D&D 5E Please someone explain to me

[McBars]

Please take this in the comedic spirit with which it is intended, but...

I can't ever remember sorcerers being able to "kill things with their bare hands " with any sort of effectiveness. And I think the 3e players handbook art team's decision to portray Hennet as a many-buckled transvestite with poor fingernail hygiene was a completely arbitrary one, and really should not form the basis of our perceived concept of the sorcerer class for the rest of time. Matterfact, I'd have to say that Hennet's art ranks right up there as some of the worst d&d book art of all time, easily as bad as Mialee, Ember, Alhandra, Krusk, Naull, and the abominable chromosomal abnormality that is the 5e halfling.

Really though, this seems to be a molehill->mountain situation. I'm not sure why your satisfaction with the class hinges on such a small detail.

 

[Shayuri]

As someone who's played wizards, sorcerors and warlocks, this seems like an invitation for me to share my thoughts on their relative balance/roll. They do feel to me like they fit as points on a continuum in some ways, with the wizard being the 'pure' arcanist, and the warlock being almost a hybrid spellcaster/fighter or rogue, depending on build.

Wizards are the best 'all around' mage class, based on their enormous spell list and the robust Arcane School options available to them. A draconic sorceror can pull ahead of them on raw damage a bit, and metamagic can give them some nice burst damage, but an evoker wizard can use his firepower more safely and flexibly. There's no arcane spellcasting feat they're -bad- at, regardless of school choice.

Sorcerors are kind of a mixed bag. Much like 3rd Edition, you have to have a pretty clear idea of what a sorceror will want to do, and build for that from the start. I think the metamagic choices factor into that pretty heavily. It's hard to beat a draconic sorceror with Empower Spell, Twin Spell and/or Quicken Spell for raw damage output in a round. But the metamagic that eliminates verbal and somatic components can be very handy for a sneaky Charm Person or similar slyness. However, since sorcerors don't get any abilities that recharge on a short rest, they must always consider the expenditure of sorcery points very carefully. I get the sense that's to balance the fact that they can swap them for spell slots more than anything...it does make short rests as a sorceror a bit of a bummer though. And I have to say, I'm not wild about wild mages. Feels like they're just there cuz fans like them and they don't make sense as wizards...I get that...but I'd have preferred something with more practicality in the PHB. Ah well.

Warlocks are sort of like sorcerors in that you have to build them from the start to be something, but even more so. Their invocations are pretty awesome, but also very narrow in application. Their spells give them a tich of flexibility, but they have to constantly ask themselves if this is the right moment, because they only get a tiny number of slots. Yes, those slots recover on a short rest, but the party won't be short resting NEARLY as often as opportunities to cast spells come up. My warlock has been a trickster sort...with disguise self and mage armor invocations (so he doesn't have to wear visible armor), and the Actor feat. He's a smooth operator. But when it comes time to spellcast, he pretty much just lobs Fireballs, because any other spell has to be weighed against, "Will I need a Fireball before we rest next?" Usually the answer is yes. Other Invocation and pact choices can make a warlock into a credible melee frontliner, or a sneaky scout, or a magical mind-controller.

Warlocks can pick from a variety of schticks, but they DO have to pick one...that's distinct from a wizard who -kind of- has a schtick in his arcane school, but the spells prepared are really what determine what the wizard can do at any given moment...and from a sorceror who does need to focus on a theme, but the themes they encompass are broader in scope because they can more flexibly use their spells.

So far I'm enjoying all three. I can't say any of them feel grossly underpowered or imbalanced. However, the sorceror and warlock ARE less forgiving of players in terms of what choices they make at creation and each level. A wizard can pretty easily just change their prepared spell list, but it's harder for sorcerors and warlocks to 'respec' away mistakes or changes of heart. They're also more locked in as far as what their potential to do well at is. A wizard can do many things pretty well and a few things quite well...but sorcerors and warlocks really have to pick one thing to do super well at, and there's only a relatively (compared to the wizard) small list of possible things for them. They work great if you want to play one of those things...less so if you want to draw outside the lines and test the limits.

That's my take so far at least! Still a lot more gaming to do.

 

[MoonSong]

Then the only mechanical thing you can do to be "good at" diplomacy is to have a high CHA and train Persuasion. Sorcerers, who can train Persuasion, are CLEARLY better than the wizards, who cannot, and are on par with arcane tricksters and bards (the latter of which is tailor made for diplomancing). Rituals and cantrips don't help you convince anyone of anything.

And then you are no longer a magical diplomat, just a regular diplomat who can also do magic.

It is not clear at all that this is more important than, say, auto-advantage when you're sneaking through the orc camp.

But I really miss the kitty...

That's a weirdly adversarial vision of what you want out of a sorcerer: "Someone who can do whatever they want to do better than a wizard, and also kill them in hand-to-hand combat."

I just want to be able to say again "hey, this is my sorceress, think of her as the party rogue because she will be doing that function and nothing else", and not have the party regret it, or the wizard freely invading my niche and outdoing me at it. This was possible in 3e, and better at late 3.5. If I tried that in 5e, peer pressure would force me to either have an actual rogue or roll a wizard who could have room to spare in order to also be useful in combat. A non-blasty sorcerer simply doesn't bring enough to the table to be easily accepted.

How often do you have to fight PC wizards in your games? Why is THIS the relevant thing to be able to do?

Not that I remember, but that isn't important, the important fact is that I can. I know it is a cosmetic and symbolic detail, but just knowing you as a sorcerer can do it is more than enough, and killing enemies with your own hands (using a scythe) is still satisfying.

The entire game is a nerdy power trip, and everything comes with some baggage.

Why do you keep saying these mean things? Is it so wrong I just enjoy the game for the drama, the adventure and the camaraderie?

And one thing is having baggage and other having unwanted baggage. The wizard baggage is the one I cannot stand. I wouldn't play that kind of characters even if you paid me.

Please take this in the comedic spirit with which it is intended, but...

I can't ever remember sorcerers being able to "kill things with their bare hands " with any sort of effectiveness. And I think the 3e players handbook art team's decision to portray Hennet as a many-buckled transvestite with poor fingernail hygiene was a completely arbitrary one, and really should not form the basis of our perceived concept of the sorcerer class for the rest of time. Matterfact, I'd have to say that Hennet's art ranks right up there as some of the worst d&d book art of all time, easily as bad as Mialee, Ember, Alhandra, Krusk, Naull, and the abominable chromosomal abnormality that is the 5e halfling.

Really though, this seems to be a molehill->mountain situation. I'm not sure why your satisfaction with the class hinges on such a small detail.

Welcome to enworld!!

It isn't my class satisfaction hinges on that very small detail, but that that small detail is the very last straw. Previous editions sorcerers had many problems, but simple weapons were the minimum thing I came to expect from the class. No matter how hard the designers screwed up the class as long as the sorcerer had Cha casting, no books, no prep, and simple weapons they couldn't go that wrong. The 5e sorcerer feels like one step ahead and ten steps backwards in this -they took away the sorcerers' pets, weapons, utility, and their one competitive advantage without being properly compensated for it. I've got many complaints for the sorcerer class, the biggest one is they weren't open for input like with most other classes. And it gets worse, they let you have a spear in your starting equipment, but they won't let you be any good with it. This is the only class for what it is true.

And you could be decent hitting things, not fighter-good, but decent.

(And yes Hennet wasn't the best role model, but he had something that made the class attractive, he was confident, flamboyant and looked strong. Just by seeing him you notice he is no frail wizard)

 

[I'm A Banana]

And then you are no longer a magical diplomat, just a regular diplomat who can also do magic.

I mean, at this point, the target of your issue isn't sorcerers, it's the fact that charm magic isn't as powerful in 5e as it was in 3e. Which is kind of a different conversation.

But I really miss the kitty...

Be an alt-human and take Ritual Caster. Get some kitty.

I just want to be able to say again "hey, this is my sorceress, think of her as the party rogue because she will be doing that function and nothing else", and not have the party regret it

Yeah, I think that's more than viable as sorcerers stand now.

or the wizard freely invading my niche and outdoing me at it.

Again, it's not clear that the wizard is outdoing anyone.

More broadly, if the player of the wizard says "think of my wizard as the party rogue because she will be doing that function and nothing else," how should they compare to a sorcerer who says the same thing? How about an Arcane Trickster who says that? Or a bard who says that? Or, heck, a *rogue* who says that? Or a fighter!

As it stands right now, all of those classes could conceivably say that and they'd all be roughly comparable in the role (though with some differences). That looks to me like good balance -- pick a niche you want to fill, and you can basically be as good as anyone else filling that niche.

This was possible in 3e, and better at late 3.5. If I tried that in 5e, peer pressure would force me to either have an actual rogue or roll a wizard who could have room to spare in order to also be useful in combat. A non-blasty sorcerer simply doesn't bring enough to the table to be easily accepted.

Table issue, not system issue. Either find a table that is willing to mod the system to get what you want, or find a table that can accept the kinds of characters you want to play. (My favorite version of this is getting one of my current players to step up and run a game for a while). You are the kender fan in the room full of kender-haters. It's not a fault of PHB design that it doesn't include kenders that kender-haters will accept.

Not that I remember, but that isn't important, the important fact is that I can. I know it is a cosmetic and symbolic detail, but just knowing you as a sorcerer can do it is more than enough, and killing enemies with your own hands (using a scythe) is still satisfying.

In what version of 3e is a scythe a simple weapon?

You're getting a little hung up on specifics. If that feeling of "non-wimpiness" is at issue, a dragon sorcerer dual-wielding daggers with a half-decent CON has HP, AC, and damage output that rivals any other mid-range melee machine (13+DEX AC, 7+CON HP, 2d4+DEX damage, +DEX to hit, plus Shield and True Strike and Shocking Grasp and False Life!).

Why do you keep saying these mean things? Is it so wrong I just enjoy the game for the drama, the adventure and the camaraderie?

And one thing is having baggage and other having unwanted baggage. The wizard baggage is the one I cannot stand. I wouldn't play that kind of characters even if you paid me.

My intention isn't to be mean, it's just to point out that a lot of the issue might just be in your own head. A wizard can be strong, confident, flamboyant, and hardy! A sorcerer can be frail and weak! You might benefit from a more open perspective.

You also may want to consider how this admitted bias on your part is coloring your perspective here. Everything you're saying about the wizard could be said by a wizard fan about the sorcerer -- that they have awful fluff text and that they feel like they "need" to be a sorcerer to be the archetype they are looking for ("I can't be a magic warrior if I have to constantly waste one of my spells on Mage Armor, and that won't even last past my first short rest! Sorcerers are all so much better at everything! My flexibility just means I'm awful at everything, and I have nothing I'm good at!").

So when you ask someone to explain to you why they did these things to the Sorcerer, the simple fact might be that they did these things to ensure that the sorcerer was balanced and focused on its niche. It doesn't use advanced weaponry because it's primarily a caster (same reason it gets 4 cantrips). It has a limited spell selection because it's not meant to be patient and versatile, but spontaneous and focused (which is why it has more cantrips and more "always on" options), though it has quite enough range to occupy many different niches. The reason it doesn't seem that way at first glance to you might be because you have inflated expectations of what a sorcerer must be. Not being able to wield spears isn't code for "they are weak and frail!", it's code for "Shocking grasp is better than spears, and Sorcerers are cool because they cast spells, so we should encourage them to use their cantrips instead of weapon attacks."

For someone who relies a little less on spells, look at the Arcane Trickster rogue, or the Bard, who are quite comparable for all the niches you're looking to fill.

 

[ccooke]

You know, 5e is the one edition where it's always possible to have your special snowflake character with an unusual weapon - take the Gladiator (Variant Entertainer) background. That gets you proficiency in any one "unusual" weapon (martial or otherwise). Wield a trident, or a scythe (I'd stat it as equivalent to a glaive or the like) or the like. Plus (by default) some nice skills that work well with a Charisma-based character.

And hey, with the "concentrate to hold a spell partially cast" mechanic that 5e readying uses, it's actually possible for a sorceror to recreate some of the iconic artwork:

"A sorceror with a magic carpet item, using 1 sorcery point and the Twinned Spell metamagic talent to ready and hold two Chromatic Orb spells, one fire and one cold"

(I see nothing in the rules that says you can't ready a spell with metamagic, nor is there anything in the rules that says you need to choose the same options when you use a Twinned Spell. Thus I'd be happy to allow the above at my table, if a player came up with it. It's in no way overpowered.)

 

[Paraxis]

You know, 5e is the one edition where it's always possible to have your special snowflake character with an unusual weapon - take the Gladiator (Variant Entertainer) background. That gets you proficiency in any one "unusual" weapon (martial or otherwise).

That variant background only replaces the musical instrument item with an unusual weapon item, not proficiency. Backgrounds don't give you any extra combat abilities or weapon/armor proficiencies.

 

[ccooke]

That variant background only replaces the musical instrument item with an unusual weapon item, not proficiency. Backgrounds don't give you any extra combat abilities or weapon/armor proficiencies.

Well, drat. There goes that idea

 

[MoonSong]

I mean, at this point, the target of your issue isn't sorcerers, it's the fact that charm magic isn't as powerful in 5e as it was in 3e. Which is kind of a different conversation.

It is part of the issue, my argument is charm magic should be better for a sorcerer than for a wizard. In 5e a 1st lv wizard has twice the options a 1st lv sorcerer has (and 3 times overall) and can cast 50% more spells. why should my first level charm spell have the exact same effect than the wizard out there which had a way smaller opportunity cost?

Be an alt-human and take Ritual Caster. Get some kitty.

Why should I be a wizard to get a kitty familiar? I had never needed to be a wizard to get one. This also limits the options in races I can play. Gnomes, half-eves, elves,... this is a very artificial limit.

Yeah, I think that's more than viable as sorcerers stand now.

How about "the party not regret it" bit?, sorcerers are less viable than ever as anything but blasters. And even as blaster, my first level sorcerer did nothing but fail her two shots at the big mon and cower behind the others.

More broadly, if the player of the wizard says "think of my wizard as the party rogue because she will be doing that function and nothing else," how should they compare to a sorcerer who says the same thing? How about an Arcane Trickster who says that? Or a bard who says that? Or, heck, a *rogue* who says that? Or a fighter!

A wizard who can basically rewrite herself everyday? the only time I actually tried to play a wizard was once when I wanted to reproduce Saint tail, it seemed appropriate at the time, but I was met with skepticism by fellow players, a sorcerer has more creed in that sense, a wizard always has the temptation to do something else, and that is why he shouldn't be as good as a sorcerer or a bard who should be able to compare to a rogue if properly focused. (That campaign didn't got off the ground so my record of zero wizards is still intact)

As it stands right now, all of those classes could conceivably say that and they'd all be roughly comparable in the role (though with some differences). That looks to me like good balance -- pick a niche you want to fill, and you can basically be as good as anyone else filling that niche.

Again the wizard has more than enough room to fill a niche and still do more than just the niche. I have to concede this doesn't really cover the niche that well. Spells were very limited so wizards couldn't make others irrelevant as shown in the other thread about wizards. But if the wizard with twice the spells cannot properly fill the niche, how can a sorcerer fill it with the exact same spells, only knowing half the spells and casting only two-thirds of the ones wizards can without counting ritual casting?

Table issue, not system issue. Either find a table that is willing to mod the system to get what you want, or find a table that can accept the kinds of characters you want to play. (My favorite version of this is getting one of my current players to step up and run a game for a while). You are the kender fan in the room full of kender-haters. It's not a fault of PHB design that it doesn't include kenders that kender-haters will accept.

If I had a stable table like that I wouldn't need to care about RAW. And if I had a group willing to mod the game to make room for me, I wouldn't need or care about 5e. I still think I would have an easier time convincing a DM to allow the sorcerer from Baldur's Gate in 2e.

You're getting a little hung up on specifics. If that feeling of "non-wimpiness" is at issue, a dragon sorcerer dual-wielding daggers with a half-decent CON has HP, AC, and damage output that rivals any other mid-range melee machine (13+DEX AC, 7+CON HP, 2d4+DEX damage, +DEX to hit, plus Shield and True Strike and Shocking Grasp and False Life!).

All I want is the option for all of my sorcerers -ALL not just humans-to be good with spears and contribute with them to the party, they are an iconic weapon for sorcs, I don't want to be beholden to just two very specific builds in order to contribute.

My intention isn't to be mean, it's just to point out that a lot of the issue might just be in your own head. A wizard can be strong, confident, flamboyant, and hardy! A sorcerer can be frail and weak! You might benefit from a more open perspective.

Except for the one case up there, I have never been satisfied with the wizard, it cannot tell the stories I want to tell with my characters. This hasn't changed one bit since they were called mages, the class is just that limited for me.

You also may want to consider how this admitted bias on your part is coloring your perspective here. Everything you're saying about the wizard could be said by a wizard fan about the sorcerer -- that they have awful fluff text and that they feel like they "need" to be a sorcerer to be the archetype they are looking for ("I can't be a magic warrior if I have to constantly waste one of my spells on Mage Armor, and that won't even last past my first short rest! Sorcerers are all so much better at everything! My flexibility just means I'm awful at everything, and I have nothing I'm good at!").

I'm sorry, but I never heard a wizard player complain during 3e, and it is very difficult for me to empathize with that hypothetical reversal, wizards always end up over-supported, and they being the default caster has always been a cause for sorcerers to be more limited than necessary. Yet I think they limited wizards more than was necessary.

So when you ask someone to explain to you why they did these things to the Sorcerer, the simple fact might be that they did these things to ensure that the sorcerer was balanced and focused on its niche. It doesn't use advanced weaponry because it's primarily a caster (same reason it gets 4 cantrips). It has a limited spell selection because it's not meant to be patient and versatile, but spontaneous and focused (which is why it has more cantrips and more "always on" options), though it has quite enough range to occupy many different niches. The reason it doesn't seem that way at first glance to you might be because you have inflated expectations of what a sorcerer must be. Not being able to wield spears isn't code for "they are weak and frail!", it's code for "Shocking grasp is better than spears, and Sorcerers are cool because they cast spells, so we should encourage them to use their cantrips instead of weapon attacks."

A spear isn't advanced weaponry, it is called a simple weapon because any peasant can use it -and this is something I feel bad about, they took away the sorcerer's peasant status, a key part of the sorcerer identity-. Only for a wizard a spear is advanced. As a sorcerer player I've grown to expect being able to use them, it is as if they took away monk weapons -they are supposed to use their fists!-.

For someone who relies a little less on spells, look at the Arcane Trickster rogue, or the Bard, who are quite comparable for all the niches you're looking to fill.

Arcane trickster has nothing to do here, it gets spells too late to count. But yes, Bards are awesome, and will probably have to have a mandatory multiclassing for all of my sorcerers from now on.

You know, 5e is the one edition where it's always possible to have your special snowflake character with an unusual weapon - take the Gladiator (Variant Entertainer) background. That gets you proficiency in any one "unusual" weapon (martial or otherwise). Wield a trident, or a scythe (I'd stat it as equivalent to a glaive or the like) or the like. Plus (by default) some nice skills that work well with a Charisma-based character.

Gladiator only gives you the weapon, not the proficiency. And it still is a limit on the kind of characters I can have. And I want spears and simple weapons, suggesting a way to get an exotic weapon implies I'm asking for something outrageous and unreasonable.

 

[Paraxis]

I And it still is a limit on the kind of characters I can have. And I want spears and simple weapons, suggesting a way to get an exotic weapon implies I'm asking for something outrageous and unreasonable.

Spears are simple weapons.

There is no limit, you can pick up and use any weapon you want, you just don't get your proficiency bonus to hit.

There are no exotic weapons in 5e, only simple and martial.

If you are concerned about not having your proficiency bonus I am assuming you care about the numbers, if you care about the numbers why on earth would you want to use a spear when it has to use strength to hit and damage, but you could just use a dagger and use your dexterity which for a sorcerer 99 times out of a 100 is going to be higher than strength.

So your choices are.
Use cantrips, most effective and magical thing you can do especially after 5th level when the damage goes up.
Use a dagger a simple and finesse weapon that will add your dex mod to hit and damage, and proficiency bonus.
Use a spear, a simple weapon that you are not proficient in so at level one missing out on a +2 to hit, and it uses strength for attack and damage, so yeah sucks compared to a dagger if your dex is higher.

If you want to feel magical go with cantrips.
If for some reason you want to go melee and care about math, go with dagger.
If you for some reason want to just use a spear go with that and suck, but you should be happy because you are using the weapon you want to use.

 

[steeldragons]

This is a great post, @Paraxis.

Concise, reasonable, easily implemented, one might say rational choices and expectations.

You obviously have not read most of this thread.