Would it be as bad as people say it would?

[Sir cryosin]

So WotC said that it's bad to add more spells to casters spell list. But would it really be bad it give a sorcerer a add spell list like a cleric or paladin. Now I'll admit that I'm just looking to add spells like hex, hellish rebuke, armor of agathys, added to the sorcerer's spell list. But besides that point is it really a bad idea to add more.

[RulesJD]

Define bad:

1. Remove all need to actually play a Warlock? Yes. Which I think would be bad.

2. Overpower your Sorcerer? No. You can already do a 1-2 level Warlock dip and get those spells anyways, so it doesn't matter much.

Heck, every Sorcerer I've ever played did the 2 level Warlock dip, it's too good not to.

[R.Shackleford]

So WotC said that it's bad to add more spells to casters spell list. But would it really be bad it give a sorcerer a add spell list like a cleric or paladin. Now I'll admit that I'm just looking to add spells like hex, hellish rebuke, armor of agathys, added to the sorcerer's spell list. But besides that point is it really a bad idea to add more.

In all honesty I would ignore everything and everything wotc says as they don't even seem to understand their own game.

[Gastronomie]

In all honesty I would ignore everything and everything wotc says as they don't even seem to understand their own game.This.

Hex is a big no, but adding a respective additional spell list for each sorcerous origin is honestly something the creators should have done from the start (all the other classes like Clerics, Land Druids, Paladins, and Warlocks have them... why not Sorcerers?)

They shouldn't have erased it from the UA Storm Sorcerer. They should have added it in an errata to the Draconic and Wild Magic sorcerers as well.

[Sir cryosin]

Hex I don't really to much but I like hellish rebuke and armor of agathys and with the warlock only getting 2 spell slots per rest. I don't see them getting much play. They would get more mileage on a sorcerer.

[Segev]

Can't you gain hex via the Magic Initiate feat? Or does the feat-granted spell not let you expend spell slots to cast it?

[R.Shackleford]

This.

Hex is a big no, but adding a respective additional spell list for each sorcerous origin is honestly something the creators should have done from the start (all the other classes like Clerics, Land Druids, Paladins, and Warlocks have them... why not Sorcerers?)

They shouldn't have erased it from the UA Storm Sorcerer. They should have added it in an errata to the Draconic and Wild Magic sorcerers as well.

I really think that the main phrase for 6e will be "consistency".

Everything doesn't have to be the same, but having general stuff being consistent would be great.

Giving all magic users a basic spell (like Hex) to help with their damage. Having all martials work off attack + extra attack. Having all classes work off at will and short rest (except maybe the wizard) when it comes to getting their resources back (5e is close to this, arcane recovery already exists even for the wizard). Allow for everyone to grow quadratically as you pass the level 10 mark (and give us an game that is actually polished).


Edit

On magic Initiate

You could use this to gain Hex. However you only could use it 1/LR unless Hex is on your spell list. If it is on your spell list you can then use your other spell slots to cast it more.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I don't think there's anything too bad about moving spells around in and of itself, but I'd be very cautious about single-class spells, like Armor of Agathys, Hunter's Mark, or Find Steed. Such spells tend to form major parts of their class' identity, and allowing other classes to access them can dilute that identity somewhat.


Can't you gain hex via the Magic Initiate feat? Or does the feat-granted spell not let you expend spell slots to cast it?
It does not-- it's only ever once per day.


I really think that the main phrase for 6e will be "consistency".

Everything doesn't have to be the same, but having general stuff being consistent would be great.

Giving all magic users a basic spell (like Hex) to help with their damage. Having all martials work off attack + extra attack. Having all classes work off at will and short rest (except maybe the wizard) when it comes to getting their resources back (5e is close to this, arcane recovery already exists even for the wizard). Allow for everyone to grow quadratically as you pass the level 10 mark (and give us an game that is actually polished).
4e tried this and people hated it.

[famousringo]

Can't you gain hex via the Magic Initiate feat? Or does the feat-granted spell not let you expend spell slots to cast it?

You can, but only if the spell gained is already on your class list, or some such fiddly malarkey.

[R.Shackleford]

I would say that instead of giving sorcerer more spells to just let them take from any list they like.

Druid list Sorcerers are fabtabulous.

[Dalebert]

It's not inherently bad, but do it THOUGHTFULLY. I can't stress this enough.

The spell lists were definitely created with balance in mind. The versatility of a wizard (intended as their key class feature) is largely defined by their spell list. That said, I think most people agree that they got a bit carried away in how much they limited the spells known of sorcerers. I'm one of many people who favors adding about 5 spells to their spells known in a limited fashion. I do this in homebrews by giving them one extra spell each of spell levels 1 through 5 from a choice of two each level according to their sorcery type (storm, draconic, wild, etc.). Sometimes I pick them from the lists of other casters.

Be careful about just adding new spells. Casters are already inherently very versatile compared to non-casters. Every spell option adds to their potential class features, albeit with the expenditure of limited resources, i.e. spell slots and spells known or prepared. Thing is, those resources become large enough to not matter much after certain levels.

Definitely exercise caution and keep balance in mind. It's very tempting to go "I want to be able to do X. Why can't I just come up with a spell for that as long as the spell's power is comparable and fits the flavor of my class?" Well, balance is why.

[R.Shackleford]

It's not inherently bad, but do it THOUGHTFULLY. I can't stress this enough.

The spell lists were definitely created with balance in mind. The versatility of a wizard (intended as their key class feature) is largely defined by their spell list. That said, I think most people agree that they got a bit carried away in how much they limited the spells known of sorcerers. I'm one of many people who favors adding about 5 spells to their spells known in a limited fashion. I do this in homebrews by giving them one extra spell each of spell levels 1 through 5 from a choice of two each level according to their sorcery type (storm, draconic, wild, etc.). Sometimes I pick them from the lists of other casters.

I don't believe balance was part of their thought process with any part of this game.

[Officer Joy]

I don't believe balance was part of their thought process with any part of this game.

If they hadn't attemted balance, it would be a whole lot more inbalanced.

[Biggstick]

I don't believe balance was part of their thought process with any part of this game.

Echoing what Grod said, it sounds like you're aching for the days of 4E with everyone having the same basic stuff with a different name.

[Gastronomie]

I don't believe balance was part of their thought process with any part of this game.Eh, it was a part of their thought process and they did it mostly right. It's just that optimizers take it too seriously and can't stand the slightest mistake in balance, when it's impossible to eradicate all the problems as long as the game is created by human hands.

But for Sorcerers, I wish they had more spells. Not for balance, but for flavor. Which I think is about a gajillion times more important than a slight tip to the balance.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I don't believe balance was part of their thought process with any part of this game.
It certainly was, but tradition was as well-- that's why magic users still have their big toolboxes. Which, given how much individual spells have been weakened, I think comes off fine in play. (At least so long as the DM isn't a **** about letting skills accomplish things.)

[Dalebert]

Echoing what Grod said, it sounds like you're aching for the days of 4E with everyone having the same basic stuff with a different name.

4e seemed incredibly balanced but didn't do well overall. Prior rules were incredibly unbalanced. Seems to me they were trying to find a compromise this time and now 5e is incredibly successful on the whole and more people are starting to take interest in the game. It's still far from perfect but that's a far cry from "no attempt at balance at all".

[Pex]

Can't you gain hex via the Magic Initiate feat? Or does the feat-granted spell not let you expend spell slots to cast it?

Debatable. Crawford or someone says it doesn't work like that. To use your own spell slots you'd have to pick a spell on your spell list. I say that's a bad ruling because it is a total waste to spend the feat slot just to get a spell you could have had anyway if you wanted it that much. The feat says you know the spell. You should be able to cast it normally. It's not game breaking.

Full disclosure - It's what I did with my Sorcerer in a game. DM has no problem with it. It will be useful to Twin Hex at 5th level when I need to attack two bad guys with Eldritch Blast at 5th level. Just as well to cast Twin Hex Twin Firebolt when appropriate as fire is my element.

[R.Shackleford]

Echoing what Grod said, it sounds like you're aching for the days of 4E with everyone having the same basic stuff with a different name.

I find it funny when people use that as some sort of insult/attack when 5e is essentially 4e (backgrounds)/4e Essentials with a 3e skin and even more simple math.

Edit

Also, what I want is consistency, I'm been busy with work so i haven't been able to update them as much but...

Tell me that Cleric with Warlock progression is the "same" as a warlock. Also my homebrew classes aren't the same but they are consistent (not balanced yet but I blame work).

You can have different spells and features and yet still be consistent with how you work and your overall power level.

[Baptor]

In all honesty I would ignore everything and everything wotc says as they don't even seem to understand their own game.

So funny. It is true though. At first I was going to follow WotC's lead on rulings and such, but as more and more came out, I realized they are shooting from the hip and not doing any real research in the repercussions of these rulings. Magic the Gathering it ain't. WotC right now is taking the intentionally loose 5e rules and trying to tighten them to 3e standards, which only makes them look silly. So I ignore them now.

I agree with R.Shackleford in that 5e lacks consistency but it doesn't really bother me much. 5e, to me, is everything good about 3e and 4e applied backwards to 2e. 5e, for me, is 85% perfect for me, and that's a magnitude better than any other edition. I love how it doesn't fill in every gap and there is great room for interpretation. For example, in my games, Magic Initiate does allow you to add that spell to any spell lists you have.

Still, as he says, it would not have hurt them to have been a little more consistent. All of my houserules are aimed in that direction, trying to bring most of that remaining 15% in line.

[MrStabby]

I have rewarded casters in games with additional spells as part of the rewards of questing and it has worked pretty well.

A couple of homebrewed fire spells for a Draconic sorcerer for helping a Gold dragon for example. Be careful with this though as the game can be very sensitive to this - even a couple more spells known for my group's sorcerer meant much more freedom to add very different spells to their selection known at the next level up which in turn gave more freedom at the level after and so on...

[SharkForce]

So funny. It is true though. At first I was going to follow WotC's lead on rulings and such, but as more and more came out, I realized they are shooting from the hip and not doing any real research in the repercussions of these rulings. Magic the Gathering it ain't. WotC right now is taking the intentionally loose 5e rules and trying to tighten them to 3e standards, which only makes them look silly. So I ignore them now.

I agree with R.Shackleford in that 5e lacks consistency but it doesn't really bother me much. 5e, to me, is everything good about 3e and 4e applied backwards to 2e. 5e, for me, is 85% perfect for me, and that's a magnitude better than any other edition. I love how it doesn't fill in every gap and there is great room for interpretation. For example, in my games, Magic Initiate does allow you to add that spell to any spell lists you have.

Still, as he says, it would not have hurt them to have been a little more consistent. All of my houserules are aimed in that direction, trying to bring most of that remaining 15% in line.

well they did pretty well at first. as in, before they let go all of the people that worked on core 5e.

unsurprisingly, getting rid of all the people that worked on the system has left them with less of an understanding of their own system than might be desired. i don't think i've seen sage advice cover a single hard question yet... it's like they're terrified of stepping outside of RAW. also, their UA articles keep on having things that don't fit with the original core philosophies. their feats article added all kinds of fiddly bonuses, the very article that warns about expanding the sorcerer spell list has a sorcerer archetype that expands the sorcerer spell list, their most recent UA has a wizard archetype that gives a fiddly bonus *and* breaks bounded accuracy by increasing spell DCs to a point where well-selected spells cannot be saved against by many lower CR monsters...

anyways, if it seems like they don't understand their own system sometimes, that's probably because many of the people who did understand the system and why they made certain decisions when they were setting up the core books are no longer working at WotC. not that core is perfect (certain archetypes are widely viewed as lacking while others are hilariously overpowered at certain levels, for example), but it was much tighter than the things WotC has shown us since then.

[R.Shackleford]

well they did pretty well at first. as in, before they let go all of the people that worked on core 5e.

unsurprisingly, getting rid of all the people that worked on the system has left them with less of an understanding of their own system than might be desired. i don't think i've seen sage advice cover a single hard question yet... it's like they're terrified of stepping outside of RAW. also, their UA articles keep on having things that don't fit with the original core philosophies. their feats article added all kinds of fiddly bonuses, the very article that warns about expanding the sorcerer spell list has a sorcerer archetype that expands the sorcerer spell list, their most recent UA has a wizard archetype that gives a fiddly bonus *and* breaks bounded accuracy by increasing spell DCs to a point where well-selected spells cannot be saved against by many lower CR monsters...

anyways, if it seems like they don't understand their own system sometimes, that's probably because many of the people who did understand the system and why they made certain decisions when they were setting up the core books are no longer working at WotC. not that core is perfect (certain archetypes are widely viewed as lacking while others are hilariously overpowered at certain levels, for example), but it was much tighter than the things WotC has shown us since then.

I was about to respond and say what I bolded.

[Theodoxus]

I find it funny when people use that as some sort of insult/attack when 5e is essentially 4e (backgrounds)/4e Essentials with a 3e skin and even more simple math.

Edit

Also, what I want is consistency, I'm been busy with work so i haven't been able to update them as much but...

Tell me that Cleric with Warlock progression is the "same" as a warlock. Also my homebrew classes aren't the same but they are consistent (not balanced yet but I blame work).

You can have different spells and features and yet still be consistent with how you work and your overall power level.

Wait, you want everything to work the same? Warlocks and Clerics and Wizards all have the same chassis? No thanks. Part of the uniqueness of the classes is their disparate rulesets. This is exactly what I didn't like about 4E, and why those of us who complained about it feeling like WoW said so.

When classes are reduced to a line of effects, smashing the 2 key until something procs that lets me switch to the 3 key? Um, no. Then, the super rare, but very powerful 7 key on an hour cooldown? Anything to escape that. ANYTHING.

I like my cleric, playing in an OotA game, alongside a warlock and wizard. We use spell points, and thanks to needing higher level spells more often, I'm often chastised by the wizard for running low on points when he's still at 80% or more. The warlock just asks for a short rest. The wizard gets some points back, the warlock's good to go, and I caution everyone to try to avoid getting hurt...

It would be so much more boring if we all had fewer spell choices, but they came back on a short rest. I get to be the healing warlock?!? Bleh. I need more spells than 2 in a combat. Just buffing and Spiritual Weapon would kill me, every time... no HW to pop back an unconscious comrade... no emergency SG when halfway through combat, we're swarmed by 20 goblins running away from a cave troll... uh. Just no.

[Zalabim]

Wait, you want everything to work the same? Warlocks and Clerics and Wizards all have the same chassis? No thanks. Part of the uniqueness of the classes is their disparate rulesets. This is exactly what I didn't like about 4E, and why those of us who complained about it feeling like WoW said so.

Because WoW classes have always all used the same chassis and rule set as each other.

[jaappleton]

Let's look at this for a moment.

In an UA article, in one line, they wrote "Don't give Sorcerers more spells."

Several lines later, in the same article, they showed the Favored Soul and gave it Cleric Domain bonus spells.

When asked in Tweets, Mearls said there's really nothing bad about switching spell lists for classes. Think of that for a moment: I don't see much harm in granting a Cleric access to the Druid spell list (and taking away the Cleric list), but now think of doing that with a Wizard. A Tempest Cleric using Destructive Wrath on Chain Lightning; 80 damage to anyone that fails the save. 80 damage to 4 enemies.



So you can give spells, but you have to have a reason for it, and you REALLY have to think about how it can be abused / utilized. Be careful.

Giving extra spells to a Sorcerer is tricky because of how it can interact with Metamagic. Metamagic can really alter the action economy with Twinned and Quickened spell, and the Sorcerer spell list was carefully chosen as a result of that.

And if you do add spells, give a reason, make it thematic to justify it. There's Wild Magic and Draconic Magic; Are you someone tied to a Fiend? Warlocks strike a deal, is it in your bloodline instead?

[Theodoxus]

Because WoW classes have always all used the same chassis and rule set as each other.

I recognize your sarcasm. I counter it with 'yes'.

While the classes play differently in game, as a player, you're doing the same thing, regardless of what class you're playing. You are literally smashing buttons on your keyboard, from 1 through '='. (Or you're one of the cool kids with a 15 button mouse... same diff) Some abilities are ranged, others are melee; some are damaging and others are healing - an extremely tiny number (and even smaller since the Legion patch) are utility. ALL of them are on a cooldown. Sometimes it's a second (At will), sometimes it's 10 minutes (per Encounter). Most are somewhere in between.

This extrapolates to a TTRPG as every class having the same basic set up for options in combat. You use your At Will abilities until you line up a decent Encounter ability, and if you're facing a BBEG, you use your daily power. You're smashing keys 1-4 repeatedly, and occasionally reaching over to your 5 key when the stars align.

It's the mechanics of playing the game that matters, not just that the semantics are different.

[R.Shackleford]

I recognize your sarcasm. I counter it with 'yes'.

While the classes play differently in game, as a player, you're doing the same thing, regardless of what class you're playing. You are literally smashing buttons on your keyboard, from 1 through '='. (Or you're one of the cool kids with a 15 button mouse... same diff) Some abilities are ranged, others are melee; some are damaging and others are healing - an extremely tiny number (and even smaller since the Legion patch) are utility. ALL of them are on a cooldown. Sometimes it's a second (At will), sometimes it's 10 minutes (per Encounter). Most are somewhere in between.

This extrapolates to a TTRPG as every class having the same basic set up for options in combat. You use your At Will abilities until you line up a decent Encounter ability, and if you're facing a BBEG, you use your daily power. You're smashing keys 1-4 repeatedly, and occasionally reaching over to your 5 key when the stars align.

It's the mechanics of playing the game that matters, not just that the semantics are different.

You realize that... like... this is true for everything.

You are sitting down at a table, choosing your actions, bonus actions, and reactions. You choose your characters personality.

You are both saying everything is the same but then saying that everything is different...

Archer Fighter and a Blaster Wizard.

Both uses their movement. Both uses their action to shoot. Both might have a bonus action to use. Both may have a reaction to use... OMG this means the Fighter and Wizard are the same!

[Kryx]

Jumping in on an earlier reply I setup 10 spells for each archetype on my Sorcerer rework if you're interested.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?495592-Sorcerer-Rework

[ZX6Rob]

Jumping in on an earlier reply I setup 10 spells for each archetype on my Sorcerer rework if you're interested.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?495592-Sorcerer-Rework

I, too, have a reworked sorcerer -- though not as extensive as Kryx's -- but it's available via this link:

Rob's Reworked Sorcerer Bonus Spells (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iqdTovigNgtDUSroW_nUNXG0SmwKYq6T1iry-cFIuIc/edit?usp=sharing)

I'm not as generous as Kryx with the spells, but you still add some new ones to your repertoire for each Origin. I also use the DMG's Spell Points variant, and only allow the Sorcerer to do so. That way, each of the three Arcane full-casters gets a totally different feel. Prepared slots for the Wizard, points-based mana/stamina for the Sorcerer, and weird, short-rest-restoring, auto-scaling spell slots for the Warlock.

[DragonSorcererX]

So WotC said that it's bad to add more spells to casters spell list. But would it really be bad it give a sorcerer a add spell list like a cleric or paladin. Now I'll admit that I'm just looking to add spells like hex, hellish rebuke, armor of agathys, added to the sorcerer's spell list. But besides that point is it really a bad idea to add more.

DO IT! Sorcerer is the best class! It has the best fluff (Dragon or Genie/Elemental Blood, screw you Wild Sorcerer)! It gives you DRAGON SCALES, DRAGON WINGS, DRAGON BLOOD! For me, the more the word "dragon" is written in my character sheet the better!