Have WotC ever responded to some player's disappointment with Sorcerer?

[bendking]

PLEASE let's not start another debate. Just wondering if this has ever been addressed or if WotC explained their reasoning behind the Sorcerer's design in comparison to the Wizard's.

[Aaedimus]

I'm not sure if they did, but after playing a Sorcerer and going back to a wizard I almost feel underpowered.

Twin spell, quicken spell, and the class abilities were boss.

[Chrizzt]

I was not aware that there was so much disappointment, and neither did I notice likewise from WotC

[ProsecutorGodot]

I think the Sorcerer is in a fine spot, especially compared to the Ranger.

The Ranger is so poorly received by so many players that it's undergone several attempts at a revision, had a major gameplay errata and is still the talk of further changes to help it meet a reasonable level of player enjoyment.

It's an assumption on my part, but the lack of mentions of Sorcerer probably means it landed in an acceptable place for the majority of players.

The Sorcerer and Wizard are intended to be different, if you're disappointed with the Sorcerer but enjoy Wizard that isn't necessarily an indication that Sorcerer was done poorly.

[Waazraath]

There's not much need - not from my own experience, nor from this: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?592452-Dnd-5e-questionnaire-Answers&highlight=most%20popular%20classes

[Sol]

i.....what?

this is the first i've heard rumors of some widespread malcontent about sorcerers.

Like, sure, i've heard people wishing they had more spells known, and I've heard people that don't love the bookkeeping involved in a point system, but i've never heard anyone pose those as bad design or requiring a response from the developers.

Can you point me in the direction of some resources that better explain the issues you have with sorcerers?

[TheUser]

It isn't in the best interest of a company such as WotC to confirm that their products core design was lacking.

They were already apprehensive enough to admit that the Ranger class doesn't really do what it's supposed to do and have sheepishly released a revised ranger through unearthed arcana but have yet to officially revise the ranger because it would ultimately be a concession that they **** the bed on that class.

Like, so much so that the people who are releasing Baldur's Gate 3 (Larian Studios) have pre-emptively assured the player base that they are fixing rangers.

The problem is nowhere near as bad for sorcerers so the odds of WotC validating your opinions about the sorcerer are unlikely.

[Yakmala]

Sorcerers are super popular at my local game shops and the conventions I attend.

Just not single class Sorcerers.

Almost every Sorcerer that I've encountered is a Sorlock or a Sorcadin. The exact ratio of Sorcerer to Warlock/Paladin varies, but it's never single-class.

Typically it's a Warlock dip with Sorcerer Meta-Magic to machine gun Eldritch Blast or it's a Paladin Dip and then using Meta Magic on Booming Blade with Smites tossed in.

I've seen more Rangers than I've seen single-class Sorcerers.

[Kane0]

Maybe check how many sorcerer subclasses have been released in UA compared to other classes, might be more

[Dork_Forge]

Besides releasing more subclasses I'm not aware of WOTC doing anything about Sorcerers though personally they don't really need tweaking. IMO the problem really just lies in how overpowered the base Wizard tends to be compared to other casters.

[Willie the Duck]

Sadly we don't have access to all the pre-5e playtest boards and the like. However, if memory serves, I think there was some question about whether they were going to keep the sorcerer as a separate class (given that wizards were losing a portion of their Vancian-ness). I think that was resolved by asking people if the whole 'unlearned'/'magic in the blood' style class was now iconic enough to need to stay separate.

That's the closest I've noticed people saying that maybe WotC wasn't perfectly happy with Sorcerers (so, at the 'do we even need this?' phase, not the implementation phase).

As to the general public, I'd say that single-class sorcerers are in the barbarian/druid/monk/ranger camp of 'second band of popularity' where every gaming group has like 1 guy who really likes them and that's their thing, while just about everyone has tried all of bard/cleric/fighter/paladin/rogue/wizard (and about half of people really like, and half really don't like warlocks). Still, the biggest complaints I've heard about sorcerers isn't that they aren't good, but that they wanted a different specific implementation of the sorcerer class, and what we got isn't it.

I mean, there are issues -- wizards have several spells that sorcerers don't while the converse isn't true, wild magic archetype is DM-dependent, draconic sorcerer is very 'which dragon/element?'-dependent on how powerful they are, and of course that all the cha-based classes have this whole multiclassing-with-each-other discussion snarl that dominates any discussion of the component classes. Overall, though, I haven't heard much bad about sorcerers, other than 'but I would have made them differently.'

[ProsecutorGodot]

SNIP

This is an interesting perspective, 5E is my most played edition so maybe that colors my perspective a bit. I see Sorcerer's as being unique enough in their own right and many of the complaints I see make reference to either (a) their strength compared to a Wizard and/or (b) their weakness compared to their 3.5E counterpart.

As for the "do we even need this" remark I skimmed through a few of the Dragon+ talks where they covered design space, specifically on additional classes. You basically hit it right on the nose with what JC had said, in effect saying that they were happy with what they ended up with in the core classes, believing that those were a very solid foundation to start with and that new classes would have to be pretty unique.

Minor side note, on the same Dragon+ (apologies, I don't have the link but it was shortly after the giant soul sorcerer UA went up) JC said that the goal they aim for to take a UA further into the design process is 70% player satisfaction after the survey results come in. Knowing that, I'm sure they do put some thought in to pleasing the majority of players. If the majority were being vocal about their displeasure (in the case of both PHB and Revised Ranger and UA Brute for recent examples) WoTC does say that the design was a miss, if a bit begrudgingly in the case of Ranger.

[Jerrykhor]

i.....what?

this is the first i've heard rumors of some widespread malcontent about sorcerers.

Like, sure, i've heard people wishing they had more spells known, and I've heard people that don't love the bookkeeping involved in a point system, but i've never heard anyone pose those as bad design or requiring a response from the developers.

Can you point me in the direction of some resources that better explain the issues you have with sorcerers?

You can head over to the Enworld forums, there are more debate on the balance of Sorcerer.

The problems with Sorcerer can be summarised as such: Fewest spells known, no Origin spells, no ritual casting, Flexible Casting is not very flexible, Not enough sorcery points (most apparent at low levels), Metamagic has a defined tierlist (and arguably not enough choices, or at least should allow swapping of Metamagic during level up).

But somehow the voice of discontent is not as strong as the Rangers. So wotc just brush them aside like how they always do.

[Kane0]

But somehow the voice of discontent is not as strong as the Rangers. So wotc just brush them aside like how they always do.

Because they’re still full casters and have some very strong metamagic options.

[bendking]

Woah guys. I'm not trying to start another debate. It's simply clear that some players are disappointed with the Sorcerer.
Again, let's not start a debate on this.

[Waazraath]

Woah guys. I'm not trying to start another debate. It's simply clear that some players are disappointed with the Sorcerer.
Again, let's not start a debate on this.

Fair enough. But without the debate, see the questionaire I linked to. Of course, it's quite a small sample, but based on it, if WotC should do something about classes that people are dissapointed with, they should first 'fix' the Druid and Monk, and the Barbarian and Fighter together with the Sorcerer.

Which they shouldn't, tbh, cause they are fine classes.

I'm not really impressed with the popularity argument, tbh - if the are 12 wildely different classes, there will always be popular and less popular ones (and powerful and less powerful, though they got the bandwidth quite good this edition).

The only real outlier is the Ranger (barring maybe some subclasses like 4e monk).

[bendking]

Fair enough. But without the debate, see the questionaire I linked to. Of course, it's quite a small sample, but based on it, if WotC should do something about classes that people are dissapointed with, they should first 'fix' the Druid and Monk, and the Barbarian and Fighter together with the Sorcerer.

Which they shouldn't, tbh, cause they are fine classes.

I'm not really impressed with the popularity argument, tbh - if the are 12 wildely different classes, there will always be popular and less popular ones (and powerful and less powerful, though they got the bandwidth quite good this edition).

The only real outlier is the Ranger (barring maybe some subclasses like 4e monk).

First off, just based off of the link you sent they are the most un-popular full-caster. To me that means something. It also ranks highest in "most dissatisfying class" in this poll.
Secondly, it's not just a matter of popularity, it's a matter of dissatisfaction. I don't know of many people who complain about Druid or Monk balance, nor Barbarian and Fighter. Perhaps they are less popular than full-casters, but practically no one ever complains about them. As opposed to the Sorcerer, who has had god knows how many attempted revisions/tweaks.
However, this really isn't the point of this thread. Probably shouldn't have even wrote this reply, to be honest. Just wanted to probe if there were any responses to this, apparently not.


It isn't in the best interest of a company such as WotC to confirm that their products core design was lacking.

They were already apprehensive enough to admit that the Ranger class doesn't really do what it's supposed to do and have sheepishly released a revised ranger through unearthed arcana but have yet to officially revise the ranger because it would ultimately be a concession that they **** the bed on that class.

Like, so much so that the people who are releasing Baldur's Gate 3 (Larian Studios) have pre-emptively assured the player base that they are fixing rangers.

The problem is nowhere near as bad for sorcerers so the odds of WotC validating your opinions about the sorcerer are unlikely.

That does make me think, what were some other cases in which WotC have admitted to screwing up something? Particularly in the class department.
I know that JC said Healing Spirit was more than they expected it to be, but other than that?

[Haldir]

Nothing wrong with the class, in fact, I see it more often than just about anything else. I think you're barking up the wrong tree here.

[Waazraath]

First off, just based off of the link you sent they are the most un-popular full-caster. To me that means something. It also ranks highest in "most dissatisfying class" in this poll.
Secondly, it's not just a matter of popularity, it's a matter of dissatisfaction. I don't know of many people who complain about Druid or Monk balance, nor Barbarian and Fighter. Perhaps they are less popular than full-casters, but practically no one ever complains about them. As opposed to the Sorcerer, who has had god knows how many attempted revisions/tweaks.
However, this really isn't the point of this thread. Probably shouldn't have even wrote this reply, to be honest. Just wanted to probe if there were any responses to this, apparently not.


Druid is no full caster? :smallconfused:

Further: the amount of threads on monks, barbarians and fighters are plenty. Atm, there is one running on monks. Barbarians and Fighters are often critisized for being good at combat, but not good enough in other parts of the game (I disagree, but that's not the issue here). Especially subclasses like Berserker and Champion tend to get flack.

So back to your question: WotC should respond to a helluvalot more dissapointments, if they were going to adress the sorcerer. And I think it is right that they don't, cause with 12 classes there are will always be dissapointment by some people with some of them.

[DeadMech]

I felt the disappointment pretty hard but I was pushed into being the only full caster in a party and thus went divine soul attempting to fill the need for both arcane and divine casting. So the limited spells know is definitely painful. I wouldn't do the same approach again. Or at least not with the same party composition. It's probably less awful if you aren't overstretching yourself like I did.

[bendking]

Nothing wrong with the class, in fact, I see it more often than just about anything else. I think you're barking up the wrong tree here.

I literally said "some players'". I haven't even said my opinion.


Druid is no full caster? :smallconfused:

Further: the amount of threads on monks, barbarians and fighters are plenty. Atm, there is one running on monks. Barbarians and Fighters are often critisized for being good at combat, but not good enough in other parts of the game (I disagree, but that's not the issue here). Especially subclasses like Berserker and Champion tend to get flack.

So back to your question: WotC should respond to a helluvalot more dissapointments, if they were going to adress the sorcerer. And I think it is right that they don't, cause with 12 classes there are will always be dissapointment by some people with some of them.

Don't think anyone ever said the Druid needs tweaking (hyperbole, but you get the gist of it).
Complaints about Fighters and Barbarians aren't unique to 5e though, they have been a thing for a few editions now, while the Sorcerer complaints are specific to 5e.
Also, complaints about sub-classes are much less meaningful than complaints about an entire class if you ask me.

Anyway, it seems to me (again, not much data outside that poll (which is very small)) that after the Ranger, Sorcerer is the most complained about class.
And considering WotC have addressed the Ranger and are still planning a revision, I wouldn't say a Sorcerer tweak would be that out of line.


I felt the disappointment pretty hard but I was pushed into being the only full caster in a party and thus went divine soul attempting to fill the need for both arcane and divine casting. So the limited spells know is definitely painful. I wouldn't do the same approach again. Or at least not with the same party composition. It's probably less awful if you aren't overstretching yourself like I did.

Yeah, that's a problem buddy. Sorcerer is plenty powerful if you focus your aim and specialize in an area or two. You shouldn't be the healer unless you are doing a buffer build (Twin is mandatory in this case), but even then I don't think that's the strongest role for a Sorcerer.

[Trustypeaches]

Don't think anyone ever said the Druid needs tweaking (hyperbole, but you get the gist of it)Really?

Personally, I see a lot of discussion on tweaking Druids online: lots of people aren’t satisfied with their base kit or how, say, Moon Druids function as a subclass.

[bendking]

Really?

Personally, I see a lot of discussion on tweaking Druids online: lots of people aren’t satisfied with their base kit or how, say, Moon Druids function as a subclass.

Seems likely my bias will affect what things I notice :)
Anyway, this really wasn't the point of the thread.
*Casts close thread*

[darknite]

Considering there are millions of players who love sorcs and their quickened, silenced, twin castings of Haste, responding to 'some' players is probably not something you'll overtly see from WotC.

[TheUser]

That does make me think, what were some other cases in which WotC have admitted to screwing up something? Particularly in the class department.
I know that JC said Healing Spirit was more than they expected it to be, but other than that?

Only the erratas which is more of "we didn't use clear enough language to delineate our intentions for specific rules." (Or slight rebalancing therein).

It wouldn't behoove them to openly admit to doing a less than spectacular job on bulk of classes or even a vast majority of subclasses (I for instance, see Moon Druids as the most fun Druid, but also one of 2 subclasses that actually works for the class).

As it stands, Bards, Clerics, Paladins, and Wizards seem to be the highest in customer satisfaction with the other classes having 1 or 2 subclasses that prop up the base class well enough.

Arcane Tricksters, Moon/Shepherd Druids, Battle Masters/Eldritch Knights, Hexblades, Gloom Stalkers, Totem Barbarians.

These subclasses shore up the faults of the baseline classes so well that as long as WotC can keep introducing new and viable subclasses they'll never have to admit how poor a job they did of hitting the mark with a majority of classes.

Xanathar's is rife with subclasses that demonstrate a clear disconnect from WotC and the consumer in that they just don't offer enough compared to other subclasses to be considered worthwhile.

Arcane Archer, Cavalier (2 feats make the subclass almost redundant).
Storm Tempest
Inquisitive
Storm Sorcery
War Mage

They all host multiple features that don't hold up or feel lackluster.

[Willie the Duck]

Complaints about Fighters and Barbarians aren't unique to 5e though, they have been a thing for a few editions now, while the Sorcerer complaints are specific to 5e.

Interesting. I saw sorcerer as being controversial throughout 3rd edition.


Considering there are millions of players who love sorcs and their quickened, silenced, twin castings of Haste, responding to 'some' players is probably not something you'll overtly see from WotC.

Honestly, I would absolutely LOVE it if WotC was more open and responsive to questions about balance, satisfaction, and even just plain 'why' on a lot of things. However, if so, there'd be a huge list ahead of whether they thought they screwed the pooch on sorcerers -- darkness and hiding, hands-on-weapon and spellcasting, wish-simulacrum, one-handed quarterstaves and shields, etc. etc. etc.

[Keravath]

Woah guys. I'm not trying to start another debate. It's simply clear that some players are disappointed with the Sorcerer.
Again, let's not start a debate on this.

The reason there is a "debate" is because the "dissatisfaction" with sorcerers doesn't appear to be very widespread or prevalent. Your initial post appears to be based on an assumption that isn't really true. You can probably find players disappointed with some aspects of EVERY class in D&D. Why would WotC respond any differently to complaints about sorcerers from a small group of players as they would to complaints about any other class from a small group of players?

If you compare to the ranger for example, there are several aspects of the class which many (perhaps even the majority) can agree are a bit lackluster though personally, I still think even the hunter and some of the Xanathar archetypes are decent.

The last game I played had two pure sorcerers and one that planned to become a sorlock. The class doesn't appear unpopular and there doesn't appear to be widespread complaints about it. It has some interesting and unique mechanics not replicated by any other class combined with a limited spell list to minimize possible abuses.

However, to answer your question, I don't think I have seen WotC ever respond to disappointment with the sorcerer class and to be honest, I don't even know what those disappointments might be.

[Zetakya]

The perceived problem isn't with the Sorcerer, it's with the way that the Wizard has moved onto the Sorcerer's territory.

It used to be that a Sorcerer had fewer spells "prepared", but could decide on the fly what to cast in what slot, while the Wizard had more breadth of Spellpower at the cost of needing to prepare correctly.

Now the Wizard can cast as a Sorcerer, and can have more Spells "prepared" than the Sorcerer can, and can still change his prepared spell list at a Long Rest.

The Wizard should really have fewer Spells prepared than the Sorcerer as a compensation for the ability to switch them out.

[Warlush]

To me, the fact that WoTC "fixed" the Pact of the Blade with a new subclass instead of just making CHA for weapons an invocation makes me think they aren't ever going to publish a book that contradicts anything in the PHB. They won't ever publish the revised ranger in a book. They won't ever give Sorcerers more spells, ritual casting, or anything else the wizard has.

[Corran]

To me, the fact that WoTC "fixed" the Pact of the Blade with a new subclass instead of just making CHA for weapons an invocation makes me think they aren't ever going to publish a book that contradicts anything in the PHB.
I am guessing that this was a lesson learnt from 4e. The more you change the contents of a book, the less important that book becomes, the people who bought the book get annoyed and are less inclined to buy your books. That's my guess though, based on what I and the people I was playing 4e with, thought about the several changes stuff in the books of that edition went through. Ideally we want a system that is as less flawed as possible, but WotC is a company and it has to balance that against devaluing its products. That's why it's very important to get things right with the first try.

[Waterdeep Merch]

My only real complaint with the sorcerer is that playing it well is harder than playing a wizard well.

Nevermind that a wizard is theoretically better in a lot of ways- a sorcerer can find a useful niche in most parties and be a great asset, so the comparison isn't really important. That the wizard only requires you to know what all the spells do and then gives you a LOT of breathing room for choosing substandard spells means that the dumb, natural caster requires a whole lot more forethought, planning, and experience than the bookish, cautious caster.

It doesn't help that the returns on that effort are comparatively smaller, too. It's bad enough that I just recommended the wizard over the sorcerer for a new player, and when he asked me if that meant sorcerer was the more powerful class and I said no, he was baffled by why it even existed.

[ImperiousLeader]

PLEASE let's not start another debate. Just wondering if this has ever been addressed or if WotC explained their reasoning behind the Sorcerer's design in comparison to the Wizard's.

Unlike the Ranger, which has been commented on, there hasn't been much about the Sorcerer. But, I do recall, while watching Mike Mearl's Happy Fun Hour, where he ruminates and does design work, he did comment that most feedback about the Sorcerer is reasonably close, and that he thinks they got pretty close with the Sorcerer.

Again, these are long videos to go through, but I think he said the only real change he'd make, is one I advocate for, just add 1 to the Sorcerer's spells known.

[KorvinStarmast]

I love my Shadow Sorcerer. I think they did a nice job with that class/sub class upgrade.

I liked my Dragon origin Sorcerer. But he's dead. It happens.

[Waterdeep Merch]

As soon as I give my players the bard's spells known column and change from Vancian casting to spell points with co-mingled sorcery points, they seem to think it feels right.

They still don't pick them, but they can.

[J-H]

The only arcane caster in the 7-player game I am running is a Dragon sorc.... well, the Arcane Trickster is around too.
He seems happy so far, but I hope he swaps out Chaos Bolt for something better. I reminded him that he has the capability to swap out.

Learning that he can't use Quicken to cast two real spells in a round was a disappointment, but he did pop a Twin last turn to hit two enemies. The DPS upgrade of 2d10 Firebolt, followed by 2d10+CHA at level 6 should help him out too.

[intregus]

I have yet to see WOTC mention anything in regards to the sorcerer.

Mearls did say that a sorcerer should probably have gotten an extra spell known (or 2) on the first 5 levels.

That said I love 5e but I think its old enough now for everyone to see the parts that were either overlooked or accidentally flawed from the get go and I would love to see a 5.5 or 6thed that revamps everything. It's be 75%ish the exact same game but with updates, like a better implemented ranger or sorc etc.

I know I'm in the minority but I think people love 5e enough that even the massive amount of new comers would be more apt to buy another edition of d&d that has it's core mechanics the same and not a totally different system that they would need to learn.

[bendking]

Unlike the Ranger, which has been commented on, there hasn't been much about the Sorcerer. But, I do recall, while watching Mike Mearl's Happy Fun Hour, where he ruminates and does design work, he did comment that most feedback about the Sorcerer is reasonably close, and that he thinks they got pretty close with the Sorcerer.

Again, these are long videos to go through, but I think he said the only real change he'd make, is one I advocate for, just add 1 to the Sorcerer's spells known.

Could you explain what you mean by "most feedback about the Sorcerer is reasonably close"? Close to what?
And it's interesting that he said that actually. I found that ground enough to houserule it :D

[ImperiousLeader]

Could you explain what you mean by "most feedback about the Sorcerer is reasonably close"? Close to what?
And it's interesting that he said that actually. I found that ground enough to houserule it :D

As in he doesn't believe the Sorcerer is as bad as its detractors say it is? I can't remember the details, this video is from last year. If you want to go through the videos, here's where he works on the Stone Soul Sorcerer, I'm pretty sure, he talks a little about the Sorcerer in general here.

Feb 20, 2018: https://youtu.be/ogjdX4LxqCs
Feb 27, 2018: https://youtu.be/t4hzZSrbzOI

[TheUser]

That said I love 5e but I think its old enough now for everyone to see the parts that were either overlooked or accidentally flawed from the get go and I would love to see a 5.5 or 6thed that revamps everything. It's be 75%ish the exact same game but with updates, like a better implemented ranger or sorc etc.


IMHO every martial needs a utility option tied to their attacks (except paladins who already have smites).

Monks get stuns but fall behind in damage; make the bonus attack from martial arts no longer require a bonus action and if they choose to flurry add proficiency bonus to all damage with unarmed and martial arts weapons for the turn.

Fighter should have Battle Master Maneuvers baseline and be able to use them once per turn. Battle Master subclass gets more maneuvers and be able to use more than one per turn with expending dice.

Rogue should have damage boosted by prediction; after landing a sneak attack choose, move, attack or cast spell, if they do that action you deal sneak attack damage again.

Barbarian should be the one simple class that just keeps attacking. Reduce all damage by proficiency bonus while raging -after- resistance.

Rangers can get the "hunt' mechanic back (instead of hunter's mark) or give them a trap mechanic.

[Haldir]

The reason there is a "debate" is because the "dissatisfaction" with sorcerers doesn't appear to be very widespread or prevalent. Your initial post appears to be based on an assumption that isn't really true.

/thread. Thank you, goodnight.

If you can't even get this community to agree with the supposed "flaws" in a class, you're really off-base. We as a community are INFAMOUS for nitpicking every class and option to death.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?593206-GitP-way-to-play-a-wizard

[GlenSmash!]

I have yet to see WOTC mention anything in regards to the sorcerer.

Mearls did say that a sorcerer should probably have gotten an extra spell known (or 2) on the first 5 levels.


As far as I know, this is the response.

[Gallowglass]

This is like saying "Have Cheesemongers ever responded to some cheese-eater's disappointment with cheddar?"

You are begging your question by supposing an opinion that is not some universal belief and treating it as a universal truth.

No. No they have not.

[Nagog]

It isn't in the best interest of a company such as WotC to confirm that their products core design was lacking.

They were already apprehensive enough to admit that the Ranger class doesn't really do what it's supposed to do and have sheepishly released a revised ranger through unearthed arcana but have yet to officially revise the ranger because it would ultimately be a concession that they **** the bed on that class.

Like, so much so that the people who are releasing Baldur's Gate 3 (Larian Studios) have pre-emptively assured the player base that they are fixing rangers.

The problem is nowhere near as bad for sorcerers so the odds of WotC validating your opinions about the sorcerer are unlikely.

WoTC knows that they're developing a growing and living system, if they were too stuck up to admit when things were no longer viable we would still be playing First Edition Dungeons and Dragons, and there would be no 3.x, just 3.0.


Sorcerers are super popular at my local game shops and the conventions I attend.

Just not single class Sorcerers.

Almost every Sorcerer that I've encountered is a Sorlock or a Sorcadin. The exact ratio of Sorcerer to Warlock/Paladin varies, but it's never single-class.

Typically it's a Warlock dip with Sorcerer Meta-Magic to machine gun Eldritch Blast or it's a Paladin Dip and then using Meta Magic on Booming Blade with Smites tossed in.

I've seen more Rangers than I've seen single-class Sorcerers.

This is what appears to be the issue the OP is speaking of. Sorcerers make for a great supplementary class to other casters, but alone there isn't a solid holding.


HOWEVER, the OP does not want a debate so all in all, the answer is no, they haven't made any supplements for fixing Sorcerers as stand alone classes, probably because of their multi-classing potential.

[ImperiousLeader]

Feb 20, 2018: https://youtu.be/ogjdX4LxqCs

So I rewatched this video and Mearls does what we often do, compare the Wizard and the Sorcerer. And yes, his take away was that the Sorcerer, at low levels, is very crunched for spells. Ironically, he does make an off-hand comment that problem might be that they were too generous to the Wizard. So it's not that the Sorcerer has too few, it's that the Wizard might have too many spells.

[ProsecutorGodot]

So I rewatched this video and Mearls does what we often do, compare the Wizard and the Sorcerer. And yes, his take away was that the Sorcerer, at low levels, is very crunched for spells. Ironically, he does make an off-hand comment that problem might be that they were too generous to the Wizard. So it's not that the Sorcerer has too few, it's that the Wizard might have too many spells.

I think I agree with this, six spells at level 1 and two every level puts them far above every other class. Being reliant on spell scrolls is sometimes cited as a weakness but really it's more of a bonus when you find them, not a necessity.

[Chaosvii7]

He seems happy so far, but I hope he swaps out Chaos Bolt for something better. I reminded him that he has the capability to swap out.

That probably won't happen because Chaos Bolt is one of the best offensive spells he can have in general, and certainly in the level 1 slot. 2d8 + 1d6 is, thus far, unrivaled for single-target damage at that level and scales really well into the mid levels. If he's not hitting with it often or often enough, that's unfortunate, but when it works it works perfectly.

[J-H]

I disagree. Change my mind.
Chaos Bolt 2d8+1d6 = average damage 4.5+4.5+3.5 = 12.5, with the occasional (low probability) jump to a 2nd target, and a chance of missing the target entirely.

Magic Missile 3d4+3 = average damage 2.5+2.5+2.5+3 = 10.5 with no chance to miss.

5th level Fire Bolt, 2d10 = 5.5+5.5 = 11 for no spell slot cost.

[Jerrykhor]

That probably won't happen because Chaos Bolt is one of the best offensive spells he can have in general, and certainly in the level 1 slot. 2d8 + 1d6 is, thus far, unrivaled for single-target damage at that level and scales really well into the mid levels. If he's not hitting with it often or often enough, that's unfortunate, but when it works it works perfectly.

Chaosbolt sucks, its one of the worst offensive spells.

[ProsecutorGodot]

That probably won't happen because Chaos Bolt is one of the best offensive spells he can have in general, and certainly in the level 1 slot. 2d8 + 1d6 is, thus far, unrivaled for single-target damage at that level and scales really well into the mid levels. If he's not hitting with it often or often enough, that's unfortunate, but when it works it works perfectly.

Chaos Bolt is fun and very thematic for a Wild Magic Sorcerer. However, even at first level, it's already worse than Chromatic Orb. It scales worse than Chromatic Orb and can sometimes roll an ineffective damage type, where Chromatic Orb can always be tailored to fit.

The math is simple, Chromatic Orb is 3d8. Chaos Bolt is 2d8+1d6.

The benefits of Chaos Bolt is that it can rarely bounce, effectively double its damage, and it's range is pretty far for a first level spell. Neither of which do much in outweighing the fact that it scales horribly, instead dealing additional 1d6 per spell level rather than 1d8. As soon as you reach the point that you're considering upcasting first level spells, Chromatic Orb takes the lead by a landslide.

[ImperiousLeader]

Chromatic Orb's material component is a significant impediment for 1st level PCs. I'd consider Chaos Bolt over it for most starting Sorcerers.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Chromatic Orb's material component is a significant impediment for 1st level PCs. I'd consider Chaos Bolt over it for most starting Sorcerers.

Sorcerer's could benefit greatly from taking Starting Gold rather than Equipment. 3d4x10 GP for Sorcerer (75gp average).

Unless you roll poorly, you'll have enough to purchase the requisite Diamond (50gp), an Explorer's Pack (10gp), a sling and a few pellets (5sp), and a Staff(10g). That's really all you need. And that depends entirely on how prepared you want to be for a wilderness venture.

You're right though, a bit of an oversight on my part. I'd rather take Magic Missile if Chromatic Orb isn't an option.

[Zetakya]

Neither of which do much in outweighing the fact that it scales horribly, instead dealing additional 1d6 per spell level rather than 1d8. As soon as you reach the point that you're considering upcasting first level spells, Chromatic Orb takes the lead by a landslide.

You don't upcast Chromatic Orb: you twin it. Far more efficient. You'd have to use a 4th level spell slot to duplicate what you would get from a 1st level spell slot and a 1SP metamagic, which (worst case scenario) is only 3SP with flexible casting and the metamagic.

[ProsecutorGodot]

You don't upcast Chromatic Orb: you twin it. Far more efficient. You'd have to use a 4th level spell slot to duplicate what you would get from a 1st level spell slot and a 1SP metamagic, which (worst case scenario) is only 3SP with flexible casting and the metamagic.

Twin can't target the same creature, the example is how Chaos Bolt and Chromatic Orb compare against a single target. It was simply to demonstrate that Chromatic Orb outpaces Chaos Bolt in almost every way.

There's also an argument to be made that Chaos Bolt can't be twinned. It can conditionally target a second creature, which is enough to invalidate Twinning it.