D&D (2024) The sorcerer shouldn't exist

[EzekielRaiden]

Trust me, we sorcerer fans are happy with wizards being a thing. We wouldn't be here if wizard fans just accepted their favorite class isn't the only spellcaster around and let it go. But no, they keep beating the bush, and here we are.

Precisely. I have no--indeed, negative--interest in deleting the Wizard. I am glad that something like it exists in D&D.

I was merely using it as an example of why the arguments that the Sorcerer should become a Wizard subclass were not only wrong-headed, but actively self-defeating. If the argument is that flavor support is lacking and simplicity suggests we should turn something into a subclass, the Wizard is BY FAR the class that fits best for being axed.

Folks should not be surprised to know that I think 5e has far too few classes, not too many. I don't want to get rid of any we currently have; I want to add more on top.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

D&D 4e?

Not on your life. Rules-first would have never put both Ranger and Rogue in the same space (Martial Striker); would never have shortchanged the Fighter on skills for absolutely no reason other than "because 3e said Fighters should be unskillful"; would never have had a Paladin so schizophrenic, where it has two different primary stats but only one intended secondary stat. Etc.

4e simply took actual rules design--meaning, setting well-defined design goals, using statistical testing to check whether those goals are met, and refining either until the goal is met or it's determined that the goal was unwisely chosen--seriously for the first time since, IMO, some version of Basic.

It was the first edition in rather a long time to not be "rules-last," but it certainly wasn't rules-first.

 

[Corinnguard]

Folks should not be surprised to know that I think 5e has far too few classes, not too many. I don't want to get rid of any we currently have; I want to add more on top.

We need a thread for this. I can imagine that quite a number of us would like more classes here. How many more is the question.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

We need a thread for this. I can imagine that quite a number of us would like more classes here. How many more is the question.

Between five and eleven. This is not flippant--I genuinely believe that's how many class-fantasy archetypes are missing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This one maybe?

I stand corrected.

 

[CreamCloud0]

We need a thread for this. I can imagine that quite a number of us would like more classes here. How many more is the question.

i feel like it would be just as easy to dig up one of the many old threads that discuss that very topic and have over half the work already done for us.

but personally i think the major missing positions are
warlord
swordmage
psion
shapeshifter/monster class
summoner/pet class

 

[Flights of Fancy]

More flights of fancy here. That was actual wordplay. Not me pointing out that you are making up fluff about both wizard and sorcerer.

You feel better making fun of my screen name? That is not healthy.

I make up nothing. It is all in the book as I showed you.

This is not in dispute that this is how the overwhelming majority of wizards do it. It is also not actually mechanically supported in any way other than a little cramming of their spellbook.

No, ALL wizards. Spellbooks supported in several ways. You do not know wizards I guess. 1, without spellbook you cannot change spells. 2, you need spellbook to put in new spells. 3, you need spellbook for ritual casting of not prepapred spells. The versatility of wizard and ritual casting of not prepared spells. Definine the wizard.

By the rules anyone can, on level up, decide to become a wizard within days. Just as they can a sorcerer. Apprenticeship is common but unnecessary. Study only needs to happen in the form of occasional cramming.

Optional rules, which many do not use. Most games which do mulitclass have story to allow this.

None of what you quoted was relevant - it doesn't contradict my stance. And the idea it is necessary conflicts with the rules.

It does not contradict, it is just more relevant. Your point was backstory. My point goes on. Learning spells from other wizards.

But somehow literally extraordinary in a world with magic.

Not extraordinary at all.

A few relevant words are worth more than paragraphs of irrelevant ones.

Your quote is less relevant than mine.

Or just lebelling up and multiclassing. Apprenticeship and long periods of study are common but entirely unnecessary.

Again optional. Or done in game story.

I'm not the one wasting time by irrelevancy here.

You very much are.

I've just proven apprenticeship is unnecessary. And they can study as hard as they like - but without the class it does diddly squat for casting spells. Meaning there must be something magical happening to the caster - and in that case sorcerer is 100% appropriate.

Apprenticeship is not, but common. A teacher of some kind is needed. Even a magical tome so self-taught. This is the class. You have it backward. Nothing magical happening to become a wizard, but yes the sorcerer.

But you could stop being wrong - or even start by saying things that are either relevant or not in conflict with the rules.

I'm not interested in your house rules.

LOL you are so wrong. A "wizard" who learns magic because of magical gift or event is a SORCERER. You should learn the rules.

Not houserules. Rules.

I have told many times there are both options and denied none of each. 1 and 2. 2 makes less sense because wizards gain from study not innate magic.

 

[Vael]

i feel like it would be just as easy to dig up one of the many old threads that discuss that very topic and have over half the work already done for us.

Yeah ... and are we saying the current crop of Sorcerer threads are breaking new ground that hasn't also been discussed to death?

 

[CreamCloud0]

Yeah ... and are we saying the current crop of Sorcerer threads are breaking new ground that hasn't also been discussed to death?

of course not, it's just if there's a choice between creating a new thread or necroing an old one my inclination is to use the one we've already got.

 

[Flights of Fancy]

You need to let go of the idea of wizard as a sorcerer subclass. I'm among posters who have proposed it, but it isn't entirely a genuine desire.

I will let it go, but NeoChameleon continues it. My first was to Mecheons post. Then he entered.

My post.

I think this would work if your concept of wizard means someone must have a "gift" or talent for magic to study it. Like Harry Potter.

If you go the other direction that anyone can study magic and become a wizard given the means opportunity it wouldn't make sense.

Rather it started as a reaction to posters who want to get rid of sorcerer by shoving it under wizard. The argument "but wizards have a gift for magic too" was first made by them to try to justify sorcerer erasure. The current "if they have an inherent gift for magic, then wizards should be sorcerers" is just taling their arguments to the logical conclusion.

This was a silly claim by them. Wizards have no gift in 5E like in Harry Potter. Wizards gift (not magical) is they study, apprenticeship, stuff, with oportunity to do this stuff. This is why I say wizards as sucblass makes no sense.

Trust me, we sorcerer fans are happy with wizards being a thing. We wouldn't be here if wizard fans just accepted their favorite class isn't the only spellcaster around and let it go. But no, they keep beating the bush, and here we are.

I do not think sorcerer as wizard subclass is good idea. I just said it makes more sense in my post to Mecheon. A wizard who discovers they have a bloodline or go through event to get innate magic ability to change spells by metamagic is sorcerer subclass. This is just a example, not my saying good idea.