Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6377487" data-attributes="member: 1465">For 1) and 2) these are actually supposed to be the Wizard's edge, not the Sorcerer's weakness (Clerics and Druids might know even more spells than a Wizard (as a base), however overall the divine casters' spells often overlap in function). Nobody learns additional spells during adventuring besides the Wizard, not just the Sorcerer.While adding spells between level is quite a lot of fun, I have never been sure it's fair, because it also depends on the DM making scrolls and spellbooks available. I've played in 3e games where every class had a fixed number of learned spells per level (so no automatically knowing all new level spells for Clerics and Druids) but at the same time everyone could find & learn additional ones at some cost. It worked very well, but unfortunally legacy is too strong for such a change.3) I don't know how much narrower, in 3e Wizards and Sorcerers had practically the same list, but during playtest it sounded like people wanted each class to have its own list... we were also promised some unique spells for Sorcerer and Warlocks, did we get any?4) This one sounds like a thematic design choice.Overall it saddens me if the Sorcerer ends up being inferior to the Wizard... already in 3e it got some serious penalties just because the designers didn't playtest enough and were afraid that spontaneous casting was going to be too powerful: so they delayed new spell levels by 1 class level, fixed the number of spells known, and didn't grant a Sorcerer any bonus feats. The 3.5 revision boosted every class except the Sorcerer, which was indirectly penalized by other changes such as halving Spell Focus. All in all there was a feeling like "who cares about the Sorcerer, everyone's playing a Wizard anyway" (which obviously wasn't true). I think if they didn't care about the Sorcerer, they should just skip it entirely... if you design a class, it deserves all care and attentions!If metamagic effects are similar to those of 3e, this is hardly the case... they used to multiply effects (damage, duration, range, targets) or remove restrictions (somatic/verbal components, speed up casting time), but only a few metamagic feats actually changed the spell... I can remember Energy Substitution, but you still got a spell with the same general purpose i.e. combat-oriented damaging spell.In 5e many spells also scale without metamagic, so I expect metamagic to be generally less unique.Unless of course the PHB has some definitely new metamagic effects I am unaware about!</blockquote>

Verification