The Sorcerer & Warlock frustrate me.

[Garfunion]

I'm constantly tinkering with 5th edition classes and mechanics. And when I come up on the warlock and sorcerer class, their class design seem to be all wrong.

The warlock should've been broken up into three dark wizard traditions for example: Tradition of the Cursed Blade, Tradition of the Dark Familiar, and Tradition of the Forbidden Grimoire.

The sorcerers should have picked up the warlock's class design. This would allow the sorcerer class design to be the psionic class design.

I'm simply ranting my frustration on these forums. And maybe hoping if anyone else shares a similar frustration.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'm not sure I follow... either of your points, really. Do you just mean the Warlock pacts should be renamed, or that they should have a more prominant place as subclass-type stuff? And how is the Warlock design better suited for psionics than sorcerer?

[Garfunion]

I didn't think it was that confusing but it was a rant after all.

What I'm trying to say is that the warlock should've never been a base class to begin with, it should've been some kind of archetype for another class like the wizard.

Sorcerers are the raw power wielders. Which makes the warlock base class a better fit for the sorcerer.

While I do understand that they were designing the sorcerer to bring back the old 3.x D&D flavor, it just seems wrong to me.

[Kane0]

Kryx is of a similar opinion i believe, check his houserules/homebrew if you’re interested.

[MrStabby]

I could see warlocks, as you say, as a type of wizard but it would need a bit of a core wizard redesign.

Spitballing:
Sorcerer spell list gets warlock spells added to it and becomes the "Arcanist" spell list. Sorcerer still limited by spells known.

Wizard spell list becomes Arcanist spell list

Old wizard schools get "domain" spells from their school including high level spells. Arcane recovery added to school.

the 3 warlock classes are run from the wizard chassis with warlock abilities added. The broader spell selection is less of an issue due to tight limits on spells known.

Some balance tweaks. Shouldn't be too big. the "warlocks" would still be shorter on spell on spell slots per day due to lack of arcane recovery.

[Daphne]

I see no problem with Warlock's fluff and the class works so differently mechanicaly from other classes that I don't understand how someone would want to remove it.

[Garfunion]

I see no problem with Warlock's fluff and the class works so differently mechanicaly from other classes that I don't understand how someone would want to remove it.

I'm not removing the warlock base class mechanics. I'm simply giving them to the sorcerer instead. As for the dark caster concept(Warlock), transforming it into archetypes.

As for the sorcerer base class mechanics they can be re-tooled to be more psionic based.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I can see Warlock as a Wizard subclass, though I think you'd need to consolidate a lot of the existing school-based subclasses into one... oh, call it "Master Specialist" subclass that gets school-based abilities, otherwise I feel like you start winding up with a lot of bloat. (There's already a lot of bloat in the Wizard and Cleric, honestly).

I can see using Warlock mechanics for Sorcerer; they work well for an inherent magic, "always full power" sort of thing. I don't see turning it psionic, though-- that's a very different kind of fluff, and traditionally a very different sort of mechanic. The thematic differences alone would dictate it being something else, I think, though you could perhaps stick with Pact Magic casting mechanics (after all, slot-based magic gets used over and over). Maybe coupled with "Psionic Focuses" instead of Invocations?

[Dr. Cliché]

I didn't think it was that confusing but it was a rant after all.

What I'm trying to say is that the warlock should've never been a base class to begin with, it should've been some kind of archetype for another class like the wizard.

Sorcerers are the raw power wielders. Which makes the warlock base class a better fit for the sorcerer.

While I do understand that they were designing the sorcerer to bring back the old 3.x D&D flavor, it just seems wrong to me.

See, I'm of the opposite opinion. I think that the flavour of the sorcerer and warlock is very different - namely because of the source of their power (a sorcerer's power is internal, coming from their bloodline or such; a warlock's power is external, coming from a pact with a powerful entity).

From a mechanical standpoint, I find the Warlock to be by far the most fun and interesting of the two. Now, I fully appreciate that this is subjective. However, I just think that warlocks have more interesting features and are a lot more fun to play. On a personal level, I have a ton of different character ideas for warlocks of all flavours, but comparatively few character ideas when it comes to sorcerers. Fewer still that I'd actually want to play, since on the rare occasions when I play a sorcerer I quickly end up wishing I'd picked a different class.

What's more (and I appreciate that this is also subjective), I just can't stand psions in general. I like magic in fantasy, but for some reason I've always hated psychic powers in fantasy. Not sure why, I just always find them really grating. Hence, I'm very glad that we've got a Warlock instead of a Scion.

All that said, I do have some gripes with the design of the sorcerer and warlock:

- Metamagic just feels wrong for a sorcerer. it seems far more in line with wizards, who supposedly spend their lives studying magic. At the very least, I wish it was limited to a subclass or something, rather than being basically the only feature they get - and one for which they sacrifice about half their spell list and have fewer known spells than the warlock. I'd much rather have more focus on the bloodline powers, which actually give sorcerers their flavour.

-In terms of warlocks, I do like their design for the most part, but there are a few oddities. For one, I don't understand why they don't just know Eldritch Blast as standard. It's the best damage cantrip in the game and there's nothing to really compete with it. Why not either make it an automatic known cantrip (much like Arcane Tricksters always know Mage Hand) or else give it some real competition with other attack cantrips - perhaps ones specific to the warlock's pact or Patron. Also, on the one hand I really like the idea of pacts, but on the other it seems like a bit of a missed opportunity. It seems a shame that, once you pick your pact at lv3, it basically stays the same for the rest of your career unless you specifically take Invocations to add minor improvements to it. I think it would have been nice if your pact improved in some way when you reached certain levels (e.g. familiars could assume more potent forms, blades could gain magic effects, tomes could gain additional cantrips or spells etc.).

However, whilst aspects of their designs irritate me a little, I don't think they belong as the same class. You'd lose far too much - both in terms of mechanics and in terms of flavour.

[Batou1976]

I can see Warlock as a Wizard subclass, though I think you'd need to consolidate a lot of the existing school-based subclasses into one... oh, call it "Master Specialist" subclass that gets school-based abilities, otherwise I feel like you start winding up with a lot of bloat. (There's already a lot of bloat in the Wizard and Cleric, honestly).

I can see using Warlock mechanics for Sorcerer; they work well for an inherent magic, "always full power" sort of thing. I don't see turning it psionic, though-- that's a very different kind of fluff, and traditionally a very different sort of mechanic. The thematic differences alone would dictate it being something else, I think, though you could perhaps stick with Pact Magic casting mechanics (after all, slot-based magic gets used over and over). Maybe coupled with "Psionic Focuses" instead of Invocations?

I think what the OP meant is "take the PHB class called 'warlock' and rename it sorcerer, and rename the PHB class called 'sorceror' to psionicist."

Any how... I have had the thought that I like the way pact magic functions and it could work for something called a "sorcerer", rather than the "sorcerer" class being built from a chassis that looks very much like the same one wizard is built on. Pact magic mechanics for a sorcerer class would feel very different from a wizard indeed.

As for the sorcerer's mechanics working better for psionics, I wouldn't know. I detest psionics in D&D and have never used them. :smallyuk:

[Garfunion]

I think what the OP meant is "take the PHB class called 'warlock' and rename it sorcerer, and rename the PHB class called 'sorceror' to psionicist."

Any how... I have had the thought that I like the way pact magic functions and it could work for something called a "sorcerer", rather than the "sorcerer" class being built from a chassis that looks very much like the same one wizard is built on. Pact magic mechanics for a sorcerer class would feel very different from a wizard indeed.

As for the sorcerer's mechanics working better for psionics, I wouldn't know. I detest psionics in D&D and have never used them. :smallyuk:
This is close to what I'm talking about.

Pact magic renamed sorcery.
Other worldly patron renamed Bloodline.
Pack Boon renamed Scion.
• Pact of the chain renamed Greater Familiar
• Pact of the tome renamed Magical Adapt

And so on

[Garfunion]

I'm going to be honest. Middle Finger of Vecna created a class called Warmage which to me feels more like 3.x D&D warlock than what we currently have.

[JackPhoenix]

I'm going to be honest. Middle Finger of Vecna created a class called Warmage which to me feels more like 3.x D&D warlock than what we currently have.

So? PHB warlock is not 3.x warlock. It's 5e warlock.

[LeonBH]

The mechanics of the Warlock are unique, and it is very apparent to me that this was the class intended for players to experiment on flavor with a lot. You can design many different warlock characters due to patron, pact boon, invocation and spell choice, which the Warlock gets to make up to their highest levels.

That is a lot more dials to turn compared to the Wizard, who gets only the archetype and that's it. And while the wizard gets all the spells from their spell list and has a lot of versatility from day to day, two Divination wizards of the same level are no different from each other. From a mechanical/design standpoint, their flavor is entirely encompassed by that choice they made at level 2.

From that perspective, folding the warlock class into the wizard class entirely ruins the ability of warlocks to express the specific nature of their Pact through mechanical choices. You can counteract this somewhat by introducing some choices at the levels wizards get class features, the way Path of the Totem Barbarians get to diversify due to spirit animal choices, but you cannot introduce the full mechanical ability of warlocks to express their flavor as a wizard school without also bloating that school tremendously - possibly enough bloat to justify pulling it out and creating a new class from it.

So no, I don't think folding warlock into wizard is a great idea. The warlock stands to lose a lot by doing so.

---

Through the same lens, the Sorcerer gets a lot more versatility than the wizard to express their flavor, even though they have less versatility once expressed as a final character. They get their sorcerous origin, metamagic, and spell choices, which define their flavor, and they keep making new choices up until their highest level.

What makes their class mechanically different from warlocks is that they are a nova class, geared towards spending their spell slots very quickly and thus shorter days; whereas the warlocks are geared towards near-inexhaustible resources and thus longer days.

If you fold sorcerers into warlocks, you must lose either the sorcerer's nova abilities or the warlock's stamina. These are two design pieces that do not mix well. You can, of course, give the new sorcerer both nova and stamina, but then that creates a much stronger class than either the current sorcerer or warlock classes.

The fact that sorlocks is such a strong multiclass is partially helped by the fact that you can combine the nova of sorcerers and stamina of warlocks. The most popular sorlock combo being Quickened Eldritch Blast plus Eldritch Blast, which uses the sorcerer's nova (via Quicken Spell) combined with the warlock's stamina (Eldritch Blast and Agonizing Blast).

If you fold sorcerer into warlock, you lose this expression of nova vs stamina.

---

NOTE: I am aware that feats can differentiate two Divination wizards from each other, but the same is true for warlocks and sorcerers. Arguably, wizards have less feats to choose from compared to the other two classes because they don't multiclass as well as the other two.

[Kane0]

Given the choice i’d just have three caster classes: The learned magic one, the innate magic one and the granted magic one. Then within them throw in the subclasses and other options to fill Then out and provide enough meaningful distinction.

[Rebonack]

The only real gripe I have with Warlock is that the Boon should have been the Subclass for them while the Patron should have been pure fluff.

Boons are more about what you do as a Warlock rather than who you are. A Fae Warlock isn't going to play all that different from a Great Old One Warlock, but a Chain Warlock *already* plays very differently from a Blade Warlock. Honestly, I would rather the patrons have zero mechanical impact rather than heavily defining what a PC can do. Simple reason, there's no reason why every fiendish patron should be doling out the same perks. Nor every eldritch abomination, nor every celestial, nor every prince of the faeries. You should be defining what your patron is like via spell selection and invocation choice. If my warlock has forged a pact with the brutal Queen of Hags, then I can't think of any particularly great reason why they should be getting a bunch of subtle charmy stuff or teleportation tricks. If my warlock has cut a deal with the Great Old One Yig then why is he getting a bunch of random telepathy nonsense instead of the power to make people's heads explode in a fountain of snakes?

Why does a pact with any fiend make you a tanky dude? Why does a pact with any celestial give you a heap of light and fire magic? Why does a pact with any psychopomp let you swing around swords via force of will despite having noodle-arms? It forces mechanical aspects onto what should be above all else a flavor choice.

[Mortis_Elrod]

The only real gripe I have with Warlock is that the Boon should have been the Subclass for them while the Patron should have been pure fluff.

Boons are more about what you do as a Warlock rather than who you are. A Fae Warlock isn't going to play all that different from a Great Old One Warlock, but a Chain Warlock *already* plays very differently from a Blade Warlock. Honestly, I would rather the patrons have zero mechanical impact rather than heavily defining what a PC can do. Simple reason, there's no reason why every fiendish patron should be doling out the same perks. Nor every eldritch abomination, nor every celestial, nor every prince of the faeries. You should be defining what your patron is like via spell selection and invocation choice. If my warlock has forged a pact with the brutal Queen of Hags, then I can't think of any particularly great reason why they should be getting a bunch of subtle charmy stuff or teleportation tricks. If my warlock has cut a deal with the Great Old One Yig then why is he getting a bunch of random telepathy nonsense instead of the power to make people's heads explode in a fountain of snakes?

Why does a pact with any fiend make you a tanky dude? Why does a pact with any celestial give you a heap of light and fire magic? Why does a pact with any psychopomp let you swing around swords via force of will despite having noodle-arms? It forces mechanical aspects onto what should be above all else a flavor choice.

I wouldn't mind the warlock functioning similar to standard practitioners in Pact (webfiction read here its pretty good (https://pactwebserial.wordpress.com/)), where a Practitioner first Awakens allowing spellcasting and such, then usually chooses a Familiar, an Implement, and a Demesne .

The Familiar is less of a tool like it is in D&D in more of a statement about who you associate with, who you align with, and who you would spend the rest of your life with. Its mostly compared to a marriage, a familiar is just an entity that agrees to bind with you and you both give and share power with one another. In D&D this could just be the Patron and your choice there gives you a particular familiar that represents its form and spirit.

Implements are a statement about what you do, how you do it, and how you view obstacles in life and even how you perceive things in general. This is obviously the Chain/Tome/Blade split but it could be better worked on. Should definitely change the way you cast and stuff but there's all sort of implements options. Cup, Athame, pocket watch, lens, standard, trumpet, coin, staff, rod, wand, mask, lantern, rings, plate, chakrams, just about anything could be a tool but its a deeply personal choice. Plenty of future options to add here. Should scale, be a spellcasting focus, and provide a minor but useful benefit.

Demesnes would be hard to put in D&D which usually assumes lots of travel. Demesnes are a statement about what you claim as yours, how your mind works, and other things about territory and home. Generally when you make it you challenge everything in the area to battle and if you win you keep the marked territory which in turn gives you power while inside it. You also have complete control of reality whilst inside it but i wouldn't really put this in D&D. What i would though is how everything looks like your general mind and how you think, clustered or messy or spartan and organized and such. Issue with this is its a permanent territory unless you give i away.



Anyway i would use these things to define the Warlock, or mabe the Wizard.

[LeonBH]

While the progression of Awaken, Familiar, Implement, and Demesne is cool, it doesn't fit with D&D.

* Giving all Locks a Familiar steps of Pact of the Chain
* Implements are personal choices, whereas the Boons are kind of a twisted reflection of the bell, book and candle (http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/Bell,_book,_and_candle)
* Demesnes are far too strong to mechanically implement

The idea is nice though, and I'm sure it could be balanced with enough effort and playtesting. I think there's enough material there to create a Warlock v2 class, even.

[Mortis_Elrod]

While the progression of Awaken, Familiar, Implement, and Demesne is cool, it doesn't fit with D&D.

* Giving all Locks a Familiar steps of Pact of the Chain
* Implements are personal choices, whereas the Boons are kind of a twisted reflection of the bell, book and candle (http://religion.wikia.com/wiki/Bell,_book,_and_candle)
* Demesnes are far too strong to mechanically implement

The idea is nice though, and I'm sure it could be balanced with enough effort and playtesting. I think there's enough material there to create a Warlock v2 class, even.

Yeah i generally agree that its a bit much for D&D, Demesnes especially though it could just be a modified temple/grove/mansion spell from Xans. I think getting rid of the pact boons and replacing them with Implements would probably be better, and as far as level 1 all warlocks get familiar...that would be thematic and not even that powerful, just remove the attack action they gain through Pact of chain. Warlocks in this sense (and in 5e) are the mages that make deals with otherworldly beings, familiars are exactly that and gaining a friendship and bond with one is the first step.

Anyway for those who make homebrew often this is just an idea for a warlock rewrite. To me it feels more identified than what 5e has, and also more personal. Warlocks are one of those classes that will always be different than another of the same class and this just makes his personality be seen clearer and steps more away from sorcerer.

[Rebonack]

Yeah i generally agree that its a bit much for D&D, Demesnes especially though it could just be a modified temple/grove/mansion spell from Xans. I think getting rid of the pact boons and replacing them with Implements would probably be better, and as far as level 1 all warlocks get familiar...that would be thematic and not even that powerful, just remove the attack action they gain through Pact of chain. Warlocks in this sense (and in 5e) are the mages that make deals with otherworldly beings, familiars are exactly that and gaining a friendship and bond with one is the first step.

Anyway for those who make homebrew often this is just an idea for a warlock rewrite. To me it feels more identified than what 5e has, and also more personal. Warlocks are one of those classes that will always be different than another of the same class and this just makes his personality be seen clearer and steps more away from sorcerer.

Warlock familiars aren't powerful because of their ability to attack. They're powerful for a variety of scouting and utility options they bring to the table. They give you an invisible spy that can, if they feel so inclined, disguise themselves as a completely mundane, common animal to deflect suspicion in situations where even invisibility won't cut it. Beyond that, they can be used to distribute items in combat due to having hands, distract enemies, and generally make a nuisance of themselves. And don't underestimate the ability to recall them to their pokeball pocket-dimension after they have nicked some important McGuffen.

I don't think giving all warlocks a (weaker) familiar is a good idea. That's what wizards do. The familiar being a feature with significant opportunity cost is what allows it to be so powerful.

No, just making Eldritch Blast their level one feature and the Boons (while expanding on them) the subclass would be plenty. Maybe have a variety of different Eldritch Blast types to choose from at level 1.

[Temperjoke]

"This class isn't like what I remember from past editions so it needs to be changed."

:sigh:

[Tanarii]

The only real gripe I have with Warlock is that the Boon should have been the Subclass for them while the Patron should have been pure fluff.

Boons are more about what you do as a Warlock rather than who you are. A Fae Warlock isn't going to play all that different from a Great Old One Warlock, but a Chain Warlock *already* plays very differently from a Blade Warlock.Disagree on all fronts. I've seen many single class warlocks in play IMC, and the biggest differentiator is the Spell selection*, then Invocations*, followed by Patron. Pact Boon is last.

Pact is a nice little at-will feature boost. Not a ribbon, but it doesn't significantly change the way a Warlock plays. It just adds some nice backup options. It adds a couple of at-wills minor magics, a slightly better OA option and adding martial magic weapon access, or a backup scout.

The last does, however, give the DM a lot of fun options, since 'locks seem to invariably pick Evil familiars. :smallamused:

(*Edit: note that spell selection can influenced by Patron, and Invocations can be influenced by Pact Boon. I figured that was an obvious part of my statement at first, but then realized I better point it out explicitly.)

[Mortis_Elrod]

Warlock familiars aren't powerful because of their ability to attack. They're powerful for a variety of scouting and utility options they bring to the table. They give you an invisible spy that can, if they feel so inclined, disguise themselves as a completely mundane, common animal to deflect suspicion in situations where even invisibility won't cut it. Beyond that, they can be used to distribute items in combat due to having hands, distract enemies, and generally make a nuisance of themselves. And don't underestimate the ability to recall them to their pokeball pocket-dimension after they have nicked some important McGuffen.

I don't think giving all warlocks a (weaker) familiar is a good idea. That's what wizards do. The familiar being a feature with significant opportunity cost is what allows it to be so powerful.

No, just making Eldritch Blast their level one feature and the Boons (while expanding on them) the subclass would be plenty. Maybe have a variety of different Eldritch Blast types to choose from at level 1.

Significant opportunity cost doesn't make something powerful. Everything you described aside from the invisibility a wizards familiar also does, i don't really understand what you're saying here. Essentially my idea merely gives the warlock the familiar they would get from pact of chain when they select a patron and removing the 'they can also take the attack action' part. The warlock's familiar could still be an imp/sprite/pseudodragon and such.

[Dr. Cliché]

Regarding Warlock familiars, something I find a little disappointing is that there are only 4 forms to choose from (not counting the crappy standard ones). It would be nice to have some more options - particularly ones more relevant to a given Warlock's Patron. I mean, we've got a demon and devil for the Fiend warlock, a Sprite for the Fey warlock and then a pseudodragon. And, honestly, a pseudodragon really doesn't scream 'Great Old One warlock' to me. Certainly none of them seem particularly relevant to an Undying or Hexblade warlock. I guess you could argue that the latter will be taking Pact of the Blade, but then that just makes it even weirder for the Pact to be completely divorced from the Patron. As someone said earlier, you'd think the Pact would be the most important feature, since it basically determines what the warlock actually gets from the pact.

I mean, even if they can't be bothered making more pets (or, you know, copying and pasting them from 3.5), could they not at least give some sort of upgrade to the mundane pets? So that the choice isn't along the lines of 'would you like a Raven or an Imp that can disguise itself as a Raven while also being better in every way?'


Significant opportunity cost doesn't make something powerful. Everything you described aside from the invisibility a wizards familiar also does, i don't really understand what you're saying here. Essentially my idea merely gives the warlock the familiar they would get from pact of chain when they select a patron and removing the 'they can also take the attack action' part. The warlock's familiar could still be an imp/sprite/pseudodragon and such.

But why deny them the ability to attack?

If anything, I'd like to see a Warlock's familiar get a little more combat-worthy when he reaches higher levels.

[LeonBH]

Wizard familiars don't get to bring items with them to a pocket dimension. But I don't think Warlock familiars can, either.

I personally interpret everything the Warlock gets to be the result of his pact. The invocations, spells, patron, and boon, are all granted to the Warlock as an expression of their pact. The selection of patron only determines some of the gifts they receive which is in line with the nature of that patron - ie, Archfey are tricksters, Fiends are resilient, and Great Old Ones are creepy. But that is only part of their pact, which means that's not the totality of powers their patron grants them.

Their invocations also come from their patron, and so do their spell selection and boon. Which means not all Archfeys bestow the same gifts. The nature of the Archfey and Feywild involves trickery, so you get mind magic. But you get a whole host of other powers too, and that still comes from your patron.

In other words, it's just your perspective. Nothing indicates the patron or boon choice should strongly determine what you are as a warlock. The boon is not the only thing you get from the pact.

The entire point of the vast Eldritch Invocations at their disposal is so they can mix and match abilities - and according to me, at least, whatever build comes out of that is the benefit they get from their pact, because all of that power came from their patron.

[Mortis_Elrod]

But why deny them the ability to attack?

If anything, I'd like to see a Warlock's familiar get a little more combat-worthy when he reaches higher levels.

Well, my idea involves giving it for free and at level 1. Seems a bit off to let warlocks have a familiar that they can attack with at level 1, but I would love to see more familiar boosting invocations, maybe with more spell focus instead if straight attacks like a beast Master.

[Rebonack]

Wizard familiars don't get to bring items with them to a pocket dimension. But I don't think Warlock familiars can, either.

I personally interpret everything the Warlock gets to be the result of his pact. The invocations, spells, patron, and boon, are all granted to the Warlock as an expression of their pact. The selection of patron only determines some of the gifts they receive which is in line with the nature of that patron - ie, Archfey are tricksters, Fiends are resilient, and Great Old Ones are creepy. But that is only part of their pact, which means that's not the totality of powers their patron grants them.

Their invocations also come from their patron, and so do their spell selection and boon. Which means not all Archfeys bestow the same gifts. The nature of the Archfey and Feywild involves trickery, so you get mind magic. But you get a whole host of other powers too, and that still comes from your patron.

In other words, it's just your perspective. Nothing indicates the patron or boon choice should strongly determine what you are as a warlock. The boon is not the only thing you get from the pact.

The entire point of the vast Eldritch Invocations at their disposal is so they can mix and match abilities - and according to me, at least, whatever build comes out of that is the benefit they get from their pact, because all of that power came from their patron.

To the first bit, we've got mixed signals on it. Crawford says no, Mearls says yes. The fact that the Sprite comes with equipment suggests that whatever the familiar is carrying (provided it is less than its carrying capacity) would poof with it, just like pretty much every other teleportation effect. Though it would certainly be something to ask whoever is DMing about since there's no clear ruling.

As to the rest?

Well, yeah.

All the features warlock gets comes from the pact with their patron. What I mean is that the 'Otherworldly Patron' class feature would probably work better as a large list of domain-like traits that gives you an expanded spell list and some other perk. So instead of picking Fiend or Fae or GoO, which are very broad and sometimes poorly fitting in their granted abilities, you might have the choice of grabbing curses or madness or terror or resilience or telepathy or healing or what have you. As with the cleric, you've got your god (patron), but you pick your domain (pact) that is representative of that god rather than having three ill-fitting 'gods' categories to choose from.

The Boon could function as the sub-class. Or for that matter, the warlock could just get three extra Invocations at levels 6, 10, and 14 for even more build-a-deranged-caster action.

[Gardakan]

Warlock's design is cool. I don't see what could be possibly wrong with them.

As for Sorcerer, you get to do metamagic (which is the only way to get in this edition so far).

A Sorcerer can simply be the best with specific spells... and be a relevant face for a party (due to Charisma).

A sorcerer wasn't meant to be versatile, but to powerful.

[strangebloke]

If you fold sorcerers into warlocks, you must lose either the sorcerer's nova abilities or the warlock's stamina. These are two design pieces that do not mix well. You can, of course, give the new sorcerer both nova and stamina, but then that creates a much stronger class than either the current sorcerer or warlock classes.



This here.

Sorcerers are 'internal power.' There power is within them, and so they can't cast just any spell. However, the spells they can cast, they know with incredible intimacy and can alter at will. They can throw out more magic at a time than anyone, but they can easily exhaust their limited magical reserves.

Warlocks are 'external power.' They don't cast spells, really, they just toss out whatever packaged magic gets dropped of by their patron. So they can keep getting spells all day, but they don't have much flexibility at all.

Wizards are the pros. They don't have the sorcerer's raw power, nor do they get magic delivered to their door hand wrapped like the warlock does. But they do get way more flexibility and nuance. They can cast anything, and if given a breather they can replaced a few of their tricks.

Really, I think the interactions between the fluff and the mechanics of the three arcane classes were handled beautifully this edition.

Now, sorcerer, is quite a bit non intuitive. That's a serious problem.

[Tanarii]

Warlocks are 'external power.' They don't cast spells, really, they just toss out whatever packaged magic gets dropped of by their patron. So they can keep getting spells all day, but they don't have much flexibility at all.
This doesn't match the PHB warlock lore. Warlocks learn from their patron, they aren't purely bestowed power. They a driven by a need for knowledge, and are some are researchers of forbidden lore. They're the only class with all five Int skills on their class list. They know how to cast spells by directly manipulating the Weave. Their Pact magic comes both from their own arcane researches as well as that which is bestowed. They aren't just some chump woth no understanding or learning of the external power they've been bestowed, or with no learning of their own magical power.

[Marcloure]

This doesn't match the PHB warlock lore. Warlocks learn from their patron, they aren't purely bestowed power. They a driven by a need for knowledge, and are some are researchers of forbidden lore. They're the only class with all five Int skills on their class list. They know how to cast spells by directly manipulating the Weave. Their Pact magic comes both from their own arcane researches as well as that which is bestowed. They aren't just some chump woth no understanding or learning of the external power they've been bestowed, or with no learning of their own magical power.

That being the case, warlocks should be Int based then. I always thought of them as how they are in 4e, where warlocks obtain power through pacts, and then it's them for use as they will (contrary to clerics, who use the power from gods to do the god's will). Now, if the warlock is some sort of researcher that discovered a way to bargain with greater forces, then they should very well be a wizard subclass.

[Tanarii]

That being the case, warlocks should be Int based then.Probably, but they've been established as Cha based for several editions. It's something the forums have discussed before though. I agree that allowing them to be ain't Int based fits the "researcher into forbidden lore" aspect. Otoh Cha first the other common trope for Warlocks: "cult leader".

A fair number of my warlock players invest in a decent Intelligence score to go with their Intelligence-based skills.

[LeonBH]

To create a powerful wizard, you just have to collect spells and not die. So creating the foundation of a powerful wizard is not difficult.

Playing a powerful wizard requires a lot of nuance though, bringing with you the spells you think you'll need for the adventuring day ahead.

To create a powerful sorcerer, you have to plan with great precision and nuance. It's very easy to create a weak or so-so sorcerer. If you imagine a wizard who can only change their spells prepared on a level up, that's emulating a lot of the limitations of sorcery. Since the restrictions are greater, the bar is higher.

However, assuming a 5MWD, it is very easy to play a powerful sorcerer.

---

As for Warlocks going off Int, it is the most thematically appropriate stat for them. But just because a class keys off Int and likes to investigate arcane lore, doesn't mean they should be folded into wizard.

Warlocks were mechanically designed to be built like Legos (vast build customization). Wizards were mechanically designed to be played like Legos (vast spell list and selection versatility).

[Dr. Cliché]

Well, my idea involves giving it for free and at level 1. Seems a bit off to let warlocks have a familiar that they can attack with at level 1, but I would love to see more familiar boosting invocations, maybe with more spell focus instead if straight attacks like a beast Master.

Ah, okay. I misunderstoof what you meant before. And, yeah, I'd like to see more familiar-related stuff.

Could be interesting to have a more familiar-focused subclass (I'm thinking one where the familiar actually has a role in combat - not one where it's just a spy, like with the Raven Queen).



Their invocations also come from their patron, and so do their spell selection and boon. Which means not all Archfeys bestow the same gifts. The nature of the Archfey and Feywild involves trickery, so you get mind magic. But you get a whole host of other powers too, and that still comes from your patron.

In other words, it's just your perspective. Nothing indicates the patron or boon choice should strongly determine what you are as a warlock. The boon is not the only thing you get from the pact.

Is this a response to me?

If so, that's fair. It's just a little jarring when the boons don't seem to align at all with the nature of your Patron.
Your Patron is an otherworldly nightmare? Here, have a pet dragon.
Your Patron is a Sentient Weapon? Here, have a magic book to read.
:smallwink:

Thinking about it, it's a little odd that the Pact Weapon and Pact Tome can look like anything you want. But if you take Pact of the Chain, you're basically stuck with just 4 options, with 3 of them already pre-fluffed to particular Patrons (and the 4th not really fitting any of them thus far).

You'd think there would be stats for a 'generic' familiar, and it's appearance would be entirely up to you to decide.

[strangebloke]

This doesn't match the PHB warlock lore. Warlocks learn from their patron, they aren't purely bestowed power. They a driven by a need for knowledge, and are some are researchers of forbidden lore. They're the only class with all five Int skills on their class list. They know how to cast spells by directly manipulating the Weave. Their Pact magic comes both from their own arcane researches as well as that which is bestowed. They aren't just some chump woth no understanding or learning of the external power they've been bestowed, or with no learning of their own magical power.
Well that's....

Really dumb.

I mean, they're charisma based, for one thing. That suggests that their power comes from their ability to bargain with their patron. For another, their mechanics have them as deeply inflexible casters who never run out of magic.



Thinking about it, it's a little odd that the Pact Weapon and Pact Tome can look like anything you want. But if you take Pact of the Chain, you're basically stuck with just 4 options, with 3 of them already pre-fluffed to particular Patrons (and the 4th not really fitting any of them thus far).

You'd think there would be stats for a 'generic' familiar, and it's appearance would be entirely up to you to decide.

All in favor of this.

One again though, I don't know of a DM that wouldn't allow this.

[Tanarii]

I mean, they're charisma based, for one thing. That suggests that their power comes from their ability to bargain with their patron.Nothing in the warlock lore implies this at all, as far as I can see. Cha as a casting stat is usually interprets to mean the power behind the casting is the force of the users personality. That's not in the lore either, it's just the most common online interpretation I've seen.

Also I reread my post and it more heavily implies all warlocks are learned scholar types than I intended. I was trying to say saying some are, and that while power is definitily bestowed by the patron, it's not necessarily all bestowed. Some is self learned and some is taught.

Also, power being bestowed doesn't mean it's not understood and it's a prepackaged deal either: all warlock casting is Arcane, which means they directly manipulate the Weave without using mediated power. That doesn't necessarily mean they really understand it, but it certainly means it's not automatically all 'handled' for them like Divine power is.


For another, their mechanics have them as deeply inflexible casters who never run out of magic.
have you played a Tier 2 Warlock? I don't mean that in a hostile way, but I'm genuinely curious. Because they get far more spells known than they can cast per short rest. What that means is they have a buttload of options they have on hand for any given situation, provided they make wise spell choices and spread their known spells purpose around. They have lots more flexibility than their known spells appears to provide at first glance.

Where they're inflexible is they can't nova between short rests. They absolutely "run out of magic" in terms of spell Slots, between each short rest. And there are supposed two short rests per long rest, so "all day long" means short rest slots times 3.

Sure, if your DM is leaving short rests completely in the player hands, it's possible you might have one fight, short rest, encounter one puzzles, short rest, etc ... always recharging spells and "never running out". But that's not the way most people seem to play. In fact the more common complaint from people when resting is in the player hands. is the group doesn't short rest enough for the warlock.

[Dr. Cliché]

Where they're inflexible is they can't nova between short rests. They absolutely "run out of magic" in terms of spell Slots, between each short rest. And there are supposed two short rests per long rest, so "all day long" means short rest slots times 3.

They also don't really do 'minor' spells well, especially at higher levels.

For example, a Lv10 Wizard or Sorcerer can easily spare a lv2 spell slot to cast Misty Step (whether to escape a foe engaging them or to get to a rooftop or through a locked gate or such).

However, a Lv10 Warlock would have just 2 spell slots (both level 5). Hence, using one of them to cast a basic lv2 spell will tend to feel like something of a waste.

Basically, the fact that they only have a few high-level spell-slots means they really want to get maximum effect whenever they expend one.

Another aspect though is whether they want to expend their slots at all. I think there's definitely a temptation to save one for an emergency Dimension Door or such.

[Tanarii]

Taking that kind of thinking too far is what leads to inflexible warlocks. They Have 7-8 spells, but only 2 effectively: 1 offense and one defense. So they are flexible only in that they have multiple ways to do damage, and a few different ways to escape it. That's still a kind of flexibility, but certainly on the more inflexible side of the scale.

Not saying that resources should be wasted when they're limited. But players prone to hoarding resources can be just as bad.

A warlock is a bit on the "I can do all these different things, and situation #5 has come up, but should I expend a resource or not" side of the equation.

[Mortis_Elrod]

1. The Forbidden Knowledge seeker. This is the guy with all the Int skills looking for was to gain power through dusty tomes and ancient rituals, or ways to contact higher level entities that could show him the ways to power. This warlock is granted cheat codes to magic that only Patron level things could know.

2. The Inheritor. Not necessarily a sorcerer, rather a bargain was struck and the patron follows the bloodline and offers power to the heir. Its entirely optional which i think is the point of the Warlock in that they CHOSE to gain this power in some way. Wizards certainly choose but definitely not within the same context or the same way and sorcerers are born with it, its a part of them like their arm.

3. The Fool. This is the guy that stumbled onto something by pure chance (or maybe nefarious design) at a critical point in life. He accepts a bargain after being suddenly confronted with an Archfey or Archfiend or Great old tentacle thing, thinking it will better his life. Whether or not is does is decided later of course.


4. The Deceiver. This is that charismatic lawyer. He is the one that outsmarted a powerful entity and uses its stolen power as his tool to further his own goals. This is the guy the class is named after. He is the true warlock in name who went out of his way to steal power. The Pact Maker. Sometimes tho he is the one that deceived himself. Its not always so simple to outsmart millennia old beings. Because this warlock exists though, Patrons are not Gods. Gods would not be so easily deceived.


All of these though emphasize the nature of the Warlock. The Warlock is the one that CHOSE his power. He could have walked away and done something else. He CHOSE to pursue knowledge he knew was forbidden. CHOSE to recite those ancient ritual rites. CHOSE to accept a bargain his father and father's father chose before him knowing how they turned out. CHOSE to accept the barely understood creatures offer to power even though he knew nothing of magic and such beings, CHOSE to fiddle or steal the ancient artifact that summoned it in the first place. The Deceiver is the one that chose the most though. Which is why i think that one is the Warlock why charisma is the stat they use.

A warlock's personality, his character, his choices brought him to power. And it's that personality that still powers them after such deals were made.

Which is why warlocks are usually ones with alot of choices in features and invocations, and what to do in a single moment with their limited spell slots. At least from a class fantasy perspective.

[Garfunion]

I want to thank everyone who posted in this thread. You've brought some interesting insight and perspective to my frustration.

[Ganymede]

I mean, I do agree that the Warlock and Sorcerer both chew into their respective design space: bloodlines and pacts are thematically similar enough that they could have been squished together, and the Wizard, Warlock, and Bard leave very little room for the Sorcerer in the arena of arcane casters.

That said, I'm not sure Sorcerer-as-Psion is the way to go.


I'd rather just see a Dragon Pact warlock with fluff about them being called Sorcerers if their pact comes from draconic ancestry, and a pact boon/invocation that offers spell-twisting powers akin to Metamagic.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I mean, I do agree that the Warlock and Sorcerer both chew into their respective design space: bloodlines and pacts are thematically similar enough that they could have been squished together, and the Wizard, Warlock, and Bard leave very little room for the Sorcerer in the arena of arcane casters.


I don't agree. I see clear conceptual differences between the four arcane casters, as well as similarities.

Similarities: They all directly manipulate magical energy to produce the effects, instead of acting as a channel for another power.

Differences:


Bards use music and rhythm to coax the universe into producing magical effects. Their spells are learned more "trial and error" than systematic analysis and vary between bards (and bardic schools) quite a bit.
Sorcerers' spells are innate. For game purposes they "learn" them, but in-universe they're born/created (in the case of wild-magic types) with that set of spells and no others. They can mess around with the parameters more and have an independent reservoir of energy they can use to substitute for spell slots.
Warlocks have their spell-slots forced open by their patron and are gifted the spell patterns they know (or develop them by observing the changes in their brain). If they break with their patron and don't find another, they stop getting new spells/abilities but can still cast the ones they've got. They cast these through force of will, not exact repetition.
Wizards use a shared language and exact repetition to develop and cast their spells. This is both more flexible (since you can learn a new spell from other wizards) and more restrictive--you can't modify the spells as much and don't get the other benefits that come from being magic, not just doing magic.


Similar similarities and differences exist between the other spell-casters--druids, clerics and rangers are all mediated casters (channeling power from a being or beings outside themselves), but the source of that power (and the resulting constraints) differ. Paladins draw on their confidence in their oath--this is paladins have such restrictive codes of conduct. If they act wrongly, their confidence is shaken and their power goes away. They're not "divine" casters in the same sense that clerics are--they don't even have to believe in any particular god.

AT and EK both are wizards without the training to "learn the language" of magic--they can pick up particular spells by memorizing the motions (and have developed the spell-slots by training), but don't know the underlying theory to copy them from spell-books/other wizards.

[LeonBH]

I mean, I do agree that the Warlock and Sorcerer both chew into their respective design space: bloodlines and pacts are thematically similar enough that they could have been squished together, and the Wizard, Warlock, and Bard leave very little room for the Sorcerer in the arena of arcane casters.

They occupy very different design spaces mechanically. One is a nova class, another is an at-will master, another is a prepared caster with a huge spell list, and the last can poach spells from any spell list.

The themes of bloodlines and pacts are far from similar. You're not born with a pact, and you don't bargain for a bloodline. The Wizard, Warlock, and Bard do not occupy the metamagic niche.

[Ganymede]

They occupy very different design spaces mechanically. One is a nova class, another is an at-will master, another is a prepared caster with a huge spell list, and the last can poach spells from any spell list.

The themes of bloodlines and pacts are far from similar. You're not born with a pact, and you don't bargain for a bloodline. The Wizard, Warlock, and Bard do not occupy the metamagic niche.

Yeah I get all that, I just don't find it convincing.

To me, a Sorcerer is something squished into the sliver of daylight between the Warlock and Wizard.

[LeonBH]

Yeah I get all that, I just don't find it convincing.

To me, a Sorcerer is something squished into the sliver of daylight between the Warlock and Wizard.

Serious question. How do you know the Warlock isn't squished between a Sorcerer and Wizard, or a Wizard squished between a Sorcerer and Warlock?

[Garfunion]

Yeah I get all that, I just don't find it convincing.

To me, a Sorcerer is something squished into the sliver of daylight between the Warlock and Wizard.
I feel the same way. To me the sorcerer is just a poor man's wizard. Without proper spell selection or multi classing the Sorcerer falls a flat.

[the secret fire]

Warlock is just generally a problematic class. I don't let them into games I run. They fill no particular niche in terms of fluff, and mechanically they cause some serious problems, especially the munchkin dips.

Sorcerer...I hate the design path they took in 5th edition with this class. The sorcerer class should be able to cover all beings who wield innate magic. Satyr hero using forest magic; minor demon who wields infernal magic; time traveler using hi-tech toys to do stuff; half god...sorcerer, sorcerer, sorcerer, sorcerer.

But, of course, it doesn't work this way. Instead, there are a few very limited options for what a sorcerer can be - a design decision horribly reminiscent of 3.5. Things are marginally better with the 5e splatbooks compared to the days when it was draconic, wild or bust, but it is a bad sign that splat is necessary for there to be any ontological variety in the class. The sorcerer class would be much better if the origins were simply thrown out (i.e. no longer a class feature), and as compensation, the class received access to any spell in the game. Would this make the sorcerer a stronger class overall? Probably. Would it be stronger that wizard? Highly doubful. Would it both simplify the class design and make sorcerers far more diverse in play, and capable of accommodating all the crazy crap players can dream up? Definitely.

[the secret fire]

Serious question. How do you know the Warlock isn't squished between a Sorcerer and Wizard, or a Wizard squished between a Sorcerer and Warlock?

The wizard is iconic, and in practical terms, it's not going anywhere. It fills the niche of the "scientific" magic user: the bookworm who ascends to power through hoarding knowledge and single-minded focus.

But why do the sorcerer and warlock need to be separate classes? They are both classes which wield magic that is somehow "gifted" to them, either as a consequence of their origins or because they made some sort of deal with a powerful being. They are the "unscientific" or "natural" magic users. There don't need to be two classes to represent this sort of character, imo.

[KorvinStarmast]

Would it both simplify the class design and make sorcerers far more diverse in play, and capable of accommodating all the crazy crap players can dream up? Do you permit wild magic sorcerers at you table?

A Warlock, Sorcerer, and Wizard were originally the 8th, 9th, and 11th levels of the Magic User class when classes went by name. The decisions to break up the arcane casters into smaller and smaller stovepipes seems to have gotten some folks upset about fiction/trope and class mismatch. *shrug*

I am in the camp who feel that the Warlock needed to be an Int caster, but I don't worry about it since the class plays alright. I agree with the point about how customizable a Warlock is. The invocations, as more are available, make for some neat choices in how the Warlock does things.

Very much enjoyed Mortis_Elrod's post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22730791&postcount=39). Nice way to paint a picture of who a Warlock is, not what.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Warlock is just generally a problematic class. I don't let them into games I run. They fill no particular niche in terms of fluff, and mechanically they cause some serious problems, especially the munchkin dips.


I have such a huge problem with this i can't even begin. But do whatever in your games i guess.




But why do the sorcerer and warlock need to be separate classes? They are both classes which wield magic that is somehow "gifted" to them, either as a consequence of their origins or because they made some sort of deal with a powerful being. They are the "unscientific" or "natural" magic users. There don't need to be two classes to represent this sort of character, imo.

Warlocks aren't gifted power. Their power is traded for in some way. They in the end still DID something to gain their power unlike a sorcerer. Also warlocks aren't natural magic users, they are otherworldly magic users, it doesn't work the same way a wizard or sorcerer's does because it comes from an entirely different place. Also they have different niches again. Sorcerer the Nova, Warlock is At-will and consistency.

I feel like there wasn't enough given for most people to see the differences without previous knowledge of how the classes were. This whole thing feels avoidable if more was written making the lines between them clearer.

[Marcloure]

One problem I have with warlocks is that, if other class do a pact with a higher being, then what happens? Say, a druid or monk, at some point, deals with fey or devils or something else. Should that character multiclass into warlock? If not, then what is the point of the warlock, if not being the guy who did a pact? Ok, not all pacts need to revolve around getting power, but what if a monk struck that kind of deal? Looking at it that way, the warlock could be more of a class template than a class itself. Like a revenant or lycanthrope is to races (both are things you can become middle game, and that changes the base race).

[Mortis_Elrod]

One problem I have with warlocks is that, if other class do a pact with a higher being, then what happens? Say, a druid or monk, at some point, deals with fey or devils or something else. Should that character multiclass into warlock? If not, then what is the point of the warlock, if not being the guy who did a pact? Ok, not all pacts need to revolve around getting power, but what if a monk struck that kind of deal? Looking at it that way, the warlock could be more of a class template than a class itself. Like a revenant or lycanthrope is to races (both are things you can become middle game, and that changes the base race).

I feel like this type of problem happened when warlock ate binder in the 3.5 to 4e transition, and then fully digested it in 5e. Not to say any iteration or edition is better i love them all but yeah 3.5 had different fluff that didn't run into this issue.

[gloryblaze]

One problem I have with warlocks is that, if other class do a pact with a higher being, then what happens? Say, a druid or monk, at some point, deals with fey or devils or something else. Should that character multiclass into warlock? If not, then what is the point of the warlock, if not being the guy who did a pact? Ok, not all pacts need to revolve around getting power, but what if a monk struck that kind of deal? Looking at it that way, the warlock could be more of a class template than a class itself. Like a revenant or lycanthrope is to races (both are things you can become middle game, and that changes the base race).


Warlocks aren't meant to represent anybody who makes any sort of bargain with a powerful entity, they're a very specific thing: A person agrees to render some service to some being in exchange for* powerful arcane magic. Asking a genie or a devil or whatever to grant you money, physical strength, a rare item, etc would not turn you into a warlock. Asking them to give you ARCANE POWER, BEYOND YOUR WILDEST DREAMS would.

*alternatively, the fluff for the GOO patron implies that you can siphon power from a patron who isn't even aware of your existence, in some cases. Either way, a Warlock is a person who masters the usage of arcane magic that is typically used by powerful outsiders (either by being taught by one or by stealing secrets from one) rather than using arcane magic in the way mortals traditionally do.

[Marcloure]

Warlocks aren't meant to represent anybody who makes any sort of bargain with a powerful entity, they're a very specific thing: A person agrees to render some service to some being in exchange for* powerful arcane magic. Asking a genie or a devil or whatever to grant you money, physical strength, a rare item, etc would not turn you into a warlock. Asking them to give you ARCANE POWER, BEYOND YOUR WILDEST DREAMS would.

*alternatively, the fluff for the GOO patron implies that you can siphon power from a patron who isn't even aware of your existence, in some cases. Either way, a Warlock is a person who masters the usage of arcane magic that is typically used by powerful outsiders (either by being taught by one or by stealing secrets from one) rather than using arcane magic in the way mortals traditionally do.

Yes, sure. I understand that, for the past 3 editions I have done so. But I just came to realization that the class is not very... uhm... necessary? So, I second that it could be a subclass of either Sorc. or Wiz. then (by bond of blood or eldritch research).

[the secret fire]

Do you permit wild magic sorcerers at your table?

As a question of fluff? Certainly. Mechanically, sorcerers at my table run in the way I described above. No origins, but access to all the spells in the game (they also keep their metamagic). Fluff as desired. If I had a player who really wanted to use the silly wild magic table in the PHB, sure, I'd allow it.


A Warlock, Sorcerer, and Wizard were originally the 8th, 9th, and 11th levels of the Magic User class when classes went by name. The decisions to break up the arcane casters into smaller and smaller stovepipes seems to have gotten some folks upset about fiction/trope and class mismatch. *shrug*

I prefer solutions which involve less splat, and more player choice/character diversity. My simple solution for the "natural casters" accomplishes this goal (while also removing the most aggravating class in the game), but it is a goal at odds with that of businessmen bent on selling expansion books.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Yes, sure. I understand that, for the past 3 editions I have done so. But I just came to realization that the class is not very... uhm... necessary? So, I second that it could be a subclass of either Sorc. or Wiz. then (by bond of blood or eldritch research).

I mean.....Its distinct enough that it could be its own class. But if you want alot of classes could be simplified into another's. If you start with Warlock i see no reason to not keep going other than just not wanting the warlock as a stand alone class. Which is..just... idk. To me thats just simply not an option, started playing in 3.5 and haven't stopped playing warlock since and its one of the few iconic mage options that more often than not goes into other RPGS. Being a Warlock Wizard or Warlock Sorcerer is just....blastphemy in my mind.

But its not impossible to see. In future editions we may lose the class as some have come and gone with other editions.

[Marcloure]

I mean.....Its distinct enough that it could be its own class. But if you want alot of classes could be simplified into another's. If you start with Warlock i see no reason to not keep going other than just not wanting the warlock as a stand alone class. Which is..just... idk. To me thats just simply not an option, started playing in 3.5 and haven't stopped playing warlock since and its one of the few iconic mage options that more often than not goes into other RPGS. Being a Warlock Wizard or Warlock Sorcerer is just....blastphemy in my mind.

But its not impossible to see. In future editions we may lose the class as some have come and gone with other editions.

I think part of this opinion of mine is because of subclasses. Other editions didn't have it to the extent of 5e, so the warlock and the ranger both could stand as its own class by having its uniquenesses. After all, in past editions any major fluffy or mechanical distinction would produce a new class. But with the possibility of grouping them up, some of them have so much overlapping that they could be merged together as subclasses (i.e.: they could just give the rogue a ranger/hunter subclass and go for it).

But that doesn't mean they should always do it, as I don't think the warlord should be merged with the fighter. So, I really don't know how I currently feel about the state of the warlock in 5e.

[Dr. Cliché]

Warlock is just generally a problematic class. I don't let them into games I run. They fill no particular niche in terms of fluff, and mechanically they cause some serious problems, especially the munchkin dips.

I have to disagree with this. Warlocks fill both a fluff niche and a mechanical one (I think the latter could have been done a bit better, but still).


Sorcerer...I hate the design path they took in 5th edition with this class. The sorcerer class should be able to cover all beings who wield innate magic. Satyr hero using forest magic; minor demon who wields infernal magic; time traveler using hi-tech toys to do stuff; half god...sorcerer, sorcerer, sorcerer, sorcerer.

This I agree with entirely. In particular, the PHB sorcerers are atrocious. You've got one that's tied to a very specific bloodline (whilst sorcerers are supposed to represent a whole host of possibilities in that regard), and one other one which is basically tied to . . . randomness. And is also virtually unplayable as-written. Maybe I'm just weird, but I don't want the DM to have complete control over when (if ever) my abilities are even allowed a chance to work.

Anyway, as I've said before, I think the issue is that they made Metamagic a core mechanic for sorcerers. It's left them with a pathetic number of spells known, and very shallow abilities for their particular bloodline - which should really be the core of the class.



But, of course, it doesn't work this way. Instead, there are a few very limited options for what a sorcerer can be - a design decision horribly reminiscent of 3.5. Things are marginally better with the 5e splatbooks compared to the days when it was draconic, wild or bust, but it is a bad sign that splat is necessary for there to be any ontological variety in the class. The sorcerer class would be much better if the origins were simply thrown out (i.e. no longer a class feature), and as compensation, the class received access to any spell in the game. Would this make the sorcerer a stronger class overall? Probably. Would it be stronger that wizard? Highly doubful. Would it both simplify the class design and make sorcerers far more diverse in play, and capable of accommodating all the crazy crap players can dream up? Definitely.

I disagree in that I think it's nice to have different bloodlines yield different abilities. Otherwise you run into the issue of every sorcerer playing the same - no matter if they're a Satyr hero or a minor demon.

I think what we need is no metamagic, more spells known, more/improved bloodline abilities and, most importantly, more bloodlines to cover as many origins as possible. That's how I see it, anyway.


But why do the sorcerer and warlock need to be separate classes? They are both classes which wield magic that is somehow "gifted" to them, either as a consequence of their origins or because they made some sort of deal with a powerful being.

You basically skip over the difference, but I think it's a key point. Basically, sorcerers are born the way they are - they've always had their powers.

However, Warlocks were born without those powers and gained them by making a questionable deal with a powerful entity.

Imagine you've got two millionaires - one inherited a family fortune, the other got rich by making a deal with a mob boss. Sure, they're both rich, but the way in which their wealth was acquired is pretty important. At the very least, only one of them has a mob boss looking for favours to be returned. :smallwink:

[the secret fire]

I mean.....Its distinct enough that it could be its own class. But if you want alot of classes could be simplified into another's. If you start with Warlock i see no reason to not keep going other than just not wanting the warlock as a stand alone class. Which is..just... idk.

It's about balance. The game needs enough classes to reasonably cover the narrative ideas players bring to the table but not so many that character building becomes a clusterfork like it was in 3.5. I think three primary casting classes is enough. The wizard is master of arcane knowledge; the cleric channels the power of higher beings (another reason the game doesn't need warlocks...the cleric already fills that narrative role); and the sorcerer is everything else.

I have no objection to players coming up with characters who make pacts with powerful and potentially nasty beings, but I don't see the need for an entire class to represent that narrow trope. Also, to be frank, the infamous Sorlock, Pallock and Bardlock are the single worst min/max "builds" in 5e at present, imo. Doing away with them is, to a large extent, simply me as a DM going after the low-hanging fruit (I also don't allow Moon Druids or PAM shield-and-quarterstaff shenanigans).

[the secret fire]

I disagree in that I think it's nice to have different bloodlines yield different abilities. Otherwise you run into the issue of every sorcerer playing the same - no matter if they're a Satyr hero or a minor demon.

They will actually play quite differently depending on which spells are chosen. I know this because I've been running sorcerers in this way at my table pretty much since 5e came out. Opening up the spell list completely actually creates a large amount of diversity without the need for a million splattastic origin subclasses.

Of course, I'm sure there would be some horrible optimizer's "perfect list of all the most powerful" spells if my method were ever mainstream. Not trying to suggest that this is a perfect solution, but it allows players to do what they want with the class thematically without introducing a pile of new rules. My vague directive to players who want to play sorcerers is simply that there needs to be some thematic connection between their spells.

[Garfunion]

I have an idea, an experiment. What if we remove pact-magic and mystical arcana class features from the warlock class, replacing it with the normal spellcasting feature and spell slot progression as a sorcerer.
How would it thermatically and mechanically affect the warlock class?

[TundraBuccaneer]

I have an idea, an experiment. What if we remove pact-magic and mystical arcana class features from the warlock class, replacing it with the normal spellcasting feature and spell slot progression as a sorcerer.
How would it thermatically and mechanically affect the warlock class?

Warlocks still would have invocations which is more then other casters generally get.

[Mortis_Elrod]

It's about balance. The game needs enough classes to reasonably cover the narrative ideas players bring to the table but not so many that character building becomes a clusterfork like it was in 3.5. I think three primary casting classes is enough. The wizard is master of arcane knowledge; the cleric channels the power of higher beings (another reason the game doesn't need warlocks...the cleric already fills that narrative role); and the sorcerer is everything else.

I have no objection to players coming up with characters who make pacts with powerful and potentially nasty beings, but I don't see the need for an entire class to represent that narrow trope. Also, to be frank, the infamous Sorlock, Pallock and Bardlock are the single worst min/max "builds" in 5e at present, imo. Doing away with them is, to a large extent, simply me as a DM going after the low-hanging fruit (I also don't allow Moon Druids or PAM shield-and-quarterstaff shenanigans).

do what you want in your home games man but don't touch the warlock. You clearly don't understand the differences between it and other classes and the fluff behind it.

[LeonBH]

But why do the sorcerer and warlock need to be separate classes? They are both classes which wield magic that is somehow "gifted" to them, either as a consequence of their origins or because they made some sort of deal with a powerful being. They are the "unscientific" or "natural" magic users. There don't need to be two classes to represent this sort of character, imo.

Sorcerers enable backstories that Warlocks couldn't touch. Warlocks enable backstories that Sorcerers couldn't touch.

In particular, Wild Magic Sorcs enable stories exploring tragedy that is unearned. Through no fault of theirs, they are liable to destroy everything around them, and will continue to do so as long as they live. You can get into some very serious themes and stories here, but notably the theme of Wild Magic Sorcerer fits these stories most naturally.

Meanwhile, Warlocks enable stories exploring karma, or a tragedy that is earned. Through their own efforts, though possibly unwittingly, they trade away more than they were prepared to give, and they lose it forever. Very dramatic as a premise, and notably, the theme of Fiend Warlock fits this most naturally.

[Ganymede]

Serious question. How do you know the Warlock isn't squished between a Sorcerer and Wizard, or a Wizard squished between a Sorcerer and Warlock?

Part of it was the PHB origins of the sorcerer in 3e. It hewed so closely to the wizard that they even shared the same spell list and many class features. For most purposes, that sorcerer was a wizard with a different set of mechanics.

Come 4e, and that lack of differentiation from the wizard resulted in the sorcerer being dropped from the PHB in favor of the warlock. Now, with 5e, the sorcerer is back as a PHB class, but its previous niche as spontaneous caster has been gobbled up by warlocks and bards, and even partially absorbed by wizards, clerics, and druids. That leaves only its Bloodlines to differentiate the sorcerer, but that is an even bigger problem.

In the design space of possible bloodlines, every bloodline could be thematically designed as an analogous pact. A dragon bloodline could be a dragon pact, a fiend bloodline could be a fiend pact, a far plane bloodline could be a far plane pact, an elemental bloodline could be an elemental pact, a divine bloodline could be a divine pact, and so on. With the non-PHB resources we have now, some of these similarly fluffed bloodlines and pacts already exist.

Overall, pacts and bloodlines have a certain sameness to them, and would be easy to smush them together as one thing with appropriate text cutouts paying homage to the thematic difference between the two. And, with the dissolving niche of the sorcerer over time, I feel it would be better if the thematic elements of the sorcerer were absorbed by the warlock chassis.

As for the wizard, he stays without further comment.



Sorcerers enable backstories that Warlocks couldn't touch. Warlocks enable backstories that Sorcerers couldn't touch.

Meh... it is either a pact by deed or a pact by blood. The backstories of warlocks in the PHB already contemplate involuntary pacts or even unknowing pacts, so it isn't outrageous to imagine ancestral pacts wedged in there.

I could see cutaway text on point: "Sometimes pacts are forged not in deed, but through the blood. An ancestor may have made a pact that damned all of his descendants, or a tryst with a fiend might have forged a link that lasted from generation to generation. Sometimes known as sorcerers, these warlocks must grapple with pacts they had no say in entering."

[the secret fire]

do what you want in your home games man but don't touch the warlock. You clearly don't understand the differences between it and other classes and the fluff behind it.

Heh...your assumption that my dislike for the warlock arises out of some cognitive difficulty is amusing. As if there is so much to "understand".

The bottom line is that the class occupies a narrow fantasy niche which can be adequately filled by other classes from a narrative perspective, and is by all appearances the single most broken, munchkinable base class in 5e. As a DM, I just don't feel that it's worth my time to fix the warlock.

[LeonBH]

Part of it was the PHB origins of the sorcerer in 3e. It hewed so closely to the wizard that they even shared the same spell list and many class features. For most purposes, that sorcerer was a wizard with a different set of mechanics.

Come 4e, and that lack of differentiation from the wizard resulted in the sorcerer being dropped from the PHB in favor of the warlock. Now, with 5e, the sorcerer is back as a PHB class, but its previous niche as spontaneous caster has been gobbled up by warlocks and bards, and even partially absorbed by wizards, clerics, and druids. That leaves only its Bloodlines to differentiate the sorcerer, but that is an even bigger problem.

You are using previous editions to judge why Sorcerers are "in between" Warlocks and Wizards, and since you are moving outside of 5e to make this statement, then you are not actually saying anything about the 5e Sorcerer as it exists in this edition.


In the design space of possible bloodlines, every bloodline could be thematically designed as an analogous pact. A dragon bloodline could be a dragon pact, a fiend bloodline could be a fiend pact, a far plane bloodline could be a far plane pact, an elemental bloodline could be an elemental pact, a divine bloodline could be a divine pact, and so on. With the non-PHB resources we have now, some of these similarly fluffed bloodlines and pacts already exist.

You can mechanically implement Arcane Traditions as Channel Divinities as well, but that doesn't mean wizard should be folded into cleric. Similarly, being able to implement bloodline mechanics as pacts does not support that sorcerers should be folded into warlocks.

A dragon bloodline implies you were descended from a dragon. A dragon pact implies you found a dragon and it bestowed power on you. Thematically, those are very different things. A dragon pact could not have a backstory that involves them being born with that pact by virtue of newborns not having the capacity to negotiate such things.


Overall, pacts and bloodlines have a certain sameness to them, and would be easy to smush them together as one thing with appropriate text cutouts paying homage to the thematic difference between the two. And, with the dissolving niche of the sorcerer over time, I feel it would be better if the thematic elements of the sorcerer were absorbed by the warlock chassis.

Since you are moving outside of 5e to make this statement, then you are not actually saying anything about the 5e Sorcerer as it exists in this edition. You are only comparing it to what was.

And the pacts and bloodlines are not thematically similar to the point you can merge them.


As for the wizard, he stays without further comment.

To use your own argument, the Illusion School fits the Trickery Domain. The Evocation School fits the Light Domain. The Necromancy School fits the Death Domain (DMG). And any domains that don't exist yet, you can create. The resulting mechanics would be similar.

Furthermore, clerics are also prepared casters, just like wizards.

So taking note that your argument for merging sorcs and locks are that they are similar, why shouldn't wizards and clerics be merged? (They are not thematically similar, only mechanically similar; but bloodlines and pacts are not thematically similar either).


Meh... it is either a pact by deed or a pact by blood. The backstories of warlocks in the PHB already contemplate involuntary pacts or even unknowing pacts, so it isn't outrageous to imagine ancestral pacts wedged in there.

I could see cutaway text on point: "Sometimes pacts are forged not in deed, but through the blood. An ancestor may have made a pact that damned all of his descendants, or a tryst with a fiend might have forged a link that lasted from generation to generation. Sometimes known as sorcerers, these warlocks must grapple with pacts they had no say in entering."

The "unknowing pact" is for the GoO where the patron doesn't know someone is stealing power from them, but the thief definitely knows what they're doing.

Also, Pacts by blood is very draconic-specific. Only draconic sorcerers are known to pass on their magic from generation to generation. Divine Soul Sorcerers could be chosen by a god and given magic, without his parents having done anything to appease that god. And Storm Sorcerers could be born in the middle of an intense magical storm, without need for previous magical lineage.

[Ganymede]

Dude, I'm not trying to win you over to my side.

[LeonBH]

Dude, I'm not trying to win you over to my side.

The fact that you're not trying to convince me does not invalidate that:

1. Sorcerers are not similar to Warlocks: you should not fold them together for reasons of fluff, and certainly not reasons of mechanics
2. 5e Sorcerers stand alone from previous editions and occupy a different niche

[Ganymede]

The fact that you're not trying to convince me does not invalidate that:

1. Sorcerers are not similar to Warlocks: you should not fold them together for reasons of fluff, and certainly not reasons of mechanics
2. 5e Sorcerers stand alone from previous editions and occupy a different niche

You're confusing you asking me to elaborate on my thought process as some sort of internet debate.

I was merely adding my two cents, so feel free to have a differing opinion. I don't really care; people are allowed to disagree.

[LeonBH]

You're confusing you asking me to elaborate on my thought process as some sort of internet debate.

I was merely adding my two cents, so feel free to have a differing opinion. I don't really care; people are allowed to disagree.

I was engaging. I asked a question and you answered. I engaged with you by looking at your answer and raising certain points I saw problematic with it.

[Dr. Cliché]

One thing that does bug me is that the whole 'pact' aspect of the Warlock seems to be largely ignored from a character standpoint.

Like, I get that Bards and Sorcerers multiclassing into Warlock is good from a mechanical standpoint. However, from a character standpoint, you've basically got people with innate magic pledging themselves (possibly even their immortal souls) to a powerful entity . . . for magic.

Granted, it's a slightly different sort of magic, but still.

I don't know, it just seems like a really weird mindset to me.

[LeonBH]

One thing that does bug me is that the whole 'pact' aspect of the Warlock seems to be largely ignored from a character standpoint.

Like, I get that Bards and Sorcerers multiclassing into Warlock is good from a mechanical standpoint. However, from a character standpoint, you've basically got people with innate magic pledging themselves (possibly even their immortal souls) to a powerful entity . . . for magic.

Granted, it's a slightly different sort of magic, but still.

I don't know, it just seems like a really weird mindset to me.

Depends on how you fluff it to have come about. I've made a Divine Soul/Fey Bladelock whose story is he was born with a mysterious divine heritage, set out to find more about it, and fell in love with his Fey mistress and swore a Pact to protect her and be her sword.

Another Sorlock I made was someone who was experimented on FMA King Bradley style, was pulled into the Far Realm as a result, and saw a Great Old One. Seeing it drove him kind of insane, the exposure to the Far Realm corrupted his magic and infused him with Wild Magic, and the only way he survived that was making a Pact to the GOO that he would allow a legion of aberrations into the world.

[Millstone85]

A dragon bloodline implies you were descended from a dragon. A dragon pact implies you found a dragon and it bestowed power on you.Weirdly enough, the PHB goes out of its way to muddle the point.
Most often, sorcerers with this origin trace their descent back to a mighty sorcerer of ancient times who made a bargain with a dragon or who might even have claimed a dragon parent. [...] Any given sorcerer could be the first of a new bloodline, as a result of a pact or some other exceptional circumstance. Not only can a draconic bloodline start with a draconic pact, but the one making the pact is already called a sorcerer. It would have made sense to me if some draconic sorcerers were descended from a draconic warlock.


Like, I get that Bards and Sorcerers multiclassing into Warlock is good from a mechanical standpoint. However, from a character standpoint, you've basically got people with innate magic pledging themselves (possibly even their immortal souls) to a powerful entity . . . for magic.Here, the PHB offers an interesting fluff for a bardlock.
Perhaps you stumbled into the clutches of a hag, making a bargain for a musical gift in addition to your life and freedom, but at what cost? It seems that you could explain all your magic by your encounter with a fey. Maybe the character isn't even aware of what is a bard level and what is a warlock one.

Come to think of it, the same could be done with a wild sorclock.
Perhaps you were blessed by a powerful fey creature or marked by a demon. You were gifted the power of chaos along with conventional pact magic.

And I have this character who made a pact in an attempt to control her wild magic. Well, her mother made the pact for her, but later my character had a chance to rid herself of it all and instead renewed the pact because she didn't want to become a muggle. I haven't actually taken sorcerer levels, but the fluff is there if I wanted to.

[LeonBH]

Weirdly enough, the PHB goes out of its way to muddle the point. Not only can a draconic bloodline start with a draconic pact, but the one making the pact is already called a sorcerer. It would have made sense to me if some draconic sorcerers were descended from a draconic warlock.

Interesting. This means draconic pacts do not create warlocks, but instead creates sorcerers. Therefore, just because you make a pact does not mean you are a warlock.

It does mean sorcery can be the result of a pact. See below.

PHB 99: "Sorcerers have no use for the spellbooks and ancient tomes of magic lore that wizards rely on, nor do they rely on a patron to grant their spells as warlocks do."

PH 105: "A warlock is defined by a pact with an otherworldly being."

The distinction remains that Sorcerers do not need a patron, while Warlocks do. Draconic Sorcerers might get their power from a pact, but they don't need the patron afterwards. The flavor remains distinct, especially outside Draconic Sorcerers. As I said earlier:


Sorcerers enable backstories that Warlocks couldn't touch. Warlocks enable backstories that Sorcerers couldn't touch.

In particular, Wild Magic Sorcs enable stories exploring tragedy that is unearned. Through no fault of theirs, they are liable to destroy everything around them, and will continue to do so as long as they live. You can get into some very serious themes and stories here, but notably the theme of Wild Magic Sorcerer fits these stories most naturally.

Meanwhile, Warlocks enable stories exploring karma, or a tragedy that is earned. Through their own efforts, though possibly unwittingly, they trade away more than they were prepared to give, and they lose it forever. Very dramatic as a premise, and notably, the theme of Fiend Warlock fits this most naturally.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Maybe that explains why WOTC hasn’t shown us a dragon patron warlock. Dragons are certainly powerful but not otherworldly , which so far all the patrons are if you consider the world to mean the Material Plane.

But I’ll agree on the pact does not make warlock. I think it really depends on the relation ship of the patron and mage as well as the deal that makes a warlock.

[Garfunion]

Interesting. This means draconic pacts do not create warlocks, but instead creates sorcerers. Therefore, just because you make a pact does not mean you are a warlock.

It does mean sorcery can be the result of a pact. See below.

PHB 99: "Sorcerers have no use for the spellbooks and ancient tomes of magic lore that wizards rely on, nor do they rely on a patron to grant their spells as warlocks do."

PH 105: "A warlock is defined by a pact with an otherworldly being."

The distinction remains that Sorcerers do not need a patron, while Warlocks do. Draconic Sorcerers might get their power from a pact, but they don't need the patron afterwards. The flavor remains distinct, especially outside Draconic Sorcerers. As I said earlier:

You can play the warlock class and call yourself a sorcerer or you can play a sorcerer and call yourself a warlock it doesn't matter. The origins of power between the 2 classes are gray, regardless on how you word it. The power of both classes can be taken away if the original source of it no longer wants to give you the power.

The real problem is that the sorcerer doesn't bring anything uniquely mechanical to the table. Some would say that the sorcerer has metamagic but that isn't all that unique. The warlock can do this using invocations especially eldritch blast invocations. The wizard depend on school can also manipulate spells in a metemagic way.

In the end the Sorcerer was created for more of a nostalgia aspect of the game. If they really wanted the sorcerer to be unique they should've created a caster class that didn't use spell slots or spell points when it comes to using magic.

[LeonBH]

You can play the warlock class and call yourself a sorcerer or you can play a sorcerer and call yourself a warlock it doesn't matter. The origins of power between the 2 classes are gray, regardless on how you word it.

You can also call a sorcerer a wizard, and you can call a wizard a sorcerer. If you find the natural English definition of wizard (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/wizard), you will find them defined as sorcerers. And if you find the natural English definition of sorcerer, you will find them defined as wizards (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sorcerer?s=t).


The power of both classes can be taken away if the original source of it no longer wants to give you the power.

Where did you get this idea?

Nobody can take the power of the sorcerer away - not even the dragon who gave them their pact. And not all sorcs get their powers from a dragon pact. Not even all draconic sorcerers get their powers from a dragon pact.


The real problem is that the sorcerer doesn't bring anything uniquely mechanical to the table. Some would say that the sorcerer has metamagic but that isn't all that unique. The warlock can do this using invocations especially eldritch blast invocations. The wizard depend on school can also manipulate spells in a metemagic way.

The wizard cannot manipulate spells in a metamagical way. Some are similar (Careful Spell vs Sculpt Spell, Twin Spell vs Twin Enchantment at level 10) but the Wizard's version is much more limited. And they do not have access to twin concentration, bonus action casting, or at will disadvantage to saves.

Sorcerers are the strongest nova class and can beat a wizard in a contest of spellcasting in the area of their specialization due to metamagic and sorcery points.


In the end the Sorcerer was created for more of a nostalgia aspect of the game. If they really wanted the sorcerer to be unique they should've created a caster class that didn't use spell slots or spell points when it comes to using magic.

Wizards are hardly any better. Their power is completely generic. At their strongest, all level 2 evocation wizards are the same (once you give them access to their entire class spell list). You cannot say the same for sorcerers or warlocks.

[Dr. Cliché]

The real problem is that the sorcerer doesn't bring anything uniquely mechanical to the table.

They do bring something unique in the form of metamagic.

The real question is whether that is worth bringing to the table. :smallwink:

[LeonBH]

They do bring something unique in the form of metamagic.

The real question is whether that is worth bringing to the table. :smallwink:

Metamagic is flavorful. Meanwhile, wizards, for all their power, do not bring anything unique. See my quote below.


Wizards are hardly any better. Their power is completely generic. At their strongest, all level 2 evocation wizards are the same (once you give them access to their entire class spell list). You cannot say the same for sorcerers or warlocks.

[ZorroGames]

"This class isn't like what I remember from past editions so it needs to be changed."

:sigh:

That is exactly what these kind of posts remind me of, “I want my old game!”

Go play your old game. I still play TSR Chainmail and no one has arrested me.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Go play your old game. I still play TSR Chainmail and no one has arrested me.

What?! Someone call the police! This madman can’t be allowed to continue

[Dr. Cliché]

Metamagic is flavorful.

See, I actually don't think it is flavourful.

Maybe it would be on a Wizard who'd spent years studying magic and how to manipulate it.

But on a sorcerer it just seems out of place to me.

[Mortis_Elrod]

See, I actually don't think it is flavourful.

Maybe it would be on a Wizard who'd spent years studying magic and how to manipulate it.

But on a sorcerer it just seems out of place to me.

It makes sense to me, using the Bane argument. The Wizard merely adopted the Weave. The Sorcerer was born of it, molded by it. Therefore Sorcerer can break certain rules

[Millstone85]

The distinction remains that Sorcerers do not need a patron, while Warlocks do. Draconic Sorcerers might get their power from a pact, but they don't need the patron afterwards.
Nobody can take the power of the sorcerer away - not even the dragon who gave them their pact.Though it is not clear what a warlock needs from their patron after the initial deal, or if pact magic can be taken away. As someone mentioned earlier...
all warlock casting is Arcane, which means they directly manipulate the Weave without using mediated power. so treating warlocks as divine spellcasters might be a mistake.

The way I see it, a warlock needs their patron to gain more warlock levels. And I would in fact treat sorcerer as the easiest class to multiclass in after a breach of contract.

Of course, 5e has no hard rules regarding power loss. Except for paladins, because they are just too fun for DMs to torture, I guess.

[Dr. Cliché]

It makes sense to me, using the Bane argument. The Wizard merely adopted the Weave. The Sorcerer was born of it, molded by it. Therefore Sorcerer can break certain rules

I accept the premise but not the execution.

Metamagic just seems far too rigid/specific to represent that sort of thing.

But then, the spell system in general just doesn't seem right for a sorcerer.

[LeonBH]

See, I actually don't think it is flavourful.

Maybe it would be on a Wizard who'd spent years studying magic and how to manipulate it.

But on a sorcerer it just seems out of place to me.

But Wizards don't have metamagic, and Sorcerers do. Wizards studied the rules of casting magic and operate wholly within it. Evidently, they can't break the rules unless they have Sorcery Points to spend.


Though it is not clear what a warlock needs from their patron after the initial deal, or if pact magic can be taken away. As someone mentioned earlier... so treating warlocks as divine spellcasters might be a mistake.

Yes, it's unclear (in the fluff) if breaking the Pact will remove the Warlock's power or if it can be removed. But we know unambiguously that the Sorcerer's power is innate and cannot be removed by the "origin" of that power, because there is no external origin giving them that power.


The way I see it, a warlock needs their patron to gain more warlock levels. And I would in fact treat sorcerer as the easiest class to multiclass in after a breach of contract.

PHB 105: "Sometimes the relationship between warlock and patron is like that of a cleric and a deity, though the beings that serve as patrons for warlocks are not gods. [...] More often, though, the arrangement is similar to that between a master and an apprentice. The warlock learns and grows in power, at the cost of occasional services performed on the patron's behalf."

PHB 106: "Furthermore, the demands of their patrons drive warlocks toward adventure."

PHB 106: "CREATING A WARLOCK. As you make your warlock character, spend some time thinking about your patron and the obligations that your pact imposes upon you. [...] Work with your DM to determine how big a part your pact will play in your character's adventuring career."

That is to say, Pacts are supposed to be worked out between the player and the DM, but they exist.

[Mortis_Elrod]

But Wizards don't have metamagic, and Sorcerers do. Wizards studied the rules of casting magic and operate wholly within it. Evidently, they can't break the rules unless they have Sorcery Points to spend.



Yes, it's unclear (in the fluff) if breaking the Pact will remove the Warlock's power or if it can be removed. But we know unambiguously that the Sorcerer's power is innate and cannot be removed by the "origin" of that power, because there is no external origin giving them that power.



PHB 105: "Sometimes the relationship between warlock and patron is like that of a cleric and a deity, though the beings that serve as patrons for warlocks are not gods. [...] More often, though, the arrangement is similar to that between a master and an apprentice. The warlock learns and grows in power, at the cost of occasional services performed on the patron's behalf."

PHB 106: "Furthermore, the demands of their patrons drive warlocks toward adventure."

PHB 106: "CREATING A WARLOCK. As you make your warlock character, spend some time thinking about your patron and the obligations that your pact imposes upon you. [...] Work with your DM to determine how big a part your pact will play in your character's adventuring career."

That is to say, Pacts are supposed to be worked out between the player and the DM, but they exist.

I think Mike Mearls said in a video not too long ago that in a general sense the deal a warlock makes is concluded before the campaign starts (changed based on player and Dm and world of course) and that a patron cannot take back the power and knowledge they give.

Take that as you will, I know some people don’t hold much credence to anything besides what is printed, but it leads me to believe that generally arcane power once given cannot be removed.

And that warlocks can go against their patron, which is great.

[LeonBH]

I think Mike Mearls said in a video not too long ago that in a general sense the deal a warlock makes is concluded before the campaign starts (changed based on player and Dm and world of course) and that a patron cannot take back the power and knowledge they give.

Take that as you will, I know some people don’t hold much credence to anything besides what is printed, but it leads me to believe that generally arcane power once given cannot be removed.

And that warlocks can go against their patron, which is great.

I think that is also a valid way to play it out.

[Dr. Cliché]

But Wizards don't have metamagic, and Sorcerers do.

And, as I said, I don't think it's at all in line with the fluff/flavour of sorcerers.


Wizards studied the rules of casting magic and operate wholly within it.

One wonders what it is they even spend their time studying.


Evidently, they can't break the rules unless they have Sorcery Points to spend.

Which makes you wonder how new spells are ever made in this world.

[LeonBH]

And, as I said, I don't think it's at all in line with the fluff/flavour of sorcerers.

What is the fluff/flavor of Sorcerers in your view?


One wonders what it is they even spend their time studying.

The rules of magic and how to cast spells.


Which makes you wonder how new spells are ever made in this world.

Evidently, Wizards don't make new spells, or that would be in their class features.

Not even L20 Wizards can create them. And not even L30 Wizards with Epic Boons can create them.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Though it is not clear what a warlock needs from their patron after the initial deal, or if pact magic can be taken away. As someone mentioned earlier... so treating warlocks as divine spellcasters might be a mistake.

The way I see it, a warlock needs their patron to gain more warlock levels. And I would in fact treat sorcerer as the easiest class to multiclass in after a breach of contract.


As I've always understood it, warlocks gain specific bundles of knowledge from the Pact (as well as having the power (spell-slots) torn open when they normally wouldn't be. Warlocks from then on use that power. They need their patron to gain more bundles (more spells/features), but don't need it to use those. They're not siphoning power from their patron--it was quid pro quo and the price is paid (for the prior knowledge). A warlock who abandons his patron would need to find another one or stop gaining power in that class.

Sorcerers have their power innately. They don't learn new spells as much as figure out how to use the ones buried in their bodies/souls. In the case of the "pact-mediated" sorcerers, they bargained for the injection of power. From there, it's theirs and they never have to go back to their pact partner. They can know very few spells (because the spells are encoded in them), but can manipulate the expression of those spells (because in one sense they are magic). This is different from a wizard, who learns them by rote and relies on precise repetition to manifest that power.

Paladins draw their power from their confidence in their Oath. The strictures are exactly what give them power, but that power is a two-edged sword. If they decide that the Oath is no longer worth keeping (or that it's false), they lose that confidence and their power. This isn't just "oh, you weren't perfect," but "you have abandoned your oath entirely and no longer wish to keep it."

Clerics are constantly channeling divine power, so if they openly break with their god they'll have to find a new one to keep their spells.

[Millstone85]

I think Mike Mearls said in a video not too long ago that in a general sense the deal a warlock makes is concluded before the campaign starts (changed based on player and Dm and world of course) and that a patron cannot take back the power and knowledge they give.This video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiS5mkIff_8), I believe.

But that's also where he said that...
For gods it is more like divine magic is really available to anyone who really studies and masters it. And the way I see it is each temple, each religion teaches a different technique and that's how you get different domains. But at the end of the day, divine magic is kind of like arcane magic. It is this background force in the universe. You can turn against your god, you don't lose your magic. which is very "Let's forget we ever returned from 4e".

[Mortis_Elrod]

This video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiS5mkIff_8), I believe.

But that's also where he said that... which is very "Let's forget we ever returned from 4e".

I mean... I kind of like that Cleric’s can turn against their god. I see nothing wrong with this. Sometimes it’s ok to forget 4e.

[Garfunion]

You can also call a sorcerer a wizard, and you can call a wizard a sorcerer. If you find the natural English definition of wizard (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/wizard), you will find them defined as sorcerers. And if you find the natural English definition of sorcerer, you will find them defined as wizards (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sorcerer?s=t).



Where did you get this idea?

Nobody can take the power of the sorcerer away - not even the dragon who gave them their pact. And not all sorcs get their powers from a dragon pact. Not even all draconic sorcerers get their powers from a dragon pact.



The wizard cannot manipulate spells in a metamagical way. Some are similar (Careful Spell vs Sculpt Spell, Twin Spell vs Twin Enchantment at level 10) but the Wizard's version is much more limited. And they do not have access to twin concentration, bonus action casting, or at will disadvantage to saves.

Sorcerers are the strongest nova class and can beat a wizard in a contest of spellcasting in the area of their specialization due to metamagic and sorcery points.



Wizards are hardly any better. Their power is completely generic. At their strongest, all level 2 evocation wizards are the same (once you give them access to their entire class spell list). You cannot say the same for sorcerers or warlocks.

A lot of fantasy books movies TV shows reveal that once a contract with a powerful creature has been broken or the powerful creature them selves breaks the contract the one who was receiving the power no longer has the power. Similarly a child could be blessed by a dryad and gain sorcerer powers but the blessing could be removed thus removing the power. But again the fluff doesn't really matter you can make up whatever story you want with your origin of power.


Yes a wizard can reshape there spells in a limited fashion but, the same could be said for sorcerer who has limited spells known. Which means that the sorcerer still really doesn't bring anything significant to the table that the wizard can't already provided with their ability to prepare twice as many spells as a sorcerer each day.


If all you're really looking at for sorcerer is their ability to nova then sorcerer again is pretty limited and one-dimensional. It would be a lot better if the sorcerers bloodlines would actually use more of the spell points to give them stronger ability but many bloodlines don't.


But the real power of a wizard is there versatility. They get ritual caster feature as part of the class, they can prepare twice as many spells than a sorcerer or warlock and each day they can change those spells for another.



This is why a lot of people multiclass in and out of sorcerer. It doesn't provide a player enough incentive to stay a sorcerer.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I mean... I kind of like that Cleric’s can turn against their god. I see nothing wrong with this. Sometimes it’s ok to forget 4e.

I tend to roll on a middle ground here--the cleric can turn against the god (or do something the god doesn't want) and the only direct recourse would be to completely remove the cleric's access to power. Effectively, you'd have to delete the "is cleric" flag in the celestial database for that person. The gods don't micromanage spells beyond that. Gods set the flag and answer requests for out-of-the-norm powers (divine intervention, commune, etc) but they don't get involved in the day-to-day adventuring. And trained clerics are a hot commodity--another god might just snap up the newly freed cleric. This makes it entirely a pre-arranged story point, not a sword of damocles for the cleric's player.

For that matter, the most pacifist goddess in my setting (goddess of the hearth and family life) now has a canon branch of followers (including clerics) who believe that they were called to burn out corruption (by which they mean "unclean" creatures including orcs, goblins, and anything out of the norm) so that no one else is tempted/forced to. Basically "eating" the sin themselves, knowing that they're probably damned by doing so. She still grants them spells, though, for her own reasons. Or maybe they're getting spells from someone else.

[Dr. Cliché]

What is the fluff/flavor of Sorcerers in your view?

Do you mean in relation to how I think they should cast spells, or just generally?



Not even L20 Wizards can create them. And not even L30 Wizards with Epic Boons can create them.

Does that not seem at all . . . odd to you?

[LeonBH]

Do you mean in relation to how I think they should cast spells, or just generally?

I don't know, but I was referring to when you said metamagic doesn't fit their flavor/fluff. What did you mean when you said that? What is their flavor/fluff?


Does that not seem at all . . . odd to you?

No, because if you hand players the ability to create spells, things can get pretty broken pretty fast. Wizards memorize known magic and master it completely, but they simply don't produce new spells in this edition.

[LeonBH]

A lot of fantasy books movies TV shows reveal that once a contract with a powerful creature has been broken or the powerful creature them selves breaks the contract the one who was receiving the power no longer has the power.

Right. That is true for their universe.


Similarly a child could be blessed by a dryad and gain sorcerer powers but the blessing could be removed thus removing the power.

Not according to the Sorcerer's description, which states they don't need patrons. They are inherently magical beings.


Yes a wizard can reshape there spells in a limited fashion but, the same could be said for sorcerer who has limited spells known. Which means that the sorcerer still really doesn't bring anything significant to the table that the wizard can't already provided with their ability to prepare twice as many spells as a sorcerer each day.

There are a few spells Sorcerers can cast that Wizards can't. The most prominent one is Enhance Ability, which means advantage on Initiative checks if cast before entering a dungeon for the Sorcerer, and they can cast at a higher level to share it with his allies. Very good for a gish build.

Regardless of how Wizards can prepare more spells than a Sorcerer, the Sorcerer can cast more spells per day than a Wizard. They can also cast more spells of a specific level (from 1st to 5th level) than a Wizard.

In fact, a L20 Sorcerer can cast ten 5th level Fireballs in a single fight with no magic items (or whatever other 5th level spells you like) by sacrificing their 1st through 4th level slots, and all 20 Sorcery Points.

That means, spell for spell, the Sorcerer can cast one 5th level spell for the Wizard's lower level spell. The Wizard can cast six more low level spells in total but that is only four 1st level spells and two 2nd level spells on the 11th round - and neither caster has touched their 6th through 9th spells at this point yet.


If all you're really looking at for sorcerer is their ability to nova then sorcerer again is pretty limited and one-dimensional. It would be a lot better if the sorcerers bloodlines would actually use more of the spell points to give them stronger ability but many bloodlines don't.

Sorcerers have access to 4th level spell slots at level 6, and 5th level spell slots at level 7. That is two levels earlier than any other class gets those spell slots.

Their nova is more powerful than a Wizard's, and it isn't only because of Quicken Spell. They are casting at higher levels earlier, and thus their magic is more powerful than any other caster at levels 6, 7, and 8.


But the real power of a wizard is there versatility. They get ritual caster feature as part of the class, they can prepare twice as many spells than a sorcerer or warlock and each day they can change those spells for another.

This is why a lot of people multiclass in and out of sorcerer. It doesn't provide a player enough incentive to stay a sorcerer.

Low level Sorc dips are a bad idea. You only get a small pool of Sorcery Points, and thus a reduced ability to create higher level spell slots and fuel metamagic.

Wizards are powerful, there is no denying that. But they are also non-distinguishable from each other. Two wizards from the same school of magic, at their strongest, have exactly the same abilities and spell list.

But anyway, just because the Wizard is powerful does not mean the Sorcerer or Warlock are worthless and should be folded into each other. That just means the Wizard has competition.

EDIT: People don't stay in Wizard only because Wizard is too good. Wizard has no other class that it multiclasses well with, unlike Sorcerers and Warlocks, which use the same casting stat. Wizards have to be MAD to multiclass, and the only two casters in the game at the moment which also use Int as their casting stat are only 1/3 casters, hurting their spell slot progression if they do.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Does that not seem at all . . . odd to you?

No, no more than the fact that most engineers aren't making Nobel Prize physics discoveries. Adventuring wizards (those with the Wizard class) aren't academics. They're adventurers first. They're the engineers of the wizarding world. And most spells are very hard to make, requiring a life's work for a single spell (prodigies excepted). They're also made (if science is any analog) by highly specialized people who are basically useless outside that one very narrow field. Most spells are discovered and copied, not created.

It would also be strange to give a single class the mechanical means to create spells. Creation of spells is up to the DM working with the player to decide what they want to include. That preserves a semblance of game balance as well.

Now in game terms I have no problem letting players come up with spells, even without mechanical features that give them permission to do so. But I check them for setting consistency and balance before approving them. The printed spells are only a tiny fraction of "all the spells" out there, selected for relevance to adventurers doing adventuring things.

[Dr. Cliché]

I don't know, but I was referring to when you said metamagic doesn't fit their flavor/fluff. What did you mean when you said that? What is their flavor/fluff?

It just seems odd to me that, when their magic comes naturally to them, their spells would be so precise/restricted in the first place.

I think their magic should be more akin to that of Psions, with spell points instead of spell slots. Their spells would be crafted around some 'themes', picked in advance (e.g. Fire, Illusion etc.).

From there, one possibility is that they craft them effectively from scratch, starting with a basic cantrip and then spending spell points to change or upgrade it in some way.
For example, a Fire mage may start with Firebolt (or something along those lines), and can choose to spend spell points to change the AoE to a cone or sphere and/or to improve the damage dice.

Different elements may have restrictions on what AoEs can be applied (e.g. lightning may not allow cone effects), and some may start with higher or lower damage dice than others (possibly spell points can upgrade the number of damage dice, but not the type used - so Fire might always use d10s, Cold could use d8s etc.). Some elements may also be able to apply riders to the effect (costing spell points, obviously).

Other spell themes would, naturally, work differently. For example, an Illusion theme might start with Minor Illusion and then the sorcerer could spend spell points to have both sound and visual effects, to increase the area, to have the illusion move etc.


Now, I fully appreciate that this wouldn't be to everyone's tastes, and would probably be too complex for 5e (and it's just a rough idea anyway). But that's how I imagine sorcerers casting spells.

In terms of what they've actually released, the Mystic is probably the closest to how I see their magic working (though obviously with less focus on the psychic aspect).

To put it another way, I think a sorcerer with fire abilities should be able to channel his energy into a variety of spells without picking them individually. As in, a sorcerer who can channel energy into a Firebolt should be able to channel more energy to turn it into a Fireball or Scorching Ray or the like.

Again, I appreciate that not everyone will look at it this way, but that's just how I see it.

[Garfunion]

Right. That is true for their universe.

••D&D doesn't really have a base universe it is whatever universe the DM chooses.••

Not according to the Sorcerer's description, which states they don't need patrons. They are inherently magical beings.

••Read the beginning chapter of the sorcerer. The very first page it states a touch of a demon, a blessing of a dryad, the drinking of magical water can confer sorcerer powers.••

There are a few spells Sorcerers can cast that Wizards can't. The most prominent one is Enhance Ability, which means advantage on Initiative checks if cast before entering a dungeon for the Sorcerer, and they can cast at a higher level to share it with his allies. Very good for a gish build.

••That was it also has a few spells the sorcerer can't cast••

Regardless of how Wizards can prepare more spells than a Sorcerer, the Sorcerer can cast more spells per day than a Wizard. They can also cast more spells of a specific level (from 1st to 5th level) than a Wizard.

••If you wanted a wasters sorcerer points to transform them into spell slots••

In fact, a L20 Sorcerer can cast ten 5th level Fireballs in a single fight with no magic items (or whatever other 5th level spells you like) by sacrificing their 1st through 4th level slots, and all 20 Sorcery Points.

••Again wasting spell slots and sorcerer points just to nova.••

That means, spell for spell, the Sorcerer can cast one 5th level spell for the Wizard's lower level spell. The Wizard can cast six more low level spells in total but that is only four 1st level spells and two 2nd level spells on the 11th round - and neither caster has touched their 6th through 9th spells at this point yet.

Sorcerers have access to 4th level spell slots at level 6, and 5th level spell slots at level 7. That is two levels earlier than any other class gets those spell slots.

••I think you are reading the spells per day wrong the sorcerer has the same spell put a progression that a wizard has in fact every full caster has the same spell progression. We are still talking about fifth edition sorcerer?••

Their nova is more powerful than a Wizard's, and it isn't only because of Quicken Spell. They are casting at higher levels earlier, and thus their magic is more powerful than any other caster at levels 6, 7, and 8.

••There's that nova again which still makes the sorcerer one dimensional.••

Low level Sorc dips are a bad idea. You only get a small pool of Sorcery Points, and thus a reduced ability to create higher level spell slots and fuel metamagic.

••3 levels sorcerer plus 17 levels of wizard. The wizard now has access to 2 metamagic s and can sacrifice both the sorcerer spell slots and his own spell slots, which is actually one in the same anyway to refill sorcerer points.••

Wizards are powerful, there is no denying that. But they are also non-distinguishable from each other. Two wizards from the same school of magic, at their strongest, have exactly the same abilities and spell list.

But anyway, just because the Wizard is powerful does not mean the Sorcerer or Warlock are worthless and should be folded into each other. That just means the Wizard has competition.

Answers are surrounded by bullets.

[LeonBH]

You made it hard for me to reply to you. Please don't do that again.


D&D doesn't really have a base universe it is whatever universe the DM chooses.

Sure.


Read the beginning chapter of the sorcerer. The very first page it states a touch of a demon, a blessing of a dryad, the drinking of magical water can confer sorcerer powers.

Read the rest. It says Sorcerers do not need patrons. Their magic is their own.


That was it also has a few spells the sorcerer can't cast

Sure, but that just goes to show they each have abilities the other can't copy.


If you wanted a wasters sorcerer points to transform them into spell slots

Nope. The Sorc can start with several high level spell slots and Sorcery Points.

There are effective ways to use Flexible Casting. I don't think you know about them. But they exist, and your (apparent) lack of awareness of them does not mean that these strategies are wasteful.


Again wasting spell slots and sorcerer points just to nova.

Again, nope. The Wizard only gets to cast 6 more spells than the Sorcerer this way, and those six spells are all 1st or 2nd level.

It is hardly a waste when the trade off is amplified spellcasting. Remember that they will now be casting regular, non-Metamagicked spells, same as the Wizard. Round after round, the Sorcerer will be casting equal or stronger spells than the Wizard, save for lower level spells (which we don't expect to see until round 11+).


I think you are reading the spells per day wrong the sorcerer has the same spell put a progression that a wizard has in fact every full caster has the same spell progression. We are still talking about fifth edition sorcerer?

They have access to higher level slots through Flexible Casting, which is not a waste of resources if you don't waste the spell slots.


There's that nova again which still makes the sorcerer one dimensional.

Wizards are one-dimensional in the build phase, but multifaceted in play. Sorcs are multi-dimensional in the build phase, and continue to be so in play.

This is because Sorcs constantly have to choose, and they cannot take back their choices once those are made. Wizards get a fresh start at the end of every long rest and so do not require as much thought as the Sorcerer (though they still require a lot of thought - just less than the Sorc).


3 levels sorcerer plus 17 levels of wizard. The wizard now has access to 2 metamagic s and can sacrifice both the sorcerer spell slots and his own spell slots, which is actually one in the same anyway to refill sorcerer points.

That build only has 3 Sorcery Points. If he starts using metamagic, he will start to burn his 3rd level and below slots more quickly and end up casting less magic than the Sorcerer.

Twin Polymorph or Twin Greater Invisibility are also out of his reach, since his maximum Sorcery Points is 3.

[LeonBH]

It just seems odd to me that, when their magic comes naturally to them, their spells would be so precise/restricted in the first place.

I think their magic should be more akin to that of Psions, with spell points instead of spell slots. Their spells would be crafted around some 'themes', picked in advance (e.g. Fire, Illusion etc.).

From there, one possibility is that they craft them effectively from scratch, starting with a basic cantrip and then spending spell points to change or upgrade it in some way.
For example, a Fire mage may start with Firebolt (or something along those lines), and can choose to spend spell points to change the AoE to a cone or sphere and/or to improve the damage dice.

Different elements may have restrictions on what AoEs can be applied (e.g. lightning may not allow cone effects), and some may start with higher or lower damage dice than others (possibly spell points can upgrade the number of damage dice, but not the type used - so Fire might always use d10s, Cold could use d8s etc.). Some elements may also be able to apply riders to the effect (costing spell points, obviously).

Other spell themes would, naturally, work differently. For example, an Illusion theme might start with Minor Illusion and then the sorcerer could spend spell points to have both sound and visual effects, to increase the area, to have the illusion move etc.


Now, I fully appreciate that this wouldn't be to everyone's tastes, and would probably be too complex for 5e (and it's just a rough idea anyway). But that's how I imagine sorcerers casting spells.

In terms of what they've actually released, the Mystic is probably the closest to how I see their magic working (though obviously with less focus on the psychic aspect).

To put it another way, I think a sorcerer with fire abilities should be able to channel his energy into a variety of spells without picking them individually. As in, a sorcerer who can channel energy into a Firebolt should be able to channel more energy to turn it into a Fireball or Scorching Ray or the like.

Again, I appreciate that not everyone will look at it this way, but that's just how I see it.

I see. Well, that's just not how 5e Sorcerers are made. They did seem to get the short end of the stick, but the additional restrictions greatly simplifies their mechanics and sets the bar higher for Sorc builds to be effective, so in practice, I'm satisfied with how the class plays out.

[Tanarii]

You guys know any caster can create a new spell using the time honored technique called "work with your DM", right? :smallbiggrin:

There's stuff in the DMG about creating new downtime activities AND creating new spells.

[Asmotherion]

People ranting about Sorcerers and Warlocks passivelly annoy me. You'd think they can't accept diversity in a game and want to make all casters into Wizard Variants. I want to keep my Charisma as my Spellcasting Stat, thank you very much! :P

PS: My default Multiclass is a Sorlock, and I feel no shame :) It's the best way to role play my Dovakins from Skyrim (by latter dipping them accordingly).

Jokes aside, I feel 5e has designed Classes to give something for everyone, and your feelings about these two classes, personal as they are can be respected, but are not shared by a large populance of this community.

I don't think it's very creative to create a "hate-post" to "roast this ficlional game contenent", but in any case, if you feel so "frustrated" about it, be my guest. At the very least, if you want to share a bit of Evidance with everyone else as of "Why" you dislike them so much, instead of just being frustrated might be a good start? I'll leave you to that then.

Sincerelly,
A Sorcerer and Warlock Fan.

[Millstone85]

A lot of fantasy books movies TV shows reveal that once a contract with a powerful creature has been broken or the powerful creature them selves breaks the contract the one who was receiving the power no longer has the power.
Right. That is true for their universe.In some stories, the pact even seems to be more powerful than either party. The mortal has found a loophole in the terms, or is just using the magic against the otherworldly being in a way they never saw coming, and now the otherworldly being is looking for a similarly legal way to cut the juice.

Maybe all you need to be a patron is the ability to cast wish. :smallsmile:


You guys know any caster can create a new spell using the time honored technique called "work with your DM", right? :smallbiggrin:

There's stuff in the DMG about creating new downtime activities AND creating new spells.There is also the possibility that not every spell in the PHB might currently exist in the setting. Your wizard could be the first ever to discover a way to delay the blast of a fireball.

[Garfunion]

People ranting about Sorcerers and Warlocks passivelly annoy me. You'd think they can't accept diversity in a game and want to make all casters into Wizard Variants. I want to keep my Charisma as my Spellcasting Stat, thank you very much! :P

PS: My default Multiclass is a Sorlock, and I feel no shame :) It's the best way to role play my Dovakins from Skyrim (by latter dipping them accordingly).

Jokes aside, I feel 5e has designed Classes to give something for everyone, and your feelings about these two classes, personal as they are can be respected, but are not shared by a large populance of this community.

I don't think it's very creative to create a "hate-post" to "roast this ficlional game contenent", but in any case, if you feel so "frustrated" about it, be my guest. At the very least, if you want to share a bit of Evidance with everyone else as of "Why" you dislike them so much, instead of just being frustrated might be a good start? I'll leave you to that then.

Sincerelly,
A Sorcerer and Warlock Fan.

You're right "hate posts" are generally a bad thing. I just find it difficult to create certain character concept without multi classing. Some of my character concepts are only two or three spells off from being realized. But due to the restrictions of spell lists and what have you, I'm forced to multi class and I hate multi classing.

[Asmotherion]

You're right "hate posts" are generally a bad thing. I just find it difficult to create certain character concept without multi classing. Some of my character concepts are only two or three spells off from being realized. But due to the restrictions of spell lists and what have you, I'm forced to multi class and I hate multi classing.

I feel that now the discussion is getting more productive. Your actual frustration is not with the Warlock and Sorcerer, but with the fact that they have a divided spell list with other casters (if I understand correctly?).

Truth is that, multiclassing can be approached in one of three ways in this editions: Dipping, Embracing it (and forgetting being a Full Caster, wich is not always the worst thing in the World; You're still an Awesome Caster as long as you have access to 5th level spells imo), or Completelly turning your back to it.

There also are some simple solutions, like being a Bard, and Magic Initiate for Simpler spells.

If you are missing a spell that is very essential, perhaps the concept of your character could have worked with an other class (in this example, Lore Bard with a Sage/Wizard's Apprentice Backround instead of Wizard).

Could you present a list of those spells that you find yourself missing, and perhaps there is an other solution?




There is also the possibility that not every spell in the PHB might currently exist in the setting. Your wizard could be the first ever to discover a way to delay the blast of a fireball.

Funny you mention it; When I DM, everything other than very Iconic/Vanilla spells I consider unique discoveries of every caster. Even the Iconic ones are varied from caster to caster, depending on who taught them, producing different visual effects (a Fireball from a Red Dragonic Origin Sorcerer will create Crimson Red Flames for Example, wile a Necromancer or someone taught by one will make a fireball with shadows dancing in the fire :P ).

[Garfunion]

Could you present a list of those spells that you find yourself missing, and perhaps there is an other solution?

Dragon Blade Sorcerer
From the corpse of ancient dragon a great oak grew. A Bokken sword(great club) would be carved from one of the branches. Only a true dragon sorcerer could ever wield its power.

Need shillelagh cantrip as sorcerer spells.
That is one build. Without DM intervention this can not happen.
I could multiclass into warlock pack to the tome but like I said I don't like multi classing.

I normally don't look beyond level 10 so if I can't realize the character concept by level five I just drop it altogether. The reason for this is our campaigns normally don't go beyond level 10.

[Millstone85]

Coincidentally, Jeremy Crawford just talked about the distinction between arcane and divine magic.

He said this at the 5 minute mark (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USqR_-pcXAw#t=4m59s):
The warlock, as an arcane spellcaster, is a great example of someone who has a relationship with an otherworldly entity, but that entity is not necessarily... er... the "wellspring" of the warlock's power. The warlock might be getting some power from that patron, depending on the patron and the nature of their relationship, but the warlock is also getting their power just from the cosmos around them.

[Asmotherion]

Dragon Blade Sorcerer
From the corpse of ancient dragon a great oak grew. A Bokken sword(great club) would be carved from one of the branches. Only a true dragon sorcerer could ever wield its power.

Need shillelagh cantrip as sorcerer spells.
That is one build. Without DM intervention this can not happen.
I could multiclass into warlock pack to the tome but like I said I don't like multi classing.

I normally don't look beyond level 10 so if I can't realize the character concept by level five I just drop it altogether. The reason for this is our campaigns normally don't go beyond level 10.

If you want to play a Dragonic Character, you don't need to limit yourself to Dragonic Sorcerer. There are many ways to Backstory your concept around it.

The Dragonic Sorcerer is just one class option. Take it or leave it.

Example:
In a current game, I'm playing a Pure Warlock. He's a Half Elf. However, my brother is a Dragonic Sorcerer, and magic runs in the fammily, it just skipped me, so I went to a Wizard College. There, the pace was disapointingly slow, until I discovered a tome referencing my fammily name, tracking it down to a Mighty Dragon, that was lost to the Shadowfell. Long story short, I found a way to contact this ancestor, and made a pact with him, replacing my heart with his own, wich gave me his knowlage and magic. Now I am a Hexblade Warlock.

You could be a Dragonborn for example, or claim a Dragon Sorcerer Father, and be any class you want for mechanical purposes (Since you really can't stand multiclassing/dipping, which is your option).

On the other hand, if you want to focus on gishing, you can always invest a bit more on Dex, wich is never a bad investment. Or Str and get profficiency with Armor and some weapon through Feats. Booming/Green-Flame Blade will work very well for you, as will Shadow Blade latter on.

[Rebonack]

When it comes to casters...

The Wizard relies on study and memorization. That is, in part, the whole idea behind prepared spell casting. You need to memorize a precise arcane formula and hold in it your mind. The pattern is lost once you cast the spell, though with the move toward more spontaneous casting that isn't so much the case any longer.

The Bard sings the song that gets the strings of the universe humming.

The Cleric prays for pre-packaged miracles.

The Paladin fuels their magic through their conviction and dedication to an ideal.

And the Warlock 'n Sorcerer? They both cast via a spark of magic they wield through sheer force of will. The only difference is that the spark was bargained for by the warlock (except when it isn't) and the sorcerer was born into it (except when they weren't). So the question of whether or not sorcerer and warlock should be the same class comes down to two questions:

1) Do you think the source of the magical spark (inherited vs bought) is important enough of a distinction to make two separate classes? Especially when the lore we have goes out of its way to muddle that distinction?

2) Do you think meta-magic is important enough as a stand alone feature that it has to have a class built around it rather than being gained through feats as it was in past editions?

[Kane0]

You're right "hate posts" are generally a bad thing. I just find it difficult to create certain character concept without multi classing. Some of my character concepts are only two or three spells off from being realized. But due to the restrictions of spell lists and what have you, I'm forced to multi class and I hate multi classing.

Hmm, I don't want to self-promote but have you seen this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?537049-Sorcerer-Rework)? May give you some ideas.

[LeonBH]

1) Do you think the source of the magical spark (inherited vs bought) is important enough of a distinction to make two separate classes? Especially when the lore we have goes out of its way to muddle that distinction?

The distinction is innate vs relationship with otherwordly being, not inherited vs bought.

[Mortis_Elrod]

1) Do you think the source of the magical spark (inherited vs bought) is important enough of a distinction to make two separate classes? Especially when the lore we have goes out of its way to muddle that distinction?

2) Do you think meta-magic is important enough as a stand alone feature that it has to have a class built around it rather than being gained through feats as it was in past editions?

1) yes. Innate magical ability is distinct enough from bought magical ability that it warrants 2 different classes. Sadly the lore IS muddled enough where the disticintion isn’t as clear as it should be (as evident by many people not seeing it). Still deserves 2 different classes.

2) Yes, though I feel like the execution is off here. But I also think that meta-magic isnt so important or even Iconic (at least as it is now) that it should be the only feature of a class.

[paladinn]

Just my opinion.. I'm not a fan of warlocks and their patrons. There's already a class that relies on a relationship with a patron. It's called the cleric.

In 3.x, sorcerers were innovative because wizards were limited to the old Vancian "fire-and-forget" model. I jumped at the chance to play a sorcerer because it meant I could launch another magic missle or fireball if need be. The limited spell selection was worth it to me.

In 5e, all casters are spontaneous now, so there is little reason in my mind for a sorcerer class. The metamagic, bloodlines, etc. just seem too wonky to me. I would personally like to see a combination of the sorcerer and warlock that might make it worthwhile. Eldritch blast would look great for a sorcerer:)

[CircleOfTheRock]

Given the choice i’d just have three caster classes: The learned magic one, the innate magic one and the granted magic one. Then within them throw in the subclasses and other options to fill Then out and provide enough meaningful distinction.
But then you'd never have the bard, whose spells are different and who work, I'm sure we all agree, as a good fifth wheel (the discussion of how good they are is irrelevant here), and the cleric and warlock (and their spells) are flavoured so differently that you could barely put them into a single class, never mind the clash of mechanics apparent... And Druid is none of those three types, not even remotely... We lose a quarter of the PHB's classes by your suggestion...

[Kane0]

But then you'd never have the bard, whose spells are different and who work, I'm sure we all agree, as a good fifth wheel (the discussion of how good they are is irrelevant here), and the cleric and warlock (and their spells) are flavoured so differently that you could barely put them into a single class, never mind the clash of mechanics apparent... And Druid is none of those three types, not even remotely... We lose a quarter of the PHB's classes by your suggestion...

Not so! The bard could be the practical education counterpart to the wizard’s booklernin, and the druid’s source of magic is just more abstract than the cleric, ie ‘nature’ as opposed to ‘this deity’.
The trick is just designing the subclasses so that they can be differentiated enough.

[Chaosmancer]

Not so! The bard could be the practical education counterpart to the wizard’s booklernin, and the druid’s source of magic is just more abstract than the cleric, ie ‘nature’ as opposed to ‘this deity’.
The trick is just designing the subclasses so that they can be differentiated enough.

This is an option, but if taken to its logical conclusion it becomes something that nobody really wants.

After all, Fighter, paladin, barbarian, rogue, monk, and ranger can also be collapsed down. Eventually you have a class-less system, which goes against the feel and design of DnD. Other systems make it work and are a ton of fun, but DnD is partially defined by classes and removing them is a step to far.

And yeah, i think the distinctions between clerics who work with gods, warlocks who work with things that are not gods, and druids who work with the energy and spirits of the natural world are distinct enough. I also think the "born with powers or accidentally gained powers in an accident" story of sorcerers is a different enough tale from the warlocks "I made a deal, in ignorance or under coercion, i made the choice" story that they don't come anywhere near each other.

Where i am upset is with the sorcerer mechanically. Not to derail but i don't see how people can still claim the sorcerer gets their versatility from their ability to alter their spells. You really aren't altering spells to that significant of a degree and unlike wizards or warlocks you are far more limited in the choices you can make if you want to be useful in most encounters

[Dr. Cliché]

Where i am upset is with the sorcerer mechanically. Not to derail but i don't see how people can still claim the sorcerer gets their versatility from their ability to alter their spells. You really aren't altering spells to that significant of a degree and unlike wizards or warlocks you are far more limited in the choices you can make if you want to be useful in most encounters

I agree, but what would you suggest to fix sorcerers?

[Kane0]

Well i got one in my sig. basically spell point sorcerer with more metamagic, a bit of spell recovery and a neat new feature to essentially cast anyspell once or more per long rest.

[Dr. Cliché]

Well i got one in my sig. basically spell point sorcerer with more metamagic, a bit of spell recovery and a neat new feature to essentially cast anyspell once or more per long rest.

I can't speak for balance, but your version looks really good. Kudos for effort. :smallsmile:

[Kane0]

The spell point bit is the biggest balance concern, just like in the dmg you can blow your whole budget on high end spells rather than being forced to divvy your casting up like with slots. Dropping the seperate sorcery pool restricts your resourses to do so though, even if some come back on a short rest.
The rest works pretty nicely, theres still a cost to it all and Spontaneous Sorcery is unique that even the bard can’t emulate.

[Chaosmancer]

I agree, but what would you suggest to fix sorcerers?

Unfortuantely, I don't have a solid fix. I've wondered about taking a hand at rewriting them, at just patching them, or something else all together. I'm a bad designer though, i don't have near enough practice with homebrewing to counteract my natural tendencies of "do everything well" which is too far.

I think i do remember looking at KaneO's homebrew months ago and liking some of the ideas in it (if it is still the same version from back then)

[Kane0]

Yeah unchanged for ages now. I’d he happy to lend a hand if you wanted to brew your own. Everyones gotta start somewhere :smile:

[LeonBH]

Where i am upset is with the sorcerer mechanically. Not to derail but i don't see how people can still claim the sorcerer gets their versatility from their ability to alter their spells. You really aren't altering spells to that significant of a degree and unlike wizards or warlocks you are far more limited in the choices you can make if you want to be useful in most encounters

Sorcerers aren't versatile in play. They're versatile in build. There are far more kinds of Sorcerers you can build than there are kinds of Wizards, because two Sorcs with the same origin and level, but with different spell choices, play differently. Meanwhile, two Wizards of the same school and level have exactly the same spell list.

Once you've picked out what spells and metamagics you have as a Sorc, you've settled on a very specialized, inflexible build. But before you've chosen all that, you had a lot of possible builds you could have created.

[ZorroGames]

Sorcerers aren't versatile in play. They're versatile in build. There are far more kinds of Sorcerers you can build than there are kinds of Wizards, because two Sorcs with the same origin and level, but with different spell choices, play differently. Meanwhile, two Wizards of the same school and level have exactly the same spell list.

Once you've picked out what spells and metamagics you have as a Sorc, you've settled on a very specialized, inflexible build. But before you've chosen all that, you had a lot of possible builds you could have created.

Have not played a Sorcerer and they seem to tie up a lotbof protection needs early on but your last paragraph rings true to my observations.

[LeonBH]

Have not played a Sorcerer and they seem to tie up a lotbof protection needs early on but your last paragraph rings true to my observations.

Sorcerers don't strictly need a lot of protection in the early levels, but you can certainly very easily build a Sorcerer who needs a lot of protection in the early levels. Just like Wizards, Bards, or Rogues.

[Chaosmancer]

Yeah unchanged for ages now. I’d he happy to lend a hand if you wanted to brew your own. Everyones gotta start somewhere :smile:

Thanks for the offer, but RL is far too much crazy right now for me to try and coordinate a project with someone. I really shouldn't even be doing stuff on the forums right now if i was more responsible.



Sorcerers aren't versatile in play. They're versatile in build. There are far more kinds of Sorcerers you can build than there are kinds of Wizards, because two Sorcs with the same origin and level, but with different spell choices, play differently. Meanwhile, two Wizards of the same school and level have exactly the same spell list.

Once you've picked out what spells and metamagics you have as a Sorc, you've settled on a very specialized, inflexible build. But before you've chosen all that, you had a lot of possible builds you could have created.

See, that sounds like it should be true, but as far as I've ever seen it isn't.

Thankfully, with Zanathar's there are a lot more options, but i haven't seen them yet. Not that it would make a big difference considering the way things work.

Dragon or Wild makes little difference in what spells you take, maybe you'll take a cold cantrip instead of firebolt if you're playing silver dragon, but most people playing dragon go fire since there are more options and more power. The dragon resilience is nice, but you're still a fullcaster and try to avoid melee. Wild magic is too unpredictable and usually won't effect your spell choices because none of it influences your spells directly to give you preference.

Most sorcerers will end up with twin and quicken. Empowered and heightened are far better at higher levels when you've got more damage dice and more points respectively. I've never seen extend or any of the others. I've heard of using careful with hypnotic pattern or web, but like you said, once you've picked a trick you're stuck with it. And that isn't necessarily a long term build.

Also in spells, likely to see polymorph (so you can twin it) or haste (so you can twin it). I've always seen scorching ray because the majority is fire dragons, and those who aren't still pick it because it is a powerful spell, same with fireball. Never seen anyone bother with charm person, which would be about the only one subtle would be worth using on.

And, a player only has 2 metamagics and around 8 spells for most of their career. Which means most people will gravitate towards the tried and true choices, reducing possible choices. So, from everything I've seen or read online, you've got maybe 4 potential tricks, and you're locked into them.

And even if you can show that there are far more than that, it still flies in the face of what I've been constantly told, which is "sorcerers use the same spells in a variety of ways to solve the situation, as opposed to wizards who have a variety of spells" However, the truth is you've got one trick that works the exact same everytime, and if you're built to solve one problem you're nearly incapable of solving others.

You can build a sorcerer to do one cool thing, but a specialist from any other arcane class (especially wizards) can do something very similiar plus a whole lot more.

[Gardakan]

Sorcerer are what they should be.

It's a powerful theme if you manage to understand what powers you want to express with your class.

Warlock are different and get Eldritch Blast as a scaling cantrip with lot of features to improve it (and it's really good).

Sorcerer needs nothing to fix them, they have a lot of good archetypes to pick from and they are not for your average player, the Sorcerer needs to manage more carefully his choices and he has little spells knowns.

[2D8HP]

I'm constantly tinkering with 5th edition classes and mechanics. And when I come up on the warlock and sorcerer class, their class design seem to be all wrong....

....I'm simply ranting my frustration on these forums. And maybe hoping if anyone else shares a similar frustration..
Well all the spell-casting classes frustrate me as there's just too many options, rules, and resources to keep track of.

Same goes for Battlemaster Fighter, and to some extent Barbarian.

That's why I've never had 5e PC past first level that didn't have levels in Champion Fighter and Swashbuckler or Thief Rogue.

I know my limitations.

[LeonBH]

See, that sounds like it should be true, but as far as I've ever seen it isn't.

Thankfully, with Zanathar's there are a lot more options, but i haven't seen them yet. Not that it would make a big difference considering the way things work.

Just putting a preface here. I've read your reply in full, and I'd like to say your approach is rationalizing why Sorcerers don't or shouldn't explore the full breadth of their options. If your approach is already inherently limited, then you will play an inherently limited character, Sorcerer or not.

You also keep citing you've only seen Sorcerers being played in a certain way. Unless you've played with hundreds of Sorcerers in 5E, you have not played a representative set of all of them. And even if you have, then all it means is the current meta on how Sorcerers could be played is not optimal. The things you will "likely see" on a Sorcerer doesn't mean those are the best or most effective builds, whether those are metamagics, spells, or origins.


Dragon or Wild makes little difference in what spells you take, maybe you'll take a cold cantrip instead of firebolt if you're playing silver dragon, but most people playing dragon go fire since there are more options and more power. The dragon resilience is nice, but you're still a fullcaster and try to avoid melee. Wild magic is too unpredictable and usually won't effect your spell choices because none of it influences your spells directly to give you preference.

I dislike Draconic the most out of the Sorcerous Origins. But between the two (Draconic or Wild), they make a big difference in your play style if you can capitalize on it.

Wild Magic can play in any way you like. Tides of Chaos is both offensive and defensive (Adv on attacks, or Adv on saves). Same with Bend Luck (bonus to allies, or penalty to enemies). Wild Magic Surge should make you want to move closer to the enemies instead of staying a back-row caster.

Draconic plays generically, which means it can adopt any form of fighting you choose, though it is best suited to blaster.


Most sorcerers will end up with twin and quicken. Empowered and heightened are far better at higher levels when you've got more damage dice and more points respectively. I've never seen extend or any of the others. I've heard of using careful with hypnotic pattern or web, but like you said, once you've picked a trick you're stuck with it. And that isn't necessarily a long term build.

Twin and Quicken are definitely two good metamagics, but they're not the most powerful ones you can pick. When you say "most Sorcerers will end up" I think that just means most Sorcerers weren't well thought out or not well researched. And if you've never seen Subtle in play, you've never really seen a Sorcerer at their strongest.

Quicken is strongest for a gish, and Twin is best for a double concentration spell. But if you're neither a gish nor a buffer/debuffer, you don't need either of them.


Also in spells, likely to see polymorph (so you can twin it) or haste (so you can twin it). I've always seen scorching ray because the majority is fire dragons, an1d those who aren't still pick it because it is a powerful spell, same with fireball. Never seen anyone bother with charm person, which would be about the only one subtle would be worth using on.

Polymorph and Haste are two good spells for sure. Even Wizards, Druids and Bards take it. That doesn't mean they have no diversity, correct?

Level 4 offers Dimension Door, Greater Invisibility, Banishment, and Wall of Fire. Four great spells with four different types of flavor. Instead of Polymorph, any of those could be great picks.

Level 3 offers Counterspell, Dispel Magic, Fireball, Lightning Bolt, Slow, and Major Image. Six great spells representing six different types of Sorcerers. Any of those could replace Haste.

As for Charm Person, that is a good spell, but Suggestion overshadows it. And Suggestion is a very good spell to cast Subtle on.


And, a player only has 2 metamagics and around 8 spells for most of their career. Which means most people will gravitate towards the tried and true choices, reducing possible choices. So, from everything I've seen or read online, you've got maybe 4 potential tricks, and you're locked into them.

Correct, their metamagic selection is small. Some are definitely better than others. And correct, they're locked on to them once chosen.

But Wizards don't get to change their school of magic after level 2. Do we call them a one trick specialist? Not really, because they also have spells.

Having a choice of 8 spells (implying 7th level) out of 102 possible spell choices means that you have 219 billion ways you can craft a spell selection, so let us not say you only have 4 potential tricks. Some styles prefer Scorching Ray, while others prefer Haste. Let's not pretend that their spell selection is 100 billion times smaller.

Furthermore, if you've never seen a Sorcerer above 7th level, that would mean you've never seen high level Sorcerers at work.


And even if you can show that there are far more than that, it still flies in the face of what I've been constantly told, which is "sorcerers use the same spells in a variety of ways to solve the situation, as opposed to wizards who have a variety of spells" However, the truth is you've got one trick that works the exact same everytime, and if you're built to solve one problem you're nearly incapable of solving others.

You've been constantly told something inaccurate, and your own observation is flawed. Sorcerers are capable of solving a variety of problems, even if they weren't built for it. For example, these Sorcerer builds are capable of solving many problems:

1. A Sorcerer who uses Strength and Athletics, more than Dex
2. A Sorcerer who deals zero damage except for cantrips
3. A Sorcerer who creates high level spell slots
4. A Sorcerer with Subtle

You've taken the flaws of "Sorcerers use the same spells in a variety of ways" and ran with it in the complete opposite direction, ending with the same flawed conclusion.


You can build a sorcerer to do one cool thing, but a specialist from any other arcane class (especially wizards) can do something very similiar plus a whole lot more.

From all you've said here, I don't think you've seen a powerful Sorcerer in play. And that's entirely possible because Sorcerers are not a "newbie" class.

If you are dead set on believing that Sorcerers suck because that is your experience, then fine. But you are wrong, and you should consider the ideas that oppose your current beliefs as they lead to a better experience with the Sorcerer.

[Chaosmancer]

Just putting a preface here. I've read your reply in full, and I'd like to say your approach is rationalizing why Sorcerers don't or shouldn't explore the full breadth of their options. If your approach is already inherently limited, then you will play an inherently limited character, Sorcerer or not.

You also keep citing you've only seen Sorcerers being played in a certain way. Unless you've played with hundreds of Sorcerers in 5E, you have not played a representative set of all of them. And even if you have, then all it means is the current meta on how Sorcerers could be played is not optimal. The things you will "likely see" on a Sorcerer doesn't mean those are the best or most effective builds, whether those are metamagics, spells, or origins.

Thank you for reading everything.

My approach is based in response to what I've encountered in previous forum discussions. Many people are quick to tell me that sorcerers can do "so many things" that they can "shape their magic to answer any problem" and often seem to be ignoring that many of the things they list are exclusive, that you can't do both of those things, let alone all five of them, reminding people that these limits are hard and fast seems the quickest way to show people that the problem is in the limitations.




I dislike Draconic the most out of the Sorcerous Origins. But between the two (Draconic or Wild), they make a big difference in your play style if you can capitalize on it.

Wild Magic can play in any way you like. Tides of Chaos is both offensive and defensive (Adv on attacks, or Adv on saves). Same with Bend Luck (bonus to allies, or penalty to enemies). Wild Magic Surge should make you want to move closer to the enemies instead of staying a back-row caster.

Draconic plays generically, which means it can adopt any form of fighting you choose, though it is best suited to blaster.

And here we come to some pretty important limits.

Tides of Chaos is once per long rest, unless your DM chooses to activate Wild Surge on your turn. This causes a series of important caveats, like if your DM chooses to not activate it you no longer have advantage, and even if they activate it every turn, if you choose advantage on an attack roll (and I want to note many spells have saves so using it offensively implies a certain list of spells and it only works on one attack roll) then you absolutely cannot use it for a saving throw, unless you cast a reaction spell that the DM chooses to activate wild surge for before the saving throw is needed.

You can say I'm limiting myself by thinking this way, but it is important to know the context for this ability, since it could mean advantage on every single attack or save you make for an entire session... or one save over the course of a week if the DM uses alternate rules and is more strict.

Bend Luck has a cost of 2 sorcery points, 1/3 to 1/4 of your total points for the first 3 levels where you have it (6, 7, and 8). Not outrageous, but it is important to keep track of that investment, because those points power everything. It can be a clutch move, since it allows the player to change the die after the result is known, I won't deny that. However, It doesn't really change your play style very much, does it? Most spells are better when people fail, and you rarely plan on them succeeding the save, and if they succeed by more than you roll or more than you could roll, then Bend Luck hasn't changed anything. If we're talking builds and choices you plan for, Bend Luck is a nice option, but not something you will be relying on, especially since by 6th level you've been making a lot of the important choices anyways.




Twin and Quicken are definitely two good metamagics, but they're not the most powerful ones you can pick. When you say "most Sorcerers will end up" I think that just means most Sorcerers weren't well thought out or not well researched. And if you've never seen Subtle in play, you've never really seen a Sorcerer at their strongest.

Quicken is strongest for a gish, and Twin is best for a double concentration spell. But if you're neither a gish nor a buffer/debuffer, you don't need either of them.

The only uses I've heard for Subtle are in Intrigue campaigns or in the theoritical "I can't be counter spelled" situation. Sure, avoiding counterspell can be very powerful, but there are other ways to do it. For example, if you are near the enemy cast Shocking Grasp, if you hit they can't take reactions, then quicken your spell, double the points but you also got 1-3d8 lightning damage in. Or wait til they counter someone else like the cleric. And this is all assuming you end up fighting enemies who use counterspell, something I've found rarely happens in my neck of the woods. Personally, I don't send my players up against very many arcane spellcasters. But, I think if your idea of "at their most powerful" is "when fighting Wizards, Bards, and other Sorcerers they can't be counterspelled" you may need to think about how that plays at the table. Either you have Counterspell incredibly often and all your other casters get frustrated because none of their stuff goes off, or you don't have it very often and the sorcerer looks at Subtle spell yearning for the chance to use it.

And, I've been told Buffing/Debuffing is the best and most powerful choice for any caster, that blasting is a waste of your resources that could be better spent. If that is even a little bit true, how is not being a buffer a good choice? And Quicken isn't only good on Gishes, if you get a spell that repeats on an action you can do that and cast another spell. My old UA storm sorcerer often had Call Lightning active and threw out another spell in addition to the action attack from that.

But, you aren't making a case for any of the other metamagics. You can say Twin and Quicken are good but better for other builds and Subtle is supreme, but you're not looking at Extend, Empower, Careful, or Distant. I know people can make the argument for Heighten being incredibly powerful, but it is also incredibly expensive to take at 3rd level, so I imagine most people would prefer to wait until 10th when they have more points to play with rather than use all of them on a single target of a single spell per day.

Where are all these builds that I'm not seeing, all these false limits of mine? I'm getting a little snarky sure, but so far nothing you've said has convinced me that there are a large variety of Sorcerer builds. Unless, should I specify Pure Sorcerer Builds?




Polymorph and Haste are two good spells for sure. Even Wizards, Druids and Bards take it. That doesn't mean they have no diversity, correct?

But, you are making a rather glaring assumption. You assume that Wizards, Druids, and Bards selecting a spell is equivalent to a sorcerer selecting a spell.

4th level spells come in at 7th level. Let's look at some comparisons.

A druid can reset their spell list every day, choosing a spell for the day has no impact on later builds, it is essentially a meaningless choice because it has no consequences for them down the line beyond "was it useful today".

Wizards, Your 4th level spell is one of two chosen at this level, but it is two spells out of 18 potential spells, more if they've scribed any spells in their career. Also, next level they will get two more spells, giving them diversity later. Still, only looking at 7th level it is 1/18th of their total spells.

Bard, It is your only spell gained this level, but it is 1 out of 10 spells, 12 if you are a lore bard. You can switch it out if it ends up not being useful, and you'll learn another 12 spells by the end of your career. Also, you have a lot of abilities that do not rely on your spellcasting in any way. Giving you a lot of versatility.

Sorcerer, it is your only spell known this level, but it is only... 1 of 8 spells. So the gishy Sword Bard is putting in 10% of his spell choices into this one, while the fullcasting sorcerer is putting in 12.5%. With the other casters clocking in at 8.33% and 5.55% each. Plus, the sorcerer is only learning another 7 spells after this, so there is far less room to diversify, even if you choose to replace spells every level. In an even more addition to that, the sorcerer has almost nothing they can do outside of their spell casting capabilities.


So yeah, everyone takes those spells, but everyone else has far more chances to diversify their choices, each spell is a much smaller part of their arsenal. Every spell a sorcerer takes has to be carefully selected, and each one has a big impact on their play, far bigger than it does for other casters.


Level 4 offers Dimension Door, Greater Invisibility, Banishment, and Wall of Fire. Four great spells with four different types of flavor. Instead of Polymorph, any of those could be great picks.

Level 3 offers Counterspell, Dispel Magic, Fireball, Lightning Bolt, Slow, and Major Image. Six great spells representing six different types of Sorcerers. Any of those could replace Haste.

As for Charm Person, that is a good spell, but Suggestion overshadows it. And Suggestion is a very good spell to cast Subtle on.


You are right, any of those spells could replace Haste or Polymorph, but you only get to choose two of them, and they have to cover a wide variety of situations, and they have to be complimentary to your metamagic. Sure, a sorcerer who takes both counterspell and dispel magic plays very different from one who took slow and major image, but that is because those are the only high level spells they get. And, unless you completely remove any 1st or 2nd level spells (of which there are spells useful even into high lever that use those slots) those are your only options. And they are your big guns too. You only get 1 or 2 slots to cast those in, so is it really wise to get focus 1/2 to a 1/3 (depending on level) of your spells into a space only big enough for one or two spells per day?

Other casters have the same limitation in slots, but they have far more spells to work with in the first place, meaning that they are able to take second and even third options without impacting their ability to keep doing what they were doing before, while a sorcerer can't do that. And, if you only get one choice, it has to be the best choice you can make. Which really constrains your actual variety.



Correct, their metamagic selection is small. Some are definitely better than others. And correct, they're locked on to them once chosen.

But Wizards don't get to change their school of magic after level 2. Do we call them a one trick specialist? Not really, because they also have spells.

Having a choice of 8 spells (implying 7th level) out of 102 possible spell choices means that you have 219 billion ways you can craft a spell selection, so let us not say you only have 4 potential tricks. Some styles prefer Scorching Ray, while others prefer Haste. Let's not pretend that their spell selection is 100 billion times smaller.

Furthermore, if you've never seen a Sorcerer above 7th level, that would mean you've never seen high level Sorcerers at work.

I've played a sorcerer from 1st to 20th, so I've seen high level play. Please don't take my choice of mid-range within the standard expected campaign length to mean I haven't played a high level game.

The thing with Wizard schools is that their school A) doesn't cost them anything other than other school abilities and B) the wizards naturally large spells known allows them to specialize without cutting into their general use.

Also, your 219 billion seems really impressive, until you compare it to the wizard, using 102 possible spells (they have far more than that but I'm not counting it) and 18 spell choices (minimum) they have over 45 quintillion ways to be crafted. Most of those ways, much like the sorcerers big number, are crappy and no one would probably make those choices anyways, but still over 200 million times bigger than the sorcerer's potential.

Look, I'm not saying that you can't build sorcerers with a spell list consisting of Jump, False Life, Expeditious retreat, Knock, See Invisibility, Daylight, Tongues, and Stoneskin. Or even a sorcerer who took all 1st level spells, or all 2nd level spells (all legitimate builds within that 219 billion set), but I am say nobody does that seriously. And when you need to have answers to problems you go for the most generally useful spells, the ones with the biggest impacts, and even then there is little to nothing you can do that the wizard can't also do and generally just as good if not better.




You've been constantly told something inaccurate, and your own observation is flawed. Sorcerers are capable of solving a variety of problems, even if they weren't built for it. For example, these Sorcerer builds are capable of solving many problems:

1. A Sorcerer who uses Strength and Athletics, more than Dex
2. A Sorcerer who deals zero damage except for cantrips
3. A Sorcerer who creates high level spell slots
4. A Sorcerer with Subtle

You've taken the flaws of "Sorcerers use the same spells in a variety of ways" and ran with it in the complete opposite direction, ending with the same flawed conclusion.

1) Why would you play a sorcerer who focuses on Strength and athletics, any bard can beat you at that, and valor bards can also actually take advantage of having a strength focus unlike Sorcerers... like, are you just thinking about enhance ability here? I don't get it.

3) Creates high level slots? Really? Have you run the math on that before? 7th level and you have a single 4th level slot. You spend 6 of your 7 sorcery points to create a second. Then you have to burn all of your second level slots, or two second levels and a first, over the course of multiple turns if in combat, to create your third slot. You then can't get any more fourth level slots without eating your third level slots. I'll grant you get 3 4th level spells at 7th level, but you also get no metamagic (or only 1 point) for any of your abilities, and have essentially burnt through half your strength for the day. Maybe more. Guess you like spamming polymorph? I mean, those 4th level heavy hitters tend to be concentration effects, so unless you're losing them early and needing to recast them your covering your daily fights, but your treating each fight as a fight worthy of your biggest spell. Meanwhile, no one else is probably burning through your resources this fast.

2) Is necessary if 3) is your main go to plan, and also, yet again, so can anyone else. Treantmonk's "god wizard" is all about not dealing any damage with your spells. And I've heard it is considered one of the better philosophies to build a wizard around out there on the web. So, how is the sorcerer doing this in a way that a wizard can't match?

4) see earlier section.

So, the only thing I'm seeing from your "unflawed" view is to burn everything you have to cast big spells, then default done to single shot cantrips and ignore almost all your metamagic abilities and class features that you were talking about earlier. Sure it can be effective I suppose, and it is a strategy only the sorcerer can pull off, but it does sort of feel a bit... "more dakka" to me. All you are doing is casting one really big spell over and over again, and hoping that it is just as effective as using your smaller spells and abilities.



From all you've said here, I don't think you've seen a powerful Sorcerer in play. And that's entirely possible because Sorcerers are not a "newbie" class.

If you are dead set on believing that Sorcerers suck because that is your experience, then fine. But you are wrong, and you should consider the ideas that oppose your current beliefs as they lead to a better experience with the Sorcerer.

You are right that sorcerers are incredibly fiddly and difficult to build, every choice is agonizing, and this experience came when I prioritized roleplaying over effectiveness and had a list of bonus spells from the UA and magic items which gave me even more spells. I shudder to think what it would have been like to have none of that and try to craft a character I could enjoy playing.

And I have considered other opinions. I've argued on sorcerer threads a lot, really a lot, and when I'm wrong, I'll admit I'm wrong, but no one has been able to convince me. Your points aren't exactly compelling either, since most of your talk of their abilities ignores half of their potential metamagic, or tried to wow me with large numbers.

Look, sorcerers can be effective, in 5e that is a low bar to meet, but that doesn't mean I think they are designed well and do anything like what they are purported to do. They are just far too limited in their choices and options when compared to their peers.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Thank you for reading everything.

snip

Couldn't agree more.

I'm a person who can't help but optimize when playing this game, and every time i got to make a sorcerer i get frustrated for many of the reasons you pointed out, and I can't imagine not multi classing into warlock. Its only recently with Divine Soul and Shadow Sorcerer that i feel an interest again and even then I think I will MC anyway.

And i find that a huge design flaw.

I don't have a problem like this for any other class.

[LeonBH]

Thank you for reading everything.

My approach is based in response to what I've encountered in previous forum discussions. Many people are quick to tell me that sorcerers can do "so many things" that they can "shape their magic to answer any problem" and often seem to be ignoring that many of the things they list are exclusive, that you can't do both of those things, let alone all five of them, reminding people that these limits are hard and fast seems the quickest way to show people that the problem is in the limitations.

Agreed. A Sorcerer in play cannot flexibly use their spells because they only get two metamagics until level 10. If they had access to all metamagics, then I'd agree that they can shape their spells in any way they wanted as the situation demands.


And here we come to some pretty important limits.

Tides of Chaos is once per long rest, unless your DM chooses to activate Wild Surge on your turn. This causes a series of important caveats, like if your DM chooses to not activate it you no longer have advantage, and even if they activate it every turn, if you choose advantage on an attack roll (and I want to note many spells have saves so using it offensively implies a certain list of spells and it only works on one attack roll) then you absolutely cannot use it for a saving throw, unless you cast a reaction spell that the DM chooses to activate wild surge for before the saving throw is needed.

You can say I'm limiting myself by thinking this way, but it is important to know the context for this ability, since it could mean advantage on every single attack or save you make for an entire session... or one save over the course of a week if the DM uses alternate rules and is more strict.

Bend Luck has a cost of 2 sorcery points, 1/3 to 1/4 of your total points for the first 3 levels where you have it (6, 7, and 8). Not outrageous, but it is important to keep track of that investment, because those points power everything. It can be a clutch move, since it allows the player to change the die after the result is known, I won't deny that. However, It doesn't really change your play style very much, does it? Most spells are better when people fail, and you rarely plan on them succeeding the save, and if they succeed by more than you roll or more than you could roll, then Bend Luck hasn't changed anything. If we're talking builds and choices you plan for, Bend Luck is a nice option, but not something you will be relying on, especially since by 6th level you've been making a lot of the important choices anyways.

Firstly, let's talk about the Wild Magic Sorcerer before we run into the limitations of its features. Most people say that you should discuss with your DM before playing one, and I agree. You essentially need the DM's buy in so that you can keep Wild Surging every round, when you cast a spell. So that's the first thing to take into account: most Wild Mages will be triggering their Wild Magic Surge because there needs to be a player-to-DM understanding to begin with, and both sides need to make it clear that Wild Surges are a desirable thing.

Second, the limits on all long rest based resources. You said that Tides of Chaos can only trigger once per week if the DM uses "alternate rules" which I think you mean is Gritty Realism. This fact is actually not against the Sorcerer, because all long rest based resources suffer equally here. The Barbarian can only rage five minutes out of a week, and the Frenzy Barbarian will likely die due to exhaustion. So you have to take into context that if the DM is playing with Gritty Realism, then you probably wont see Wild Magic Sorcerers or any long rest classes to begin with.

And now to your comments on Bend Luck and Tides of Chaos.

Tides of Chaos is a 1/LR advantage on any one roll. This is like DM inspiration, except you can have both Tides of Chaos and DM inspiration. This is also something you do not spam. I will agree that it's pretty much useless when used offensively, but only to the extent that we are considering it a 1/LR ability. If you are able to trigger a Wild Surge every round (as above, when there needs to be a player-to-DM understanding that Wild Surges are desirable), then it is possible to roll everything with advantage. But in the absence of that, it is best used defensively.

From this, we can say Tides of Chaos can support your changing play style - but with caveats. The biggest one being that your DM understands that Wild Surges are desirable. If you know you can trigger a Wild Surge consistently, then your play style can be reckless, and indeed your goal is to trigger as many surges as possible. But otherwise it accommodates any play style that is less offense-oriented as well.

As for Bend Luck, the boon or penalty is most certainly not something you want to spam because of its resource cost. However, it functions as a guaranteed +1 to DCs, so your spells or your allies spells benefit from a virtual +1 buff, whereas your enemies suffer from a virtual -1 debuff. And no, they don't all experience the buff/debuff effect at the same time, because you have to be wary of cost.

And that's one major way Bend Luck affects your play style: you have a choice of casting more spells with metamagic or using more Bend Luck. Do you want to capitalize on throwing out debuffs? Do you want to aid allies in hitting enemies? Do you want to manipulate the initiative order? All of these are decisions you have to make at the cost of casting more spells.

If we put these together, Tides of Chaos and Bend Luck gives you a [highest 1 of 2d20]+DEX+1d4 on initiative - which is one play style you can adopt, and it's quite offense-oriented.

Another is you can be a debuffer, casting Phantasmal Force at a DC equal to 8+CHA+PROF+1 (if you have your reaction available), because no matter what you roll on that 1d4, it will always function as a minimum of +1. Once again, offense-oriented.

Or you can save it for aiding in death saves, so you can turn 9's into 10's, or 8's into 10's 75% of the time. That is defense-oriented.

You can save it for your own survival, so that your important save is made with [highest 1 of 2d20]+Ability+1d4.

Whatever you choose though, you are draining your resources, and if Tides of Chaos is only 1/LR, that is a very severe resource drain. And since you drain your resources with every choice, you need to be much more specialized in one task so as to maximize the benefits you get out of that resource.

That is why Heighten Spell and Bend Luck go well together - you are a specialized debuffer. And the Luck feat greatly benefits the Wild Mage as well because it relieves the stress on Tides of Chaos. And that is also why some play styles where the Sorcerer creates new spell slots is valid - to a Wild Mage Sorcerer, for example, that means more Wild Magic Surges.


The only uses I've heard for Subtle are in Intrigue campaigns or in the theoritical "I can't be counter spelled" situation. Sure, avoiding counterspell can be very powerful, but there are other ways to do it. For example, if you are near the enemy cast Shocking Grasp, if you hit they can't take reactions, then quicken your spell, double the points but you also got 1-3d8 lightning damage in. Or wait til they counter someone else like the cleric. And this is all assuming you end up fighting enemies who use counterspell, something I've found rarely happens in my neck of the woods. Personally, I don't send my players up against very many arcane spellcasters. But, I think if your idea of "at their most powerful" is "when fighting Wizards, Bards, and other Sorcerers they can't be counterspelled" you may need to think about how that plays at the table. Either you have Counterspell incredibly often and all your other casters get frustrated because none of their stuff goes off, or you don't have it very often and the sorcerer looks at Subtle spell yearning for the chance to use it.

And, I've been told Buffing/Debuffing is the best and most powerful choice for any caster, that blasting is a waste of your resources that could be better spent. If that is even a little bit true, how is not being a buffer a good choice? And Quicken isn't only good on Gishes, if you get a spell that repeats on an action you can do that and cast another spell. My old UA storm sorcerer often had Call Lightning active and threw out another spell in addition to the action attack from that.

But, you aren't making a case for any of the other metamagics. You can say Twin and Quicken are good but better for other builds and Subtle is supreme, but you're not looking at Extend, Empower, Careful, or Distant. I know people can make the argument for Heighten being incredibly powerful, but it is also incredibly expensive to take at 3rd level, so I imagine most people would prefer to wait until 10th when they have more points to play with rather than use all of them on a single target of a single spell per day.

Where are all these builds that I'm not seeing, all these false limits of mine? I'm getting a little snarky sure, but so far nothing you've said has convinced me that there are a large variety of Sorcerer builds. Unless, should I specify Pure Sorcerer Builds?

First, I'm not saying buffing is not a good choice. It is. I'm saying a Sorcerer doesn't have to be a buffer, and if so, they probably don't need Twin. The assumption is they have chosen another play style and thus another metamagic will be better suited for them.

Second, there are campaigns in which Subtle will be more useful than others. As you said, Intrigue campaigns are one of them. But there are other things causing Subtle to lose potency - one being that DMs let spells without Subtle be cast unnoticed, and thus granting free Subtle to everyone. In those campaigns, Subtle is truly worthless because everyone already has it anyway. Simply identify if your campaign is friendly to Subtle, and if not, don't take it. In campaigns where Subtle does apply, however, it rises to the top of the metamagic list. And just because you don't value it in your campaigns, doesn't mean its not valuable.

Third, I believe you need to cut down on your snark. You have not even read my replies yet, so obviously you will be talking to an echo chamber unless you are replied to. And while the pure Sorcerer is powerful, you are choosing to be blind if you don't acknowledge that Sorcerers are prime for multiclass. Once again, your approach is very limited.

Fourth, I did not make a case for the other metamagics as that was not my point. But if you want that, I will provide:

1) Extend is the only way you can have two 9th level spells active at once: cast Extended Foresight before sleeping (8 hour duration becomes a 16 hour duration), sleep, and regain the 9th level spell slot. Now someone in the party has Foresight while you maintain your 9th level spell. This requires a multiclassed build and is primarily not a Sorcerer build, but then again Extend is widely regarded as the worst metamagic. Even so, it's the only metamagic that can make two Foresights happen.

2) Empower is obviously good. Not only is it compatible with every other metamagic, it can also be used when a spell you already cast rolls damage. That means you can Empower your Wall of Fire on its 5th round, or when the damage on your Vitriolic Sphere is bad in its second round. It's also cheap.

3) Distant allows "spell sniping" at 1200ft away through a combination of Spell Sniper and Warlock invocations. But removing Warlock invocations, Distant Spell and Spell Sniper allows you to roll ranged attacks at four times the normal range of your attack rolls. Is this useful in some campaigns? Potentially. But you don't normally get a range as big as this.

4) Heighten is great for debuffers. Negating Magic Resistance or doubling down on one important enemy so that they fail the save is crucial to some builds. And there is no multiclassing requirement here, if that is what you're after.

5) Careful allows a sustained stunlock to happen via Calm Emotions or Hypnotic Pattern, without risking your allies. It's also cheap. Great for controllers.

We've already talked about Quicken, Twin, and Subtle, so I shall not belabor you there.

Now, where are those varied builds you weren't seeing before? A Draconic Sorcerer who has the same spell list as another Draconic Sorcerer but who has different metamagics is in fact representing another build.

If you like Empower, obviously you also take damage spells (like Wall of Fire) and focus on blasting. If you like Careful, obviously you take debuffs (like Web or Hypnotic Pattern). The point is your metamagic selection is the first thing you have to think about, and then you choose spells based on your future metamagic choices.

Yes, some metamagics are more obvious choices than others. And other metamagic choices are more obviously bad than others. But even someone who takes Twin can focus on double debuffs (instead of double buffs) like Twin Hold Person, which is available at levels 3 and 4. In contrast, other casters have to wait until level 5 so they can upcast it to level 3 and "twin" it - but then they're using a 3rd level slot instead of a 2nd level one.

I'm saying that each permutation of metamagic and spell choice creates a different Sorcerer. Yes, some combinations are bad. But some combinations achieve tasks better or earlier than other classes.

An antimage Sorcerer will have both Dispel Magic and Counterspell, as well as Subtle. But an illusionist Sorcerer will have Silent Image, Major Image and Subtle. And an enchanter Sorcerer will have Charm Person, Suggestion, and Subtle.

A melee Sorcerer will have Booming Blade, Fireball and Quicken. An illusionist Sorcerer will have Minor Illusion, Disguise Self and Quicken (the only way to cast both a leveled illusion spell and Minor Illusion in the same round). A blaster Sorcerer will have Firebolt, Scorching Ray, and Quicken.

A support Sorcerer will have Healing Word (by multiclass, Divine Soul, or Magic Initiate) and Twin. A buffer Sorcerer will have Haste and Twin. A debuffer Sorcerer will have Phantasmal Force and Twin.

As you can see, every expression of a spell and metamagic can lead to a new and separate build. Some of those expressions are bad, but many of them are good.

And take note that when I say "An X Sorcerer will have Y", that is just one way a Sorcerer can be X.


But, you are making a rather glaring assumption. You assume that Wizards, Druids, and Bards selecting a spell is equivalent to a sorcerer selecting a spell.

4th level spells come in at 7th level. Let's look at some comparisons.

A druid can reset their spell list every day, choosing a spell for the day has no impact on later builds, it is essentially a meaningless choice because it has no consequences for them down the line beyond "was it useful today".

Wizards, Your 4th level spell is one of two chosen at this level, but it is two spells out of 18 potential spells, more if they've scribed any spells in their career. Also, next level they will get two more spells, giving them diversity later. Still, only looking at 7th level it is 1/18th of their total spells.

Bard, It is your only spell gained this level, but it is 1 out of 10 spells, 12 if you are a lore bard. You can switch it out if it ends up not being useful, and you'll learn another 12 spells by the end of your career. Also, you have a lot of abilities that do not rely on your spellcasting in any way. Giving you a lot of versatility.

Sorcerer, it is your only spell known this level, but it is only... 1 of 8 spells. So the gishy Sword Bard is putting in 10% of his spell choices into this one, while the fullcasting sorcerer is putting in 12.5%. With the other casters clocking in at 8.33% and 5.55% each. Plus, the sorcerer is only learning another 7 spells after this, so there is far less room to diversify, even if you choose to replace spells every level. In an even more addition to that, the sorcerer has almost nothing they can do outside of their spell casting capabilities.


So yeah, everyone takes those spells, but everyone else has far more chances to diversify their choices, each spell is a much smaller part of their arsenal. Every spell a sorcerer takes has to be carefully selected, and each one has a big impact on their play, far bigger than it does for other casters.

You can learn two 4th level spells at 7th level by forgetting a lower level spell. So you can learn both Polymorph and Greater Invisibility if you like.

And once again, the Sorcerer occupies a niche. But to say they have almost nothing they can do outside of their casting capabilities is simply wrong. You can build a Sorcerer who can do nothing outside their casting capabilities. You don't have to if it's not your cup of tea.

Take a Sorcerer who has the Luck feat, Shield, Mage Armor, Haste, and Absorb Elements. This is a reasonably tanky Sorcerer, with an AC of 13+5+2+DEX, advantage to Dex saves, resistance to elemental damage (at the cost of 5 AC), and the ability to make monsters reroll their attacks that hit.

This same Sorcerer can also play the role of a blaster by taking Fireball and Empower. Alternatively, they can play the role of buffer by taking Twin (they already have Haste). They could even play all three roles simultaneously, because so far, nothing conflicts. This is on top of their high Charisma stat, which means Deception, Intimidation, and Persuasion are their domain.


You are right, any of those spells could replace Haste or Polymorph, but you only get to choose two of them, and they have to cover a wide variety of situations, and they have to be complimentary to your metamagic. Sure, a sorcerer who takes both counterspell and dispel magic plays very different from one who took slow and major image, but that is because those are the only high level spells they get. And, unless you completely remove any 1st or 2nd level spells (of which there are spells useful even into high lever that use those slots) those are your only options. And they are your big guns too. You only get 1 or 2 slots to cast those in, so is it really wise to get focus 1/2 to a 1/3 (depending on level) of your spells into a space only big enough for one or two spells per day?

Other casters have the same limitation in slots, but they have far more spells to work with in the first place, meaning that they are able to take second and even third options without impacting their ability to keep doing what they were doing before, while a sorcerer can't do that. And, if you only get one choice, it has to be the best choice you can make. Which really constrains your actual variety.

Why does the Sorcerer's two spells have to cover a wide variety of situations? Don't they have a list of other spells known from the earlier levels? Every single spell does not have to be the best spell, because all their spells known in combination leave them able to address a variety of situations.

You can take Major Image at 3rd level because Major Image is versatile and can address nearly any problem, given the right player. You can take Counterspell because you've already had your fill of buffs or debuffs from your earlier level spells.

The "optimized" Sorcerer does not need Haste or Polymorph to be effective. My fellow players in an old campaign feared my character, as in when it came time for me to cast my magic, they all thought "GG DM," and my signature spell was Phantasmal Force (freeing my 3rd level spell choices up). And in a current campaign, my signature spell is Haste as a gish, which means my 4th level choices aren't going to contain Polymorph and frees it up - because Haste is the single concentration spell I'll need for the character.

Furthermore, a Sorcerer can cast their spells more often than other casters by creating spell slots. This comes at the price of metamagic or lower level spell slots, but it is yet another strategy in the Sorcerer's arsenal. The other classes suffer from too many options for too few slots, but the Sorcerer benefits from a simple spell selection and many slots.


I've played a sorcerer from 1st to 20th, so I've seen high level play. Please don't take my choice of mid-range within the standard expected campaign length to mean I haven't played a high level game.

The thing with Wizard schools is that their school A) doesn't cost them anything other than other school abilities and B) the wizards naturally large spells known allows them to specialize without cutting into their general use.

Also, your 219 billion seems really impressive, until you compare it to the wizard, using 102 possible spells (they have far more than that but I'm not counting it) and 18 spell choices (minimum) they have over 45 quintillion ways to be crafted. Most of those ways, much like the sorcerers big number, are crappy and no one would probably make those choices anyways, but still over 200 million times bigger than the sorcerer's potential.

Look, I'm not saying that you can't build sorcerers with a spell list consisting of Jump, False Life, Expeditious retreat, Knock, See Invisibility, Daylight, Tongues, and Stoneskin. Or even a sorcerer who took all 1st level spells, or all 2nd level spells (all legitimate builds within that 219 billion set), but I am say nobody does that seriously. And when you need to have answers to problems you go for the most generally useful spells, the ones with the biggest impacts, and even then there is little to nothing you can do that the wizard can't also do and generally just as good if not better.

It doesn't matter if the Wizard has 45 quintillion ways of preparing their spells. The Wizard can't prepare even 1 million of those combinations. So with the Sorcerer, who has many ways of choosing their spells.

I'm not saying all 219 billion ways are valid. I'm saying open your eyes: even if 99.99% of all those spell combinations were crap, there are still 21 million good spell selections out there for the Sorcerer at that level, and you haven't looked at them all.

And no, the Wizard cannot cast a 4th level Scorching Ray with Hex at 7th level unlike the Sorcerer (who has Magic Initiate) - he has to wait 1 more level. And the Wizard cannot cast a Twinned Hold Person at 3rd level - he has to wait 2 more levels. And he can never cast Haste or Polymorph - your favored spells - on two creatures at once.

There is a wide variety of things the Wizard is good at, but the Wizard is a generalist and cannot compete with the Sorcerer in his chosen area of expertise.



1) Why would you play a sorcerer who focuses on Strength and athletics, any bard can beat you at that, and valor bards can also actually take advantage of having a strength focus unlike Sorcerers... like, are you just thinking about enhance ability here? I don't get it.

3) Creates high level slots? Really? Have you run the math on that before? 7th level and you have a single 4th level slot. You spend 6 of your 7 sorcery points to create a second. Then you have to burn all of your second level slots, or two second levels and a first, over the course of multiple turns if in combat, to create your third slot. You then can't get any more fourth level slots without eating your third level slots. I'll grant you get 3 4th level spells at 7th level, but you also get no metamagic (or only 1 point) for any of your abilities, and have essentially burnt through half your strength for the day. Maybe more. Guess you like spamming polymorph? I mean, those 4th level heavy hitters tend to be concentration effects, so unless you're losing them early and needing to recast them your covering your daily fights, but your treating each fight as a fight worthy of your biggest spell. Meanwhile, no one else is probably burning through your resources this fast.

2) Is necessary if 3) is your main go to plan, and also, yet again, so can anyone else. Treantmonk's "god wizard" is all about not dealing any damage with your spells. And I've heard it is considered one of the better philosophies to build a wizard around out there on the web. So, how is the sorcerer doing this in a way that a wizard can't match?

4) see earlier section.

So, the only thing I'm seeing from your "unflawed" view is to burn everything you have to cast big spells, then default done to single shot cantrips and ignore almost all your metamagic abilities and class features that you were talking about earlier. Sure it can be effective I suppose, and it is a strategy only the sorcerer can pull off, but it does sort of feel a bit... "more dakka" to me. All you are doing is casting one really big spell over and over again, and hoping that it is just as effective as using your smaller spells and abilities.

1) Because you can participate in melee using Booming Blade, while building a tanky gish Sorcerer

3) Correct, it burns through their resources quickly. And yet that doesn't make them weaker. It just means all their spells will be stronger for the upcoming fight you are anticipating. None of what you said actually makes this strategy not a viable idea. For example, a 20th level Sorcerer can cannibalize all their 2nd through 4th level spells, and their 20 Sorcery Points, to create 6 5th level slots (total of 9), from which any spell of 1st through 5th level can be cast.

Now the Wizard can cast an unlimited number of 1st level spells, but for each 1st level spell the Wizard is casting, the Sorcerer is casting at 5th level or higher.

This is just an example, but this means that as the Wizard casts a 1st level Magic Missile, the Sorcerer matches it with a 5th level Magic Missile nine rounds in a row.

Once again, yes, it burns through resources quickly. Why is that a bad thing? Have you never encountered a singular boss fight in a day? It's not as though it is a compulsory tactic.

2 & 4) Read all of the above regarding the things Sorcerers can do.


You are right that sorcerers are incredibly fiddly and difficult to build, every choice is agonizing, and this experience came when I prioritized roleplaying over effectiveness and had a list of bonus spells from the UA and magic items which gave me even more spells. I shudder to think what it would have been like to have none of that and try to craft a character I could enjoy playing.

And I have considered other opinions. I've argued on sorcerer threads a lot, really a lot, and when I'm wrong, I'll admit I'm wrong, but no one has been able to convince me. Your points aren't exactly compelling either, since most of your talk of their abilities ignores half of their potential metamagic, or tried to wow me with large numbers.

Look, sorcerers can be effective, in 5e that is a low bar to meet, but that doesn't mean I think they are designed well and do anything like what they are purported to do. They are just far too limited in their choices and options when compared to their peers.

You have been arguing against yourself so far. I'm quite sure you haven't explored the fullness of the Sorcerer's builds (if you have, you would wouldn't be denying they exist). Once again, look at where you're denying and realize you're not seeing the whole picture. That way, you can play a better Sorcerer.

[Kane0]

My table likes to set Tides of Chaos as a 1% or 2% chance to trigger per spell level every time you cast a levelled sorcerer spell.

[Tanarii]

My table likes to set Tides of Chaos as a 1% or 2% chance to trigger per spell level every time you cast a levelled sorcerer spell.
I used to do it rather infrequently, but discussions on this forum changed my mind. If Tides of Chaos has been used, it should 100% trigger a Wild Magic Surge on the next leveled spell.

I sometimes make an exception for out of combat spells being used in somewhat inconspicuous ways. Disguise Self is a common candidate, for example.

Personally I feel it would have been best just put in the hands of the player. With any player that understands Wild Sorcs want to get Surges, as well as want to refresh their Tides, that will result in regular surges refreshing Tides almost 100% too.

[tieren]

As for different sorcerer builds, I played a UA Sea sorcerer I enjoyed very much. She focused on cold spells (ice knfe, frostbirte, etc...) and lightning (shocking grasp, lightning lure, etc..because of the sea curse class feature.

Didn't have much defense early on because I didn't want mage armor to take a spell selection, so I RP'd her wanting to stay as far from battle as possible.

Took distant spell metamagic and spell sniper at 4. Could even cast touch spells from 60 feet away. Also took twin.

In combat concentration was generally on a twinned buff spell (lots of fun with enlarge), then she would back off and plink away from a great distance, often out of short bow or crossbow range.

[Soveris]

I'm a transitioning player from Pathfinder to 5e, so my play experience with 5e is limited but I like to think that my experiences with pathfinder gives me an out of the box perspective when looking at the Wizard and Sorcerer of 5e. So this is from the perspective of a new player to 5e but experienced with Sorcerers in pen & paper games.

I do like both of the classes and can see their differences but when I first was reading about 5e spell interaction and how everyone is pretty much a spontaneous caster the Wizard does come off as being a better class. At face value they don't do the best when it comes to making a distinction between the two, like explaining that Sorcerers tend to be specialists and it's easier to be a generalist as a Wizard. Before digging deep into forums and mechanics it felt to me as;

We have two spell casters here. The Wizard knows more and can cast more spells. The
sorcerer knows less, gets access to less, and casts less.

This is an over simplification and I know there's balances such as meta magics and even the origins, but this is how it came off at first reading. Being primarily a sorcerer player in Pathfinder I can fully understand that beneath the surface there are some really cool and amazing things you can do but like the Pathfinder Sorcerer you have to build very specifically and even min max in order to be able to do these awesome things. Starting at a higher levels I'm sure this isn't a problem, but at the lower levels it can really feel like you can't do much as a sorcerer vs what a wizard can do.

I also think they could have made the Origins more of a focus for the class and how it changes the basic Sorcerer. Once again, I have no play time with the other origins since I'm still transitioning and have only read the none draconic origins. From what I've read they seem pretty cool and I'd love to try them out. I'm bringing up Origins because this is their "archetype" that will define the Sorcerer a player will play.

The one you get access to as a "free" player or if you've only used the starter box is Draconic. Why I feel this is important is because it's the one Wizards of the Coast(WotC) chose to represent Sorcerer origins in all of the easy access material for 5e such as D&D Beyond. I feel that this origin is a tad lack luster when you compare it to say the Phoenix, Storm, or Pyromancer. Those origins really help to define who your sorcerer is and what they can do and sets them apart from other casters. You can say Draconic is more generalistic and that's fine but some of it's abilities are kind of "eh" when compared to what the other origins get and doesn't help push it farther from what Wizards are.
As a Draconic Sorcerer in Pathfinder your draconic bloodline shapes your character as they grow, and as they grow in strength they show more and more of their draconic heritage such as growing claws getting a breath weapon and eventually coming to the crest of nearly gaining draconic power itself! You don't really get that feeling from the Draconic bloodline in 5e. You do get wings and scales and some nice perks (always on Mage Armor FTW!!!) but then you get abilities that make you spend sorcery points, which determent you ability to do the other cool things you wanted with meta magics and the cost of Draconic Presence for what it does (not even when compared to the other final origin abilities) was an "EH" for me.

In conclusion, there are big differences between Sorcerers and Wizards but you do have to dig to either see or get to them. I would love to see some tweaks done to make the sorcerer more distinct or to show that pros and cons more easily between the two.
Some tweaks I would make to the sorcerer would be remove the need for an arcane focus (or at later levels remove the need for one), give them more spell usages per day, and make the Origins for central focus for the sorcerer.
The 5e sorcerer is a font of magical power with no need for tomes or patrons for they have magic running within themselves, because of that they don't need a focus and because it's their own power they can tap into themselves to cast more spells before resting but because of their origin they are limited in what they can do and how they do it. These kind of changes would be thematic to the class and a new player reading would be able to tell that it's very much different from a Wizard.

That's my bit from the perspective of a newer 5e player and would like to reiterate that I do like both classes and am not trying to say one is greater than or less than the other. Both have boons and flaws, I'm just more familiar with sorcerers.

[Chaosmancer]

Firstly, let's talk about the Wild Magic Sorcerer before we run into the limitations of its features. Most people say that you should discuss with your DM before playing one, and I agree. You essentially need the DM's buy in so that you can keep Wild Surging every round, when you cast a spell. So that's the first thing to take into account: most Wild Mages will be triggering their Wild Magic Surge because there needs to be a player-to-DM understanding to begin with, and both sides need to make it clear that Wild Surges are a desirable thing.

Second, the limits on all long rest based resources. You said that Tides of Chaos can only trigger once per week if the DM uses "alternate rules" which I think you mean is Gritty Realism. This fact is actually not against the Sorcerer, because all long rest based resources suffer equally here. The Barbarian can only rage five minutes out of a week, and the Frenzy Barbarian will likely die due to exhaustion. So you have to take into context that if the DM is playing with Gritty Realism, then you probably wont see Wild Magic Sorcerers or any long rest classes to begin with.

To the second point, yes I understand, but once we begin to bring DM permissions into the equation, we have to account for a large range of various DM playstyles and preferences.


I find your first point really interesting though, because it sounds like you would have a hard time playing a sorcerer if the DM would not allow you to wild surge constantly, rolling for those "1's" on the D20 or stacking it with at-will advantage. At that point I must agree, it is a much better ability, advantage on one roll per round with a random rider at the start of your next turn is quite good, but that is essentially the most ideal DM for the wild sorcerer and if that is your base assumption it does tend to change how you would view the class going forward. Most Wild Sorcerer's I've seen (briefly, they never stayed in the group for more than a few sessions) never once rolled on the Wild Surge table. In fact, I've used the Wild Surge table in my current campaign (exploding magical engines is a Bad Ideatm) more than any sorcerer I've ever seen anywhere.

I know that gives me a different bias, but I think it is a rather stark contrast to see.





And now to your comments on Bend Luck and Tides of Chaos.

Tides of Chaos is a 1/LR advantage on any one roll. This is like DM inspiration, except you can have both Tides of Chaos and DM inspiration. This is also something you do not spam. I will agree that it's pretty much useless when used offensively, but only to the extent that we are considering it a 1/LR ability. If you are able to trigger a Wild Surge every round (as above, when there needs to be a player-to-DM understanding that Wild Surges are desirable), then it is possible to roll everything with advantage. But in the absence of that, it is best used defensively.

From this, we can say Tides of Chaos can support your changing play style - but with caveats. The biggest one being that your DM understands that Wild Surges are desirable. If you know you can trigger a Wild Surge consistently, then your play style can be reckless, and indeed your goal is to trigger as many surges as possible. But otherwise it accommodates any play style that is less offense-oriented as well.


I'm not seeing much disagreement with my point. The power of this ability is almost entirely in the hands of the DM, and if the Dm changes their mind about how often you are getting it (perhaps because they feel your constant surging is slowing down the game) then the power decreases significantly.

If I was a designer, I think that I'd see any ability like this as highly unreliable to the player, because the person playing has no real control over how often they can use it.



All of these are decisions you have to make at the cost of casting more spells.

Whatever you choose though, you are draining your resources, and if Tides of Chaos is only 1/LR, that is a very severe resource drain. And since you drain your resources with every choice, you need to be much more specialized in one task so as to maximize the benefits you get out of that resource.

I think out of your discussion with Bend Luck, this is the most important part. This Wild Magic sorcerer we are discussing has three options, create more spell slots, use metamagic, or use abilities like Bend Luck. However, each option reduces (sometimes severely) their ability to use the other options.

Bend Luck plus Heighten is a powerful combo for a debuff, costing 5 of your normal 7 points and probably a 3rd or 4th level spell you want to stick. It is a massive investment for a single debuff on an enemy, probably a powerful one that will turn this battle, but it isn't something you can do again.

Look at Monk's though, the only other class with a pool of points based off their level. Open Hand Monks can only activate their level 3 ability by spending a ki on flurry of blows. However, that 1 ki is not needed for the vast majority of their other abilities. Even at zero ki they can still use deflect missiles, slow fall, their martial arts ability, unarmored movement, evasion, wholeness of body. And their ki refreshes on a short rest.

A sorcerer out of sorcery points can generally not use any of their abilities, and either becomes a bad wizard or begins cannibalizing their spells to remain relevant. This is the biggest and most glaring problem once you get past their lack of diversity, in fact it ties directly into their lack of diversity, because they get a single set of abilities and everything in the class draws from the same resource pool.


Your answer to this seems to be hyper-specialization, get really good at a single combo and pull that out every fight, but the problem is that you only get enough resources for a single fight, and in addition what works for one situation may not work for others and then you are back to having no real way to shine.

This is why I don't see abilities like Bend Luck as very powerful, they need to combo with other abilities to be worth more than a +1 you hope makes a difference and you can't get more than one or two instances of that combo as a sorcerer per day. And, unlike say a Fighter who gets to action surge, this combo isn't you being even more awesome than normal, this is you being your normal amount of awesome before you are relegated back to basic attack cantrips.




First, I'm not saying buffing is not a good choice. It is. I'm saying a Sorcerer doesn't have to be a buffer, and if so, they probably don't need Twin. The assumption is they have chosen another play style and thus another metamagic will be better suited for them.

Second, there are campaigns in which Subtle will be more useful than others. As you said, Intrigue campaigns are one of them. But there are other things causing Subtle to lose potency - one being that DMs let spells without Subtle be cast unnoticed, and thus granting free Subtle to everyone. In those campaigns, Subtle is truly worthless because everyone already has it anyway. Simply identify if your campaign is friendly to Subtle, and if not, don't take it. In campaigns where Subtle does apply, however, it rises to the top of the metamagic list. And just because you don't value it in your campaigns, doesn't mean its not valuable.

I agree that being campaign dependent does not make an ability worthless, but to remind you of your own words you said


And if you've never seen Subtle in play, you've never really seen a Sorcerer at their strongest.

To which you've now added, "Subtle is campaign dependent, and could be worthless if the DM allows other people to cast unnoticed". I hope you understand this plays directly into my frustrations. If you are correct and Subtle is absolutely the Sorcerer's strongest ability, then does it not bode poorly that it is only powerful if the DM chooses to make it powerful? And we need to add into this DM and campaign helping the sorcerer by also allowing the wild surge table to happen frequently and Tides of Chaos to refresh every turn. Though, in a subtle situation you actually don't want Wild Magic surges to happen, because then the entire point of subtle casting is lost.

Sure, there are other classes that get better in certain situations, but so far every example for the sorcerer shining has required DM compliance and campaigns focused around things that the sorcerer is trying to do.



Third, I believe you need to cut down on your snark. You have not even read my replies yet, so obviously you will be talking to an echo chamber unless you are replied to. And while the pure Sorcerer is powerful, you are choosing to be blind if you don't acknowledge that Sorcerers are prime for multiclass. Once again, your approach is very limited.

I apologize if I'm getting too snarky for you, sometimes it just leaks out. However, I don't see this as a case of me being blind. I've seen plenty of powerful builds that take a few levels of sorcerer to make a paladin or warlock far more powerful, but I've rarely if ever heard of someone going pure sorcerer and that is not a strength of the class in my opinion. If your main usage by the community is being used as an add-on to another class, then I don't think the class design was strong enough in the first place, because it indicates to me that the class can't keep people feeling powerful and interesting for the entire run.

Maybe I'm phrasing this badly, but I don't think it is powerful to say "I'm great for a 3 to 6 level add on to other classes". Especially when I have trouble seeing that a pure sorcerer is powerful in their own right. Rogues and fighters get dipped constantly, but no one would get much traction saying that a 20th level fighter or 20th level rogue is a weak class compared to their peers. They can get traction saying that about sorcerers though, which indicates a problem to me.



1) Extend is the only way you can have two 9th level spells active at once: cast Extended Foresight before sleeping (8 hour duration becomes a 16 hour duration), sleep, and regain the 9th level spell slot. Now someone in the party has Foresight while you maintain your 9th level spell. This requires a multiclassed build and is primarily not a Sorcerer build, but then again Extend is widely regarded as the worst metamagic. Even so, it's the only metamagic that can make two Foresights happen.

So... do not take before level 20. At least we can agree that's not a glowing recommendation.

Sorry, trying to tone down the snark. I'll admit I'd never seen that particular combo before, but yeah this ties directly back into my point about multi-classing. This is a three level dip in sorcerer for a wizard. You get two foresights but lose Spell Mastery which may be one of the best abilities a wizard gets... so I'm not even sure if it is a good deal for the wizard.



2) Empower is obviously good. Not only is it compatible with every other metamagic, it can also be used when a spell you already cast rolls damage. That means you can Empower your Wall of Fire on its 5th round, or when the damage on your Vitriolic Sphere is bad in its second round. It's also cheap.

I'll agree, it isn't a bad ability. But, you don't really take it before 10th level. At 3rd level you usually aren't rolling enough damage dice to make re-rolling up to five dice worth it. It's cheap in points, but in opportunity cost, not so much.




3) Distant allows "spell sniping" at 1200ft away through a combination of Spell Sniper and Warlock invocations. But removing Warlock invocations, Distant Spell and Spell Sniper allows you to roll ranged attacks at four times the normal range of your attack rolls. Is this useful in some campaigns? Potentially. But you don't normally get a range as big as this.

So, only for multi-classed builds? When you really want to cast Eldritch blast from the other side of a palace? And, not sure how many spellcasters you've run, but how often do you find that you are out of range for what you want to do after moving 30ft? It has happened to me very very rarely, but it is not a common occurrence making this a highly specialized metamagic once more requiring the correct campaign and circumstances to even be considered as a choice.



4) Heighten is great for debuffers. Negating Magic Resistance or doubling down on one important enemy so that they fail the save is crucial to some builds. And there is no multiclassing requirement here, if that is what you're after.

Love how we've got "pure sorcerers are powerful" and "multi-classing requirements" in the same section.

And, I'll admit the ability itself is powerful. It is also the single most expensive metamagic in the list, using your entire days worth of points on a single target when you first get it. And let's not treat Disadvantage as a guaranteed fail here. It is more likely, but we've all seen the enemy who had disadvantage to attack and rolled a 15 and 17 on the dice. So, do you take this ability and hope that your one shot each day from levels 3 to 5 is worth it? Maybe cannibalize those 1st level slots so that both your 2nd level debuffs are disadvantage.

Or, again, is this a metamagi you save until level 10, when you finally have the spells that it is worth using on and the points where you aren't putting everything into a single casting of a single spell. By the by, you can't combine subtle with Heightened either, so you also have to be careful of counterspelling and wasting all of that effort you put into your "kill shot"


5) Careful allows a sustained stunlock to happen via Calm Emotions or Hypnotic Pattern, without risking your allies. It's also cheap. Great for controllers. [QUOTE=LeonBH;22780707]

Not sure what you mean by "sustained" stunlock, heck, it isn't even a stunlock since both of those spells are broken when the target is attacked. However, Hypnotic pattern is a powerful spell if utilized properly and it does combo well with careful. However, all it does it make targeting easier, allowing you to drop it on a few allies safely, instead of positioning it where it will not hit any allies. You also forgot Web, which falls into this same category. However, beyond those few low-level spells, there really isn't much it works well with. And, it's utility is greatly reduced if the party has a Paladin, because the paladin's aura boost almost guarantees those saves anyways. But still, it can work, until you face enemies immune to charm (in the case of hypnotic pattern).




[QUOTE=LeonBH;22780707] Now, where are those varied builds you weren't seeing before? A Draconic Sorcerer who has the same spell list as another Draconic Sorcerer but who has different metamagics is in fact representing another build.

I'm saying that each permutation of metamagic and spell choice creates a different Sorcerer. Yes, some combinations are bad. But some combinations achieve tasks better or earlier than other classes.

I read them all, just trying to save space.

I think here is where we get to a root disagreement. You say quite often in this part how "sure some are bad but others are good" and you also point out how some of them are better than other classes, but I don't see it.

Any spell you have as a sorcerer, the wizard also has, plus more allowing any wizard to potentially have two builds compared to the sorcerers one. Anti-magic wizard can't get subtle (not sure why you want it, unless you are counterspelling a counterspell but reactions get in the way there) but they could go Portent to potentially auto-dispel any magic, or they could go with abjuration and add prof to dispel and counter, allowing them to more reliably dispel high level slots with only 3rd level slots instead of 5th or higher.

Enchanter wizard doesn't have subtle, this actually hurts, but they can get a twin effect and alter memories at high levels, plus their low level effects like hypnotic gaze are actually good for infiltration missions or distractions of any sort.

Blaster wizards may not get quicken or empower, but between portent, sculpt spell, or grim harvest they have three very viable paths for their spells. Also, evokers get to add their mod to all damage spells regardless of type, while dragon sorcerers can only use it on a single damage type, likely fire.

Bladesinger is a melee wizard with the AC and abilities to actually survive in melee, unlike your sorcerer who needs to focus dex to even get an 18, something a normal wizard can also do.

Illusion wizards also don't get subtle, potentially harmful, but they can cast minor illusion to get sound and image simultaneously and with malleable illusion can alter an illusion on the fly, turning disguise self into alter self (for purposes of disguises) without having to recast. Plus, they can eventually make their illusions real, which is a massive advantage.

So, quite a few of these builds are equaled or overshadowed by a pure wizard build "specializing" in the same direction, I'm sure I could throw some warlocks in too, and wizards can also have a secondary or even tertiary focus on their spells, so you could have a wizard who is a blasting and enchanting, with really no loss to the wizard, while the sorcerer must pick one or the other.




And once again, the Sorcerer occupies a niche. But to say they have almost nothing they can do outside of their casting capabilities is simply wrong. You can build a Sorcerer who can do nothing outside their casting capabilities. You don't have to if it's not your cup of tea.

Take a Sorcerer who has the Luck feat, Shield, Mage Armor, Haste, and Absorb Elements. This is a reasonably tanky Sorcerer, with an AC of 13+5+2+DEX, advantage to Dex saves, resistance to elemental damage (at the cost of 5 AC), and the ability to make monsters reroll their attacks that hit.

This same Sorcerer can also play the role of a blaster by taking Fireball and Empower. Alternatively, they can play the role of buffer by taking Twin (they already have Haste). They could even play all three roles simultaneously, because so far, nothing conflicts. This is on top of their high Charisma stat, which means Deception, Intimidation, and Persuasion are their domain.


Your trying to convince me they can do things outside of their ability to cast spells... by giving me a spell list...

Well I'm convinced

But, more seriously, perhaps my point wasn't clear. The closest in the comparison I was doing to the sorcerer in terms of investment in their spells was the Bard, the bard still beat the sorcerer, but it was the closest. What can a bard do that does not involve casting a single spell? Jack of All trades, Expertise, Bardic Inspiration, Song of Rest, Countercharm, and if they are a Valor bard which was the closest in terms of spell investment, then they can use martial weapons, armor, and shields.

So, to look at your "doesn't need to cast" sorcerer there with his haste, mage armor and shield spells active and a dex of let's say +3 has an AC of 23 (as long as he can cast the shield spell). But, really if he is in an antimagic zone they've got an AC of 16 if they are a dragon sorcerer

The Bard can also have Haste and shield (not until 10th level I'll admit), but in that same anti-magic field can have an AC of 19, is using a better weapon, and has all those abilities.

Without casting, what is that sorcerer doing again? Luck, a feat anyone can get. Skills, expertise from either the rogue or the bard. And on we go.

So, there was my point. A Valor bard is putting 10% of his spellcasting variety into any spell he chooses at that level, but has a vast array of non-casting abilities to use as well. Sorcerer is putting in 12.5% of their variety into that spell choice, and has almost no abilities that do not tie back into their spellcasting in some manner. In fact, the only abilities I can find that do not tie into metamagic, sorcery points, casting spells, or wild surges in the entire PHB sorcerer entry is Dragon Ancestors ability to speak draconic (and increased diplomacy with dragons) and their increased HP and AC. Their level 1 abilities in their subclass are the only abilities they have not tied in some manner to their spellcasting, but there spellcasting is highly restricted even compared to the full caster with the most non-magical abilities I could find.

Because outside of their subclasses they get nothing except metamagic, and metamagic is supposedly so powerful that it requires gutting out almost any other ability they receive.





Why does the Sorcerer's two spells have to cover a wide variety of situations? Don't they have a list of other spells known from the earlier levels? Every single spell does not have to be the best spell, because all their spells known in combination leave them able to address a variety of situations.

You can take Major Image at 3rd level because Major Image is versatile and can address nearly any problem, given the right player. You can take Counterspell because you've already had your fill of buffs or debuffs from your earlier level spells.

The "optimized" Sorcerer does not need Haste or Polymorph to be effective. My fellow players in an old campaign feared my character, as in when it came time for me to cast my magic, they all thought "GG DM," and my signature spell was Phantasmal Force (freeing my 3rd level spell choices up). And in a current campaign, my signature spell is Haste as a gish, which means my 4th level choices aren't going to contain Polymorph and frees it up - because Haste is the single concentration spell I'll need for the character.

How often do you here that from other full-casters though? How many wizards say "I have haste, so I won't take any other concentration spells", "Well, I took major image, so that is my go to spell and I don't need any other concentration spells". This isn't really something other classes do, they get both or all three. They build up more and more options, while the sorcerer cannablizes his old options to stay relevant.

Sidenote: Phantasmal Force was your killer spell? I mean, it's good, 1d6 psychic damage a turn for concentration. Potential for a lot of shenanigans if you're fighting something too stupid to target the caster (Summoning things or creating constant effects like fire on a person are concentration, any enemy who knows about spellcasting knows about concentration) but "GG DM" good... I'd have to be there I guess.



Furthermore, a Sorcerer can cast their spells more often than other casters by creating spell slots. This comes at the price of metamagic or lower level spell slots, but it is yet another strategy in the Sorcerer's arsenal. The other classes suffer from too many options for too few slots, but the Sorcerer benefits from a simple spell selection and many slots.

They can only cast more spells if they use no metamagic and the wizard (or Druid) doesn't get a short rest, and if you don't count rituals as spells. And actually, even then you generally just break even with them. 6th level wizard can get a third level slot, 6th level sorcerer can create a single 3rd for 5 points, leaving you 1 point left to work with, and those slots you can cannibalize for more points. Sure, the sorcerer can really burn themselves down and maybe squeak out one more high level spell per day than the wizard, but as your Phantasmal Force story shows, properly used low level spells are highly effective.

And I love your claim in that last sentence, Sorcerers "benefit" from having fewer spells because it gives them fewer options to spend their magic on. I mean, if the wizard can't short rest or if you absolutely need that additional slot now, the sorcerer can manage to pull it out, but how often will you still have those resources?

After all, you have to decide early in the day that you'll need those points for an additional slot, because if you use them for anything else (subtle, careful, bend luck, resistance to fire) you may not have them. And remember, it is a bonus action to turn a spell into points, and another bonus action the next turn to change those points into a slot, and if you need to convert more slots into points it takes longer. In the middle of the fight if you didn't have those points just sitting there waiting to become spell slots you probably aren't going to be able to bring out that clutch play in a timely fashion, and if you had three more turns anyways, it might have not been a clutch play in the first place.



It doesn't matter if the Wizard has 45 quintillion ways of preparing their spells. The Wizard can't prepare even 1 million of those combinations. So with the Sorcerer, who has many ways of choosing their spells.

I'm not saying all 219 billion ways are valid. I'm saying open your eyes: even if 99.99% of all those spell combinations were crap, there are still 21 million good spell selections out there for the Sorcerer at that level, and you haven't looked at them all.

If it didn't matter why did you bring it up? I've never said there aren't a lot of possible combinations, every point I've made is showing how despite how many there appear to be, if you are only looking for the best and most versatile tricks, you have a limited number.

I don't need to look at every possibly stat array and equipment chart to realize that you are likely going to end up with one of a handful of fighter kits, or that most rogues will end up using either ranged weapons or rapiers. The sorcerer is so tightly constrained by metamagic choices and number of spells known that you will almost never see them take things like Jump or See invisibility. Niche spells are too costly, unless you know for a fact that the DM is planning on handing you that niche situation. So, you go for the big guns, you go for the gold rated spells of which there are only a handful to pick from.

And the wizard has over double your pool. List out as many 8 spell combos as you like for the sorcerer to pick from, all those different builds. Then realize that with 18 spells known and likely 12 to prepare per day the Wizard can cover any two lists with completely different spells, and if you have overlapping spells on your lists the wizard could probably cover as many as twenty different sorcerer spell selections.

Unless you are relying on metamagic to accomplish things like twin, which have effects that cannot be replicated in any other way (unlike rerolling damage, increasing range, or imposing disadvantage on a save in which the result can be the same even if the method of delivery was different) there is almost nothing you can do that can't be done by other classes. And if you do rely on metamagic you will likely have fewer spells cast fewer times per day, which does not sound like an ideal situation.




And no, the Wizard cannot cast a 4th level Scorching Ray with Hex at 7th level unlike the Sorcerer (who has Magic Initiate) - he has to wait 1 more level.

Why would he have to wait? 7th level Wizard has a 4th level slot, magic initiate is a feat the wizard can get... what prevents the wizard from doing this? I guess, he can't do it twice in the same fight, but he can clearly do this at least once. Maybe follow up with magic missiles, throw in a fireball to hit the mooks, has his rituals for detect magic and identify to make sure we get the good loot even if it is the end of the adventuring day.


And the Wizard cannot cast a Twinned Hold Person at 3rd level - he has to wait 2 more levels. And he can never cast Haste or Polymorph - your favored spells - on two creatures at once.

There is a wide variety of things the Wizard is good at, but the Wizard is a generalist and cannot compete with the Sorcerer in his chosen area of expertise.

You're right, he can't. This is the one thing a sorcerer can do that the wizard can't replicate. Unless it is an enchanter dealing with spells like suggestion, then he can twin them for free. However, the wizard can do so many other things that you can't. Is hitting two party members with haste worth it? There are wizards who can beat the sorcerer in a particular area, other wizards who can get really close to the sorcerer in their chosen specialty, and then they can do more than that as well.

That's the kick in the pants, so many wizards get close to copying the sorcerer or outright exceed them, and then they also get a large number of other abilities and tricks that the sorcerer can't replicate or compete with.




1) Because you can participate in melee using Booming Blade, while building a tanky gish Sorcerer

Athletics has nothing to do with that... ah wait, you are talking about using Booming Blade then shoving the enemy 5 ft away. Okay, I see the build.

Eldritch knight. This strategy is far better done by a fighter who has the natural armor profs and hp to survive in melee. Or still, go Valor Bard to get expertise to more likely succeed in that shove. Shield Master makes you tankier versus dex saves and allows you to shove as a bonus action. Plus, they get bigger weapons beyond the quarterstaff so they can make each hit hurt more.

Sorcerers just aren't tanky enough, Dragons are the best possible choice, and you'll still be looking at worse armor and mediocre hp overall.


3) Correct, it burns through their resources quickly. And yet that doesn't make them weaker. It just means all their spells will be stronger for the upcoming fight you are anticipating. None of what you said actually makes this strategy not a viable idea. For example, a 20th level Sorcerer can cannibalize all their 2nd through 4th level spells, and their 20 Sorcery Points, to create 6 5th level slots (total of 9), from which any spell of 1st through 5th level can be cast.

Now the Wizard can cast an unlimited number of 1st level spells, but for each 1st level spell the Wizard is casting, the Sorcerer is casting at 5th level or higher.

This is just an example, but this means that as the Wizard casts a 1st level Magic Missile, the Sorcerer matches it with a 5th level Magic Missile nine rounds in a row.

Once again, yes, it burns through resources quickly. Why is that a bad thing? Have you never encountered a singular boss fight in a day? It's not as though it is a compulsory tactic.

How often will you cast Shield at 5th level? Misty Step? Mirror Image?

Sure, at will magic missiles is vaguely interesting (Do evokers get to deal 1d4+6 on each missile?) but I don't know if it would be my first choice as a wizard. And don't forget, while your sorcerer no longer has any metamagic, any spells below 5th level, or almost any access to any subclass abilities. The wizard still gets Arcane Recovery, Rituals, and their subclass abilities.

You've lost all your potential weaker tricks, for example you can't counterspell at third level since you have no third level slots, all of your staying power for the entire day, in the hopes that those 5th level slots are going to be worth. Sure, if you've only got one fight for the day you might be able to do something cool with that. But you need to burn all those slots for points before the fight begins, and hopefully you weren't wrong about the encounter and it turns out the day is actually a longer one, because you've geared yourself for one fight and if you get hit with 5 fights, you're not looking as good.

It is a potential option, but that doesn't make it a good option, and you were talking in the context of builds. So, you're making a build that focuses on burning all of your resources in a single fight, for 20 levels? Not likely.




You have been arguing against yourself so far. I'm quite sure you haven't explored the fullness of the Sorcerer's builds (if you have, you would wouldn't be denying they exist). Once again, look at where you're denying and realize you're not seeing the whole picture. That way, you can play a better Sorcerer.


And yet, nothing you've said in regards to how to build a sorcerer is something I haven't thought of.

Twinning spells like HAste or Polymorph, considered that, opened with it to as one of the few unique things a sorceer can do.

Careful on spells like Hypnotic pattern, mentioned that one first as well. Decent idea, not sure about long term viability.

Subtle to prevent counterspelling or in intrigue campaigns where magic in the ballroom is frowned upon, also mentioned that one (and it isn't unique to the sorcerer, not since the Swachbuckler and College of Glamour hit the stage to charm people without needing to use magic)

And there are your three most unique and powerful sorcerer builds I can find, the ones that are harder to pull off for anyone else. Sure, you can swap some spells, but that really is difficult to do long term, got to make a decision that will hold up.






As for different sorcerer builds, I played a UA Sea sorcerer I enjoyed very much. She focused on cold spells (ice knfe, frostbirte, etc...) and lightning (shocking grasp, lightning lure, etc..because of the sea curse class feature.

Didn't have much defense early on because I didn't want mage armor to take a spell selection, so I RP'd her wanting to stay as far from battle as possible.

Took distant spell metamagic and spell sniper at 4. Could even cast touch spells from 60 feet away. Also took twin.

In combat concentration was generally on a twinned buff spell (lots of fun with enlarge), then she would back off and plink away from a great distance, often out of short bow or crossbow range.



Sea sorcerer was one I was really excited about seeing a second pass on. Some great abilities and I loved the curse mechanic. I'm truly frustrated that it didn't make the cut into Zanathars. And that it didn't get a bonus spells list.





*snipping to try and save space*

This is an over simplification and I know there's balances such as meta magics and even the origins, but this is how it came off at first reading. Being primarily a sorcerer player in Pathfinder I can fully understand that beneath the surface there are some really cool and amazing things you can do but like the Pathfinder Sorcerer you have to build very specifically and even min max in order to be able to do these awesome things. Starting at a higher levels I'm sure this isn't a problem, but at the lower levels it can really feel like you can't do much as a sorcerer vs what a wizard can do.

I also think they could have made the Origins more of a focus for the class and how it changes the basic Sorcerer. Once again, I have no play time with the other origins since I'm still transitioning and have only read the none draconic origins. From what I've read they seem pretty cool and I'd love to try them out. I'm bringing up Origins because this is their "archetype" that will define the Sorcerer a player will play.

The one you get access to as a "free" player or if you've only used the starter box is Draconic. Why I feel this is important is because it's the one Wizards of the Coast(WotC) chose to represent Sorcerer origins in all of the easy access material for 5e such as D&D Beyond. I feel that this origin is a tad lack luster when you compare it to say the Phoenix, Storm, or Pyromancer. Those origins really help to define who your sorcerer is and what they can do and sets them apart from other casters. You can say Draconic is more generalistic and that's fine but some of it's abilities are kind of "eh" when compared to what the other origins get and doesn't help push it farther from what Wizards are.
As a Draconic Sorcerer in Pathfinder your draconic bloodline shapes your character as they grow, and as they grow in strength they show more and more of their draconic heritage such as growing claws getting a breath weapon and eventually coming to the crest of nearly gaining draconic power itself! You don't really get that feeling from the Draconic bloodline in 5e. You do get wings and scales and some nice perks (always on Mage Armor FTW!!!) but then you get abilities that make you spend sorcery points, which determent you ability to do the other cool things you wanted with meta magics and the cost of Draconic Presence for what it does (not even when compared to the other final origin abilities) was an "EH" for me.

In conclusion, there are big differences between Sorcerers and Wizards but you do have to dig to either see or get to them. I would love to see some tweaks done to make the sorcerer more distinct or to show that pros and cons more easily between the two.
Some tweaks I would make to the sorcerer would be remove the need for an arcane focus (or at later levels remove the need for one), give them more spell usages per day, and make the Origins for central focus for the sorcerer.
The 5e sorcerer is a font of magical power with no need for tomes or patrons for they have magic running within themselves, because of that they don't need a focus and because it's their own power they can tap into themselves to cast more spells before resting but because of their origin they are limited in what they can do and how they do it. These kind of changes would be thematic to the class and a new player reading would be able to tell that it's very much different from a Wizard.

That's my bit from the perspective of a newer 5e player and would like to reiterate that I do like both classes and am not trying to say one is greater than or less than the other. Both have boons and flaws, I'm just more familiar with sorcerers.



I agree with some of your points. The Phoenix sorcerers only downside was that they only got 1 minute of their subclass per day. If they had made it more often it would have been really cool.


One thing that always sours me, and that a new player to 5e could never know, was that we were so close to an amazingly interesting sorcerer in the playtest for fifth. It was overpowered, no doubt, but the idea was that the more you used your magic, the more your magic altered you. It was a dragon bloodline, and it meant that the more spells you cast the more draconic you became, hitting walls until you reached higher levels.

The lore for them was cool, the mechanics were fascinating, and the ideas were amazing. I truly wish it had gotten a second run through the play test, but it was the only sorcerer we saw, then a year later the PHB came out.

I've been hoping the sorcerer origins somehow find a fix for the the PHB sorcerers, I really have, and Shadows had some cool things last I looked. The UA Storm Sorcerer with a bonus spell list helped. I agree with removing arcane focuses from the Sorcerer, because why would they need it.

[LeonBH]

To the second point, yes I understand, but once we begin to bring DM permissions into the equation, we have to account for a large range of various DM playstyles and preferences.

I find your first point really interesting though, because it sounds like you would have a hard time playing a sorcerer if the DM would not allow you to wild surge constantly, rolling for those "1's" on the D20 or stacking it with at-will advantage. At that point I must agree, it is a much better ability, advantage on one roll per round with a random rider at the start of your next turn is quite good, but that is essentially the most ideal DM for the wild sorcerer and if that is your base assumption it does tend to change how you would view the class going forward. Most Wild Sorcerer's I've seen (briefly, they never stayed in the group for more than a few sessions) never once rolled on the Wild Surge table. In fact, I've used the Wild Surge table in my current campaign (exploding magical engines is a Bad Ideatm) more than any sorcerer I've ever seen anywhere.

I know that gives me a different bias, but I think it is a rather stark contrast to see.

Actually, I prefer the Sorcerer who uses the 1/LR or 1/Wild Surge rule. I like Wild Surges being a random and scary thing that frighten anyone standing beside me, including my fellow players. But I raise the idea of constant Wild Surges because that is part of the current meta for Sorcerers, as well as it being codified in the RAW of the Wild Mage. That is the only ability that requires the DM's permission to use, and thus this is the only class where you need to discuss with the DM how he will handle this class.

On the whole, you don't drop a Wild Mage into a campaign randomly. You need to bring up your character concept from the DM and know where he stands because DM permission is in the RAW of the Wild Mage. Thus, most Wild Mages you see in play will have been DM-approved first.


I'm not seeing much disagreement with my point. The power of this ability is almost entirely in the hands of the DM, and if the Dm changes their mind about how often you are getting it (perhaps because they feel your constant surging is slowing down the game) then the power decreases significantly.

If I was a designer, I think that I'd see any ability like this as highly unreliable to the player, because the person playing has no real control over how often they can use it.

Once again, any player who takes a Wild Mage must discuss with their DM. You don't just take a Wild Mage and play it in a long term campaign. You could, but it would be unwise. DM permission is codified into the rule, so Wild Mage players need to talk it out with the DM beforehand. This is the only ability that is written like this.


I think out of your discussion with Bend Luck, this is the most important part. This Wild Magic sorcerer we are discussing has three options, create more spell slots, use metamagic, or use abilities like Bend Luck. However, each option reduces (sometimes severely) their ability to use the other options.

Bend Luck plus Heighten is a powerful combo for a debuff, costing 5 of your normal 7 points and probably a 3rd or 4th level spell you want to stick. It is a massive investment for a single debuff on an enemy, probably a powerful one that will turn this battle, but it isn't something you can do again.

Heighten Spell + Bend Luck is more nuanced than we've both discussed so far. There are a few possibilities here:

(They fail outright) Say your DC is 15. If the enemy rolls a 14 or lower (+0 modifier for simpler math), then they failed the save and you did not need to spend 5 Sorcery Points on that.

(They just barely make the save) They roll a 15 against your save DC of 15. So you use Bend Luck to make that save a 14, and they are guaranteed to fail. This will cost you a total of 5 Sorcery Points.

(They make the save, but could be forced to fail) They roll a 16-18 against your save DC of 15. Now you are gambling that Bend Luck will force a fail. This will cost you 5 Sorcery Points and the chances of you wasting it are 25%, 50%, and 75%

(They make the save and are beyond the reach of Bend Luck) They roll a 19 or higher against your save DC of 15. Now Bend Luck is meaningless.

The third scenario above is the worst outcome, in my opinion, because it tempts you to gamble another 2 Sorcery Points. However, this happens only 16% of the time. My policy here is hands off - if they make the save by 2 or more, do not use Bend Luck anymore. However, that is a risk-averse perspective. On the whole, you are more likely to not waste your Sorcery Points, and there's only a small chance you have to spend an extra 2 Sorcery Points on Bend Luck.


Look at Monk's though, the only other class with a pool of points based off their level. Open Hand Monks can only activate their level 3 ability by spending a ki on flurry of blows. However, that 1 ki is not needed for the vast majority of their other abilities. Even at zero ki they can still use deflect missiles, slow fall, their martial arts ability, unarmored movement, evasion, wholeness of body. And their ki refreshes on a short rest.

A sorcerer out of sorcery points can generally not use any of their abilities, and either becomes a bad wizard or begins cannibalizing their spells to remain relevant. This is the biggest and most glaring problem once you get past their lack of diversity, in fact it ties directly into their lack of diversity, because they get a single set of abilities and everything in the class draws from the same resource pool.

Your answer to this seems to be hyper-specialization, get really good at a single combo and pull that out every fight, but the problem is that you only get enough resources for a single fight, and in addition what works for one situation may not work for others and then you are back to having no real way to shine.

This is why I don't see abilities like Bend Luck as very powerful, they need to combo with other abilities to be worth more than a +1 you hope makes a difference and you can't get more than one or two instances of that combo as a sorcerer per day. And, unlike say a Fighter who gets to action surge, this combo isn't you being even more awesome than normal, this is you being your normal amount of awesome before you are relegated back to basic attack cantrips.

Once again, that depends on how you plan to allocate Bend Luck. I brought up Heighten Spell + Bend Luck, but that doesn't seem like your preference. What did you think about Bend Luck manipulating the initiative order though, which is just a Dex check? Or manipulating death saves? Sometimes, someone makes a death save whom you had no time to heal.

Sorcerers have a lot of choices they can make, and each one is filled with opportunity cost. Unlike the Fighter who just says "I will action surge" without penalty to their other abilities, Sorcerers have a shared resource pool for almost all their abilities. This is not enough to mean that the Sorcerer is a weak Wizard, but instead means you need to play a Sorcerer more carefully than a Wizard.


I agree that being campaign dependent does not make an ability worthless, but to remind you of your own words you said

To which you've now added, "Subtle is campaign dependent, and could be worthless if the DM allows other people to cast unnoticed". I hope you understand this plays directly into my frustrations. If you are correct and Subtle is absolutely the Sorcerer's strongest ability, then does it not bode poorly that it is only powerful if the DM chooses to make it powerful? And we need to add into this DM and campaign helping the sorcerer by also allowing the wild surge table to happen frequently and Tides of Chaos to refresh every turn. Though, in a subtle situation you actually don't want Wild Magic surges to happen, because then the entire point of subtle casting is lost.

Sure, there are other classes that get better in certain situations, but so far every example for the sorcerer shining has required DM compliance and campaigns focused around things that the sorcerer is trying to do.

Not quite on Subtle. The RAW is that spellcasting is unnoticeable unless it has no spellcasting components. A very common ruling among tables is that you can cast unnoticed anyway, and this common ruling detracts from Subtle.

Perhaps as someone who's seen Subtle used effectively, I don't feel the frustration as I go from campaign to campaign. I can't really do anything for you here, though. Your frustration in this case is purely a matter of perspective.

Subtle is both the strongest, but also most undervalued metamagic in the Sorcerer list. The fact that they are undervalued is because many tables violate the RAW on spellcasting being unnoticeable in the open. The fact that many tables do it is not a problem of the Sorcerer, but of the DM and the players who like that sort of game.

You are pidgeon-holing things into a perspective of "so the DM needs to give the Sorcerer permission to do cool things?" which is wrong.

The Wild Magic Sorcerer needs to be DM approved. Not so for any other Sorcerous Origin. If you don't like it, then play a different origin. No more DM buy in necessary.

Subtle needs to be valued by the DM to be useful. But only insofar as they stick by the RAW for spellcasting. The DM has to violate RAW to make Subtle worthless. But many DMs do that, as far as I know.


I apologize if I'm getting too snarky for you, sometimes it just leaks out. However, I don't see this as a case of me being blind. I've seen plenty of powerful builds that take a few levels of sorcerer to make a paladin or warlock far more powerful, but I've rarely if ever heard of someone going pure sorcerer and that is not a strength of the class in my opinion. If your main usage by the community is being used as an add-on to another class, then I don't think the class design was strong enough in the first place, because it indicates to me that the class can't keep people feeling powerful and interesting for the entire run.

Maybe I'm phrasing this badly, but I don't think it is powerful to say "I'm great for a 3 to 6 level add on to other classes". Especially when I have trouble seeing that a pure sorcerer is powerful in their own right. Rogues and fighters get dipped constantly, but no one would get much traction saying that a 20th level fighter or 20th level rogue is a weak class compared to their peers. They can get traction saying that about sorcerers though, which indicates a problem to me.

20th level Sorcerers are far from weak. Do you care to explain further?


So... do not take before level 20. At least we can agree that's not a glowing recommendation.

Sorry, trying to tone down the snark. I'll admit I'd never seen that particular combo before, but yeah this ties directly back into my point about multi-classing. This is a three level dip in sorcerer for a wizard. You get two foresights but lose Spell Mastery which may be one of the best abilities a wizard gets... so I'm not even sure if it is a good deal for the wizard.

Perhaps. As I said, Extend is widely regarded as the worst of the bunch.


I'll agree, it isn't a bad ability. But, you don't really take it before 10th level. At 3rd level you usually aren't rolling enough damage dice to make re-rolling up to five dice worth it. It's cheap in points, but in opportunity cost, not so much.

This is your opinion on it. Empower is cheap as the alternatives are either the same cost or more expensive. It is also compatible with other metamagics, and you never waste it (like Divine Smite) because you can choose to use it after seeing the damage roll. Empower is a 3rd level pick candidate.


So, only for multi-classed builds? When you really want to cast Eldritch blast from the other side of a palace? And, not sure how many spellcasters you've run, but how often do you find that you are out of range for what you want to do after moving 30ft? It has happened to me very very rarely, but it is not a common occurrence making this a highly specialized metamagic once more requiring the correct campaign and circumstances to even be considered as a choice.

I've never seen a campaign where it was a good idea to take Distant. Personally, I never take it myself. But it doesn't require multiclass builds, as I've said in that quote. Without multiclassing, Distant and Spell Sniper increases your attack range by x4, turning Firebolt from a 120ft range spell into a 480ft range spell. However, the maximum attack distance you can force is with a Warlock Invocation.


Love how we've got "pure sorcerers are powerful" and "multi-classing requirements" in the same section.

And, I'll admit the ability itself is powerful. It is also the single most expensive metamagic in the list, using your entire days worth of points on a single target when you first get it. And let's not treat Disadvantage as a guaranteed fail here. It is more likely, but we've all seen the enemy who had disadvantage to attack and rolled a 15 and 17 on the dice. So, do you take this ability and hope that your one shot each day from levels 3 to 5 is worth it? Maybe cannibalize those 1st level slots so that both your 2nd level debuffs are disadvantage.

Or, again, is this a metamagi you save until level 10, when you finally have the spells that it is worth using on and the points where you aren't putting everything into a single casting of a single spell. By the by, you can't combine subtle with Heightened either, so you also have to be careful of counterspelling and wasting all of that effort you put into your "kill shot"

I'm getting frustrated talking to you, honestly. I said no multiclassing requirements, and it is right there in the quote. I feel like you are not carefully reading this post and thus this discussion is going nowhere.

Don't underplay Disadvantage. If the DM made you roll Disadvantage for one saving throw for no apparent reason, I bet you wouldn't enjoy it. You have a diminished chance of making the save. And if you are a smart and prepared Sorcerer, you target their negative saves, or their smallest save bonuses if they don't have negatives.

Heighten is perfectly viable to take from level 3. Suggestion, Phantasmal Force are worth Heighten and available at the same level as you get the spell.


Not sure what you mean by "sustained" stunlock, heck, it isn't even a stunlock since both of those spells are broken when the target is attacked. However, Hypnotic pattern is a powerful spell if utilized properly and it does combo well with careful. However, all it does it make targeting easier, allowing you to drop it on a few allies safely, instead of positioning it where it will not hit any allies. You also forgot Web, which falls into this same category. However, beyond those few low-level spells, there really isn't much it works well with. And, it's utility is greatly reduced if the party has a Paladin, because the paladin's aura boost almost guarantees those saves anyways. But still, it can work, until you face enemies immune to charm (in the case of hypnotic pattern).

You cast the spell every round, thus the "stun-lock" aspect. Every new person who somehow gets freed from the spell can be re-stunned the next round.


I read them all, just trying to save space.

I think here is where we get to a root disagreement. You say quite often in this part how "sure some are bad but others are good" and you also point out how some of them are better than other classes, but I don't see it.

Any spell you have as a sorcerer, the wizard also has, plus more allowing any wizard to potentially have two builds compared to the sorcerers one. Anti-magic wizard can't get subtle (not sure why you want it, unless you are counterspelling a counterspell but reactions get in the way there) but they could go Portent to potentially auto-dispel any magic, or they could go with abjuration and add prof to dispel and counter, allowing them to more reliably dispel high level slots with only 3rd level slots instead of 5th or higher.

Enchanter wizard doesn't have subtle, this actually hurts, but they can get a twin effect and alter memories at high levels, plus their low level effects like hypnotic gaze are actually good for infiltration missions or distractions of any sort.

Blaster wizards may not get quicken or empower, but between portent, sculpt spell, or grim harvest they have three very viable paths for their spells. Also, evokers get to add their mod to all damage spells regardless of type, while dragon sorcerers can only use it on a single damage type, likely fire.

Bladesinger is a melee wizard with the AC and abilities to actually survive in melee, unlike your sorcerer who needs to focus dex to even get an 18, something a normal wizard can also do.

Illusion wizards also don't get subtle, potentially harmful, but they can cast minor illusion to get sound and image simultaneously and with malleable illusion can alter an illusion on the fly, turning disguise self into alter self (for purposes of disguises) without having to recast. Plus, they can eventually make their illusions real, which is a massive advantage.

So, quite a few of these builds are equaled or overshadowed by a pure wizard build "specializing" in the same direction, I'm sure I could throw some warlocks in too, and wizards can also have a secondary or even tertiary focus on their spells, so you could have a wizard who is a blasting and enchanting, with really no loss to the wizard, while the sorcerer must pick one or the other.

The antimage Sorcerer is not necessarily a dispeller, but a counterspeller. He is an antimage in this example in the sense that any spellcasting opponents he has are shut down completely. Correct, Abjuration Wizards get to add their proficiency bonus at 14th level, whereas the Sorcerer has enjoyed his concept 11 levels earlier. And correct, Portent allows a Diviner to dispel any magic, but they get two of those a day and do not control the result they will get, and are subject themselves to being Counterspelled. These two examples you have given are worse expressions of an antimage character as I have provided in this example.

Enchanter Wizards get twinned enchantment at level 10. Enchanter Sorcerers have had their fun 7 levels earlier only to be matched by the Wizard equally in the twinning aspect, and not in the subtle or heightened aspect. No, I fail to see how this Wizard overshadowed his Sorcerous counterpart.

Blaster Wizards cannot use Portent, Sculpt Spell, and Grim Harvest at the same time. Meanwhile, a Blaster Sorcerer can use both Quicken and Empower at the same time from level 3. In terms of blasting potential, Sorcerers far outmatch the Wizard here - I've run the numbers and there is just no competition.

Illusion Wizards get Malleable Illusion at 6th level, and Illusory Reality at 14th level. Yes, this is amazing with the right spells (let's be honest: Mirage Arcane), but the Sorcerer has enjoyed his premise 3 levels earlier than Malleable Illusion came online, and can subject all his targets to Int saves with disadvantage, and all his illusions silently.

You are saying that eventually, Wizards will beat out the Sorcerers, because you are citing high level abilities. Then you must agree that in the time it took for the Wizard to get to that level, the Sorcerer was the superior caster.

And yet even in the higher levels, the Sorcerer still outperforms the Wizard on many fronts. The one I will concede is the Illusionist Wizard, who at higher levels can cast Mirage Arcane and use Malleable Illusion on it. The Sorcerer can't match that - but remember the Sorcerer was the superior Illusionist for the earlier 11 levels.


Your trying to convince me they can do things outside of their ability to cast spells... by giving me a spell list...

Well I'm convinced

But, more seriously, perhaps my point wasn't clear. The closest in the comparison I was doing to the sorcerer in terms of investment in their spells was the Bard, the bard still beat the sorcerer, but it was the closest. What can a bard do that does not involve casting a single spell? Jack of All trades, Expertise, Bardic Inspiration, Song of Rest, Countercharm, and if they are a Valor bard which was the closest in terms of spell investment, then they can use martial weapons, armor, and shields.

So, to look at your "doesn't need to cast" sorcerer there with his haste, mage armor and shield spells active and a dex of let's say +3 has an AC of 23 (as long as he can cast the shield spell). But, really if he is in an antimagic zone they've got an AC of 16 if they are a dragon sorcerer

The Bard can also have Haste and shield (not until 10th level I'll admit), but in that same anti-magic field can have an AC of 19, is using a better weapon, and has all those abilities.

Without casting, what is that sorcerer doing again? Luck, a feat anyone can get. Skills, expertise from either the rogue or the bard. And on we go.

So, there was my point. A Valor bard is putting 10% of his spellcasting variety into any spell he chooses at that level, but has a vast array of non-casting abilities to use as well. Sorcerer is putting in 12.5% of their variety into that spell choice, and has almost no abilities that do not tie back into their spellcasting in some manner. In fact, the only abilities I can find that do not tie into metamagic, sorcery points, casting spells, or wild surges in the entire PHB sorcerer entry is Dragon Ancestors ability to speak draconic (and increased diplomacy with dragons) and their increased HP and AC. Their level 1 abilities in their subclass are the only abilities they have not tied in some manner to their spellcasting, but there spellcasting is highly restricted even compared to the full caster with the most non-magical abilities I could find.

Because outside of their subclasses they get nothing except metamagic, and metamagic is supposedly so powerful that it requires gutting out almost any other ability they receive.

Do you have something against examples? Or do you want to only talk in abstract terms?

I gave you one example of a tanky Sorcerer build, who uses a specific spell list. I could have given you another list, but that was not the point. The point was that Sorcerers are not pigeonholed into one box as you are saying. The fact that other classes are also not pigeonholed into one box does not discount the fact that Sorcerers can do it too.

Do you run into antimagic field a lot? Because that bones Wizards as well. If susceptibility to antimagic field is a criteria for "bad class" then Druids and Wizards fall under the same basket.

The fact that a Valor bard can do something of everything is their defining class trait. Of course the Sorcerer cannot match it. Nobody can. Not even the Wizard.

I sincerely don't understand what you are saying for this section. Are you saying Sorcerers are bad when they run out of spells? Well, so are Paladins, Wizards, Bards, Druids, and Clerics. Maybe they have heavy armor, maybe they have martial efficiency, maybe they have a wider variety of spells, but they are all equally boned if you put a monster in front of them and they have no spells left. Just like the Sorcerer.


How often do you here that from other full-casters though? How many wizards say "I have haste, so I won't take any other concentration spells", "Well, I took major image, so that is my go to spell and I don't need any other concentration spells". This isn't really something other classes do, they get both or all three. They build up more and more options, while the sorcerer cannablizes his old options to stay relevant.

Sidenote: Phantasmal Force was your killer spell? I mean, it's good, 1d6 psychic damage a turn for concentration. Potential for a lot of shenanigans if you're fighting something too stupid to target the caster (Summoning things or creating constant effects like fire on a person are concentration, any enemy who knows about spellcasting knows about concentration) but "GG DM" good... I'd have to be there I guess.

The fact that other casters do not have the same limitations as Sorcerers is not a detriment to the ability of Sorcerers to bring it. The other casters can switch up all their spells if they like. That does not make the Sorcerer weaker.

And yes. Phantasmal Force was my signature spell there. It was used to control the underworld for one city, and control the King's vassal for the same city. That was an illusionist Sorcerer I was playing, as you can tell. And we were around level 5 or so. I don't think I had Bend Luck at the time, so level 5 max.


They can only cast more spells if they use no metamagic and the wizard (or Druid) doesn't get a short rest, and if you don't count rituals as spells. And actually, even then you generally just break even with them. 6th level wizard can get a third level slot, 6th level sorcerer can create a single 3rd for 5 points, leaving you 1 point left to work with, and those slots you can cannibalize for more points. Sure, the sorcerer can really burn themselves down and maybe squeak out one more high level spell per day than the wizard, but as your Phantasmal Force story shows, properly used low level spells are highly effective.

And I love your claim in that last sentence, Sorcerers "benefit" from having fewer spells because it gives them fewer options to spend their magic on. I mean, if the wizard can't short rest or if you absolutely need that additional slot now, the sorcerer can manage to pull it out, but how often will you still have those resources?

After all, you have to decide early in the day that you'll need those points for an additional slot, because if you use them for anything else (subtle, careful, bend luck, resistance to fire) you may not have them. And remember, it is a bonus action to turn a spell into points, and another bonus action the next turn to change those points into a slot, and if you need to convert more slots into points it takes longer. In the middle of the fight if you didn't have those points just sitting there waiting to become spell slots you probably aren't going to be able to bring out that clutch play in a timely fashion, and if you had three more turns anyways, it might have not been a clutch play in the first place.

You're showing that Wizards are powerful, and so are Land Druids. But you are not showing that the Sorcerer is a weak class. What I meant was that in combat, or at the drop of a hat, the Sorcerer can pull out more spells than the Wizard or the Druid. In instances that there is no time to take one hour off, neither Wizard nor Druid can recover more spells.

Your rebuttal of "if you didn't have 3 more turns" makes no sense. A properly played Sorcerer always has Sorcery Points, just in case they need to create new spell slots. To me, you are making the argument that a badly played Sorcerer is worse than a Wizard. Well, of course it is.

And correct, properly used low level spells are highly effective. This benefits all classes, but it especially benefits the Sorcerer who is already restricted on their spells known. The magnitude of the impact using spells well has for the Sorcerer is much greater than for the Wizard or Druid, who can swap out their spells after a long rest. This does not lower the status of Sorcerers at all.


If it didn't matter why did you bring it up? I've never said there aren't a lot of possible combinations, every point I've made is showing how despite how many there appear to be, if you are only looking for the best and most versatile tricks, you have a limited number.

I don't need to look at every possibly stat array and equipment chart to realize that you are likely going to end up with one of a handful of fighter kits, or that most rogues will end up using either ranged weapons or rapiers. The sorcerer is so tightly constrained by metamagic choices and number of spells known that you will almost never see them take things like Jump or See invisibility. Niche spells are too costly, unless you know for a fact that the DM is planning on handing you that niche situation. So, you go for the big guns, you go for the gold rated spells of which there are only a handful to pick from.

And the wizard has over double your pool. List out as many 8 spell combos as you like for the sorcerer to pick from, all those different builds. Then realize that with 18 spells known and likely 12 to prepare per day the Wizard can cover any two lists with completely different spells, and if you have overlapping spells on your lists the wizard could probably cover as many as twenty different sorcerer spell selections.

Unless you are relying on metamagic to accomplish things like twin, which have effects that cannot be replicated in any other way (unlike rerolling damage, increasing range, or imposing disadvantage on a save in which the result can be the same even if the method of delivery was different) there is almost nothing you can do that can't be done by other classes. And if you do rely on metamagic you will likely have fewer spells cast fewer times per day, which does not sound like an ideal situation.

I did not bring it up, you did. You said the Wizard has 45 quintillion combinations, not me. I pointed out that you have a gap in your knowledge that we can ballpark quantify numerically.

I can't help you if your response to being shown that you don't know everything is "I don't need to check that out. I'm good as it is."

There are only as many gold rated spells as you make of them. Your opinions of Haste and Polymorph are stellar, but even Silent Image can far surpass those two once applied.

I'm saying that regardless of what Wizards can do, Sorcerers don't have to match it. Neither Sorcerer nor Wizard can scratch the surface of all the spells they can possibly cover. They are equally unable to showcase their full potential in the face of such huge numbers.

And properly applied low level spells are highly effective anyway. Thus the Sorcerer can diversify into the "weaker" (in your apparent opinion) spells.


Why would he have to wait? 7th level Wizard has a 4th level slot, magic initiate is a feat the wizard can get... what prevents the wizard from doing this? I guess, he can't do it twice in the same fight, but he can clearly do this at least once. Maybe follow up with magic missiles, throw in a fireball to hit the mooks, has his rituals for detect magic and identify to make sure we get the good loot even if it is the end of the adventuring day.

My apologies. I meant a 5th level slot, and he has to wait two more levels.


You're right, he can't. This is the one thing a sorcerer can do that the wizard can't replicate. Unless it is an enchanter dealing with spells like suggestion, then he can twin them for free. However, the wizard can do so many other things that you can't. Is hitting two party members with haste worth it? There are wizards who can beat the sorcerer in a particular area, other wizards who can get really close to the sorcerer in their chosen specialty, and then they can do more than that as well.

That's the kick in the pants, so many wizards get close to copying the sorcerer or outright exceed them, and then they also get a large number of other abilities and tricks that the sorcerer can't replicate or compete with.

The fact that Wizards can do so many other things that the Sorcerer can't is not a cause of concern for Sorcerers, because Wizards can't match the Sorcerer's performance in his niche.

You keep claiming that Wizards can match or exceed the Sorcerer in his niche, but you rely on their 10th or 14th level abilities for this. Sorcerers have had metamagic since level 3, so you must yield at least that Sorcerers outmatch Wizards for those levels.


Athletics has nothing to do with that... ah wait, you are talking about using Booming Blade then shoving the enemy 5 ft away. Okay, I see the build.

Eldritch knight. This strategy is far better done by a fighter who has the natural armor profs and hp to survive in melee. Or still, go Valor Bard to get expertise to more likely succeed in that shove. Shield Master makes you tankier versus dex saves and allows you to shove as a bonus action. Plus, they get bigger weapons beyond the quarterstaff so they can make each hit hurt more.

Sorcerers just aren't tanky enough, Dragons are the best possible choice, and you'll still be looking at worse armor and mediocre hp overall.

"Not tanky enough" is campaign dependent, and even situation dependent. Other melee types can outperform the Sorcerer at melee, but they are not full spellcasters. Even the Valor Bard cannot do it all in the same round until the higher levels.


How often will you cast Shield at 5th level? Misty Step? Mirror Image?

Sure, at will magic missiles is vaguely interesting (Do evokers get to deal 1d4+6 on each missile?) but I don't know if it would be my first choice as a wizard. And don't forget, while your sorcerer no longer has any metamagic, any spells below 5th level, or almost any access to any subclass abilities. The wizard still gets Arcane Recovery, Rituals, and their subclass abilities.

You've lost all your potential weaker tricks, for example you can't counterspell at third level since you have no third level slots, all of your staying power for the entire day, in the hopes that those 5th level slots are going to be worth. Sure, if you've only got one fight for the day you might be able to do something cool with that. But you need to burn all those slots for points before the fight begins, and hopefully you weren't wrong about the encounter and it turns out the day is actually a longer one, because you've geared yourself for one fight and if you get hit with 5 fights, you're not looking as good.

It is a potential option, but that doesn't make it a good option, and you were talking in the context of builds. So, you're making a build that focuses on burning all of your resources in a single fight, for 20 levels? Not likely.

You're missing the point. Nine 5th level slots is the minimum number of slots the Sorcerer can have by using up all their 2nd through 4th level slots (not touching 1st level). By choosing not to create nine 5th level slots, he generates more slots. He can cast Shield at 1st level four times just fine. And if he anticipates the need for Counterspell, he can leave 3rd level slots out of it, and thus end up with more slots by not cannibalizing them all.

This strategy is something any Sorcerer can do. I don't understand how you're willfully looking the other way. Even if the Sorcerer lost all his weak tricks, how long will the one fight be when he has 9 5th level slots, 2 6th level, 2 7th level, 1 8th level, and 1 9th level?

The fact it burns up resources faster does not make the Sorcerer weaker. That makes the Sorcerer stronger for the one encounter he and the Wizard can anticipate is coming up.


And yet, nothing you've said in regards to how to build a sorcerer is something I haven't thought of.

Twinning spells like HAste or Polymorph, considered that, opened with it to as one of the few unique things a sorceer can do.

Careful on spells like Hypnotic pattern, mentioned that one first as well. Decent idea, not sure about long term viability.

Subtle to prevent counterspelling or in intrigue campaigns where magic in the ballroom is frowned upon, also mentioned that one (and it isn't unique to the sorcerer, not since the Swachbuckler and College of Glamour hit the stage to charm people without needing to use magic)

And there are your three most unique and powerful sorcerer builds I can find, the ones that are harder to pull off for anyone else. Sure, you can swap some spells, but that really is difficult to do long term, got to make a decision that will hold up.

I'm 90% convinced you ignored a substantial portion of my post at this point. I will be honest with you: you do not seem like you're having a two-way conversation with me. The below are all things unique to the Sorcerer, or ways you can build the Sorcerer aside from the ones you already have in your mind. The fact that you read my post and all you could find were the three you cited above, I find entirely dismissive.


If we put these together, Tides of Chaos and Bend Luck gives you a [highest 1 of 2d20]+DEX+1d4 on initiative - which is one play style you can adopt, and it's quite offense-oriented.

Another is you can be a debuffer, casting Phantasmal Force at a DC equal to 8+CHA+PROF+1 (if you have your reaction available), because no matter what you roll on that 1d4, it will always function as a minimum of +1. Once again, offense-oriented.

Or you can save it for aiding in death saves, so you can turn 9's into 10's, or 8's into 10's 75% of the time. That is defense-oriented.

You can save it for your own survival, so that your important save is made with [highest 1 of 2d20]+Ability+1d4.


An antimage Sorcerer will have both Dispel Magic and Counterspell, as well as Subtle. But an illusionist Sorcerer will have Silent Image, Major Image and Subtle. And an enchanter Sorcerer will have Charm Person, Suggestion, and Subtle.

A melee Sorcerer will have Booming Blade, Fireball and Quicken. An illusionist Sorcerer will have Minor Illusion, Disguise Self and Quicken (the only way to cast both a leveled illusion spell and Minor Illusion in the same round). A blaster Sorcerer will have Firebolt, Scorching Ray, and Quicken.

A support Sorcerer will have Healing Word (by multiclass, Divine Soul, or Magic Initiate) and Twin. A buffer Sorcerer will have Haste and Twin. A debuffer Sorcerer will have Phantasmal Force and Twin.


Take a Sorcerer who has the Luck feat, Shield, Mage Armor, Haste, and Absorb Elements. This is a reasonably tanky Sorcerer, with an AC of 13+5+2+DEX, advantage to Dex saves, resistance to elemental damage (at the cost of 5 AC), and the ability to make monsters reroll their attacks that hit.

This same Sorcerer can also play the role of a blaster by taking Fireball and Empower. Alternatively, they can play the role of buffer by taking Twin (they already have Haste). They could even play all three roles simultaneously, because so far, nothing conflicts. This is on top of their high Charisma stat, which means Deception, Intimidation, and Persuasion are their domain.



1) Because you can participate in melee using Booming Blade, while building a tanky gish Sorcerer

3) Correct, it burns through their resources quickly. And yet that doesn't make them weaker. It just means all their spells will be stronger for the upcoming fight you are anticipating. None of what you said actually makes this strategy not a viable idea. For example, a 20th level Sorcerer can cannibalize all their 2nd through 4th level spells, and their 20 Sorcery Points, to create 6 5th level slots (total of 9), from which any spell of 1st through 5th level can be cast.

Now the Wizard can cast an unlimited number of 1st level spells, but for each 1st level spell the Wizard is casting, the Sorcerer is casting at 5th level or higher.

This is just an example, but this means that as the Wizard casts a 1st level Magic Missile, the Sorcerer matches it with a 5th level Magic Missile nine rounds in a row.

Once again, yes, it burns through resources quickly. Why is that a bad thing? Have you never encountered a singular boss fight in a day? It's not as though it is a compulsory tactic.

[Garfunion]

Wow. I no longer feel alone about my opinion on sorcerer.
By the way I took Kane0’s sorcerer and made my own version. I hope that is ok?

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?547207-My-5e-sorcerer-redesign-(PEACH)&p=22748011#post22748011

[Kane0]

Sure is, i’ll have a look in a sec

[Chaosmancer]

Actually, I prefer the Sorcerer who uses the 1/LR or 1/Wild Surge rule. I like Wild Surges being a random and scary thing that frighten anyone standing beside me, including my fellow players. But I raise the idea of constant Wild Surges because that is part of the current meta for Sorcerers, as well as it being codified in the RAW of the Wild Mage. That is the only ability that requires the DM's permission to use, and thus this is the only class where you need to discuss with the DM how he will handle this class.

On the whole, you don't drop a Wild Mage into a campaign randomly. You need to bring up your character concept from the DM and know where he stands because DM permission is in the RAW of the Wild Mage. Thus, most Wild Mages you see in play will have been DM-approved first.

Once again, any player who takes a Wild Mage must discuss with their DM. You don't just take a Wild Mage and play it in a long term campaign. You could, but it would be unwise. DM permission is codified into the rule, so Wild Mage players need to talk it out with the DM beforehand. This is the only ability that is written like this.

I wouldn't say they are the only class. It is important to know whether you are allowed the Ranger or the Revised Ranger, just for an example, but it sounds like you might agree there is a problem here with how the Wild Magic Sorcerer was handled, leaving us with this "DM Approval Needed" part to the class.


I guess perhaps you are trying to say "This is the only sorcerer ability with this problem" but, that's sort of half true. The Wild Magic Surge itself is only rolled if the DM calls for it. So all of the wild sorcerer's level 1 abilities are written this way, and that effects controlled chaos since these are the only two abilities that allow for rolling Wild MAgic, and controlled chaos is a wild magic effect.

Then we have to remember that according to your point earlier, Subtle Spell is rendered nearly useless if the DM allows for hidden casting via a sleight of hand roll. Also, if going draconic, you need to talk to your DM about the nature of the campaign, because a Fire Dragon Sorcerer does far worse in a campaign focused on Demons and Devils who are immune to your damage,

So there is a rather lot of talking to the DM before choosing anything within the sorcerer, which isn't necessarily bad, other classes have builds or ideas that require talking to the GM beforehand, but we've got an entire subclass and then a large deciding factor in the only other PHB subclass if you are planning to be a damage dealer, reliant on talking to your DM. For a class who has naturally constrained options, getting artificially constrained by the DM as well isn't a healthy thing.





Heighten Spell + Bend Luck is more nuanced than we've both discussed so far. There are a few possibilities here:

(They fail outright) Say your DC is 15. If the enemy rolls a 14 or lower (+0 modifier for simpler math), then they failed the save and you did not need to spend 5 Sorcery Points on that.

But you did spend 3 points, right? Because Heighten is a gamble you must make when you cast the spell, not after seeing the roll. You can play Bend Luck a little more conservatively, only using it when they made the save by 1 or 2, but Heighten is done blind.

And, with Heighten already active, you are more likely to fall into the Sunk Cost Fallacy. You've already spent 3 points to try and nail this enemy, obviously this spell on this single enemy is important. And you don't heighten, generally, on an enemy that has a 70% chance to fail against your spell anyways, you use it on someone who is more likely to succeed to make them less likely to succeed, making using bend and hoping for a 3 even more tempting, because you were almost lucky to get them that close to failing in the first place.

But, this is a tangent I'm not qualified to discuss in depth. Psychology is not a strong point of mine.




Once again, that depends on how you plan to allocate Bend Luck. I brought up Heighten Spell + Bend Luck, but that doesn't seem like your preference. What did you think about Bend Luck manipulating the initiative order though, which is just a Dex check? Or manipulating death saves? Sometimes, someone makes a death save whom you had no time to heal.

Sorcerers have a lot of choices they can make, and each one is filled with opportunity cost. Unlike the Fighter who just says "I will action surge" without penalty to their other abilities, Sorcerers have a shared resource pool for almost all their abilities. This is not enough to mean that the Sorcerer is a weak Wizard, but instead means you need to play a Sorcerer more carefully than a Wizard.

It is almost never worth it to bother with Initiative. Death Saves could be a good idea but it requires an incredibly niche set of circumstances. Bend Luck is a reaction, so the person needed to roll about an 8 on the die, be about to die or far out of the reach of other party members, and the healers of the party have to be unable to act in the situation and use Healing Word, which is actually less resource intensive for the party, also it has to be a better use than using bend luck to (for example) try and prevent the hit that dropped the character in the first place or take out the remaining enemies. To me, Bend Luck on Death Saves is something like saying Action Surge can be used to bar a door. IT can happen, I can see how it can happen, but it is a very rare set of circumstances that leads to it being used that way.


And, I wonder what you mean by "carefully". Should Sorcerers be miserly with their points? Or are we saying that from Build to BBEG the Sorcerer needs to make the most correct and most efficient choices again and again? Are we saying that all sorcerer abilities are niche to the point where you have to wait for the right circumstances to use them?

And, here is the big kicker, this flies completely in the face of their Theme. The sorcerer is raw unbridled power, barely understood and barely contained. Magic pulses in their soul and in their blood, they don't need to study magic, they are magic. So when playing one you should obviously be incredibly careful about your every move, calculate the percentages of every action to utilize your abilities with pinpoint precision, using only as much power as necessary.... These things don't match, and that is a big problem. You have to play them with more precision planning than any other class in the game (except maybe 4 elements Monks) when the majority of 5e moved away from that type of gameplay.

And, all of your plans are long term, you don't get to switch up your build if the campaign shifts direction. Meaning you are more likely to be rendered moot or at least in a bad spot, if the campaign direction is shifted by the party.




20th level Sorcerers are far from weak. Do you care to explain further?

Well, this was in the context of the problem the multi-classing argument presented, but sure I can go into a bit of the problem with high-level sorcerers is.

Essentially, they are the same as low-level sorcerers. They get higher level spells, and 20th level sorcerers have enough points to start using them semi-regularly, but in terms of other abilities they are severely lacking. The Wild's Spell Bombardment is at absolute best +12 damage (using 1d12 damage dice, rolled a 12, and then roll a second 12) but it's incredibly random and unreliable and does nothing if you aren't using damaging spells. Draconic Prescence is a decent ability (60 ft fear aura), but takes your action, 5 points, and your concentration slot, also, at level 20 a lot of enemies are going to be immune to fear or charm, making it less useful.

Any metamagic you chose at 17th level is your 4th choice, making it either weaker than your previous choices (hence why you didn't take it) or Heighten which was too expensive at lower levels. You can regain 4 points per short rest though, which finally gives you some extra power for metamagic. Also, just a notation, you only have 15 spells to choose from.


Wizard, 44 spells to choose from, a 1st level at-will, a 2nd level at-will, two 3rd levels they don't need to prepare and can cast once each without a slot (actually giving more value that 4 points a short rest in terms of spells). That's all they get at levels 17 through 20... because their big gains are at level 14. Ranging from raising the dead or healing all wounds, turning illusions into real objects, deal maximum damage on spells of 5th level or lower, resistance to all magical damage and advantage on all saves against magic.

Put any one of these abilities against the Dragon Prescence (Bombardment doesn't even compare) and most are potentially more powerful and only the raising of the dead/healing or the max damage have any sort of limit. The healing is once per short rest, while the max damage if used more often deal the caster a significant amount of damage.


So, the sorcerers gameplay doesn't really change at high levels, they gain nothing that suddenly gives them an edge over their competitors, and those competitors get equally powerful abilities 4 levels earlier and can use most of them far more often than the sorcerer.

It's incredibly hard to say that a 20th level sorcerer compares with a 20th level wizard, or even a Warlock in terms of abilities, since wizards and warlocks continue getting more powerful and game changing abilities at higher levels and sorcerers do not.




I'm getting frustrated talking to you, honestly. I said no multiclassing requirements, and it is right there in the quote. I feel like you are not carefully reading this post and thus this discussion is going nowhere.

I'm usually tired when reading and responding, (plus that response took hours to right out since I kept needing to walk away from the computer for various things) so I blame a little on that.

Also, my amusement wasn't clear. I understand you said NO multiclass requirements. That was the amusing part, you felt the need while discussing this ability to highlight the fact that is did not require multiclassing to be effective. Implying that there are multiclassing requirements within the sorcerer class. This within the same post where you talked about the fact that the sorcerer is powerful on it's own and I shouldn't be dismissing the potential for multi-classing.

It's very easy to get mixed messages there, which amuses me.



Don't underplay Disadvantage. If the DM made you roll Disadvantage for one saving throw for no apparent reason, I bet you wouldn't enjoy it.

Generally don't enjoy people breaking the rules, hence the "no apparent reason" is unneccessary. I don't downplay the power of disadvantage. I'm talking cost of the ability.


You have a diminished chance of making the save. And if you are a smart and prepared Sorcerer, you target their negative saves, or their smallest save bonuses if they don't have negatives.

Oooh boy. Lots of assumptions here. First, please don't use phrases like "smart" and "prepared" in this context, this sort of information is highly DM dependent and it implies that sorcerers who don't get this information are "dumb" and "unprepared". It also discounts the potential of being surprised.

More importantly though, you are ignoring the fact that Sorcerers have very limited spells known. A sorcerer is going to pick one or two saves, they can hit, but they are incredibly unlikely to have a spell for each of the 6 different saves, even if there are spells that effectively target each of those saves.

So, more than likely, you grab some spells that target generally weaker saves (which will generally be debuff spells like banishment or unusual spells like Phantasmal Force) since the strong saves are usually paired up with the more powerful spells. Then, you are going to either hope the DM continues to send the same types of monsters after you (after all you can't change your spells) or transitions between monsters slowly enough that you can switch out one spell per level to stay relevant.



Heighten is perfectly viable to take from level 3. Suggestion, Phantasmal Force are worth Heighten and available at the same level as you get the spell.

Oh, they are worth being heightened, but you are talking 1 spell, on one creature, once per day, and it eliminates any of your other metamagic options for the entire day. Heighten a suggestion to sneak into the castle and not only have you used one of your most powerful spells (one of four spells) but you only have first level slots and a single other 2nd level slot left. You have no points unless you want to cannibalize your spells. And this remains a problem with heighten until 6th level, it becomes the only thing you can do, and you can only do it once. It's just too expensive unless you getting one spell to stick is worth losing most of your other abilities.



You cast the spell every round, thus the "stun-lock" aspect. Every new person who somehow gets freed from the spell can be re-stunned the next round.

So... I guess it kind of works, but man is that inefficient. You are far better off just focusing on the targets who remain up, meaning you hopefully caused some wasted actions and took some enemies out of the fight, than spamming a 2nd level spell every turn. You only get three of those you know? Unless you start upcasting it, and if you are recasting only to hit the guy the party targeted... I just think that's a horrible waste. Because you have to retarget any creature who failed the first time, since it is concentration, and hope they fail again. It works if you are absolutely desperate, but I don't think that is a strategy to highlight.




The antimage Sorcerer is not necessarily a dispeller, but a counterspeller. He is an antimage in this example in the sense that any spellcasting opponents he has are shut down completely. Correct, Abjuration Wizards get to add their proficiency bonus at 14th level, whereas the Sorcerer has enjoyed his concept 11 levels earlier. And correct, Portent allows a Diviner to dispel any magic, but they get two of those a day and do not control the result they will get, and are subject themselves to being Counterspelled. These two examples you have given are worse expressions of an antimage character as I have provided in this example.

11 levels earlier? Guess you consider them "antimage" just from having subtle spell? Also, Improved Abjuration is the 10th level ability, so 7 levels, not 11. Then, actually, let's discuss your example. You said "antimage" and listed only three things subtle, counterspell and dispel magic. Now, my assumptionwas that you were talking about the ability to counter and not being able to be countered yourself. However, with not gaining counter until level 5, how are we "completely shutting down" mages we encounter at levels 3 and 4? Unless they are more powerful than you they can't counter anyways, so subtle is wasted, I'm not seeing this. So, really if we are talking about counterspelling, we are talking level 5, 5 levels away from the abjuring wizards ability. And, by level 5 they also have their Arcane ward. Funny thing is, you are both equally good at casting counterspell, but the wizard gets to gain 14 temp hp every time they counterspell where you don't. And sure, they can be counterspelled, but then you get into the mind games. Casting cantrips or 1st level spells are unlikely to get you counterspelled, because it isn't worth the trade, and the main purpose of the build is to lock down other casters and protect the party, which you have done. It's a far cry from "the worst example" unless you are talking a wizard duel, and even then they've got some advantages in the long run against your sorcerer

Portent is a different beast, you are right it relies on the roll of the dice, roll high and you can sub it in for a counterspell roll (if a roll is needed) Actually, even roll average and that can work, with a +4 or +5 mod a roll of 10 guarantees that a 3rd level counterspell gets rid of a 4h or 5th level spell. Or, if you roll too low, you can use it as an enemies attack roll for a spell that has such. So, you could get the effectiveness of 4 counterspells, 2 from your actual slots and 2 from making an attack spell miss. Or you could use it to guarantee a failed concentration check. Yes, you only get two of them, but you can't deny the strength of guaranteeing a roll when you argue so hard for Heighten to increase your odds. And the versatility of the Portent allows it to be useful in situations where counterspell cannot be, such as giving a high save to the barbarian about to banished when you are more than 60 ft away.


Unless I'm still misunderstanding the point of your build, I don't see how these two options are "the worst" ways to lock down enemy spellcasting. They are equally effective at casting counterspell, sometimes better or getting better results from it, and have given up no versatility in their ability to deal with other threats.



Enchanter Wizards get twinned enchantment at level 10. Enchanter Sorcerers have had their fun 7 levels earlier only to be matched by the Wizard equally in the twinning aspect, and not in the subtle or heightened aspect. No, I fail to see how this Wizard overshadowed his Sorcerous counterpart.

Enchanter sorcerers can twin by 3rd, but Wizards can upcast charm person by 3rd as well, and if upcast you can't twin it. So, it becomes the value of a second level slot versus 2 sorcery points. Suggestion they can't twin until 10th, but they do get the Hypnotic gaze ability which is just as good as subtle depending on what you need it for.

I'll admit, twin and subtle on enchanting sorcerers is powerful, especially at early levels where the wizard can't match them. But at mid and high levels the wizard starts twinning for free and altering memories so that charm spells other than suggestion are actually usable. They can be compared once you take into account a fully build, but as you get higher levels, the wizard definitely pulls ahead. Low-level enchanters I'll give you though.




Blaster Wizards cannot use Portent, Sculpt Spell, and Grim Harvest at the same time. Meanwhile, a Blaster Sorcerer can use both Quicken and Empower at the same time from level 3. In terms of blasting potential, Sorcerers far outmatch the Wizard here - I've run the numbers and there is just no competition.

Quicken to fireball and cantrip is nice, and empowering the fireball is good. Looking level 5? Sculpt spell allows the wizard to drop that fireball directly on his allies causing them zero damage. Sorcerer cannot do that. Sorcerer gets a little more damage out of it from the cantrip if it hits.

A Portent wizard can guarantee a hit or a failed save, if the sorcerers targets save that halves damage, Portent means one of those failed, increasing damage to potentially match what is done with the cantrip. Or they can guarantee a save from an ally, giving them the same as a careful spell metamagic.

A Grim Harvest wizard is definitely not dealing more damage, but they are far more resilient than the wizard, regaining hp after the kills, increasing their survivability. This actually make an interesting gish if paired with vampiric touch, giving the chance for a wizard on the front lines who heals a significant amount of damage.

And Quicken is only useful for throwing a cantrip, and if that cantrip misses you have potentially done no more than slightly above average damage with your spell. Plus, you as the sorcerer can only quicken twice before you start running low on points. The sculpt spell and grim harvest abilities are not limited in anyway, and they all get the ability to do more than blasting, Portent and Grim Harvest getting some utility directions to take their builds.

The little bit of extra damage from the occasional firebolt just doesn't seem as vital as the other abilities I'm seeing here. Not to say they can't lay some hurt down, they can, but while your blaster sorcerer is being counterspelled the Abjuration Wizard can easily switch from a blasting build to a anti-magic build, since portent is equally good for both.



Illusion Wizards get Malleable Illusion at 6th level, and Illusory Reality at 14th level. Yes, this is amazing with the right spells (let's be honest: Mirage Arcane), but the Sorcerer has enjoyed his premise 3 levels earlier than Malleable Illusion came online, and can subject all his targets to Int saves with disadvantage, and all his illusions silently.

All of his targets? Heighten is a single target at a time, and at level 6 usable two times before you need to start eating spells. And silently casting illusions is only vaguely useful, generally you don't want to be standing in a crowd when you cast your illusions in the first place, because seeing something appear makes it more likely for them to disbelieve. And, you can't do both, you get one or the other.

And again, your talking about "enjoying his premise" at level 3, by doing what? Heightening a single illusion? Meanwhile at level 2 the illusion wizard is making things with sight and sound via their improved minor illusion. Making it more useful than silent image if utilized intelligently. Also, heighten generally doesn't help with illusions, since creatures don't save but have to investigate.




You are saying that eventually, Wizards will beat out the Sorcerers, because you are citing high level abilities. Then you must agree that in the time it took for the Wizard to get to that level, the Sorcerer was the superior caster.

I've sometimes talked about high level abilities, but I've just as often talked about 2nd level abilities that come into play. And, it matters for how things come into play as well. Any time a ritual spell is needed the wizard can provide it for free. Arcane recovery costs the wizard nothing and gives them more staying power. These are low level abilities.



And yet even in the higher levels, the Sorcerer still outperforms the Wizard on many fronts. The one I will concede is the Illusionist Wizard, who at higher levels can cast Mirage Arcane and use Malleable Illusion on it. The Sorcerer can't match that - but remember the Sorcerer was the superior Illusionist for the earlier 11 levels.

I don't find myself able to accept that they can ever outperform a wizard "on many fronts" each sorcerer we've discussed has had a single build, while the wizards I've used as counter examples can have 2 or 3 optional builds, ritual magic for pesky problems, and concepts that the sorcerer can't match.

Even your illusionist sorcerer seems to miss the point. By level 6th they can cast a single disguise self, and make that illusion count for multiple people as they progress thru an area. They can make an illusion of a stationary object, and then if something is wrong with their illusion that makes it less believable they can alter it on the fly to hopefully cover up their mistake. And the illusionist wizard has more spells to choose from, allowing them to not only pick a wider range of illusions spells (there aren't a lot) but allowing them to pick spells other than illusion spells for those times when their illusions are not needed. Which the sorcerer absolutely can't do.

The sorcerer can only cast silently (useful only if in a crowd when casting the illusion and causing a thing to appear... of which the utility is uncertain) or give disadvantage on the saves against an illusion that deals damage (useful, but they can't do it often)




Do you have something against examples? Or do you want to only talk in abstract terms?

I gave you one example of a tanky Sorcerer build, who uses a specific spell list. I could have given you another list, but that was not the point. The point was that Sorcerers are not pigeonholed into one box as you are saying. The fact that other classes are also not pigeonholed into one box does not discount the fact that Sorcerers can do it too.

I don't have something against examples. I have something against examples that miss the entirety of the point I made.

My point, to reiterate, is that sorcerers get nearly zero abilities that do not tie into their spellcasting. The only exception I could find in the PHB is the dragon sorcerers 1st level abilities.

Your reply was to a claim about the tankiness of sorcerers and gave me a spell list. This is not the point I was making, and only obfuscates the issue I was bringing up, which was that in terms of spells they gain, they lose out the bard subclass whose abilities are mostly tied to non-spellcasting abilities.

If you'd like to provide an example that disproves my assertion that sorcerers get no abilities (outside of level 1 dragon) that do not rely on or effect their spellcasting in some manner, I will be happy to discuss it, but this is not about tanky sorcerers, that was not my point.




Do you run into antimagic field a lot? Because that bones Wizards as well. If susceptibility to antimagic field is a criteria for "bad class" then Druids and Wizards fall under the same basket.

The fact that a Valor bard can do something of everything is their defining class trait. Of course the Sorcerer cannot match it. Nobody can. Not even the Wizard.

I sincerely don't understand what you are saying for this section. Are you saying Sorcerers are bad when they run out of spells? Well, so are Paladins, Wizards, Bards, Druids, and Clerics. Maybe they have heavy armor, maybe they have martial efficiency, maybe they have a wider variety of spells, but they are all equally boned if you put a monster in front of them and they have no spells left. Just like the Sorcerer.

Completely false. At least in the case of Bards, Druids, Clerics, and Paladins.

Bards can still support via Bardic Inspiration dice, still help healing via song of rest, and have a decent weapon selection to engage in melee (far better if they are valors who also get good armor.)

Land Druids are in a lot of trouble with no spells, though they have the same armor and hp as a Valor Bard. If we include cantrips they have a better weapon to, with the magic of shillelagh. Moon Druids of course still have combat wild shape, which is actually one of their main ways of dealing with monsters in the first place.

Clerics without spells have a lot of issues. Though heavy armors and divine strike gives them decent melee capabilities. Channel Divinity is not a spell, meaning that depending on the cleric you could get anything from healing to damage to accuracy. Also, if that monster happens to be undead, clerics turn undead comes into play.

Paladins are a primary melee class. Heavy armor, great hp, best weapons, and build for the sole purpose of hitting things with weapons. They still have their channel divinity as well, their auras for impressively defensive saves, Lay on Hands for a significant amount of healing


Wizards and Sorcerers get no armor, no decent weapons, the lowest hp in the game. The only saving grace they would have is cantrips, which are supposed to be the equivalent of the melee attacks and gives the druid shillelagh to work with.


I think this is a fairly obvious slam to your point, these classes are certainly hurt by losing their casting, but the sorcerer and wizard are hurt far far more severely than any of these.




You're showing that Wizards are powerful, and so are Land Druids. But you are not showing that the Sorcerer is a weak class. What I meant was that in combat, or at the drop of a hat, the Sorcerer can pull out more spells than the Wizard or the Druid. In instances that there is no time to take one hour off, neither Wizard nor Druid can recover more spells.

Your rebuttal of "if you didn't have 3 more turns" makes no sense. A properly played Sorcerer always has Sorcery Points, just in case they need to create new spell slots. To me, you are making the argument that a badly played Sorcerer is worse than a Wizard. Well, of course it is.


A properly played sorcerer always has sorcery points for spell slots? So a properly played sorcerer never uses metamagic, especially not heighten spell, because if you use that you don't have the points on hand. Also, please remember you can't have more sorcerery points than your level, so if you've spent no points you can't create more points to "be prepared"

So, I'm very confused here. A properly played sorcerer seems to know exactly when using a metamagic ability is superior to having an extra casting of a spell, because you can't do both.



And correct, properly used low level spells are highly effective. This benefits all classes, but it especially benefits the Sorcerer who is already restricted on their spells known. The magnitude of the impact using spells well has for the Sorcerer is much greater than for the Wizard or Druid, who can swap out their spells after a long rest. This does not lower the status of Sorcerers at all.

And, this makes no sense. Sorcerers are more restricted, therefore they will have fewer spells. Sorcerers will have to devour low level slots to make more points for high level slots or metamagic.

Because wizards and druids can swap spells per day to get more effective spells ready, they don't get as much benefit from having low levels spells?? That makes no sense.

The thing is, if a wizard and a sorcerer have the same spell ready to go, they are equal in power for that instance. The wizard though can have almost twice the number of spells to choose from. That makes them twice as potentially powerful. Adding in ritual caster and arcane recovery pushes it further. This means that a sorcerer's metamagic and sorcery points need to make them almost twice as powerful as a wizard, who also will be getting more abilities as they gain levels, giving them even more power and versatility.

Potentially being half as strong as an average class (wizards surprisingly don't get talked about as being overpowered in this edition) is a fair indicator that the class is relatively weak. Especially since that class is supposed to be your closest in terms of power and niche.





I did not bring it up, you did. You said the Wizard has 45 quintillion combinations, not me. I pointed out that you have a gap in your knowledge that we can ballpark quantify numerically.

I can't help you if your response to being shown that you don't know everything is "I don't need to check that out. I'm good as it is."

I brought up that there was a limited number of effective sorcerer builds. You then told me there are billions of potential builds. I pointed out that if we're looking at potential builds the wizard has nearly 200 million times more potential builds. You then told me those numbers don't matter. Well, if potential builds don't matter aren't we right back at effective builds?

And you've been agreeing with me in terms of how limited the potential effective builds of a sorcerer are. Wild Sorcerers should only be played with DM buy in. Cutting it all in half. Half of the metamagics are barely worth discussing, and metamagic deeply effects the spells you choose, again cutting a massive number of potential away. And then we get to discussions on whether those builds are even worth it, becuase a lot of the time you can do just as good with another class, cutting you down again because those classes also offer you a large amount of versatility in the field that your specialized sorcerer can't imitate.

And, I think you are twisting what I said in regards to the fact that I don't need to try every build. I don't need to play a sorcerer with extend and distant, who focuses only on first level spells to know that it isn't going to be a terribly interesting or effective caster. You didn't need to either, you can look at some builds and just know that they are silly. Just like architects don't need to build a sphere shaped house to know that it isn't the most effective way to build a house.




There are only as many gold rated spells as you make of them. Your opinions of Haste and Polymorph are stellar, but even Silent Image can far surpass those two once applied.

Notice when you look at guides how some spells are ranked low because they are "situational"? That's what you are talking about. Situational power, and here is the crux of the problem. IF you want to rely on situationally powerful abilities, you have to specialize for that situation, because if you don't specialize for it then you aren't any better than the other classes who took that situational spell. And, they did not invest much in being able to handle that situation while you did.

And then, outside of your specialized situation, you experience a large drop in power, because you are geared to take advantage of events that aren't happening. And, you may remember we talked about how low the bar is for effectiveness. IF another person can act in your specialty and get effective results, while simultaneously being able to outshine or match you in every other area, then you have the weaker build. Even if you have one more situation where because you took extend you can deep dive waterbreathing to the pirate ship and not have to worry about getting caught underwater, the wizard did waterbreathing as a ritual, used no resources, and can do it again, potentially while underwater if the DM allows casting underwater. Your special situation got trumped.



I'm saying that regardless of what Wizards can do, Sorcerers don't have to match it. Neither Sorcerer nor Wizard can scratch the surface of all the spells they can possibly cover. They are equally unable to showcase their full potential in the face of such huge numbers.

And properly applied low level spells are highly effective anyway. Thus the Sorcerer can diversify into the "weaker" (in your apparent opinion) spells.

I may be misunderstanding you, but if we are now talking party dynamics, then you are both right and wrong. Yes, a sorcerer can go one route, while the party wizard goes another, and they never have to intersect. However, as class structures, they have to be comparable. Their hp and equipment proficiecies, the fact sorcery pool spell slot creation and arcane recovery closely mirror each other, these tell us that these two classes should be comparable, like the barbarian, paladin and fighter. However, there are almost no times when building a specialized sorcerer to add to the party couldn't be replaced with little drop in effectiveness by a generalist wizard focusing on the same type of build.




My apologies. I meant a 5th level slot, and he has to wait two more levels.

Ah, now that is something vaguely interesting, I hadn't realized that Sorcerers could get 5th level slots that early, I thought the rules for sorcerery points prevented it. It gains you 3d6 extra damage over the wizard that turn, but uses up everything you have in terms of points and metamgic. And, probably, you'd be better off quickening and tossing cantrips, since you've got hex up.




"Not tanky enough" is campaign dependent, and even situation dependent. Other melee types can outperform the Sorcerer at melee, but they are not full spellcasters. Even the Valor Bard cannot do it all in the same round until the higher levels.

Not really "situation dependent" here. A dragon sorcerer might match a valor bard in hp, but the valor bard will have far superior AC than the 13+dex of the Dragon Sorcerer. Eldritch Knight will have even better AC and HP. Any spell you can call up to increase that AC gap is either concentration (dangerous in melee tanks) or can be easily copied by either class. And tanking is about your ability to avoid or take hits. Mage armor plus shield doesn't make a wizard a tank, and it doesn't make the sorcerer a tank either, because they don't have the hit points to stay on the front lines and every casting of shield eats into resources you could be using later on.

Sure, sorcerer is also a full caster, but so is the Valor bard, and I have no idea what you mean by "cannot do it all in the same round until high levels". If you mean boom blade followed by push, not only does that cost the sorcerer points to pull off, but at 4th level (or first) the valor bard can grab shield mastery and do it all day long with no resource cost.




You're missing the point. Nine 5th level slots is the minimum number of slots the Sorcerer can have by using up all their 2nd through 4th level slots (not touching 1st level). By choosing not to create nine 5th level slots, he generates more slots. He can cast Shield at 1st level four times just fine. And if he anticipates the need for Counterspell, he can leave 3rd level slots out of it, and thus end up with more slots by not cannibalizing them all.

This strategy is something any Sorcerer can do. I don't understand how you're willfully looking the other way. Even if the Sorcerer lost all his weak tricks, how long will the one fight be when he has 9 5th level slots, 2 6th level, 2 7th level, 1 8th level, and 1 9th level?

The fact it burns up resources faster does not make the Sorcerer weaker. That makes the Sorcerer stronger for the one encounter he and the Wizard can anticipate is coming up.

Huh?

By choosing not to sacrifice slots to create slots the sorcerer creates more slots? Do you mean to say they lose fewer slots?

I'll admit, I misread 2 thru 4 and saw 1 thru 4, but a point still needs to be made. You have to make that decision before the fight. You have to decide exactly how many slots you are going to make, hope that none of your lower level spells would have been useful like misty step which could solve a lot of combat problems you could run into. And, looking at your array of slots there, you'll need to go through 9th, 8th, 7th, and 6th level slots before you would even consider those 5th level slots. So, most of the fight should be over before you start hitting those spells.

And again, this strategy ignores metamagic, so which are you going to use? You want a bunch of 5th level spells, give up heighten. And, how many times does that wizard say "Man, I wish I had 4 more 5th level spells"? I've seen people wanting 1 more, or lamenting the loss of their low level spell slots for utility, but I think you're stretching here.




I'm 90% convinced you ignored a substantial portion of my post at this point. I will be honest with you: you do not seem like you're having a two-way conversation with me. The below are all things unique to the Sorcerer, or ways you can build the Sorcerer aside from the ones you already have in your mind. The fact that you read my post and all you could find were the three you cited above, I find entirely dismissive.

Sorry you feel that way. I'm taking hours at a time to respond to your posts as comprehensively as I can. This post I started typing around 11 AM and am finishing here around 3 pm. If you beleive I am dismissing you after spending 4 hours devoting my attention to you... I'm not sure what more I can do for you

I see nothing in the quotes you provided that I did not talk about in one manner or another. These posts are huge, so I'm not going to break apart every single possible thing. I didn't talk about your luck feat sorcerer because it ignored the point I was making, which I talked about up above. I didn't break down every single usage of bend luck, because we've been talking about it more generally, and I'm not going to talk about each spell with a save that you could use bend luck with individually. And we talked about the viability of your 9 5th level slots versus a wizards lower level spells in both posts, so I'm not sure why you want to bring it up again. I did skip over your "support sorcerer" since it was just a variant of buffing, and it required Xanathar's (which I'm trying to avoid bringing in because I'm not as familiar with them and it would explode the scope of the conversation) or multi-classing or feats for a 1 per day effect.

Honestly, if you feel like you are wasting your time. Stop responding. I know I've been snarky on occasion, but I've argued in good faith without resulting to calling you blind, dismissive, dishonest, not wanting an actual conversation, or implying your ignorance. Or at least, I've done my best to avoid those sort of tactics since I find them a waste of my time and I prefer to think the best of those I am debating with. If you feel I'm wasting your time, just stop.

[Dr. Cliché]

And, I wonder what you mean by "carefully". Should Sorcerers be miserly with their points? Or are we saying that from Build to BBEG the Sorcerer needs to make the most correct and most efficient choices again and again? Are we saying that all sorcerer abilities are niche to the point where you have to wait for the right circumstances to use them?

And, here is the big kicker, this flies completely in the face of their Theme. The sorcerer is raw unbridled power, barely understood and barely contained. Magic pulses in their soul and in their blood, they don't need to study magic, they are magic. So when playing one you should obviously be incredibly careful about your every move, calculate the percentages of every action to utilize your abilities with pinpoint precision, using only as much power as necessary.... These things don't match, and that is a big problem. You have to play them with more precision planning than any other class in the game (except maybe 4 elements Monks) when the majority of 5e moved away from that type of gameplay.

I think this is an interesting point.

The thing is, you could argue that a sorcerer is representing 'raw, unbridled power' by burning a lot of resources in a single encounter. Think of it as his emotions taking hold and manifesting as a burst of magic.

Of course, the downside is that while that might be fun for that one encounter, it's a lot less fun when he's got virtually nothing left for subsequent encounters.


Do you think it would be better if Sorcery Points recharged on a short rest? That way he can still unleash a burst of raw power, but doesn't screw himself over for the rest of the day by doing so.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I think this is an interesting point.

The thing is, you could argue that a sorcerer is representing 'raw, unbridled power' by burning a lot of resources in a single encounter. Think of it as his emotions taking hold and manifesting as a burst of magic.

Of course, the downside is that while that might be fun for that one encounter, it's a lot less fun when he's got virtually nothing left for subsequent encounters.


Do you think it would be better if Sorcery Points recharged on a short rest? That way he can still unleash a burst of raw power, but doesn't screw himself over for the rest of the day by doing so.

Idk... that sort of change is dangerous considering the already near mandatory multi classing to warlock. You end up with a coffeelock with even more power considering the spell Cat Nap is on the sorcerer list.



I think i prefer the change Kane_0 made, basically having Spell points for the sorcerer instead of slots and more metamagic options and more metamagic in general. I wouldn't mind playing wild sorcerer even with all the DM fiat needed, if that was the chassis.

[Dr. Cliché]

Idk... that sort of change is dangerous considering the already near mandatory multi classing to warlock.

Well, the whole point is that you're trying to make the warlock MC less of a necessity.

In this case, you're not reliant on Pact Magic to recover sorcery points between short rests.


You end up with a coffeelock with even more power considering the spell Cat Nap is on the sorcerer list.

Do DMs actually allow coffeelocks?

[Mortis_Elrod]

Well, the whole point is that you're trying to make the warlock MC less of a necessity.

In this case, you're not reliant on Pact Magic to recover sorcery points between short rests.



Do DMs actually allow coffeelocks?

I mean... from my perspective its almost natural way to play the two classes together. I'm pretty lenient as a DM myself and don't put many restrictions and even allow alot of homebrew. So for me its a yeah its allowed, why wouldnt it be.

Idk about other DMs that much but from i haven't run into a DM that didn't allow coffeelocks.

I do see what you mean though. I just think that my perspective might be alot of other's initial reaction, 'i already get one thing on a short rest, might as well get other things. Now i truly never have to take a long rest. " But i could be wrong.

I still think Spell Points are better for this keeping long rest.

[Dr. Cliché]

I mean... from my perspective its almost natural way to play the two classes together. I'm pretty lenient as a DM myself and don't put many restrictions and even allow alot of homebrew. So for me its a yeah its allowed, why wouldnt it be.

Idk about other DMs that much but from i haven't run into a DM that didn't allow coffeelocks.

Well, I've certainly seen several threads here that would disagree with you on that. :smalltongue:

I've certainly seen a lot of people suggest that it's following the letter but not the spirit of the rules.

Hell, remember that Pun-pun was RAW in 3.5 - it doesn't mean a DM would allow it. :smallwink:

If nothing else, I'd be surprised if a DM didn't start handing out Exhaustion levels if you go a few days without long resting.



I do see what you mean though. I just think that my perspective might be alot of other's initial reaction, 'i already get one thing on a short rest, might as well get other things. Now i truly never have to take a long rest. " But i could be wrong.

See, I'd have thought most people would prefer to just advance their class (to get to higher level spells and such), but I could likewise be wrong.

Also, couldn't you just alter the mechanics to prevent coffeelock builds? e.g. by having any excess spell slots vanish on a short rest. Surely that would help with the multiclassing issue?

[Mortis_Elrod]

Well, I've certainly seen several threads here that would disagree with you on that. :smalltongue:

I've certainly seen a lot of people suggest that it's following the letter but not the spirit of the rules.

Hell, remember that Pun-pun was RAW in 3.5 - it doesn't mean a DM would allow it. :smallwink:

If nothing else, I'd be surprised if a DM didn't start handing out Exhaustion levels if you go a few days without long resting.

Ok true around here there's alot of dislike towards the idea of coffeelocks. I meant personally outside the forum. And yeah Pun-Pun was RAW, but i wouldn't put coffee locks up there with him. I hate the idea of limiting players in 5e, since its more or less balanced as written.

Also i think Grod's Law applies here, Exhaustion is stupidly annoying and you shouldn't 'balance' Coffeelocks with it. If you don't want it just don't allow it, just make sure you do it before people make characters so they don't get their heart broken.




See, I'd have thought most people would prefer to just advance their class (to get to higher level spells and such), but I could likewise be wrong.

Also, couldn't you just alter the mechanics to prevent coffeelock builds? e.g. by having any excess spell slots vanish on a short rest. Surely that would help with the multiclassing issue?

I wouldn't personally but if i was just gonna mess with the classes to prevent multi-classing that might be in the cards. Or i just wouldn't allow it in the first place. There are other things in need of attention in 5e and i don't personally think coffeelocks are #1 on the priority list.

[Dr. Cliché]

Also i think Grod's Law applies here, Exhaustion is stupidly annoying and you shouldn't 'balance' Coffeelocks with it.

It's not about balancing coffeelocks. It's about the fact that sleep is important for more than just recovering spells.

If they have Aspect of the Moon, then fine. If not, and they choose to go several days without sleep anway, then they're going to feel the effects of that via the most logical mechanic - exhaustion.


I wouldn't personally but if i was just gonna mess with the classes to prevent multi-classing that might be in the cards. Or i just wouldn't allow it in the first place. There are other things in need of attention in 5e and i don't personally think coffeelocks are #1 on the priority list.

Out of interest, what do you consider to be top of the priority list?

[Chaosmancer]

I think this is an interesting point.

The thing is, you could argue that a sorcerer is representing 'raw, unbridled power' by burning a lot of resources in a single encounter. Think of it as his emotions taking hold and manifesting as a burst of magic.

Of course, the downside is that while that might be fun for that one encounter, it's a lot less fun when he's got virtually nothing left for subsequent encounters.


Do you think it would be better if Sorcery Points recharged on a short rest? That way he can still unleash a burst of raw power, but doesn't screw himself over for the rest of the day by doing so.

I've thought about it, not sure if it causes any serious balance problems. Maybe not give them full recovery, but allow them to recover half on a short rest.


One idea I remember seeing that was really cool was the ability to burn Hit Dice to recover sorcerery points. Can't remember if they rolled them or gave a set number per die spent, but it was a really neat idea to give the feel of literally burning yourself out.

[strangebloke]

The sorcerer is balanced fine.

He's just a first pick for newbies and he is very easy to build poorly.

[Mortis_Elrod]

It's not about balancing coffeelocks. It's about the fact that sleep is important for more than just recovering spells.

If they have Aspect of the Moon, then fine. If not, and they choose to go several days without sleep anway, then they're going to feel the effects of that via the most logical mechanic - exhaustion.

Oh, see i was under the impression of its not a proper coffee lock without Aspect of the Moon. That might be better justified then.


Out of interest, what do you consider to be top of the priority list?

Idk. Rangers should be using Revised ranger or better yet Kane_0's . 4E monks....id probably rewrite it all and i have a few ideas but thats been done to death. After that TWFing and Thrown weapons in my opinion need some love, Sorcerer in my opinion while functionaly is not where it should be so a few minor changes like Spell points or Short rest recovery for sorcery points like you suggested (slept on it sounds good) and more metamagic options. Then perhaps a look at warlock. Wouldn't mind some better chain and tome invocations, (especially chain). Not that its needed it would definitely be an improvement.

So somewhere after all of this. Then look at some multiclassing issues such as CoffeeLock.

[Mortis_Elrod]

The sorcerer is balanced fine.

He's just a first pick for newbies and he is very easy to build poorly.

Seems odd that a first pick for newbies is also very easy to mess up. Thats not a red flag in class design to you? Shouldn't it be easy to NOT mess up?

That doesn't seem fine to me.

[Kane0]

Idk. Rangers should be using Revised ranger or better yet Kane_0's . 4E monks....id probably rewrite it all and i have a few ideas but thats been done to death. After that TWFing and Thrown weapons in my opinion need some love, Sorcerer in my opinion while functionaly is not where it should be so a few minor changes like Spell points or Short rest recovery for sorcery points like you suggested (slept on it sounds good) and more metamagic options. Then perhaps a look at warlock. Wouldn't mind some better chain and tome invocations, (especially chain). Not that its needed it would definitely be an improvement.


:smallredface: Feeling the love.
I have a couple extra warlock invocations in my sig too, maybe those would be of interest to you.

[Mortis_Elrod]

:smallredface: Feeling the love.
I have a couple extra warlock invocations in my sig too, maybe those would be of interest to you.

I have actually looked at them before, you’re full of gems.

There should definetly also be more pact boon options. Crown, Scepter, Cloak, Athame, to name a few ideas.

[LeonBH]

Seems odd that a first pick for newbies is also very easy to mess up. Thats not a red flag in class design to you? Shouldn't it be easy to NOT mess up?

That doesn't seem fine to me.

It's not newbie friendly because it doesn't have the ability to change their known spells on a long rest (like prepared casters), or the ability to use weapons (like half casters). If the goal is to make Sorcerers more friendly to newbies, then I think one or the other would have to be given to them.

That said, I agree with strangebloke. The balance of the class is fine. In my experience as a player, it is incredibly easy to "dominate" a party as a Sorcerer.

[Kane0]

I have actually looked at them before, you’re full of gems.

There should definetly also be more pact boon options. Crown, Scepter, Cloak, Athame, to name a few ideas.

I would, but I think they've already (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?416832-New-Warlock-Pact-Boons) been (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/Sy68EvStg) done (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Warlock_Invocations_and_Boons_(5e_Class_Feature)). Plus the ones over at MFoV (http://mfov.magehandpress.com/2015/07/pact-boons.html).

Edit: Although having a look and pinching my favourites, how do these look?


Pact of the Chalice
Your patron gives you a chalice, cauldron or similar vessel. When you gain this feature you gain proficiency in Alchemy Kits and Brewing Supplies. You can use the vessel during a short rest to create a single potion or poison of Common rarity, which lasts 24 hours before losing its magic and becoming inert.
If you lose your Vessel you can perform a 1-hour ceremony to receive a replacement from your patron. This ceremony can be performed during a short or long rest, and it destroys the previous vessel. The Vessel turns to dust when you die.

Pact of the Eye
One or more of your eyes are altered or replaced by your patron, granting you Darkvision out to 60 feet and Blindsight out to 10 feet. The exact nature of the eye(s) varies but can include catlike or glowing eyes, gemstone replacements or empty sockets.

Pact of the Mantle
You can use your action to summon a cloak, shawl or similar piece of clothing which allows you to hover a few inches above the ground. While worn your speed increases by 10 feet and you ignore difficult terrain. The mantle disappears if it is removed or if you die.


Awakened Eye (Pre-req: Level 10, Pact of the Orb)
You can cast the Arcane Eye spell without using a Warlock Spell Slot. When you do so the magical eye possesses all forms and distance of sight that you have.

Cleansing Cauldron (Pre-req: Pact of the Chalice)
You can cast the Create or Destroy Water and Purify Food and Drink spells without using Warlock Spell Slot.

Fell Flight (Pre-req: Level 10, Pact of the Mantle)
You can cast the Fly spell without using a Warlock Spell Slot

Otherworldly Elixir (Pre-req: Level 7: Pact of the Chalice)
Any creature that drinks from your Vessel gains the benefits of one of the following spells of their choice: Aid, Augury, Lesser Restoration or Protection From Poison. A creature that receives any of these benefits cannot do so again until they complete a long rest.

Reformed Visions (Pre-req: Level 7, Pact of the Orb)
All forms of vision you possess double in range, up to a maximum of 120 feet. You also become immune to the Blind condition and any attacks that rely on sight, such as a medusa's petrification.

Wisp of shadow (Pre-req: Level 5, Pact of the Mantle)
You do not take any damage from falling, and can move on nonsolid surfaces such as water and quicksand while wearing your Mantle.

[craverguy]

I like what these guys (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucVoh8GNn-Q) have to say about the Sorcerer's class design and how it could be better.

It seems to me that the Sorcerer is the most frustrating class in the game because there's a really basic disconnect between the fluff and the crunch. The fluff is that Sorcerers are beings of pure magic, prodigies who can intuitively duplicate the mightiest arcane feats that Wizards have to study for decades to achieve. The crunch is that Sorcerers are the weakest full casters at the table: their spell selection is anemic compared to the Wizard, they actually know fewer spells than the Warlock, and they can't recharge their spell slots on a short rest, so they're actually tied in spells cast per day with the Bard. In other words, anything Sorcerers can do, some other arcane caster can do better. There's a massive gap between concept and execution, and the result is that if you actually want to play a magical version of Will Hunting, you're better off rolling a Bard.

[Mortis_Elrod]

It's not newbie friendly because it doesn't have the ability to change their known spells on a long rest (like prepared casters), or the ability to use weapons (like half casters). If the goal is to make Sorcerers more friendly to newbies, then I think one or the other would have to be given to them.

That said, I agree with strangebloke. The balance of the class is fine. In my experience as a player, it is incredibly easy to "dominate" a party as a Sorcerer.

The Sorcerer is functional sure it performs on curve for 5e.

But that doesn’t mean there aren’t problems with it’s design that shouldn’t be fixed.

[LeonBH]

The Sorcerer is functional sure it performs on curve for 5e.

But that doesn’t mean there aren’t problems with it’s design that shouldn’t be fixed.

I agree that there are issues with the Sorcerer (just like there are issues with every other class). But I believe their "flaws" are entirely subjective. If a class is more difficult to build for and play, that just means you have to spend more time learning the ins and outs of that class. That's not necessarily a design flaw. There is no objective measure of how flawed or unflawed its design is. I mean, its not like you have an uproar of new players complaining about the Sorcerer.

My biggest gripe is its HD: if they never spent their time studying the arcane, they shouldn't have the same HD as the Wizard, which is typically thought of as frail. On the same lines of reasoning, they should know how to use more weapons than they currently do.

But in terms of its spellcasting mechanics, I have no problems with it. In fact, I'm perfectly happy playing a Sorcerer without an origin, because I find that the base class of the Sorcerer is already very effective.

[Dr. Cliché]

Idk. Rangers should be using Revised ranger or better yet Kane_0's .

Agreed.


4E monks....id probably rewrite it all and i have a few ideas but thats been done to death. After that TWFing and Thrown weapons in my opinion need some love, Sorcerer in my opinion while functionaly is not where it should be so a few minor changes like Spell points or Short rest recovery for sorcery points like you suggested (slept on it sounds good) and more metamagic options. Then perhaps a look at warlock. Wouldn't mind some better chain and tome invocations, (especially chain). Not that its needed it would definitely be an improvement.

So somewhere after all of this. Then look at some multiclassing issues such as CoffeeLock.

That's all fair. TWFing could really do with not using your bonus action. In terms of thrown weapons, darts are a bit weird (why are they not Light?).


But in terms of its spellcasting mechanics, I have no problems with it. In fact, I'm perfectly happy playing a Sorcerer without an origin, because I find that the base class of the Sorcerer is already very effective.

Do you not think that is an issue in and of itself?

The whole point of sorcerers in 5th is that their powers are the result of a special bloodline. And yet you're basically saying that their bloodlines are little more than ribbons. Is that not an issue of rules not matching fluff?


See, I actually think they got the sorcerer and wizard are backwards in 5th. In prior editions, specialist wizards basically just got an extra spell each level from their chosen school, whilst having 1-2 schools that were forbidden to them. Now though, since they're not burdened with metamagic, each type of wizard gets its own list of specialist abilities that enhance them greatly in their chosen school, and they no longer have even a single forbidden school.

Meanwhile, because they're stuck with metamagic, sorcerer bloodlines add relatively little, to the point where they frequently feel counter-intuitive. For example, because sorcerer subclasses don't add bonus spells, Storm Sorcerers can never cast Call Lightning (which is quite possibly the most thematic spell they could possibly have).

It seems like Wizards should be the ones with metamagic (if it needs to exist at all), with their subclasses mainly focused on spell-choices rather than mechanics. Meanwhile, a sorcerer's bloodline should have a lot more impact on how they play, rather than just providing a few extras.

[LeonBH]

Do you not think that is an issue in and of itself?

The whole point of sorcerers in 5th is that their powers are the result of a special bloodline. And yet you're basically saying that their bloodlines are little more than ribbons. Is that not an issue of rules not matching fluff?

I'm not saying the origins are ribbons. I'm saying that the base class of the Sorcerer is already powerful. Adding the origins on top of that already robust chassis just means they can be even more effective. But if you removed the origins from the Sorcerer, I will still be happy to play one.


See, I actually think they got the sorcerer and wizard are backwards in 5th. In prior editions, specialist wizards basically just got an extra spell each level from their chosen school, whilst having 1-2 schools that were forbidden to them. Now though, since they're not burdened with metamagic, each type of wizard gets its own list of specialist abilities that enhance them greatly in their chosen school, and they no longer have even a single forbidden school.

Meanwhile, because they're stuck with metamagic, sorcerer bloodlines add relatively little, to the point where they frequently feel counter-intuitive. For example, because sorcerer subclasses don't add bonus spells, Storm Sorcerers can never cast Call Lightning (which is quite possibly the most thematic spell they could possibly have).

I don't see why this is a bad thing. The lack of spell options for the Sorcerer is one of its main restrictions, and it still works despite that. If anything, the abundance of spells for the Wizards, and their exclusive access to abusable spells such as Simulacrum, is the bad piece of design. It allows one class to break the game with one spell.


It seems like Wizards should be the ones with metamagic (if it needs to exist at all), with their subclasses mainly focused on spell-choices rather than mechanics. Meanwhile, a sorcerer's bloodline should have a lot more impact on how they play, rather than just providing a few extras.

I don't agree with this, primarily because it seems to me that your underlying reasoning for disliking the Sorcerer is that Wizards don't get metamagic. That doesn't seem like a good reason to dislike the Sorcerer as it is based on the lack of a feature of another class.

[strangebloke]

The Sorcerer is functional sure it performs on curve for 5e.

But that doesn’t mean there aren’t problems with it’s design that shouldn’t be fixed.
Yup.

TBH I think most bloodlines should grant a metamagic ability and a few abilities/spells that synergize. This would make the class more intuitive.

Oh wait, the Divine Soul and shadow sorcerer do exactly that? Nice.



Do you not think that is an issue in and of itself?

The whole point of sorcerers in 5th is that their powers are the result of a special bloodline. And yet you're basically saying that their bloodlines are little more than ribbons. Is that not an issue of rules not matching fluff?

See, I actually think they got the sorcerer and wizard are backwards in 5th. In prior editions, specialist wizards basically just got an extra spell each level from their chosen school, whilst having 1-2 schools that were forbidden to them. Now though, since they're not burdened with metamagic, each type of wizard gets its own list of specialist abilities that enhance them greatly in their chosen school, and they no longer have even a single forbidden school.

Meanwhile, because they're stuck with metamagic, sorcerer bloodlines add relatively little, to the point where they frequently feel counter-intuitive. For example, because sorcerer subclasses don't add bonus spells, Storm Sorcerers can never cast Call Lightning (which is quite possibly the most thematic spell they could possibly have).

Sorcerers should know fewer spells than wizards, they never studied.

Sorcerers should be better with those few spells to compensate. Their knowledge is deeper.

The bloodlines could use a slight shot in the arm. Leon has posted some solid points.

My thesis here is that sorcerers are not weak, but that they can be somewhat boring to take as a straight class from one to twenty depending on how you pick your metamagic.

[Dr. Cliché]

I'm not saying the origins are ribbons. I'm saying that the base class of the Sorcerer is already powerful. Adding the origins on top of that already robust chassis just means they can be even more effective. But if you removed the origins from the Sorcerer, I will still be happy to play one.

That's my point though - if the bloodlines are the cornerstone of a sorcerer's power, you shouldn't be able to just remove them and have the class play just fine.


I don't see why this is a bad thing. The lack of spell options for the Sorcerer is one of its main restrictions, and it still works despite that. If anything, the abundance of spells for the Wizards, and their exclusive access to abusable spells such as Simulacrum, is the bad piece of design. It allows one class to break the game with one spell.

It's not so much the lack of general spells but the lack of spells that tie into their bloodlines. In the example I gave, it's really weird that a Storm Sorcerer can't use an existing storm to Call Lightning on his enemies. This isn't just not being able to choose many spells, this is being outright denied access to thematic spells.



I don't agree with this, primarily because it seems to me that your underlying reasoning for disliking the Sorcerer is that Wizards don't get metamagic.

If you think that was my argument then I really can't help you. :smallconfused:

What I actually said was that sorcerers shouldn't have metamagic (save perhaps for a specific subclass). The reason I say this is because it takes up so much design space on the core class that the respective bloodlines are basically left fighting for table-scraps, as far as their abilities go. That's completely antithetical to their actual fluff.


That doesn't seem like a good reason to dislike the Sorcerer as it is based on the lack of a feature of another class.

I have no issue with wizards not having metamagic. What I actually said was that, if metamagic needs to be included on one class, wizards would be a much better choice because their subclasses really don't warrant as much design space (hence, it's less of an issue if most of their features are on the core class).

To be quite honest though, it seems weird to have metamagic confined to one specific class in the first place. I much prefer the idea suggested by Web DM, whereby certain rare spell components can be mixed in to enhance the power of spells.

[LeonBH]

That's my point though - if the bloodlines are the cornerstone of a sorcerer's power, you shouldn't be able to just remove them and have the class play just fine.

Why not? Wizards play similarly. By and large, it doesn't matter which school you choose. The base chassis of the Wizard is enough to support them through the campaign.


It's not so much the lack of general spells but the lack of spells that tie into their bloodlines. In the example I gave, it's really weird that a Storm Sorcerer can't use an existing storm to Call Lightning on his enemies. This isn't just not being able to choose many spells, this is being outright denied access to thematic spells.

Storm Sorcerers get access to Lightning Lure, Booming Blade, Thunderclap, Shocking Grasp, Thunderwave, Shatter, Gust of Wind, Warding Wind, Sleet Storm, Lightning Bolt, Thunder Step, Wall of Water, and other storm-related spells. One subclass missing one spell (Call Lightning) is not evidence of bad design.


If you think that was my argument then I really can't help you. :smallconfused:

What I actually said was that sorcerers shouldn't have metamagic (save perhaps for a specific subclass). The reason I say this is because it takes up so much design space on the core class that the respective bloodlines are basically left fighting for table-scraps, as far as their abilities go. That's completely antithetical to their actual fluff.

I have no issue with wizards not having metamagic. What I actually said was that, if metamagic needs to be included on one class, wizards would be a much better choice because their subclasses really don't warrant as much design space (hence, it's less of an issue if most of their features are on the core class).

To be quite honest though, it seems weird to have metamagic confined to one specific class in the first place. I much prefer the idea suggested by Web DM, whereby certain rare spell components can be mixed in to enhance the power of spells.

Help me out here. You said that Wizards should have metamagic, and Sorcerers should not. Here is where you said it:


It seems like Wizards should be the ones with metamagic (if it needs to exist at all)


What I actually said was that sorcerers shouldn't have metamagic (save perhaps for a specific subclass).

From a mechanical perspective, this moves power away from the Sorcerer and into the Wizard. This creates things for the Wizard like Twinned True Polymorph, Extended Foresight, or Twinned Feeblemind - things normally not possible. Simultaneously, it removes a large part of the Sorcerer's flexibility, leaving it only with its spell slot conversion ability, having no metamagic left. If you try to fill in what is missing, you end up creating essentially a completely different class from the original.

Why shouldn't Sorcerers keep metamagic and instead gain the Wizard's ability to change spells on a long rest, as well as their spell list, instead? Well, because it mechanically obsoletes the Wizard, and that is a bad design choice. Just as it is a bad design choice to do the reverse with metamagic.

So, when you said metamagic should be moved from one class to the other, what exactly did you have in mind for the final form of both classes?

[Dr. Cliché]

Why not? Wizards play similarly. By and large, it doesn't matter which school you choose. The base chassis of the Wizard is enough to support them through the campaign.

Because wizard subclasses are basically just area of study - they're not the source of their power or the core of their very being. :smalltongue:


Storm Sorcerers get access to Lightning Lure, Booming Blade, Thunderclap, Shocking Grasp, Thunderwave, Shatter, Gust of Wind, Warding Wind, Sleet Storm, Lightning Bolt, Thunder Step, Wall of Water, and other storm-related spells. Missing one spell (Call Lightning) is not evidence of bad design.

So, as long as they have access to some elemental spells, it doesn't matter if they miss out on the most thematic spells for their subclass?

Defend it all you want, but it really isn't good or intuitive design.



Help me out here. You said that Wizards should have metamagic, and Sorcerers should not.

Yes. But my argument wasn't based on the lack of metamagic on wizards being a problem. I simply said that they would be a better chassis for it than the sorcerer.



From a mechanical perspective, this moves power away from the Sorcerer and into the Wizard. This creates things for the Wizard like Twinned True Polymorph, Extended Foresight, or Twinned Feeblemind - things normally not possible.

That's true. Hence why I said I'd be happy for neither class to get metamagic.


Simultaneously, it removes a large part of the Sorcerer's flexibility, leaving it only with its spell slot conversion ability, having no metamagic left. If you try to fill in what is missing, you end up creating essentially a completely different class from the original.

That's the whole point though - I'm suggesting that the various bloodlines should get more or better powers to make up the deficit.

In terms of creating a completely different class, maybe, but at least it would be closer to the actual fluff.


Why shouldn't Sorcerers keep metamagic and instead gain the Wizard's ability to change spells on a long rest, as well as their spell list, instead?

Because the reason I suggested ditching metamagic in the first place is that it makes the sorcerer class really core-heavy (thus greatly restricting what you can do with the subclasses). Adding yet another core ability would only make this worse.

If you want to suggest swapping metamagic for the wizard's ability to regain spells on a short rest, then that could be interesting.


Well, because it mechanically obsoletes the Wizard, and that is a bad design choice. Just as it is a bad design choice to do the reverse with metamagic.

Can we please be clear here - are you objecting to removing metamagic from the sorcerer (to allow the bloodline abilities to be expanded), or are you objecting to the idea of then giving it to the wizard in some form?

It's important because, once again, the latter is not something I'm advocating for. If your issue is just with giving metamagic to the wizard, fine, we'll throw it in a bin and go from there.


So, when you said metamagic should be moved from one class to the other, what exactly did you have in mind for the final form of both classes?

With regard to the sorcerer, I'd like to see the bloodlines separated more and given additional abilities, extra spells or such. Basically, I think bloodlines should have a lot more impact on how each sorcerer plays.

With regard to the wizard, I really don't mind. When I spoke of moving metamagic to the wizard, I was talking specifically about design space. It seemed weird that the wizard had more fleshed-out subclasses than the sorcerer (given that most involve little more than focusing on different types of spells), whilst the sorcerer's subclasses come over as shallow, because most of the design space (outside of spells) is taken up with the whole metamagic schtick.

My point was that it would seem more logical for the wizard to have the chunkier core class feature (metamagic), whilst the sorcerer is left with more design space to flesh out his bloodlines.

However, as above, I'd be just as happy if neither of them had metamagic. Hence, unless you think one of the classes *has* to have metamagic, I'd probably just scrap it entirely.

[Dr. Cliché]

@LeonBH How would you feel about this:

- Remove metamagic from the core sorcerer.

- Add a sorcerer subclass (maybe Arcane or something like that) that uses metamagic.

- Expand the other subclasses to compensate.


This would give the sorcerer a more generic subclass (something I've seen quite a few people ask for), it would allow those to like metamagic to still be able to use it, but would also allow the other subclasses to take a more prominent role on the sorcerer.

I know it's all subjective but I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. :smallsmile:

[LeonBH]

​
Because wizard subclasses are basically just area of study - they're not the source of their power or the core of their very being. :smalltongue:

That is completely arbitrary though. The Sorcerer class is grouped together in the same way that the Wizard class is grouped together - as one class. To apply one standard on one class, and not apply it to the other, is called a double standard. And that is generally a bad approach to things.


So, as long as they have access to some elemental spells, it doesn't matter if they miss out on the most thematic spells for their subclass?

Defend it all you want, but it really isn't good or intuitive design.

I don't believe you have any sort of consensus that Call Lightning is the most thematic spell Storm Sorcerers need, or any metric that its absence is bad design. It is an unsubstantiated opinion.


Yes. But my argument wasn't based on the lack of metamagic on wizards being a problem. I simply said that they would be a better chassis for it than the sorcerer.

That's true. Hence why I said I'd be happy for neither class to get metamagic.

That's the whole point though - I'm suggesting that the various bloodlines should get more or better powers to make up the deficit.

In terms of creating a completely different class, maybe, but at least it would be closer to the actual fluff.

Because the reason I suggested ditching metamagic in the first place is that it makes the sorcerer class really core-heavy (thus greatly restricting what you can do with the subclasses). Adding yet another core ability would only make this worse.

If you want to suggest swapping metamagic for the wizard's ability to regain spells on a short rest, then that could be interesting.

Let's drop this tangent as we will discuss the core of the issue below, anyway.


Can we please be clear here - are you objecting to removing metamagic from the sorcerer (to allow the bloodline abilities to be expanded), or are you objecting to the idea of then giving it to the wizard in some form?

It's important because, once again, the latter is not something I'm advocating for. If your issue is just with giving metamagic to the wizard, fine, we'll throw it in a bin and go from there.

I'm objecting to the thought process behind why it would be OK for the Wizard to have metamagic, but for the Sorcerer to not have it.

You are saying that if metamagic were to exist, give it to the Wizard but remove it from the Sorcerer. This gives the Wizard all of the problems of having metamagic (that you perceive: namely, restricting their core features), but you seem to be fine with merging those problems for the Wizard. However, you've objected to giving Sorcerers the Wizard spell list and the ability to change spells after a long rest, saying that would give the Sorcerer class even more problems.

Whether the Wizard has metamagic or the Sorcerer has the Wizard spell list and prepared spells, it shouldn't matter. Both classes will have metamagic, the Wizard spell list, and be prepared casters. Therefore, you must unilaterally reject both or unilaterally accept both. You cannot accept one and reject the other for an arbitrary reason, or else it is a case of selective judgment. And that is not a good motivation for good design.


With regard to the sorcerer, I'd like to see the bloodlines separated more and given additional abilities, extra spells or such. Basically, I think bloodlines should have a lot more impact on how each sorcerer plays.

With regard to the wizard, I really don't mind. When I spoke of moving metamagic to the wizard, I was talking specifically about design space. It seemed weird that the wizard had more fleshed-out subclasses than the sorcerer (given that most involve little more than focusing on different types of spells), whilst the sorcerer's subclasses come over as shallow, because most of the design space (outside of spells) is taken up with the whole metamagic schtick.

My point was that it would seem more logical for the wizard to have the chunkier core class feature (metamagic), whilst the sorcerer is left with more design space to flesh out his bloodlines.

However, as above, I'd be just as happy if neither of them had metamagic. Hence, unless you think one of the classes *has* to have metamagic, I'd probably just scrap it entirely.

When we talk about design space, I am considering mechanical design. While fluff is also important, it can be rewritten by anyone at any table. However, it requires the DM's permission to change the mechanics of the class. Thus when we align fluff to design, I hold less weight on that compared to the weight I give to the balance between classes.

Once again, being OK with the Wizard having metamagic and his spell list and being a prepared caster, while not being OK with the Sorcerer having those same qualities, is illogical unless fueled by a deeper bias.

I also think it is not an elegant solution to radically change the Sorcerer's features, replacing metamagic with an expanded spell list that changes per origin. The origins themselves don't have to significantly influence how the Sorcerer plays, just like how a Divination Wizard can be a good controller, the same as an Enchanter and an Illusionist.

The fluff should not shoehorn the player into playing a certain way. Rather, the fluff should be a vehicle for the player to express what they want to play. For example, if Draconic Sorcery was shoehorned into being a blaster, then there is no way for other Sorcerers to be blasters except to be a Draconic Sorcerer, even if what they really wanted was to have "control" over Wild Magic.

EDIT:


@LeonBH How would you feel about this:

- Remove metamagic from the core sorcerer.

- Add a sorcerer subclass (maybe Arcane or something like that) that uses metamagic.

- Expand the other subclasses to compensate.


This would give the sorcerer a more generic subclass (something I've seen quite a few people ask for), it would allow those to like metamagic to still be able to use it, but would also allow the other subclasses to take a more prominent role on the sorcerer.

I know it's all subjective but I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

I won't object to it outright, but the expansion of the other subclasses would have to be substantial to equal the power of metamagic, and it must remain flexible enough that you can take one subclass and express it in various roles of the party (controller, blaster, support, etc). The fluff must accommodate different play styles.

And finally, the subclass of Sorcerer that retains metamagic will objectively become weaker than any current Sorcerer in the RAW game (as the current Sorcerer has metamagic and origin abilities), and thus it must receive other boons to compensate and bring it up to the same power level of the current Sorcerer, while also remaining flexible enough to not shoehorn one style of play only.

[Dr. Cliché]

That is completely arbitrary though. The Sorcerer class is grouped together in the same way that the Wizard class is grouped together - as one class. To apply one standard on one class, and not apply it to the other, is called a double standard. And that is generally a bad approach to things.

Yet the existing double-standards are just fine? :smallconfused:



I don't believe you have any sort of consensus that Call Lightning is the most thematic spell Storm Sorcerers need, or any metric that its absence is bad design. It is an unsubstantiated opinion.

If we're taking that route, your own opinion on it being good design has not been substantiated either.

What's that, Mr. Pot, I'm looking a bit black you say?



I'm objecting to the thought process behind why it would be OK for the Wizard to have metamagic, but for the Sorcerer to not have it.

You are saying that if metamagic were to exist, give it to the Wizard but remove it from the Sorcerer. This gives the Wizard all of the problems of having metamagic (that you perceive: namely, restricting their core features), but you seem to be fine with merging those problems for the Wizard. However, you've objected to giving Sorcerers the Wizard spell list and the ability to change spells after a long rest, saying that would give the Sorcerer class even more problems.

I said that the wizard would be a more logical choice for metamagic because, historically, it's subclasses haven't relied on unique abilities. So it would probably suffer the least from having most of its features on the core class.

Regarding sorcerers, I said I wouldn't mind replacing metamagic with the wizard ability to regain spells on a short rest. However, when the objective is to try and remove core features (to make room for extra bloodline ones), giving them more abilities in addition to metamagic would be counterintuitive.

Furthermore, I never once objected to sorcerers getting access to the same spell list as wizards.



Whether the Wizard has metamagic or the Sorcerer has the Wizard spell list and prepared spells, it shouldn't matter. Both classes will have metamagic, the Wizard spell list, and be prepared casters. Therefore, you must unilaterally reject both or unilaterally accept both. You cannot accept one and reject the other for an arbitrary reason, or else it is a case of selective judgment. And that is not a good motivation for good design.

I'm not following your logic here. Are you saying that we should ignore fluff entirely when considering the options for each class?



When we talk about design space, I am considering mechanical design. While fluff is also important, it can be rewritten by anyone at any table. However, it requires the DM's permission to change the mechanics of the class. Thus when we align fluff to design, I hold less weight on that compared to the weight I give to the balance between classes.


That's the thing though - the whole point in this case is to try and better align the sorcerer's mechanics with their actual fluff.


OK with the Wizard having metamagic and his spell list and being a prepared caster, while not being OK with the Sorcerer having those same qualities, is illogical unless fueled by a deeper bias.

So why aren't you arguing for the wizard to have metamagic then?

If the sorcerer has it, then it must be fine for the wizard to have it as well. Or are you selectively applying your own arguments?



I also think it is not an elegant solution to radically change the Sorcerer's features, replacing metamagic with an expanded spell list that changes per origin. The origins themselves don't have to significantly influence how the Sorcerer plays, just like how a Divination Wizard can be a good controller, the same as an Enchanter and an Illusionist.

I disagree - a sorcerer's bloodline is the source of their magic and a defining aspect of them. It really shouldn't be something that they can just ignore, or treated no differently than a wizard choosing whether to take a course in Evocation or Conjuration.



The fluff should not shoehorn the player into playing a certain way. Rather, the fluff should be a vehicle for the player to express what they want to play. For example, if Draconic Sorcery was shoehorned into being a blaster, then there is no way for other Sorcerers to be blasters except to be a Draconic Sorcerer, even if what they really wanted was to have "control" over Wild Magic.

Yes, wouldn't it be awful if Draconic Sorcerers were shoehorned into blasters. :smallsigh:

Also, shouldn't you be applying this same logic to clerics and moaning about how their subclasses shoehorn them into roles? If not, then why is that fine for the cleric but totally wrong for sorcerers?



I won't object to it outright, but the expansion of the other subclasses would have to be substantial to equal the power of metamagic, and it must remain flexible enough that you can take one subclass and express it in various roles of the party (controller, blaster, support, etc). The fluff must accommodate different play styles.

It wouldn't be easy, but this is all just theorycrafting anyway.

But yeah, I wouldn't want to lock people into specific builds. Especially given that there are relatively few subclasses at the moment.



And finally, the subclass of Sorcerer that retains metamagic will objectively become weaker than any current Sorcerer in the RAW game (as the current Sorcerer has metamagic and origin abilities), and thus it must receive other boons to compensate and bring it up to the same power level of the current Sorcerer, while also remaining flexible enough to not shoehorn one style of play only.

I was thinking that the metmagic subclass would have other abilities as well, in the same style as the current subclasses. Just that metamagic would be its main focus.

I was just trying to get across the idea of moving metamagic from a core ability to a specific subclass.

[strangebloke]

The problem with expanding subclasses is that it ends up being more limiting.

Let's say that dragon sorcerer gets five new class features. Let's say that they're all geared towards making him a melee beast (abilities should be synergistic). Now you can only play a draconic spellcaster (fluff) in a certain role. (mechanics) indeed if you want to play a certain role under this system, you're going to be limited to one or two subclasses.

Conversely, right now, any of the subclasses can be adept in melee. Play an elf, boost Dex over charisma, pick up gfb or booming blade and go to town. Wild mage will be amongst the enemy if he fireballs himself, and can give himself advantage. Storm sorcerer can dodge in and out and zap people in melee. Shadow can cover himself in darkness. Dragon has extra AC, HP, and damage for gfb.

Similarly all the subclasses can be debuffers or blasters. Well, draconic isn't great with debuffing.

Metamagic as a generic option increases the number of concepts you can play. A shadow sorcerer with twin will play differently than a shadow with subtle will play differently than a dragon sorcerer with subtle.

Some other classes divide their subclasses by mechanics rather than fluff. Wizards, fighters, clerics, druids... They're all divided mechanically. The fluff for a Shepherd is not much different than the fluff for a moon druid, really. The sorcerer and Paladin divide by fluff, and it's telling that both have relatively weak subclasses. Fighter, by comparison, has incredibly strong subclasses.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Yup.

TBH I think most bloodlines should grant a metamagic ability and a few abilities/spells that synergize. This would make the class more intuitive.

Oh wait, the Divine Soul and shadow sorcerer do exactly that? Nice.



Oh those two new subclasses are great. Nobody will deny that. What about the other subclasses though?

of course maybe its ok to not give every bloodline a metamagic. Which is why I'd expand the metamagic options on the base class and give them maybe 1 or 2 more throughout their life.

What i don't like right now is how WOTC seems to be introducing subclasses as ways to fix core class issues. Not the way I'd do it but i guess it saves them more time than fixing the class.

The biggest issue i have with the sorcerer is the disconnect between how the class is portrayed to play and how it actually plays, effectively.

And the changes to fix that IMO wouldn't break the class, or 5e. But since Sorcerer isn't technically broken in the first place i doubt anybody will change it.

[LeonBH]

Yet the existing double-standards are just fine? :smallconfused:

Never said that, but it isn't OK to replace one double standard for another. On that topic, could you explain the existing double standard?


If we're taking that route, your own opinion on it being good design has not been substantiated either.

What's that, Mr. Pot, I'm looking a bit black you say?

But I do have evidence. Namely: the Storm Sorcerer was given an expanded spell list in the Unearthed Arcana which contained Call Lightning, and the SCAG release removed it.

Therefore, playtesting and feedback combined has given Wizards of the Coast a substantial reason to believe that Storm Sorcerers do not need an expanded spell list that contains Call Lightning.


I said that the wizard would be a more logical choice for metamagic because, historically, it's subclasses haven't relied on unique abilities. So it would probably suffer the least from having most of its features on the core class.

Regarding sorcerers, I said I wouldn't mind replacing metamagic with the wizard ability to regain spells on a short rest. However, when the objective is to try and remove core features (to make room for extra bloodline ones), giving them more abilities in addition to metamagic would be counterintuitive.

Furthermore, I never once objected to sorcerers getting access to the same spell list as wizards.

First, I'd like to reiterate that saying it's OK for Wizards but not for Sorcerers is illogical. If the problem is metamagic itself, it shouldn't be OK for Wizards to have it. If the problem is not with the metamagic, it should be OK for the Sorcerers to have it.

It is a self-contradictory position being OK with Wizards having it, and Sorcerers not.

Second, I never suggested replacing metamagic with Arcane Recovery. That is a bad trade for the Sorcerer and a wonderful trade for the Wizard, creating an imbalance in power between classes. That is a bad design step.

Third, you did object to Sorcerers getting access to the same spell list as Wizards. See below, the points of interest in bold.



Why shouldn't Sorcerers keep metamagic and instead gain the Wizard's ability to change spells on a long rest, as well as their spell list, instead?

Because the reason I suggested ditching metamagic in the first place is that it makes the sorcerer class really core-heavy (thus greatly restricting what you can do with the subclasses). Adding yet another core ability would only make this worse.

If you want to suggest swapping metamagic for the wizard's ability to regain spells on a short rest, then that could be interesting.

Above, you will see I raised the idea where Sorcerers should keep metamagic and gain the Wizard's core features - their spell list and their ability to change spells on a long rest. You objected to this.


I'm not following your logic here. Are you saying that we should ignore fluff entirely when considering the options for each class?

I'm saying that one class having all of the core abilities - metamagic, Wizard spell list, ability to change prepared spells on a long rest - is going to have the same issues which you bring up regardless of which class those three are given to.

If metamagic is a core-heavy feature, it should be problematic giving it to the Wizard, a class who already has its own core features.


That's the thing though - the whole point in this case is to try and better align the sorcerer's mechanics with their actual fluff.

I'm saying the mechanics should be balanced first, and fluff should follow. That is significantly different from disregarding fluff entirely. And that is very different from putting fluff above all and considering balance last.


So why aren't you arguing for the wizard to have metamagic then?

If the sorcerer has it, then it must be fine for the wizard to have it as well. Or are you selectively applying your own arguments?

Because I'm not OK with the Sorcerer having the Wizard's spell list and ability to change spells, and I'm not OK with the Wizard having metamagic. I wholly reject the proposition.

I am bringing it up because you don't either wholly reject it or wholly accept it. I want you to accept a logical premise first so that we can have a logical discussion based on a logical premise.


I disagree - a sorcerer's bloodline is the source of their magic and a defining aspect of them. It really shouldn't be something that they can just ignore, or treated no differently than a wizard choosing whether to take a course in Evocation or Conjuration.

And that is a double standard that doesn't exist in the game as written. And on the topic of double standards, as I asked above, what is the current double standard?


Yes, wouldn't it be awful if Draconic Sorcerers were shoehorned into blasters. :smallsigh:

Also, shouldn't you be applying this same logic to clerics and moaning about how their subclasses shoehorn them into roles? If not, then why is that fine for the cleric but totally wrong for sorcerers?

Agreed, it is a tragedy to shoehorn Draconic Sorcerers into blaster roles. Thankfully, they aren't. Upon the release of the PHB, there were only two origins available, and overwhelmingly, people chose Draconic over Wild Magic. Wild Magic was simply popularly regarded as a weak subclass.

In the years before the release of Unearthed Arcana and Xanathar's, many played a Draconic Sorcerer, but not everyone played a blaster (though I suspect most did). The Draconic chassis supports a generic Sorcerer by giving them decent defenses and extra power. But in no way does it shoehorn the blaster role onto that class.

Now, with Shadow and Divine Soul as official origins, it is easier to think of Draconic as a blaster-only path. But that is not the case, as it wasn't before (especially after the Errata clarified that their level 6 ability doesn't work like Agonizing Blast for Scorching Ray).

Finally, because we were talking about Sorcerers and Wizards, I didn't think about Clerics at all. But now that you bring it up, the Cleric has something that the Sorcerer doesn't have: ritual casting and prepared spells. Even a War Domain cleric can play the support role due to their class spell list (see Pike from Critical Role), and a Life Domain cleric can choose to never heal anyone but themselves by choosing only the battle spells and the self-buffs (something I've anecdotally heard from somewhere in this forums before, though I don't quite remember how long ago that was).

There are also domains that don't try to influence the way the player conducts their character. The Forge and Grave domains are very open-ended.


It wouldn't be easy, but this is all just theorycrafting anyway.

But yeah, I wouldn't want to lock people into specific builds. Especially given that there are relatively few subclasses at the moment.

We agree.


I was thinking that the metmagic subclass would have other abilities as well, in the same style as the current subclasses. Just that metamagic would be its main focus.

I was just trying to get across the idea of moving metamagic from a core ability to a specific subclass.

Sure. It depends on the implementation if it's a balanced design but the most important thing is it should retain the current balance of the class, compared to this new implementation.

[djreynolds]

I'm constantly tinkering with 5th edition classes and mechanics. And when I come up on the warlock and sorcerer class, their class design seem to be all wrong.

The warlock should've been broken up into three dark wizard traditions for example: Tradition of the Cursed Blade, Tradition of the Dark Familiar, and Tradition of the Forbidden Grimoire.

The sorcerers should have picked up the warlock's class design. This would allow the sorcerer class design to be the psionic class design.

I'm simply ranting my frustration on these forums. And maybe hoping if anyone else shares a similar frustration.

Its tough to answer because I need to see the whole picture.

Who else is in the party? Often a warlock can be overshadowed by a wizard and/or a rogue, and you feel like a 5th wheel.

The warlock chassis, can fit any party, as you can change out invocations as you level up.

Our current party's sorcerer in SKT was f***ing up giants with metamagic, quickened and twinned spells save the party's bacon.

You might just need to be at another table or in a different party.

Warlocks can be exciting or boring or feel empowered or minimized in the wrong/right party

Also, though they are all arcane casters, they have different roles.

[LeonBH]

The problem with expanding subclasses is that it ends up being more limiting.

Let's say that dragon sorcerer gets five new class features. Let's say that they're all geared towards making him a melee beast (abilities should be synergistic). Now you can only play a draconic spellcaster (fluff) in a certain role. (mechanics) indeed if you want to play a certain role under this system, you're going to be limited to one or two subclasses.

Conversely, right now, any of the subclasses can be adept in melee. Play an elf, boost Dex over charisma, pick up gfb or booming blade and go to town. Wild mage will be amongst the enemy if he fireballs himself, and can give himself advantage. Storm sorcerer can dodge in and out and zap people in melee. Shadow can cover himself in darkness. Dragon has extra AC, HP, and damage for gfb.

Similarly all the subclasses can be debuffers or blasters. Well, draconic isn't great with debuffing.

Metamagic as a generic option increases the number of concepts you can play. A shadow sorcerer with twin will play differently than a shadow with subtle will play differently than a dragon sorcerer with subtle.

Some other classes divide their subclasses by mechanics rather than fluff. Wizards, fighters, clerics, druids... They're all divided mechanically. The fluff for a Shepherd is not much different than the fluff for a moon druid, really. The sorcerer and Paladin divide by fluff, and it's telling that both have relatively weak subclasses. Fighter, by comparison, has incredibly strong subclasses.

+1 (if that was a thing) for a point well-reasoned.

Though I don't know about Wizards, Clerics, and Druids being divided in its subclasses by mechanics. All three of them are prepared casters, which means an Invoker can still play controller, and a Moon Druid could still play support. It just depends on the day.

Rather, it seems to me that their subclasses enable them to dive deeper into one mechanical play style. But they aren't boxed into that play style due to the innate versatility of prepared spellcasting.

It's a potentially tangential point, but I felt the need to bring it up anyway.

[strangebloke]

Oh those two new subclasses are great. Nobody will deny that. What about the other subclasses though?

of course maybe its ok to not give every bloodline a metamagic. Which is why I'd expand the metamagic options on the base class and give them maybe 1 or 2 more throughout their life.

What i don't like right now is how WOTC seems to be introducing subclasses as ways to fix core class issues. Not the way I'd do it but i guess it saves them more time than fixing the class.

The biggest issue i have with the sorcerer is the disconnect between how the class is portrayed to play and how it actually plays, effectively.

And the changes to fix that IMO wouldn't break the class, or 5e. But since Sorcerer isn't technically broken in the first place i doubt anybody will change it.

On the contrary, I think all the sorcerer subclasses are pretty much 'fine,' compared with, say, the beastmaster ranger who is effective but exceedingly boring. They do what you think they're supposed to do. The Dragon sorcerer is tough and blasty. The Storm Sorcerer runs into melee, casts thunderwave, floats away from melee. The Shadow Sorcerer is creepy and good at debuffing. The Divine soul shouldn't heal, but he is good at it. The The Wild Magic Sorcerer is... silly. As expected.

The base class is not broken, and it fits the fluff perfectly. It's much more rigid in terms of spells known, which you'd expect from someone with direct acces to a certain type of magic. The base class is punishing. It is more technical to build than a wizard, and roughly as complicated to play. It's overall very unforgiving.

But we don't need to go hog-wild with fixes. A few spells known would make all the difference.

[Mortis_Elrod]

But we don't need to go hog-wild with fixes. A few spells known would make all the difference.

I wouldn’t call what I suggest a hog wild change. Again it’s just the unforgiving part I don’t like, or rather I think needs to be changed. I’m ok with a more difficult to use caster, I don’t think it should be the Sorcerer though, or if it is not to this degree.


Of course Ranger>Many other things > Sorcerer in terms of priorities for changes to be made IMO.

[Asmotherion]

Damn, people are still nagging about the Warlock and the Sorcerer. Is it really just because the Sorlock is the most awesome build in the game, and people get jelly? XD

[Kane0]

Nah, this sort of thing has been around for ages. Or before the Hexblade UA at any rate.

[Chaosmancer]

The sorcerer is balanced fine.

He's just a first pick for newbies and he is very easy to build poorly.


How many other classes in the game are very easy to "build poorly"?

Warlocks can be made less powerful, but considering so much of their strength is in Eldritch Blast, even a poorly build one can be made decent (and taking their signature cantrip is pretty basic). 4e Monks are difficult to play, but defaulting to normal monk abilities is still a good choice. Ranger's may not be top tier, but they can still be built fairly intuitively.

Sorcerer (to me) seems to stand alone in this status of "very easy to build poorly", and that is a red flag to me even if all my other observations weren't telling me that something isn't working right within the design.




Yup.

TBH I think most bloodlines should grant a metamagic ability and a few abilities/spells that synergize. This would make the class more intuitive.

Oh wait, the Divine Soul and shadow sorcerer do exactly that? Nice.

Shadow Sorcerers do seem to be decently designed (I like the Hound, but I'm less sure of the Darkness Ability), but I'm not so sure about Divine Sorcerers, since they also get access to the Cleric spell list but they get only a single bonus spell, and their 6th level ability is useless if you don't want to play a healer. Considering they broke it into good/Evil/Law/Chaos you'd think they'd have alternative features for that level.




Sorcerers should know fewer spells than wizards, they never studied.

Sorcerers should be better with those few spells to compensate. Their knowledge is deeper.

This statement does not seem to be true, especially if you look over all 20 levels, since many wizards can get equivalent abilities or superior abilities using certain spells. So, by level 20 you may end up knowing fewer spells and are worse with those spells than the wizard who followed a similar path.






I'm not saying the origins are ribbons. I'm saying that the base class of the Sorcerer is already powerful. Adding the origins on top of that already robust chassis just means they can be even more effective. But if you removed the origins from the Sorcerer, I will still be happy to play one.

I don't see why this is a bad thing. The lack of spell options for the Sorcerer is one of its main restrictions, and it still works despite that. If anything, the abundance of spells for the Wizards, and their exclusive access to abusable spells such as Simulacrum, is the bad piece of design. It allows one class to break the game with one spell.



By saying the "Base Class" of the sorcerer, you realize you are solely referring to metamagic correct?

Getting two metamagic abilities at level 3, is potentially worth losing an entire subclass worth of features? This screams something is wrong to me. I just don't see a "robust chasis" as existing within the sorcerer and within my experience Metamagic is almost overvalued by certain players.

And, the wizard having a few problem spells (wish, simulacrum, ect) is a legacy holdover, but Sorcerers get Wish too, and while they don't get Simulacrum normally, they can use Wish to cast it just like wizards, so I'm not seeing where this is going. And, frankly, it is hard for me to say that sorcerers "work despite" their highly limited spells, I also don't see it as a main restriction, simply because limited resources in sorcery points, nearly no proficiency in any weapons or armor and 1d6 HD are also major limitations upon the sorcerer, and in fact those HP and Martial Prof limitations are the main limitations of the wizard it seems, which leads into questions of why the sorcerer is more limited than the wizard if they are not more powerful.





Why not? Wizards play similarly. By and large, it doesn't matter which school you choose. The base chassis of the Wizard is enough to support them through the campaign.


I find myself disagreeing here. I guess, theoretically, the wizard subclass can be secondary to how the wizard plays, but the wizard subclasses offer a lot of abilities that end up making each wizard somewhat unique. I'd be very surprised if an Abjuration Wizard, Illusionist Wizard, and Necromancy Wizard actually ended up playing the same, and it is more than just the differences in their spell lists which would cause the change. Each has abilities that lean them in certain directions. Necromancers want to create undead and self-heal, illusionists are far better at illusion magic even in the short run, abjuration wizards can protect themselves or their allies with additional shielding. Each one has abilities that lean them in certain directions, while the sorcerers from the PHB don't and Zanathars can be really hit or miss on that front.



When we talk about design space, I am considering mechanical design. While fluff is also important, it can be rewritten by anyone at any table. However, it requires the DM's permission to change the mechanics of the class. Thus when we align fluff to design, I hold less weight on that compared to the weight I give to the balance between classes.

The fluff should not shoehorn the player into playing a certain way. Rather, the fluff should be a vehicle for the player to express what they want to play. For example, if Draconic Sorcery was shoehorned into being a blaster, then there is no way for other Sorcerers to be blasters except to be a Draconic Sorcerer, even if what they really wanted was to have "control" over Wild Magic.


I don't disagree with this in principle, but I would say to be careful that you are not blinded by only looking at mechanics and crunch when considering the design. We've often seen the dissonance of a subclass that doesn't do what it says on the tin leading to players requesting changes, and while the fluff could be more easily switched, if every player requests a change in the fluff and theme of the class away from what was written, you can assume a problem exists.

For a recent example, The Brute from the most recent UA. A complaint I saw quite a bit was that the "strong brute" was equally good, if not better, using longbows or dual-wielding rapiers as they were with large mauls or greatswords. That doesn't fit the image conveyed by the classes name or the associated description, and so it created dissonance. A similiar thing happened with the School of Invention in the same UA.

Part of the problem with the sorcerer is that the fluff and theme don't match what the mechanics actually provide, but unlike those sub-classes where the disconnected mechanics are rather easy see at a glance, the sorcerer player could go a while before realizing that they can't actually do the things they expected they would be able to do.


Also, Draconic Sorcerers do appear with mechanical incentives to be blasters, one of their few abilities they get that Wild Sorcerers do not is the ability to deal more damage with an elemental type. This is a unique ability among sorcerers, leaning them towards being blasters that other sorcerers mechanically can't match.

Also, while their are finally more subclasses for sorcerers, they each come with a degree of thematic or mechanical baggage.

Wild Sorcerers have a lot of random elements, a lot of DM permission needed, and either of those features can turn people off immediately.

Storm Sorcerers are highly incentivized to take spells that deal lightning or thunder damage, making them even more specialized blasters than the Draconic Sorcerer.

Shadow Sorcerers are undead-lite, and the associations with "emo-goth-dark-edgy" players may immediately turn some players off.

Divine Souls are well, divine. They are incentivized to be healers and their connections to the gods and clerics of the DnD world could be an immediate turn off for some players.

And, frankly, the dragon connection can be a big turn off for players in the Draconic sorcerer, some people don't want to be covered in scales and all that.





Conversely, right now, any of the subclasses can be adept in melee. Play an elf, boost Dex over charisma, pick up gfb or booming blade and go to town. Wild mage will be amongst the enemy if he fireballs himself, and can give himself advantage. Storm sorcerer can dodge in and out and zap people in melee. Shadow can cover himself in darkness. Dragon has extra AC, HP, and damage for gfb.


Okay... where does this idea of Sorcerers in melee come from?

Any full caster can boost dex or str and grab a weapon cantrip, especially by playing a High Elf. In fact, any class at all can do that.

Wild Mages get a 5% chance per casting a spell of surging (best scenario) unless a DM plays nice with the "Advantage all the time" (Which could also come from Flanking or Faerie Fire, depending on factors) and only a 2% chance after that of getting that fireball. They could equally end up becoming a potted plant with vulnerability to all damage and get potentially killed in melee (no idea if potted plant health acts like wild shape health, but with auto crits and vulnerability, it ain't pretty either way)

Storm Sorcerers have to cast spells to fly, which also costs a bonus action now, and could just as easily blast people from a non-melee distance to allow kiting tactics.

Shadow covering himself in darkness is useful, it's a tactic any level 2 warlock could also use, but as has been pointed out for that tactic, it can be very unfriendly to the party. Also, nothing about the tactic makes it better to use in melee as opposed to from a distance.

Dragon sorcerers are your best bet, increased armor, hp, damage... except as I discussed earlier Bladesingers and anyone with medium armor proficiency has a better AC usually, equal or better HP, and therefore can actually thrive better in melee. (HP doesn't apply to bladesingers, but they are worth bringing up anyways since they are a wizard subclass specifically given martial capabilities in some capacity)


So... There are so many better choices for being a magical martial character, I don't see why people keep wanting to do it with the Sorcerer. Maybe if the sorcerer hadn't lost their HP, armor prof, and weapon profs from older editions I could see it, but they did lose all those things and are now unsuited for being in melee.





On the contrary, I think all the sorcerer subclasses are pretty much 'fine,' compared with, say, the beastmaster ranger who is effective but exceedingly boring. They do what you think they're supposed to do. The Dragon sorcerer is tough and blasty. The Storm Sorcerer runs into melee, casts thunderwave, floats away from melee. The Shadow Sorcerer is creepy and good at debuffing. The Divine soul shouldn't heal, but he is good at it. The The Wild Magic Sorcerer is... silly. As expected.

The base class is not broken, and it fits the fluff perfectly. It's much more rigid in terms of spells known, which you'd expect from someone with direct acces to a certain type of magic. The base class is punishing. It is more technical to build than a wizard, and roughly as complicated to play. It's overall very unforgiving.

But we don't need to go hog-wild with fixes. A few spells known would make all the difference.


I'm not sure I agree with the Storm Sorcerer, running into melee is not something I consider when I think "He is the Storm".

But, it's the bolded and underlined part that breaks the theme and fluff of the class. The sorcerer, the guy with the natural gift for magic, who doesn't need to study, who goes by feel and will, requires more technical skill to build than the wizard and is more complicated to play.

It is similiar to if I presented a Neurosurgeon class and an Artist class and said that the artist needs to have more college education, schooling and training to be able to do art than the Neurosurgeon class does to be able to perform surgery on someone's brain. That isn't how those things are perceived, and while artists can benefit greatly from formal education, the story of the artist is not one of rigorous study in dusty libraries.

The sorcerer should not require so much system mastery and fine-tuned planning to be played effectively, it should not be so unforgiving, that directly breaks the theme of the class as it is presented.

[Asmotherion]

The Sorcerer is actually very decent, both Role Playing Wise, and Mechanics Wise, if you have a clear Idea of the build/theme of the character you're aiming for. The wrong way to play a Sorcerer is to Pick any spell that "seems cool". The right way is to look what spells will either synergise with your strategy, cover some domain you haven't already versality wise (a single spell is enough), and finally some utility picks of choice.

Or you can go through a complitelly thematic spell list, and even ignore "optimised" choices based on "RP optimised" choices, and you'll enjoy the concept just as much. I personally love using Dragon's Breath with my Dragonic Origin Sorcerer, and on the seccond turn of Dragon's Breath, Quicken a Fireball and use Dragon's Breath, for a Lot of AoE Damage, looking like a really big, exploding breath weapon.

If you know what you're aiming for, the Sorcerer can be an amazing class. If you don't, it's better to play a Cleric/Druid or Wizard were you can change your Prepared spells per day every day.

Tl;Dr: The Sorcerer is an Amazing Class to play if you actually know what you're doing and with some amount of pre-planning when making your character either optimisation-wise or RP/Concept wise.

People who complain about it probably haven't played the class for more than 2-3 levels, and created characters without really investing into what they made.

[LeonBH]

By saying the "Base Class" of the sorcerer, you realize you are solely referring to metamagic correct?

Getting two metamagic abilities at level 3, is potentially worth losing an entire subclass worth of features? This screams something is wrong to me. I just don't see a "robust chasis" as existing within the sorcerer and within my experience Metamagic is almost overvalued by certain players.

And, the wizard having a few problem spells (wish, simulacrum, ect) is a legacy holdover, but Sorcerers get Wish too, and while they don't get Simulacrum normally, they can use Wish to cast it just like wizards, so I'm not seeing where this is going. And, frankly, it is hard for me to say that sorcerers "work despite" their highly limited spells, I also don't see it as a main restriction, simply because limited resources in sorcery points, nearly no proficiency in any weapons or armor and 1d6 HD are also major limitations upon the sorcerer, and in fact those HP and Martial Prof limitations are the main limitations of the wizard it seems, which leads into questions of why the sorcerer is more limited than the wizard if they are not more powerful.

I'm referring to Font of Magic, which gives sorcery points and Flexible Casting. I also mean metamagic. I also mean ASIs, which all classes get. And most importantly, I'm referring to the Spellcasting feature itself. On balance with other classes, including the martials, just having the Spellcasting trait is enough to be a very versatile class.

Wizards can cast Simulacrum as a 7th level spell and make their Simulacrum create a new copy of the original Wizard using its own 9th level spell slot, which will create a 2nd Simulacrum that has a 9th level spell slot, and so on and so on. This is not something Sorcerers can do.

Finally, I don't see the reason behind arguing which class is more limited, Sorcerer or Wizard. The Wizard is also limited by its small hit dice and lack of weapon proficiency, unless you would like to argue that having the smallest hit dice in the game is an advantage.


I find myself disagreeing here. I guess, theoretically, the wizard subclass can be secondary to how the wizard plays, but the wizard subclasses offer a lot of abilities that end up making each wizard somewhat unique. I'd be very surprised if an Abjuration Wizard, Illusionist Wizard, and Necromancy Wizard actually ended up playing the same, and it is more than just the differences in their spell lists which would cause the change. Each has abilities that lean them in certain directions. Necromancers want to create undead and self-heal, illusionists are far better at illusion magic even in the short run, abjuration wizards can protect themselves or their allies with additional shielding. Each one has abilities that lean them in certain directions, while the sorcerers from the PHB don't and Zanathars can be really hit or miss on that front.

If a party of Wizards consisting of an Abjurationist, an Illusionist, and a Necromancer was formed, I would expect each of them to mechanically specialize in certain roles. It isn't useful to have three casters with Knock prepared, after all.

But in a party where the Wizard is the main arcane caster, I will not expect the Abjurationist to focus on protecting himself or casting Counterspells. I will not expect the Illusionist to fight only with illusions. And I will not expect the Necromancer to use only necromancy spells. As their role is to be the main arcane caster, they cannot specialize in anything, or else they won't have the spells the party needs on that day. Any differences their subclasses offer is secondary to the fact that they are Wizards first.

EDIT: For clarity here, when I say they cannot "specialize" in anything, I mean that a reasonable Wizard, say an Abjurationist, cannot say "I won't cast any damage spells like Fireball, or any control spells like Wall of Fire, or any illusion spells like Minor Illusion. I have one role, and that's to abjure enemies. That means Shield and Counterspell are my only two spells. I'll also cast Mage Armor on you if you want."

They must still keep their spells prepared flexible enough to accommodate the needs of the party, regardless of Wizard school. There is no uniform way one Abjurationist plays because he will change his spells prepared day to day according to the needs of the party, just like any other Wizard in his shoes will.


I don't disagree with this in principle, but I would say to be careful that you are not blinded by only looking at mechanics and crunch when considering the design. We've often seen the dissonance of a subclass that doesn't do what it says on the tin leading to players requesting changes, and while the fluff could be more easily switched, if every player requests a change in the fluff and theme of the class away from what was written, you can assume a problem exists.

For a recent example, The Brute from the most recent UA. A complaint I saw quite a bit was that the "strong brute" was equally good, if not better, using longbows or dual-wielding rapiers as they were with large mauls or greatswords. That doesn't fit the image conveyed by the classes name or the associated description, and so it created dissonance. A similiar thing happened with the School of Invention in the same UA.

Part of the problem with the sorcerer is that the fluff and theme don't match what the mechanics actually provide, but unlike those sub-classes where the disconnected mechanics are rather easy see at a glance, the sorcerer player could go a while before realizing that they can't actually do the things they expected they would be able to do.

I don't see a community consensus on here or elsewhere that the Sorcerer's fluff does not fit its mechanics. Personally, I think it fits great. What I see is an outcry to (1) make the Sorcerer stronger, and (2) make metamagic available to Wizards. This isn't the first time I've seen either point raised. And neither of them has to do with the fluff of Sorcerers.

The Brute and the School of Invention fail on one thing: they both step on the toes of already-existing classes. Their fluff and their crunch may have been out of sync sometimes, but fundamentally they were trying to occupy the niches of already-existing classes. The fact that Brutes can use ranged weapons is only part of the bigger problem they represent.


Also, Draconic Sorcerers do appear with mechanical incentives to be blasters, one of their few abilities they get that Wild Sorcerers do not is the ability to deal more damage with an elemental type. This is a unique ability among sorcerers, leaning them towards being blasters that other sorcerers mechanically can't match.

Also, while their are finally more subclasses for sorcerers, they each come with a degree of thematic or mechanical baggage.

Wild Sorcerers have a lot of random elements, a lot of DM permission needed, and either of those features can turn people off immediately.

Storm Sorcerers are highly incentivized to take spells that deal lightning or thunder damage, making them even more specialized blasters than the Draconic Sorcerer.

Shadow Sorcerers are undead-lite, and the associations with "emo-goth-dark-edgy" players may immediately turn some players off.

Divine Souls are well, divine. They are incentivized to be healers and their connections to the gods and clerics of the DnD world could be an immediate turn off for some players.

And, frankly, the dragon connection can be a big turn off for players in the Draconic sorcerer, some people don't want to be covered in scales and all that.

The discussion was about not boxing in one subclass into one mechanical play style. If your subclass has incentives to pursue one play style over another but is flexible enough to accommodate other uses of it, then that subclass is not shoehorned into any role.

Draconic Sorcerers get one class feature that empowers their blasting potential. That doesn't mean they are all shoehorned into being blasters. As a matter of fact, at level 18, Wild Magic Sorcerers get a similar ability (Spell Bombardment), but that doesn't mean Wild Mages are shoehorned into being blasters.

Also, I don't understand where the budding discussion about flavors of Sorcerer subclasses that turn people off came from, and where it's leading to.

[Chaosmancer]

People who complain about it probably haven't played the class for more than 2-3 levels, and created characters without really investing into what they made.

I wish I could speak to your points, but this part needs more attention.

I played a Storm Sorcerer from levels 1 thru 20 in a year and a half long campaign. I had a detailed backstory and a strong concept of what I wanted the character to be (someone fused with the destructive power of lightning and storms, but who was also a jeweler and desired to create). I agonized over every decision I made in spells, and talked to my DM about many of my class features in relation to the special items he gave out during the game.

So, I know you said "probably" and you could chalk me up as an exception, but can we please avoid assuming that people who disagree with you are stupid, ignorant, or lazy? It really undercuts your argument and the discussion when we have to try and prove to you that we do know which class we are talking about, even if we may disagree with each other.





I'm referring to Font of Magic, which gives sorcery points and Flexible Casting. I also mean metamagic. I also mean ASIs, which all classes get. And most importantly, I'm referring to the Spellcasting feature itself. On balance with other classes, including the martials, just having the Spellcasting trait is enough to be a very versatile class.

See, spellcasting obviously isn't enough by itself, because no class only has spellcasting. Sorcerer comes the closest but just having a spellcasting list does not a class make. And I think it is... odd, to consider it in the context of what you said. Since so many other classes have full spellcasting and sorcerers have zero unique spells (they have spells that are a small mix from a few class lists, granted, but nothing unique) that if all you were looking for was to be a fullcaster... well, that's pretty darn easy to do.

And if you just want Casting and ASI's... well practically anything in the book satisfies those requirements. That is so fundamental to DnD that counting those two features seems like a lot of stretching to fill out your list.

I'd also say that Font of Magic is stretching to make your list look bigger, because Font of Magic is a useless ability in and of itself. All it does is provide a list of points, which do nothing according to the test of Font of Magic.


Now, I can see Flexible Casting and Metamagic, but they are mutually exclusive abilities a lot of the time, as I've discussed above. In addition, if people use the optional rule of Spell Points, Flexible casting is given to every spellcaster in the game. And, if you look over the course of an adventuring day, Arcane Recovery gives equivalent levels in slots to the wizard that the sorcerer can create with Flexible Casting.

Which brings us back down to metamagic.



Wizards can cast Simulacrum as a 7th level spell and make their Simulacrum create a new copy of the original Wizard using its own 9th level spell slot, which will create a 2nd Simulacrum that has a 9th level spell slot, and so on and so on. This is not something Sorcerers can do.

But it isn't like Simulacrum cheese is what we are talking about, and saying "wizards have this broken combo that can completely overwhelm the game, that everyone agrees is an abuse of rules not meant to be exploited" doesn't help the argument that sorcerers are perfectly fine.

Sure, Simulacrum and Clone are not terribly well designed spells, but we are talking class design, not spell design.



Finally, I don't see the reason behind arguing which class is more limited, Sorcerer or Wizard. The Wizard is also limited by its small hit dice and lack of weapon proficiency, unless you would like to argue that having the smallest hit dice in the game is an advantage.

Not arguing it is an advantage, arguing instead that it is a parallel that indicates an assumed parity between these two classes.

Every Fullcaster except Wizard and Sorcerer have a 1d8 HD.
Every Fullcaster except Wizard and Sorcerer have Armor and weapon proficiencies that at least include all simple weapons, and some of these full casters have access to all weapons and armors.

Wizard and Sorcerer are the only two fullcasting classes which are reduced below these levels, indicating that they have some additional power beyond the other two classes. To then see that additionally the sorcerer loses out on number of spells, ritual casting, and that their spell recovery option competes with their only other major class feature, it feels like they were limited further is an expectation of power.

So, essentially, it seems from the design that Metamagic was seen as so powerful, that the sorcerer could not possible gain it and have the normal casting features of a wizard. However, this does not seem to hold up under scrutiny. Especially since we can say with some certainty that four of the metamagic options are practically traps and you only get two metamagics for half of your career.

Are those two metamagic options worth losing everything the sorcerer loses in comparison to the wizard? I think not.




If a party of Wizards consisting of an Abjurationist, an Illusionist, and a Necromancer was formed, I would expect each of them to mechanically specialize in certain roles. It isn't useful to have three casters with Knock prepared, after all.

But in a party where the Wizard is the main arcane caster, I will not expect the Abjurationist to focus on protecting himself or casting Counterspells. I will not expect the Illusionist to fight only with illusions. And I will not expect the Necromancer to use only necromancy spells. As their role is to be the main arcane caster, they cannot specialize in anything, or else they won't have the spells the party needs on that day. Any differences their subclasses offer is secondary to the fact that they are Wizards first.

EDIT: For clarity here, when I say they cannot "specialize" in anything, I mean that a reasonable Wizard, say an Abjurationist, cannot say "I won't cast any damage spells like Fireball, or any control spells like Wall of Fire, or any illusion spells like Minor Illusion. I have one role, and that's to abjure enemies. That means Shield and Counterspell are my only two spells. I'll also cast Mage Armor on you if you want."

They must still keep their spells prepared flexible enough to accommodate the needs of the party, regardless of Wizard school. There is no uniform way one Abjurationist plays because he will change his spells prepared day to day according to the needs of the party, just like any other Wizard in his shoes will.

I might be losing your point here. You argued that every wizard plays the same, regardless of subclass, and I pointed out that the various subclasses can greatly change how a wizard plays because of how they would focus.

Now, you agree that if a wizard is not the Main Arcane Caster that they would specialize, because they don't all need to carry the same utility spells. Spells that the Main Arcane Caster must carry and prepare each day, in case they are needed. However if they are the Main Arcane Caster then they must all play the same, and cannot afford to specialize.

If we continue forward under this assumption, then is it not fair to say that the sorcerer is incapable of being the Main Arcane Caster?

After all, many of those utility spells are either ones the sorcerer cannot take, cannot cast as ritual to conserve spell slots, and at low levels may not even have the number of spells known to cover. And, since the party cannot afford to be without these spells, to the point where wizards cannot specialize without letting the party down, then you cannot have a Sorcerer in the party unless there is another Arcane caster, preferably a wizard, to cover the role of Main Arcane Caster.

I would find this fairly condemning of the class, if it is regulated to only being the 5th man of a party, and incapable of being the only arcane caster within a party.



Or, if you are saying those roles are not completely necessary, then are we saying the wizard feels pressure to fill that role within the party, and do to their flexible nature and immense casting capability, they can do so without harming their own concept and special tricks, something the sorcerer is incapable of doing and so the party does not expect it from them?




I don't see a community consensus on here or elsewhere that the Sorcerer's fluff does not fit its mechanics. Personally, I think it fits great. What I see is an outcry to (1) make the Sorcerer stronger, and (2) make metamagic available to Wizards. This isn't the first time I've seen either point raised. And neither of them has to do with the fluff of Sorcerers.

The Brute and the School of Invention fail on one thing: they both step on the toes of already-existing classes. Their fluff and their crunch may have been out of sync sometimes, but fundamentally they were trying to occupy the niches of already-existing classes. The fact that Brutes can use ranged weapons is only part of the bigger problem they represent.

You don't see a concensus, but have you seen the point before? Sure, my desire is for the sorcerer to become more powerful even if that just means power in versatility, because they seem far too weak to me, but I've seen multiple arguments before that their fluff doesn't match their mechanics.

In fact, when I do see the "wizards should have metamagic" argument, it is based around the fact that the metamagic seems to represent consistent and nearly scientific alterations to existing spells, which does not fit the sorcerer theme since they do not experiment and they do not represent science in magic. Those are the wizard themes.

What I have rarely seen is someone able to convince me that the sorcerer thematics actually are represented by the mechanics we have, because, for example, the idea that you can "alter spells on the fly" does not actually seem well represented by metamagic. Sure, you can do a little more damage, but you can't alter the shape of a spell from a sphere to a cube, or a cone to a line. You can't contract it to deal more damage to fewer or enlarge it to deal less damage to more, you can't alter elemental types, you can't alter a spell at all, after it has already been cast. All of this would fit that theme and all of it is impossible. And some of it is doable by wizard subclasses that they keep trying to sneak thru.

Which has led to the joke, which you've probably seen, that the company is called "Wizards of the Coast" not "Sorcerers of the Sea"




The discussion was about not boxing in one subclass into one mechanical play style. If your subclass has incentives to pursue one play style over another but is flexible enough to accommodate other uses of it, then that subclass is not shoehorned into any role.

Draconic Sorcerers get one class feature that empowers their blasting potential. That doesn't mean they are all shoehorned into being blasters. As a matter of fact, at level 18, Wild Magic Sorcerers get a similar ability (Spell Bombardment), but that doesn't mean Wild Mages are shoehorned into being blasters.

Also, I don't understand where the budding discussion about flavors of Sorcerer subclasses that turn people off came from, and where it's leading to.


The point that started the line of discussion was that "fluff" shouldn't "shoehorn" subclasses into certain roles. I talked about the fluff of the various classes. Perhaps "heavily implies and encourages" isn't the same as shoehorning. After all, nothing prevents any full caster from ignoring their fluff and class abilities, but most of them do lean heavily into a style of play.

And secondly, I think you are missing a few details about the dragon sorcerer and blasting. Sure, it is "one ability", but it is one ability out of 5. And, while Wild Sorcerers also get a "blasting" ability, it is at level 18 as compared to level 6. End game abilities don't often lead to a perception of the subclass like lower level abilities do.

Also, that Draconic ability is the only draconic ability that relates to any of their spells whatsoever (as a subclass) and it is also tied into the type of dragon they are. So, not only is it tied to blasting, but it also ties that blasting in with their very identity "White" Draconic sorcerers get cold while "Red" Draconic sorcerers get fire. So, when you choose that ability at level 1, you are tied towards that blasting ability.

Sure, you can choose to ignore it, but it is a rather large and early set of identifiers that your sorcerer is just ignoring.

[LeonBH]

See, spellcasting obviously isn't enough by itself, because no class only has spellcasting. Sorcerer comes the closest but just having a spellcasting list does not a class make. And I think it is... odd, to consider it in the context of what you said. Since so many other classes have full spellcasting and sorcerers have zero unique spells (they have spells that are a small mix from a few class lists, granted, but nothing unique) that if all you were looking for was to be a fullcaster... well, that's pretty darn easy to do.

snip

You've rationalized that Sorcerers don't get various unique features, like many other classes get ASIs and the Spellcasting feature. You've also rationalized that Sorcerers can't innately make use of Sorcery Points without Flexible Casting (by the way, Font of Magic is the feature that grants both Sorcery Points and Flexible Casting).

The goal seems to be to say that the only unique thing Sorcerers have is metamagic. That is 100% true.

What is not true is to say that metamagic is the only powerful thing about the Sorcerer. The only way you can contradict this point is if you say spellcasting itself is weak.

However, as metamagic is a core part of the identity of the Sorcerer, then yes, I was also referring to metamagic. As we will tackle below, apparently this is a bad thing. Let's save that discussion for the next part of this post.


But it isn't like Simulacrum cheese is what we are talking about, and saying "wizards have this broken combo that can completely overwhelm the game, that everyone agrees is an abuse of rules not meant to be exploited" doesn't help the argument that sorcerers are perfectly fine.

Sure, Simulacrum and Clone are not terribly well designed spells, but we are talking class design, not spell design.

It is a testament to the good design of Wizards, though, that they have exclusive access to the abusable spells.

This sub-discussion is not quite about Sorcerers are designed well. It is about how well designed the Wizard class is.


Not arguing it is an advantage, arguing instead that it is a parallel that indicates an assumed parity between these two classes.

snip

Are those two metamagic options worth losing everything the sorcerer loses in comparison to the wizard? I think not.

Those are your thoughts, and only your thoughts. I agree that the Sorcerer's HD is low and that's the only thing that I don't like about the class. But if you're talking about spellcasting power, any Sorcerer can outmatch any Wizard at their area of specialization, in large part due to the metamagic (and that is not a bad thing).


I might be losing your point here. You argued that every wizard plays the same, regardless of subclass, and I pointed out that the various subclasses can greatly change how a wizard plays because of how they would focus.

snip

Or, if you are saying those roles are not completely necessary, then are we saying the wizard feels pressure to fill that role within the party, and do to their flexible nature and immense casting capability, they can do so without harming their own concept and special tricks, something the sorcerer is incapable of doing and so the party does not expect it from them?

Absolutely, it is fair to say the Sorcerer cannot be the main arcane caster in the same way that the Wizard is. If you damn the Sorcerer due to that, I shall ask you to damn every other spellcaster in the game as well, as they are all in the same boat.

In your last paragraph, you're trying to dig a grave for the Sorcerer because they are inflexible after they've been built. I'm not sure why you're taking the time to do that. Please don't forget to save space every other caster in the game, who is (apparently) worthless at the feet of Wizards.


You don't see a concensus, but have you seen the point before? Sure, my desire is for the sorcerer to become more powerful even if that just means power in versatility, because they seem far too weak to me, but I've seen multiple arguments before that their fluff doesn't match their mechanics.

snip

Which has led to the joke, which you've probably seen, that the company is called "Wizards of the Coast" not "Sorcerers of the Sea"

On the front of the strength of Sorcerers, I'll never convince you that you're wrong. I'm perfectly at peace with that, as I am not the one who "suffers" for it.

As for the fluff not aligning with mechanics, I see where you're coming from, but I disagree entirely. Unless you want to write Sorcerers a blank check so that they can truly spontaneously alter their spell into anything they want, the alteration will always be formulaic. That's because it has to be written down in a rule book and it has to become a rule. If we are to follow your assumption, everything in the game must be a Wizard ability, because everything in the game is rigidly set in place.


The point that started the line of discussion was that "fluff" shouldn't "shoehorn" subclasses into certain roles. I talked about the fluff of the various classes. Perhaps "heavily implies and encourages" isn't the same as shoehorning. After all, nothing prevents any full caster from ignoring their fluff and class abilities, but most of them do lean heavily into a style of play.

snip

Sure, you can choose to ignore it, but it is a rather large and early set of identifiers that your sorcerer is just ignoring.

Dragon Sorcerers don't have to ignore their Level 6 ability to not be blasters. They benefit from picking up a cantrip and a few leveled spells that deal damage according to their dragon type. They don't have to pick every last Fire/Cold/Acid spell in the book, and they don't have to cast those spells all of the time.

They are still Sorcery Point-wielding, metamagic-slinging arcane casters who, if the player was decent, can use their magic to accomplish a variety of goals.

Just as you've said that Wizards can still choose to specialize (despite the myriad of spells they have, which is a clear incentive to not specialize and thereby not ignore their larger potential), the Draconic Sorcerer doesn't have to be a blaster. But that doesn't mean they will never cast a blast spell.

[Chaosmancer]

You've rationalized that Sorcerers don't get various unique features, like many other classes get ASIs and the Spellcasting feature. You've also rationalized that Sorcerers can't innately make use of Sorcery Points without Flexible Casting (by the way, Font of Magic is the feature that grants both Sorcery Points and Flexible Casting).

Yes, but you listed them separately. I assumed you had a reason for it so I did the same.

Also, I'm not sure what your purpose is with saying I "rationalized" that they don't get many unique features. They simply do not get many unique features, there is no need to "Rationalize" it since that implies I have to convince myself of something that isn't true.




What is not true is to say that metamagic is the only powerful thing about the Sorcerer. The only way you can contradict this point is if you say spellcasting itself is weak.

However, as metamagic is a core part of the identity of the Sorcerer, then yes, I was also referring to metamagic. As we will tackle below, apparently this is a bad thing. Let's save that discussion for the next part of this post.

Again, the purpose of your statement is somewhat oblique to me. I'm not going to say spellcasting itself is weak, however, it isn't like Sorcerers got normal spellcasting and added metamagic too it. Sorcerers have the most limited spellcasting of any fullcaster. Comparing the 15 spells of a sorcerer to a Bard gets 22 and Warlocks via Invocations could know as many as 27 (15 normal, 4 via Mystic Arcanums, and then 8 from various invocations). Giving sorcerers an at best, 7 spell gap compared to other fullcasters.

We'll be talking about Metamagic below, but this is the reality I see within the design. Over 1/3 of the spellcasting feature has been reduced within the sorcerer (I'm including a consideration for the loss of Ritual Casting) to "make room" for Metamagic and Font of Magic. In addition to the restrictions they have in common with the wizard. This is a lot of potential they are telling us is within this feature.




It is a testament to the good design of Wizards, though, that they have exclusive access to the abusable spells.

This sub-discussion is not quite about Sorcerers are designed well. It is about how well designed the Wizard class is.

I'm not sure I follow your point, wizards are not the only class with spells that could potentially be abused, is their something particular to those two spells that you find speaks to the class design of the wizards?




Those are your thoughts, and only your thoughts. I agree that the Sorcerer's HD is low and that's the only thing that I don't like about the class. But if you're talking about spellcasting power, any Sorcerer can outmatch any Wizard at their area of specialization, in large part due to the metamagic (and that is not a bad thing).

Perhaps it is an opinion of mine that what the sorcerer gains is not worth what they lost, but nothing in the section you snipped was false or really an opinion.

And you know, there has already been discussion about how, long term, even in their area of expertise a sorcerer might end up losing to a wizard of the same specialty, despite metamagic. But even if they didn't, I've never said that metamagic is a bad thing. I've said that the implementation was not done well, and it assumed far more power lay within metamagic than there actually is, and because that has not proven as true as they thought, the sorcerer lost more power than it gained.




Absolutely, it is fair to say the Sorcerer cannot be the main arcane caster in the same way that the Wizard is. If you damn the Sorcerer due to that, I shall ask you to damn every other spellcaster in the game as well, as they are all in the same boat.

In your last paragraph, you're trying to dig a grave for the Sorcerer because they are inflexible after they've been built. I'm not sure why you're taking the time to do that. Please don't forget to save space every other caster in the game, who is (apparently) worthless at the feet of Wizards.

Did I miss part of the conversation? Was there a post that was deleted that explained why you are suddenly attacking a point you yourself put forth?

Was it not you who said, in response to my assertion that different wizards play differently, that:

But in a party where the Wizard is the main arcane caster, I will not expect the Abjurationist to focus on protecting himself or casting Counterspells. I will not expect the Illusionist to fight only with illusions. And I will not expect the Necromancer to use only necromancy spells. As their role is to be the main arcane caster, they cannot specialize in anything, or else they won't have the spells the party needs on that day. Any differences their subclasses offer is secondary to the fact that they are Wizards first.

EDIT: For clarity here, when I say they cannot "specialize" in anything, I mean that a reasonable Wizard, say an Abjurationist, cannot say "I won't cast any damage spells like Fireball, or any control spells like Wall of Fire, or any illusion spells like Minor Illusion. I have one role, and that's to abjure enemies. That means Shield and Counterspell are my only two spells. I'll also cast Mage Armor on you if you want."

This was your assertion. I was merely pointing out that if this is your position then no Arcane Class can fulfill the role the party requires of them, because according to you, even the wizard with their 44 spells, ritual casting, and 25 spells prepared does not have enough space to specialize in addition to handling the generic casting they are expected to handle.

Really, my last paragraph was asking you to pick your poison.

Is it that all Arcane Casters must have a certain suite of abilities that only the wizard can really match, and therefore reasonable and well-played wizards must conform to these standards. Standards which by their scope are out of reach of our sorcerer

OR

Is it that since the Sorcerer is too inflexible to cover many bases of a party that the party does not rely on them as an Arcane Caster, allowing them to specialize as they please, but that the flexibility of the wizard means that the party will not accept the same level of specialization from them, forcing them to conform to a generic standard.


There might be more points, after all you could admit you were wrong about wizards, or admit they can specialize and cover many generic bases at the same time. But I don't see how you get out this by blaming me for being unreasonable, I'm merely looking at the assertions you've made on this subject.







On the front of the strength of Sorcerers, I'll never convince you that you're wrong. I'm perfectly at peace with that, as I am not the one who "suffers" for it.

hmmm.

Yeah, no comment on my implied "suffering" is needed I think.



As for the fluff not aligning with mechanics, I see where you're coming from, but I disagree entirely. Unless you want to write Sorcerers a blank check so that they can truly spontaneously alter their spell into anything they want, the alteration will always be formulaic. That's because it has to be written down in a rule book and it has to become a rule. If we are to follow your assumption, everything in the game must be a Wizard ability, because everything in the game is rigidly set in place.


So you disagree because the rules must be set in stone, not because you think Metamagic actually does allow for the significant alterations of spells?

I mean, they've done a fair job giving elemental substitutions to various wizards "Lore and Invention" so we know they are at least designing that ability. The others might be a little harder to design, and maybe they are a little ambitious, but they would do far more to fit the story we are being told in the fluff than what we currently have.

But, what we have could barely be described as "altering" a spell for somewhere around half of the metamagic abilities listed.




Dragon Sorcerers don't have to ignore their Level 6 ability to not be blasters. They benefit from picking up a cantrip and a few leveled spells that deal damage according to their dragon type. They don't have to pick every last Fire/Cold/Acid spell in the book, and they don't have to cast those spells all of the time.

They are still Sorcery Point-wielding, metamagic-slinging arcane casters who, if the player was decent, can use their magic to accomplish a variety of goals.

Well, Acid Dragon Sorcerers can actually get every Sorcerer Acid spell in the PHB. There is one, other than the cantrip, maybe two if you count the randomness of Prismatic Spray.

But let's get back to your condescension, us "non"-decent players need to pay attention.

Really, that gets under my skin. Can you please try and refrain from these assumptions that I'm an inferior player just because I disagree with you? There is nothing, beyond Twinning a spell, that sorcerer does that can alter a spell itself. Giving advantage to saves for allies, well if the allies save the spell acts the same, giving disadvantage enemeies, well if they fail the spell acts the same, Subtle? Well, other than being quiet the spell acts exactly the same. Empowered can't raise the spell damage above maximum, quicken allows you to act quicker but does not alter the spell, extend allows a spell to last longer, but does not alter it's effects.

So, in what ways can a Sorcerer use a spell in a "variety" of ways that is somehow more vast than how anyone else uses the spells. Sure, Twin Haste effects two people instead of one, but you aren't using Haste to solve any different problems than what a wizard uses it for. You just get more bang for the buck. There is no "variety of goals", the spells work the same.

But, this isn't even about that, this is about the bonus to damage. And, you are correct that they only need a few spells to take advantage of it. Of course, if "a few" means, three or four, you are talking nearly half of their spells until you get to levels 9 to 11, when it is merely a third of their total spells.

If a wizard devoted half of their spells to blasting, would you consider them a primarily blaster? How about any other class in the game? You can't ignore the percentages here, they really tell a stark story for the sorcerer. Or, if you are going to ignore them then I really must ask what qualifies as "specializing" because this last point...



Just as you've said that Wizards can still choose to specialize (despite the myriad of spells they have, which is a clear incentive to not specialize and thereby not ignore their larger potential)

I'm really not sure were to go with this. I mean, it's just so...

Wizards get soooo many spells, sooooo many options, that they are wasting their potential by specializing.

However, Sorcerers get so few options, so few spells, that they truly embrace the power and majesty of specializing to reach their maximum potential.

If what's good for the goose is good for the gander.... what kind of conclusion am I looking at here? I mean, I know my conclusion seems rock solid, if specializing weakens the wizard, then by forcing the sorcerer to specialize they are being weakened. Isn't that the logical conclusion?

I mean, it's not like the wizard gets any abilities that make specializing harmful, and no matter how many spells the sorcerer takes to specialize (may it be a mighty 4?) the wizard gets sooo many spells they can know that they can cover every spell the sorcerer takes without batting an eye.

Or maybe, the difference is that the wizard spell list is superior? If that;s the case than covering the same spells as a sorcerer instead of taking the better wizard spells would mean the wizard is weakening themselves, but also yet again it would mean that the sorcerer is starting from a weaker position in comparison.

And in fact, the very point that sorcerers cannot generalize like wizards can, is another strike, is it not? Wizards can choose to specialize or generalize, Sorcerers don't have that choice, because they cannot generalize.


Honestly, I'm baffled by how you keep making my points for me, but yet still seem to think they are proving the opposite.

[Kane0]

-Snip-


-Snip-

As an aside, this kind of analysis is what homebrewers would kill for.

[LeonBH]

Yes, but you listed them separately. I assumed you had a reason for it so I did the same.

To be honest, I felt it was strange you singled out that part of my previous reply to someone else.


Also, I'm not sure what your purpose is with saying I "rationalized" that they don't get many unique features. They simply do not get many unique features, there is no need to "Rationalize" it since that implies I have to convince myself of something that isn't true.

Word error or ambiguity on my part. You're using the "non-uniqueness" of these features to convince yourself that there is nothing powerful there. Whether that is rationalization or not is up to you. My point is you've made these statements to support that the Sorcerer is weaker than other classes, and it seems like, in your eyes, you've succeeded. But it still isn't true.


Again, the purpose of your statement is somewhat oblique to me. I'm not going to say spellcasting itself is weak, however, it isn't like Sorcerers got normal spellcasting and added metamagic too it. Sorcerers have the most limited spellcasting of any fullcaster. Comparing the 15 spells of a sorcerer to a Bard gets 22 and Warlocks via Invocations could know as many as 27 (15 normal, 4 via Mystic Arcanums, and then 8 from various invocations). Giving sorcerers an at best, 7 spell gap compared to other fullcasters.

You're using spells known for this - and spells known is not the only metric (or the best one). Besides which, regardless of how many spells you do know, they are all useless if you don't have the spell slots to cast them with. However, it spell slots, everybody has the same base. Sorcerers don't get as many utility spells as the others, but it really doesn't need to. There is something good about having fewer fewer choices to make that streamlines the class.


We'll be talking about Metamagic below, but this is the reality I see within the design. Over 1/3 of the spellcasting feature has been reduced within the sorcerer (I'm including a consideration for the loss of Ritual Casting) to "make room" for Metamagic and Font of Magic. In addition to the restrictions they have in common with the wizard. This is a lot of potential they are telling us is within this feature.

Sure, and it lives up to its expectations (notice how I didn't substantiate this claim? This is what I feel like you're doing).


I'm not sure I follow your point, wizards are not the only class with spells that could potentially be abused, is their something particular to those two spells that you find speaks to the class design of the wizards?

I'm saying it's telling that they gave those spells to Wizards and Wizards only.


Perhaps it is an opinion of mine that what the sorcerer gains is not worth what they lost, but nothing in the section you snipped was false or really an opinion.

Your conclusion was an opinion. To be honest, I found it difficult replying to that. The opinion is not supported by the statements you made, and yet the statements themselves were sound, if assumed (because you don't know for a fact that they gave both classes a d6 Hit Die for balance or for legacy reasons). So, all I can say is it's an unsubstantiated opinion.


And you know, there has already been discussion about how, long term, even in their area of expertise a sorcerer might end up losing to a wizard of the same specialty, despite metamagic. But even if they didn't, I've never said that metamagic is a bad thing. I've said that the implementation was not done well, and it assumed far more power lay within metamagic than there actually is, and because that has not proven as true as they thought, the sorcerer lost more power than it gained.

This ties back in to the previous statement. This is just your opinion. This does not follow from any facts.


Did I miss part of the conversation? Was there a post that was deleted that explained why you are suddenly attacking a point you yourself put forth?

You didn't miss part of the conversation, obviously. What I feel you missed was the point behind my words, and so when you applied my words to your own example, you turned up a wrong example.


Was it not you who said, in response to my assertion that different wizards play differently, that:

Sure, and that's still true.


This was your assertion. I was merely pointing out that if this is your position then no Arcane Class can fulfill the role the party requires of them, because according to you, even the wizard with their 44 spells, ritual casting, and 25 spells prepared does not have enough space to specialize in addition to handling the generic casting they are expected to handle.

That is not what I meant. What I'm trying to get across is that Wizards have the biggest spell list and is a prepared caster. If they are the main arcane caster, they will be expected to prepare spells such as Knock, Levitate, Catnap, and various other spells that would be niche picks for a Sorcerer, on account of just because they can, regardless of their school of study.


Is it that all Arcane Casters must have a certain suite of abilities that only the wizard can really match, and therefore reasonable and well-played wizards must conform to these standards. Standards which by their scope are out of reach of our sorcerer.

This choice is the same as the other choice below. Not all arcane casters are required to fulfill certain obligations that I've put forth. However, it would be baffling if the party's Necromancer, who has Knock on his spell list, would refuse to prepare it in a campaign that regularly features locked doors. Even if Knock is not a necromancy spell. And even if we change Necromancer to Diviner or another school, that wouldn't change.


Is it that since the Sorcerer is too inflexible to cover many bases of a party that the party does not rely on them as an Arcane Caster, allowing them to specialize as they please, but that the flexibility of the wizard means that the party will not accept the same level of specialization from them, forcing them to conform to a generic standard.

This choice is the same as the one above. The party cannot expect the same of their Sorcerer as they would if it was a Wizard. I specifically have in mind utility spells that only niche Sorcerer builds would take. See Invisibility is one example of a spell only some Sorcerers have room for, but is freely available to Wizards. This doesn't force the Wizard to play in a generic way, but rather, Wizards have been generically designed from the beginning, and they have a lot of room to play in such a manner.


There might be more points, after all you could admit you were wrong about wizards, or admit they can specialize and cover many generic bases at the same time. But I don't see how you get out this by blaming me for being unreasonable, I'm merely looking at the assertions you've made on this subject.

Well, clearly you're misunderstanding my point here. I meant to say that Wizards cannot specialize only, in the same way that a Sorcerer must specialize. Wizards are free to feel like blasters or controllers as much as they want, of course. However, at the end of the day, all the Wizards cover the same generic bases.


So you disagree because the rules must be set in stone, not because you think Metamagic actually does allow for the significant alterations of spells?

You said:


the idea that you can "alter spells on the fly" does not actually seem well represented by metamagic. Sure, you can do a little more damage, but you can't alter the shape of a spell from a sphere to a cube, or a cone to a line. You can't contract it to deal more damage to fewer or enlarge it to deal less damage to more, you can't alter elemental types, you can't alter a spell at all, after it has already been cast. All of this would fit that theme and all of it is impossible. And some of it is doable by wizard subclasses that they keep trying to sneak thru.

Of course you can alter spells on the fly in significant ways. However, your words lead me to believe you want the Sorcerer to be able to alter their spells in any form. That's simply impossible unless you hand them a blank check. You cannot change the area of the blast radius of the spell (if it has one), and you cannot change the shape of the area of effect (if it has one), or change elemental types (if it has one) via metamagic. You can alter a spell after it has already been cast, via Empower Spell.


I mean, they've done a fair job giving elemental substitutions to various wizards "Lore and Invention" so we know they are at least designing that ability. The others might be a little harder to design, and maybe they are a little ambitious, but they would do far more to fit the story we are being told in the fluff than what we currently have.

Is that the big gap you see in metamagic? They are unable to change elemental damage types of their spells? Seems like a pretty small gap to me.


But, what we have could barely be described as "altering" a spell for somewhere around half of the metamagic abilities listed.

I would hardly call twinning concentration, or turning a spell into a bonus action, or doubling duration, or doubling range, as "barely altering a spell." But sure, if that floats your boat.



Well, Acid Dragon Sorcerers can actually get every Sorcerer Acid spell in the PHB. There is one, other than the cantrip, maybe two if you count the randomness of Prismatic Spray.

And the funny thing is, even with just two or three Acid spells, Acid Dragon Sorcerers don't need to pick all of them up. If they chose Acid as their draconic ancestry, obviously they're not going to try to be a blaster. There are not powerful enough spells that deal Acid for him to take full advantage of his Level 6 ability.


But let's get back to your condescension, us "non"-decent players need to pay attention.

There was no condescension aimed in my words at all. I am putting the requirement that the player be decent so as to play this build effectively so that we avoid a line of discussion around specific player skill.


Really, that gets under my skin. Can you please try and refrain from these assumptions that I'm an inferior player just because I disagree with you? There is nothing, beyond Twinning a spell, that sorcerer does that can alter a spell itself. Giving advantage to saves for allies, well if the allies save the spell acts the same, giving disadvantage enemeies, well if they fail the spell acts the same, Subtle? Well, other than being quiet the spell acts exactly the same. Empowered can't raise the spell damage above maximum, quicken allows you to act quicker but does not alter the spell, extend allows a spell to last longer, but does not alter it's effects.

Once again, no condescension meant. Also you've just listed a variety of ways metamagics alter the spell itself, but are discarding them as "not really altering the spell." I don't really know what to say to convince you that those are spell-altering effects, if they are already plain to see and you still reject them.


So, in what ways can a Sorcerer use a spell in a "variety" of ways that is somehow more vast than how anyone else uses the spells. Sure, Twin Haste effects two people instead of one, but you aren't using Haste to solve any different problems than what a wizard uses it for. You just get more bang for the buck. There is no "variety of goals", the spells work the same.

The spells do not work the same. In another thread, I was talking about how Extend Spell allows you to turn 8-hour buffs into 16-hour buffs and that would allow you to cast the spell, Extend it, sleep, recover the spell slot, and wake up the next morning as if you had just cast the buff for free. And various people contrasted it with the effects of Distant Spell, pointing out it can allow you to hand out, for example, the Fly spell to your entire team even if they were not in a good configuration, as long as they're all somewhere within 30ft of you. If you reject that the metamagic opens up new ways of using spells, that's in your belief system, because clearly the spells work differently. Your tactics should change based on the metamagics you have.


But, this isn't even about that, this is about the bonus to damage. And, you are correct that they only need a few spells to take advantage of it. Of course, if "a few" means, three or four, you are talking nearly half of their spells until you get to levels 9 to 11, when it is merely a third of their total spells.

Sure, and even then, they only need to take one or two, as taking four spells (for example) would consume most of their spells known. And even then, they don't have to be blasters.


If a wizard devoted half of their spells to blasting, would you consider them a primarily blaster? How about any other class in the game? You can't ignore the percentages here, they really tell a stark story for the sorcerer. Or, if you are going to ignore them then I really must ask what qualifies as "specializing" because this last point...

No, I would not automatically consider a Wizard who devoted half their spells to be a blaster. I would not do the same for any other class in the game. I would consider them blasters if their tactics make use of only blaster spells. In other words, they have to play like blasters for me to consider them blasters, regardless of how many blast spells they know.


Wizards get soooo many spells, sooooo many options, that they are wasting their potential by specializing.

As you seem to be misunderstanding me severely, let me clarify and attempt to bridge that. Wizards waste their potential by only specializing.


However, Sorcerers get so few options, so few spells, that they truly embrace the power and majesty of specializing to reach their maximum potential.

Correct.


If what's good for the goose is good for the gander.... what kind of conclusion am I looking at here? I mean, I know my conclusion seems rock solid, if specializing weakens the wizard, then by forcing the sorcerer to specialize they are being weakened. Isn't that the logical conclusion?

Incorrect. You are committing some kind of fallacy here akin to Hasty Generalization, but your error is in trying to solve two different problems with the same solution. That's like saying "eating well and lifting heavy weights made him really fit, so everyone should eat well and lift weights." If you make the Sorcerer generalize, he is stretched thin and becomes unable to do anything significantly more useful than what other casters can already do. If you make the Wizard specialize, you block out the potential of his abilities. Their designs point in different directions. What is good for one is bad for the other.


I mean, it's not like the wizard gets any abilities that make specializing harmful, and no matter how many spells the sorcerer takes to specialize (may it be a mighty 4?) the wizard gets sooo many spells they can know that they can cover every spell the sorcerer takes without batting an eye.

The Sorcerer can be specialized by taking one or two spells, with their corresponding metamagic. It's not about what they prepared, it's about what they use it for. And obviously, if they're specialized by taking one or two spells, then it frees up the rest of their spells for their other needs, although a good player would tie those spells in with tactics that relate to their specialization. For example, an enchanter Sorcerer might be good with Phantasmal Force most of the time, but against Rogues or Wizards it won't work, and thus having Maximilian's Earthen Grasp is also a good idea as it targets the normally-weak saves of high Int characters.


Or maybe, the difference is that the wizard spell list is superior? If that;s the case than covering the same spells as a sorcerer instead of taking the better wizard spells would mean the wizard is weakening themselves, but also yet again it would mean that the sorcerer is starting from a weaker position in comparison.

Or, the difference is that Wizards can express themselves in a large space at play, and Sorcerers can express themselves in a large space at build, and the two classes are designed in different ways that encourage either specialization (Sorcerer) or generalization (Wizard), keeping in mind that the generalist cannot beat the specialist at their niche, but can do so at many other fields.


And in fact, the very point that sorcerers cannot generalize like wizards can, is another strike, is it not? Wizards can choose to specialize or generalize, Sorcerers don't have that choice, because they cannot generalize.

It's only a strike for players like you, who want to play like Wizards. And that is not a diss, because obviously you like Wizards. For me, it is a feature that Sorcerers are limited in spells known and spell selection. With less space to move sideways, there is more freedom to move up. In terms of power level, the fact is that the generalist Wizard just stands at the same power level as the specialist Sorcerer.


Honestly, I'm baffled by how you keep making my points for me, but yet still seem to think they are proving the opposite.

I have an explanation for this, which I strongly suspect is at play based on the statement you've made above. You're suffering from confirmation bias, and thus everything you read or hear strengthens your beliefs, even if what you read or hear negates your beliefs. It's illogical, yes, but it's totally a thing people suffer from in general. It is also fair to say that, since as you said above, you're reading my words as strengthening your position, but also you're acknowledging that we're saying different things.

[Kane0]

Also, if you guys haven't seen some of the previous threads on the topic, these (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?545946-How-to-not-suck-as-a-Sorcerer) might (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?538605-I-don-t-get-the-Sorcerer) be (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?534114-Sorcerer-the-most-unsatisfying-class) of (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?535850-Purpose-of-Sorcerers) help (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?504572-What-is-the-difference-between-Sorcerer-and-Warlock) to (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?500381-Are-Sorcerer-truly-Flexible-Spellcasters) you (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?493063-Why-do-people-hate-the-sorcerer).

[strangebloke]

How many other classes in the game are very easy to "build poorly"?

Okay... where does this idea of Sorcerers in melee come from?

Any full caster can boost dex or str and grab a weapon cantrip, especially by playing a High Elf. In fact, any class at all can do that.

The sorcerer should not require so much system mastery and fine-tuned planning to be played effectively, it should not be so unforgiving, that directly breaks the theme of the class as it is presented.

1. Warlock is tough to build well. Ever see a person try to play a non-hexblade bladelock? Wizard, monk, and rogue can all be difficult to play well. Ranger is not intuitive, which leads to a lot of missed plays.

2. Sorcerers are well equipped for melee with quicken spell. They also have higher con saves than any other caster which means that they can resist hits to concentration better. They can throw a hold person down, dash in, crit with gfb, dash out. That's a sickeningly powerful combo. Yes, others can do it as well, but it's genuinely effective.

3. I agree that it's a break with fluff, that he is hard to build. But I love him. Keep your grubby mitts away.

[Ignimortis]

1. Warlock is tough to build well. Ever see a person try to play a non-hexblade bladelock? Wizard, monk, and rogue can all be difficult to play well. Ranger is not intuitive, which leads to a lot of missed plays.

2. Sorcerers are well equipped for melee with quicken spell. They also have higher con saves than any other caster which means that they can resist hits to concentration better. They can throw a hold person down, dash in, crit with gfb, dash out. That's a sickeningly powerful combo. Yes, others can do it as well, but it's genuinely effective.

3. I agree that it's a break with fluff, that he is hard to build. But I love him. Keep your grubby mitts away.

I found Hunter Ranger pretty intuitive. Pop Hunter's Mark, and shoot at the thing. At 5th level you can just do 1d8+1d6+4+1d8+1d8+1d6+4 damage in a single turn. That's 3d8+2d6+8, if both attacks hit. If you can afford Sharpshooter, that's even better. It's a very simple class in combat and it has good utility outside of it. BM, on the other hand, was either broken (if you were cheesing the "ride your pet with double lances") or plain bad.

[Chaosmancer]

As an aside, this kind of analysis is what homebrewers would kill for.

Noted, but I don't know if I'd be able to get to it.

I meant to look over your stuff more closely the first time I read it, but I just never found the time. This is more a result of having this conversation repeatedly over the years.




To be honest, I felt it was strange you singled out that part of my previous reply to someone else.

Then why keep up this sub-discussion for the last four or so posts? You said you were happy with the "base" of the sorcerer, I was just pointing out that the base is pretty anemic in terms of number of options. But if you want to drop this part, fine by me.




Word error or ambiguity on my part. You're using the "non-uniqueness" of these features to convince yourself that there is nothing powerful there. Whether that is rationalization or not is up to you. My point is you've made these statements to support that the Sorcerer is weaker than other classes, and it seems like, in your eyes, you've succeeded. But it still isn't true.

When trying to measure relative power, it is easiest to assume that identical features cancel out. If I am comparing the Fighter and the Paladin for example, I don't bother mentioning the benefits of having a 20 AC from Plate and Shield, both classes can do that with the same cost-benefit analysis, so it only clutters the space of the discussion to talk about that.

So, yes, Spellcasting is a very powerful feature in and of itself, but if I made a 1d8 HD class with the cleric spellcasting feature and nothing else, I don't think anyone would argue that the new class is not weaker than the Cleric. Even though spellcasting is powerful, the way it is implemented does not make the class powerful overall.

To prove that this is not the case with the sorcerer when comparing them to their closest equivalent, it needs to be shown that Metamagic is worth the cost in features that the sorcerer didn't get. It is using logic, so in that way it is a rationalization, but considering the thread to date this may be another point we'll just let rest, since this is a conversation repeated elsewhere in discussing the abilities themselves.




You're using spells known for this - and spells known is not the only metric (or the best one). Besides which, regardless of how many spells you do know, they are all useless if you don't have the spell slots to cast them with. However, it spell slots, everybody has the same base. Sorcerers don't get as many utility spells as the others, but it really doesn't need to. There is something good about having fewer fewer choices to make that streamlines the class.

How do you propose that a caster runs out of spell slots? Perhaps by using them? Your argument that spells are useless if you don't have any more slots is the equivalent of saying that money is useless if you've spent it all or food is useless if you've eaten it all.

Yes, the fullcasters get the same number of slots to start with (barring Warlock who runs on a vastly different system than everyone else). Being equivalent, we should then look towards other sections. For example, Ritual Casting. Out of Bards, Wizards, Sorcerers, Clerics, and Druids only one does not get this ability. An ability whose sole purpose is to conserve spell slots so that they may still be used.

Meaning that the more Rituals a character uses, the more the gap in number of spells cast grows between them and the sorcerer.

Also, I am still baffled by your assertion that having fewer options makes for a more powerful class. Do you often find yourself asking your DM to take away spells known from you? Do you find yourself never preparing your full allotment as a cleric? Perhaps cutting away your bonus spells to "streamline" the class so you can become better somehow? I will say, simplicity and fewer options can be a good aesthetic choice, but no one is going around saying the Champion is more powerful than the Battlemaster because he has fewer options, so why should I accept that the sorcerer having fewer options makes them more powerful?




Sure, and it lives up to its expectations (notice how I didn't substantiate this claim? This is what I feel like you're doing).

How shall I substantiate the claim that metamagic replaced other spellcasting features when compared to the wizard?

Point out that the Sorcerer gets fewer spells known? Did that
Point out that the Sorcerer does not get Ritual Casting? Did that
Point out that the Arcane Recovery Feature is equivalent to the Flexible Casting ability, yet both pull from the same pool, meaning every use of metamagic reduces the Sorcerers slot recovery compared to the Wizard? Did that


Or am I supposed to substantiate that Metamagic is not as powerful a feature as has been claimed?

Perhaps by pointing out that Three of the Eight metamagic options are generally considered bad? Did that (Distant, Extend, Careful)
Perhaps by pointing out that an additional two of those features have large limitations on their usefulness? Did that, to a degree (Heighten is massively expensive to get early on, Subtle is DM reliant)
I could point out that every use of metamagic reduces the usage of other sorcerer abilties? Did that just in this section
Ah, I could point out that eventually many wizards can get equivalent or better versions of certain abilities that could be found through metamagic? We've talked about that too.
Could talk about how few and how late you get metamagic abilities? Nope, did that.
Maybe I could point out that the versatility and abilities lost to metamagic are incredibly powerful, meaning that great power has to come from those abilities to equal the cost? Didn't say that explicitly I suppose, but I thought the power of ritual casting and versatility was well understood.


But yeah, I don't put forth arguments to substantiate my claims



I'm saying it's telling that they gave those spells to Wizards and Wizards only.

I have no idea what you are implying with that, unless you are saying they gave gamebreaking abilities tot he wizard because they are so weak, but that makes zero sense. Honestly, I would have ignored this line but you seem to get very offended when I skip over points like this.




Your conclusion was an opinion. To be honest, I found it difficult replying to that. The opinion is not supported by the statements you made, and yet the statements themselves were sound, if assumed (because you don't know for a fact that they gave both classes a d6 Hit Die for balance or for legacy reasons). So, all I can say is it's an unsubstantiated opinion.

Sure, I can't prove anything with scientific accuracy, and it could be legacy since both the sorcerer and wizard in 3.5 had a 1d4 HD. But, the sorcerer used to get a familiar (they don't anymore) and they used to have better armor and weapons (they don't anymore), so not everything in this can be for legacy, because legacy would see them better off. And, the reason the legacy even started was balance, so it is fair to make the assumption that balance still played a role in that decision going forward. For example: I do believe the playtest sorcerer had a 1d8 HD instead of a 1d6, indicating they had considered beefier sorcerers.




You didn't miss part of the conversation, obviously. What I feel you missed was the point behind my words, and so when you applied my words to your own example, you turned up a wrong example.

Oh?




That is not what I meant. What I'm trying to get across is that Wizards have the biggest spell list and is a prepared caster. If they are the main arcane caster, they will be expected to prepare spells such as Knock, Levitate, Catnap, and various other spells that would be niche picks for a Sorcerer, on account of just because they can, regardless of their school of study.

This choice is the same as the other choice below. Not all arcane casters are required to fulfill certain obligations that I've put forth. However, it would be baffling if the party's Necromancer, who has Knock on his spell list, would refuse to prepare it in a campaign that regularly features locked doors. Even if Knock is not a necromancy spell. And even if we change Necromancer to Diviner or another school, that wouldn't change.

This choice is the same as the one above. The party cannot expect the same of their Sorcerer as they would if it was a Wizard. I specifically have in mind utility spells that only niche Sorcerer builds would take. See Invisibility is one example of a spell only some Sorcerers have room for, but is freely available to Wizards. This doesn't force the Wizard to play in a generic way, but rather, Wizards have been generically designed from the beginning, and they have a lot of room to play in such a manner.

Well, clearly you're misunderstanding my point here. I meant to say that Wizards cannot specialize only, in the same way that a Sorcerer must specialize. Wizards are free to feel like blasters or controllers as much as they want, of course. However, at the end of the day, all the Wizards cover the same generic bases.

So, if I may try and summarize.

Your point was not that wizards could not specialize. Instead it was that wizards were designed in such a way that useful spells, such as Knock, are essentially costless for them to take. I'm assuming you are implying something close to costless from your phrase "on account of just because they can" in the first paragraph, which implies that the cost is so low that it does not effect their overall build.

This "on account of just because they can" spell would make sense to prepare in a campaign where it is useful, such as a campaign featuring many locked doors or chests. And so even if the wizard specializes in a certain school, they will likely still be able to prepare these types of spells.

And your last two paragraphs seem intent on trying to convince me that this completely optional choice of the wizard, to choose more generically useful spells on top of the spells they chose for their specialized build in no way should reflect on the forced (You used the word must in italics in the last paragraph) specialization of sorcerers.


How am I misinterpreting this again? A wizard can choose to be a blaster, a controller, and cover generically useful spells while a sorcerer must specialize in one of the first two areas and rarely take niche spells, like the Knock that these various wizards choose just because they could. Yet this in no way implies that there is a power disparity here?

I'm once more at a loss, perhaps if you tell me more about how wizards getting more options that are more useful more of the time is actually a bad thing for the class I'll begin to understand it.




Of course you can alter spells on the fly in significant ways. However, your words lead me to believe you want the Sorcerer to be able to alter their spells in any form. That's simply impossible unless you hand them a blank check. You cannot change the area of the blast radius of the spell (if it has one), and you cannot change the shape of the area of effect (if it has one), or change elemental types (if it has one) via metamagic. You can alter a spell after it has already been cast, via Empower Spell.

I know you can't do those things, that's why I mentioned them. And perhaps we have different definitions of "alter" here. Rerolling damage to try and get closer to the maximum is not "altering" a spell. I'd never bothering rerolling damage on a fireball that rolled all 4+ on the dice, because I've already achieved the goal of dealing higher than average damage.

To alter a spell to the point where I'd believe that it can solve "a variety of situations" it would have to actually be different, not just closer to a good roll or a bad one in the case of saves.

I will agree that a blank check could be too powerful (or at the least far too much math if you had to keep the volume the same like in the old days) but nudging spells is different from reshaping them, isn't it?




Is that the big gap you see in metamagic? They are unable to change elemental damage types of their spells? Seems like a pretty small gap to me.

Oh sure, it is a small gap. It's also one of the most requested and most commonly (to my knowledge which may be limited) houseruled abilities for the sorcerer.

And it has been given to the wizard in playtesting twice.

Now, you'll have to forgive an assumption, but when you consider that those of us who see the sorcerer as needing some fixes are often looking to the wizard to gauge the sorcerers power, to see the wizard getting one of the smallest yet most requested abilities we'd like the sorcerer to have.... well, it is a little infuriating. Kind of like when the Lore wizard also could do a far better version of Distant spell, along with a few other powerful abilities, on top of the core wizard class. And the Inventor Wizard also has a version of the Wild Sorcerers Wild magic.



I would hardly call twinning concentration, or turning a spell into a bonus action, or doubling duration, or doubling range, as "barely altering a spell." But sure, if that floats your boat.

As you so often tell me, I think you've missed the point of what I was saying.

Sure, you can double the duration of Greater Invisibility. During that time that both spells are active though, they are indistinguishable from each other. They do the exact same thing in the exact same way. And, if something were to disrupt the spell (losing concentration or a dispel magic being cast) before the sorcerer got that doubled duration, or if they travel for long enough between fights that the double duration isn't even enough for the spell to last til the next encounter, then the sorcerer has effectively gained nothing for their trouble.

Turning a spell into a bonus action can be powerful, if you have another spell or a powerful action available, but often you could be casting a bonus action cantrip and it is equivalent in the action economy, and despute being a bonus action, the spell still does the exact same thing.


Remember, the statement, they can alter spells "to solve a variety of situations" none of the alterations we're talking about actually allow the spell to do something it couldn't normally do, excepting twinning a concentration spell that normally could not target multiple people and couldn't be upcast to target multiple people. And even then, you are solving the same problems, it does not allow for the solving of new problems, unless the problem was "I can't haste both of you" or "I can't greater invisibility both of you" or some variation on that theme.



And the funny thing is, even with just two or three Acid spells, Acid Dragon Sorcerers don't need to pick all of them up. If they chose Acid as their draconic ancestry, obviously they're not going to try to be a blaster. There are not powerful enough spells that deal Acid for him to take full advantage of his Level 6 ability.

Interesting assertion. If the level 6 ability does not push or require someone to be a blaster, how is it that choosing acid makes it so they are "obviously" not going to try and be a blaster?

You seemed quite convinced before that that particular ability meant little in terms of whether a sorcerer would be a blaster or not. That was the whole point of this sub-discussion correct? And yet, not being able to "take full advantage" of it means they will obviously not try and be a blaster.

IF they then could take advantage of it, by say, going Fire Dragon instead, then would that imply they are "obviously" going to attempt to be a blaster? If this is the case, then this ability does push them to be blasters, and therefore it matters what they are attempting to specialize in.



There was no condescension aimed in my words at all. I am putting the requirement that the player be decent so as to play this build effectively so that we avoid a line of discussion around specific player skill.

I have not brought up player skill once, it shouldn't matter. A good player obviously gets more out of any class than one who doesn't yet know what they doing. This has no bearing on the discussion of how the class functions, because the mechanics of the class do not change based on a players perceived skill.




Once again, no condescension meant. Also you've just listed a variety of ways metamagics alter the spell itself, but are discarding them as "not really altering the spell." I don't really know what to say to convince you that those are spell-altering effects, if they are already plain to see and you still reject them.

In the same way that making a bonfire purple instead of orange isn't really changing the nature of the bonfire. I reject them because if we are talking about altering spells "to solve a variety of problems" then just casting the same spell only longer, or the same spell only further or the same spell only more average damage doesn't seem to meet the criteria. I don't say that using sharpshooter to increase a longbow shots range has "altered the longbow".

Unless the niche situation comes up that requires that ability, it isn't even noticeable that you've done anything.




The spells do not work the same. In another thread, I was talking about how Extend Spell allows you to turn 8-hour buffs into 16-hour buffs and that would allow you to cast the spell, Extend it, sleep, recover the spell slot, and wake up the next morning as if you had just cast the buff for free. And various people contrasted it with the effects of Distant Spell, pointing out it can allow you to hand out, for example, the Fly spell to your entire team even if they were not in a good configuration, as long as they're all somewhere within 30ft of you. If you reject that the metamagic opens up new ways of using spells, that's in your belief system, because clearly the spells work differently. Your tactics should change based on the metamagics you have.

I saw that discussion, and the fly spell was a decent idea. I won't counter with superior tactics than trying to cast a 4th level fly spell in combat, not the point. You can now cast the exact same spell, which will do the exact same thing, except you can target people who are not next to you, and you probably aren't planning on targeting yourself, since that kind of negates the whole point of using distant (unless the DM says that after you use your walking speed your new fly speed doesn't count). But, you haven't changed the spell, you've changed the spell's delivery. And, I'm kind of beating on the same drum here, you aren't solving any new problems with the spell itself, and it is only noticeably altered if you need to cast fly on people out of reach or people who aren't next to each other, otherwise nothing has changed.

But, I see the point you are trying to make, and I'll concede that there are times that casting a touch spell 30 ft away would qualify as an "altered spell". The funny thing is, even with that being one of the few metamagics that can do something uniquely different with a spell, it is so far in a niche that it is still considered one of the worst options you can take.

Also, on that "turn an 8 hour spell into a 16 hour spell", man does that strategy have a lot of assumptions. You assume the next encounter is 8 hours or less away from the campsite, that you have spells from the night before to spare, that you know about the danger you are about to go into and therefore can plan ahead and prepare. Plus, it seems to require some cleric spells to even be worth considering from what I've seen of the discussion thread.




Sure, and even then, they only need to take one or two, as taking four spells (for example) would consume most of their spells known. And even then, they don't have to be blasters.

Interesting in context of your earlier point about Acid Dragons, but the meat comes next.


No, I would not automatically consider a Wizard who devoted half their spells to be a blaster. I would not do the same for any other class in the game. I would consider them blasters if their tactics make use of only blaster spells. In other words, they have to play like blasters for me to consider them blasters, regardless of how many blast spells they know.

This is... potentially enlightening. Is this what you mean by "specializing" only using one set of tactics over and over again? I wonder if you've ever seen a blaster wizard or a controller wizard then, since you seem to think most wizards would choose generic spells to use at times too.

In my experience, no caster should only make use of a single type of spell, because they completely ignores the power of spellcasting, which is having a variety of answers to a variety of problems.

It must be the exhaustion getting to me, because I can't even wrap my head around a caster who would only ever use blasting spells period. IT just makes no sense.




As you seem to be misunderstanding me severely, let me clarify and attempt to bridge that. Wizards waste their potential by only specializing.

If the above is your definition of Specializing, that makes sense. The problem is, since wizards can cover multiple bases nearly seamlessly, and sorcerers can't we're back to the same point.



Incorrect. You are committing some kind of fallacy here akin to Hasty Generalization, but your error is in trying to solve two different problems with the same solution. That's like saying "eating well and lifting heavy weights made him really fit, so everyone should eat well and lift weights." If you make the Sorcerer generalize, he is stretched thin and becomes unable to do anything significantly more useful than what other casters can already do. If you make the Wizard specialize, you block out the potential of his abilities. Their designs point in different directions. What is good for one is bad for the other.

You are making a fallacy by assuming I'm trying to solve two different problems. I'm not. I'm looking at the set of problems involved in "adventuring" and trying to find the best tool for the job of solving that set of problems. On one hand I have a multi-tool capable of handling a vast majority of those problems, on the other hand I have a laser beam that can solve very few of those problems.

And you keep telling me the laser beam is as useful as the multi-tool for the purposes of solving this set of problems, because the laser is really good at doing one thing while the multi-tool is really good at doing dozens of things.

They aren't equal though, and if the laser beam sorcerer was capable of solving more problems then they'd make as good of a choice as the multi-tool wizard. The sorcerer is only bad at generalizing because their design is so limited that they are incapable of it, not because generalizing itself is a bad plan. And in fact, the wizard has the potential to refocus and reequip themselves each day to tackle different challenges.

I'm not trying to solve "how to build a wizard" and "how to build a sorcerer" the same way, I'm looking in the toolbox and trying to decide what to take with me into the mountains, and unless I know an awful lot beforehand, the sorcerer looks like a bad choice.




The Sorcerer can be specialized by taking one or two spells, with their corresponding metamagic. It's not about what they prepared, it's about what they use it for. And obviously, if they're specialized by taking one or two spells, then it frees up the rest of their spells for their other needs, although a good player would tie those spells in with tactics that relate to their specialization. For example, an enchanter Sorcerer might be good with Phantasmal Force most of the time, but against Rogues or Wizards it won't work, and thus having Maximilian's Earthen Grasp is also a good idea as it targets the normally-weak saves of high Int characters.

Okay, this moves away from what you seem to put forth as your idea of specializing when we talked about blaster wizards up above. Plus, Phantasmal Force and Maximillians Grasp don't even do close to the same thing, so they aren't related to their specializations or tactics. Phantasmal creates an illusion that can interact with an enemy, generally five foot dimensions and capable of dealing damage. MAximillians restrains, maybe deals damage later.

But, honestly, the part that throws me the most is that you consider taking one spell specializing. It isn't. It's having a favorite go to spell. Specializing is covering a particular area thoroughly thru multiple options within that area. Like how clerics can specialize in healing by taking multiple spells that heal damage, remove status effects, or revive the fallen. Taking Healing word does not mean you have specialized as a healer.




Or, the difference is that Wizards can express themselves in a large space at play, and Sorcerers can express themselves in a large space at build, and the two classes are designed in different ways that encourage either specialization (Sorcerer) or generalization (Wizard), keeping in mind that the generalist cannot beat the specialist at their niche, but can do so at many other fields.

We started with this assertion. And, yeah, the generalist can beat your so called specialist. Your specialized sorcerer example who took Phantasmal Force and Maximillians grasp. Wizard took both those, and Hypnotic pattern to handle groups larger than two with a wisdom save, and Sleep to handle low hp groups. Then took knock, identify (which they don't need to prepare because ritual) fireball for damage, thunderwave and misty step for emergency evacs.

And, frankly, with how many pieces of sorcerer builds we've shown to be not worth the time and effort, I have no idea how you can claim sorcerers express themselves "at build". Building a spell list is part of building a character and Wizards get so many more options and pieces to build with, that frankly I don't it. Heck, you don't even get metamagic til level 3, so a level 1 sorcerer picks his subclass first, and out of his two PHB options that is 50/50, wizard then gets 8 PHB options next level. Along with a lot more spells. Seems that "build" must include multiple levels of play to even get anywhere with this.




It's only a strike for players like you, who want to play like Wizards. And that is not a diss, because obviously you like Wizards. For me, it is a feature that Sorcerers are limited in spells known and spell selection. With less space to move sideways, there is more freedom to move up. In terms of power level, the fact is that the generalist Wizard just stands at the same power level as the specialist Sorcerer.

I like options and versatility. Not actually a fan of wizards. And, I don't see how you have more space to "move up" you don't get more powerful spells sooner or anything like that, in the vast majority of ways and in the vast majority of cases, you are doing the same things as the wizard, only less often and less effectively. And the wizard moves so far sideways you're total area (AKA power) is going to be greater.




I have an explanation for this, which I strongly suspect is at play based on the statement you've made above. You're suffering from confirmation bias, and thus everything you read or hear strengthens your beliefs, even if what you read or hear negates your beliefs. It's illogical, yes, but it's totally a thing people suffer from in general. It is also fair to say that, since as you said above, you're reading my words as strengthening your position, but also you're acknowledging that we're saying different things.


I'm aware of confirmation bias, I try very hard to avoid it if I can (hard to do, since it means that things that point towards my preferred explanation are weighted more heavily than things which refute it). But, I don't think that is what is going on here for the majority of this.

Honestly, if you like having fewer options to choose from, and to then have fewer potential solutions to problems that may arise, that's a personal thing and I'm fine with that. But, you keep insisting that fewer options is more powerful somehow, and I just don't understand that mindset.




1. Warlock is tough to build well. Ever see a person try to play a non-hexblade bladelock? Wizard, monk, and rogue can all be difficult to play well. Ranger is not intuitive, which leads to a lot of missed plays.

Yeah, Bladelocks can be hard. But, that is only 1/3 of the class if that. And I've never seen anyone really struggle that much with Monks or Wizards. And Rogues, rogues are easy to play as far as anyone I've ever met has ever said. Not sure what you mean about the ranger. Hunter's have always seemed to do well at the tables I've been at, very few "missed plays", though I rarely see rangers using magic which is disappointing.



2. Sorcerers are well equipped for melee with quicken spell. They also have higher con saves than any other caster which means that they can resist hits to concentration better. They can throw a hold person down, dash in, crit with gfb, dash out. That's a sickeningly powerful combo. Yes, others can do it as well, but it's genuinely effective.

I'll give con saves for concentration, but for your combo to work you are going to be 15 ft from the front or so (close enough to move in and move out) which means you can easily get in melee with non-held targets. Which you aren't equipped to handle.

Still, quicken hold to auto-grab that crit is a nice move I'd never heard of before. Not sure if it is worth heading into melee for (you don't have good weapon options to take advantage of GFB unless we start talking races) but it is a decent plan.


3. I agree that it's a break with fluff, that he is hard to build. But I love him. Keep your grubby mitts away.

Thing is, I love the sorcerer too. My only 4e character was a sorcerer and my first 5e character was a sorcerer. But, WoTC isn't treating them right (IMO) and I can't stand it. If I felt they were well-designed or even decently designed I'd be supporting them, but I don't think they are.

[Moxxmix]

Been following the thread. Agree with Chaosmancer on most stuff.


What I have rarely seen is someone able to convince me that the sorcerer thematics actually are represented by the mechanics we have, because, for example, the idea that you can "alter spells on the fly" does not actually seem well represented by metamagic. Sure, you can do a little more damage, but you can't alter the shape of a spell from a sphere to a cube, or a cone to a line. You can't contract it to deal more damage to fewer or enlarge it to deal less damage to more, you can't alter elemental types, you can't alter a spell at all, after it has already been cast. All of this would fit that theme and all of it is impossible. And some of it is doable by wizard subclasses that they keep trying to sneak thru.
But this point grabbed me.

Now, I have issues with D&D's magic system in general. I've been through many, many other magic systems, with preferences leaning towards things like Mage and Ars Magica and Castle Falkenstein. (If anything, those are the types of concepts I actually expect from the sorcerer class, even though I know D&D can't support them.) However, given the limits of magic in D&D, as I've tried to wrap my head around how spells are constructed and balanced, I would ask how you would allow actual alterations of spells on the fly?

Let's try a simple spell:

Fog Cloud — VS components, 120' range, 1 action to cast, 1 hour concentration duration, 20' radius, obscures an area, and can be dispersed by a wind.

How do the various metamagics affect it?

Careful: Nothing.
Twinned: Nothing.
Heightened: Nothing.
Empowered: Nothing.
Distant: 240' range
Extended: 2 hour concentration duration
Subtle: Can cast without evidence
Quickened: Can cast as a bonus action

Now, are any of those altering the spell? Well, certainly. They are modifying the parameters of the spell, and each of them that actually does something might have some extremely corner-case use. Are they changing the class of problem that the spell can solve? No.

The problem is, truly altering the spell, such that it does something entirely new, sets off an entire avalanche of problems. Suppose I make the area it covers difficult terrain? Suppose I make it so that the fog does poison damage? Suppose I make it an illusion of a fae forest where people get lost? Suppose the fog dissolves the ground beneath it? Suppose you can walk on top of the fog, and move it to fly people around? Suppose it sounds like a dragon is approaching from behind the fog? Suppose a dragon is approaching from behind the fog?

Each of these would be a true alteration, making it a spell designed for an entirely different problem. Making it an entirely different spell. It's also impossible to balance in a generic way, and near-impossible to manage.

Let's take the simplest of those alterations: Making the Fog Cloud area difficult terrain. How do you measure the value of that compared to casting the Fog Cloud at twice the distance, or for twice the duration? Is it something that could conceivably be added as a metamagic in some way? How do you make sure you don't try to add it to Fire Bolt? What if you tried to add it to Fireball? What does it mean to be able to make this type of alteration?

Another alteration that would actually modify how the spell is likely to be used: Have some way that your allies can see through the obscurement (EG: Careful Spell). Suddenly a minor little spell to cover your escape becomes a massively powerful tool to gain advantage against anyone you're fighting against. It can become the cornerstone of a team's fighting tactics. A sorcerer specializing in water or air or weather magic might be able to do that. Fire dragon, not so much.

Then we get into issues of balance. At first it seems hugely unbalanced. Of course, if this is known as a common tactic, you can pretty much guarantee that everyone will have a caster along to cast Gust of Wind/Warding Wind/etc, and suddenly your trick is worthless. But it's the type of thing to make a character feel powerful for a moment, like when they decide to drop two T-Rexes on the battlefield.

But without some means of balancing these types of alterations, we're back to the basic 8. And the basic 8 are kinda crap. Sure, sorcerers can do some neat tricks, like Twinned Haste, or Heightened Disintegration, but you know what those are? They're generic spells.

Sorcerers are supposed to be specialists, right? Why does a fire dragon "specialize" in casting Hypnotic Pattern? Why is the storm sorcerer getting Polymorph? It's not because of the character's specialization, it's because these (and other similar recommended/mandatory spells) are the only spells that are actually effective with the gimpy list of metamagics that are handed out.

~~~

And now an idea comes to mind. People get these spells, and build these generic sorcerers, because there's no penalty for not doing so, and there's no benefit for sticking to the character's theme. At the same time, the metamagics are limited to those effects that the designers can be fairly sure will not break the game when combining these metamagics with every possible spell in existence.

They did, briefly, provide bonus spells in the UA subclasses, but eventually dropped them because they couldn't be balanced against the can't-be-changed PHB subclasses. However, suppose we just ignore that for the moment. Let me find the UA storm sorcerer spells...

Ignoring the conjure elemental spells, what about providing custom metamagic effects to spells provided in the bonus spell list for a subclass?


Fog Cloud — Careful Spell may be used to remove the obscurement effect from up to a number of allies equal to your Charisma modifier.
Thunderwave — Distant Spell may be used to either double the cube's size, and double the distance a creature may be pushed, or increase its range to 30'.
Gust of Wind or Warding Wind — Extended Spell may remove the concentration requirement from this spell, and increase the duration by one class (10 minutes and 1 hour, respectively).
Levitate — Empowered Spell may create a funnel of wind around the target that prevents casting spells with V or S components if the target fails a Constitution save (per turn), and gives disadvantage to ranged attacks.
Call Lightning — Twinned Spell be used to allow you to call two lightning strikes per action.
Sleet Storm — Subtle Spell may be used to force creatures to make a Constitution saving throw each time they start their turn in the area, or gain a level of exhaustion as they are gradually frozen to death.
Ice Storm — Heightened Spell may be used to cause this spell to destroy property in its area of effect. Anything shielded by wood or lighter material can be considered destroyed. (Anti-army spell)

You can only get these benefits if you take these spells with storm sorcerer. Shadow sorcerer or divine soul or dragon bloodline can't do these tricks (but would get others). And yeah, maybe some of them are a bit powerful, and I hardly spent a lot of time coming up with the best examples, but you want to give someone who supposedly specializes in a particular type of magic to have strong reasons to want to specialize in their magic, and not be a pretend wizard.

Anyway, these would be ways to significantly alter the way a spell worked, but only when used by a specialist sorcerer with metamagic. And because it was so narrowly scoped, you wouldn't be restricted in making metamagics that had to be valid across all spells. It does put a bit of a burden on making sure all spells (current and future) are marked up in this way, though.

It also does encourage a fairly narrow spell set of a different type (unless you provide a larger set of spells to work with). However if metamagics are still limited, you're not going to be making a huge shift in the number of specialist spells on the list. However the more metamagics you get, the more you'll want to gravitate to the specialist spells instead of the 'typical' spells.

Regardless, make any given specialist spell taken be capable of working within multiple divergent problem spaces when applying particular metamagics to it. Yes, you're stuck with a crappy number of known spells, but make every one of those spells be capable of doing double or triple duty in ways that no other class can. If every spell can work in two entirely different ways, you have 30 spells, not 15.

The real issue will probably be multiclassing, as usual. Not sure what can, or should, be done about that.

~~~

Anyway, that idea just came up while I was replying about the altering spell topic, and I've kind of lost the thread of where that was going. Still, I really like this idea as a different approach to handling sorcerer, though it will take a lot of work to polish up.

[LeonBH]

When trying to measure relative power, it is easiest to assume that identical features cancel out. If I am comparing the Fighter and the Paladin for example, I don't bother mentioning the benefits of having a 20 AC from Plate and Shield, both classes can do that with the same cost-benefit analysis, so it only clutters the space of the discussion to talk about that.

But it isn't identical. Even if Sorcerers and Wizards get ASIs at the same levels, the choices that are optimal for each class is different, and it even varies build by build in the Sorcerer's case. They may share the same options, but Keen Mind is more valuable to the Wizard than to the Sorcerer, and Resilient (Con) is not valuable to the Sorcerer at all. Meanwhile, the Sorcerer can find good use of Ritual Caster, which is of less value to the Wizard, and they can find better use of Luck assuming they went the Wild Mage or Divine Soul route. Even the simple stat bumps differ, as a +2 to Dex is more important to the Wizard than to the Draconic Sorcerer, whereas a +2 to Cha is far more important to a Shadow Sorcerer compared to other Sorcerers owing to Strength of the Grave. So no, it is not identical at all.


So, yes, Spellcasting is a very powerful feature in and of itself, but if I made a 1d8 HD class with the cleric spellcasting feature and nothing else, I don't think anyone would argue that the new class is not weaker than the Cleric. Even though spellcasting is powerful, the way it is implemented does not make the class powerful overall.

Sure, that 1d8 HD Cleric with no divine domains is strictly weaker than a regular Cleric, but only because it is a subset of the regular Cleric. That is not the case for Sorcerers and Wizards. Their spellcasting features themselves are different, with the Wizard being a prepared caster and the Sorcerer being a known caster (or whatever the term used for it is). Their spell lists are different too. So it is a false equivalence to compare it with the Cleric in your example.


How do you propose that a caster runs out of spell slots? Perhaps by using them? Your argument that spells are useless if you don't have any more slots is the equivalent of saying that money is useless if you've spent it all or food is useless if you've eaten it all.

Not so. The point I'm making is that the number of spells known is inherently limited by the number of spell slots one has. A Wizard won't want to prepare a lot of mid-to-high level spells because there are fewer spell slots that can support them, even if there are a lot of great high level spells, and the same goes for the Sorcerer. Therefore, putting all significance in the difference of the size of their spell lists leads you to believe something that is not accurate. You are overstating the importance of their spell lists, because at the end of the day, both classes can cast the same number of basic spells (barring class features). So while it is important, it isn't as important as to the degree you are emphasizing it.


Yes, the fullcasters get the same number of slots to start with (barring Warlock who runs on a vastly different system than everyone else). Being equivalent, we should then look towards other sections. For example, Ritual Casting. Out of Bards, Wizards, Sorcerers, Clerics, and Druids only one does not get this ability. An ability whose sole purpose is to conserve spell slots so that they may still be used.

That's true, Sorcerers are not ritual casters. Of course, only a minority of spells are rituals. If Healing Word was a ritual, that is a definite gap in the Sorcerer's abilities. Can you name me a ritual spell that, if Sorcerers could cast it as a ritual, would greatly strengthen the class?


Meaning that the more Rituals a character uses, the more the gap in number of spells cast grows between them and the sorcerer.

That would be true if you could cast ritual spells that are broken. That is, if the ritual spell you cast can break the game if cast over and over again, then I would agree. But there are no such rituals. The big spells all cost spell slots. That is not to say ritual casting is useless - but rather that it is a feature you can do without as a full caster.


Also, I am still baffled by your assertion that having fewer options makes for a more powerful class. Do you often find yourself asking your DM to take away spells known from you? Do you find yourself never preparing your full allotment as a cleric? Perhaps cutting away your bonus spells to "streamline" the class so you can become better somehow? I will say, simplicity and fewer options can be a good aesthetic choice, but no one is going around saying the Champion is more powerful than the Battlemaster because he has fewer options, so why should I accept that the sorcerer having fewer options makes them more powerful?

That is a false equivalency between the Champion and the Battlemaster, and the Wizard spell list and the Sorcerer spell list. The Champion and Battlemaster are balanced subclasses. The Sorcerer spell list is (mostly) a subset of the Wizard spell list, with some extra spells added in that the Wizard does not have access to. But look at what spells were cut from the Sorcerer and given to the Wizard: Alarm, Arcane Eye, Demiplane, Find Familiar, Leomund's Tiny Hut, Nystul's Magic Aura, Telepathy, etc. With the exception of Simulacrum (which is exploitable), these individual spells do not stand head and shoulders above the spells they do share. They both get Sleep, Magic Missile, Suggestion, Counterspell, Haste, Disintegrate, etc. The benefit that Sorcerers have is an easier time picking from a smaller but not weaker spell list.


How shall I substantiate the claim that metamagic replaced other spellcasting features when compared to the wizard?

That wasn't the unsubstantiated claim. The unsubstantiated claim was that metamagic does not pull its weight.


Point out that the Sorcerer gets fewer spells known? Did that
Point out that the Sorcerer does not get Ritual Casting? Did that
Point out that the Arcane Recovery Feature is equivalent to the Flexible Casting ability, yet both pull from the same pool, meaning every use of metamagic reduces the Sorcerers slot recovery compared to the Wizard? Did that

So far, you've made your first two statements (fewer spells known, ritual casting) on shaky grounds, which I hope you will address my points above. But your third point is false as well. Arcane Recovery is not the same as Flexible Casting. You can never create spell slots with Arcane Recovery, only recover them. That means your Wizard must expend a number of spells with a combined level equal to half their Wizard level (rounded up), take a 1 hour break, and regain their expended slots. However, Flexible Casting can create slots without needing to take breaks. And take note that as a benchmark, a level 20 Wizard can recover two 5th level slots, while a 20th level Sorcerer can create two 5th level slots and a 4th level slot. From levels 1-3, the Sorcerer's points matches Arcane Recovery. Starting level 4 and beyond, the Sorcerer can match Arcane Recovery and still use metamagic/create more slots. Metamagic and spell slot creation may pull from the same pool, but there is enough points in the pool to match Arcane Recovery's regeneration and have room for the Sorcerer's own abilities. So Flexible Casting is in fact stronger than Arcane Recovery, both in action economy and in spell slot generation.


Or am I supposed to substantiate that Metamagic is not as powerful a feature as has been claimed?

Yes.


Perhaps by pointing out that Three of the Eight metamagic options are generally considered bad? Did that (Distant, Extend, Careful)

Actually, no, recent threads I've started have shown me uses of Distant and Extend as more useful than I previously though. Extend was buffed in large part due to XtgE, whereas Distant did get buffed but has always had its uses. Meanwhile, Careful is far from bad, unless you're willing to call Sculpt Spell bad as well, which is the Wizard analogue.


Perhaps by pointing out that an additional two of those features have large limitations on their usefulness? Did that, to a degree (Heighten is massively expensive to get early on, Subtle is DM reliant)

And the limitations you're pointing out do not show that metamagic is useless. Heighten may be expensive early on, but the Sorcerer will eventually have enough to use it without running out of spell slots. Subtle may be DM dependent, but only because DMs regularly break the RAW with regards to subtle spellcasting.


I could point out that every use of metamagic reduces the usage of other sorcerer abilties? Did that just in this section

Countered that by pointing out that there is enough room for enough Sorcerer abilities.


Ah, I could point out that eventually many wizards can get equivalent or better versions of certain abilities that could be found through metamagic? We've talked about that too.

And you're wrong on this. Never have you shown an example of a Wizard outdoing a metamagic.


Could talk about how few and how late you get metamagic abilities? Nope, did that.

Level 3 is hardly late. Warlocks don't get their Pact Boons til level 3. Fighters don't get their subclasses til level 3, so with monks and paladins and rangers and bards. And just because the Sorcerer only has two metamagics at that level, doesn't make the feature weak. That is a complete non sequitur.


Maybe I could point out that the versatility and abilities lost to metamagic are incredibly powerful, meaning that great power has to come from those abilities to equal the cost? Didn't say that explicitly I suppose, but I thought the power of ritual casting and versatility was well understood.

And this claim is unsubstantiated and countered by my arguments above. Ritual casting is versatile, but it does not defeat metamagic.


But yeah, I don't put forth arguments to substantiate my claims

To be honest, I didn't realize those above were your justifications as to why metamagic was bad. None of them hold any water. Thus when I said you made an unsubstantiated claim, I genuinely believed you were saying things out of thin air. My mistake.


I have no idea what you are implying with that, unless you are saying they gave gamebreaking abilities tot he wizard because they are so weak, but that makes zero sense. Honestly, I would have ignored this line but you seem to get very offended when I skip over points like this.

Acknowledging and skipping.


Sure, I can't prove anything with scientific accuracy, and it could be legacy since both the sorcerer and wizard in 3.5 had a 1d4 HD. But, the sorcerer used to get a familiar (they don't anymore) and they used to have better armor and weapons (they don't anymore), so not everything in this can be for legacy, because legacy would see them better off. And, the reason the legacy even started was balance, so it is fair to make the assumption that balance still played a role in that decision going forward. For example: I do believe the playtest sorcerer had a 1d8 HD instead of a 1d6, indicating they had considered beefier sorcerers.

I'm not asking you to prove anything with scientific accuracy. This point is still related to the above, where you claimed that metamagic is not powerful enough, which in my view you had said without justification. Thus I said so. And this is a tangent, but if the Sorcerer did have a 1d8 HD in the playtest, then that only strengthens the idea that metamagic (and the rest of the Sorcerer's features) was evaluated by Wizards of the Coast to be as powerful as all of the Wizard's spells and features. Also, I do believe they tried to change the Warlock's spellcasting ability to Intelligence, but the push back due to legacy reasons made them retain the Warlock as a Charisma caster, so there's that possibility too.


Your point was not that wizards could not specialize. Instead it was that wizards were designed in such a way that useful spells, such as Knock, are essentially costless for them to take. I'm assuming you are implying something close to costless from your phrase "on account of just because they can" in the first paragraph, which implies that the cost is so low that it does not effect their overall build.

More or less, though I may have overstated the "costlessness" aspect. Which you do address below. Let's skip over this as we discuss the points further below.


This "on account of just because they can" spell would make sense to prepare in a campaign where it is useful, such as a campaign featuring many locked doors or chests. And so even if the wizard specializes in a certain school, they will likely still be able to prepare these types of spells.

Correct, they would be expected to prepare Knock when it is expected to be useful, and not prepare it when it is not expected to be useful.


And your last two paragraphs seem intent on trying to convince me that this completely optional choice of the wizard, to choose more generically useful spells on top of the spells they chose for their specialized build in no way should reflect on the forced (You used the word must in italics in the last paragraph) specialization of sorcerers.

Correct.


How am I misinterpreting this again? A wizard can choose to be a blaster, a controller, and cover generically useful spells while a sorcerer must specialize in one of the first two areas and rarely take niche spells, like the Knock that these various wizards choose just because they could. Yet this in no way implies that there is a power disparity here?

Yes, which I've addressed above (size of spell list vs content of spell list), and as I'll also address further in the immediate paragraph below.


I'm once more at a loss, perhaps if you tell me more about how wizards getting more options that are more useful more of the time is actually a bad thing for the class I'll begin to understand it.

You say that as a joke, but you're pretty close. It's the other way around: not having spells like Knock or Catnap doesn't hurt the class in terms of power. Having them is nice, and that's it. There are always other ways around locked doors, and Knock is not the only way through. That is both literal and figurative: spells are ways to solve problems codified into the rules, but the problems themselves always have multiple solutions. You don't need magic to open a locked door, generally speaking. And thus in the general sense, not having those more useful options is not something that hurts a class's power level.


I know you can't do those things, that's why I mentioned them. And perhaps we have different definitions of "alter" here. Rerolling damage to try and get closer to the maximum is not "altering" a spell. I'd never bothering rerolling damage on a fireball that rolled all 4+ on the dice, because I've already achieved the goal of dealing higher than average damage.

But wouldn't you reroll a Fireball that rolled all 2's? As to the point on Empower, to clarify what I said on altering spells after they have been cast, you can Empower a Wall of Fire (or other long duration damaging spells) on any round that the spell deals damage, not just on casting.


To alter a spell to the point where I'd believe that it can solve "a variety of situations" it would have to actually be different, not just closer to a good roll or a bad one in the case of saves.

Well, that isn't what metamagic offers, so I suppose you will never see metamagic as altering spells. On that note, nobody can ever alter spells short of Wish.


I will agree that a blank check could be too powerful (or at the least far too much math if you had to keep the volume the same like in the old days) but nudging spells is different from reshaping them, isn't it?

Correct, and thus the specific alterations to the spells have to be rigidly codified. You can't hand a blank check to anyone, they'll bankrupt you in a heartbeat. But on the point of nudging vs reshaping, it really is a philosophical difference in my eyes. The spell changes substantially, and the way it does it breaks certain rules of the game that no other class feature can do. That is not to say it is broken, just that it creates a big enough exception in the mechanics of the rules to be noteworthy. You already know about twin concentration and bonus action casting. But there is also granting disadvantage to saves (a very rare ability), and there is even a meta-metamagic, Empower Spell, which can be used with the other metamagics. Metamagic is literally playing at a meta level, and that is why it alters the spells.


Oh sure, it is a small gap. It's also one of the most requested and most commonly (to my knowledge which may be limited) houseruled abilities for the sorcerer.

And it has been given to the wizard in playtesting twice.

Now, you'll have to forgive an assumption, but when you consider that those of us who see the sorcerer as needing some fixes are often looking to the wizard to gauge the sorcerers power, to see the wizard getting one of the smallest yet most requested abilities we'd like the sorcerer to have.... well, it is a little infuriating. Kind of like when the Lore wizard also could do a far better version of Distant spell, along with a few other powerful abilities, on top of the core wizard class. And the Inventor Wizard also has a version of the Wild Sorcerers Wild magic.

It is still a small gap. I don't see why its absence is a detriment to the Sorcerer. In a sense, that ability is less of a metamagic than those that already exist, because it changes the spell in a way that doesn't break any rules. And you have to forgive me for repeating the use of the word "break" here, because obviously the rules still apply to the Sorcerers, and metamagic doesn't break the game. What I mean is it doesn't lean on the 4th wall, or something like that. It doesn't create a special exception in the rules that must accommodate the use of the metamagic. It is nice, flavorful, and easy to imagine. But I don't see why its absence makes the Sorcerer weaker in any way.


As you so often tell me, I think you've missed the point of what I was saying.

Sure, you can double the duration of Greater Invisibility. During that time that both spells are active though, they are indistinguishable from each other. They do the exact same thing in the exact same way. And, if something were to disrupt the spell (losing concentration or a dispel magic being cast) before the sorcerer got that doubled duration, or if they travel for long enough between fights that the double duration isn't even enough for the spell to last til the next encounter, then the sorcerer has effectively gained nothing for their trouble.

Sure, Extend is one of the most niche metamagics. But Greater Invisibility is not one of the spells you should Extend. In another thread, someone mentioned they Extended Darkvision, which is great. It's a non-concentration buff that can last through a long rest, which is very economical in terms of spell slots. After all, you get back both that 2nd level slot and that 1 Sorcery Point after a long rest, and when you wake up, you still have the buff. There seems to be just a minority of spells you can use this way, but it is a very good use.


Turning a spell into a bonus action can be powerful, if you have another spell or a powerful action available, but often you could be casting a bonus action cantrip and it is equivalent in the action economy, and despute being a bonus action, the spell still does the exact same thing.

What Quicken Spell is hacking is not the spell itself, but the action economy. For example, the very slippery vampire runs away and uses legendary actions to distance itself from the party. Well, a Quickened Haste gives you 60ft of movement, and an extra 60ft of movement if you use that extra action to dash, and you still retain a full action. You can use that action to grapple, attack, or otherwise trap the vampire. You can use a magic item, or you can hold your action, or you can do a multitude of other things that a full action affords except casting a leveled spell. The use case I've described is good for a gish build, but you could translate that into an anticaster build. Use Shocking Grasp with your action to force them to lose their reaction or Counterspell you, and then use Quicken Spell to safely cast a spell without threat of being Counterspelled, while still having your reaction for a Shield. These are only two examples, but the idea is to hack the action economy, not hack the spell.


Remember, the statement, they can alter spells "to solve a variety of situations" none of the alterations we're talking about actually allow the spell to do something it couldn't normally do, excepting twinning a concentration spell that normally could not target multiple people and couldn't be upcast to target multiple people. And even then, you are solving the same problems, it does not allow for the solving of new problems, unless the problem was "I can't haste both of you" or "I can't greater invisibility both of you" or some variation on that theme.

Sure, and that's why spell selection and metamagic selection go hand in hand for the Sorcerer. It is extremely important that the spells match the metamagic, so that the spells can do all the work, while the metamagic nails the coffin. For Twin Spell, what you're hacking is not the spell but the concentration mechanic. Yes, the spells still do the same things. But you would normally need two people to do what that one Sorcerer just did, which means doing so is twice as efficient.


Interesting assertion. If the level 6 ability does not push or require someone to be a blaster, how is it that choosing acid makes it so they are "obviously" not going to try and be a blaster?

Because the current meta surrounding the Sorcerers is that Fire is the way to go to blast, so you need to be a Brass, Gold, or Red Dragon Sorcerer. I didn't say that statement in a white room. As we are assuming a decent player is using this character, I would assume he also knew the common wisdom, and that choosing Acid as his element means he is ignoring the meta around blaster type Draconic Sorcerers.


You seemed quite convinced before that that particular ability meant little in terms of whether a sorcerer would be a blaster or not. That was the whole point of this sub-discussion correct? And yet, not being able to "take full advantage" of it means they will obviously not try and be a blaster.

Sure. Choosing Acid over Fire means they don't get to add that Charisma bonus to their Fireball, which is the best AoE spell at 3rd level in terms of shape of AoE as well as damage. They are thus lowering the ceiling of their blaster abilities, and on balance, I would say they are probably not trying to blast.


IF they then could take advantage of it, by say, going Fire Dragon instead, then would that imply they are "obviously" going to attempt to be a blaster? If this is the case, then this ability does push them to be blasters, and therefore it matters what they are attempting to specialize in.

The logic doesn't work in reverse. Choosing Fire means your ceiling for blasty damage is higher, but you don't have to design your character around it.


I have not brought up player skill once, it shouldn't matter. A good player obviously gets more out of any class than one who doesn't yet know what they doing. This has no bearing on the discussion of how the class functions, because the mechanics of the class do not change based on a players perceived skill.

But obviously, it matters to this discussion. You have, in the paragraph above this one, tried to reason that if Acid Draconic Sorcerers are "obviously" not inclined to be blasters, then Fire Draconic Sorcerers are "obviously" inclined to be blasters, and thus the origin they choose boxes them into certain roles. If you assume a decent player, you could not have made that assertion. That player would have known that the meta around Sorcerers point Fire to blasters, and Acid is a generally "bad" choice. And if he chose it anyway, then he must have a completely different build and play style in mind... assuming he knows what he's doing.


In the same way that making a bonfire purple instead of orange isn't really changing the nature of the bonfire. I reject them because if we are talking about altering spells "to solve a variety of problems" then just casting the same spell only longer, or the same spell only further or the same spell only more average damage doesn't seem to meet the criteria. I don't say that using sharpshooter to increase a longbow shots range has "altered the longbow".

And once again, metamagic does not do what you want it to do. That doesn't mean it's not amazing.


Unless the niche situation comes up that requires that ability, it isn't even noticeable that you've done anything.

If you assume a decent player, he will create those situations and make himself relevant. Or he will ensure that the build is general enough with the metamagic that he can participate a majority of the time. If he can't, well, he's still a caster. Even the Wizard can't prepare the exact spell he needs 100% of the time that he needs it.


I saw that discussion, and the fly spell was a decent idea. I won't counter with superior tactics than trying to cast a 4th level fly spell in combat, not the point. You can now cast the exact same spell, which will do the exact same thing, except you can target people who are not next to you, and you probably aren't planning on targeting yourself, since that kind of negates the whole point of using distant (unless the DM says that after you use your walking speed your new fly speed doesn't count). But, you haven't changed the spell, you've changed the spell's delivery. And, I'm kind of beating on the same drum here, you aren't solving any new problems with the spell itself, and it is only noticeably altered if you need to cast fly on people out of reach or people who aren't next to each other, otherwise nothing has changed.

You are solving a new problem, actually. To cast Fly on more than one person, they have to stand together. In combat, that means moving and spending their turns for you to buff them. You either choose to lose on the action economy by waiting your turn for a buff, or you don't get the buff. And I am beating the same drum as well when I say that metamagic doesn't aim to change the spell itself. That is your expectations of it, but it doesn't fulfill it, and that doesn't make it bad.


But, I see the point you are trying to make, and I'll concede that there are times that casting a touch spell 30 ft away would qualify as an "altered spell". The funny thing is, even with that being one of the few metamagics that can do something uniquely different with a spell, it is so far in a niche that it is still considered one of the worst options you can take.

True enough. That is why you take Distant when you expect it will be useful. It does have more uses than Extend, but it's not a metamagic you pick without prior thought.


Also, on that "turn an 8 hour spell into a 16 hour spell", man does that strategy have a lot of assumptions. You assume the next encounter is 8 hours or less away from the campsite, that you have spells from the night before to spare, that you know about the danger you are about to go into and therefore can plan ahead and prepare. Plus, it seems to require some cleric spells to even be worth considering from what I've seen of the discussion thread.

Cleric spells are available through the Divine Soul now. That's why with XtgE, the Extend spell received a buff. And yeah, it does have a lot of assumptions. I don't know if you've never played a game where the assumptions were never true. Besides which, you can cast a spell in the middle of a long rest without breaking the long rest. That's why you can continue resting after a nightly encounter. So if you were to cast it just before the long rest completes, you would have the buff for the whole day until your next long rest. Even if you didn't know the dangers that lay ahead, if you have the slots saved, you have no reason not to cast it. It costs you nothing as you will immediately regain those lost resources anyway. And it is a niche application, but it is far from a bad one.


This is... potentially enlightening. Is this what you mean by "specializing" only using one set of tactics over and over again? I wonder if you've ever seen a blaster wizard or a controller wizard then, since you seem to think most wizards would choose generic spells to use at times too.

In my experience, no caster should only make use of a single type of spell, because they completely ignores the power of spellcasting, which is having a variety of answers to a variety of problems.

It must be the exhaustion getting to me, because I can't even wrap my head around a caster who would only ever use blasting spells period. IT just makes no sense.

My apologies, the word "only" altered that section substantially. Perhaps I was getting too worked up. Anyway, what I meant to say was "I would consider them blasters if their primary tactics make use of blaster tactics. In other words, they have to play like blasters for me to consider them blasters, regardless of how many blast spells they know." I've italicized the sentence after that with no alteration as I expounded on the previous sentence to explain my meaning, which shows my original intent was there but incorrectly stated.


If the above is your definition of Specializing, that makes sense. The problem is, since wizards can cover multiple bases nearly seamlessly, and sorcerers can't we're back to the same point.

Well, in this case, the fault of you misunderstanding was mine. I've corrected my statement, and will restate this point here: Wizards waste their full potential by only specializing. That means they shouldn't only specialize, but also cover multiple bases.


You are making a fallacy by assuming I'm trying to solve two different problems. I'm not. I'm looking at the set of problems involved in "adventuring" and trying to find the best tool for the job of solving that set of problems. On one hand I have a multi-tool capable of handling a vast majority of those problems, on the other hand I have a laser beam that can solve very few of those problems.

In this specific sub-discussion, you were saying that if Wizards are more powerful as generalists, then Sorcerers must also get their power from being generalists. That is wrong because Sorcerers and Wizards build differently. "How to build a Wizard" is not the same as "How to build a Sorcerer" and thus giving them the same solution, which is to generalize, is not the correct approach.


And you keep telling me the laser beam is as useful as the multi-tool for the purposes of solving this set of problems, because the laser is really good at doing one thing while the multi-tool is really good at doing dozens of things.

I'm not telling you that, though. I'm telling you that the power level between the classes is balanced. The fact that Wizards can cover a lot of bases simultaneously does not make it inherently more powerful than the Sorcerer, who can cover most bases decently (as its spell list is mostly a subset of the Wizard spells), and is really good at one or two of those bases (using metamagic). Whatever bases the Sorcerer can't cover that the Wizard can aren't enough to say the Sorcerer is useless or bad at most things. So the typical Sorcerer can't magically unlock doors, see invisible things, or set up magical alarms. But they can turn the tide of combat, or even turn the tide of the story of the campaign, just as much as Wizards can.


They aren't equal though, and if the laser beam sorcerer was capable of solving more problems then they'd make as good of a choice as the multi-tool wizard. The sorcerer is only bad at generalizing because their design is so limited that they are incapable of it, not because generalizing itself is a bad plan. And in fact, the wizard has the potential to refocus and reequip themselves each day to tackle different challenges.

Generalizing is good or bad in the context of the problem it solves. Your solution, which is to generalize, must be evaluated in the context of the problem it solves. You can't wave a solution around and say that the problems it can't solve are bad problems. That's backwards. What you have is a bad solution to a valid problem. And they aren't equal according to your criteria (the criteria being: who can solve the most problems?), but using power as a criteria, they are equal.


I'm not trying to solve "how to build a wizard" and "how to build a sorcerer" the same way, I'm looking in the toolbox and trying to decide what to take with me into the mountains, and unless I know an awful lot beforehand, the sorcerer looks like a bad choice.

You are though. Based on your words, you already have a criteria in mind designed to let the Wizards pass and the Sorcerers fail. If you metaphorically changed your criteria to you looking at the toolbox, noticed the chainsaw beside it, and decided to take the chainsaw, you would pass the Sorcerer and fail the Wizard.


Okay, this moves away from what you seem to put forth as your idea of specializing when we talked about blaster wizards up above. Plus, Phantasmal Force and Maximillians Grasp don't even do close to the same thing, so they aren't related to their specializations or tactics. Phantasmal creates an illusion that can interact with an enemy, generally five foot dimensions and capable of dealing damage. MAximillians restrains, maybe deals damage later.

Right, and it is evidence that I said my point wrong above. And no, they don't do the same thing out of the box, but they both have the capability of fulfilling the same goal - which is to take someone out of the fight with one spell. When one trick doesn't work, you fall back on another.


But, honestly, the part that throws me the most is that you consider taking one spell specializing. It isn't. It's having a favorite go to spell. Specializing is covering a particular area thoroughly thru multiple options within that area. Like how clerics can specialize in healing by taking multiple spells that heal damage, remove status effects, or revive the fallen. Taking Healing word does not mean you have specialized as a healer.

That is a wrong way of stating it. I don't consider you a specialized healer if you've taken Healing Word. I consider you a specialized healer if you play in such a way that you are always healing people. Whether that takes one spell or ten, or even if you don't know how to cast spells but have a stash of potions you always use, you've chosen a role as a healer and are sticking with it. Thus you are a healer. That doesn't mean you can't attack, but it does mean that you favor the strategy where you are always healing.


We started with this assertion. And, yeah, the generalist can beat your so called specialist. Your specialized sorcerer example who took Phantasmal Force and Maximillians grasp. Wizard took both those, and Hypnotic pattern to handle groups larger than two with a wisdom save, and Sleep to handle low hp groups. Then took knock, identify (which they don't need to prepare because ritual) fireball for damage, thunderwave and misty step for emergency evacs.

And the assertion remains standing. That Wizard who cast Phantasmal Force? He was Counterspelled. Or they saved because of a 20. Or he lost concentration after taking damage because he isn't proficient in the save. Or there were two enemies and he could only hit one, so the other one got him. Or he got left behind because his action was tied up with spellcasting, he had no means to dash. Or he's out of spells and doesn't have an hour to rest. The Wizard can pull out different spells for different scenarios, but he can't literally do everything.


And, frankly, with how many pieces of sorcerer builds we've shown to be not worth the time and effort, I have no idea how you can claim sorcerers express themselves "at build". Building a spell list is part of building a character and Wizards get so many more options and pieces to build with, that frankly I don't it. Heck, you don't even get metamagic til level 3, so a level 1 sorcerer picks his subclass first, and out of his two PHB options that is 50/50, wizard then gets 8 PHB options next level. Along with a lot more spells. Seems that "build" must include multiple levels of play to even get anywhere with this.

I don't believe you've shown a single Sorcerer build to not be worth the effort. But yes, there are plenty bad ones out there. If you, say, roll a dice and choose origins, metamagics, and spell selection based on that, you'll end up with a bad Sorcerer for sure. And yeah, the Sorcerer starts with much fewer options. But the Wizard has exactly the same number of spell slots, and they both have the same goal: survive to the higher levels. That level 1 Wizard won't want to use Disguise Self to trick another person because if he anticipates he needs those two 1st level spell slots later, he's shooting himself in the foot now. His vast repertoire of known spells and options are much less significant at the early levels compared to his spell slots. And the Sorcerer has exactly the same problems.


I like options and versatility. Not actually a fan of wizards. And, I don't see how you have more space to "move up" you don't get more powerful spells sooner or anything like that, in the vast majority of ways and in the vast majority of cases, you are doing the same things as the wizard, only less often and less effectively. And the wizard moves so far sideways you're total area (AKA power) is going to be greater.

"Less often" and "less effectively" are false. You might be doing the same thing as Wizards, but you do it more effectively and just as often. As I said at the beginning of this post, starting at level 4, Flexible Casting can match and exceed the spell slots generated by a Wizard, with the excess potentially going to either more spell slots or metamagic. Of course, the Sorcerer doesn't have to create spell slots - he can choose to use more metamagic. But he is flexible in that aspect, and he has enough fuel to disprove the "less often" and "less effectively" assertion. And what I meant when I said they have the space to move up is, Sorcerers give creative players better tools to express their themes. They are given more control over where they want to take their character. They can show a deeper expression of what they want, in contrast to the Wizard who, even though he somewhat specializes, is still a generalist.


I'm aware of confirmation bias, I try very hard to avoid it if I can (hard to do, since it means that things that point towards my preferred explanation are weighted more heavily than things which refute it). But, I don't think that is what is going on here for the majority of this.

Honestly, if you like having fewer options to choose from, and to then have fewer potential solutions to problems that may arise, that's a personal thing and I'm fine with that. But, you keep insisting that fewer options is more powerful somehow, and I just don't understand that mindset.

Well, whatever it's called, you did say that you were taking my points, which expressed the opposite side of the discussion, as support for your own. So there's that. And no, I'm not insisting that fewer options is more powerful. I'm saying the Sorcerer can dominate in their specialization with a combination of metamagic and a few spell choices. They don't need more options to be just as formidable as the Wizard. And they don't need more options to outclass the Wizard in the area of their specialization.

[strangebloke]

Yeah, Bladelocks can be hard. But, that is only 1/3 of the class if that. And I've never seen anyone really struggle that much with Monks or Wizards. And Rogues, rogues are easy to play as far as anyone I've ever met has ever said. Not sure what you mean about the ranger. Hunter's have always seemed to do well at the tables I've been at, very few "missed plays", though I rarely see rangers using magic which is disappointing.

YMMV but I've seen several monks and warlocks struggle. Monks are melee characters with little in the way of melee defenses at early levels. They have low HP, low AC, and no defensive spells or reactions, and they really can't get better AC or HP by multiclassing or picking a certain race. They can burn resources to disengage, but then they aren't flurrying, which is instinctively what they player wants to do. My player's monk died halfway through the fourth encounter she used the monk in.

Warlocks' weird resource economy can throw players for a loop. It's not remotely intuitive what the 'optimal' usage of ritual casting and/or a familiar is, and bladelocks have lots of problems. It's easy to pick spells that don't scale well at all and screw yourself in later levels.

Admittedly I haven't seen that many rangers in play. The one I had, however, had a lot of trouble managing the Rangers' somewhat frenetic action economy.


I'll give con saves for concentration, but for your combo to work you are going to be 15 ft from the front or so (close enough to move in and move out) which means you can easily get in melee with non-held targets. Which you aren't equipped to handle.

Still, quicken hold to auto-grab that crit is a nice move I'd never heard of before. Not sure if it is worth heading into melee for (you don't have good weapon options to take advantage of GFB unless we start talking races) but it is a decent plan.

Admittedly, going melee as a sorcerer usually means a one or two level dip into hexblade or paladin. Picking a race with weapon or armor proficiencies helps a lot as well. Even then, a draconic sorcerer with 16 DEX and shocking grasp is as resilient as a monk and only slightly less resilient than a rogue at level 1.

There's lots of goofy things you can do as well. At level six a dragon sorcerers can twin GFB to hit two targets, dealing (1d6+3 +3 +3d8+3)=24.5 damage to two targets in a single round for a cost comparable to a first level spell. Non-sorcerers at that level would deal 21.5, split between two targets, which is much less good. The sorcerer isn't the best gish, not right out of the box, but pretty much all of the sorcerer archetypes can do it without any ridiculous investment.


Thing is, I love the sorcerer too. My only 4e character was a sorcerer and my first 5e character was a sorcerer. But, WoTC isn't treating them right (IMO) and I can't stand it. If I felt they were well-designed or even decently designed I'd be supporting them, but I don't think they are.
Yes, but I like their current design. They're hellaciously strong if you play them right, and can be customized to fill any specific niche. Subtle makes sorcerers the best sneaky caster and the best social caster. Twin turns them into the best Arcane buff-applying class. Empower is a phenomenally strong buff to evocation magic. Heighten is the second-best ability in the game to make a spell stick to an enemy. Quicken has great synergy with a dozen multiclass builds, and also allows for some intense nova rounds...

honestly I think that 80% of the problem is that people assume the 5e sorcerer is the 3e sorcerer, read bad guides (no offense to evilanagram, but his guide kind of misses the point on sorcerer.) and get dissapointed. They grab quicken because it's "OP" without thinking for more than five seconds about what they actually want to do with it.

Classes that have two major class customization options are better designed, IMO. Warlock benefit a lot from having both pact and boon, for instance. I think that sorcerers benefit a lot from having both metamagic and origin.

[Kane0]

So in theory would you reckon other casters would he better as more limited like the sorcerer rather than bringing the sorcerer up to be more like other fullcasters?

[Mortis_Elrod]

So in theory would you reckon other casters would he better as more limited like the sorcerer rather than bringing the sorcerer up to be more like other fullcasters?

I prefer the “buff to taste” method over “ground zero nerfing “

Sorcerer should be brought to standards

Standards shouldn’t be lowered to her

[LeonBH]

So in theory would you reckon other casters would he better as more limited like the sorcerer rather than bringing the sorcerer up to be more like other fullcasters?

Well, the classes are balanced, so there's no need to bring anyone down or buff anyone up.

[strangebloke]

So in theory would you reckon other casters would he better as more limited like the sorcerer rather than bringing the sorcerer up to be more like other fullcasters?


I prefer the “buff to taste” method over “ground zero nerfing “

Sorcerer should be brought to standards

Standards shouldn’t be lowered to her

I agree with Mortis here, both in general and in this specific case.

the only point of disagreement is how much of a buff is neccessary. I maintain: not much.

Give them bonus origin spells. Not many, just five over the course of the game. Draconic sorcerer gets chromatic orb, enhance ability, fear, etc. Shadow sorcerer gets False life, hold person, etc. You provide some generic spells so that the player has more room to mess around with their slots. More than enough to make the class more new-player friendly without severely overpowering the class.

I really disagree with the estimation of Wizards' official statement that 'a few spells known' would severely change the balance in sorcerer's favor. What really is restraining them is the key wizard spells they miss, the lack of ritual casting, and the limited number of metamagics.

[Mortis_Elrod]

I agree with Mortis here, both in general and in this specific case.

the only point of disagreement is how much of a buff is neccessary. I maintain: not much.

Give them bonus origin spells. Not many, just five over the course of the game. Draconic sorcerer gets chromatic orb, enhance ability, fear, etc. Shadow sorcerer gets False life, hold person, etc. You provide some generic spells so that the player has more room to mess around with their slots. More than enough to make the class more new-player friendly without severely overpowering the class.

I really disagree with the estimation of Wizards' official statement that 'a few spells known' would severely change the balance in sorcerer's favor. What really is restraining them is the key wizard spells they miss, the lack of ritual casting, and the limited number of metamagics.

I'd probably like it more if they did get bonus spells, all of them. I also like the idea of unique metamagic with said bonus spells.

Obviously you test out the bonus spells first and see where that is, but if its still lacking i would do unique metamagic for bonus spells for origins next.

I generally agree that a slight boost is all thats needed here.

That being said i would still welcome a bigger change.

[strangebloke]

I'd probably like it more if they did get bonus spells, all of them. I also like the idea of unique metamagic with said bonus spells.

Obviously you test out the bonus spells first and see where that is, but if its still lacking i would do unique metamagic for bonus spells for origins next.

I generally agree that a slight boost is all thats needed here.

That being said i would still welcome a bigger change.

See, the thing is, I kind of think that each new origin will have it's own metamagic.

Storm: Disengage and fly ten feet and deal damage
Divine: empower healing
Shadow: Hound

And Draconic gives only a few features, but it's a very nice gish package when put together. Basically I think that all the origins just need a little nudge so that players don't feel totally hedged into picking thematic spells that actually suck for them.

[Chaosmancer]

They did, briefly, provide bonus spells in the UA subclasses, but eventually dropped them because they couldn't be balanced against the can't-be-changed PHB subclasses. However, suppose we just ignore that for the moment. Let me find the UA storm sorcerer spells...

Ignoring the conjure elemental spells, what about providing custom metamagic effects to spells provided in the bonus spell list for a subclass?


Fog Cloud — Careful Spell may be used to remove the obscurement effect from up to a number of allies equal to your Charisma modifier.
Thunderwave — Distant Spell may be used to either double the cube's size, and double the distance a creature may be pushed, or increase its range to 30'.
Gust of Wind or Warding Wind — Extended Spell may remove the concentration requirement from this spell, and increase the duration by one class (10 minutes and 1 hour, respectively).
Levitate — Empowered Spell may create a funnel of wind around the target that prevents casting spells with V or S components if the target fails a Constitution save (per turn), and gives disadvantage to ranged attacks.
Call Lightning — Twinned Spell be used to allow you to call two lightning strikes per action.
Sleet Storm — Subtle Spell may be used to force creatures to make a Constitution saving throw each time they start their turn in the area, or gain a level of exhaustion as they are gradually frozen to death.
Ice Storm — Heightened Spell may be used to cause this spell to destroy property in its area of effect. Anything shielded by wood or lighter material can be considered destroyed. (Anti-army spell)

You can only get these benefits if you take these spells with storm sorcerer. Shadow sorcerer or divine soul or dragon bloodline can't do these tricks (but would get others). And yeah, maybe some of them are a bit powerful, and I hardly spent a lot of time coming up with the best examples, but you want to give someone who supposedly specializes in a particular type of magic to have strong reasons to want to specialize in their magic, and not be a pretend wizard.

Anyway, these would be ways to significantly alter the way a spell worked, but only when used by a specialist sorcerer with metamagic. And because it was so narrowly scoped, you wouldn't be restricted in making metamagics that had to be valid across all spells. It does put a bit of a burden on making sure all spells (current and future) are marked up in this way, though.

It also does encourage a fairly narrow spell set of a different type (unless you provide a larger set of spells to work with). However if metamagics are still limited, you're not going to be making a huge shift in the number of specialist spells on the list. However the more metamagics you get, the more you'll want to gravitate to the specialist spells instead of the 'typical' spells.

Regardless, make any given specialist spell taken be capable of working within multiple divergent problem spaces when applying particular metamagics to it. Yes, you're stuck with a crappy number of known spells, but make every one of those spells be capable of doing double or triple duty in ways that no other class can. If every spell can work in two entirely different ways, you have 30 spells, not 15.

The real issue will probably be multiclassing, as usual. Not sure what can, or should, be done about that.

When I've toyed around with the types of things I would houserule for sorcerers, I often thought of giving bonus spells to each sub-class. But this is an incredibly cool idea as well, definitely something I'm going to save and think about in the future.

Balance is the big problem, like you said, but man does all of that sound fun and interesting to try.



But it isn't identical. Even if Sorcerers and Wizards get ASIs at the same levels, the choices that are optimal for each class is different, and it even varies build by build in the Sorcerer's case. They may share the same options, but Keen Mind is more valuable to the Wizard than to the Sorcerer, and Resilient (Con) is not valuable to the Sorcerer at all. Meanwhile, the Sorcerer can find good use of Ritual Caster, which is of less value to the Wizard, and they can find better use of Luck assuming they went the Wild Mage or Divine Soul route. Even the simple stat bumps differ, as a +2 to Dex is more important to the Wizard than to the Draconic Sorcerer, whereas a +2 to Cha is far more important to a Shadow Sorcerer compared to other Sorcerers owing to Strength of the Grave. So no, it is not identical at all.

Okay, this is a little too far into the weeds.

Yeah, each feat and/or ability score improvement is better or worse for every class. But I'm not going to discuss if a Sorcerer picking Ritual Caster is more powerful than a Wizard choosing Lucky. They all get a choice of feats at the same levels, that part of the class design cannot change by this stage, so it isn't worth discussing which feats are better for which classes. That ends up being a discussion on Feat design and Feat Taxes, not a discussion about class design.



Sure, that 1d8 HD Cleric with no divine domains is strictly weaker than a regular Cleric, but only because it is a subset of the regular Cleric. That is not the case for Sorcerers and Wizards. Their spellcasting features themselves are different, with the Wizard being a prepared caster and the Sorcerer being a known caster (or whatever the term used for it is). Their spell lists are different too. So it is a false equivalence to compare it with the Cleric in your example.

There spell lists are highly similiar in many respects, but this is missing the point. You wanted me to give credit to the sorcerer design and power for it being a fullcaster, however, just being a fullcaster is not a sign of good design. In a vacuum just saying "Sorcerers get spellcasting" is a meaningless statement, no matter how powerful the spellcasting feature is, because no one was saying they do not get spellcasting.

Maybe I should try and phrase this better, but your earlier insistence that I give credit to the sorcerer design for it having spellcasting is like saying I should give credit to Fighters for having all weapons and armor proficiencies. Most full melee types do have that, and fighters are a fundamental melee class so it is expected they have that. But how they can use that feature is important.

And please note, I am aware that the spellcasting features are not equal, you can tell because I've been constantly talking about how few spells known a sorcerer gets. How they do not get ritual casting. ECT.

"Funny" thing: In a previous thread where I discussed Sorcerers lack of spells I did the math to figure out how low a wizard's intelligence would need to be for the sorcerer to ever known more spells than the wizard could prepare daily (because there is absolutely no way for a sorcerer to know more spells than a wizard). They would need an 8 Intelligence, and then until the wizard hit level 14 they would prepare fewer spells than the sorcerer could know. And they could still swap daily from their pool of spells known.



Not so. The point I'm making is that the number of spells known is inherently limited by the number of spell slots one has. A Wizard won't want to prepare a lot of mid-to-high level spells because there are fewer spell slots that can support them, even if there are a lot of great high level spells, and the same goes for the Sorcerer. Therefore, putting all significance in the difference of the size of their spell lists leads you to believe something that is not accurate. You are overstating the importance of their spell lists, because at the end of the day, both classes can cast the same number of basic spells (barring class features). So while it is important, it isn't as important as to the degree you are emphasizing it.

I'll grant, there is little point in preparing 3 different spells when you only have one slot to spend on them. But, that only looks at high level slots, and focusing on those prevents you from seeing the larger picture. Sure, at level 5 you may only prepare one or two 3rd level spells, but at level 10 when you have multiple 3rd, 4th and 5th level slots you could easily prepare four or five 3rd level spells that could be useful, either in their normal slots or upcast. Same with 1st and 2nd level spells.

And frankly, if you aren't cutting into spells that could be useful at lower levels, preparing three different high level spells which can handle three different possible scenarios is more powerful and more useful than only preparing one. So, I don't believe that I am over-emphasizing this point. More options and more versatility is better in almost any situation, and sorcerers losing out on as much as they do is a heavy limitation on their power as a class.




That's true, Sorcerers are not ritual casters. Of course, only a minority of spells are rituals. If Healing Word was a ritual, that is a definite gap in the Sorcerer's abilities. Can you name me a ritual spell that, if Sorcerers could cast it as a ritual, would greatly strengthen the class?

From the sorcerer list?

Detect Magic, Comprehend Languages, Tongues, Water Breathing.

These are spells that are good enough to take (even as limited as sorcerers are) if you have a reasonable expectation of using them, but are better used as rituals since they are generally non-combat spells, and the saving of a spell slot is always useful. Comprehend Languages and Tongues are particularly powerful because the Sorcerer can be the parties face, and these facilitate conversations.

Of course, a few even better ones aren't on the sorcerer list like Identify and Find Familiar, but I think you just wanted the ones from the sorcerer list. Also, not going to bring up clerics, even if the Divine Soul giving a few interesting options there.

Also, while we can discuss the meaning of "greatly increase" I want to note that from my perspective any spell the sorcerer could cast as many times per day as needed without using a single spell slot would be a significant increase since it frees up resources and makes taking these spells more reasonable within the context of how few spells a sorcerer can get.



That would be true if you could cast ritual spells that are broken. That is, if the ritual spell you cast can break the game if cast over and over again, then I would agree. But there are no such rituals. The big spells all cost spell slots. That is not to say ritual casting is useless - but rather that it is a feature you can do without as a full caster.

I wonder how often you've seen a wizard using the ritual identify to figure out magical items or traps. How many times has a ritual version of Unseen servant or Find Familiar been used as a distraction or to sneakily activate or grab something. Ritual Water Breathing or Water Walk? Leomund's Tiny Hut?

The thing is, they don't need to be broken to be powerful. You are getting the use of a spell for no cost in resources, only time and usually since these are out of combat, that time is not precious.

Frankly, if you can't see the value in resource-free casting of utility spells... I'm not sure how to convince you. After all, like you said, spellcasting isn't as useful if you don't have slots to cast with, and ritual casting helps prevent the loss of spell slots.



That is a false equivalency between the Champion and the Battlemaster, and the Wizard spell list and the Sorcerer spell list. The Champion and Battlemaster are balanced subclasses. The Sorcerer spell list is (mostly) a subset of the Wizard spell list, with some extra spells added in that the Wizard does not have access to. But look at what spells were cut from the Sorcerer and given to the Wizard: Alarm, Arcane Eye, Demiplane, Find Familiar, Leomund's Tiny Hut, Nystul's Magic Aura, Telepathy, etc. With the exception of Simulacrum (which is exploitable), these individual spells do not stand head and shoulders above the spells they do share. They both get Sleep, Magic Missile, Suggestion, Counterspell, Haste, Disintegrate, etc. The benefit that Sorcerers have is an easier time picking from a smaller but not weaker spell list.

Missing the point of my argument.

I was not saying the sorcerer spell list is weaker, I was saying that the statement that the sorcerer spells known being smaller does not make them a more powerful class. Hence, why I did not say that the Champion is weaker than the Battlemaster, I said that people would not say the Champion is stronger because he has fewer options. People may argue that the Champion has stronger options than the Battlemaster (I'd disagree) but no one thinks less is more powerful.

Except that is what you keep trying to argue.

But talking about if the list is weaker or not... I'd have to say that Arcane Eye, Find Familiar, and Leomund's Tiny Hut are incredibly powerful spells. In fact, the exploitability of Leomund's "safe haven" for eight hour rests has been discussed extensively. And the wizard gets many, many powerful spells that sorcerers don't beyond what you listed. Shapechange, Prismatic Wall, Foresight, Forcecage, Wall of Force, Modify Memory, Programmed Illusion, Contingency, Stone Shape, Control Water, Evard's Black Tentacles... I can keep going for a while longer.

Best part is, some of these are great spells for specialiists. Programmed Illusion, Contingency and Modify Memory can all be great for Enchanters and Illusionists. The Walls and Forcecage are amazing battlefield control spells. Some of these very clearly do stand "head and shoulders" above other options for their level. And there is very little the sorcerer gets that wizards do not. Enhance Ability is a good one, same with Insect Plague.



That wasn't the unsubstantiated claim. The unsubstantiated claim was that metamagic does not pull its weight.

Well, we did discuss metamagic compared with other abilities at quite a bit of length earlier.



So far, you've made your first two statements (fewer spells known, ritual casting) on shaky grounds, which I hope you will address my points above. But your third point is false as well. Arcane Recovery is not the same as Flexible Casting. You can never create spell slots with Arcane Recovery, only recover them. That means your Wizard must expend a number of spells with a combined level equal to half their Wizard level (rounded up), take a 1 hour break, and regain their expended slots. However, Flexible Casting can create slots without needing to take breaks. And take note that as a benchmark, a level 20 Wizard can recover two 5th level slots, while a 20th level Sorcerer can create two 5th level slots and a 4th level slot. From levels 1-3, the Sorcerer's points matches Arcane Recovery. Starting level 4 and beyond, the Sorcerer can match Arcane Recovery and still use metamagic/create more slots. Metamagic and spell slot creation may pull from the same pool, but there is enough points in the pool to match Arcane Recovery's regeneration and have room for the Sorcerer's own abilities. So Flexible Casting is in fact stronger than Arcane Recovery, both in action economy and in spell slot generation.

You are right that Flexible casting can create slots without the need of a short rest, however, over the course of a day that includes a short rest it is highly likely that the wizard and sorcerer are working with the same number of spell slots, even if the wizard must rest before they can recover them.

Also, you are technically correct in a few of your points on the way Flexible Casting breaks down. However, at level 4 the wizard gets a 2nd slot and the sorcerer gets a 2nd slot and 1 sorcerery point. This pattern continues (varying between 1 and 3 points left over) until around level 9 when the sorcerer creates a 5th level slot and can grab a 1st level with the remaining 2 points.

However, being left with a single sorcerery point means a single use of a single metamagic, probably empower or subtle, before you are tapped. Being left with 2 gives you a full gamut of a single metamagic to use, unless it is heighten which requires 3 points. The wizard meanwhile has full use of all their abilities to date.

Now, here we get to an interesting point. Let us say for the sake of argument that we are comparing a Fire Dragon blasting sorcerer to a evoker wizard. Level 10. Sorcerer creates a 5th level slot, leaving 3 points behind. Wizard can get a 5th level slot via arcane recovery over the course of the day. Wizard can sculpt spell and add their Int to damage with every AOE they cast, Sorcerer can careful spell 3 times, potentially twin 1 to 3 times, ect. If you can only use your sorcerer ability at level 10 a total of three times compared to the wizard's ability to use their special magical tinkering unlimitedly, who has gotten the better deal?

Now, many players would tell me that after this poit you should begin burning your low level slots for sorcery points to power your metamagic, but now you are eating slots per day that you might otherwise use.

This is where I find the wizard ability to be superior. Yes, the sorcerer can gain their extra spells whenever they desire, but instead of getting 10 points for metamagic and other abilities, they end up with 3 points, back to how they were as a 3rd level sorcerer. Meanwhile the wizard has sacrificed none of their abilities to regain those spells.

Matching Arcane Recovery comes at significant cost to the sorcerer, and if your plan is to eat spell slots for more sorcerery points, you actually lose out, because creating slots costs more points than the slot is worth to devour, so you could be better off not creating slots and simply using metamagic. And once you do that, the wizard gets more slots per day, before even considering the slots they saved by having ritual casting.





Actually, no, recent threads I've started have shown me uses of Distant and Extend as more useful than I previously though. Extend was buffed in large part due to XtgE, whereas Distant did get buffed but has always had its uses. Meanwhile, Careful is far from bad, unless you're willing to call Sculpt Spell bad as well, which is the Wizard analogue.

The wizards superior version you mean? Sculpt spell deals no damage if the AOE is a damage dealing spell, Careful spell does. Also, Sculpt spell costs the evoker wizard zero resources to use. The only part that makes Careful spell even hold a candle to sculpt spell is sculpt spell's requirement of being used with damaging evocation spells while Careful can be used with web and hypnotic patter instead.

I've read your thread on Extend spell, I think you are exaggerating the responses you have recieved, and your premise starts with "Is Extend better now and how" not "How does Extend stack up to other metamagics" And by saying buffed by XtGE you mean, buffed by the Divine Souls access to the cleric spell list, giving spells that are far more useful to extend, and even that seems to be devoted mostly to the Aid spell from the comments I've read.





And the limitations you're pointing out do not show that metamagic is useless. Heighten may be expensive early on, but the Sorcerer will eventually have enough to use it without running out of spell slots. Subtle may be DM dependent, but only because DMs regularly break the RAW with regards to subtle spellcasting.

Well, I'm glad "large limitations on their usefulness" does not equal "useless" then, because if I had said they were useless then I would be proven wrong right now. Of course, since that isn't what I said and you aren't refuting the actual point, I'll move on. (It's getting late, again, so I may be doing a lot more of that to save time)




Countered that by pointing out that there is enough room for enough Sorcerer abilities.

If "usable once per day" counts as "enough room" then sure. If you'd prefer to use your core class feature more than once at levels 8 thru 12 though, you may need to reconsider that counter.



And you're wrong on this. Never have you shown an example of a Wizard outdoing a metamagic.

Like sculpt spell being better than careful in almost every way, like I did above? I'm pretty sure I mentioned it before this post too. Portent can be better than heighten, low rolls can guarantee failed saves, high rolls can guarantee hits, it is buff for allies as well. Not going to go back over all the conversations we've had on metamagic versus wizard abilities.




Level 3 is hardly late. Warlocks don't get their Pact Boons til level 3. Fighters don't get their subclasses til level 3, so with monks and paladins and rangers and bards. And just because the Sorcerer only has two metamagics at that level, doesn't make the feature weak. That is a complete non sequitur.

The "How few" part of my statement referred to level 3, since you only get two. Which, is a mark against metamagic since it chops down your options signifigantly. The late refers to metamagic choices 3 and 4 being levels 10 and 17 respectively. Pretty sure level 17 is "late game" so they get that one pretty late, and 10th level is the half way point, also rather late in the class. I should have expanded better so you understood my point better.




And this claim is unsubstantiated and countered by my arguments above. Ritual casting is versatile, but it does not defeat metamagic.

By itself, maybe not, combined with everything else (which has been a common theme of my points) I think it does.





And this is a tangent, but if the Sorcerer did have a 1d8 HD in the playtest, then that only strengthens the idea that metamagic (and the rest of the Sorcerer's features) was evaluated by Wizards of the Coast to be as powerful as all of the Wizard's spells and features. Also, I do believe they tried to change the Warlock's spellcasting ability to Intelligence, but the push back due to legacy reasons made them retain the Warlock as a Charisma caster, so there's that possibility too.

Acknowledging tanget, but you've presented two different possbilities. 1) Legacy took precedent, which may be unrelated to strength or 2) WoTC designers thought metamagic was powerful enough to justify reducing the HD.

The problem with 2) though is that even if that is true, that doesn't mean they were right. We've seen misjudged power dynamics with the Beastmaster Ranger and the Blade Pact Warlock. So, I've never stated that WoTC thought metamagic was too weak, obviously they thought it was strong. The question is "Were they right?" and we've got very little evidence from you supporting that metamagic is as powerful as you keep claiming.




More or less, though I may have overstated the "costlessness" aspect. Which you do address below. Let's skip over this as we discuss the points further below.

Correct, they would be expected to prepare Knock when it is expected to be useful, and not prepare it when it is not expected to be useful.

Correct.

Yes, which I've addressed above (size of spell list vs content of spell list), and as I'll also address further in the immediate paragraph below.

You say that as a joke, but you're pretty close. It's the other way around: not having spells like Knock or Catnap doesn't hurt the class in terms of power. Having them is nice, and that's it. There are always other ways around locked doors, and Knock is not the only way through. That is both literal and figurative: spells are ways to solve problems codified into the rules, but the problems themselves always have multiple solutions. You don't need magic to open a locked door, generally speaking. And thus in the general sense, not having those more useful options is not something that hurts a class's power level.

I'm flabbergasted. Honestly, this right here could just be the end of this discussion.

I guess, you just need to prove that 8 spells is more than enough to cover everything. Though, if we start talking about "other ways around problems" then truly we don't need spellcasting at all. After all, weapons and skills can solve most problems since dead is the best status effect.

I've seriously never expected to see someone claim that losing legitimate options doesn't weaken a class. I honestly don't know how to continue this part of the discussion, or if continuing any of the discussion is even worth it at this point.



But wouldn't you reroll a Fireball that rolled all 2's? As to the point on Empower, to clarify what I said on altering spells after they have been cast, you can Empower a Wall of Fire (or other long duration damaging spells) on any round that the spell deals damage, not just on casting.

Yes, I got the long duration damage point. It's an area I've seen different people rule differently. And sure, if I rolled poorly then I'd use Empower, but then we get back to the idea of altering. All Empowered does is raise the average, and make you less likely to get a poor roll.




Well, that isn't what metamagic offers, so I suppose you will never see metamagic as altering spells. On that note, nobody can ever alter spells short of Wish.

Or being a wizard, like enchanters who can make targets forget they were charmed, and turn all charm spells into a version of Modify Memories. Or take a UA wizard who can make cold damage dealing fireballs. Or a lot of the Illusionist wizard abilities which make illusions solid or allow the cantrip to do both visual and audio simultaneously.

But yeah, nobody can do what the sorcerer is advertised as doing.




Correct, and thus the specific alterations to the spells have to be rigidly codified. You can't hand a blank check to anyone, they'll bankrupt you in a heartbeat. But on the point of nudging vs reshaping, it really is a philosophical difference in my eyes. The spell changes substantially, and the way it does it breaks certain rules of the game that no other class feature can do. That is not to say it is broken, just that it creates a big enough exception in the mechanics of the rules to be noteworthy. You already know about twin concentration and bonus action casting. But there is also granting disadvantage to saves (a very rare ability), and there is even a meta-metamagic, Empower Spell, which can be used with the other metamagics. Metamagic is literally playing at a meta level, and that is why it alters the spells.

I think Moxxmix offered a rather intriguing change that isn't a blank check. But, we obviously are never going to agree on this point.




It is still a small gap. I don't see why its absence is a detriment to the Sorcerer. In a sense, that ability is less of a metamagic than those that already exist, because it changes the spell in a way that doesn't break any rules. And you have to forgive me for repeating the use of the word "break" here, because obviously the rules still apply to the Sorcerers, and metamagic doesn't break the game. What I mean is it doesn't lean on the 4th wall, or something like that. It doesn't create a special exception in the rules that must accommodate the use of the metamagic. It is nice, flavorful, and easy to imagine. But I don't see why its absence makes the Sorcerer weaker in any way.

Well, considering that Acid Dragon sorcerers would love to be able to deal more acid damage, same with poison, I think the reason it's absence is noteworthy, since adding it would clearly offer some signifigant power to the weakest options.

But, I think you are a little too in love with this idea that metamagics "break rules" because most of them don't. Oh sure, twin does and quicken can. But Careful doesn't it just says someone succeeded on their save. Empowered doesn't rerolling damage shows up in two feats. It isn't a common ability but it is within the rules. Distant increasing range, well it breaks the rules for touch spell I guess, but their are plenty of abilities which can increase a characters range, spell sniper being one you've mentioned yourself.

And, actually even looking deeper, disadvantage on saves is a part of same spells (blight and shatter) if conditions are met, or someone being restrained or paralyzed causing saves to be at disadvantage or auto-failed.

Heck, most abilities in the game offer an exception to a rule that exists, so almost every ability could be considered "meta" in that sense. After all, you can't dash, disengage or hide as a bonus action... unless you have an ability that "breaks" that rule.



Sure, Extend is one of the most niche metamagics. But Greater Invisibility is not one of the spells you should Extend. In another thread, someone mentioned they Extended Darkvision, which is great. It's a non-concentration buff that can last through a long rest, which is very economical in terms of spell slots. After all, you get back both that 2nd level slot and that 1 Sorcery Point after a long rest, and when you wake up, you still have the buff. There seems to be just a minority of spells you can use this way, but it is a very good use.

Oh sure, extend darkvision.

Or just play one of the majority of races who has darkvision to begin with, including Teiflings and Half-elves who make superb sorcerers and don't even waste the spells known slot on it. Also, considering that you would have to be the only person without darkvision (otherwise people are still going to need torches, ruining the point since you aren't likely to be scouting) and you would have to know you were going to go somewhere where you needed darkvision, the niche gets smaller and smaller.




What Quicken Spell is hacking is not the spell itself, but the action economy. For example, the very slippery vampire runs away and uses legendary actions to distance itself from the party. Well, a Quickened Haste gives you 60ft of movement, and an extra 60ft of movement if you use that extra action to dash, and you still retain a full action. You can use that action to grapple, attack, or otherwise trap the vampire. You can use a magic item, or you can hold your action, or you can do a multitude of other things that a full action affords except casting a leveled spell. The use case I've described is good for a gish build, but you could translate that into an anticaster build. Use Shocking Grasp with your action to force them to lose their reaction or Counterspell you, and then use Quicken Spell to safely cast a spell without threat of being Counterspelled, while still having your reaction for a Shield. These are only two examples, but the idea is to hack the action economy, not hack the spell.

The vampire example is soo bad on so many levels. You'd be very likely to end up with a badly hurt sorcerer if he casts haste on himself and then runs up to a vampire.

The gish use of shocking grasp then casting a spell to avoid counterspelling is neat, but again, incredibly niche.

Seriously, what is with you and putting your sorcerers in melee range?

And of course, none of this alters the point I was making, that Quicken itself does not alter the spell being cast, which we've already discussed above. In fact, I'm going to snip some things in light of the part up above.



Because the current meta surrounding the Sorcerers is that Fire is the way to go to blast, so you need to be a Brass, Gold, or Red Dragon Sorcerer. I didn't say that statement in a white room. As we are assuming a decent player is using this character, I would assume he also knew the common wisdom, and that choosing Acid as his element means he is ignoring the meta around blaster type Draconic Sorcerers.

Sure. Choosing Acid over Fire means they don't get to add that Charisma bonus to their Fireball, which is the best AoE spell at 3rd level in terms of shape of AoE as well as damage. They are thus lowering the ceiling of their blaster abilities, and on balance, I would say they are probably not trying to blast.

You are still not disproving the fact that, as what started this sub-thread, that the 6th level ability pushes draconic sorcerers to be blasters. Because, you know why Fire is the way to go for blasting? Not only does it have some of the best blasting spells, but it is also the most common of elements for damage, meaning they get more bang for their choice at level 6.

A player who goes Dragon Sorcerer and chooses to not blast is giving little thought to their level 6 ability. Maybe they go fire and take firebolt just for cantrip purposes, but there is a clear connection here. Since you seem to realize that I don't know why you started this sub-discussion by trying to say there is no connection here.



But obviously, it matters to this discussion. You have, in the paragraph above this one, tried to reason that if Acid Draconic Sorcerers are "obviously" not inclined to be blasters, then Fire Draconic Sorcerers are "obviously" inclined to be blasters, and thus the origin they choose boxes them into certain roles. If you assume a decent player, you could not have made that assertion. That player would have known that the meta around Sorcerers point Fire to blasters, and Acid is a generally "bad" choice. And if he chose it anyway, then he must have a completely different build and play style in mind... assuming he knows what he's doing.

YOu acknowledge that fire dragon sorcerers are considered the best blasters for sorcerers. You say that playing a fire dragon sorcerer does not imply anything about whether or not they intend to be a blaster, and that they aren't choosing to forgo their level 6 abilities inclination.

Player skill doesn't come into this because we are talking a variety of builds. It's interesting that when my original assertions of "there aren't a lot of good sorcerer builds" was put forth I was met with discussion about how I was shortsighted and didn't understand the class. Now I'm being told that a player who knows what they are doing can eliminate certain builds from consideration if he "knows what he is doing" and how metamagic choices reduce the number of spells someone would choose.

Almost as if my initial point showed I understood quite a lot about building a sorcerer.




If you assume a decent player, he will create those situations and make himself relevant. Or he will ensure that the build is general enough with the metamagic that he can participate a majority of the time. If he can't, well, he's still a caster. Even the Wizard can't prepare the exact spell he needs 100% of the time that he needs it.

For someone who keeps trying to tell me they aren't trying to be condescending, you sure have a big problem with throwing around claims of "Decent players"

"sorry you weren't relevant to tonight's session Jim, guess you should just be a more decent player"

Also, remember sorcerers don't generalize, so even a decent player can't do that, according to the points you've put forth.



You are solving a new problem, actually. To cast Fly on more than one person, they have to stand together. In combat, that means moving and spending their turns for you to buff them. You either choose to lose on the action economy by waiting your turn for a buff, or you don't get the buff. And I am beating the same drum as well when I say that metamagic doesn't aim to change the spell itself. That is your expectations of it, but it doesn't fulfill it, and that doesn't make it bad.

Why do you need to cast fly on more than one person within a combat scenario? If you didn't already have fly active, or you weren't mostly bunched together at the start of combat, then my mind immediately goes to chasing down a fleeing enemy. But, you only really need one person for that, and you could use other means to get a second fleeing enemy if it became necessary for some reason.

I'll admit it is a decent tactic, but it needs to actually come up where that action made a significant impact and that is going to be rare.





Cleric spells are available through the Divine Soul now. That's why with XtgE, the Extend spell received a buff. And yeah, it does have a lot of assumptions. I don't know if you've never played a game where the assumptions were never true. Besides which, you can cast a spell in the middle of a long rest without breaking the long rest. That's why you can continue resting after a nightly encounter. So if you were to cast it just before the long rest completes, you would have the buff for the whole day until your next long rest. Even if you didn't know the dangers that lay ahead, if you have the slots saved, you have no reason not to cast it. It costs you nothing as you will immediately regain those lost resources anyway. And it is a niche application, but it is far from a bad one.

I have no idea why you think this. If I spent a spell slot after 7 hours of long resting, my DM would never say I finished the rest and regained the slot. And the "light activity" rule of long resting has often been meant to exclude things like casting spells.

IT seems you are talking houserules there, and that is a different discussion.




In this specific sub-discussion, you were saying that if Wizards are more powerful as generalists, then Sorcerers must also get their power from being generalists. That is wrong because Sorcerers and Wizards build differently. "How to build a Wizard" is not the same as "How to build a Sorcerer" and thus giving them the same solution, which is to generalize, is not the correct approach.

This seems to show more misunderstanding of my point.

I never said sorcerers got power from generalizing. The point has been that if wizards can specialize and grab a significant amount of general usage abilities (which their massive spell pools do ironically allow for) then they would be more powerful than the sorcerer who can only specialize and not take almost any general usage abilties.

See, since the wizard can double the amount of spells a sorcerer can use, in a lot of cases the wizard can cover the spell choices of any given sorcerer and grab general use spells that they need as well, this means that you are relying on the sorcerers metamagic to "specialize" them, but you aren't getting that, because metamagic does not specialize you, it has to synergize with the spells, meaning the spell choice is where the power of the build is mostly found.

I would never try and build a sorcerer who took the approach of taking general utility spells, because they are nearly incapable of that without severely gimping them. That does not mean that if they had another spells known I could pick from I wouldn't then grab those spells, because they are useful and powerful spells. It seems to me that you keep assuming I'm trying to stretch a sorcerers 15 spells known to cover the same amount of space as the wizards 44 spells known. I'm not, it is impossible. Sorcerers can't do that, they can't afford to take spells that are too niche or don't exactly fit their build and that is the problem I keep trying to discuss




I'm not telling you that, though. I'm telling you that the power level between the classes is balanced. The fact that Wizards can cover a lot of bases simultaneously does not make it inherently more powerful than the Sorcerer, who can cover most bases decently (as its spell list is mostly a subset of the Wizard spells), and is really good at one or two of those bases (using metamagic). Whatever bases the Sorcerer can't cover that the Wizard can aren't enough to say the Sorcerer is useless or bad at most things. So the typical Sorcerer can't magically unlock doors, see invisible things, or set up magical alarms. But they can turn the tide of combat, or even turn the tide of the story of the campaign, just as much as Wizards can.

Can you prove that the sorcerer can cover "most bases decently"? I don't believe they actually can. And since the wizard is more likely to have the tool for the job at hand, they are more capable of altering the tide than the sorcerer who has to hope that the build they made can effectively work within the campaign.



Generalizing is good or bad in the context of the problem it solves. Your solution, which is to generalize, must be evaluated in the context of the problem it solves. You can't wave a solution around and say that the problems it can't solve are bad problems. That's backwards. What you have is a bad solution to a valid problem. And they aren't equal according to your criteria (the criteria being: who can solve the most problems?), but using power as a criteria, they are equal. [/QUOTE

IT is once more approaching 2 AM (I seriously need to stop doing this) and I', not following what you are saying. How is their power equal? How is their power being equal only when the sorcerer gets their preferred area any good when the wizard can have multiple areas they can be effective in. You're making a lot of claims that I'm trying to solve the wrong problems, but I'm not seeing what it is you are seeing here.


[QUOTE=LeonBH;22808237] You are though. Based on your words, you already have a criteria in mind designed to let the Wizards pass and the Sorcerers fail. If you metaphorically changed your criteria to you looking at the toolbox, noticed the chainsaw beside it, and decided to take the chainsaw, you would pass the Sorcerer and fail the Wizard.

But you can't take a chainsaw to mine for silver. When I build a character at level 1, I really don't know the types of challenges the party is going to face. Hopefully the DM tells us if it is something unusual or if they are leaning a certain direction, but any given adventure it likely to face a variety of foes in a variety of environments and require things ranging across all three pillars. And the further you specialize your build, the more likely you are going to come across times when you are not useful to the party. Since Sorcerers are required to specialize to a large degree, this creates some immediate problems. Unless you are playing a game that has been tailored to your specialization, you are likely to run into a lot of times when you have nothing you can do to help the party.

My criteria is a broad range of problems, because adventuring and campaigning naturally means a broad range of problems.





And the assertion remains standing. That Wizard who cast Phantasmal Force? He was Counterspelled. Or they saved because of a 20. Or he lost concentration after taking damage because he isn't proficient in the save. Or there were two enemies and he could only hit one, so the other one got him. Or he got left behind because his action was tied up with spellcasting, he had no means to dash. Or he's out of spells and doesn't have an hour to rest. The Wizard can pull out different spells for different scenarios, but he can't literally do everything.

Or he wasn't counterspelled, because they weren't fighting any spellcasters that night.
Or they rolled poorly on the save
Or he used Hypnotic pattern because wisdom was a lower save, it also hit both enemies.
If the wizard is out of spells the sorcerer likely is too
He succeed on his concentration check, or he just didn't take damage in the first place because....

At a certain point, we need to talk about parties. Neither the wizard or sorcerer is going to be alone on the field, and a lot of your points up there rely on the wizard being in range of being attacked and having no allies who are dealing with other enemies.

I've never seen a wizard use the dash action, ever, even when running away from an enemy they tried to solo. Misty Step is used a lot, or dimension door, but never dashing.

The wizard doens't have to be able to do "everything", he just has to be capable of "a lot of things" which he is.




I don't believe you've shown a single Sorcerer build to not be worth the effort. But yes, there are plenty bad ones out there. If you, say, roll a dice and choose origins, metamagics, and spell selection based on that, you'll end up with a bad Sorcerer for sure. And yeah, the Sorcerer starts with much fewer options. But the Wizard has exactly the same number of spell slots, and they both have the same goal: survive to the higher levels. That level 1 Wizard won't want to use Disguise Self to trick another person because if he anticipates he needs those two 1st level spell slots later, he's shooting himself in the foot now. His vast repertoire of known spells and options are much less significant at the early levels compared to his spell slots. And the Sorcerer has exactly the same problems.

And if the sorcerer has the exact same problem at low levels with needing to conserve magic... why are we talking about this point? The sorcerer is going to want to converse those two level one slots to, but where the wizard has six potential spells and probably 4 prepped for the day, the sorcerer has 2 spells. So, finding those moments when spending one of those two precious slots it worth it is more likely to happen to the wizard.

There were quite a few early posts where things like the various melee sorcerer builds I showed (to my mind) were incredibly poor next to other melee gish builds.



"Less often" and "less effectively" are false. You might be doing the same thing as Wizards, but you do it more effectively and just as often. As I said at the beginning of this post, starting at level 4, Flexible Casting can match and exceed the spell slots generated by a Wizard, with the excess potentially going to either more spell slots or metamagic. Of course, the Sorcerer doesn't have to create spell slots - he can choose to use more metamagic. But he is flexible in that aspect, and he has enough fuel to disprove the "less often" and "less effectively" assertion.

Oh sure, just as often, unless you decide to use heighten. The sorcerer does not have "enough fuel" to both match the wizard in slots per day and use their unique metamagic abilties more that once at 11th level.

And you are right, he doesn't have to choose to create slots, he can assume he'll have enough, and then when he realizes he would have liked that extra slot, it is too late because they used their fuel on metamagic.



And what I meant when I said they have the space to move up is, Sorcerers give creative players better tools to express their themes. They are given more control over where they want to take their character. They can show a deeper expression of what they want, in contrast to the Wizard who, even though he somewhat specializes, is still a generalist.

Well, I feel like you are completely wrong on all counts here. But, this is truly dragging on far too late at this point.






YMMV but I've seen several monks and warlocks struggle. Monks are melee characters with little in the way of melee defenses at early levels. They have low HP, low AC, and no defensive spells or reactions, and they really can't get better AC or HP by multiclassing or picking a certain race. They can burn resources to disengage, but then they aren't flurrying, which is instinctively what they player wants to do. My player's monk died halfway through the fourth encounter she used the monk in.

Warlocks' weird resource economy can throw players for a loop. It's not remotely intuitive what the 'optimal' usage of ritual casting and/or a familiar is, and bladelocks have lots of problems. It's easy to pick spells that don't scale well at all and screw yourself in later levels.

I can see all that.

Mileage varied a lot with monks though. Generally my players end up with high AC as Monks (they love rolling stats which might make the difference right there) and combined with catching arrows and the dodge action as a bonus with ki, I've had more trouble hitting the monk than any heavily armored character in early levels. Most of my players are content with the bonus action martial arts hit instead of flurry as well, but even when they aren't, three hits at levels 2-4 is a significant amount when most players are only getting 1.


I'd talk more about you're other stuff, but it's getting to be 3 Am and I seriously should not have stayed up to reply to this thread.

[Mortis_Elrod]

See, the thing is, I kind of think that each new origin will have it's own metamagic.

Storm: Disengage and fly ten feet and deal damage
Divine: empower healing
Shadow: Hound

And Draconic gives only a few features, but it's a very nice gish package when put together. Basically I think that all the origins just need a little nudge so that players don't feel totally hedged into picking thematic spells that actually suck for them.

I see.. so level 6 features could be seen as metamagic already.

Then from that view, bonus thematic spells would indeed be all they need. Except for wild mage. He needs ....work imo but that’s a subclass and not a class issue. Though bonus prismatic chromatic and chaos bolt type spells would be a really good start for the wild mage.

[Chaosmancer]

See, the thing is, I kind of think that each new origin will have it's own metamagic.

Storm: Disengage and fly ten feet and deal damage
Divine: empower healing
Shadow: Hound

And Draconic gives only a few features, but it's a very nice gish package when put together. Basically I think that all the origins just need a little nudge so that players don't feel totally hedged into picking thematic spells that actually suck for them.

I can sort of see this.

MY big problem with storm's movement and disengage is that A) I much preferred it when it was a free action and didn't interfere with the really nice combo of Call Lightning and Quicken and B) I do't understand why they keep trying to force sorcerers to head towards the front line.

My Storm sorcerer rarely used his storm aura, because I was not really equipped to be near the enemies and getting close enough to deal the extra 4 damage or so was a dangerous proposition.

[strangebloke]

I can sort of see this.

MY big problem with storm's movement and disengage is that A) I much preferred it when it was a free action and didn't interfere with the really nice combo of Call Lightning and Quicken and B) I do't understand why they keep trying to force sorcerers to head towards the front line.

My Storm sorcerer rarely used his storm aura, because I was not really equipped to be near the enemies and getting close enough to deal the extra 4 damage or so was a dangerous proposition.

Even purely as an escape button, it's great.

[LeonBH]

Yeah, each feat and/or ability score improvement is better or worse for every class. But I'm not going to discuss if a Sorcerer picking Ritual Caster is more powerful than a Wizard choosing Lucky. They all get a choice of feats at the same levels, that part of the class design cannot change by this stage, so it isn't worth discussing which feats are better for which classes. That ends up being a discussion on Feat design and Feat Taxes, not a discussion about class design.

It's part of the core way of how to play the classes though. You must choose feats which benefit your class and play style the most, shoring up any perceived weaknesses in your style that the base class does not provide. Discussing whether a Sorcerer with Ritual Casting is stronger than a Wizard with Lucky is relevant if you don't want to have a discussion in a white room, merely theorycrafting the weaknesses of a class in a way that does not translate to actual play.


There spell lists are highly similiar in many respects, but this is missing the point. You wanted me to give credit to the sorcerer design and power for it being a fullcaster, however, just being a fullcaster is not a sign of good design. In a vacuum just saying "Sorcerers get spellcasting" is a meaningless statement, no matter how powerful the spellcasting feature is, because no one was saying they do not get spellcasting.

Sure, but take note that I was the one who raised the issue first. You are missing my point. I'm saying having the Spellcasting feature is a substantial benefit to a class already, and thus any class that has it is already powerful to start with. Yes, Wizards get it as well. That's why Wizards are also powerful. The only way you can discount this point is if you say the Spellcasting feature itself is weak.


Maybe I should try and phrase this better, but your earlier insistence that I give credit to the sorcerer design for it having spellcasting is like saying I should give credit to Fighters for having all weapons and armor proficiencies. Most full melee types do have that, and fighters are a fundamental melee class so it is expected they have that. But how they can use that feature is important.

False equivalence. The power of having proficiency with all weapons and armors is not the same thing as having the Spellcasting trait. Having the latter is much more versatile, which I believe you value highly.


And please note, I am aware that the spellcasting features are not equal, you can tell because I've been constantly talking about how few spells known a sorcerer gets. How they do not get ritual casting. ECT.

And therefore, it is worth acknowledging that their features are different, even if it's called the same name and taken at the same level. This is the Spellcasting feature, but also the ASIs, the spell list contents, the save proficiencies.


"Funny" thing: In a previous thread where I discussed Sorcerers lack of spells I did the math to figure out how low a wizard's intelligence would need to be for the sorcerer to ever known more spells than the wizard could prepare daily (because there is absolutely no way for a sorcerer to know more spells than a wizard). They would need an 8 Intelligence, and then until the wizard hit level 14 they would prepare fewer spells than the sorcerer could know. And they could still swap daily from their pool of spells known.

You seem to be implying that an 8 Int Wizard is more useful to the party than a 20 Cha Sorcerer. That is, of course, absurd. Not only is that Wizard's spell attacks using a negative ability modifier, his save DCs are also very low compared to what it can be. His lore skills are also going to be very low. Clearly, having prepared spells is not everything.


I'll grant, there is little point in preparing 3 different spells when you only have one slot to spend on them. But, that only looks at high level slots, and focusing on those prevents you from seeing the larger picture. Sure, at level 5 you may only prepare one or two 3rd level spells, but at level 10 when you have multiple 3rd, 4th and 5th level slots you could easily prepare four or five 3rd level spells that could be useful, either in their normal slots or upcast. Same with 1st and 2nd level spells.

That is also a strategy the Sorcerer employs. They have little to gain in knowing a lot of high level spells (6th level+) when they can only cast one a day per spell level. Thus both classes are limited by the number of spell slots they have, regardless of their spells known or prepared.


And frankly, if you aren't cutting into spells that could be useful at lower levels, preparing three different high level spells which can handle three different possible scenarios is more powerful and more useful than only preparing one. So, I don't believe that I am over-emphasizing this point. More options and more versatility is better in almost any situation, and sorcerers losing out on as much as they do is a heavy limitation on their power as a class.

I notice you're assuming the high level character takes a passive role in their adventures. Sure, it's good to have three 6th level spells that can handle three different scenarios, but at the end of the day, once you encounter that one scenario and you cast that one spell, you will have no more 6th level slots from which to cast the other two 6th level spells you prepared, which means you can't address those scenarios anymore when they come up. Meanwhile, the Sorcerer knows one or two 6th level spells (due to being able to retrain an old known spell) and runs into the same problems. They are both equally limited by the scarcity of the spell slots, which you aren't emphasizing enough. You also are not emphasizing the degree of control that a high level adventurer has over the campaign - either Wizard or Sorcerer has the power to steer the campaign in many directions, including steering it into scenarios in which they can make creative use of their known or prepared spells.


Detect Magic, Comprehend Languages, Tongues, Water Breathing.

snip

None of those are significantly game changing spells. I fail to see why missing out on them as rituals is detrimental to the Sorcerer in any way. Detect Magic is a spell-encoded option for the Arcana skill most of the time, which means proficiency in the Arcana skill covers many of the use cases. Comprehend Languages only lets you understand written and spoken languages but not write or speak them yourself; and if you are truly in need of breaking down language barriers in a campaign, you can find an NPC who speaks the language. If you regularly need to do it, the Sorcerer can cast it from a spell slot. And Water Breathing might come up once in a while, but I've never truly needed it. I suspect a Sorcerer can find a scroll if it's needed, and the DM will provide if that's where the adventure needs to go. I've never heard of a campaign that ended because nobody could cast Water Breathing. That said, the Sorcerer can learn any of these and cast from a spell slot, or cast from a scroll.


Of course, a few even better ones aren't on the sorcerer list like Identify and Find Familiar, but I think you just wanted the ones from the sorcerer list. Also, not going to bring up clerics, even if the Divine Soul giving a few interesting options there.

Identify and Find Familiar are conveniences, to be sure. However, they are not necessities. A Wizard with a familiar is not significantly stronger than a Wizard without a familiar. You can run whole campaigns with nobody having a familiar and it would work out. Also, Identify has a lot of problems as a ritual. If you need to identify this magical object right now, you can spend a spell slot and finish in one minute. But if you have 11 minutes to cast it as a ritual, then you're not in a rush. And thus what's stopping you from taking a short rest and identifying the properties of magical items that way? Any class can do that.


Also, while we can discuss the meaning of "greatly increase" I want to note that from my perspective any spell the sorcerer could cast as many times per day as needed without using a single spell slot would be a significant increase since it frees up resources and makes taking these spells more reasonable within the context of how few spells a sorcerer can get.

Obviously, I disagree. In my point of view, less is more. Learning to solve issues by relying less on magic as a crutch increases the impact of your spells when you do use them, and the DM usually gets thrown off guard as he did not see your spell coming as you use it so rarely. I've used this ideology effectively many, many times and my DMs have always complimented me for the fruits of it, even if they didn't know my ideology. But going back to the discussion on rituals, if you truly value ritual casting, the Sorcerer has access to it via the Ritual Casting feat and selecting the Wizard spell list. Thus the Sorcerer becomes able to match the Wizard ritual for ritual. And sure, it requires spending an ASI for a feat, but you can acquire it at level 1 through Variant Human. And even not using that race, the Wizard also has to take a feat to match the Sorcerer's Con save proficiency anyway, so they are matched in terms of "feat taxes". War Caster or Resilient: Constitution are two very valuable picks for any caster who relies on concentration spells. So are you then saying that a Sorcerer who is able to cast rituals is more powerful than or equally powerful as a Wizard, given that a ritual casting Sorcerer is possible?


I wonder how often you've seen a wizard using the ritual identify to figure out magical items or traps. How many times has a ritual version of Unseen servant or Find Familiar been used as a distraction or to sneakily activate or grab something. Ritual Water Breathing or Water Walk? Leomund's Tiny Hut?

Some of those, I've never seen used. Water Breathing and Water Walk are the two that no wizard has ever picked up in my games, but Identify, Unseen Servant, Find Familiar, and LTH have all been used extensively. Granted, all those spells are useful. But none of them are necessary. Identify has its problems as a ritual, as I've said above. Find Familiar is useful in a scouting context, but it is rarely the only way to go about scouting. Unseen Servant is one way of distracting an enemy in niche use cases, but they offer no real solutions if a wolf is about to bite on your jugular. LTH is a wonderful spell regardless of if you have it as a ritual or not, but it just stops the DM from pestering you with nightly encounters. It's great for when you have it, but it's not really a life or death kind of spell.


The thing is, they don't need to be broken to be powerful. You are getting the use of a spell for no cost in resources, only time and usually since these are out of combat, that time is not precious.

For the purposes of the Identify spell: exactly, you have a version of the spell by taking short rests anyway. As for the others - Unseen Servant, Find Familiar, LTH etc. - there are always other ways to get their benefits. Having those rituals ready means you save yourself a trip to elsewhere for backup options (which, as you said, since time is not precious here, you would have time for), and that just means this sub-quest is now part of your adventure if it's really needed (even though most of the time, it isn't). If you really value a familiar, you can potentially get an NPC familiar Imp that confers magic resistance to you.


Frankly, if you can't see the value in resource-free casting of utility spells... I'm not sure how to convince you. After all, like you said, spellcasting isn't as useful if you don't have slots to cast with, and ritual casting helps prevent the loss of spell slots.

I do see it. That's why I'm loving the value of Extend Spell on long duration buffs. It's effectively resource-free casting. What I'm not seeing the value of are the specific spells that can be cast as rituals. All of the powerful game-changing spells require spell slots to be expended.


I was not saying the sorcerer spell list is weaker, I was saying that the statement that the sorcerer spells known being smaller does not make them a more powerful class. Hence, why I did not say that the Champion is weaker than the Battlemaster, I said that people would not say the Champion is stronger because he has fewer options. People may argue that the Champion has stronger options than the Battlemaster (I'd disagree) but no one thinks less is more powerful.

Sure, it doesn't make them a more powerful class. But they don't need a lot of spells known to match the power of the Wizard.


But talking about if the list is weaker or not... I'd have to say that Arcane Eye, Find Familiar, and Leomund's Tiny Hut are incredibly powerful spells. In fact, the exploitability of Leomund's "safe haven" for eight hour rests has been discussed extensively. And the wizard gets many, many powerful spells that sorcerers don't beyond what you listed. Shapechange, Prismatic Wall, Foresight, Forcecage, Wall of Force, Modify Memory, Programmed Illusion, Contingency, Stone Shape, Control Water, Evard's Black Tentacles... I can keep going for a while longer.

Arcane Eye, Stone Shape, Control Water, Evard's Black Tentacles: all 4th level spells not head and shoulders above Polymorph, Greater Invisibility, or Banishment.

Find Familiar: a 1st level spell not head and shoulders above Silent Image, Shield, Mage Armor, Disguise Self, etc.

Leomund's Tiny Hut: a 3rd level spell not head and shoulders above Dispel Magic, Counterspell, Haste, Major Image, etc.

Shapechange, Prismatic Wall, Foresight: all 9th level spells not head and shoulders above Wish.

Forcecage: a 7th level spell not head and shoulders above Plane Shift or Teleport. Can be defeated by a 2nd level Misty Step, along with Wall of Force.

Wall of Force, Modify Memory: 5th level spells not head and shoulders above Hold Monster, Telekinesis, or Animate Objects.

Programmed Illusion, Contingency: a 6th level spell not head and shoulders above Globe of Invulnerability, Disintegrate, and Mass Suggestion.

At this point, you might tell me that the spells you listed do different things than the spells I contrasted them with. But as your Wizard casts Evard's Black Tentacles, he loses a spell slot with which he cannot match one Greater Invisibility that the Sorcerer can use as a buff. As for the out of combat spells such as Arcane Eye and LTH, once again, there are other ways to do what those spells do.


Best part is, some of these are great spells for specialiists. Programmed Illusion, Contingency and Modify Memory can all be great for Enchanters and Illusionists. The Walls and Forcecage are amazing battlefield control spells. Some of these very clearly do stand "head and shoulders" above other options for their level. And there is very little the sorcerer gets that wizards do not. Enhance Ability is a good one, same with Insect Plague.

Nope, those spells do not stand head and shoulders above their level. You are implying they are the best spells to take at their level, but they aren't. I'll admit Contingency is great, and the reason it's good is because it lasts 10 days. But the others are only good, not the best. You can divide the battlefield with Silent Image instead of Wall of Force. The key is in knowing how to leverage your spells for the best use. And those uses tend to be non-obvious, sure. But what you're thinking of is always possible with lower level spells if you just stop relying on the obvious use cases of your higher level spells. So put in that context, Modify Memory is not that much stronger than a well-placed Phantasmal Force.


You are right that Flexible casting can create slots without the need of a short rest, however, over the course of a day that includes a short rest it is highly likely that the wizard and sorcerer are working with the same number of spell slots, even if the wizard must rest before they can recover them.

snip

Cutting in here, take note of the action economy advantage. A Wizard who needs a 3rd level spell slot right now but has already expended its use has a much bigger and potentially deadly problem, compared to a Sorcerer who has 5 Sorcery Points, has already expended his 3rd level slots, and also needs that 3rd level slot right now.


Now, here we get to an interesting point. Let us say for the sake of argument that we are comparing a Fire Dragon blasting sorcerer to a evoker wizard. Level 10. Sorcerer creates a 5th level slot, leaving 3 points behind. Wizard can get a 5th level slot via arcane recovery over the course of the day. Wizard can sculpt spell and add their Int to damage with every AOE they cast, Sorcerer can careful spell 3 times, potentially twin 1 to 3 times, ect. If you can only use your sorcerer ability at level 10 a total of three times compared to the wizard's ability to use their special magical tinkering unlimitedly, who has gotten the better deal?

Let us put that example in context. Assume a Deva: Str save +4, Dex save +4, AC 17, with Magic Resistance. Same Wizard, but his competition is a level 10 Fire Sorcerer with Quicken. Wizard casts Fireball. Sorcerer casts Quickened Maximilian's Earthen Grasp, and either uses an action to Firebolt or uses an action to restrain, depending on the result of the save. On the next turn, the Wizard casts another Fireball. Meanwhile, the Sorcerer restrains with MEG if the target saved, or uses a Firebolt if the target failed, and uses Quickened Fireball (target has disadvantage due to restrained). The Wizard, at this point, has statistically dealt 23.826 damage and expended two 3rd level slots. The Sorcerer has used one 2nd level slot and one 3rd level slot, as well as 4 Sorcery Points (the equivalent of 2 1st level spell slots, or one 2nd level spell slot and 1 Sorc Point left over), to deal 32.882 damage. If we continued this fight as-is, without the Sorcerer further expending his Sorcery Points, the Wizard will be dealing 11.55 damage per Fireball (with scaling damage as the spell slots go higher in level) while the Sorcerer will deal 12.8 damage per Fireball due to the Maximilian's Earthen Grasp setup (also scaling in damage as the spells go higher).

At this point, the Sorcerer will have 6 Sorcery Points left to create one 4th level spell slot while the Wizard creates a 5th level spell slot after an hour's rest. But also, the Sorcerer can burn one 1st level spell slot to create 7 Sorcery Points, and thus create a 5th level spell slot. In other words, sacrificing one 1st level spell slot only, the Sorcerer can still match the Wizard's Arcane Recovery as well as out-damage him.

Also take note that my strategy for the Sorcerer above is not optimal, although I described it that way for the sake of simplifying calculations. I could have described a strategy that has a chance to save Sorcery Points, but that greatly complexifies the calculations and I didn't feel up to the task of working out and describing the math. I could have also used Scorching Ray on both casters instead of Fireball, but doing so will skew the results toward the Sorcerer even further, who will benefit more from the advantage due to MEG. I also used only one metamagic and could have described a strategy that eats up all his Sorcery Points to widen the gap by a lot, but we're talking about matching Arcane Recovery in terms of created spell slots, so I didn't do that. Take further note that since both casters are using Fireball, both casters will deal the same damage to a mob, except the Sorcerer is dealing damage more quickly to one creature and thus deals damage faster. Remember that despite its weaker opening (MEG instead of Fireball), he will have dealt more damage to the one creature than the Wizard by the second round, so he has caught up by the second round.

Also, if you had brought this up just one level to level 11, Maximilian's Earthen Grasp would have become Sunbeam, and at that point the DPR widens immensely.


Now, many players would tell me that after this poit you should begin burning your low level slots for sorcery points to power your metamagic, but now you are eating slots per day that you might otherwise use.

Maybe, but not by much.


This is where I find the wizard ability to be superior. Yes, the sorcerer can gain their extra spells whenever they desire, but instead of getting 10 points for metamagic and other abilities, they end up with 3 points, back to how they were as a 3rd level sorcerer. Meanwhile the wizard has sacrificed none of their abilities to regain those spells.

The Wizard has sacrificed 1 hour of the party's time, which may not always be available.


Matching Arcane Recovery comes at significant cost to the sorcerer, and if your plan is to eat spell slots for more sorcerery points, you actually lose out, because creating slots costs more points than the slot is worth to devour, so you could be better off not creating slots and simply using metamagic. And once you do that, the wizard gets more slots per day, before even considering the slots they saved by having ritual casting.

It does come at a significant cost to the Sorcerer. But he can do it if he wants, and even if he does it, he will still come out on top of the Wizard for that specific build.


The wizards superior version you mean? Sculpt spell deals no damage if the AOE is a damage dealing spell, Careful spell does. Also, Sculpt spell costs the evoker wizard zero resources to use. The only part that makes Careful spell even hold a candle to sculpt spell is sculpt spell's requirement of being used with damaging evocation spells while Careful can be used with web and hypnotic patter instead.

You're right, Careful Spell is best not used by blasters. What was I thinking. Obviously, Quicken and Empower are the ones to choose if you are a blaster.


I've read your thread on Extend spell, I think you are exaggerating the responses you have recieved, and your premise starts with "Is Extend better now and how" not "How does Extend stack up to other metamagics" And by saying buffed by XtGE you mean, buffed by the Divine Souls access to the cleric spell list, giving spells that are far more useful to extend, and even that seems to be devoted mostly to the Aid spell from the comments I've read.

And the Aid spell is a wonderful buff that, used at its highest level and Extended, could grant 40 HP to three party members for an entire day.


Well, I'm glad "large limitations on their usefulness" does not equal "useless" then, because if I had said they were useless then I would be proven wrong right now. Of course, since that isn't what I said and you aren't refuting the actual point, I'll move on. (It's getting late, again, so I may be doing a lot more of that to save time)

Let me refute the actual point then. Large limitations on their usefulness does not equal weak or not strong enough.


If "usable once per day" counts as "enough room" then sure. If you'd prefer to use your core class feature more than once at levels 8 thru 12 though, you may need to reconsider that counter.

To be honest with you, once per day is enough for most things. The great thing with metamagic is you can use it many times per day, even eating up your own spell slots if you wish, to use it more times per day than you would normally be able to. And obviously, creating spell slots is a less popular strategy with the Sorcerer, but it is nonetheless an effective strategy.


Like sculpt spell being better than careful in almost every way, like I did above? I'm pretty sure I mentioned it before this post too. Portent can be better than heighten, low rolls can guarantee failed saves, high rolls can guarantee hits, it is buff for allies as well. Not going to go back over all the conversations we've had on metamagic versus wizard abilities.

What you've managed to show was that Sculpt Spell and Careful Spell are not the blaster analogues as I had first thought. And Portent is not always better than Heighten as the Diviner himself does not control the numbers he gets on his Portent that day. Moreover, he has two uses of it per day, and I seem to recall you saying that such a limitation is a sign of weakness. Anyway, I recognize you don't want to go back over all the conversations we've had over metamagic - and I once again affirm that metamagic wipes the floor with the Wizard abilities.


The "How few" part of my statement referred to level 3, since you only get two. Which, is a mark against metamagic since it chops down your options signifigantly. The late refers to metamagic choices 3 and 4 being levels 10 and 17 respectively. Pretty sure level 17 is "late game" so they get that one pretty late, and 10th level is the half way point, also rather late in the class. I should have expanded better so you understood my point better.

Let me restate what I'm conveying here, as maybe you missed it. Getting two metamagics at level 3 is more than enough.


By itself, maybe not, combined with everything else (which has been a common theme of my points) I think it does.

And in the context of my refutations, I think it does not.


Acknowledging tanget, but you've presented two different possbilities. 1) Legacy took precedent, which may be unrelated to strength or 2) WoTC designers thought metamagic was powerful enough to justify reducing the HD.

snip

Well, there's plenty of evidence. Let us skip over this tangent anyway.


snip

I've seriously never expected to see someone claim that losing legitimate options doesn't weaken a class. I honestly don't know how to continue this part of the discussion, or if continuing any of the discussion is even worth it at this point.

Your surprise is, to me, a sign that you simply think in terms of how a Wizard would play, despite you saying you don't like the class. In some ways, mundane means of solving a problem is more powerful than its magical analogue, and I'm specifically thinking about the Charisma skills on this. Sure, you can use Suggestion on someone to ensure they obey your command, but if you are persuasive enough (or roll high enough) to convince your target that the command is a good idea, they will follow without being magically compelled. In the context of combat against mindless beasts, of course it's not always applicable - but you wouldn't be ritual casting in those battles either, and you wouldn't be using Arcane Recovery. When time is not important, as with the two Wizard features I've mentioned here, your options open up to include nonmagical means. And to me, your strength as a player is determined by the degree to which you can notice and use those options. And do not take this as condescension, but I keep raising the idea of a decent player to play the Sorcerer because that is what it takes to play a good one to a level beyond what Wizards can reach. You can't take a Wizard-accustomed player and give him a Sorcerer, and expect there to be no issues.


Yes, I got the long duration damage point. It's an area I've seen different people rule differently. And sure, if I rolled poorly then I'd use Empower, but then we get back to the idea of altering. All Empowered does is raise the average, and make you less likely to get a poor roll.

And it can be used with other metamagic, and is cheap to use. Don't forget those.


Or being a wizard, like enchanters who can make targets forget they were charmed, and turn all charm spells into a version of Modify Memories. Or take a UA wizard who can make cold damage dealing fireballs. Or a lot of the Illusionist wizard abilities which make illusions solid or allow the cantrip to do both visual and audio simultaneously.

Most enchantment spells do not specify the target knows it was you. Charm Person specifically says the target knows it was charmed, as well as Friends and Charm Monster, but not Suggestion or Mass Suggestion or Hold Person, etc. Of course, you can't hide your spellcasting so in that context, Alter Memories at level 14 gives a limited version of Subtle Spell at level 3. But Subtle Spell is not only applicable to enchantments, but to every spell. Also, the UA Wizard is a UA entry, and has received a large amount of backlash. If the Wild Mage Wizard gets negative responses again, JC has said they will shelf the idea. And finally, the 2nd level Illusionist ability to produce both audio and video simultaneously is great, especially since the two can be disjoint, but it's less useful when you realize everybody in range can see your Wizard casting that Minor Illusion.


I think Moxxmix offered a rather intriguing change that isn't a blank check. But, we obviously are never going to agree on this point.

Perhaps not.


Well, considering that Acid Dragon sorcerers would love to be able to deal more acid damage, same with poison, I think the reason it's absence is noteworthy, since adding it would clearly offer some signifigant power to the weakest options.

It's reasonable to think that, but the player must know going in that acid spells are not the most powerful ones around. He had the choice to go Fire but didn't. So why are you insisting that he wants more damage?


But, I think you are a little too in love with this idea that metamagics "break rules" because most of them don't. Oh sure, twin does and quicken can. But Careful doesn't it just says someone succeeded on their save. Empowered doesn't rerolling damage shows up in two feats. It isn't a common ability but it is within the rules. Distant increasing range, well it breaks the rules for touch spell I guess, but their are plenty of abilities which can increase a characters range, spell sniper being one you've mentioned yourself.

Empowered breaks the rule among metamagics, as it is the only one that can be used with other metamagics. And right, some metamagics are more "metamagicky" than others. But you're underestimating Careful Spell, which grants your allies an auto-save and opens the possibility of AoE stunlocks, by re-casting the same spell with Careful Spell round by round.


And, actually even looking deeper,e disadvantage on saves is a part of same spells (blight and shatter) if conditions are met, or someone being restraind or paralyzed causing saves to be at disadvantage or auto-failed.

Well, if you can turn any enemy into a plant or inorganic material, you sure can force save disadvantages for free.


Heck, most abilities in the game offer an exception to a rule that exists, so almost every ability could be considered "meta" in that sense. After all, you can't dash, disengage or hide as a bonus action... unless you have an ability that "breaks" that rule.

Exactly. You will also notice that this is not an ability full casters get (Expeditious Retreat comes with the cost of concentration, so it isn't for free at least). And you might specifically notice these rules exceptions are not something Wizards get without multiclassing.


Oh sure, extend darkvision.

Or just play one of the majority of races who has darkvision to begin with, including Teiflings and Half-elves who make superb sorcerers and don't even waste the spells known slot on it. Also, considering that you would have to be the only person without darkvision (otherwise people are still going to need torches, ruining the point since you aren't likely to be scouting) and you would have to know you were going to go somewhere where you needed darkvision, the niche gets smaller and smaller.

Or, take a race without Darkvision, like Variant Human, and Extend Darkvision. Now you get a free feat at level 1.


The vampire example is soo bad on so many levels. You'd be very likely to end up with a badly hurt sorcerer if he casts haste on himself and then runs up to a vampire.

Funny that you say that. The vampire was pretty scared of my Sorcerer as it ran away. It shocked the DM to realize I could get anywhere on the map with Haste up.


The gish use of shocking grasp then casting a spell to avoid counterspelling is neat, but again, incredibly niche.

Niche and powerful, just like how the Sorcerer plays. Niche does not equal weak.


Seriously, what is with you and putting your sorcerers in melee range?

I've had a lot of success with it, so I do it constantly.


And of course, none of this alters the point I was making, that Quicken itself does not alter the spell being cast, which we've already discussed above. In fact, I'm going to snip some things in light of the part up above.

And once again, that is not what metamagic does. It doesn't do what you want it to do, but that doesn't mean it's bad.


You are still not disproving the fact that, as what started this sub-thread, that the 6th level ability pushes draconic sorcerers to be blasters. Because, you know why Fire is the way to go for blasting? Not only does it have some of the best blasting spells, but it is also the most common of elements for damage, meaning they get more bang for their choice at level 6.

snip

A player can go Draconic because they want the level 1 ability and does not see much value in the level 6 ability. Seriously, it's not a lot of damage unless you specifically build around that level 6 ability, usually via Quicken or Twin. 5 extra points of Fire damage is a drop in the bucket compared to a 600 HP white dragon.


YOu acknowledge that fire dragon sorcerers are considered the best blasters for sorcerers. You say that playing a fire dragon sorcerer does not imply anything about whether or not they intend to be a blaster, and that they aren't choosing to forgo their level 6 abilities inclination.

On balance, they probably will go the blaster route. But you can't say that all Fire Dragon Sorcerers will be blasters, and you certainly can't claim that a Fire Dragon Sorcerer who is not a blaster cannot be optimized in his niche.


Player skill doesn't come into this because we are talking a variety of builds. It's interesting that when my original assertions of "there aren't a lot of good sorcerer builds" was put forth I was met with discussion about how I was shortsighted and didn't understand the class. Now I'm being told that a player who knows what they are doing can eliminate certain builds from consideration if he "knows what he is doing" and how metamagic choices reduce the number of spells someone would choose.

It's not interesting at all. Of course a player who knows what he's doing will avoid creating a bad character. Have you forgotten the quintillion ways a Wizard can prepare a spell list, or the million ways a Sorcerer can learn his own spells? There's a lot of bad builds out there but there are a lot of good ones. It just takes a cleverer player to make use of the good ones.


Almost as if my initial point showed I understood quite a lot about building a sorcerer.

Given everything you've said so far, from the beginning til now, I don't understand how you can think you know how to build a Sorcerer.


For someone who keeps trying to tell me they aren't trying to be condescending, you sure have a big problem with throwing around claims of "Decent players"

"sorry you weren't relevant to tonight's session Jim, guess you should just be a more decent player"

Also, remember sorcerers don't generalize, so even a decent player can't do that, according to the points you've put forth.

Obviously, if Jim is unable to participate in the session due to his character not matching his play style, he can't use that character well. The DM needs to give him a new one. The bar for players is higher for when they use Sorcerers because Sorcerers are complex in both build and play. And you're right, Sorcerers don't generalize. But we need to clarify here what that means. To try and be good at more than one role at the same time - ex., be a blaster and illusionist and healer simultaneously - is very bad for the Sorcerer. But to apply himself in one role and seek to apply that role in as many instances as possible - ex., to seek to always find an opportunity where their enchantments are relevant - is what a good Sorcerer does.


Why do you need to cast fly on more than one person within a combat scenario? If you didn't already have fly active, or you weren't mostly bunched together at the start of combat, then my mind immediately goes to chasing down a fleeing enemy. But, you only really need one person for that, and you could use other means to get a second fleeing enemy if it became necessary for some reason.

Maybe because you're doing aerial combat, and the room you just walked into has a flying creature that the melee guys can't reach. Or you're on a pirate ship and the melee guys would like to board that ship before they can board you.


I'll admit it is a decent tactic, but it needs to actually come up where that action made a significant impact and that is going to be rare.

Sounds like a Sorcerer is doing well in a niche they occupied.


I have no idea why you think this. If I spent a spell slot after 7 hours of long resting, my DM would never say I finished the rest and regained the slot. And the "light activity" rule of long resting has often been meant to exclude things like casting spells.

IT seems you are talking houserules there, and that is a different discussion.

Mike Mearls has said it takes one full hour of strenuous activity (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/42123/does-a-short-combat-or-casting-one-spell-interrupt-a-long-rest) to break a long rest. And he may not be the last say on RAW, but here is backed up by RAW. On PHB 186: "If the rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity - at least 1 hour of walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity - the characters must begin the rest again to gain any benefit from it."

So in fact, it is a house rule to not allow it.


I never said sorcerers got power from generalizing. The point has been that if wizards can specialize and grab a significant amount of general usage abilities (which their massive spell pools do ironically allow for) then they would be more powerful than the sorcerer who can only specialize and not take almost any general usage abilties.

And the counterpoint is that Sorcerers who specialize in their area outmatch the Wizard in the same area, but are less capable of handling the other more general areas that Wizards will have more spells to address.


See, since the wizard can double the amount of spells a sorcerer can use, in a lot of cases the wizard can cover the spell choices of any given sorcerer and grab general use spells that they need as well, this means that you are relying on the sorcerers metamagic to "specialize" them, but you aren't getting that, because metamagic does not specialize you, it has to synergize with the spells, meaning the spell choice is where the power of the build is mostly found.

Correct, the power of the build relies a lot on the spell choice. But the fact that you said that so casually shows me how little you understand what a synergistic spell selection with metamagic can do in a campaign.


I would never try and build a sorcerer who took the approach of taking general utility spells, because they are nearly incapable of that without severely gimping them. That does not mean that if they had another spells known I could pick from I wouldn't then grab those spells, because they are useful and powerful spells. It seems to me that you keep assuming I'm trying to stretch a sorcerers 15 spells known to cover the same amount of space as the wizards 44 spells known. I'm not, it is impossible.

You're not trying to stretch those 15 spells known into the 44 spells the Wizard can know, but you're implying that not doing so gimps the class.


Sorcerers can't do that, they can't afford to take spells that are too niche or don't exactly fit their build and that is the problem I keep trying to discuss

This is not a problem to a player who can use a Sorcerer properly. If your issue is that the Sorcerer is hard to use for everyone, then I will agree with you. But if that isn't your issue here, then you're talking about a problem that doesn't exist.


Can you prove that the sorcerer can cover "most bases decently"? I don't believe they actually can. And since the wizard is more likely to have the tool for the job at hand, they are more capable of altering the tide than the sorcerer who has to hope that the build they made can effectively work within the campaign.

Here's an example. Take an assassination mission. A Stealth-proficient, Enhance Ability: Cat's Grace-using Sorcerer sneaks in with the party and encounters a guard, who hasn't seen them yet but who will see them if they try to cross. There are many spells in his arsenal to take the guard out silently, including a Subtle Suggestion to check elsewhere in the keep for any signs of disturbances. The party sneaks through and encounters a locked door. He has no Knock spell, but he has Prestidigitation with which to create the key to the door. They slip through but find that the area is trapped, and so he casts Enhance Ability: Fox's Cunning on the Rogue who has Expertise in the skill, and they find and disarm the traps. Alternatively, he keeps his own buff but uses the Help action (called Working Together when not in combat, page 175 of the PHB; I've encountered people who say the Help action is not permissible outside of combat) to grant advantage. They make their way to their target's quarters, who seems to be asleep. The door might have an Alarm spell set up according to the Cleric, who has Find Traps, so he casts Dispel Magic on the door. They undo the Alarm and Arcane Lock on it as well and slip inside.


I', not following what you are saying. How is their power equal? How is their power being equal only when the sorcerer gets their preferred area any good when the wizard can have multiple areas they can be effective in. You're making a lot of claims that I'm trying to solve the wrong problems, but I'm not seeing what it is you are seeing here.

Correction here. Their power is greater in their preferred area, and weaker in the rest. We've talked at length about the limits of Wizards in terms of spell slots, action economy, metamagic vs wizard abilities, and we've shown that Wizards are generalists but are still limited. You're overstating the gap between their generalist's abilities to solve problems and the specialist's inabilities to solve those problems magically. Not having ritual casting, or even more spells known, does not make you a weaker class. Most out of combat problems can be solved nonmagically. Most out of combat problems can be solved by cantrips.


snip

My criteria is a broad range of problems, because adventuring and campaigning naturally means a broad range of problems.

And my perspective is that, as a Charisma caster, the Sorcerer must find ways to make his skills relevant. He is not a passive adventurer who discovers the world. He is an adventurer who changes the world around him. If he finds a problem he cannot solve one way, he uses his brains to find a workaround instead of tackling it head on.


Or he wasn't counterspelled, because they weren't fighting any spellcasters that night.
Or they rolled poorly on the save
Or he used Hypnotic pattern because wisdom was a lower save, it also hit both enemies.
If the wizard is out of spells the sorcerer likely is too
He succeed on his concentration check, or he just didn't take damage in the first place because....

At a certain point, we need to talk about parties. Neither the wizard or sorcerer is going to be alone on the field, and a lot of your points up there rely on the wizard being in range of being attacked and having no allies who are dealing with other enemies.

Highly convenient that the Wizard in your counterexample has absolutely no obstacles in his path: no casters, targets rolled poorly on the save, targets have low Wisdom, and he is not attacked in favor of the tankier PCs. It's interesting how a Sorcerer can deal with those times when things aren't going their way, like having an enemy caster, or dealing with high-save monsters, or being targeted by the monster as a squishy PC. And if you bring in the parties, then you also inject the importance of teamwork in an adventure, and how that teamwork can efficiently accomplish things without needing a Wizard.


I've never seen a wizard use the dash action, ever, even when running away from an enemy they tried to solo. Misty Step is used a lot, or dimension door, but never dashing.

How interesting that you've never seen Wizards take advantage of a core use of an action (core, as in it's in the core rules). Seems like they aren't able to make full use of their resources? Not all Sorcerers can make use of the Dash action as well, but certain builds can definitely find a use for it.


The wizard doens't have to be able to do "everything", he just has to be capable of "a lot of things" which he is.

And the Sorcerer doesn't have to know a lot of spells. He just has to know enough to be useful. Which he is.


And if the sorcerer has the exact same problem at low levels with needing to conserve magic... why are we talking about this point? The sorcerer is going to want to converse those two level one slots to, but where the wizard has six potential spells and probably 4 prepped for the day, the sorcerer has 2 spells. So, finding those moments when spending one of those two precious slots it worth it is more likely to happen to the wizard.

There were quite a few early posts where things like the various melee sorcerer builds I showed (to my mind) were incredibly poor next to other melee gish builds.

We're talking about this point because you seem to not understand how useless it is to know the perfect spell for that one problem you can solve, but you have to conserve your spell slots in anticipation of future problems. You've re-stated the value of the 1st level Wizard knowing 6 level 1 spells despite him only being able to cast two of those.


Oh sure, just as often, unless you decide to use heighten. The sorcerer does not have "enough fuel" to both match the wizard in slots per day and use their unique metamagic abilties more that once at 11th level.

And that admission is important. The Sorcerer can match the Wizard's Arcane Recovery and still have one use of their metamagic ability. Thus Arcane Recovery is weaker - much weaker, when you take into account the action economy - than Flexible Casting.


And you are right, he doesn't have to choose to create slots, he can assume he'll have enough, and then when he realizes he would have liked that extra slot, it is too late because they used their fuel on metamagic.

Sorry to beat on the same drum here, but it sounds like you're talking about a player who doesn't know how to play a Sorcerer.


Well, I feel like you are completely wrong on all counts here. But, this is truly dragging on far too late at this point.

Obviously, I believe I am right on all counts. I suppose without any refutations from you, I can only restate it.

[Chaosmancer]

This response might take several days to finish, I'm done staying up late and all that. It's just becoming too much of a strain.


It's part of the core way of how to play the classes though. You must choose feats which benefit your class and play style the most, shoring up any perceived weaknesses in your style that the base class does not provide. Discussing whether a Sorcerer with Ritual Casting is stronger than a Wizard with Lucky is relevant if you don't want to have a discussion in a white room, merely theorycrafting the weaknesses of a class in a way that does not translate to actual play.

And yet, Feats are optional rules and we, as humans, are not very good at deciding if the Human Variant Sorcerer at level 4 with Ritual Caster and Magic Initiate in Jim's game where they use Eberron Action Point rules is as powerful as the High Elf Wizard who took Lucky in Sarah's game where they use gritty rest variants.

At a certain point, we need to pare down the options we are considering. Everyone is working with the same ASI's at the same levels when talking about Full Casters, and each caster has different builds where different Feats are better. But, to consider the class design we need to look at the parts that are different.

After all, Ritual Caster is a pretty decent feat, especially to shore up sorcerer weaknesses, but not taking it could mean going for War Caster, or Spell Sniper, maybe they grab Lucky or Inspiring Leader or Resilience Wisdom or any number of possible feats for possible builds with possible focuses. I'm not going to consider every single aspect of those, as Sorcerer does not seem to have any specific feats that interact in an explosive manner with their base design, making them far better than similar choices for other casters.




Sure, but take note that I was the one who raised the issue first. You are missing my point. I'm saying having the Spellcasting feature is a substantial benefit to a class already, and thus any class that has it is already powerful to start with. Yes, Wizards get it as well. That's why Wizards are also powerful. The only way you can discount this point is if you say the Spellcasting feature itself is weak.

So... is your point "Quadratic Wizards, Linear Fighters"? Great, sure, having spellcasting is an immediate golden ticket to becoming more powerful of a class. However, I've never compared sorcerers to any other class that does not have spellcasting. So, I'm not going to give credit to a class for having the fortune of being a fullcaster, since I also do not take away credit from those who designed not to be casters.

But, if it makes you feel better, we can change the discussion to have the Sorcerer is relatively weak when compared to other fullcasters, if you absolutely feel the need to credit them for having a spell list.




False equivalence. The power of having proficiency with all weapons and armors is not the same thing as having the Spellcasting trait. Having the latter is much more versatile, which I believe you value highly.

I don't care if it is more powerful.

Here, I'l try this. When comparing the power of the Rogue Thief to the Rogue Assassin, I do not bother bringing up the power of Uncanny Dodge. Both classes get it and both utilize it. The equivalence between the feature is a moot point.

Sorcerers having the capability to cast spells as a full caster is a moot point.

I'm dropping this line of discussion. Our posts are getting long enough without us taking space arguing over something like this.




You seem to be implying that an 8 Int Wizard is more useful to the party than a 20 Cha Sorcerer. That is, of course, absurd. Not only is that Wizard's spell attacks using a negative ability modifier, his save DCs are also very low compared to what it can be. His lore skills are also going to be very low. Clearly, having prepared spells is not everything.

Since you seem to be missing the point I was trying to make, dropping this section of the discussion. I'm very aware that they aren't equally useful, and that they would have a negative modifier and that his DCs are low and that his lore skills would be low. The entire point was, as I stated "How low does a wizards intelligence score have to be to have prepared spells equal to the sorcerer?" It was an amusing statistic, not a point on how useful a wizard with his primary stat dumped might be.




That is also a strategy the Sorcerer employs. They have little to gain in knowing a lot of high level spells (6th level+) when they can only cast one a day per spell level. Thus both classes are limited by the number of spell slots they have, regardless of their spells known or prepared.

I'm not sure I see your point. Yes, almost nobody who is a full caster takes multiple high level spells when they can only cast one of them at a time.

However, after the sorcerer has taken their single 6th level spell, putting them around level 11 we'll say, they have only 11 more spells they know. Enough to fill each of the other categories 1 thru 5, with only 2 spells each, with only a single spell left over to make one category have 3 spots. Considering we have previously established that low level spells are still useful to have, and even assuming you've given up a spell each level to make sure your list stays at least somewhat relevant as you've leveled, that is a massively sparse list of spells.

Meanwhile, the wizard. Preparing for the day, and we'll assume they have an Int of +5, they get another 15 spells. Puts them rather close to the sorcerer, only 4 more spells, however any ritual the wizard has does not need to be prepared, because they cast rituals straight from their book and do not need them prepared ahead of time. Opening spaces potentially. Another also, their spells known is 25 (removing one for that 6th level spell) meaning they have a far larger pool of options to prep if they know what is coming for the adventuring day. And they could have even more spells than that, if they have been given any access to spells to scribe into their book over the course of the adventure, or if they have purchased any themselves.

Both are limited by their slots, but sorcerers are also more limited in the magic they have access to. That is a point you cannot disprove or get around.




I notice you're assuming the high level character takes a passive role in their adventures. Sure, it's good to have three 6th level spells that can handle three different scenarios, but at the end of the day, once you encounter that one scenario and you cast that one spell, you will have no more 6th level slots from which to cast the other two 6th level spells you prepared, which means you can't address those scenarios anymore when they come up. Meanwhile, the Sorcerer knows one or two 6th level spells (due to being able to retrain an old known spell) and runs into the same problems. They are both equally limited by the scarcity of the spell slots, which you aren't emphasizing enough. You also are not emphasizing the degree of control that a high level adventurer has over the campaign - either Wizard or Sorcerer has the power to steer the campaign in many directions, including steering it into scenarios in which they can make creative use of their known or prepared spells.

I'm not emphasizing the limitations of slots because they share the same limitation in this regard. Why emphasize it? It is a feature of spellcasting that high level slots are scarce. A wizard wouldn't generally use their spells known to get multiple high level spells when they only have a single slot, they would grab only two (they don't retrain and instead gain two every level) and if they instead grab one they would then grab lower level spells (for which they have plenty of slots) to fill out niches and roles that they still desire options within.

And, I'm not going to address this idea of high level characters "steering" the campaign. It comes with a host of assumptions about the campaign, the party, the dm, and once more, is something shared between the classes so the assumptions become moot.




None of those are significantly game changing spells. I fail to see why missing out on them as rituals is detrimental to the Sorcerer in any way. Detect Magic is a spell-encoded option for the Arcana skill most of the time, which means proficiency in the Arcana skill covers many of the use cases. Comprehend Languages only lets you understand written and spoken languages but not write or speak them yourself; and if you are truly in need of breaking down language barriers in a campaign, you can find an NPC who speaks the language. If you regularly need to do it, the Sorcerer can cast it from a spell slot. And Water Breathing might come up once in a while, but I've never truly needed it. I suspect a Sorcerer can find a scroll if it's needed, and the DM will provide if that's where the adventure needs to go. I've never heard of a campaign that ended because nobody could cast Water Breathing. That said, the Sorcerer can learn any of these and cast from a spell slot, or cast from a scroll.

Identify and Find Familiar are conveniences, to be sure. However, they are not necessities. A Wizard with a familiar is not significantly stronger than a Wizard without a familiar. You can run whole campaigns with nobody having a familiar and it would work out. Also, Identify has a lot of problems as a ritual. If you need to identify this magical object right now, you can spend a spell slot and finish in one minute. But if you have 11 minutes to cast it as a ritual, then you're not in a rush. And thus what's stopping you from taking a short rest and identifying the properties of magical items that way? Any class can do that.

Well, to answer most of your questions

Using Arcana to identify if an item is magical is DM fiat, and Arcana generally does not tell the school of magic.

NPCs can be unreliable translators, and in ancient ruins being able to read an ancient language can be immensly powerful, plus NPCs have a host of problems for escort missions and cost money to hire.

Sure, if the campaign needs Water Breathing, the party will get it. Of course that relies on the DM, who might also decide to throw a treasure chest down into a deep chasm of water that the players would like to instead retrieve. Or, perhaps you want to make an amphibious assault on a castle, if you're the only people to but the potions of water breathing in town that becomes suspicious, assuming you can even buy magical items in the game which relies on the DM

Sure, familiar don't break the game, but a person with a familiar has a host of potential options that one without does not have. It is an immensely useful spell on all levels.

Short rest identification of items is not necessarily a rule the DM will follow. Even if they do there is no guarentee they will tell you everything, since telling you the sword is cursed kind of ruins the point of having a cursed sword (unless it is so good the point is to tempt the player to deal with the curse anyways) also, Identify does not only apply to items, but also allows you to Identify magical effects, such as things which might be effecting important NPCs or magical traps, or any number of things. A short rest does not allow that, and we go back to the Arcana skill.


Of course, all of this kind of misses the point, because now we are discussing the individual power of spells. The power of ritual casting is in the fact that spells such as these are not massively powerful or something you would want to have ready to go everyday, but that instead you can use them without expending a spell slot if they become necessary. If you cannot see the value in not spending spell slots, then what more could we have to discuss on the matter? I'm not going to argue whether or not someone having comprehend languages is a useful thing in any given circumstance, that isn't worth my time and if your points simply come to "they aren't useful spells so the sorcerer not having them isn't important" then there is little more to say.




Obviously, I disagree. In my point of view, less is more. Learning to solve issues by relying less on magic as a crutch increases the impact of your spells when you do use them, and the DM usually gets thrown off guard as he did not see your spell coming as you use it so rarely. I've used this ideology effectively many, many times and my DMs have always complimented me for the fruits of it, even if they didn't know my ideology.

Good for you I guess. I don't think I need a DM to compliment me for using magic though when he forgot my magic user was capable of using magic to solve problems. I'll never say magic is the be-all end-all of problem solving, but there are a lot of solutions that magic is tailor-made to provide, without having to go in circles.



But going back to the discussion on rituals, if you truly value ritual casting, the Sorcerer has access to it via the Ritual Casting feat and selecting the Wizard spell list. Thus the Sorcerer becomes able to match the Wizard ritual for ritual. And sure, it requires spending an ASI for a feat, but you can acquire it at level 1 through Variant Human. And even not using that race, the Wizard also has to take a feat to match the Sorcerer's Con save proficiency anyway, so they are matched in terms of "feat taxes". War Caster or Resilient: Constitution are two very valuable picks for any caster who relies on concentration spells. So are you then saying that a Sorcerer who is able to cast rituals is more powerful than or equally powerful as a Wizard, given that a ritual casting Sorcerer is possible?

A good point? A legitimate discussion point? I'm not quite sure what to do with myself.

Sorry, the sarcasm over took me.

Yeah, I've been wondering about this myself. A sorcerer who took ritual casting compared to a wizard who took resilient (con). They would seem to be closer in power to each other. However, there is a little bit of DM fiat that could sneak in.

See, the Ritual Casting feat includes sorcerer amongst it's options, which is odd, and says that you have to come across the spells in written form to be able to put them in your ritual book. Now, I think a DM who argues that comprehend languages is different between sorcerers and wizards is blowing smoke, but there is a more legitimate question of whether or not you can add rituals to your book from sorcerer spells known, because the nature of sorcerous magic makes it far less likely they understand it to the point of being able to write it down.

However, assuming none of that becomes an issue they become more equal after the taking of those feats. Now, here is a question for you. Does the fact that a class's weakness can be reduced via a feat mean the class does not have a weakness? Considering most Concentration checks are DC10, a wizard does not need resilient (con), and both benefit equally from Warcaster, but does a sorcerer need Ritual Casting to shore up a weakness? You'll obviously argue they do not, but I'm obviously not convinced that is the case.



*snipping things already covered, trying not to repeat myself too much*



I do see it. That's why I'm loving the value of Extend Spell on long duration buffs. It's effectively resource-free casting. What I'm not seeing the value of are the specific spells that can be cast as rituals. All of the powerful game-changing spells require spell slots to be expended.

So you don't see any of the spells tagged "ritual" as being valuable enough because they aren't powerful enough? Talk about your high standards.

--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--

So, over the past few days my plan of "respond when it is reasonable and stop staying up so late" has turned into not sitting down to write any responses at all. I've got so many things between family, tests, and running my campaigns that I simply am struggling to find time to continue this debate.

So, since I'm fairly certain no one's mind is going to be changed anyways, I'm stepping back from responding. Not saying I'll do a great job of it, because I honestly love a debate and I do think I'll end up taking time to continue reading when standing in line for food or something similar, but I need to try and do the more responsible thing and stop spending hours nitpicking this instead of making sure I've gotten my game prep done or studying. Sorry to disappoint, but that's just how it is sometimes.

++++
++++
+++
+++



Exactly. You will also notice that this is not an ability full casters get (Expeditious Retreat comes with the cost of concentration, so it isn't for free at least). And you might specifically notice these rules exceptions are not something Wizards get without multiclassing.

Already breaking my promise to myself to just finish reading and not respond *sigh* I really enjoy doing this sort of thing too much.

As I mentioned in that part of the response, I noticed your repeated maneuver to hold up the fact that metamagic "broke the rules" of how magic works as part of it being powerful. Mid-way through responding to that point, I kind of just threw up my hands because pretty much every ability gained by a class "Breaks the rules" of the game by creating exceptions.

You want wizard examples?

Dealing maximum damage instead of rolling, via Overchannel. Gaining health by killing enemies via Grim harvest. Any time you half the amount of time and money for scribing a spell. Ignoring damage in regards to conjuration concentration effects via focused conjuration. Casting spells without spending a spell slot or casting spells that are not prepared via the capstones. Replacing die rolls via Portent.

All of these allow a player to do something that is normally not allowed by the rules, thereby "breaking" the rules. That doesn't make metamagic special, it doesn't "break" anything any more than any other ability in the game does.





Mike Mearls has said it takes one full hour of strenuous activity (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/42123/does-a-short-combat-or-casting-one-spell-interrupt-a-long-rest) to break a long rest. And he may not be the last say on RAW, but here is backed up by RAW. On PHB 186: "If the rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity - at least 1 hour of walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity - the characters must begin the rest again to gain any benefit from it."

So in fact, it is a house rule to not allow it.

Twice, dang it.

Thing is that ruling was pretty heavily bashed in my circles, because it means you could be fighting for 500 rounds of combat (50 minutes of full fighting) which is insanely strenuous upon the body, but have that be counted as having not "preformed strenuous activity".

So, call it a houserule if you want, but it is an absurdity to allow up to an hour of heavily strenous activity when the rules also state that you can only do two hours of light activity like reading during a long rest. I mean, I can read for three hours and not be stressed out, figure that's true for a lot of people, but just about anyone trying to swing a sword for 50 straight minutes is going to keel over from exhaustion.







The party sneaks through and encounters a locked door. He has no Knock spell, but he has Prestidigitation with which to create the key to the door.

Okay, I've seen a lot of questionable claims from you about your games, but this takes the cake. Your DM allows a cantrip which creates a "trinket" to create a skeleton key to unlock a door? I pray that you are making the assumption that the sorcerer has seen the key before and is just perfectly remaking it, because if not then I think the reason you find sorcerers so powerful is painfully obvious. You've experienced almost no limits on what you are allowed to get away with in regards to magic.

If I tried to create the key to a door I've never seen before, even with a spell like Creation, any DM I've played with would probably tell me it is impossible. Even if I'd seen the key they'd probably tell me I couldn't perfectly recreate it because the spell isn't meant for that.





Sorry to beat on the same drum here, but it sounds like you're talking about a player who doesn't know how to play a Sorcerer.

You responded with this line of thought so many times. I really have to wonder about it. But, considering my desire to bow out of this conversation and move on, I guess you'll just have to consider me a poor player who doesn't understand how to build or play a sorcerer. My old DM will be really sad to hear that. My Storm Sorcerer Jeweler, Merric Silverhorn, who I took all the way to level 20 was one of his favorite characters in the party, I'll have to tell him that I just don't understand how sorcerers work. After all, how could I find problems with a class I played all the way thru and experienced first hand.

I'd use blue text, but you truly believe this about me, so I'll leave it like this. Good evening to you.

[LeonBH]

You responded with this line of thought so many times. I really have to wonder about it. But, considering my desire to bow out of this conversation and move on, I guess you'll just have to consider me a poor player who doesn't understand how to build or play a sorcerer. My old DM will be really sad to hear that. My Storm Sorcerer Jeweler, Merric Silverhorn, who I took all the way to level 20 was one of his favorite characters in the party, I'll have to tell him that I just don't understand how sorcerers work. After all, how could I find problems with a class I played all the way thru and experienced first hand.

I'd use blue text, but you truly believe this about me, so I'll leave it like this. Good evening to you.

If you were going to write this at the end of your reply, there was no point writing anything above it, really. Later.

[Avonar]

Let's ignore optimisation for a moment, since I almost never see people min/maxing characters in games I play.

The first character I ever made was a sorceror. I didn't know anything about 5e and I knew little about D&D as a whole.

I didn't look anything up on the internet, I didn't spend hours planning, I made choices when I levelled up and that was it. No one told me what the best thing to do would be, I just looked at the spells and decided what looked cool.

And I was fine. Sure I made some choices I'd later get rid of but I liked it and I never felt useless compared to the rest of the party.

Sorceror holds up just fine I think.

[strangebloke]

Yeah, I think sorcerer is 'weaker' than a wizard, but it's not a difference that's going to be very noticeable unless you have more than one player that tries really hard to optimize. Even then, the gap between a high-op wizard and a high-op sorcerer is smaller than the gap between a high-op wizard and fighter.

Whats more common is this: A party has a wizard who cares a lot about being the strongest and builds to that alongside a sorcerer who tries and fails to do the same thing. Not necessarily because sorcerer is weaker, but because they're getting bad guidance.

Specifically, I think people read EvilAnagram's guide for Sorcs which is... technically accurate but misleading.

For instance he rates quicken very highly. Which is fair, quicken is great! But he doesn't talk about the synergy with specific spells all that much, which is the real key.

[KorvinStarmast]

The Sorcerer is actually very decent, both Role Playing Wise, and Mechanics Wise, if you have a clear Idea of the build/theme of the character you're aiming for.
Tl;Dr: The Sorcerer is an Amazing Class to play if you actually know what you're doing and with some amount of pre-planning when making your character either optimisation-wise or RP/Concept wise. I would compare this to some of the choices in League of Legends that are "high skill quotient" choices. I derive from your post that Sorcerer is a class where a bit of game mastery/skill is necessary. Have I understood you correctly?
The first character I ever made was a sorceror. I didn't know anything about 5e and I knew little about D&D as a whole. I didn't look anything up on the internet, I didn't spend hours planning, I made choices when I levelled up and that was it. No one told me what the best thing to do would be, I just looked at the spells and decided what looked cool. And I was fine. Sure I made some choices I'd later get rid of but I liked it and I never felt useless compared to the rest of the party. Sorceror holds up just fine I think. How high in levels did your game end up going before it ended?

Also, I have an opinion about metamagic.
The sorcerer gets hosed by not having access to more of them, IMO. As currently written, you get four, but unless you hit level 17 during play, you get 3.

I would recommending adding another meta magic at level 7.

That would mean 5 meta magics when reaching level 17, and more choices on the way to tier 4 play. A modest increase in flexibility, and the metamagics still cost points, but the niche the Sorcerer occupies seems to be built on the way the Sorcerer customizes or changed magical spells.

So, do more meta magic.

[strangebloke]

So, do more meta magic.
Just give a special metamagic inside of the subclass. It's what the newer ones are doing anyway.

Draconic sorc gets 'elemental transfusion.' 1 sp to change any elemental damage spell to their element.

Wild Sorc gets 'chaotic energy.' 2 SP 'explode' each their damage die once. (combine with empower for shenanigans)

Storm sorc gets 'forceful casting' 1 sp to force a target that fails a save to also be knocked prone or be pushed ten feet. Can be used multiple times for multiple targets.

Obviously those ideas aren't balanced, but they're just examples. Given them something like that and then a few thematic spells known and everyone would be happy. Too much generic metamagic and all the builds start to look a bit samey.