Only one I don't like is Shadow, and that only because it feels more like a Warlock Patron than a Sorcerous Origin.