No Origin Spells for older sorcerer subclasses

[micahaphone]

There's a few people on reddit who have received their copy of Tasha's early, browse the full thread for plenty of confirmed leaks or changes from UA, but my biggest disappointment is seeing that only the 2 new sorcerer subclasses get an origin spell list.

https://old.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/jt5juy/received_tashas_cauldron_of_everything_early_got/gc3sij9/

Well, at least there's something to point at when suggesting homebrewed origin spells. Personally, I like this list for (mostly) only giving one spell per tier, so sorcs still feel like the "specialized few spells" but still getting a subclass list so you can have some thematic ones. That and splitting draconic sorcery into each elemental choice keeps it from being too generic. Other attempts at giving draconic sorcs a spell list end up leaning into fear and other side elements of dragons past 2nd level spells.

https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/HyBT1deBmN

[RifleAvenger]

This is a really unfortunate choice on Wizard of the Coast's part. For organized play and home games with hardliner "by the books" types, it makes the new subclasses generally the best choices for sorcerer barring some edge cases.

It's a clear sign to just homebrew up such lists for my table though.

[Schwann145]

WotC's "we will never update the core book options" legacy nonsense is really short-sighted and stupid.
If you can identify a problem, there's nothing wrong with addressing and correcting it.

[RSP]

WotC's "we will never update the core book options" legacy nonsense is really short-sighted and stupid.
If you can identify a problem, there's nothing wrong with addressing and correcting it.

Doesn’t Tasha’s include variant Ranger options? If so, that would contradict them not wanting to update.

I think it’s more this is just powercreep: the DS is well regarded so why not have more list expansion with new subclasses?

[Amnestic]

Doesn’t Tasha’s include variant Ranger options? If so, that would contradict them not wanting to update.

I think it’s more this is just powercreep: the DS is well regarded so why not have more list expansion with new subclasses?

Ranger variants are swapping one feature out for another, rather than 'adding' a feature (in this case, origin spells).

That said I do think it would have been totally reasonable for them to be included as a pseudo-variant which doesn't swap anything out and is just an optional "Hey, if you want to have these to match the new origins, here they are too!" thing.

[cutlery]

If, in the long run, their "fix" to sorcerers is to simply add more known spells, why do we need sorcerer and wizards to be separate classes, again?

[Unoriginal]

If, in the long run, their "fix" to sorcerers is to simply add more known spells, why do we need sorcerer and wizards to be separate classes, again?

1) "need" and "want" are two different things

2) The Sorcerer/Wizard difference does not need to be about spell known.

[cutlery]

1) "need" and "want" are two different things

2) The Sorcerer/Wizard difference does not need to be about spell known.

The Sorcerer/Wizard difference isn't really anything at all, as it seems to change as WotC keeps trying new things.

In a future edition they should just combine them into "Magic User", let subclasses offer differentiation, and be done with it.

[ff7hero]

The Sorcerer/Wizard difference isn't really anything at all, as it seems to change as WotC keeps trying new things.

In a future edition they should just combine them into "Magic User", let subclasses offer differentiation, and be done with it.

No more Fighters or Barbarians either. Just Fighting Men.

[MoiMagnus]

If, in the long run, their "fix" to sorcerers is to simply add more known spells, why do we need sorcerer and wizards to be separate classes, again?

One is at Charisma (and ends up with native superpowers like having dragon wings or something) while the other is at Intelligence.

IMO, that's the core difference between the two. Everything else is technical details. Maybe, eventually, they will drop the notion of ability scores (with possibly an intermediary step where every spellcaster class can use any mental ability to cast their spell), then yes, the difference between those two classes will end up irrelevant.

[Monster Manuel]

...I do think it would have been totally reasonable for them to be included as a pseudo-variant which doesn't swap anything out and is just an optional "Hey, if you want to have these to match the new origins, here they are too!" thing.

Agree. It would have been so easy to put in a small sidebar variant saying "If you want similar spell lists for the existing sorcerer subclasses, here are some optional examples: Draconic - X,Y.Z. Wild Magic - X,Y,Z. Storm - X,Y,Z. Etc".

Boom. Done. It's official enough to be used in AL or a strict RAW group, but still optional so you don't have to mess with an existing party balance. Huge missed opportunity, I think.

[KorvinStarmast]

In a future edition they should just combine them into "Magic User", let subclasses offer differentiation, and be done with it. It worked for about 15 years ... 1974 to about 1989 ... :smallbiggrin: Getting rid of sorcerers (heck, any Charisma based casters) looks like a great play.
No more Fighters or Barbarians either. Just Fighting Men. Yeah, with sub classes like ... uh ... Ranger, and Paladin and Barbarian and Cavalier and so forth. :smallbiggrin:

[Amnestic]

One is at Charisma (and ends up with native superpowers like having dragon wings or something) while the other is at Intelligence.

IMO, that's the core difference between the two. Everything else is technical details. Maybe, eventually, they will drop the notion of ability scores (with possibly an intermediary step where every spellcaster class can use any mental ability to cast their spell), then yes, the difference between those two classes will end up irrelevant.

I do think Warlock and Sorcerer are stepping on each other's toes a lot in 5e as charisma classes with the concept of "charisma spellcaster whose power is a mysterious external power source", especially when some of the draconic sorcerer fluff even mentions that it might be caused by an ancient pact with a dragon.

[Valmark]

I do think Warlock and Sorcerer are stepping on each other's toes a lot in 5e as charisma classes with the concept of "charisma spellcaster whose power is a mysterious external power source", especially when some of the draconic sorcerer fluff even mentions that it might be caused by an ancient pact with a dragon.

Sorcerer is explicitely about an internal power source, even if it could have been originally caused by an ancient pact with another being.

[Amnestic]

Sorcerer is explicitely about an internal power source, even if it could have been originally caused by an ancient pact with another being.

I mean, sure, kinda.


Some sorcerers can’t name the origin of their power, while others trace it to strange events in their own lives. The touch of a demon, the blessing of a dryad at a baby’s birth, or a taste of the water from a mysterious spring might spark the gift of sorcery. So too might the gift of a deity of magic, exposure to the elemental forces of the Inner Planes or the maddening chaos of Limbo, or a glimpse into the inner workings of reality.
-PHB 99

Like, yes, that's still them 'awakening' an inner power, but when an external catalyst is frequently the cause stuff gets muddy. Especially that 'gift of a deity of magic' part. Like, that's not a pact, I guess? But it's still an external being literally giving you magic.

[ZRN]

There's a few people on reddit who have received their copy of Tasha's early, browse the full thread for plenty of confirmed leaks or changes from UA, but my biggest disappointment is seeing that only the 2 new sorcerer subclasses get an origin spell list.

https://old.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/jt5juy/received_tashas_cauldron_of_everything_early_got/gc3sij9/

Well, at least there's something to point at when suggesting homebrewed origin spells. Personally, I like this list for (mostly) only giving one spell per tier, so sorcs still feel like the "specialized few spells" but still getting a subclass list so you can have some thematic ones. That and splitting draconic sorcery into each elemental choice keeps it from being too generic. Other attempts at giving draconic sorcs a spell list end up leaning into fear and other side elements of dragons past 2nd level spells.

https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/HyBT1deBmN

I like that list too; my only suggestion would be that it's not really necessary to restrict spells like Chromatic Orb to the draconic elemental type.

I think balance-wise it also makes sense for the older classes to (a) get fewer bonus spells (only 1/spell level) and (b) not have them swappable. The reasoning is that those subclasses generally get other powerful subclass abilities that the new subclasses don't.

I also find it crazy that they didn't include bloodline spells for older subclasses in Tasha's; the new class options are clearly the place for that kind of thing, and I don't think you can argue that the older subclasses are remotely balanced against the new ones. Like, I can't imagine playing a shadow or storm sorcerer when I could just play an aberrant mind and take a bunch of shadow or storm spells for my "normal" spells.

[Unoriginal]

The Sorcerer/Wizard difference isn't really anything at all, as it seems to change as WotC keeps trying new things.

In a future edition they should just combine them into "Magic User", let subclasses offer differentiation, and be done with it.

Or they could make the two classes more distinct.

Personally I wish the 5e Sorcerer got more metamagic-related options and capacities. Heck, all of the subclasses should have their own unique metamagic.

Dragon Sorcerer being able to change any attack spell into a breath-cone spell, for example.

[paladinn]

It worked for about 15 years ... 1974 to about 1989 ... :smallbiggrin: Getting rid of sorcerers (heck, any Charisma based casters) looks like a great play. Yeah, with sub classes like ... uh ... Ranger, and Paladin and Barbarian and Cavalier and so forth. :smallbiggrin:

I'm totally on board with this. In my hybrid game, all current classes are subclasses off the "core 4." Subclasses branch off at level 3, except for clerics/druids who subclass at level 1. All fighter-types start off as.. well.. fighters. Same with rogue types. Mage subclasses either grant expanded spell lists or enhanced power with a chosen school (automatic 1 level upcast). Boom.

[micahaphone]

I like that list too; my only suggestion would be that it's not really necessary to restrict spells like Chromatic Orb to the draconic elemental type.

I think balance-wise it also makes sense for the older classes to (a) get fewer bonus spells (only 1/spell level) and (b) not have them swappable. The reasoning is that those subclasses generally get other powerful subclass abilities that the new subclasses don't.

I also find it crazy that they didn't include bloodline spells for older subclasses in Tasha's; the new class options are clearly the place for that kind of thing, and I don't think you can argue that the older subclasses are remotely balanced against the new ones. Like, I can't imagine playing a shadow or storm sorcerer when I could just play an aberrant mind and take a bunch of shadow or storm spells for my "normal" spells.

In general I think having origin spells be swappable doesn't make sense - having a subclass spell list is a power boost that ensures you have thematic spells for your subclass always ready, even if they're not usually on your spell list. Making it DIY seems like more of a power boost.

I can't decide if "you can swap 'em to any divination/enchantment school spell of the same level" is enough to ensure the thematic-ness of it. Doing a quick scan of wizard lists for divination/enchantment, I guess you could make any of these fit a character theme, and it's nice that if your version of aberrant mind is more of mind stuff or reality bending then tentacles & slime, but it's such a large buff to an already nice perk. And at this point I could easily see illusion magic counting as Far Realm -y. Now I'm questioning why illusion magic and enchantment is different.

I forget, does the clockwork soul's origin spell swap also restrict to divination/enchantment?



--------------------

Edit: And here's another homebrew origin spell list, 2 per level. I like that the Divine Soul one is based on both axis of alignment for your source, the dragon ones are half based on the color and differentiates based on chromatic/metallic, and that for Wild Magic they basically copied the Mizzium Apparatus.

https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-MKcSKcvh-ptyVxcH6OE

[Asisreo1]

There only ever needs to be three distinct units in a tactical game. The infantry, the support, and the artillery. Any more are variations of these three. Any less probably involves placing the missing ones into the other two (infantry/support as a unit and artillery/support as another).

[Hael]

I really dislike wotc design philosophy in general. This particular feature is both power creep and thematically awful. The whole notion of slowly replacing a stylized and unique spell list for arbitrary spells makes no sense. What are you slowly becoming less of an Aberrant mind as the lvls progress.

[Luccan]

I really dislike wotc design philosophy in general. This particular feature is both power creep and thematically awful. The whole notion of slowly replacing a stylized and unique spell list for arbitrary spells makes no sense. What are you slowly becoming less of an Aberrant mind as the lvls progress.

Agreed. Sorcerer bonus spells being thematic to their subclass makes sense, letting them swap those spells out for basically whatever they want does not.

[ZRN]

The whole notion of slowly replacing a stylized and unique spell list for arbitrary spells makes no sense. What are you slowly becoming less of an Aberrant mind as the lvls progress.

This is actually the only version of this rule that DOES make sense to me plot-wise - the aberrant mind is resisting having his mind and body slowly mutated by a force from the Far Realm, so every once in a while some new eldritch power will reveal itself and there will be tentacles everywhere, and the aberrant mind has to slowly claw back control over himself and redirect his power to less creepy ends.

I agree with the general point though.



Or they could make the two classes more distinct.

Personally I wish the 5e Sorcerer got more metamagic-related options and capacities. Heck, all of the subclasses should have their own unique metamagic.

Or... OR... they could actually have THEIR OWN SPELLS, like basically every other full-caster class in the game.

[Chaosmancer]

Or... OR... they could actually have THEIR OWN SPELLS, like basically every other full-caster class in the game.

What? That's crazy talk man. You can't give sorcerers things, then it wouldn't be the "Wizards" of the Coast.

(But seriously, unique sorcerer spells. Yes. These need to happen)

[micahaphone]

Xanathar is looking down upon you all from his Lair, he gave you one exclusive spell, and you peasants want more?

[ff7hero]

Xanathar is looking down upon you all from his Lair, he gave you one exclusive spell, and you peasants want more?

Sorcs got an exclusive spell in XGtE? Which one?

[MoiMagnus]

Sorcs got an exclusive spell in XGtE? Which one?

Chaos Bolt (1st level, 2d8+1d6 damages of a random type, with 1/8 chance of repeating the attack)

[Chaosmancer]

Chaos Bolt (1st level, 2d8+1d6 damages of a random type, with 1/8 chance of repeating the attack)

Huh, I missed they added the 1d6 to the base damage, that makes it almost not suck.

To be more clear, it does damage of a semi-random type. You pick one of the two types presented by the results of the d8's.

Then on an upcast, you deal additional d6's per spell level.

The chance of the repeat only happens when you roll the same number on both d8's. The spell then targets another creature within 30 ft, making a new attack and damage roll. 1/8 is 12.5%, which I don't consider good odds by any stretch.

If you get stupidly lucky, you can deal some impressive damage, but more than likely? No such luck.

[Asisreo1]

Huh, I missed they added the 1d6 to the base damage, that makes it almost not suck.

To be more clear, it does damage of a semi-random type. You pick one of the two types presented by the results of the d8's.

Then on an upcast, you deal additional d6's per spell level.

The chance of the repeat only happens when you roll the same number on both d8's. The spell then targets another creature within 30 ft, making a new attack and damage roll. 1/8 is 12.5%, which I don't consider good odds by any stretch.

If you get stupidly lucky, you can deal some impressive damage, but more than likely? No such luck.
What's interesting about Chaos Bolt is that if you empower it, you can boost your odds of getting the double damage dice. You could then also reroll the d6's if they aren't where you'd want it to be.

[Luccan]

Huh, I missed they added the 1d6 to the base damage, that makes it almost not suck.

To be more clear, it does damage of a semi-random type. You pick one of the two types presented by the results of the d8's.

Then on an upcast, you deal additional d6's per spell level.

The chance of the repeat only happens when you roll the same number on both d8's. The spell then targets another creature within 30 ft, making a new attack and damage roll. 1/8 is 12.5%, which I don't consider good odds by any stretch.

If you get stupidly lucky, you can deal some impressive damage, but more than likely? No such luck.

It's one of those spells that is fun (and for a Wild Magic Sorcerer it's exceptionally thematic), but it's less powerful Chromatic Orb and less reliable than Ice Knife. I'd take it on a Wild Sorc in a game that didn't expect too much optimization, but there are strictly better spells.

[Chaosmancer]

It's one of those spells that is fun (and for a Wild Magic Sorcerer it's exceptionally thematic), but it's less powerful Chromatic Orb and less reliable than Ice Knife. I'd take it on a Wild Sorc in a game that didn't expect too much optimization, but there are strictly better spells.

Yeah, exactly this, which is part of what I find frustrating about it.

The only unique sorcerer spell in the game... and the only time most of us would take it is for theme with a specific subclass where we aren't expected to actually be building the best sorcerer we can.

It isn't bad... but it doesn't really have a solid place for its use either.

[MrCharlie]

No more Fighters or Barbarians either. Just Fighting Men.
I, for one, am all for it. We'd need more customization options to encompass further class choices for barbarians, fighters, wizards, sorcerers, and such, but the fundamentally change meshes well with 5e's standardization of spell slots and DCs. It also helps standardize that some archetypes fundamentally change a class at level 1 while others lightly modify it at level 2 or 3 instead.

If sorcerers were a wizard archetype then you could even delve into stuff like giving them ways to learn spells that are consistent with the lore-for instance, maybe a sorcerer can learn new spells like a wizard, but has to magically "tattoo" them instead, embedding them magically and literally into their very bones rather than using a spellbook. Even if you disagree with that change specifically, removing old context here helps let them redefine the classes to their new systems. Sorcerers made sense when preparing spells was prohibitive and they got more spell slots-but they don't in the current system.

Honestly, stepping back the number of classes but increasing customization options within a class would help a lot with apparent balance problems, and ensure that every class had a solid baseline to build from; there could be five basic classes, fighter, rogue, priest, magic user, and spellsword-I suck at names for the last, but half-casters, like rangers and paladins. These could have archetypes that determined where or how the class preformed within that role, often but not always chosen from old classes or archetypes, with a further level of customization below that. For instance, Druids could be a type of Priest alongside clerics, with Druids further having circles and Clerics having domains. Some features could be baseline and shared (All spellswords share some form of "imbued strike", basically divine strike, which ensures that no archetype is unplayable) but with additions built in.

This is the kind of thing that would go into a full on 5.5 or 6e book, not any errata, but still! I really like the idea here, unironically.