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

[Micah Sweet]

It works both ways: lore can follow mechanics, mechanics can follow lore. Or as it's better known, "top down" and "bottom up" design.

What RPG was primary designed rules-first? I really don't get it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What RPG was primary designed rules-first? I really don't get it.

D&D 4e?

 

[tetrasodium]

Fair enough. I just can't understand how D&D could be seen to be created rules-first across the board, as was claimed. Occasionally, sure, but not as a general thing.

"(Dis)Advantage" is probably an example of doing that. A mechanic was created and a justification was tossed on to out it literally everywhere

 

[Neonchameleon]

No it is your wordplay.

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

STUDY, LEARN, APPRENTICESHIP. All there.

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.

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.

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

Non-magical creating event.

But somehow literally extraordinary in a world with magic.

This is funny. A simple phrase mentioned once used as proff compared to my words which are used more.

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

Wrong. The event is not what to become a wizard. Study, apprenticeship, stuff is how they become one.

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

As you waste my time?

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

You want option 1, but option 2 is how wizards work by rules. They have no magical gift or event that lets them cast spells. They can cast spells because of study, apprenticeship, and stuff.

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.

I cannot be more clear.

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

If you want to play option 1, wizard as sorcerer subclass is good. But that is not the rules now, so not how wizards work.

I'm not interested in your house rules.

 

[Micah Sweet]

D&D 4e?

But the concepts 4e designed rules for already existed first in previous editions of D&D. WotC just wrote new rules for them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

"(Dis)Advantage" is probably an example of doing that. A mechanic was created and a justification was tossed on to out it literally everywhere

That is one (albeit influential) concept in 5e. It's not the whole game, which is full of lore concepts that existed in D&D prior to rules being made for them. And at the beginning, they were concepts drawn from history, literature and folklore that the designers then made rules for. None of that is rules-first, and I would argue the things done since then that are are pretty limited in number compared to the lore-first stuff.

 

[MoonSong]

As you waste my time? You want option 1, but option 2 is how wizards work by rules. They have no magical gift or event that lets them cast spells. They can cast spells because of study, apprenticeship, and stuff. I cannot be more clear. Nothing about wizard in the rules say they have an innate gift for magic--that is sorcerer.

If you want to play option 1, wizard as sorcerer subclass is good. But that is not the rules now, so not how wizards work.

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. 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.

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.

 

[James Gasik]

What RPG was primary designed rules-first? I really don't get it.

This one maybe?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Now if you want how I would write a wizard subclass of sorcerer it's that wizards have, through study and practice managed to safely reproduce sorcerer magical events to enable themselves to cast like sorcerers.

When Vyrathis Stormborn was hit by lightning from the Century Storm and survived he became a storm sorcerer. His eight nephews and nieces all tried; two weren't struck and four died and the other two became storm sorcerers themselves. And because they recorded what had happened three out of five of Vyrathis' kids survived with two becoming sorcerers.

Wizards take a safer path than self-made sorcerers. Through study and practice they prepare themselves for a rite which differs from wizarding tradition to wizarding tradition - but what they all have in common is they attempt to jump-start the wizard's power through partial (and therefore safer and easier) recreations of sorcerer origins; for example summoning the tiniest piece of the Century Storm at the same time as connecting with an unintelligent and weak far realm entity and swallowing a piece of living shadow. Occasionally this goes wrong and either the wizard dies or one part dominates and they become some other kind of sorcerer.

Because none of these sources are as powerful as one from a sorcerer they both have less power from their source but are much more adept at rituals and, with more balanced power, adept at using and building on the magical exploration of others.

And there you have all the updated lore; the wizard wasn't inherently one but got there through study and practice and an extraordinary event. And there are very good reasons for the apprenticeship even if it wasn't necessary

 

[Neonchameleon]

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. 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.

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.

This is true from my perspective (and I've played far more wizards over the years than sorcerers). This thread is literally entitled "the sorcerer shouldn't exist" and is proposing eliminating the sorcerer in favour of thf wizard from the OP. If one goes then both logically and thematically it should be the wizard but there's no reason to get rid of either.

I just wish the wizard had more interesting subclasses and the sorcerer had theirs all upgraded...