Sorcerers w/ Wizard Spell List?

[LichPlease]

I'm considering letting my players play with the sorcerer and wizard spell lists combined. Is there anything problematic with this or would it be way more pros than cons? Thanks.

[Blood of Gaea]

It shouldn't be particularly broken, but I feel it would work best if a subclass was made for it, like a divine soul sorcerer for the cleric spell list.

[Unoriginal]

I'm considering letting my players play with the sorcerer and wizard spell lists combined. Is there anything problematic with this or would it be way more pros than cons? Thanks.

It would give the Sorcerer a massive boost for no reason and at no cost.

If you don't consider that a problem, go ahead.

[Galactkaktus]

It's probably fine it'll make sorcerer better but it won't break the game or anything.

[MrStabby]

Yeah... really powerful. If you don't mind one class outstripping others though feel free to go for it.

Divine soul is probably the model if you do want to do it. Just treat the wizard spells that are not on the sorc list as if they were like cleric spells. Give a level 1 wizard only spell at level 1.

[Waazraath]

Well... in general, the Sorcerer already has a very good list, and few spells known, so more spells known shouldn't break anything, only make the 'choosing spells' harder. There might be exeptions though, spells that become much more powerful when combined with meta-magic. *edit: removed stupid non-working example*

This is still not broken imo, but an illustration that metamagic can make certain wizard spells much more powerful (and in this case the metamagic isn't even used on the spell itself).

[DeAnno]

I think you could maybe compromise and put on a couple spells that really deserve to be on the Sorcerer list, which I agree was a little unfairly gimped, especially at higher levels. I mean, really:


4) Evard's Black Tentacles
5) Wall of Force
6) Otto's Irresistible Dance
7) Forcecage
8) Mind Blank
8) Feeblemind
9) Foresight
9) Prismatic Wall


The spells on that list are not the specialist prep-heavy types of things you would expect only a wizard to have. They are blockbuster fighting spells and critical high level buffs every caster wants. Sorcerers only even have five options at 8 and 9 in core. The designers were totally unreasonable about hemming the Sorcerer away from a lot of options like this, the only top quality stuff they really get is pure damage, which isn't even going to make your list happy as someone who specializes in damage.

It's completely unreasonable, the WotC bias that was there against Sorcerers in 3e core definitely snuck back in in 5e.

[LichPlease]

It shouldn't be particularly broken, but I feel it would work best if a subclass was made for it, like a divine soul sorcerer for the cleric spell list.

Thanks. I like this idea the best as it seems the most sensible way to go about it.

[Galactkaktus]

I compared the spell lists in the Phb

Cantrips
The same

1st level spells wizards have the following spells in addition to the spells sorcerers have.
Alarm
Find familiar(The really amazing one)
Grease
Identify
Illusery script
Longstrider
Protection from evil and good
Tasha's hideous laughter
Tenser's floating disk
Unseen servant

2nd level spells Sorcerers have enhance ability that wizards don't and wizards have the following spells sorcerers don't
Arcane lock
Continual Flame
Flaming sphere(This one might be a good one)
Gentle repose
Locate object
Magic mouth
Magic weapon
Melf's acid arrow
Nystul's magic aura
Ray of enfeeblement
Rope trick

3rd level spells Sorcerer have daylight and waterwalk, wizards have the following spells
Animate dead(probably the strongest one)
Bestow curse
Feign death
Glyph of warding
Leomond's tiny hut
Magic circle
Nondetection
Phantom steed
Remove curse
sending
Vampiric touch

I'll get back to doing the other spell levels if there is any interest in the higher ones. But my analysis is that sorcerer gains Find familiar they can also use flaming sphere for level 3-4 and at level 5+ animate dead might be really good. otherwise i don't really see any spells that whould present a problem. Wizards gaining enhance ability might be one of the better benifits of allowing the lists to merge.

[MrStabby]

Well there are spells like twinned foresight - but at that levels spells can be a bit broken anyway.

I don't think that there is such an issue about particular spells interacting with metamagic, the worry is that sorcerer is a great class, there are spells that will improve the sorcerer if the sorcerer gets them and that makes an exceptionally strong class.

Wall of force, forcecage, feeblemind, maze... these are all things you want to avoid giving to the sorcerer, or at least as a significant cost if you must. It isn't a particular interaction - it is just that they are really powerful and make the sorcerer even more versatile than it is already.

[Kadesh]

I made a Sorcerer based on the desert, with sun and drought themes at play. Wall of Sand isn't on the Sorcerer spell list. Any particular reason why not? Not really. Spoke to the DM, and he allowed me to get some specific spells that supported that theme from other lists. It's functionally the same thing as opening the list to all, but at least there's a goal behind it, and I'm not suddenly picking up Tsunami or whatever.

[DeAnno]

It isn't a particular interaction - it is just that they are really powerful and make the sorcerer even more versatile than it is already.

I think it's a little unfair that this defensive mindset about Sorcerers has become so standard. Are Wizards not versatile? Their class features certainly aren't insignificant either, and in terms of pure value Arcane Recovery is giving them a lot of the extra fuel metamagic gives Sorcs.

I feel like in a lot of ways people expect Sorcs to pay for their metamagic feature twice, and it just doesn't end up being good enough to justify that, especially outside of 1-combat days where they can't just light their whole reserve on fire for metamagic.

[Unoriginal]

I think it's a little unfair that this defensive mindset about Sorcerers has become so standard. Are Wizards not versatile? Their class features certainly aren't insignificant either, and in terms of pure value Arcane Recovery is giving them a lot of the extra fuel metamagic gives Sorcs.

I feel like in a lot of ways people expect Sorcs to pay for their metamagic feature twice, and it just doesn't end up being good enough to justify that, especially outside of 1-combat days where they can't just light their whole reserve on fire for metamagic.


Let me ask you a question: if you gave the metamagic class feature to the Wizard class, for free, without changing anything else, do you think it'd be fair for the Sorcerer?

[TIPOT]

Let me ask you a question: if you gave the metamagic class feature to the Wizard class, for free, without changing anything else, do you think it'd be fair for the Sorcerer?

I mean wizards have a lot going for them other than just their spell list though? Ritual casting, More spells known and prepared and their class features seem better than sorcerers (not including metamagic).

I think that if the wizard were limited to the sorcerer spell list it'd still be better than the current sorcerer.

[Aett_Thorn]

Let me ask you a question: if you gave the metamagic class feature to the Wizard class, for free, without changing anything else, do you think it'd be fair for the Sorcerer?

I would say that this isn’t even close to the same thing as what is being proposed. Specs would still have the restriction on spells known that Wizards don’t have. They couldn’t swap out spells at the end of a long rest to get new ones, ruining most of the ‘versatility’ argument.

Giving Sorcs more spells to choose from might have a few, high-level impacts due to certain spells. But other than that, it really wouldn’t matter much. They’d still lack ritual casting, which would make certain spells not worth a pick, and there’s already a large overlap in spell lists.

Plus, it would allow certain Draconic-origin Sorcs to have more than just one or two spells that align with their dragon color choice.

[Galactkaktus]

Let me ask you a question: if you gave the metamagic class feature to the Wizard class, for free, without changing anything else, do you think it'd be fair for the Sorcerer?

That is not the same thing at all Wizards will still be better att utilizing the larger spell list since they can have way more spells in their spellbook and more spells prepared than the sorcerer can have spells known. To make it a fair comparission you whould have to make the metamagic alot more limiting for the wizard something like 3 sp max and only one metamagic option.

[sophontteks]

Sorcerers and wizards are well balanced. Sorcerers are easier to screw up. A player really has to make sure they are picking the right spells and metamagics. The only misfortune is that Sorcerers have few good archtypes.

[Merudo]

It shouldn't be particularly broken, but I feel it would work best if a subclass was made for it, like a divine soul sorcerer for the cleric spell list.


Thanks. I like this idea the best as it seems the most sensible way to go about it.

One of my friends is using the Arcane Incarnate (http://pmssquad.com/project/arcane-incarnate/) for this. Seems to work alright for him.

[Merudo]

Sorcerers and wizards are well balanced.

I don't think so.

I would say that the Sorcerer is pretty much an inferior version of the Wizard in almost every way.

The lack of spell known is just crippling to a Sorcerer's versatility. A level 7 Wizard knows more spells, and a level 6 Cleric can PREPARE more spells, than a level 20 Sorcerer knows.

Metamagic can do a few nifty tricks but does not in any way compensate for this immense discrepancy.

The fact that the Sorcerer's spell list is a gimped version of the Wizard's (there are no Sorcerer exclusive spells) just adds insult to injury.

[MrStabby]

Sorcerers and wizards are well balanced. Sorcerers are easier to screw up. A player really has to make sure they are picking the right spells and metamagics. The only misfortune is that Sorcerers have few good archtypes.

Yeah, pretty much this. Sorcerers are obscenely powerful once you get them in the right hands.

On a more general point, it is ok to compare sorcerers to wizards for balance but some conditions need to be met. Specifically people at your table only play either a wizard or a sorcerer. If you have people playing other classes you should also compare those classes.

I think that comparing giving wizards metamagic to giving sorcerers wizard spells is a valid comparison. This isn't to say they are equally powerful (metamagic is that powerful) but the versatility of wizard spells is part of the character of the class and giving that character more widely does diminish the wizard somewhat.

[Skyblaze]

Honestly, I think the biggest hindrance to Sorcerers is the number of spells known. In my games I bump that up to 20/21. In terms of what spells they have access to, I do want some spells from other spell lists (call lightning, wall of force, phantasmal killer) but I'd rather have more spells to utilize.

[sophontteks]

The biggest hinderance to sorcerers is absolutely spells known. Giving more spells known to a new player will help them make the sorcerer more balanced vs. the wizard, but giving that same thing to an experienced player will make the sorcerer far superior to the wizard.

There is nothing a wizard has that comes remotely close to the spellcasting effeciency of a sorcerer, but it takes a lot of research to know which of their limited spells best work with the metamagics they pick. Its so easy to screw this up and if they do screw this up, the sorcerer is nothing but a gimped wizard.

For those looking to play a sorcerer. Picking a cheap metamagic early is essential. Empower and subtle are easily overlooked but they are both cheap and powerful. I personally believe every sorcerer should know subtle spell. The ability to cast without revealing that you are casting at all is straight broken in the right hands.

You can bind and muzzle a sorcerer, watch him in plain sight, and still have no idea that he just cast phantasmal force. He can start killing people without even starting an initiative roll.

[Skyblaze]

... but giving that same thing to an experienced player will make the sorcerer far superior to the wizard.


Eh, giving a sorcerer access to 5 or 6 more spells wouldn't make them "far superior" to the wizard. Sorcerers would still not be able to switch spells per encounter, they still have a limited reasource for their metamagic vs wizards do not (Like enhance wizards dont have to spend anything to twin enhance spells), they would still have less spells than a wizard (in the theory about giving sorcs 5 or 6 more spells), and less spells to pick from.

Edit: And wizards have a way to regain spell slots on a short rest vs sorcerers need to spend metamagic/spell slots to recover one or the other.

Edit...again: I'm not saying it wouldn't make the Sorcerers stronger but from what all I have seen, most people pick a wizard over sorcerer because wizard has access to/knows more spells.

[MrStabby]

Eh, giving a sorcerer access to 5 or 6 more spells wouldn't make them "far superior" to the wizard. Sorcerers would still not be able to switch spells per encounter

I think you have just worked out the difference between a sorcerer player with system mastery and one without. A "good" sorcerer player doesn't need to switch spells. From a combat perspective they pick spells that hit a variety of saves, that scale well and that do different things - and they use metamagic to fill gaps and to drop spells they don't need. Do you really need scorching ray if you can be throwing an empowered/twinned firebolt for 3d10 damage?

The point that balances this is that there are gaps. There need to be gaps otherwise there is no downside to the sorcerer's spell selection. So no wall of force - the sorcerer has to make do with awesome spells like web and banishment instead.

And why compare to a wizard? A wizard is hardly a good benchmark for comparison with a power dead in the middle of the pack of other classes. Compare it to a monk or a warlock or a fighter... The wizard is s strong class. Saying that sorcerer needs to be able to circumvent it's downsides as it isn't as good as a wizard in your view is like saying that lightning bolt should do more damage as it typically does less than fireball. Comparing everything with an outlier is where we get power creep from.

[Skyblaze]

Please note I did not compare the sorcerer to a wizard in my original reply, I just responded to the person before me about it, haha.

I believe its appropriate to compare the two anyway, they are two sides of the same coin. One is a limited generalist (metamagic can effect all spells on the given metamagic rule but it has a point cost) and the other is an unlimited specialist (to take the comparison from my previous reply, enhance wizards can twin enhance only spells freely).

Sorcerers with a bit more spells known will still be with a limited spell selection in both spells known and the list of spells to choose from. Just they won't have almost as many* spells known than a 1/3rd caster.

*Whoops, typed before I looked. 13 vs 15.

[Eragon123]

I am surprised to find so many people praising the strengths of the sorcerer in this thread. Usually people admit that the sorcerer got gimped but that any changes to them must be slight or else they will quickly become broken.

Here are the problems as I see them.

The old 3.5 paradigm is dead. It used to be that wizards learned higher level spells faster but sorcerers got more spells per day. Now spellcasting has been flattened in that regard so everyone learns the same spell levels at the same rate. Furthermore, with Arcane Recovery Wizards can cast more spells per day than the sorcerer. This is to say nothing on ritual casting. To add further insult to injury, Wizards can oft prepare more spells than the sorcerer can know. The wizards has a broader selection of spells and is only barred from a couple that the sorcerer can know (like enhance ability). So to those who defend the sorcerer claiming that with system mastery the sorcerer can be better, I'd argue that with the same system mastery one can push the wizard even higher, except in niche situations. This is to say nothing on subclass abilities. The wizards archtype abilities are often character defining. Hell some are so impressive that people forget that enchantment wizards are a thing due to the awesomeness of portent and arcane ward. And what do sorcerers get at those levels? Free mage armor, very occasional randomness, the cleric spell list (ok actually this one is good), the ability to fly 10 feet, or to see in the dark and to pretend to be a diet warlock.

What are the strengths of the sorcerer? Well one is metamagic and another is the rarely discussed potiential of creating a higher level spell slot than is usually available for his/her level. Metamagic is cool. This is what makes the class. Just thinking of how to mix metamagics with spells is why an experienced player will pick a sorcerer. So combine that with the higher spell slots---- oh wait they take the same resource and converting spell slots to spell points is very entropic. Entropy is a feel bad in game design, sometimes necessary, and sometimes a good source of balance, but in this case it feels like they were so scared of the flexibility of sorcerers that they capped them in every avenue when one or two would have sufficed. (Almost every "bad" subclass in this game is when entropic design is introduced. The Berserker barbarian with Exhaustion, the 4 elements monk with overpriced abilities, the beastmaster ranger is clunky action economy and the sorcerer and sorcery points.)

And I'll be the first to admit that the sorcerer can be good, but that's in spite of the system not because of it. Its actually hard to make a bad wizard. It can be easy to fall into a trap as a sorcerer.

And I think it's telling when both of the new subclasses for sorcerer have an extra spell associated with their low level subclass abilities. And almost every sorcerer UA has extra spells as well. And I think that people are right, you do need to be careful with spell selection. Well, then why is the sorcerer's list so blast focused?! If there are no exclusives I'd at least want to be spoiled for choice.

[Skyblaze]

Side note: In the thought of discussing a level 20 sorcerer compared to a level 20 wizard, no one has brought up that wizards have spell mastery/signature spell as well.

[Spiritchaser]

Let me ask you a question: if you gave the metamagic class feature to the Wizard class, for free, without changing anything else, do you think it'd be fair for the Sorcerer?

It would not be fair, that’s clear.

But I’d like to add my voice to those suggesting that this is not a fair or equivalent question.

There might be a few issues with foresight, and there are a few spells that don’t (to me) feel right on a sorcerer, but in general I don’t see much of an issue here

I currently see the wizard as stronger than the sorcerer, and the sorcerer as potentially superb in some MC builds. I’d imagine there might be some monster barring needed for spells that would be particularly good for sorcadin etc.

But I’d be inclined to try it, at least for some fraction of a sorcerer’s spells.


I already let sorcerers pick any one spell from the wizard list at level 10, and next time I’m going to allow a few more than that

[Segev]

Looking at the list of spells wizards have that sorcerers do not, a significant number of them look to be rituals. Perhaps one solution, already provided in-game, would be to have your sorcerer take Ritual Caster (Wizard)?


So combine that with the higher spell slots---- oh wait they take the same resource and converting spell slots to spell points is very entropic. Entropy is a feel bad in game design, sometimes necessary, and sometimes a good source of balance, but in this case it feels like they were so scared of the flexibility of sorcerers that they capped them in every avenue when one or two would have sufficed. (Almost every "bad" subclass in this game is when entropic design is introduced. The Berserker barbarian with Exhaustion, the 4 elements monk with overpriced abilities, the beastmaster ranger is clunky action economy and the sorcerer and sorcery points.)Could you please define "entropic" as you're using it here? And, just in case the definition is too broad for me to put it together, explain how it applies? I'm not following what you mean.

[Eragon123]

Could you please define "entropic" as you're using it here? And, just in case the definition is too broad for me to put it together, explain how it applies? I'm not following what you mean.

Basically that using a resource has a diminishing return.
For Barbarians, the Exhaustion mechanic directly undercuts the benefits they get from their class.
For 4E monks, I guess its less entropic and more just expensive. That's my bad.
For Beastmaster rangers, they get a resource, an attack and have to split it up in a clunky way. It may be balancedTM but it isn't fun or intuitive.

And for sorcerers you get 1 sorcery point when you burn a 1st level spell. it costs 2 points to make a first level slot. In a series of bad decisions a sorcerer could theoretically burn themselves to a wick for no benefit. Though while this would never actually happen, the fact that you burn a spell slot for an additional use of a class feature is still expensive.

Lets look at benign transposition for wizards, it's once per rest but gets refreshed when you use a conjuration spell of 1st level or higher. You use a spell and it also refreshes a class feature. Divination has a mechanic where using a divination spell actually gives you back a spell of lower level, now with Mind Spike. (Granted not the best damage dealing spell but when it costs a fraction of a spell slot it gets better.)

TLDR:
Sorcerers are often presented with an 'OR' option when presented with class features, whereas Wizards get "AND".

[Vogie]

The other thing that hasn't yet been mentioned is the flexibility of sorcerer builds.

As they're charisma casters, they can nearly effortlessly Multiclass into other caster classes, which wizards can't do without going MAD.

Dipping into bard gives support abilities, expertise, and double the number of spells known/level
Dipping into Paladin gives oath spells, at-will healing/cleansing through Lay on hands, fighting styles, melee smites and an extra attack
Dipping into Warlock gives spell slots that refresh on short rests, which is a fountain of sorcery points, as well as at-will spells via invocations and various other boons (tome gives a ton of cantrips & ritual casting, chain gives updated version of find familiar, and blade gives a gish option)


One of the reasons, I would think, that there are so many wizard schools is because there aren't any other variations intelligence casters to choose from. We likely won't ever see a Sorcerer version of a bladesinger, for example, because a sorcerer could just as easily dip into blade warlock, Paladin, or Swords bard to give them that options.

[the secret fire]

Let me ask you a question: if you gave the metamagic class feature to the Wizard class, for free, without changing anything else, do you think it'd be fair for the Sorcerer?

No, but that's because Wizards are already stronger than Sorcerers.

Your question only makes sense on an assumption of (unmodified) balance and equity. This is not a particularly good assumption. ymmv, but the PHB Wizard is generally considered to be obviously the stronger of the two classes, and the addition of more spells through supplements will always help the prepared casters more, so the gap will only widen in time (as it did with splatbook bloat in 3.5).

[Galactkaktus]

Basically that using a resource has a diminishing return.
For Barbarians, the Exhaustion mechanic directly undercuts the benefits they get from their class.
For 4E monks, I guess its less entropic and more just expensive. That's my bad.
For Beastmaster rangers, they get a resource, an attack and have to split it up in a clunky way. It may be balancedTM but it isn't fun or intuitive.

And for sorcerers you get 1 sorcery point when you burn a 1st level spell. it costs 2 points to make a first level slot. In a series of bad decisions a sorcerer could theoretically burn themselves to a wick for no benefit. Though while this would never actually happen, the fact that you burn a spell slot for an additional use of a class feature is still expensive.

Lets look at benign transposition for wizards, it's once per rest but gets refreshed when you use a conjuration spell of 1st level or higher. You use a spell and it also refreshes a class feature. Divination has a mechanic where using a divination spell actually gives you back a spell of lower level, now with Mind Spike. (Granted not the best damage dealing spell but when it costs a fraction of a spell slot it gets better.)

TLDR:
Sorcerers are often presented with an 'OR' option when presented with class features, whereas Wizards get "AND".

Isn't all spellcasting with spell slots entropic. The more i use my resources the less i can do with my remaining resources. For instance in a series of bad decisions a wizard could burn themselves to a wick with no benifit just cast random useless spell over and over until you are out of spell slots.

[Eragon123]

Isn't all spellcasting with spell slots entropic. The more i use my resources the less i can do with my remaining resources. For instance in a series of bad decisions a wizard could burn themselves to a wick with no benifit just cast random useless spell over and over until you are out of spell slots.

To an extent yes. However even slinging useless spells around is an effect. Sorcerers could use up the bulk of their resources for no effect even useless ones. However, I don't want too much focus on this because it won't ever play out this way at a table (unless the DM dominates a sorcerer and burns out their spell, though using spells against the party would be meaner.)

I instead want to point that sorcerers have an inherent loss built into their class, where they spend a resource, and get less out of it then what they put in. Furthermore looking between the two classes widens this gap even more where the more a wizards casts spells, the more they get rewarded for them, whereas a sorcerer is encouraged to be miserly and ruthlessly efficient with their slots/points.

[the secret fire]

The other thing that hasn't yet been mentioned is the flexibility of sorcerer builds.

As they're charisma casters, they can nearly effortlessly Multiclass into other caster classes, which wizards can't do without going MAD.

I dunno if it's wise to introduce what are serious issues with the Cha-based casting classes (most critically, the Warlock) into this discussion. That Warlocks are broken (in certain combinations...) and can more easily mix their brokenness with Sorcerers is neither here nor there to the topic at hand.

[Segev]

Basically that using a resource has a diminishing return.
For Barbarians, the Exhaustion mechanic directly undercuts the benefits they get from their class.
For 4E monks, I guess its less entropic and more just expensive. That's my bad.
For Beastmaster rangers, they get a resource, an attack and have to split it up in a clunky way. It may be balancedTM but it isn't fun or intuitive.

And for sorcerers you get 1 sorcery point when you burn a 1st level spell. it costs 2 points to make a first level slot. In a series of bad decisions a sorcerer could theoretically burn themselves to a wick for no benefit. Though while this would never actually happen, the fact that you burn a spell slot for an additional use of a class feature is still expensive.

Lets look at benign transposition for wizards, it's once per rest but gets refreshed when you use a conjuration spell of 1st level or higher. You use a spell and it also refreshes a class feature. Divination has a mechanic where using a divination spell actually gives you back a spell of lower level, now with Mind Spike. (Granted not the best damage dealing spell but when it costs a fraction of a spell slot it gets better.)

TLDR:
Sorcerers are often presented with an 'OR' option when presented with class features, whereas Wizards get "AND".
That does clarify things a bit.

I will point out that the Wild Magic Sorcerer has a similar "and" mechanic: cast a spell, AND they get to roll on Wild Magic (albeit only if the DM says so, which is weirdly limiting), and they can give themselves Advantage, after which the next time the roll Wild Magic, they get the power to do so again.

The sorcery points conversion is there to make sure their spell slot allotment is a meaningful thing. If it was 1:1 both ways, they may as well just have their spell slot * level count in SP rather than spell slots at all.

I still suspect the use of sorcery points to buy spells, outside of a Coffeelock, is going to be rare, since the desire to use them for metamagic is going to be so great. This effectively makes sorcerers the nova-heavy class. Burn spells faster than anybody else for bigger effects.

[sophontteks]

To an extent yes. However even slinging useless spells around is an effect. Sorcerers could use up the bulk of their resources for no effect even useless ones. However, I don't want too much focus on this because it won't ever play out this way at a table (unless the DM dominates a sorcerer and burns out their spell, though using spells against the party would be meaner.)

I instead want to point that sorcerers have an inherent loss built into their class, where they spend a resource, and get less out of it then what they put in. Furthermore looking between the two classes widens this gap even more where the more a wizards casts spells, the more they get rewarded for them, whereas a sorcerer is encouraged to be miserly and ruthlessly efficient with their slots/points.

This is why subtle and empower are the strongest metamagics. They always cost a single point and they are always good. Because they are both good and cheap, the resource management is not going to be a big problem.

Those big flashy expensive metamagics are best picked later on or used sparingly. At level 10, when sorcerers can pick another metamagic, they will have the resources to use them without burning all their resources.

Another note. Subtle and empower are always useful and never a waste.

Empower is used only after you roll poorly and the average gains are actually pretty high for 1 single metamagic, espesially if you use it on a AOE.

Subtle, even if they won their save, they still wouldn't know a spell was cast, at all. Casting charm, suggestion, phantasmal force with no consequences if you fail opens those spells up to whole new possibilities no wizard would dare try.

[Segev]

Weird side question: can a Sorcerer apply metamagic to Ritual spells, assuming he has the ability to cast Rituals?

This gets particularly funny with Subtle Spell. "He's just been sitting there quietly for the last 10 minutes."

[Skyblaze]

This is why subtle and empower are the strongest metamagics. They always cost a single point and they are always good. Because they are both good and cheap, the resource management is not going to be a big problem.

Out of curiosity how do you feel about not taking empowered if you have elemental adept as a feat? All ones are changed to a two for the element.

[Galactkaktus]

I instead want to point that sorcerers have an inherent loss built into their class, where they spend a resource, and get less out of it then what they put in. Furthermore looking between the two classes widens this gap even more where the more a wizards casts spells, the more they get rewarded for them, whereas a sorcerer is encouraged to be miserly and ruthlessly efficient with their slots/points.

No not really they start with more and then they decide what to do with it. The wizards AND is only there to catch up with the extra resources and alot less flexible.

[Vogie]

I dunno if it's wise to introduce what are serious issues with the Cha-based casting classes (most critically, the Warlock) into this discussion. That Warlocks are broken (in certain combinations...) and can more easily mix their brokenness with Sorcerers is neither here nor there to the topic at hand.

If you were right, than I wouldn't've. The whole point of the thread is that Sorcerers don't have a large amount of spells known, and wizards do. Multiclassing is a part of the game for the vast majority of players, and the game was designed with that in mind. Wizards are already a strong class, and there aren't any other Int Casters - in fact, the only close options for MCing is the pair of 1/3rd casters, the AT & EK.

Because of that design choice it's worth mentioning that there are 3 Cha-based classes, that have 3 different spellcasting design styles. The Bard is the closest to a wizard (full LR caster with 22 slots known & lots of slots), The warlock is the least similar (SR caster with severely limited slots, 15), and the sorcerer is in the middle, a full LR caster lots of slots but limited spells known. Warlocks aren't broken, but they're different enough from the other ones that it can certainly feel that way.

One of the issues with sorcerers is that they don't want to "waste" their limited spells known by picking utility/support spells - they don't have a ton of spells known, and they don't have the ability to augment that with ritual casting. Dipping in either of the other Charisma classes solves that - Warlock 'solves' their problem through invocations (for things like Mage armor & detect magic) while Bard 'solves' it by just providing more raw spells known.



Weird side question: can a Sorcerer apply metamagic to Ritual spells, assuming he has the ability to cast Rituals?

This gets particularly funny with Subtle Spell. "He's just been sitting there quietly for the last 10 minutes."

I don't think that works, but would love it.

[Galactkaktus]

This is why subtle and empower are the strongest metamagics. They always cost a single point and they are always good. Because they are both good and cheap, the resource management is not going to be a big problem.

I actually prefer taking one of the ones you've mentioned(most of the times subtle) and one of the more expensive ones since the first round of a combat almost always is the most important one i want a big and impactful effect right there and then.

[the secret fire]

Warlocks aren't broken, but they're different enough from the other ones that it can certainly feel that way.

Warlock is not broken as a single class, but is obviously is broken in certain combinations (generally dips) with other Cha-casting classes. This is a problem of the Warlock class, not the Sorcerer class. Sorcerer/Bard characters and Sorcadins aren't nearly as broken as Sorlocks.

And Wizards do have some good multiclassing possibilities, Cleric 1 or Fighter 1 being the most obvious, powerful and popular dips. Wizard/AT characters can also potentially be quite strong, though they don't see a ton of play, in my experience. At any rate, Sorlocks are their own special problem.

[Rixitichil]

I'm not sure there is any particular problem with giving Sorcerer's access to (amongst other things,) summoning magic or creating extradimensional spaces.
Rope Trick, Magnificent Mansion or Demiplane seem reasonable spells for a Sorcerer to pick up, especially given their limited spell selection.
Might be worth keeping a veto on anything that has unintended consequences with metamagic, but broadly the Sorcerer will still be specialised, just with a broader canvas of what they can be specialised as.

[LudicSavant]

In 3.5e, Wizards were pretty much universally considered superior to Sorcerers. Compared to then, Sorcerers have lost most of their advantages over Wizards, and Wizards have gained several new advantages.

- 3.5e Sorcerers had familiars. In 5e, familiars got buffed and restricted to the Wizard spell list.

- 3.5e Sorcerers got significantly more spells per day than Wizards, especially if the Wizards were generalists (e.g. didn't restrict any schools, a disadvantage 5e Wizards no longer have). Now they get a good deal less spells per day than Wizards, due to Wizards having the best ritual mechanic in the game, a recovery mechanic that doesn't compete with their other features, and (at later levels) free casts. And that's without counting things like, say, the Divination Wizard getting extra spell slots whenever they cast divinations.

- 3.5e Sorcerers had pretty much all of the Wizard spells on their spell list, plus some extra powerful options like Arcane Fusion and Wings of Cover unique to Sorcerers. 5e Sorcerers have a dramatically inferior spell list to Wizards, missing a great many powerful spells, and none of the Sorcerer's few unique spells are enviable.

- 3.5e Sorcerers had 34 spells known (not counting cantrips). In 5e they have less than half that. By contrast, in 3.5e Wizards would learn 2 spells on level-up plus be able to scribe more using gold. In 5e, Wizards still learn 2 spells on level-up and scribe more using gold, and there is less alternative stuff to spend gold on in many campaigns (since keeping up with the magic item economy is not a standard assumption in 5e). On top of that, thanks to rituals not requiring preparation, they've potentially got even more prepared spells at their fingertips than in 3.5e... and they're spontaneous now. Speaking of which...

- The biggest advantage of 3.5e Sorcerers of all was Spontaneous Casting. Other casters had to specifically prepare which spell they would cast with a given slot, right when they woke up in the morning. However, in 5e every class can cast any spell they've got prepared at the drop of a hat. On top of that, on any given day a Wizard will have more spells prepared (plus even more prepped for free from their ritual mechanic) than a Sorcerer will ever know, making them more spontaneous casters than Sorcerers. And they can switch out their "spells known" list tomorrow.

So, to summarize:

Sorcerers went from a slightly superior spell list to a dramatically inferior one.
Sorcerers went from having a lot more spells per day to having less.
Sorcerers went from having a big spontaneous casting advantage to Wizards having more spontaneous casting.
Sorcerers lost their familiars.
Sorcerers went from 34 spells known to 15 spells known, while Wizards know about as many as they always did (possibly more in a campaign where you can't dump gold on magic items), and don't have to prepare rituals (which means that they technically can have more spells prepared in a day than they could in 3.5e).
Sorcerers got left out on the new and powerful ritual mechanic, while Wizards got the strongest version of the ritual mechanic.


The only thing that Sorcerers have to make up for any of this erosion of their old advantages (which, let's recall, still didn't make them as good as Wizards) is access to Metamagic, which is in many cases comparable to Wizard school abilities, and cuts into their recovery mechanic. And wow does it have a lot to make up for. Hope you get a lot of mileage out of Subtle Spell.

It probably doesn't help that Sage Advice tends to keep coming down against metamagic in its rulings (Turns out that that Careful Spell + Web combo doesn't actually work, for instance), continually narrowing the amount of spells that work well with it.

[Segev]

For those arguing that 5e Sorcerers are overly nerfed, if the Sorcery Point-created spell slots evaporated at every Short Rest, but casting a spell of first level or higher (possibly specifically without benefit of any metamagic) gave the Sorcerer a number of SP equal to the level of the spell (rather than having to convert a spell to SP), would that make up the difference?

For those arguing that the 5e Sorcerer is well-balanced as-is, would that maintain this balance?

(Notably, it also cuts the coffeelock off at the knees, though that isn't the direct reason for the SR dump of SP-granted spell slots so much as the recognition that this almost makes the Warlock addition needless to pull off coffeelock-like behavior with the Sorcerer alone, if such a limit isn't imposed.)

[Eragon123]

In 3.5e, Wizards were pretty much universally considered superior to Sorcerers. Compared to then, Sorcerers have lost most of their advantages over Wizards, and Wizards have gained several new advantages.

- 3.5e Sorcerers had familiars. In 5e, familiars got buffed and restricted to the Wizard spell list.

- 3.5e Sorcerers got significantly more spells per day than Wizards, especially if the Wizards were generalists (e.g. didn't restrict any schools, which all 5e Wizards get for free). Now they get a good deal less spells per day than Wizards, due to Wizards having the best ritual mechanic in the game, a recovery mechanic that doesn't compete with their other features, and (at later levels) free casts.

- 3.5e Sorcerers had pretty much all of the Wizard spells on their spell list, plus some extra powerful options like Arcane Fusion and Wings of Cover unique to Sorcerers. 5e Sorcerers have a dramatically inferior spell list to Wizards, missing a great many powerful spells, and none of the Sorcerer's few unique spells are enviable.

- 3.5e Sorcerers had 34 spells known (not counting cantrips). In 5e they have less than half that. By contrast, in 3.5e Wizards would learn 2 spells on level-up plus be able to scribe more using gold. In 5e, Wizards still learn 2 spells on level-up and scribe more using gold, and there is less alternative stuff to spend gold on in many campaigns (since keeping up with the magic item economy is not a standard assumption in 5e). On top of that, thanks to rituals not requiring preparation, they've potentially got even more prepared spells at their fingertips than in 3.5e... and they're spontaneous now. Speaking of which...

- The biggest advantage of 3.5e Sorcerers of all was Spontaneous Casting. Other casters had to specifically prepare which spell they would cast with a given slot, right when they woke up in the morning. However, in 5e every class can cast any spell they've got prepared at the drop of a hat. On top of that, on any given day a Wizard will have more spells prepared (plus even more prepped for free from their ritual mechanic) than a Sorcerer will ever know, making them more spontaneous casters than Sorcerers. And they can switch out their "spells known" list tomorrow.

So, to summarize:

Sorcerers went from a slightly superior spell list to a dramatically inferior one.
Sorcerers went from having a lot more spells per day to having less.
Sorcerers went from having a big spontaneous casting advantage to Wizards having more spontaneous casting.
Sorcerers lost their familiars.
Sorcerers went from 34 spells known to 15 spells known, while Wizards know about as many as they always did (possibly more in a campaign where you can't dump gold on magic items), and don't have to prepare rituals (which means that they technically can have more spells prepared in a day than they could in 3.5e).
Sorcerers got left out on the new and powerful ritual mechanic, while Wizards got the strongest version of the ritual mechanic.


The only thing that Sorcerers have to make up for any of this erosion of their old advantages (which, let's recall, still didn't make them as good as Wizards) is access to Metamagic, which is in many cases comparable to Wizard school abilities, and cuts into their recovery mechanic. And wow does it have a lot to make up for. Hope you get a lot of mileage out of Subtle Spell.

It probably doesn't help that Sage Advice tends to keep coming down against metamagic in its rulings (Turns out that that Careful Spell + Web combo doesn't actually work, for instance), continually narrowing the amount of spells that work well with it.

Excellent summation. One minor point of disagreement, I believe Pact of the Tome Warlocks with the invocation get the best ritual mechanic as they are not limited to any particular spell list while wizard rituals are still limited to the wizard spell list (mainly blocking out forbiddance).

Also while familiars are different in this edition I don't know if it is a straight buff, as the no longer give skill increases like they used to.... but I will admit the side-grade, better in some cases worse in others.

But yes overall I believe this is a good list of how the sorcerers got robbed of all their goodness and wizards gorged themselves on the cake.

[Waazraath]

Sorcerers and wizards are well balanced. Sorcerers are easier to screw up. A player really has to make sure they are picking the right spells and metamagics. The only misfortune is that Sorcerers have few good archtypes.

This. Its an unpopular opinion, I think, cause in some way saying "with skill you can build a great Sorcerer" one could read it as "if you can't build a decent Sorcerer you suck at the game".

But to stay really abstract: the more buttons you have, the more is possible optimization-wise. If your class has only feats to play with, you can't build on synergies like a class that has access to both feats and spells. And with access to both feats and spells and metamagic (like the sorcerer) or invocations (like the warlock), it simply opens more doors building the character.

So yes, staying with the sorcerer, you can make it suck or mediocre by picking the wrong spells, or picking spells & metamagicks without any synergy. But the power of 'subtle' in social situations with charms, suggestions and illusions, of having a superior action economy with 'twin' (double haste or banishment, anybody?), or starting a adventure day with 8 hours of Aid and Death Ward going for the entire party and having all your spell slots unspend (Divine Sould using 'extend' casting those spells at the end of the former day) - that's hard to overstate. It can be a bloody powerful class.

Further, I think it's hardly useful to make comparisions to 3.x. That's a totally different game, and adds little. Comparing sor with wiz in 5e is hard enough as it is, taking into account level, class features, subclass features, multiclass options, etc.

[Vogie]

For those arguing that 5e Sorcerers are overly nerfed, if the Sorcery Point-created spell slots evaporated at every Short Rest, but casting a spell of first level or higher (possibly specifically without benefit of any metamagic) gave the Sorcerer a number of SP equal to the level of the spell (rather than having to convert a spell to SP), would that make up the difference?

For those arguing that the 5e Sorcerer is well-balanced as-is, would that maintain this balance?

(Notably, it also cuts the coffeelock off at the knees, though that isn't the direct reason for the SR dump of SP-granted spell slots so much as the recognition that this almost makes the Warlock addition needless to pull off coffeelock-like behavior with the Sorcerer alone, if such a limit isn't imposed.)

I like this idea as a start. Not so much about the SR, but about the concept that some spells are effected by sorc points differently.

If I wanted to overhaul the spellcasting system, I'd get rid of slots entirely, and convert everything to points, that can be reformed into spell slots.

You could have things like:

Some utility/nonblasting spells could either not cost points, or have the possibility of generating points
Critical rolls generate sorc points by themselves, making things like Tides of Chaos or Enhance ability very valuable
The Sorcerer version of Spells like Mage Armor could actually have riders like "if an attack misses by X or less, you gain a sorcery point"
Different bloodlines could have their own way of sorc point management. Storm Sorcerers would generate points by casting spells that cause lightning/thunder damage, while a Shadow Sorcerer's spells may become cheaper while under the effect of Darkness, and a Draconic/Pyromancer Sorcerer's elemental damage taken (and reduced by resistance) is transformed into sorc points.


I'd take inspiration from the Grit points mechanic from the Pathfinder Gunslinger class, actually. That may be my next homebrew project...

[Eragon123]

Further, I think it's hardly useful to make comparisons to 3.x. That's a totally different game, and adds little. Comparing sor with wiz in 5e is hard enough as it is, taking into account level, class features, subclass features, multiclass options, etc.

I like everything you've said and you presented your case well.

I however do feel like it is valid to compare previous editions to the current one. Because every edition is made with a different design philosophy and there is stuff that can be learned/observed through looking at the differences.

[Segev]

A lot of this will come down to individual experience. It's simply impossible to predict, inherently, how accurate a white-room design will actually work in play, because the assumptions will never be perfectly accurate. The best we can do is analyze WHY a given build, in real play, is over- or under-powered compared to the campaign.

[Waazraath]

I think this is a bit of a red herring, because I've seen the people claiming Sorcerers are fine because they can be built great with skill and the people claiming Wizards are better pointing to the same Sorcerer builds.

Then by all means ignore it.

[LudicSavant]

Its an unpopular opinion, I think, cause in some way saying "with skill you can build a great Sorcerer" one could read it as "if you can't build a decent Sorcerer you suck at the game".

I think this is a bit of a red herring, because I've seen the people claiming Sorcerers are fine because they can be built great with skill and the people claiming Wizards are better pointing to the same Sorcerer builds, suggesting equivalent build skill with Sorcerers.

[LudicSavant]

Then by all means ignore it.

Wow, you reply fast. I deleted/reposted that reply to add the last part of the sentence within about 10 seconds of posting, and now your post precedes mine. :smalltongue:

Note to self, never use the delete button in place of the edit button.

[Waazraath]

I like everything you've said and you presented your case well.

I however do feel like it is valid to compare previous editions to the current one. Because every edition is made with a different design philosophy and there is stuff that can be learned/observed through looking at the differences.

Thnx.

As for comparisons: maybe, but I find that it's difficult enough as it is. Things simply can't be compared with 3.x, imo, cause things are too different. Spells have the same name, but do something completely different (Alter Self). Spells are vastly less powerfull, because of the concentration mechanic that stops stacking buffs (one of the reason I feel that a lot of 5e buff spells without concentration are undervalued). Metamagic is something different, the 3.5 extend isn't the extend of 5e. Etc.

But to try to compare: I think the main reason that the wizard was superior in 3.x was that 1) it could know all wizard spells, and with Ye Olde Magick Shops part of the system, they would; 2) there were awful much spells that broke the game in two, and following from the first point, a wizard would know them all at the higher levels 3) they could scribe scrolls of all of them (class feature), so they always had all options open. None of these things are working that way in 5e. What metamagic did in 3.x that made it very powerful was, among other things, breaking the action economy: persisting a large number of buffs, twin + quicken spells, etc. That got tuned down a lot in 5e, but some of it stayed: a Sor can Banish 2 opponents, or Haste 2 allies, and quicken a cantrip to finish off a mook, all in one turn. No Wizard or Bard is able to do that.

So even comparing with 3.x, I don't come to the conclusion that Sorcerers are worse of this edition.


A lot of this will come down to individual experience. It's simply impossible to predict, inherently, how accurate a white-room design will actually work in play, because the assumptions will never be perfectly accurate. The best we can do is analyze WHY a given build, in real play, is over- or under-powered compared to the campaign.

Truth of course, about experience. A lot depends on your campaign / DM. For example, if you never get a buff round (often surprised, can't sneak / scout very well for whatever reason) AND often fight numerous foes, are surrounded, and end up in melee (because of a small party, for example, or DM style), 'quicken' is brilliant. A Sorcerer can quicken an improved invisibiity, mirror image, whatever, and still do something. Most other arcane casters will often spend their first round doing only something defensive (casting one of those spells, end of turn). If you run dungeons that are cleared within 2 hours, extend can be really nice for 1 hour duration spells. Etc. etc. Personal experiences will colour how people value these metamagics, and thus the class.

[Waazraath]

Wow, you reply fast. I deleted/reposted that reply to add the last part of the sentence within about 10 seconds of posting, and now your post precedes mine. :smalltongue:

Note to self, never use the delete button in place of the edit button.

Lol. I was thinking I was getting too tired to be online, when I saw my reply to your post standing above it...

[Merudo]

But to try to compare: I think the main reason that the wizard was superior in 3.x was that 1) it could know all wizard spells, and with Ye Olde Magick Shops part of the system, they would; 2) there were awful much spells that broke the game in two, and following from the first point, a wizard would know them all at the higher levels 3) they could scribe scrolls of all of them (class feature), so they always had all options open. None of these things are working that way in 5e.

People are also quick to forget that 3.5 Sorcerer accessed high level spells a full level later than the Wizard. So a 3.5 Sorcerer could only learn Invisibility at level 4, Fireball at level 6 and Wish at level 18. In 5e, Sorcerers are no longer a level behind.


a Sor can Banish 2 opponents, or Haste 2 allies, and quicken a cantrip to finish off a mook, all in one turn. No Wizard or Bard is able to do that.

A nitpick, but any Wizard/Bard/Cleric/Warlock can Banish 2 opponents by using a level 5 slot.

[Segev]

But to try to compare: I think the main reason that the wizard was superior in 3.x was that 1) it could know all wizard spells, and with Ye Olde Magick Shops part of the system, they wouldI always find this an odd thing to focus on, when we have at least two Core classes (in 3e) that didn't even have THAT limitation. (It's true in 5e, too, actually.) The Cleric and Druid do know every spell on their list, in the sense that a Wizard knows every spell in his spellbook. They don't even need to spend gp to gain access.

Yet the Spellbook and the "ease" of filling it for "mere gp" is oft held up as this huge advantage. In reality, it's a disadvantage, that sorcerers just experience even more sharply.


Truth of course, about experience. A lot depends on your campaign / DM. For example, if you never get a buff round (often surprised, can't sneak / scout very well for whatever reason) AND often fight numerous foes, are surrounded, and end up in melee (because of a small party, for example, or DM style), 'quicken' is brilliant. A Sorcerer can quicken an improved invisibiity, mirror image, whatever, and still do something. Most other arcane casters will often spend their first round doing only something defensive (casting one of those spells, end of turn). If you run dungeons that are cleared within 2 hours, extend can be really nice for 1 hour duration spells. Etc. etc. Personal experiences will colour how people value these metamagics, and thus the class.Going back to the spellbook thing, the "Ye Olde Magic Shoppe" concept that is widely accepted is something I've never seen in actual play, under any of multiple DMs I've played with. Getting a wizard access to more spells is often an exercise in pulling teeth (and/or begging), and always left me feeling not like I'd, IC, done some heroic research, but like I'd had to browbeat and beg the DM OOC in order to get anything, and he felt like I was somehow cheating the system to do so.

This is true in 5e and 3e.

Meanwhile, I'm not sure how well a sorcerer's powers stack up in real play in 5e, as I've never seen one played. It might turn out weaker still, or it might be that their on-the-spot useful abilities stack up much more nicely.

[LudicSavant]

That got tuned down a lot in 5e, but some of it stayed: a Sor can Banish 2 opponents, or Haste 2 allies, and quicken a cantrip to finish off a mook, all in one turn. No Wizard or Bard is able to do that.

This isn't strictly accurate. For example, let's take Banishment:

- Any Wizard can banish 2 opponents by casting Banishment as a 5th level spell slot.
- A Sorcerer who has taken the Twinned Spell metamagic feature can banish 2 opponents by spending casting resources roughly equivalent to what it'd take to convert their 4th level spell slot into a 5th level one (they'd have 1 SP left over after the conversion).

Edit: Shadow Monk'd by Merudo.

[Galactkaktus]

Meanwhile, I'm not sure how well a sorcerer's powers stack up in real play in 5e, as I've never seen one played. It might turn out weaker still, or it might be that their on-the-spot useful abilities stack up much more nicely.

That is really up to the player playing the sorcerer since it's alot more unforgiving for picking less useful spells than the other full casters especially at the lower levels.

[Galactkaktus]

This isn't strictly accurate. For example, let's take Banishment:

- Any Wizard can banish 2 opponents by casting Banishment as a 5th level spell slot.
- A Sorcerer who has taken the Twinned Spell metamagic feature can banish 2 opponents by spending casting resources roughly equivalent to what it'd take to convert their 4th level spell slot into a 5th level one.

Edit: Shadow Monk'd by Merudo.

Well the sorcerer can do it two levels before a wizard can.

[Eragon123]

Well the sorcerer can do it two levels before a wizard can.

True though that is a bit expensive. If we accept the spell points variant at least when it comes to comparing cost, we see that a 5th level slot costs 8 points whereas a 4th level twinned slot cost 10 points. Though I'll admit the oppertunity cost of being able to do it early.

[Galactkaktus]

True though that is a bit expensive. If we accept the spell points variant at least when it comes to comparing cost, we see that a 5th level slot costs 8 points whereas a 4th level twinned slot cost 10 points. Though I'll admit the oppertunity cost of being able to do it early.

So twining 2nd level spells like Invisibility and Hold person whould be the same cost in that kind of comparisson just two levels earlier?

[Segev]

True though that is a bit expensive. If we accept the spell points variant at least when it comes to comparing cost, we see that a 5th level slot costs 8 points whereas a 4th level twinned slot cost 10 points. Though I'll admit the oppertunity cost of being able to do it early.


So twining 2nd level spells like Invisibility and Hold person whould be the same cost in that kind of comparisson just two levels earlier?

Indeed, don't underestimate the benefit of doing something two levels earlier. For those two levels, the Sorcerer is the only one who can do it. When the Wizard joins him in his ability to do so, the Sorcerer can also do it for the same cost the Wizard can, as well, and can go on to pay more for it to do it a few more times each day, if needs be.

[Galactkaktus]

Indeed, don't underestimate the benefit of doing something two levels earlier. For those two levels, the Sorcerer is the only one who can do it. When the Wizard joins him in his ability to do so, the Sorcerer can also do it for the same cost the Wizard can, as well, and can go on to pay more for it to do it a few more times each day, if needs be.

I'm really not underestimating it since if you face things that are appropriate for your level(which is often the case in D&D atleast in my experience) being able to do stuff that are two levels above you makes your relative power to the opponents really big.

[Daphne]

It costs 7 SP to create a 5th level slot, you can spend a 4th level slot to get 4 SP and 3 more unused points to make one, and then cast Banishment as a 5th level spell targeting two creatures for only 7 SP while a Twinned Banishment costs 8 SP.

This just shows how badly designed the class is.

[Galactkaktus]

It costs 7 SP to create a 5th level slot, you can spend a 4th level slot to get 4 SP and 3 more unused points to make one, and then cast Banishment as a 5th level spell targeting two creatures for only 7 SP while a Twinned Banishment costs 8 SP.

This just shows how badly designed the class is.

Doesn't that require two bonus actions in the same turn?

[Daphne]

Doesn't that require two bonus actions in the same turn?

Yes, but if you have the 7 points to spare, it requires none. The example is more to illustrate how you can spend less by not using the metamagic.

[Galactkaktus]

Yes, but if you have the 7 points to spare, it requires none. The example is more to illustrate how you can spend less by not using the metamagic.

So twin gives better action economy for one more sp in that case? Seems fine to me.

[mr-mercer]

This is only tangentially related, but someone earlier in the thread talked about how draconic sorcerers specifically have the problem of having so few spells that actually correspond to their damage type, which is both a problem mechanically and thematically. I've been thinking about ways to integrate these damage types into spells that wouldn't normally have them, but I'd like input on the best way to introduce it. For the sake of the argument, let's say I'm making a green dragon sorcerer (since if I remember correctly, poison is the damage type least represented among the PHB's sorcerer spells).

Initially I was thinking something along the lines of spending a certain number of sorcery points to change a spell's damage type to match your draconic ancestry, but I don't feel like that would work very well: I'm a green dragon sorcerer, why am I expending additional resources to use a damage type that I should be more connected to than any other?

The current thing I'm working with is kind of the opposite of that: all damaging spells instead default to the ancestry's damage type, and you spend a certain number of sorcery points (most likely a low number, or even just one point) to revert the damage type back to normal. This makes sense to me flavour-wise: I can utilise the poison as easily as breathing (or sometimes by breathing), but it takes a good deal more effort to focus on an element that I'm not so inherently aligned with. Maybe I'm overplaying the elemental connection that dragons have, but what's the point in playing a dragon-like character if not to acquaint yourself with its breath weapon of choice?

However, I am rather worried about the mechanic from a balance perspective, mainly how much versatility is added with all spells having two potential damage types versus how much versatility is lost when they all have the same type unless you spend a limited resource. To that end I'd like advice on improving the idea: how much it should cost, what level it should be given at, even any additional tweaks you'd make to the general structure to make it better and more balanced. Really, the only advice I won't accept is "Stop doing it entirely."

[MrStabby]

This is only tangentially related, but someone earlier in the thread talked about how draconic sorcerers specifically have the problem of having so few spells that actually correspond to their damage type, which is both a problem mechanically and thematically. I've been thinking about ways to integrate these damage types into spells that wouldn't normally have them, but I'd like input on the best way to introduce it. For the sake of the argument, let's say I'm making a green dragon sorcerer (since if I remember correctly, poison is the damage type least represented among the PHB's sorcerer spells).

Initially I was thinking something along the lines of spending a certain number of sorcery points to change a spell's damage type to match your draconic ancestry, but I don't feel like that would work very well: I'm a green dragon sorcerer, why am I expending additional resources to use a damage type that I should be more connected to than any other?

The current thing I'm working with is kind of the opposite of that: all damaging spells instead default to the ancestry's damage type, and you spend a certain number of sorcery points (most likely a low number, or even just one point) to revert the damage type back to normal. This makes sense to me flavour-wise: I can utilise the poison as easily as breathing (or sometimes by breathing), but it takes a good deal more effort to focus on an element that I'm not so inherently aligned with. Maybe I'm overplaying the elemental connection that dragons have, but what's the point in playing a dragon-like character if not to acquaint yourself with its breath weapon of choice?

However, I am rather worried about the mechanic from a balance perspective, mainly how much versatility is added with all spells having two potential damage types versus how much versatility is lost when they all have the same type unless you spend a limited resource. To that end I'd like advice on improving the idea: how much it should cost, what level it should be given at, even any additional tweaks you'd make to the general structure to make it better and more balanced. Really, the only advice I won't accept is "Stop doing it entirely."


OK... it is a bit of a tangent... but:

OK, this is a fix with a lot of good things and one bad thing. I wouldn't worry about the "too much versatility" from this. That is what metamagic is supposed to give - as long as the ability to shift element from your ancestral element is one of your metamagic picks it should be pretty balanced. A weaker than usual use of metamagic but an interesting and potentially powerful default offering.

My concern is that it is a solution that doesn't really differentiate well between elements. You pick a low resisted element like acid from a black dragon and then a load of fire spells that have higher damage but are commonly resisted. The versatility is nice but even if you never spent any points you do have a pretty big uptick in power.

I think that a better balance might be to replace half the damage dice for a spell with your Element. If you are a black dragon sorcerer your fireballs become 4d6 fire damage + 4d6 acid damage for example. It lets you keep your theme without being totally screwed by immunity.

[mr-mercer]

Ooh, that's actually a really nice idea. I can imagine some pretty nifty visual effects for that too. Would you keep your version of the feature as a metamagic option like the previous version, or would it always be on? And if the former is the case, how many sorcery points do you think it should cost and would you limit it with a minimum sorcerer level, or would it be available from the start?

[Skyblaze]

It costs 7 SP to create a 5th level slot, you can spend a 4th level slot to get 4 SP and 3 more unused points to make one, and then cast Banishment as a 5th level spell targeting two creatures for only 7 SP while a Twinned Banishment costs 8 SP.

This just shows how badly designed the class is.

Where did you get 8 SP for twinning banishment? Twin cost = spell level so a lvl 4 banishment would be 4 SP.

[Eragon123]

Where did you get 8 SP for twinning banishment? Twin cost = spell level so a lvl 4 banishment would be 4 SP.

We are talking about spell point variant. It's a good way to compare costs.

A spell slot is equal to 1.5*slot in points rounded up.

Level 1 - 2 Points
Level 2 - 3 Points
Level 3 - 5 Points
Level 4 - 6 Points
Level 5 - 8 Points
Level 6 - 9 Points
Level 7 - 11 Points
Level 8 - 12 Points
Level 9 - 14 Points

So a twinned banishment would cost 6+4 (10) points.
But an equal effect, casting it at 5th level, would cost 8 points.

That's what he's talking about.

[Skyblaze]

Ah ok, have not played with that setup as of yet.

[DizzyWood]

One of my friends is using the Arcane Incarnate (http://pmssquad.com/project/arcane-incarnate/) for this. Seems to work alright for him.

How did that work out? Did people like it? Not too OP? Ect?

[Segev]

Weird side question: can a Sorcerer apply metamagic to Ritual spells, assuming he has the ability to cast Rituals?

This gets particularly funny with Subtle Spell. "He's just been sitting there quietly for the last 10 minutes."


I don't think that works, but would love it.

I looked up Ritual Casting, Metamagic, and spellcasting times, and by my reading of it, ritual casting is still casting a spell, and Sorcerers' metamagic feature says you can apply it when you cast a spell. Nothing about having to maintain concentration on your casting gets in the way of it working. So, it seems to me, at least, that it does work by the RAW, which is pretty neat. In fact, since casting a spell for 10 minutes "merely" requires that you spend your action each round for those 10 minutes casting, and that you maintain Concentration, you can walk and talk and otherwise act normally (as long as you don't do anything else that takes an action) while you Subtly cast your ritual.

Heck, you can even take bonus actions, as long as they're not spell (since you can't cast a spell that isn't a cantrip as your action on a round you cast a spell as a bonus action, and you're required to spend every action during the casting time on casting that ritual).

[Waazraath]

A nitpick, but any Wizard/Bard/Cleric/Warlock can Banish 2 opponents by using a level 5 slot.

Correct of course, for Banishment. But plenty of good spells that can't be upcast in this way. And as later has been remarked, even for spells that can be upcast in this way the Sor has this comperative advantage on the level the new spell is gained (highes spell level).


I always find this an odd thing to focus on, when we have at least two Core classes (in 3e) that didn't even have THAT limitation. (It's true in 5e, too, actually.) The Cleric and Druid do know every spell on their list, in the sense that a Wizard knows every spell in his spellbook. They don't even need to spend gp to gain access.

Truth, but the thread was on Sor and Wiz



Going back to the spellbook thing, the "Ye Olde Magic Shoppe" concept that is widely accepted is something I've never seen in actual play, under any of multiple DMs I've played with. Getting a wizard access to more spells is often an exercise in pulling teeth (and/or begging), and always left me feeling not like I'd, IC, done some heroic research, but like I'd had to browbeat and beg the DM OOC in order to get anything, and he felt like I was somehow cheating the system to do so.

This is true in 5e and 3e.

This surpises me. In 3.x, this was simply RAW. There were tables with prices for all scrolls with all spells, there were tables at in what size of settlements players were supposed to find items of what expenditure, etc. etc.. Playing by RAW, a wizard had a much easier time then in 5e to gain new spells. RAW was much more a 'thing' in 3.x, contrary to 5e, where it's much more 'DM deceides'.

Of course, any DM could have ruled otherwise (and imo no smart DM tried to run 3.x completely 'RAW').

[Vogie]

Going back to the spellbook thing, the "Ye Olde Magic Shoppe" concept that is widely accepted is something I've never seen in actual play, under any of multiple DMs I've played with. Getting a wizard access to more spells is often an exercise in pulling teeth (and/or begging), and always left me feeling not like I'd, IC, done some heroic research, but like I'd had to browbeat and beg the DM OOC in order to get anything, and he felt like I was somehow cheating the system to do so.

You know, I've never done it either in 5e, and it would make sense that defeating a wizard-style caster, even low-level ones, would have some scrolls or a spellbook to pilfer.

Fire, acid, and slashing damage can limit that, of course, but still should be an option as a type of loot.

[Galactkaktus]

Ah ok, have not played with that setup as of yet.

Well it's illustrated in the regular spell slot variant aswell.
Case 1
cast banishment as a 4th level spell and twin it for 4 sp
Total cost 1 4th level slot and 4 sp
Banishment hits two targets

Case 2
Convert 1 4th level spell slot to 4 sp
Convert the 4 sp you got and 3 other sp to a 5th level spell slot and cast banishment as a 5th level spell
Total cost 1 4th level spell slot and 3 sp
Result Banishment hits two targets

Case 2 saves you one sp at the cost of being more clunky since you only have one bonus action each round and you need two of them to get the same effect.

[sophontteks]

Ok one question.

How much does it cost to cast a twinned haste spell vs. using font of magic?

[Eragon123]

Ok one question.

How much does it cost to cast a twinned haste spell vs. using font of magic?

Well, that would be a third level slot (5 points) + sorcery points equal to the level of the spell (3); which would be a total of 8 points.

Haste does not scale with level so there is no alternative way of getting multiple targets with Haste.

(Unless we get some new subclass down the line that gives wizards a free twinned on transmutation spells like enchanter wizards do with enchantment spells.... let's pray that day never comes.)

[sophontteks]

Well, that would be a third level slot (5 points) + sorcery points equal to the level of the spell (3); which would be a total of 8 points.

Haste does not scale with level so there is no alternative way of getting multiple targets with Haste.

(Unless we get some new subclass down the line that gives wizards a free twinned on transmutation spells like enchanter wizards do with enchantment spells.... let's pray that day never comes.)
I meant it as a rhetorical question, so I wasn't really expecting an answer, but I appreciate it regardless.

To elaborate, the entire arguement of the cost of upcasting vs. twinning is founded on making poor spell decisions. There is no cost comparison for the spells that should be twinned.

And there are few spells worth twinning, but there doesn't need to be. Those few spells worth twinning are so strong there really isn't any need for further investment.

Haste, Greater invisibility, and polymorph. Having the power to twin even just one of these three spells is powerful, robust, and flexible. Its just always good and worth the high cost.

Just, make sure the other metamagic choice is a cheap one.

[Segev]

I meant it as a rhetorical question, so I wasn't really expecting an answer, but I appreciate it regardless.

To elaborate, the entire arguement of the cost of upcasting vs. twinning is founded on making poor spell decisions. There is no cost comparison for the spells that should be twinned.

And there are few spells worth twinning, but there doesn't need to be. Those few spells worth twinning are so strong there really isn't any need for further investment.

Haste, Greater invisibility, and polymorph. Having the power to twin even just one of these three spells is powerful, robust, and flexible. Its just always good and worth the high cost.

Just, make sure the other metamagic choice is a cheap one.
Celestial Sorcerer with Subtle Twinned revivify to bring his slain allies back into the fight while the enemies are none the wiser. ...well, he has to touch them, but maybe he can find a way to disguise that act, too.

[Xihirli]

You can’t Subtle and Twin a spell.

[LudicSavant]

You can’t Subtle and Twin a spell.

This, plus there is the question of whether you are allowed to even Twin Revivify at all, given Crawford's rulings (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23262043&postcount=16).

[sophontteks]

Yeah I saw that thread, really cool combination.

While we are talking about subtle.

Subtle casting catapult to cause objects to "mysteriously" strike your opponents. Decent damage for level 1 without starting initiative. May even prevent combat as the enemy is far more concerned with these supernatural events. Also great way to fein acts of an angry diety.

And subtle casting enemies abound to effectively assassinate targets in civilized locations. The target basically goes berserk. Grab popcorn and watch the authorities take them down.

[Segev]

You can’t Subtle and Twin a spell.Good point. I keep forgetting about that clause in metamagic. It's...very limiting. I wonder if they'll ever print more metamagics, and, if so, if any of them will share Empower's clause allowing it to stack with others.


This, plus there is the question of whether you are allowed to even Twin Revivify at all, given Crawford's rulings (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?565179-Twin-Revivify).
If I'm following that argument, it's more "does revivify work at all?" than about Twinning it. >_>

[sophontteks]

Good point. I keep forgetting about that clause in metamagic. It's...very limiting. I wonder if they'll ever print more metamagics, and, if so, if any of them will share Empower's clause allowing it to stack with others.


If I'm following that argument, it's more "does revivify work at all?" than about Twinning it. >_>
Lol yup!
The spell can only target creatures, so...

[LudicSavant]

If I'm following that argument, it's more "does revivify work at all?" than about Twinning it. >_>

Yep, Sage Advice in a nutshell. :smalltongue:

[Waazraath]

Yep, Sage Advice in a nutshell. :smalltongue:

Wait, wut?!?!? For real??