D&D 5E What is the Sorcerer?

[fuindordm]

If all sorcerers have an innate gift, then why force them to be charismatic? There are too many Cha casters already and too much cheesy synergy among them.

Here's a wild idea:

Sorcerers have magic without any primary spellcasting stat.
Their spell DCs and spell attack rolls IN THEIR THEME get double proficiency bonus but no ability svore bonus. Every level they can claim one more spell outside their subclass list to get this benefit.
And like the warlock their spell.slots don't synergize with the other spellcasting classes, because it's just innate power.not learning how to manipulate external magic.

 

[Jadeite]

A miserable little pile of bloodlines.

 

[MichaelSomething]

A wizard is like a DM who understands all the rules, makes PCs keep track of all their supplies, and follows strict fiction (or balance) enforcement protocols.

A Sorcerer is like a DM who doesn't let the rules get in the way of their judgement and feels empowered to make rulings based on what they feel is right.

 

[Minigiant]

Sorcerers are X-Men
Wizards are Stark Industries
Sorcerers are Bang Babies
Wizards are the Batfamily

 

[Minigiant]

A wizard is like a DM who understands all the rules, makes PCs keep track of all their supplies, and follows strict fiction (or balance) enforcement protocols.

A Sorcerer is like a DM who doesn't let the rules get in the way of their judgement and feels empowered to make rulings based on what they feel is right.

The Wizard is the DM with a bunch of splatbooks and modules and maps and minis. If she need an adventure for a party of 5 level 6 adventurers, she has a book for it. If she don't, she gonna get on.

The Sorcerer is the DM who has the 3 ruleooks and nothing else because he thinks prewritten stuff is bad. He has mins for gobliniods, devils, and 2 dragons. So he created an elaborate world with the Goblin Empire is the villain and the Goblin empire family are "secretly" dragons. The enemies will be 90% goblins but some will fly, breath fire, cast spells, cause fear, l or summon devils. Every myth about goblins from Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, and both Americas will be used. Because he's got goblin in his blood. He research goblins before he became a DM.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

Been thinking a bunch about the sorcerer threads. Seems to me the biggest thing sorcerers need is a concrete identity?

Can it only be "innate spellcasting"? It is enough?

At what cost? Where is the balance? Who would play a caster that relies on magic from "outside" if a caster that relies on magic from "within" is available?

Are origin differences enough? Can there be a single class given so many origin options?

Don't know, don't have the answers, just some ideas jumping around.

Yeah currently their entire identity is 'hot wizard with a feat glued on'.

I'd love innate sorcery and subclasses which really impact the playstyle of the class to be their identity though. Essentially becoming the 'play as a monster class'.

Bonus points if you have a subclass which is 'one of your ancestors was a powerful wizard', so that the 'hot wizard' crowd are placated.

 

[Flights of Fancy]

Wizards have increased versatility, but that comes at the expense of having to rely on outside learning, making him vulnerable should something happen to his spellbook(s).

Right, but what is the cost/ balance for the sorcerer, not the wizard?

First let me say that I misread innate spellcasting to mean "flexible casting vs traditional Vancian" at first. I'm a bit too used to people pointing out the sorcerer's 3e origin as an experimental mechanics class, and I think we've grown past that. Much like the modern warlock is a mix of the older classes of binder, warlock, hexblade and maybe a few others, I'm going to argue that the modern sorcerer is a mix of psion, sorcerer, and a few other odds and ends.

So I appologize for being confusing there at first.

No problem, that makes more sense.

Then does this: "the modern sorcerer is a mix of psion, sorcerer, and a few other odds and ends" mean the sorcerer lacks identity?

Then I'm going to follow up by saying that the "spellcasting" part isn't necessarily core to the sorcerer's identity. We're using spells to approximate the trope, but its not necessarily the only way to to do it. It is simply the easiest and least stressful way that 5e represents the sorcerer.

So, to TLDR this: Yes, but Kinda No.

Several reasons. I blame the lacking mechanics and the lack of love from WotC, to be honest. There are a lot of unfavorable comparisons to the warlock and wizard that left the sorcerer feeling like a bad copy, the mechanics were a poor match to the class' theme, WotC effectively having a bias against the Sorcerer, even when it comes to just... letting them use thematically appropriate spells like Illusory Dragon.

It also didn't help that, when the sorcerer came out, there weren't enough elemental spells to do anything other than a fire-based Dragon Sorcerer, and there were practically no chaotic-magic options to feel like a Wild Mage without beggiing the DM. Even now, doing an acid- or poison- based dragon is a stretch.

So lack of support from WotC in the 5E sorcerer design leads to its lack of identity. It has no supporting mechanics other than maybe sorcerery points used to fuel spells (not for metamagics).

Sorcerer also claimed metamagics, preventing all other casters from having access like they have in previous editions, which did generate bad feelings as well.

I never understood this design choice myself.

Maybe. There are many people that would love to do that. But there are problems with this approach too. While there are many people who would appreciate this approach, there are just as many people who very much do like the sorcerer as a caster. I did say that spellcasting wasn't central to the sorcerer's identity, but there are people out there that would disagree with me.

Since it seems like nothing is ever agreed apon, no surprise there.

Secondly, and to me more importantly, it would effectively require a third style of gameplay introduced into D&D. Doing largely magical effects through non-spellcasting means that we would end up ignoring the few checks and balances casters have while basically giving them roughly the same power level. We've seen this happen before with psionic classes in other editions, and balance is important enough to enough people that its a non-starter for many.

It could be pulled off with infinite time and infinite budget and good developers, but that's just unrealistic to expect.

Part of the problem is there really isn't any checks and balances for casters.

Technically the option is there. Just doesn't get a lot of attention and, to be honest, its often much easier on DMs to have singular Patrons as a dedicated NPC, and dedicated NPCs often come with their own interesting stories. Its also the most iconic

If you don't mind me delving a bit into the warlock... There's two ways to look at the warlocks. One way is to see them as a kind of... edgelord cleric type. They draw power from a patron, then do quests for the patron, just like divine casters do. The other way? 4th edition warlocks didn't do favors - instead, they went on go on adventures to discover forbidden lore and ancient secrets, just like wizards do. Its just that these secrets and lore referred to beings to contanct, and using ancient, already existing contracts / bargains to claim power.

I do prefer the second way, which reminds me heavily of Final Fantasy's blue mage class. To me, warlock is the monster-magic class.

Then now there is also not really an identity for the warlock? Either they are psuedo-clerics or pseudo-sage/wizards?

I think this remains the largest part of the problem.

Glad you enjoyed it.

Sure. I don't post often, but I've been reading the threads on sorcerers so that brought up thoughts.

 

[Flights of Fancy]

Have you ever heard a DM say, "I know that's what the sorcerer description says, but you can't do that, because it's not what a sorcerer could do?"

I never have. Do you have an example?

This conversation could be reframed to, "why did WotC let wizards start casting spells like they're sorcerers?" The sorcerer doesn't have a problem if the wizard isn't stepping on his toes.

If you mean spontaneous casting instead of Vancian, then it wasn't just the wizards, but all casters in 5E. It was a poor choice I think myself.

Yeah currently their entire identity is 'hot wizard with a feat glued on'.

I'd love innate sorcery and subclasses which really impact the playstyle of the class to be their identity though. Essentially becoming the 'play as a monster class'.

Bonus points if you have a subclass which is 'one of your ancestors was a powerful wizard', so that the 'hot wizard' crowd are placated.

It's a pity. Since 2024 isn't seeing a new edition, I am not expecting any real improvements, just add-ons.

 

[Flights of Fancy]

hehe this feels like one of those threads that is "solved", aka I think we pretty much answered the OP question, is there anything more to talk about?

LOL I don't feel like it has ben answered.

 

[Cadence]

If I were king of D&D, the sorcerer wouldn't be a class - it would be one of a suite of subclasses, one for each mystic bloodline/class combination. No reason it has to be many spells, or even any at all, if it doesn't fit the theme. (Why would a Barbarian with a Draconic bloodline cast spells? What extra oomph would the bloodline give a wizard? What can the baker down the street do with it? etc...). And maybe a set of feats for those who just want a bit of flavor around the edges. -- Every so often you put out a new splat book of a few more bloodlines with the associated subclasses.

(I wonder if that is what I would do instead of having the Tiefling/Aasimar/Genasi too - assuming I didn't care about sales in the former case).