D&D 5E Xanathar hint from Crawford?

[MechaTarrasque]

I really hope hexblade gives back some of the stuff it stole. Shadow hound makes no sense to me as a hexblade feature.

In 4e, warlock's ally was a big hexblade feature, although I don't think shadow hound is similar to any of the allies.

 

[MoonSong]

You understate the power of flexible casting and metamagic, and overstate the value of prepared spells.

Its valuable, once in a while, but most of the time you'll be casting spells from a much smaller subset of them.

If you are a fire blaster, if you want to fill any other niche, you'll be hurting for spells known and can be easily outdone by a wizard with the right prepared spells -sometimes the wizard doesn't even need to have them prepared- and on top of that that wizard will also able to do more things that you just don't have the room for or can't even choose. -A lot of spells are just not available to sorcerers-. By virtue of their limited pool and choices, sorcerers have to pick a niche, but have no niche protection within that niche, and might not even be able to fill it properly. Even the mighty first Favored Soul of Life can be outdone by a cleric of any other domain that prepared prayer of healing that day.

 

[Azzy]

Battlerager, Purple Dragon Knight, Sun Soul Monk, Long Death Monk, and Bladesinger are all heavily FR specific

The bladesinger is not FR-specific. It is setting-neutral.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

Because the wizard and the sorcerer provide the *same* things - focused spellcaster of arcane spell. No one would say "hmm, our party is a bit unbalanced, we don't have an arcane caster" "I agree completely! I will therefore play a Paladin, that will fix the problem!"

They are the closest related classes in the book. Of course they are going to be compared.

"Arcane caster" is practically meaningless in 5e. "Caster" is all that matters. And there are a lot of full casters. It seems to me that unless someone can make a good case that the sorcerer is the worst of the lot, acting like sorcerers only comparison is wizards is more than a little questionable.

 

[Ancalagon]

"Arcane caster" is practically meaningless in 5e. "Caster" is all that matters. And there are a lot of full casters. It seems to me that unless someone can make a good case that the sorcerer is the worst of the lot, acting like sorcerers only comparison is wizards is more than a little questionable.

Which class is, mechanically, spell-wise and role-wise, the closest to Sorcerer hmmmm?

The wizard *is* the appropriate comparison. Not the druid and not the rogue. And in that comparison, it suffers.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

The bladesinger is not FR-specific. It is setting-neutral.

I'm not sure the battle-rager is FR-specific either. I seem to recall it coming out in the setting-neutral 2e Complete Book of Dwarves (though I could be wrong).

 

[Aldarc]

"Arcane caster" is practically meaningless in 5e. "Caster" is all that matters. And there are a lot of full casters. It seems to me that unless someone can make a good case that the sorcerer is the worst of the lot, acting like sorcerers only comparison is wizards is more than a little questionable.

I hear you, and I wish that were the case. Sure, there may be a lot of full casters, but the Sorcerer started out as an alt-wizard, and the 5E Wizard and Sorcerer probably have the greatest overlap of spells. The comparison between these two and their respective roles will be made.

 

[CapnZapp]

Just give the sorceror haters the class they really want, THE 5e WITCHALOK!

Mmm... more baleful. I like!

 

[CapnZapp]

See this is the problem everyone is comparing the Sorceror to the Wizard, you don't compare the Paladin, Cleric (except maybe in the case of the Favoured Soul), Warlock, Ranger, Fighter, Monk, Bard, Barbarian, Rogue to the Wizard, why the Sorceror?

If anything the two closest classes are the Sorceror and Bard, basically the same sort of spell casting feature (minus ritual cadting in the case of the Sorceror) using the same stat.

Because the wizard and the sorcerer provide the *same* things - focused spellcaster of arcane spell. No one would say "hmm, our party is a bit unbalanced, we don't have an arcane caster" "I agree completely! I will therefore play a Paladin, that will fix the problem!"

They are the closest related classes in the book. Of course they are going to be compared.

We could even say this is the Sorcerer's greatest problem.

The Sorcerer doesn't do much of anything the Wizard can't do. Or should be able to do, as in the case of metamagic.

Make the class more of its own thing - enough to slow the comparisons to Wizard - and problem is solved.

In d20 they managed to have Sorcerers do pretty much the same things Wizards did, only they did it in a sufficiently more flexible and free way. If that isn't on the table, they need to give Sorcerers their own thing to do.

They tried with metamagic, but nobody feels that being able to shoot two rays instead of one is enough to justify being a second-rate arcane caster.

If the Sorcerer isn't meant to be able to fulfil the role of the arcane caster, it needs to be given something truly desirable and unique in return.

The bard is given such toys. Even the warlock is arguably given such toys. Both classes are furthermore given highly visible and easily understood limits on their arcane projection. Nobody mistakes a Bard or a Warlock for a "party's main arcane caster".

The Sorcerer doesn't have that luxury. Unlike the Bard it can do pretty much all kinds of Wizardy stuff. Unlike the Warlock it can cast spells all day long. The fact its spell list is subtly different (and indeed strangely choked off compared to Wizards) is a subtle realization and easy to miss. Reading the class description certainly doesn't clue you in - only careful analysis by a knowledgeable player of the spell lists does. It even shares the exact same spells in previous editions.

So. Yes, the Sorcerer gets compared to the Wizard, and rightfully so. But yes, that's pretty much the core of its problems. Fixing it means weaning us off that comparison.

But so far the class design has not earned that.

 

[CapnZapp]

"Arcane caster" is practically meaningless in 5e. "Caster" is all that matters. And there are a lot of full casters. It seems to me that unless someone can make a good case that the sorcerer is the worst of the lot, acting like sorcerers only comparison is wizards is more than a little questionable.

Not sure going there is a fruitful venue.

It is true you need an "arcane caster" much less in 5e than arguably ever before. Adventures have even stopped assuming you brought one along.

You're right, the "arcane caster role" technically doesn't exist. But that does not change the basic fact that (at mid- to high level) they're still incredibly useful to bring along. Just wishing away the concept doesn't change that.

So no, it is very far from "practically meaningless". Theoretically meaningless, perhaps. But not in practical play (except at low levels, where you're arguably better off without them).

People are arguing their Sorcerers could be replaced by this and that class. Instead of trying to persuade them they're wrong, I feel it would be much worthwhile if you discussed ways to make Sorcerers unique and indispensable in their own way