Eliminating the Sorcerer or Warlock

[dmhelp]

Option A: Sorcerers do not exist. Their subclasses (with minor modification) are now Wizard subclasses (e.g. Draconic Bloodline Wizard) except Divine Soul is a Bard.

Option B: Warlocks do not exist. Their subclasses are now Wizard subclasses (e.g. Fiend Wizard) except maybe Celestial is a Bard (for the traditional Wizards don’t heal aspect).

I’m thinking Bards and Warlocks have the most unique mechanics. So if you want to eliminate a class it makes sense to fold Sorcerer into Wizard.

[Hytheter]

Option C: Combine. Sorcerer and Warlock.

They have a lot of thematic overlap, with pretty much every one of their subclasses being plausible for the other if it isn't already. Various Sorcerer features including Metamagic could be folded into Invocations (though I'd probably call them something else.) Short rest casting honestly seems a good for sorcs thematically and would help distinguish them.

[strangebloke]

Tired: sorcerers and warlocks should not exist, their niches are already covered by clerics and wizards

Wired: wizards would not exist, they eat up too much design space while also failing to be a generic caster class, their one job

Inspired: why do you want fewer classes??? More classes is more options?? More options more better???

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Eliminate Sorcerer, distribute their subclasses out to Wizard, Warlock, and Bard depending on which would fit best:

Aberrant Mind: Bard
Clockwork Soul: Bard
Divine Soul: Bard
Draconic: Warlock, becomes Pact of the Dragon
Shadow Magic: Warlock, becomes Pact of the Nightwalker or similar
Storm Sorcery: Wizard
Wild Magic: Wizard, and it comes with metamagic (half as many metamagic picks and sorcery points, no spell slot conversion, metamagic always wild surges)

Edit: If you don't like giving Bards extra spells known, give Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul to Wizard in exchange for Storm Sorcery.

[rickayelm]

They have already gotten rid of almost 90 percent of the classes in the game. They need more classes not less.

[DwarfFighter]

The Hottie: Examine the core issues of Warlock and Sorcerer classes that make them undesirable and address those.

The Nottie: I'm not sure you could simply lift the Warlock or Sorcerer into the Wizard class as-is*, so preserving them in that manner is not really an option.

*) Modifying them to fit become Wizard subclasses is effectiveness writing new subclasses inspired by the originals.

-DF

[kazaryu]

Option A: Sorcerers do not exist. Their subclasses (with minor modification) are now Wizard subclasses (e.g. Draconic Bloodline Wizard) except Divine Soul is a Bard.

Option B: Warlocks do not exist. Their subclasses are now Wizard subclasses (e.g. Fiend Wizard) except maybe Celestial is a Bard (for the traditional Wizards don’t heal aspect).

I’m thinking Bards and Warlocks have the most unique mechanics. So if you want to eliminate a class it makes sense to fold Sorcerer into Wizard.

so..question. what issue are you attempting to address with this?

addendum: what do you consider 'minor modification'?

[Drew's Alias]

Origins are already baked into the sorcerer. I don't see why a Patron couldn't be viewed as a sorcerous origin. Merge the classes. Allow the sorcerer to buy invocations by sacrificing sorcery points and turn the sorcerer into a metamagic wielding caster that regains some spells and/or sorcery points on a short rest, with the end product looking like a little of both.

[Frogreaver]

Option A: Sorcerers do not exist. Their subclasses (with minor modification) are now Wizard subclasses (e.g. Draconic Bloodline Wizard) except Divine Soul is a Bard.

Option B: Warlocks do not exist. Their subclasses are now Wizard subclasses (e.g. Fiend Wizard) except maybe Celestial is a Bard (for the traditional Wizards don’t heal aspect).

I’m thinking Bards and Warlocks have the most unique mechanics. So if you want to eliminate a class it makes sense to fold Sorcerer into Wizard.

If designing from the ground up I can see value here. But now that the design work has already been put in by the devs into creating these concepts as separate classes what is the value you hope to add by changing that - something that's almost certainly alot more work and frought with the potential peril of unintended consequences? Or is this just a fun design exercise (nothing wrong with that either)?

[Ertwin]

Fun Fact: 5e wizard is just a 3.5e Sorcerer. The distinct difference between the two, was that the sorcerer was a spontaneous caster, but 5e made all casters spontaneous.

That's why sorcerers don't seem to fit.

A good fix would to be to take the entire arcane spell list, and split it between wizards and sorcerers, with the wizards getting the spells that would require more foresight to use effectively, and the sorcerers getting the spells that are more spur of the moment. This would likely focus sorcerers on being blasters, and wizards being utility casters, but since there would be minimal spell overlap, you avoid the "wizards just do it better" problem.

Yes that would mean wizards no longer get fireball. Oh well, I'm sure I could find them a very tiny violin.

[Frogreaver]

Fun Fact: 5e wizard is just a 3.5e Sorcerer. The distinct difference between the two, was that the sorcerer was a spontaneous caster, but 5e made all casters spontaneous.

That's why sorcerers don't seem to fit.

I never played much 3.5e but I always like the concept of sorcerer in it better than wizard. A sorcerer was not simply a spontaneous caster - that was a cool mechanic for 3.5e but not their identity. Their identity was one of innate - not learned - magical power. That conceptual difference is quite captivating IMO.


A good fix would to be to take the entire arcane spell list, and split it between wizards and sorcerers, with the wizards getting the spells that would require more foresight to use effectively, and the sorcerers getting the spells that are more spur of the moment. This would likely focus sorcerers on being blasters, and wizards being utility casters, but since there would be minimal spell overlap, you avoid the "wizards just do it better" problem.

Yes that would mean wizards no longer get fireball. Oh well, I'm sure I could find them a very tiny violin.

I think a better solution would be to make a sorcerer a variant wizard class that uses cha instead of int and drops the spell book. Sorcery points and metamagic are gone replaced with wizard subclasses. Maybe lower the number of spells known and replace ritual caster with the level 1 sorcerer bloodline benefit.

[Kane0]

Rule of threes:

Full Learned mage: Wizard
Full Granted mage: Warlock
Full Innate mage: Sorcerer

So as far as full casters go, Bard appears to be the odd one out. Make it a half caster again, it certainly has the features to make use of elsewhere.

As a bonus, stop beating around the bush with the sorcerer and work in proper spell point casting so each has unique casting mechanics.

[diplomancer]

Rule of threes:

Full Learned mage: Wizard
Full Granted mage: Warlock
Full Innate mage: Sorcerer

So as far as full casters go, Bard appears to be the odd one out. Make it a half caster again, it certainly has the features to make use of elsewhere.

As a bonus, stop beating around the bush with the sorcerer and work in proper spell point casting so each has unique casting mechanics.

Bard is the mixed Arcane-Divine full caster. If you were going for a party with only one caster, a Bard would probably be the best choice.

[Glorthindel]

Fun Fact: 5e wizard is just a 3.5e Sorcerer. The distinct difference between the two, was that the sorcerer was a spontaneous caster, but 5e made all casters spontaneous.

That's why sorcerers don't seem to fit.

Aye, this is the source of their problem; yes, they had their own 'roleplay flavour' but at the end of the day they were Wizards who didn't use spellbooks and could cast spontaneously, and as later editions have eroded the Wizards limitations, they have found themselves occupying the same space.

I have nothing against keeping both classes, as long as there is design space for both. And there is definitely potential for that, but it needs to be considered whether that is in the best interests of the classes, since arbitrarily denying one of the classes features it probably should have (Metamagic originally being Feats available to Wizards) in order to create an artificial difference is not really satisfactory.

It is the Psionicist conundrum all over again - yes, there is definitely a lot of players who want the class and would play it, regardless of how it was presented, but jumping through convoluted hoops to force a difference between it and another, functionally identical class, doesn't achieve anything in the end. Ironically, I believe the Sorcerer is partially to blame about the situation with the Psionicist, as WOTC pillaged what was originally its schtick (power points) in order to preserve the Sorcerer. At the end of the day, if the Sorcerer is to have a future (and the same with the Psionicist), it probably requires a ground-up rebuild of the Wizard, but that is unlikely to happen.

[Frogreaver]

I have nothing against keeping both classes, as long as there is design space for both. And there is definitely potential for that, but it needs to be considered whether that is in the best interests of the classes, since arbitrarily denying one of the classes features it probably should have (Metamagic originally being Feats available to Wizards) in order to create an artificial difference is not really satisfactory.


I hear this criticism alot but it makes no sense to me. Metamagic as described in 5e conceptually fits sorcerers much better than wizards. Other than nostalgia and previous editions I don't understand how anyone walks away from reading 5e and feeling it's not a more thematic mechanic for sorcerers than for wizards.


Font of Magic - At 2nd level, you tap into a deep wellspring of magic within yourself. This wellspring is represented by sorcery points, which allow you to create a variety of magical effects.

Metamagic - At 3rd level, you gain the ability to twist your spells to suit your needs.

Neither of those descriptions screams Wizard to me.

[MoiMagnus]

I love Warlock (and Artificers, Paladins, etc), because they are spellcaster classes with a significant part of their power coming from something else than their spells.
I find them technically awkward on some points, but I hope that, if 6e ever happens, WotC continue to design classes in this middle place of magic-based classes for which spellcasting are not the only important feature.

So if I had to chose between Warlock and Sorcerer, I keep Warlock.

But I'm not sure why you would need to remove one class.
[Unless you're a French person which like me, find the French translation of those two classes very confusing, and see that removing one of the two would really simplify the situation. Those two classes are translated by very similar names, due to unfortunate traditions: "warlock -> sorcier", "sorcerer -> ensorceleur". In which case, I understand, but that might not be the best reason]

Making sorcerer unique is not that hard, for example you can apply the spell point variant from the DMG, but only to sorcerers.

[neonchameleon]

Option A: Sorcerers do not exist. Their subclasses (with minor modification) are now Wizard subclasses (e.g. Draconic Bloodline Wizard) except Divine Soul is a Bard.

Option B: Warlocks do not exist. Their subclasses are now Wizard subclasses (e.g. Fiend Wizard) except maybe Celestial is a Bard (for the traditional Wizards don’t heal aspect).

I’m thinking Bards and Warlocks have the most unique mechanics. So if you want to eliminate a class it makes sense to fold Sorcerer into Wizard.

Why? What does it add to the game to eliminate a distinct character class with both distinct fluff and distinct mechanics? "The power comes from within" is not at all the same as "The power is being handed to you by another being you made a deal with". For that matter if the fluff overlap is an issue it's not sorcerer/warlock that's the issue, it's warlock/cleric.

[Kane0]

I hear this criticism alot but it makes no sense to me. Metamagic as described in 5e conceptually fits sorcerers much better than wizards. Other than nostalgia and previous editions I don't understand how anyone walks away from reading 5e and feeling it's not a more thematic mechanic for sorcerers than for wizards.

Neither of those descriptions screams Wizard to me.

Ah you must’ve missed the memo my man, Wizards get everything.

[Thrudd]

Why? What does it add to the game to eliminate a distinct character class with both distinct fluff and distinct mechanics? "The power comes from within" is not at all the same as "The power is being handed to you by another being you made a deal with". For that matter if the fluff overlap is an issue it's not sorcerer/warlock that's the issue, it's warlock/cleric.

What if you'd like a coherent setting with a more unified magic system? That's why I'd do it. I think it makes sense, from a certain point of view, to reign things in a little, especially the fluff. D&D has enough options to create a variety of different sorts of settings/stories, and that's great, but kitchen sink ridiculousness that tries to include everything in every rule book is not to everyone's taste. It makes sense to limit the class options for a given campaign. If you don't also want to limit the power options, you need to seriously refluff some of the classes and change how their powers work to fit in the setting.
Of course, you could argue "why bother with D&D at all when you could use a more generic system to reflect your desired setting"- but that discussion goes nowhere. Some people just want to use the system they like or know best.

[Millstone85]

Thematically, I would remove the warlock.

Consider the following characters:

A wizard who learned secret pathways of magic from a fiend.
A sorcerer who received a blood/mana transfusion from a fey.
A cleric empowered by daily communion with an alien entity.

These are all different takes on the workings of pact magic, and the reason I think the warlock is thematically too broad and redundant.

Mechanically, I would remove the sorcerer.

Now that nobody has to pre-allocate spells to slots, the sorcerer needs new ways to stand out, and hasn't got quite enough.

What I would do is take the warlock class, give it new invocations based on metamagic options, and refluff it all as the sorcerer.

[quindraco]

To be honest, the least distinction we have is between clerics and druids - everything about how they cast spells is the same, and they get other class abilities to help distinguish them, like channel divinity and wild shape. Wizards have a completely unique casting style in that they're a preparation caster who has to prepare from a set of spells that's limited like a caster who knows their spells, but can be expanded through loot. Warlocks have their own unique spell slot progression (and slot recovery rate). Sorcerers and Bards are on paper like clerics and druids, but sorcery points interact directly with spellcasting (unlike the cleric and druid subclass features, which generally don't), while Bards know many more spells.

If you want to reduce the number of classes, which I think is a great idea - I think the best TTRPGs are the classless ones, in fact - I would start with folding cleric and druid into a generic divine caster who picks abilities from a menu. But you could absolutely fold Sorcerer and Bard together; the only subclass issues you'll face are when a Sorcerer subclass uses sorcery points and when a Bard subclass uses inspiration dice, and of course that they subclass at different levels, but you could fairly readily sort that out by having the player choose between sorcery points and inspiration dice.

[loki_ragnarock]

Tired: sorcerers and warlocks should not exist, their niches are already covered by clerics and wizards

Wired: wizards would not exist, they eat up too much design space while also failing to be a generic caster class, their one job

Inspired: why do you want fewer classes??? More classes is more options?? More options more better???

Wired and Inspired should be combined; wizard should be split away into several different classes. It already has the most subclasses, and that should tell us all something.

[Mastikator]

I hear this criticism alot but it makes no sense to me. Metamagic as described in 5e conceptually fits sorcerers much better than wizards. Other than nostalgia and previous editions I don't understand how anyone walks away from reading 5e and feeling it's not a more thematic mechanic for sorcerers than for wizards.



Neither of those descriptions screams Wizard to me.

The way I read the lore is that a wizard is like a programmer who understands the code well enough to copy a spell/code from spelloverflow/stackoverflow and run it as is. To modify it would be to create a new spell which takes a lot of time and effort, it's not something you can do on the fly.

A sorcerer on the other hand well. "when you look this good you don't have to know anything" ~Phillip J. Fry, a sorcerer is a magical person, a spell is an extension of their will, and a metamagic is a flex.

[Intregus182]

Thematically, I would remove the warlock.

Consider the following characters:

A wizard who learned secret pathways of magic from a fiend.
A sorcerer who received a blood/mana transfusion from a fey.
A cleric empowered by daily communion with an alien entity.

These are all different takes on the workings of pact magic, and the reason I think the warlock is thematically too broad and redundant.

Mechanically, I would remove the sorcerer.

Now that nobody has to pre-allocate spells to slots, the sorcerer needs new ways to stand out, and hasn't got quite enough.

What I would do is take the warlock class, give it new invocations based on metamagic options, and refluff it all as the sorcerer.

I think you are right! The "fluff" of the warlock was always odd and felt forced or better explained through the disctintions you make. What made the warlock so much fun in 3.5 was that it was the all day caster using spell like abilities and ways to change EB. It was a super fun class mechanically.


I hear this criticism alot but it makes no sense to me. Metamagic as described in 5e conceptually fits sorcerers much better than wizards. Other than nostalgia and previous editions I don't understand how anyone walks away from reading 5e and feeling it's not a more thematic mechanic for sorcerers than for wizards.
Neither of those descriptions screams Wizard to me.

I'm sorry but this is a bad answer. 5e conceptually changed meta magic in a bad way. they should change it back. Meta magic should be available through feats. Ditch sorcery points (or in this case meta magic points) and make it so you can use each MM option a number of times per day equal to your Int Bonus or Prof bonus or something.


The Warlocks mechanics should have gone back to 3.5. (this is all concept not balanced mechanics) They don't use spell slots at all. Instead through invocations, they can cast a spell or two once a short res or a number of times equal to their cha or something. They have the blast lock concept down well in 5e but they should have made EB a class feature that gets more rays based on your class level and they should have made it so you could change your EB into a melee weapon (through invocations) and really leaned into the warlock's bread a butter being all the different ways you can change EB so that 2 warlocks could play VERY differently.

That would then open up design space for the sorcerer, who at this point wouldn't have MM be its schtick since those would be feats.

The other part of the 3.5 sorcerer, other than having the innate caster fluff and spontaneous casting mechanics, was that they could out cast the wizard! The wizard got 4 slots of each spell level the sorcerer got 6!

I'm still a little bent out of shape over this but in 3.5 sorcerer was my favorite class and in 5e they are really just an afterthought.......and most things that separated them in 3.5 was either given to everyone(the casting system) or given to the wizard( arcane recovery making them the class who out casts everyone).

I actually think the wizard design space is fine, could it be tweaked and more honed in or well defined, sure, but overall I don't think they are terrible. Sorcerers though....every time I've played a sorcerer in 5e RAW or RAI it's terrible. it's TOO niche...it doesn't even have the ability to know 2 spells of every level.........sorcerers at the table I play in are 90% homebrew because the PHB sorcerer is trash because their potential and design space is there but WOTC seriously overvalued what MM brings to the table.

So I guess I'm not sure the Warlock or sorcerer needs to go away. I think they could easily redesign those two classes into something better.

[ZRN]

Tired: sorcerers and warlocks should not exist, their niches are already covered by clerics and wizards

Wired: wizards would not exist, they eat up too much design space while also failing to be a generic caster class, their one job

Inspired: why do you want fewer classes??? More classes is more options?? More options more better???

The thing about wizards is they're actually hyper-specialized. If you pay attention to mechanics, they're nerds who create magical effects by memorizing complex arcane pseudophysics formulas, which are then burned from their brains after casting so they have to RE-memorize all but the most basic spells every day.

That's actually really weird! That's not Harry Potter or Gandalf or Ged or Merlin or Rand al'Thor or anything. It's kind of sort of like an obscure 50's sci fi writer, Jack Vance, but it's not even really that anymore because the revised 5e spell slot system isn't truly Vancian anymore.

Now, if D&D was a new system, this kind of wizard could be a cool, off-kilter, weird class that had its own really idiosyncratic spell rules. But because Tradition, they decided that wizard spellcasting is the BASELINE, so for some reason sorcerers and warlocks and clerics and friggin' artificers have to worry about scrolls and bat guano and spell slots.

The Way To Fix It:
*Everyone except wizards and warlocks gets spell points (per the DMG) instead of slots. Sorcerers can spend spell points on metamagic and get some back on a short rest (to make up for losing their defining schtick). Warlocks keep their current system.
*Nobody except wizards has to use non-costly material components. Verbal and somatic components are described per class - e.g. sorcerers can just point and grunt, clerics say a prayer, warlocks have a magic catchphrase or incantation.
*Wizards have to pick which spell goes in each slot at the beginning of the day, like in 3e. They get an extra slot of each level that they have to use for a spell from their chosen school. (Bladesingers and other non-school subclasses get other subclass benefits instead of this.)
*Arcane recovery is per short rest, unlimited times per day but you can only refresh each individual slot once over the course of the day.

[Man_Over_Game]

Tired: sorcerers and warlocks should not exist, their niches are already covered by clerics and wizards

Wired: wizards would not exist, they eat up too much design space while also failing to be a generic caster class, their one job

Inspired: why do you want fewer classes??? More classes is more options?? More options more better???

Why more class when few class do trick?

Personally, I think the Sorcerer's Metamagic gimmick is thematically for Sorcerers, but mechanically they feel like it's for Wizards.

Wizards are these people that treat magic like a science, right? So why aren't their players the ones that modify the various parts of those spells, like components, range, duration, action, etc?

It would make a Wizard player feel like they were what the book says they are. As-is, they feel more like wanderers that gather knowledge instead of someone that knows how to use it.

As for Sorcerers, I believe they should have had more reactionary effects that aren't necessarily spell-related. For instance, being half-health or lower shrouds you in a protective field from your Draconic ancestry's element, or being able to cast a spell as a Reaction when suffering a critical hit, that kind of stuff that makes their magic feel like an accident. That way, Sorcerers would be an "everyman's" version of magic, the kind that doesn't get all of it's value from spells.

It's kinda funny that Sorcerer players are more mechanically inclined than Wizard players, despite the characters being the opposite.

[Salmon343]

I don't think either of them need to go, they just need to go back to their roots. There's two problems here - the Wizard has infringed on the Sorcerer's design space by watering down Vancian casting, and the Warlock has infringed on the Sorcerer's design spells by now actually casting spells. In terms of design principles, there's actually a lot here to differentiate them. Sorcerers should focus on enhancing magic through spellcasting, and Warlocks should focus on enhancing magic through spell-like abilities. The design change for a hypothetical 5.5e I'd propose would be:
__

1) Sorcerers should be like Psions (3.5e). I've been building a 3.5 Psion and I'm in love with how its designed - I've finally realised that this is as it's what I want from the 5e Sorcerer (3.5 Sorcerers have their own thing going, they can cast more than everybody else) - they have a decent selection of powers (spells), which they manifest (cast) through the expenditure of Power Points [PP] (Spell Points [SP]), and can up-cast naturally be spending more points. Everyone can do metamagic in 3.5, but you need the appropriate feat and it adjusts the spell level of the spell (and also requires preparation, or a full-round action if you don't prepare spells). This translates beautifully into metapsionics, where you adjust the amount of PP you spend and expend your Psionic Focus (which requires a full-round action to restore, unless you take a feat (tax) downgrading it to a move action.)

Remind you of anything? It's essentially a more flexible 5e Sorcerer, if you made it use Spell Points and merged the Spell Point pool with the Sorcerer Point Pool. It perfectly fits the thematics of a flexible sorcerer, and if you gave the sorcerer free metamagic feats, you could allow every class to use metamagic again - Sorcerers would just do it more naturally, and better than everyone else. You could even make Psions work under this system. A Psion would just be a variant Sorcerer, casting with INT. They would gain the ability to manifest their spells, which would make them have no verbal, somatic, or material components (if it has no gp cost). That would be traded out for one of the Sorcerers natural features, which could be something like the free metamagic feats, or their Bonus SP.
__

2) Warlocks. Firstly, I would remove the lore delving aspect of their design. That's better suited for a Wizard or Bard subclass. Warlocks should focus on manifesting magical abilities, but not as spells (unless its at will). Eldritch Blast should again be the obvious focus of their design, with a large number of ways of adjusting it. Similar to how it can push and pull with certain invocations, but ramp the tactical play element up. Invocations would allow Warlocks to gain more spell-like abilities. Perhaps alternatives to Eldritch Blast, and additions. Gishing could be a thing that every Warlock can do, by taking an invocation that turns Eldritch Blast into a weapon, for example.
__

3) Subclasses. This is where the confusion between Warlocks and Sorcerers come from. Although they approach the mechanical design space differently, they share subclass motivations. Every warlock subclass suggestion is equally valid as a sorcerer suggestion, and vice-versa. Fey, Dragons, Angels, you name it, it applies to both. So the difference between the two should continue to be mechanical design. You could theoretically have twin characters that are both half-angels, but one is a Sorcerer who manifests their heritage as spells, and the other is a Warlock, who manifests it as powers and abilities.

Sorcerer subclasses could work by providing additional spells like they do in Tasha's, and unique metamagic abilities/buffs. Dragon Sorcerer could get an Onomancy metamagic for instance, while Elemental Sorcerer might get the Elemental Spell metamagic for their chosen element, with no SP adjustment (so freely turn Fireball into Iceball). Warlock subclasses could work by providing unique spell-like abilities, and permanent buffs. Dragon sorcerer could provide resistance to an appropriate element, and the ability to breath a weaker form of the Dragon breath at will. While Elemental Sorcerer could allow you to slowly turn into an Elemental being.

_____

This is just one idea for how you could distinguish between them. But the key point here is that they've always had a strong mechanical difference, its just watered down this edition. Differentiating between these two classes needs to focus on the mechanical difference more, rather than the roleplay difference.

[strangebloke]

Wired and Inspired should be combined; wizard should be split away into several different classes. It already has the most subclasses, and that should tell us all something.
Nah, I'm fine with wizards existing as they are. I disagree with the basic assumption of all threads like this, that we'd be fundamentally better off as a gaming community with fewer options. The Wizard isn't my favorite class, they have a legacy of being overpowered and being able to do everything and everyone gets mad if this legacy is ignored, but removing Wizard as a class is the equivalent of taking your DND books and going home.



The thing about wizards is they're actually hyper-specialized. If you pay attention to mechanics, they're nerds who create magical effects by memorizing complex arcane pseudophysics formulas, which are then burned from their brains after casting so they have to RE-memorize all but the most basic spells every day.

That's actually really weird! That's not Harry Potter or Gandalf or Ged or Merlin or Rand al'Thor or anything. It's kind of sort of like an obscure 50's sci fi writer, Jack Vance, but it's not even really that anymore because the revised 5e spell slot system isn't truly Vancian anymore.

Vancian magic wasn't only used by Vance, it was also used by more notable authors such as Zelazny and, uh... all the writers of DnD. Which are a lot.

This kind of mechanical complaint is flawed, and in any case the solution (spell points) has been in the game as an option from the first release

Why more class when few class do trick?

Personally, I think the Sorcerer's Metamagic gimmick is thematically for Sorcerers, but mechanically they feel like it's for Wizards.

Wizards are these people that treat magic like a science, right? So why aren't their players the ones that modify the various parts of those spells, like components, range, duration, action, etc?

It would make a Wizard player feel like they were what the book says they are. As-is, they feel more like wanderers that gather knowledge instead of someone that knows how to use it.

As for Sorcerers, I believe they should have had more reactionary effects that aren't necessarily spell-related. For instance, being half-health or lower shrouds you in a protective field from your Draconic ancestry's element, or being able to cast a spell as a Reaction when suffering a critical hit, that kind of stuff that makes their magic feel like an accident.

It's kinda funny that Sorcerer players are more mechanically inclined than Wizard players, despite the characters being the opposite.

Entitled wizard propaganda.

A Wizard who learns 'empowered' can apply it to a huge variety of spells including random ones he's only used once before. This isn't a "scientifically" flavored ability. There's no careful study, no narrow focus needed to achieve metamagic effects, the system is incredibly broad and permissive.
If anything, a wizard's careful study of magic would be well-reflected by allowing them to specialize in a school and use spells of that school with greater efficiency, applying metamagic-like effects to spells within their narrow field of research.... which is exactly how 5e handles it.

The only reason why people consider metamagic to be a core part of Wizard identity is because of the legacy of Wizards as being "insanely overpowered magic users who can do anything" which is a legacy that massively limits the game. It's why there were no other intelligence based casters until we got the artificer. The Warlock should be intelligence based but even with them being charisma based we see people grumbling about how a warlock is "just a wizard who makes deals with fiends."

The conceptual space covered by "wizard" is too broad, and the mechanical space covered by them in the name of appeasing the "wizards should be able to do everything" crowd means that wizards cannot function as a generic "spellcaster" class.

[neonchameleon]

Why more class when few class do trick?
Wizards are these people that treat magic like a science, right?

The magic-as-science people would be artificers. Wizards have to inflexibly prepare spells from books without changing the details of those spells. And if we go back to the origins of the class wizards were thieves (as all PCs were) picking up spells they could barely figure out how to use and couldn't do more than keep inflexibly in their head. They are collectors, not scientists. Meanwhile artificers modify things.

[Man_Over_Game]

The only reason why people consider metamagic to be a core part of Wizard identity is because of the legacy of Wizards as being "insanely overpowered magic users who can do anything" which is a legacy that massively limits the game.

No. I understand where you're coming from, but you're wrong.

The reason I came to that conclusion was because it made sense. I think I've played one session each of 3.5 and Pathfinder, so my knowledge of DnD is almost entirely from 5e. And while your theory might describe the intents of other folks, it does not define mine.

I think Wizards should get Metamagic because they are the only classes in the game that learn and know magic (outside of Artificers, but they do the same thing with items).

The players who learn and know the spells of the game are also the ones that would benefit the most from Metamagic options.

To me, I always feel like the player should feel like the character, and Metamagic is just one of those things. It's nothing to do with power level, just thematics matching mechanics.

Nerf the Wizard with a bat for all I care, the class that "uses magic by accident" shouldn't be the one that cares whether or not a spell has 30 or 60 feet of range.

In a perfect world, I think that:
Wizard players should have to really know their spells
Warlock players have some sort of trade-off for some kind of in-the-moment benefit.
Sorcerer players should gain power based off of things outside of their control.

Which would get rid of this thread entirely, since the thematics of the characters would match the mechanics of the players.

Of course Warlock and Sorcerers feel redundant, they basically play almost identically (with some minor changes to spell slots and at-will priorities), even if the themes of those classes are different.

I guess a better way of describing it is first to figure out what kind of player would enjoy messing around with Metamagic, and then figure out what kind of class theme best matches the description of that player?

For me, the most reasonable answer was the Wizard, but obviously YMMV.

[strangebloke]

No. I understand where you're coming from, but you're wrong.

The reason I came to that conclusion was because it made sense. I think I've played one session each of 3.5 and Pathfinder, and I think Wizards should get Metamagic because they are the only classes in the game that learn and know magic (outside of Artificers, but those feel like exceptions).

The people who learn and know the spells of the game are also the ones that would benefit the most from Metamagic options.

To me, I always feel like the player should feel like the character, and Metamagic is just one of those things. It's nothing to do with power level, just thematics matching mechanics. Nerf the Wizard with a bat for all I care, the class that "uses magic by accident" shouldn't be the one that cares whether or not a spell has 30 feet of range.

So just to be clear, "knowing magic" implies

having access to the widest range of spells
being able to accumulate a massive list of spells known
being able to cast spells as rituals
being able to alter spells on the fly via metamagic


Do you see the problem yet? The above list is literally "do everything arcane." The thematics drive mechanics, and the thematics are "they do everything." It's utterly suffocating from a design perspective.

The design of sorcerers vs. wizards in 5e is one of a performer vs. a technician. The Wizard has loads of advantages. They can ritual cast, they can know more spells, they have spells they can access that the sorcerer cannot... but the sorcerer can improvise better with the power they have, making new spell slots and breaking the limits of what a spell should by theory be able to do. They need to reach just a bit farther with their magic? Impossibly, through sheer force of will they can.

It's very like the barbarian/fighter distinction.

The sorcerer is poorly implemented, I'll grant that, but gosh, I have been playing this game for five years and the statements of "[sorcerer's one class feature] is finicky, give it to the wizard along with everything else the wizard has" have only gotten more annoying.

[Man_Over_Game]

So just to be clear, "knowing magic" implies

having access to the widest range of spells
being able to accumulate a massive list of spells known
being able to cast spells as rituals
being able to alter spells on the fly via metamagic


Do you see the problem yet? The above list is literally "do everything arcane." The thematics drive mechanics, and the thematics are "they do everything." It's utterly suffocating from a design perspective.

The design of sorcerers vs. wizards in 5e is one of a performer vs. a technician. The Wizard has loads of advantages. They can ritual cast, they can know more spells, they have spells they can access that the sorcerer cannot... but the sorcerer can improvise better with the power they have, making new spell slots and breaking the limits of what a spell should by theory be able to do. They need to reach just a bit farther with their magic? Impossibly, through sheer force of will they can.

It's very like the barbarian/fighter distinction.

The sorcerer is poorly implemented, I'll grant that, but gosh, I have been playing this game for five years and the statements of "[sorcerer's one class feature] is finicky, give it to the wizard along with everything else the wizard has" have only gotten more annoying.

So just...give the Sorcerer something else. The subclasses don't build around the class mechanics (which is stupid), the class mechanics themselves don't really seem to fit the class concept, the Sorcerer just feels really haphazard to me.

Hell, lower the number of spells the Wizard is allowed to prepare in a day and let them figure it out with Metamagic, and that'd be a really interesting way to play around having a ton of possible spells while still being really limited. It'd be a lot more interesting than sticking it onto a class with hardly any versatility in their spells that don't even benefit from metamagics half the time.

Ignore the whole "Wizards too stronk" thing for a moment. Does Metamagic seem like a good fit for the Sorcerer? Could they be better with something else?

I don't even care about the Wizard. The whole point of my frustration is that Sorcerers just kinda suck, mechanically and thematically, gimped by a crappy spell progression that they tried to fix by slapping a generic magic modification system that Sorcerers can't even use properly.

It's just... it's stupid. It's like they made the Metamagic system before they knew what to do with it, and just threw it at the spellcaster that had the least-interesting class mechanics.

My theory is that the Warlock actually has what was supposed to be the Sorcerer mechanics (like Short-Rest recharging, that actually feels like a Sorcerer mechanic), but they decided they needed to change things around at the same time they decided Warlocks weren't going to be Intelligence casters (since they felt that they were too similar to Wizards, if I'm remembering correctly). Except they overcorrected, changed too much on the Warlock without realizing how cramped their new position was, to the point where Sorcerers feel kinda redundant as a generic Charisma caster with no mechanical theme.

I dunno, just a theory tho. As-is, the Sorcerer class feels kinda slapdash, like a crappy homebrew that someone at home made without some deep balancing. The fact that you can strip away every Metamagic mechanic and the class & core subclasses still would function mostly normally almost seems like evidence of that.

I could be remembering incorrectly, but I believe that the only Sorcerer subclasses that mention Metamagic were ones that came out after the PHB.

[Amnestic]

Ignore the whole "Wizards too stronk" thing for a moment. Does Metamagic seem like a good fit for the Sorcerer? Could they be better with something else?

Thematically metamagic works fine as a sorcerer thing (their natural magic lets them modify spells on the fly), and fine as a wizard thing (their mastery of spell formulae allows them to modify spells).

I do think that on its own its insufficient mechanically for Sorcerer mechanical identity, but theme-wise it works 100% fine on either.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Tired: sorcerers and warlocks should not exist, their niches are already covered by clerics and wizards

Wired: wizards would not exist, they eat up too much design space while also failing to be a generic caster class, their one job

Inspired: why do you want fewer classes??? More classes is more options?? More options more better???

I'm on board for the bold. Let wizards be a sorcerer sub-class that uses books and has a broader set of spells.

[ZRN]

Vancian magic wasn't only used by Vance, it was also used by more notable authors such as Zelazny and, uh... all the writers of DnD. Which are a lot.

Man, I read all of those Amber books in high school and I *completely* didn't remember the magic being Vancian. And 1998 was clearly pretty recent, based on my subjective perception of the passage of time, so this is surprising!

As for Vance and the D&D authors (at least pre-2014)... as I said in my post, they used a "real" Vancian system, where preparing spells meant burning 95% of them into your brain in advance and casting those spells burned that whole construct away. It's a weird system, but a consistent one. 5e's version of that just blatantly doesn't make much sense. At level 20, why can I memorize just as many 9th-level spells as 1st-level ones? Regardless of which spells I have memorized, why can I only cast a few spells at each power level? Why are there situations where I could cast Wish but I couldn't cast Disguise Self twice, even though I have both prepared? It's almost impossible to have an in-character strategy discussion as a 5e wizard because none of it really holds together within game logic. And it drags with it all the other magic classes, like paladin and sorcerer and artificer, that don't have even a tenuous lore connection to Vancian magic.

I know spell points exist, but they're a kludge. The game should be built around some other resource system than spell slots - literally almost any other resource system out there would be an improvement - but my semi-tongue-in-cheek How To Fix It section was assuming we're patching 5e rather than writing a new edition.

[Vegan Squirrel]

I feel like I'm a little bit on everyone's side with this!

Removing classes (at the game level, campaign level is different) is not necessary.
The most logical class to remove would be wizards, which are simultaneously the most generic spellcaster and, in my experience (which is vastly different than the internet's, I know), no one ever plays wizards anyway (I've yet to see a 5e player choose wizard, and I only ever saw one wizard in 3.5).
Metamagic and sorcery points are too complicated and gimmicky, especially for the kind of caster the sorcerer is supposed to represent. I'd just simplify metamagic into a resource with a number of uses per day (1+Cha mod?) or short rest.
Give more spells known to sorcerers, remove hexblade, and buff pact of the blade a little (medium armor and shields?).
But I'll emphasize that removing and changing classes isn't really necessary; between the existing classes, the many subclasses, multiclassing, and feats, you can build all sorts of characters, with a variety of fluff and mechanics, as the game is built now (though I'd be quite happy if they stopped adding to the existing options and accepted that the game doesn't need more expansions).

[KorvinStarmast]

Option A: Sorcerers do not exist. Their subclasses (with minor modification) are now Wizard subclasses (e.g. Draconic Bloodline Wizard) except Divine Soul is a Bard.
Works for me.
Get rid of sorcerers, make Warlock and Bard INT casters. (Original bards AD&D 1e 1e used Wizard/Int spell casting, and before 'fan feedback' they had Warlock in 5e as an INT caster which fits the PHB class description extremely well)

Game improves.

Charisma goes back to its natural state, but we do leave Paladins as CHA casters because Force of Will and Power of the Oath thematically fit together nicely. (And they are already MAD as it is).

[strangebloke]

So just...give the Sorcerer something else. The subclasses don't build around the class mechanics (which is stupid), the class mechanics themselves don't really seem to fit the class concept, the Sorcerer just feels really haphazard to me.

Hell, lower the number of spells the Wizard is allowed to prepare in a day and let them figure it out with Metamagic, and that'd be a really interesting way to play around having a ton of possible spells while still being really limited.

Ignore the whole "Wizards too stronk" thing for a moment. Does Metamagic seem like a good fit for the Sorcerer? Could they be better with something else?

I do think metamagic actually works well in theory. It makes them a more limited caster who knows few spells but is very proficient with those spells and can improvise well with them. The sorcerer's problems are

They get almost no unique spells which invariably sets them up for comparison against the wizard. (imagine if druids and clerics had the same list! Imagine if Warlocks had no unique spells!
Metamagic is just too weak to serve as a major class feature outside of completely broken edge cases which are too narrow to form the foundation of a class.
Metamagic follows the tried and terrible path of "pick more options from this limited pool as you level" which ensures that their later levelups are less exciting than their earlier levelups
Metamagic has been saddled with tons of restrictions that are increasingly confusing for no particular reason.
Sorcerers don't get class features other than metamagic and spellcasting.


I've seen attempts at making them "themed casters" where every level where they'd normally get metamagic they instead get some kind of subclass bonus but I found these approaches mechanically overwrought and unfun. In some ways it felt more generic than the wizard. Personally I would

give them subclass features and metamagic at 10th and 17th level. (seriously, why is their 10th level feature just one more option for a resource they already have plenty of ways to use???)
give them unique spell options that are extremely efficient and are left open-ended like some of the cleric spells are (eg, spirit guardians/spiritual weapon)
make metamagic cheaper and simpler, have tiered access to more powerful metamagics at higher levels (like with warlock invocations.)
let sorcerers smite with SP on spell attacks as a "default"
give free spells known to every sorcerous origin.


And even with all these direct buffs they still wouldn't be overpowered, but they'd at least be a little more attractive for players.

also holy post edits batman

[Man_Over_Game]

The sorcerer's problems are

They get almost no unique spells which invariably sets them up for comparison against the wizard. (imagine if druids and clerics had the same list! Imagine if Warlocks had no unique spells!
Metamagic is just too weak to serve as a major class feature outside of completely broken edge cases which are too narrow to form the foundation of a class.
Metamagic follows the tried and terrible path of "pick more options from this limited pool as you level" which ensures that their later levelups are less exciting than their earlier levelups
Metamagic has been saddled with tons of restrictions that are increasingly confusing for no particular reason.
Sorcerers don't get class features other than metamagic and spellcasting.


I've seen attempts at making them "themed casters" where every level where they'd normally get metamagic they instead get some kind of subclass bonus but I found these approaches mechanically overwrought and unfun. In some ways it felt more generic than the wizard. Personally I would

give them subclass features and metamagic at 10th and 17th level. (seriously, why is their 10th level feature just one more option for a resource they already have plenty of ways to use???)
give them unique spell options that are extremely efficient and are left open-ended like some of the cleric spells are (eg, spirit guardians/spiritual weapon)
make metamagic cheaper and simpler, have tiered access to more powerful metamagics at higher levels (like with warlock invocations.)
let sorcerers smite with SP on spell attacks as a "default"
give free spells known to every sorcerous origin.


And even with all these direct buffs they still wouldn't be overpowered, but they'd at least be a little more attractive for players.

also holy post edits batman

I agree with pretty much all of that. I think Sorcerers should still have Sorcery Points, just not Metamagic, and just replace Metamagic with similar mechanics that aren't so proactive and specific, like:


When a creature succeeds on a saving throw, you can spend Sorcery Points equal to the spell level + 1 to force them to reroll.
When you take damage, you may change the Action casting time of a spell to a Reaction by spending Sorcery Points equal to its spell level + 1. You do this before receiving the damage, although the damage cannot be avoided.
When you have no more than half of your maximum HP, you may change the Action casting time of a spell to a Bonus Action by spending Sorcery Points equal to its spell level.
The first time each Long Rest that you would be reduced to half of your maximum HP, you gain Sorcery Points equal to your Proficiency that are lost at the end of your next turn.


Universal, versatile, works with multiple different classes, different levels, doesn't need modification to work with any kind of playstyle. Mostly, though, it plays off of the emotional state of the Sorcerer, which is exactly what you'd expect from a Sorcerer and is completely unique from every other class.

The big difference is, you don't need to memorize a spell to know that you want to cast it, or you want the save to be failed. You do need to memorize a spell's range, components, or targeting type for some of the best metamagics, which seems silly for the class that doesn't memorize spells.

Not saying that this is the answer, but I just wanted to showcase that it is possible to make the Sorcerer have versatile mechanics without it feeling generic or still relying on Metamagic. Metamagic, itself, doesn't really add anything to the Sorcerer other than be a placeholder for "Better at spells". I think that changing that to "Better than spells, because..." adds a lot more character to the...character.

[Dienekes]

So just to be clear, "knowing magic" implies

having access to the widest range of spells
being able to accumulate a massive list of spells known
being able to cast spells as rituals
being able to alter spells on the fly via metamagic


Do you see the problem yet? The above list is literally "do everything arcane." The thematics drive mechanics, and the thematics are "they do everything." It's utterly suffocating from a design perspective.

The design of sorcerers vs. wizards in 5e is one of a performer vs. a technician. The Wizard has loads of advantages. They can ritual cast, they can know more spells, they have spells they can access that the sorcerer cannot... but the sorcerer can improvise better with the power they have, making new spell slots and breaking the limits of what a spell should by theory be able to do. They need to reach just a bit farther with their magic? Impossibly, through sheer force of will they can.

It's very like the barbarian/fighter distinction.

The sorcerer is poorly implemented, I'll grant that, but gosh, I have been playing this game for five years and the statements of "[sorcerer's one class feature] is finicky, give it to the wizard along with everything else the wizard has" have only gotten more annoying.

I think the issue is -while some people actually do seek to fold Barbarian into Fighter- Barbarian as a class has a core mechanic that screams to be made the center of a class.

Sure, you can make a Rage subclass for a Fighter. Might even work. But an encounter duration martial power boost is so useful to hang a lot of mechanics on. It's also incredibly flavorful. Going into a berserk state that limits mental capability in some way (can't cast spells) helps enforce the idea that this is the class that focuses on instinctual combat.

Is it perfect? No. I have some qualms with the implementation here and there. But on the whole, it works.
Do Fighters then feel like they have studied martial combat and mastered how to use their weapons? No. But that's a different debate.

But if we compare that distinction to what's between Sorcerer and Wizard, I don't think either really work as well.

Wizards are supposed to be the ones who have studied magic and can learn it through rigorous study. They have learned through hard work how it all fits together. Does this bare out in the Wizard class? Meh. It's ok. Transcribing new spells into the spellbook is the most flavorful part, really. And then just how spells function in general. Academics fiddling with things and passing down their knowledge is about what you'd expect to result in spells that require such components as a little ziggurat, an adder's stomach, a piece of fur wrapped in cloth, and other nonsense. These spells really push into the notion that these are learned formulas. Which fit the Wizard and to some extent the Cleric and Druid who are also learning their spells through some kind of teaching. But that's about it for the Wizard as learning the foundation of magic.

Sorcerers are supposed to be the naturally linked to magic. It's power flows from them. And what do they get? Well their subclasses are all set up as explaining how they got their magic. Which is great, though, honestly for most sorcerers that is where very little of their power comes from, so in practice it is not as focused for some sorcerers. And that's it, really. They still need to learn the complex formulas for casting their spells. The power supposedly comes from within, but they don't have any notable mechanic to show that their magic requires some rest or something to function. No more than the Wizard anyway.

Metamagic doesn't have the oomph as a mechanic to hang a class on. Really, none of the Sorcerer subclasses really do anything to it, to show that there is more to explore. It's just a nice little bonus mechanic. And while you can make the claim that it fits the Sorcerer's theme, it can be just as easily -if not easier- to make it fit the fluff of a Wizard.

This leaves the Sorcerer with very little mechanical identity, which leads to the question of why they can't just be shoved into the Wizard.

What's the solution? I don't know. Personally, I kinda think Sorcerers should have had a more tailored spell list that doesn't rely on components or they can just ignore components. I think Warlock's spell refresh mechanic fits the fluff of Sorcerers better than they fit Warlocks. But other than that, how do you try and demonstrate that a character spontaneously acquired magic powers that they have not really learned the intricacies of? The best mechanic for it I've seen was Wild Magic and that's about it.

[KorvinStarmast]

This leaves the Sorcerer with very little mechanical identity, which leads to the question of why they can't just be shoved into the Wizard. Which works fine,
The best mechanic for it I've seen was Wild Magic and that's about it. Maybe they could spend some time working a bit harder to flesh that out so that it better establishes the mechanical identify you refer to. (At this point, we may need to wait for a 6e to see that come to pass). I like the wild magic approach at the conceptual level, but I think there's a lot of room to grow that so that it's more mechanically apealing.

[Dienekes]

Which works fine, Maybe they could spend some time working a bit harder to flesh that out so that it better establishes the mechanical identify you refer to. (At this point, we may need to wait for a 6e to see that come to pass). I like the wild magic approach at the conceptual level, but I think there's a lot of room to grow that so that it's more mechanically apealing.

Agreed. Doesn’t stop with me fiddling to make my own when I fee in the mood. But yeah, that’s not happening this edition. It’d require an entire rewrite of the class or a whole new one that better fits the fluff. And if they’re making new classes Warlord better have dibs for going next.

If we did try to make Wild Magic a centerpiece of the class, I’d personally think the effects would have to scale with level. As of now many are encounter ending (either positively or negatively) at low levels and become rather minor at later levels. And preferably having different wild magic tables for each subclass. So the Dragon Sorcerer would spontaneously become more draconic and not flumph summoning or whatever.

[Amnestic]

What's the solution? I don't know. Personally, I kinda think Sorcerers should have had a more tailored spell list that doesn't rely on components or they can just ignore components. I think Warlock's spell refresh mechanic fits the fluff of Sorcerers better than they fit Warlocks. But other than that, how do you try and demonstrate that a character spontaneously acquired magic powers that they have not really learned the intricacies of? The best mechanic for it I've seen was Wild Magic and that's about it.

The original 5e playtest sorcerer was pretty different mechanically to what we ended up with.

It had a pool of willpower points, from which it could cast spells as a halfcaster (like spellpower points) or use subclass specific abilities (dragon sorc could get extra damage on next melee attack, and reaction-damage reduction). Once a certain amount of willpower points were expended, you got passive buffs until the end of the next long rest (dragon sorc got permanent melee damage buff, and then with more expended they got resistance to the dragon damage type). They also had full armour+weapon profs(!), but that was specific to the bloodline.

Essentially as the adventuring day progressed they changed from a spellslinger to a melee fighter, the narrative (of dragon sorc) being basically that as the sorcerer tapped into their bloodline and their willpower decreased, the power of the dragon blood manifests harder and gives them claws and scales and stuff.

I don't think we ever got playtest wild magic sorc, but it'd probably follow a different direction - instead of low willpower making them a melee fighter, instead it would...do chaotic magic stuff - more powerful spells but wild surges, that sorta thing.

[Man_Over_Game]

The original 5e playtest sorcerer was pretty different mechanically to what we ended up with.

It had a pool of willpower points, from which it could cast spells as a halfcaster (like spellpower points) or use subclass specific abilities (dragon sorc could get extra damage on next melee attack, and reaction-damage reduction). Once a certain amount of willpower points were expended, you got passive buffs until the end of the next long rest (dragon sorc got permanent melee damage buff, and then with more expended they got resistance to the dragon damage type). They also had full armour+weapon profs(!), but that was specific to the bloodline.

Essentially as the adventuring day progressed they changed from a spellslinger to a melee fighter, the narrative (of dragon sorc) being basically that as the sorcerer tapped into their bloodline and their willpower decreased, the power of the dragon blood manifests harder and gives them claws and scales and stuff.

I don't think we ever got playtest wild magic sorc, but it'd probably follow a different direction - instead of low willpower making them a melee fighter, instead it would...do chaotic magic stuff - more powerful spells but wild surges, that sorta thing.

Lol, that actually answers a question I've wondered for years: Why does the squishiest casting class in the game have the most melee-centric spell list?

Kinda makes me sad to hear about the playtest changes that didn't carry over. Lots of fluid mechanics that change decision-making on a spectrum seem to have been lost in an attempt to simplify 5e. Even the Fighter had a lot more going on in the core chassis than "Attack Action" or "Action Surge for more Attack Action" (core playtest Fighter used to seem something like a simpler Battlemaster or Post-Tasha's Ranger).

[strangebloke]

snip
bluntly, you are not engaging with my thesis. Wizard "thematics" are "all the magic, forever and ever, amen." So yes, sorcerers and bards and warlocks struggle to define themselves as their own thing in light of this. Any arcane class feature you can conceive of "better fits a wizard thematically."

Why would an eldritch knight know how to attack with magic better than the wizard?
Why would a sorcerer be able to accidently do things with magic that a wizard could not?
Why would a bard have access to arcane secrets when that's thematically more of a wizard thing?
Why do Warlocks have access to all the knowledge skills when "knowing things" is the wizard's ballywick.
Why do Warlocks and Sorcerers even exist, wizards are right there? A Warlock is just a wizard who made a deal and a sorcerer should just be a wizard subclass.


If the concept of 'Wizard' is truly so all-encompassing, then its clear that thematically the problem lies with the wizard as opposed to all these other classes. Sorcerer is a poorly designed class mechanically, but its just baldly incorrect to say that this is some fundamental, unfixable problem with the concept of 'sorcerer.' Note that Warlocks have no more thematic basis than sorcerers, but are incredibly popular because their class is well designed.

Saying that this is a thematic problem for every single other arcane magic using class is about as sensible as saying "Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin should be fighter subclasses." Sure, maybe in some hypothetical universe that's how you could design a game, but it is simply not wrong to have multiple classes with subclass support. We only have 13 base classes in this game. 3.5 had a whopping 83.

[Dienekes]

The original 5e playtest sorcerer was pretty different mechanically to what we ended up with.

It had a pool of willpower points, from which it could cast spells as a halfcaster (like spellpower points) or use subclass specific abilities (dragon sorc could get extra damage on next melee attack, and reaction-damage reduction). Once a certain amount of willpower points were expended, you got passive buffs until the end of the next long rest (dragon sorc got permanent melee damage buff, and then with more expended they got resistance to the dragon damage type). They also had full armour+weapon profs(!), but that was specific to the bloodline.

Essentially as the adventuring day progressed they changed from a spellslinger to a melee fighter, the narrative (of dragon sorc) being basically that as the sorcerer tapped into their bloodline and their willpower decreased, the power of the dragon blood manifests harder and gives them claws and scales and stuff.

I don't think we ever got playtest wild magic sorc, but it'd probably follow a different direction - instead of low willpower making them a melee fighter, instead it would...do chaotic magic stuff - more powerful spells but wild surges, that sorta thing.

That... is a pretty slick design.

Why would they get rid of it, I wonder? As written this could incentivize a player to use all your Willpower points early to unlock super mode. Provided super mode is more powerful than just using your spells. Which might happen if they’re only a half-caster.

Hmm. But that seems like an easy thing to fix by make Willpower Points Short Rest dependent and weakening super mode slightly. So, was it considered too hard to balance out the super mode in what they’re supposed to be doing when out of spells?

Ugh. I want to know more. That sounds so cool. And I don’t want to just lay more blame on the play testers being moronic grognards. I already do that for how Fighter ended up as it did, and that’s getting old.

[Man_Over_Game]

bluntly, you are not engaging with my thesis. Wizard "thematics" are "all the magic, forever and ever, amen." So yes, sorcerers and bards and warlocks struggle to define themselves as their own thing in light of this. Any arcane class feature you can conceive of "better fits a wizard thematically."

Why would an eldritch knight know how to attack with magic better than the wizard?
Why would a sorcerer be able to accidently do things with magic that a wizard could not?
Why would a bard have access to arcane secrets when that's thematically more of a wizard thing?
Why do Warlocks have access to all the knowledge skills when "knowing things" is the wizard's ballywick.
Why do Warlocks and Sorcerers even exist, wizards are right there? A Warlock is just a wizard who made a deal and a sorcerer should just be a wizard subclass.


If the concept of 'Wizard' is truly so all-encompassing, then its clear that thematically the problem lies with the wizard as opposed to all these other classes. Sorcerer is a poorly designed class mechanically, but its just baldly incorrect to say that this is some fundamental, unfixable problem with the concept of 'sorcerer.' Note that Warlocks have no more thematic basis than sorcerers, but are incredibly popular because their class is well designed.

Saying that this is a thematic problem for every single other arcane magic using class is about as sensible as saying "Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin should be fighter subclasses." Sure, maybe in some hypothetical universe that's how you could design a game, but it is simply not wrong to have multiple classes with subclass support. We only have 13 base classes in this game. 3.5 had a whopping 83.

I mean, the same reason a nerd isn't good at other things. Nerds try to adapt themselves around the material rather than focus on what the material does for them. They're oblivious, and rigid to the topic at hand.

It'd be like someone learning how to swordfight from reading a book, with proper posture and stances and whatever, while someone with real experience remembers that aggression, punching, grappling, and bashing you with the pommel is far more important than what "stance" they're taking.

Wizards do what they're told and they know the material, doesn't mean they're any good at actually using it in real circumstance. As a result, they bend the fewest rules and keep spells pristine to almost exactly what the rules say they do.

Metamagic, to me, is about fine-tuning those numbers, because they're known in the first place. "I can remove the material component here by subsituting it for this rune here". Although I recognize that metamagic can also be about "bending the rules", I just don't agree that it matches the player/character relationship as much as it would with a Wizard player.

Wizard players are nerds, and most Sorcerers I've seen are the kind to just do willy-nilly and blow things up first. I've seen more Sorcerer "pyromancer" characters than Wizards, despite Wizards being better at it, which really says something.

[Amnestic]

That... is a pretty slick design.

Why would they get rid of it, I wonder? As written this could incentivize a player to use all your Willpower points early to unlock super mode. Provided super mode is more powerful than just using your spells. Which might happen if they’re only a half-caster.

Hmm. But that seems like an easy thing to fix by make Willpower Points Short Rest dependent and weakening super mode slightly. So, was it considered too hard to balance out the super mode in what they’re supposed to be doing when out of spells?

Ugh. I want to know more. That sounds so cool. And I don’t want to just lay more blame on the play testers being moronic grognards. I already do that for how Fighter ended up as it did, and that’s getting old.

I don't think we're allowed to link the playtest materials but you can find them floating around the internet with a little bit of google sleuthing easily enough.

If they had carried the design forwards I'm not sure what they'd have done with all the bloodlines, since not sure how low willpower passive buffs would play out for some of them (shadow turning into a rogue/monk skirmisher makes sense, but clockwork? aberrant? storm? idk). There's probably ways to do it, and I'm sure people smarter than me could think of it.

[Dienekes]

bluntly, you are not engaging with my thesis. Wizard "thematics" are "all the magic, forever and ever, amen." So yes, sorcerers and bards and warlocks struggle to define themselves as their own thing in light of this. Any arcane class feature you can conceive of "better fits a wizard thematically."

Why would an eldritch knight know how to attack with magic better than the wizard?
Why would a sorcerer be able to accidently do things with magic that a wizard could not?
Why would a bard have access to arcane secrets when that's thematically more of a wizard thing?
Why do Warlocks have access to all the knowledge skills when "knowing things" is the wizard's ballywick.
Why do Warlocks and Sorcerers even exist, wizards are right there? A Warlock is just a wizard who made a deal and a sorcerer should just be a wizard subclass.


If the concept of 'Wizard' is truly so all-encompassing, then its clear that thematically the problem lies with the wizard as opposed to all these other classes. Sorcerer is a poorly designed class mechanically, but its just baldly incorrect to say that this is some fundamental, unfixable problem with the concept of 'sorcerer.' Note that Warlocks have no more thematic basis than sorcerers, but are incredibly popular because their class is well designed.

Saying that this is a thematic problem for every single other arcane magic using class is about as sensible as saying "Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin should be fighter subclasses." Sure, maybe in some hypothetical universe that's how you could design a game, but it is simply not wrong to have multiple classes with subclass support. We only have 13 base classes in this game. 3.5 had a whopping 83.

And my point was, if the Wizard is the master of arcane spells (or that they have mastered spells through thorough study and understanding), and that's the accepted class we (or I should say they) as designers would need to come up with a reason for the class to exist mechanically outside of just mastering arcana. Which is what they ended up doing.

The Fighter is the master of weapons. So the Barbarian has a mechanical that puts all the power in boosting themselves. They still use weapons, but they have a nice slick mechanic to differentiate them that you can hang a lot of mechanical niches and subclasses off of.

The Sorcerer doesn't really have that. It's just more arcana with a gimmick that doesn't really make people think it stands out in a meaningful way. So how do we make the concept of a Sorcerer stand on its own without falling back on pure spellcraft? That is the needle that should be threaded. Rather than throwing your hands up and saying the Wizard thematics do it all of it, so whatever, we can just make any differentiating mechanic and call it a separate class. Which is kind of what WotC did with the Sorcerer. And i find it pretty lazy design.

[Man_Over_Game]

I don't think we're allowed to link the playtest materials but you can find them floating around the internet with a little bit of google sleuthing easily enough.

If they had carried the design forwards I'm not sure what they'd have done with all the bloodlines, since not sure how low willpower passive buffs would play out for some of them (shadow turning into a rogue/monk skirmisher makes sense, but clockwork? aberrant? storm? idk). There's probably ways to do it, and I'm sure people smarter than me could think of it.

You have more control of your magic the less you tap into it. The more you tap into it, the more rigidly you have to play, until you're playing exactly like your sorcerous origin.

Alternatively, you can cast more spells with points, but the spells you cast at low points have more of your origin tied to them.

Clockwork could allow you to spend a Reaction to change any roll you see to default to 10 after it's rolled.

Aberrant causes a damaging effect to occur to every creature adjacent to you and your target, as you go more insane and evil.

Storm moves you and the target each time you cast a spell, and any time you deal damage it adds an extra 1d6 Lightning damage once per turn.

Stuff like that.

[Throne12]

1 i love sorcerers because you are born magical. You arnt studying for. Your not making a deals/contracts for it. Your not some weird caster using magical music. Your not a chosen vessel for a higher power/God. Your not spiritual and connected to the powers of nature and primal forces.

What they should do with sorcerer to make them feel a bit more different from wizards is to give them more Sorcery points and more meta-magic. I love the idea that sorcerer born with magic running through there veins can shape and control magic in ways other spellcasters can't. They can do this because they understand magic on a Instinctual way.

[strangebloke]

And my point was, if the Wizard is the master of arcane spells (or that they have mastered spells through thorough study and understanding), and that's the accepted class we (or I should say they) as designers would need to come up with a reason for the class to exist mechanically outside of just mastering arcana. Which is what they ended up doing.

The Fighter is the master of weapons. So the Barbarian has a mechanical that puts all the power in boosting themselves. They still use weapons, but they have a nice slick mechanic to differentiate them that you can hang a lot of mechanical niches and subclasses off of.

The Sorcerer doesn't really have that. It's just more arcana with a gimmick that doesn't really make people think it stands out in a meaningful way. So how do we make the concept of a Sorcerer stand on its own without falling back on pure spellcraft? That is the needle that should be threaded. Rather than throwing your hands up and saying the Wizard thematics do it all of it, so whatever, we can just make any differentiating mechanic and call it a separate class. Which is kind of what WotC did with the Sorcerer. And i find it pretty lazy design.

This attitude of "Wizards should be the supreme arcanist" is something I rarely see outside of this board, coincidentally. I could speculate that this is because the forum culture here is overwhelmingly influenced by 3.5 but I couldn't prove it.

My argument is that this is a stupid attitude that limits game design. To bring this back to other classes, imagine if people were big mad that "cleric should have all the spells, they're the divine caster, why should druid have spells they don't? Druid is just a cleric with wildshape, which is a feature nature clerics should have anyway."

[PhoenixPhyre]

This attitude of "Wizards should be the supreme arcanist" is something I rarely see outside of this board, coincidentally. I could speculate that this is because the forum culture here is overwhelmingly influenced by 3.5 but I couldn't prove it.

My argument is that this is a stupid attitude that limits game design. To bring this back to other classes, imagine if people were big mad that "cleric should have all the spells, they're the divine caster, why should druid have spells they don't? Druid is just a cleric with wildshape, which is a feature nature clerics should have anyway."

Amen to this. "All the spells" is way too broad a concept. And it's all that wizards really have. And in doing so, it stomps all over the other classes both in power and in thematic overlap (the second of which is the problem). Sorcerers are fine (conceptually, but not necessarily in implementation). Wizards? Have no real purpose other than to spit all over all the other arcanists.

And yes, this is a legacy of earlier editions. Sorcerers have been le suck since they were introduced.

You could make a perfectly good wizard-replacement sorcerer subclass by saying:
1) Your spellcasting ability is INT (level 1)
2) You can scribe spells into a book (level 1)
3) You can cast rituals. (level 1)
4) Choose a school of magic to specialize in. You get <key feature from current wizard schools>. (level 6)
5) Appropriate features at higher levels. You'd have to make most of them up, because the wizard schools basically only have one real ability--the rest are pointless ribbons (ie ribbons, but ones that everyone forgets about for the most part. Ribbons aren't bad, but these are bad ribbons).

And then basically replace the sorcerer list with a (trimmed down) wizard list. The result would be more thematic and more balanced than the current one.

[strangebloke]

Amen to this. "All the spells" is way too broad a concept. And it's all that wizards really have. And in doing so, it stomps all over the other classes both in power and in thematic overlap (the second of which is the problem). Sorcerers are fine (conceptually, but not necessarily in implementation). Wizards? Have no real purpose other than to spit all over all the other arcanists.

And yes, this is a legacy of earlier editions. Sorcerers have been le suck since they were introduced.

You could make a perfectly good wizard-replacement sorcerer subclass by saying:
1) Your spellcasting ability is INT (level 1)
2) You can scribe spells into a book (level 1)
3) You can cast rituals. (level 1)
4) Choose a school of magic to specialize in. You get <key feature from current wizard schools>. (level 6)
5) Appropriate features at higher levels. You'd have to make most of them up, because the wizard schools basically only have one real ability--the rest are pointless ribbons (ie ribbons, but ones that everyone forgets about for the most part. Ribbons aren't bad, but these are bad ribbons).

And then basically replace the sorcerer list with a (trimmed down) wizard list. The result would be more thematic and more balanced than the current one.
Love it!

Though realistically sorcerer still needs a lot of fixing, all the wizard subclasses except for a few of the more recent ones are "I specialized in 'x' in wizard school" which is, wow, pretty awful thematics, don't you think? Imagine if the fighter had a separate subclass for every single weapon in the game.

[neonchameleon]

And my point was, if the Wizard is the master of arcane spells (or that they have mastered spells through thorough study and understanding),

The two are very different. And the wizard is the second.


The Sorcerer doesn't really have that. It's just more arcana with a gimmick that doesn't really make people think it stands out in a meaningful way. So how do we make the concept of a Sorcerer stand on its own without falling back on pure spellcraft? That is the needle that should be threaded. Rather than throwing your hands up and saying the Wizard thematics do it all of it, so whatever, we can just make any differentiating mechanic and call it a separate class. Which is kind of what WotC did with the Sorcerer. And i find it pretty lazy design.

It's been done. The wizard is the master of arcane spells through study and understanding. The bard is the jack of all trades. The warlock gets arcane magic through pacts and deals. And the sorcerer is none of the above and gets their powers inherently. Those who cast because they are dragon blooded? Sorcerers. The seventh son of a seventh son? A sorcerer. Someone who grew up on the shadow plane and it seeped into their bones? A sorcerer. Someone who gained magical powers because they were born at a conjunction of the planets/when the stars aligned/on the minute of the new millennium? A sorcerer. Someone who gained their powers when struck by lightning? A sorcerer.

Not one of the above thematic backgrounds is enough on its own to justify an entire class unless you're playing a game about inheritances and bloodlines. But between them? They very much are - and are thematically linked as a group and between them hold a strong place in fantasy fiction.

Lazy? That was the sorcerer in 3.0 and 3.5 where they had no class features after level 1, were terribly balanced (incredibly weak vs wizards), and their entire fluff boiled down to "They might be the descendents of dragons?"

[Dienekes]

This attitude of "Wizards should be the supreme arcanist" is something I rarely see outside of this board, coincidentally. I could speculate that this is because the forum culture here is overwhelmingly influenced by 3.5 but I couldn't prove it.

My argument is that this is a stupid attitude that limits game design. To bring this back to other classes, imagine if people were big mad that "cleric should have all the spells, they're the divine caster, why should druid have spells they don't? Druid is just a cleric with wildshape, which is a feature nature clerics should have anyway."

Amusingly, I am of the opinion that Wizards need a nerf. (Personally, I like it in the way of requiring spells known prerequisites for them so they can't just cherry pick the best spells each level and have to actually study in a field like a real scholar, but that's a different topic) But I also very strongly feel that unless mechanics and fluff can be joined together to make a distinct class that can stand on its own, there's not really any reason to have it.

As of now, the Wizard's fluff identity is: has learned the intricacies and mysteries of the arcane through study.

And that's not me, that's how they're described in the player's handbook. So if you create a mechanic that focuses on the subtle, the weird intricacies, demonstrates masterful knowledge of the craft of magic that's a Wizard ability. Way more important than them just picking up any spell they want, which is kind of poor design in my opinion. As of now, the Wizards don't really have any ability like that. I mean they get an ability called Spell Mastery, but really what it is is low level magic slinging.

Sorcerer on the other hand is supposed to be about raw and wild magic. How magic suffuses their mind and body and pours out their being. They are a vessel for magic all on their own. Again, from the description in the PHB. And do Sorcerers really have an ability that capture that feeling either? No. I really don't think they do.

Which is the problem as I see it.

And it goes back to the Barbarian/Fighter comparison. Does the Barbarian have features that emphasize primal strength and living on the edge? Yes. Rage works rather well as a replacement for skill at arms represented by Fighting Style. Reckless Attack. Even Brutal Critical, though a weak ability emphasizes the wildness in a Barbarian's technique.

Which is I think the notable difference between the Fighter/Barbarian divide and the Wizard/Sorcerer divide. One has abilities which function and seem tuned to fit the differences between the classes, matching both fluff and mechanics. The other plays lip service to the fluff and then creates pretty generic mechanics.

[Kane0]

Casting based on INT, WIS or CHA

Long rest and short rest Spell Slots, Spell Points, Pact Magic plus At-Will

Spells prepped from spellbook, prepped from whole list or spells known

Metamagic, Invocations, Inspiration, Wildshape, Channel and more

Theres more than enough variety here, we dont need to remove classes. If you feel one is lacking in some way, chances are its easier to correct it than scrap and relocate everything.

[strangebloke]

Casting based on INT, WIS or CHA

Long rest and short rest Spell Slots, Spell Points, Pact Magic plus At-Will

Spells prepped from spellbook, prepped from whole list or spells known

Metamagic, Invocations, Inspiration, Wildshape, Channel and more

Theres more than enough variety here, we dont need to remove classes. If you feel one is lacking in some way, chances are its easier to correct it than scrap and relocate everything.

I completely agree. The only reason I bring up "dividing the wizard between warlock and sorcerer" is to prove a point that these sorts of arguments can be made about everything.

In reality I enjoy having lots of options and we are far far away from the point at which I'd actually worry about having too many.

Give me a warlord and a mystic, please and thank you.

[Chaosmancer]

*snipping a lot*



I'm sorry but this is a bad answer. 5e conceptually changed meta magic in a bad way. they should change it back. Meta magic should be available through feats. Ditch sorcery points (or in this case meta magic points) and make it so you can use each MM option a number of times per day equal to your Int Bonus or Prof bonus or something.

**

That would then open up design space for the sorcerer, who at this point wouldn't have MM be its schtick since those would be feats.

**

I know this isn't what you meant, but reading these suggestions feels very much like "take away the only unique thing the sorcerer has left, give it to everyone and just design something else. I'm sure you can think of something WoTC, despite rarely seeming to care about the sorcerer"

I just can't get behind it.




I actually think the wizard design space is fine, could it be tweaked and more honed in or well defined, sure, but overall I don't think they are terrible. Sorcerers though....every time I've played a sorcerer in 5e RAW or RAI it's terrible. it's TOO niche...it doesn't even have the ability to know 2 spells of every level.........sorcerers at the table I play in are 90% homebrew because the PHB sorcerer is trash because their potential and design space is there but WOTC seriously overvalued what MM brings to the table.

I do agree with this though. Sorcerers really need to be homebrewed.

My attempt (which hasn't been playtested yet) was to expand metamagic and then to give sorcerers more magic via consumption. Also, spell points + sorcery points for a magic pool.

A sorcerer is the guy who casts because his body and blood are magical. So, to me, it makes sense that they can burn themselves brighter, consuming their health and their HD to create more magic. I think (going off of memory) that I also gave them the potential to absorb magic from spells cast against them. They breath magic.

For wizards who want "metamagic" it makes more sense for them to research and create a new version of the spell, that has a new effect. That feels more accurate to how wizards work for me.


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


So just...give the Sorcerer something else. The subclasses don't build around the class mechanics (which is stupid), the class mechanics themselves don't really seem to fit the class concept, the Sorcerer just feels really haphazard to me.

Hell, lower the number of spells the Wizard is allowed to prepare in a day and let them figure it out with Metamagic, and that'd be a really interesting way to play around having a ton of possible spells while still being really limited. It'd be a lot more interesting than sticking it onto a class with hardly any versatility in their spells that don't even benefit from metamagics half the time.

Ignore the whole "Wizards too stronk" thing for a moment. Does Metamagic seem like a good fit for the Sorcerer? Could they be better with something else?

What else is there?

Seriously, if this was so easy to just design for a new part of the spellcasting system, what can they do?

Wizards have more spells. They ritual cast. They recover more spells (unless a sorcerer devotes only to metamagic). Warlocks have invocations that give innate magical abilities and recover everything on a short rest. What else is there to do with magic other than alter the spells?

And, yes, metamagic does seem to thematically fit the Sorcerer. They are living incarnations of magic. They should have the easiest time altering spells on the fly, because they are literally magical. I'm not saying that what is designed is good, but they have just as much right to metamagic as anyone else, more in a lot of cases, and they have nothing else.


Edit: And looking at your design... meh, it would require a LOT more sorcerery points and is very bland to me. "Spend 4 points to reroll a save on a 3rd level spell for a single creature" is weak. And other than "cast faster" and "recover points" you didn't give anything else. And the way bonus action spells work, you might as well just say they can cast a cantrip as a bonus action, same effect.

I mentioned I expanded metamagic, and part of that was through adding elemental metamagics. Stuff like this "When casting a spell that deals cold or necrotic damage, if the spell targets one or two creatures you may spend 2 points, if the spell targets more than two creatures you must instead spend 4 points. The targets that failed the save of the spell are restrained until the end of your next turn. If the spell did not have a save, they instead must make a Constitution saving throw, becoming restrained on a failed save. This metamagic cannot be used on spells that already have restraining effects."

This takes a spell that does cold damage and makes it feel colder. And, if you are willing to drop 4 points into it, with a cone of cold, this could be major. Is it specific to cold spells? Yes, and necrotic. But, to me, that makes sense. You have a specialty, and this is it.

Plus I have most of the subclasses offering ways to use points to empower abilities. Stuff that isn't even magic sometimes, like the Hound of Ill Omen.



Lol, that actually answers a question I've wondered for years: Why does the squishiest casting class in the game have the most melee-centric spell list?

Kinda makes me sad to hear about the playtest changes that didn't carry over. Lots of fluid mechanics that change decision-making on a spectrum seem to have been lost in an attempt to simplify 5e. Even the Fighter had a lot more going on in the core chassis than "Attack Action" or "Action Surge for more Attack Action" (core playtest Fighter used to seem something like a simpler Battlemaster or Post-Tasha's Ranger).


It was truly one of the most disappointing things of 5e. The original sorcerer was sooo amazing. It was a bit OP, but it had such amazing flavor and felt completely different. I wish it had gotten through.

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


That... is a pretty slick design.

Why would they get rid of it, I wonder? As written this could incentivize a player to use all your Willpower points early to unlock super mode. Provided super mode is more powerful than just using your spells. Which might happen if they’re only a half-caster.

Hmm. But that seems like an easy thing to fix by make Willpower Points Short Rest dependent and weakening super mode slightly. So, was it considered too hard to balance out the super mode in what they’re supposed to be doing when out of spells?

Ugh. I want to know more. That sounds so cool. And I don’t want to just lay more blame on the play testers being moronic grognards. I already do that for how Fighter ended up as it did, and that’s getting old.


I think I still have the playtest document that included them, if you want me to PM it to you.

As for why they dropped it... no idea. Probably because it was too powerful as written, but it only appeared in a single play test document, once, and we never got to see another version of it. Same with the Warlock (which was also very different)

It is possible that the gish aspect turned people off, and so they tried reworking it, ran out of time, and never got it properly playtested, but we will never really know unless they tell us.

[Valmark]

Imo they both should exist since they have different themes- homewever I would change them mechanically.

Or I guess I should say I would change the known/prepared casters divide. They had benefits and cons in 3.5, then any advantage the known casters had on the prepared one was taken and shared worldwide or just removed altogether- if known spellcasting was anything more then just the weaker version of prepared spellcasting there'd be no issue.

Although not everything was taken from knowns- they were **** at using metamagic when compared to prepared casters, now that's been taken from everybody and given solely to the sorcerer. So I guess there's that.


This attitude of "Wizards should be the supreme arcanist" is something I rarely see outside of this board, coincidentally. I could speculate that this is because the forum culture here is overwhelmingly influenced by 3.5 but I couldn't prove it.

My argument is that this is a stupid attitude that limits game design. To bring this back to other classes, imagine if people were big mad that "cleric should have all the spells, they're the divine caster, why should druid have spells they don't? Druid is just a cleric with wildshape, which is a feature nature clerics should have anyway."

Doesn't help that most (not all) of those that talk about wizards being supreme arcane (distinction that doesn't even meaningfully exist anymore) spellcasters don't actually get them. When I see "all the spells" I can't help but point out that wizards only get a tiny portion of their spell list through their career without the DM helping them out- that's a far cry from having all the spells (I could say more but I don't want to derail the thread).

[Amnestic]

Doesn't help that most (not all) of those that talk about wizards being supreme arcane (distinction that doesn't even meaningfully exist anymore) spellcasters don't actually get them. When I see "all the spells" I can't help but point out that wizards only get a tiny portion of their spell list through their career without the DM helping them out- that's a far cry from having all the spells (I could say more but I don't want to derail the thread).

Ehhh, I mean kinda. That's pretty game dependent. A big city in Eberron or FR not having someone who sells scrolls isn't just unlikely, it's practically out of place in the setting. You might not be getting scrolls of 9th level on sale but a lot of the good utility wizard options are in the 1st-3rd/4th area which you'd normally expect to see. They might not get all spells, no, but I expect most games will end up in a middle ground between "no scrolls ever" and "all the spells ever".

Anyway, unconnected to that, I have now finished my Sorcerer Redux 1.0. The link of which is here (https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/-LfWZyiMRfAq).

Brief summary:
D8 hit dice
Light armour, shields, simple weapon profs
Skills are now "two of your choice".
Also one tool proficiency.

These were done because sorcerers don't study/train for their powers, they come naturally, so pigeonholing them with a skill list seemed wrong. They're still less flexible than bard (3 of any skills) and rogue (4 from a list), and I expect most of the time the chosen skills won't differ that much from the skill list sorcs had to begin with - arcana and a face skill of choice, though there's flexibility for it. It's a small thing that I think will change little but feels thematic.

They're now half-casters, using willpower points on both spells and some subclass features. They're not required to provide components other than costly ones. The willpower expenditure numbers for the first three features (4, 8, 20) are higher than your willpower points at the level you get them. This is intended, essentially a slight dripfeed of features, without noting it as such. Its dropped for the final two features (35, 50) because those are tier 3/4, no need to dripf

Metamagic list is expanded, adding some old ones from 3.5, now is ChaMod/LR rather than using sorcery/willpower points, and adding level requirements for some metamagics so you don't just grab all the best options at 2nd level.

Dragon sorcs are heavy armour types who do more melee damage as they expend more willpower.
Wild Magic sorcs focus on casting - chance to double up on cantrips, chance to refund spells cost. Surges galore.
Shadow Sorcerers get a pseudo sneak attack at 1d4 with slower progression from willpower expenditure, they're intended as skirmishers akin to rogues/monks, with a blind ability.
Divine Soul sorcs get buffs/abilities that let them help their allies in a support role, including sacrificing their action to give someone else an action (with a reaction cost).

Each bloodline has a max level Apotheosis ability that passive grants them all the Willpower Expenditure along with something else. It's level 20, go nuts. Also it changes some creature types and does some other weird stuff (Dragon sorcs get a legendary resistance! Divine soul sorcs get immunity to 3rd level spells and lower!)


I have zero clue if it's balanced, either against baseline sorcs or other classes, but the core of what I think the playtest sorc was aiming for is there...maybe. There's probably typos.

[Just Helping]

Tired: sorcerers and warlocks should not exist, their niches are already covered by clerics and wizards

Wired: wizards would not exist, they eat up too much design space while also failing to be a generic caster class, their one job

Inspired: why do you want fewer classes??? More classes is more options?? More options more better???

I'm on the Wired bandwagon myself, here. Wizard takes up too much space, and its mere existence has unneeded flavor implications for how other classes' magic works. Wizards should be split into multiple classes, with different thematic approaches to doing spellcasting but with thinking about it.

Sort of like the Artificer, but with different specialties.

[Dr. Cliché]

Sorcerers are supposed to be the naturally linked to magic. It's power flows from them. And what do they get? Well their subclasses are all set up as explaining how they got their magic. Which is great, though, honestly for most sorcerers that is where very little of their power comes from, so in practice it is not as focused for some sorcerers. And that's it, really. They still need to learn the complex formulas for casting their spells. The power supposedly comes from within, but they don't have any notable mechanic to show that their magic requires some rest or something to function. No more than the Wizard anyway.

This is where I'm at with regard to the Sorcerer.

I'm definitely in the park that Metamagic feels like a wizard mechanic, not a sorcerer one.

Part of the problem is that it's meant to represent flexibility yet it's still incredibly rigid. A sorcerer with Extend Spell can change his spells in all of one way, and always to the same degree - he can't even spend additional sorcery points to increase the range further. Nor can he, for example, increase the radius of an AoE.

Be honest - does this sound like it belongs on a person with a natural connection to magic or on a wizard who's spent ages researching how to tweak one very specific element of his spells?


And this isn't about wizards getting everything. This is about Sorcerers carrying around a dull, flavourless mechanic which nevertheless devours about 90% of their design space. Hence why their subclasses bring so little, despite being the sole reason sorcerers exist at all.

[strangebloke]

Ehhh, I mean kinda. That's pretty game dependent. A big city in Eberron or FR not having someone who sells scrolls isn't just unlikely, it's practically out of place in the setting. You might not be getting scrolls of 9th level on sale but a lot of the good utility wizard options are in the 1st-3rd/4th area which you'd normally expect to see. They might not get all spells, no, but I expect most games will end up in a middle ground between "no scrolls ever" and "all the spells ever".

Anyway, unconnected to that, I have now finished my Sorcerer Redux 1.0. The link of which is here (https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/-LfWZyiMRfAq).

Brief summary:
D8 hit dice
Light armour, shields, simple weapon profs
Skills are now "two of your choice".
Also one tool proficiency.

These were done because sorcerers don't study/train for their powers, they come naturally, so pigeonholing them with a skill list seemed wrong. They're still less flexible than bard (3 of any skills) and rogue (4 from a list), and I expect most of the time the chosen skills won't differ that much from the skill list sorcs had to begin with - arcana and a face skill of choice, though there's flexibility for it. It's a small thing that I think will change little but feels thematic.

They're now half-casters, using willpower points on both spells and some subclass features. They're not required to provide components other than costly ones. The willpower expenditure numbers for the first three features (4, 8, 20) are higher than your willpower points at the level you get them. This is intended, essentially a slight dripfeed of features, without noting it as such. Its dropped for the final two features (35, 50) because those are tier 3/4, no need to dripf

Metamagic list is expanded, adding some old ones from 3.5, now is ChaMod/LR rather than using sorcery/willpower points, and adding level requirements for some metamagics so you don't just grab all the best options at 2nd level.

Dragon sorcs are heavy armour types who do more melee damage as they expend more willpower.
Wild Magic sorcs focus on casting - chance to double up on cantrips, chance to refund spells cost. Surges galore.
Shadow Sorcerers get a pseudo sneak attack at 1d4 with slower progression from willpower expenditure, they're intended as skirmishers akin to rogues/monks, with a blind ability.
Divine Soul sorcs get buffs/abilities that let them help their allies in a support role, including sacrificing their action to give someone else an action (with a reaction cost).

Each bloodline has a max level Apotheosis ability that passive grants them all the Willpower Expenditure along with something else. It's level 20, go nuts. Also it changes some creature types and does some other weird stuff (Dragon sorcs get a legendary resistance! Divine soul sorcs get immunity to 3rd level spells and lower!)


I have zero clue if it's balanced, either against baseline sorcs or other classes, but the core of what I think the playtest sorc was aiming for is there...maybe. There's probably typos.
I love the concept, love your take on metamagic, but this is hilariously weak compared other half-casters. No extra attack? No medium/heavy armor? No fighting styles? No d10 hit die? I don't really think that the extra 2-10 damage from dragon or 1-5 d4 from shadow are enough to make this guy compete with paladins and rangers, especially when those bonuses aren't going to be active all day. Their spell list might be a bit better but I don't think fireball is worth all the downsides here.

I think you could very safely make this a full casting class (where they get something like mystic arcanum after a certain point) or give the sorcerer here all of the usual half-caster support.

....It also seems like some of the origins are missing a bunch of features? Like what does Dragon or Wild get for 3rd and 6th level?

Beyond that, I do think subtle spell should still exist, and I think metamagic use should refresh on a short rest... but if I was making changes myself I'd probably overhaul things to a greater degree. Good start though!


This is where I'm at with regard to the Sorcerer.

I'm definitely in the park that Metamagic feels like a wizard mechanic, not a sorcerer one.

Part of the problem is that it's meant to represent flexibility yet it's still incredibly rigid. A sorcerer with Extend Spell can change his spells in all of one way, and always to the same degree - he can't even spend additional sorcery points to increase the range further. Nor can he, for example, increase the radius of an AoE.

Be honest - does this sound like it belongs on a person with a natural connection to magic or on a wizard who's spent ages researching how to tweak one very specific element of his spells?

And this isn't about wizards getting everything. This is about Sorcerers carrying around a dull, flavourless mechanic which nevertheless devours about 90% of their design space. Hence why their subclasses bring so little, despite being the sole reason sorcerers exist at all.

While I think you're not wrong I think this is a product of the feature being crappily designed more than it is an inherently conceptual problem. People like to say that issues are thematic when in reality the issue is that an option is just way too weak and/or limited.

Metamagic feels fine when you're at low level using the 'decent' options like empower or subtle, which can apply to a lot of spells and offer some utility. It starts feeling crappy when you get to (for example) 10th level and all you get is "one more (less good) way to us SP" and your spells known just stops increasing for no reason. Offering overpowered metamagic options at higher levels (imagine quicken or heighten only costing 1 SP but being gated to a 7th level pick for example) would do a lot to make it feel like you're actually getting new class features compared to right now where you...

don't.

[Theodoxus]

I fixed it by removing the Wizard class when Artificer came online (I'm a stickler for symmetry and 12 classes fits the rest of my homebrew world). I then turned Wizard into the Wizardry feat, available at 1st level that turns any other full caster class (yes, Cleric and Druid too) into an Int based full Vancian caster - meaning they have to actually memorize specific spells into specific slots. I granted them about 40% more slots as compensation too.

Everything else remained the same.

I also had a feat chain that let someone with Wizardry bolt on the school specialization for each Wizard subclass. I could see forgoing that and just allowing a specialization to be chosen at 1st level, and the subclass benefits automatically come online at the appropriate level - but I would definitely remove the extra spell slots. It's a whole extra subclass be added for 'free'.

[Amnestic]

I love the concept, love your take on metamagic, but this is hilariously weak compared other half-casters. No extra attack? No medium/heavy armor? No fighting styles? No d10 hit die? I don't really think that the extra 2-10 damage from dragon or 1-5 d4 from shadow are enough to make this guy compete with paladins and rangers, especially when those bonuses aren't going to be active all day. Their spell list might be a bit better but I don't think fireball is worth all the downsides here.



I think you could very safely make this a full casting class (where they get something like mystic arcanum after a certain point) or give the sorcerer here all of the usual half-caster support.

....It also seems like some of the origins are missing a bunch of features? Like what does Dragon or Wild get for 3rd and 6th level?

Beyond that, I do think subtle spell should still exist, and I think metamagic use should refresh on a short rest... but if I was making changes myself I'd probably overhaul things to a greater degree. Good start though!



All totally fair feedback. Not sure if it was a formatting issue on your page (it shows up fine for me) but Dragon+Wild definitely get 3rd+6th level abilities. Dragon's got Scales+Tail*, Wild's got Tides of Chaos and Reckless Dweomer.

*which may need a rewrite to work with blade cantrips so it works similar to Bladesinger.

[Kane0]

Anyone else got wiz and sorc fixes to plug? I do enjoy browsing them.
My own is in sig if anyone is else is likewise interested.

[strangebloke]

Anyone else got wiz and sorc fixes to plug? I do enjoy browsing them.
My own is in sig if anyone is else is likewise interested.

Yours is the one where they get massive subclasses and no metamagic, right?

[Kane0]

Nah mine still uses the published subclasses and keeps metamagic, biggest change is it rolls SP and SP into one point pool with some short rest recharge (except for higher level slots ala warlock arcanum)

Edit: updating subclasses for balance and metamagic to better reflect the fluff is on my to do list.

[Dienekes]

Anyone else got wiz and sorc fixes to plug? I do enjoy browsing them.
My own is in sig if anyone is else is likewise interested.

Kinda sorta.

I don’t call it Sorcerer. But I’ve been working on this thing (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?630424-The-Channeler-A-Simple-Caster-PEACH).

Which is really just trying to reimagine a caster in the most simple way to pick up and play possible. It has some of the sorcerer fluff to it. As I tried to make the mechanics reflect drawing raw magical power into your body. But it is so different from a Sorcerer I just renamed the thing.

I’ll warn it’s fairly early draft. I wanted to see if people had any insight or opinions on what I was doing before fine tuning too much. But thus far it’s been pretty silent.

[Theodoxus]

I commented on the build. After reading it through a few more times, I think I get what you're wanting with the channeling and regaining Mana... but it would be nice if it were more clearly written.

On top of my comments there, I'd add it doesn't really feel like you're actually channeling mana. Since 5E doesn't have 'full round actions', and nothing takes more than a round but less than a minute to cast, it's hard to get a feel for a channeled effect. Does channeling take an action? Can you move while channeling? Just needs a bit more clarification :smallsmile:

[Chaosmancer]

Anyone else got wiz and sorc fixes to plug? I do enjoy browsing them.
My own is in sig if anyone is else is likewise interested.

Sure, I can. I think this is how you link it, I've never tried to do it via link, but it is a little big for that

https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/S1PjdZwm2H
(https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/S1PjdZwm2H)

[Kane0]

Sure, I can. I think this is how you link it, I've never tried to do it via link, but it is a little big for that

https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/S1PjdZwm2H
(https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/S1PjdZwm2H)

Ah, i see you also went with spell-point(ish) casting. Consume power is really neat, the capstone is insane when coupled with the only time limited casting of 6th+ spells.

Metamagics look same as stock except for some new ones? I like a previous posters idea of having metamagic options scale with increased expenditure, and some stock MMs are pretty lame compared to the better ones. The ones youve added appear mostly inbetween those two extremes.

Havent got a chance to look closely over subclasses but I saw you extended free spells all of them now which makes for some 30 spells known now? Feels about right, may have to adjust the power coming from subclass features between the greater spell access, spell point flexibility and recovery.

[strangebloke]

All totally fair feedback. Not sure if it was a formatting issue on your page (it shows up fine for me) but Dragon+Wild definitely get 3rd+6th level abilities. Dragon's got Scales+Tail*, Wild's got Tides of Chaos and Reckless Dweomer.

*which may need a rewrite to work with blade cantrips so it works similar to Bladesinger.

So it actually showed up now, which makes it clear that it's a good deal stronger than I first supposed. The dragon sorcerer gets to attack twice and force saves against fear and being prone, the wild sorcerer gets to crib Find Steed and find familiar and whatever else they like...

Yeah. This is much better than I initially thought. Thanks for posting. Might get someone to playtest it for me.

[Chaosmancer]

Ah, i see you also went with spell-point(ish) casting. Consume power is really neat, the capstone is insane when coupled with the only time limited casting of 6th+ spells.

Yeah, we combined the spell points with the sorcerery points, then I think added like 6? It was a while back when we did the breakdown.

And yes, the capstone is bonkers. I loved the idea as soon as I thought of it.





Metamagics look same as stock except for some new ones? I like a previous posters idea of having metamagic options scale with increased expenditure, and some stock MMs are pretty lame compared to the better ones. The ones you've added appear mostly inbetween those two extremes.

I did mostly keep them the same. I'm not convinced of my ability to completely rework them. Also, I did give more metamagics over the levels, and they have a few other ways to use points. Like empowering weapons with magic or gaining advantage.



Haven't got a chance to look closely over subclasses but I saw you extended free spells all of them now which makes for some 30 spells known now? Feels about right, may have to adjust the power coming from subclass features between the greater spell access, spell point flexibility and recovery.

Yeah, I gave them lists like the paladin and cleric (did the same for ranger). Since they can't alter their selections easily, and they get "stuck" with spells, I was fine with them having 31. Clerics can prepare 35 for the day which feels about normal to me.

[Hael]

Completely agreed that Metamagic works better for a wizard (really could be a specific subclass that gets access to meta magic as their subclass feature). Meanwhile features like arcane recovery donÂ’t make much sense on a wizard.

EB should be sorcerer only, and they should get cantrip boosting features. Also I like the mechanic of 3.5/pathfinder where they had delayed, almost half caster progression and very slim pickings for spells but could cast many more slots in a day. That already exists with sps, but it doesnÂ’t really come online until tier3. Of course a bloodline mechanic could be reintroduced. Anyway the idea is a sorcerer in tier 3 should be casting fireballs almost every round, while the wizard is casting fewer due to limited resources but more powerful and more varied high lvl selections (the simulacrums of the world, forcecage or the 2e death spells)

A warlock could simply be more like 3.5 with hexes or alternatively some sort of sorcerer subclass where the bloodline features were replaced by invocations.

Mechanically the sorlock felt more like what a sorcerer should play like, than the rather limited monoclass.

For another different take on the sorcerer, you could remove spells altogether and make it more like the pathfinder kineticist. That would be more of an elemental sorcerer but you could make the same mechanics apply to different bloodlines.

[KorvinStarmast]

If I've got a blank sheet, dump Sorc and Warlock. Rename Wizard Magic User. You gotta earn Wizard by getting to 11th level. :smallbiggrin: Sub classes are where style of magic varies. Eliminate the "you are of this school" layer.

Move Bard to a variant of of Druid, half caster, the way that a Paladin is a half caster variant on Cleric. INT Caster. Bards know Lore. Bards know History, yadda yadda. That will also mitigate some of the Magical Secrets cheese. :smallcool:

No more Cha casters except Paladins, whose Force of Will and Power of their Oath are thematically a nice fit.

And make Rangers prepared spell casters, while you are at it. And give them 'domain' spells out of the box like Paladins get. :smallfurious:

*ducks the storm of rotted vegetation*

[Kane0]

Meh, not the worst hot take i’ve seen :P

[RSP]

I think Wizards should get Metamagic because they are the only classes in the game that learn and know magic (outside of Artificers, but they do the same thing with items).

Disagree. Learning and knowing magic is represented by the Arcana skill, not by being a Wizard. A Wizard does rote memorization of spells. By your logic, a Rogue with Expertise Arcana would be more likely to have Metamagic than a Wizard.

[Dienekes]

If I've got a blank sheet, dump Sorc and Warlock. Rename Wizard Magic User. You gotta earn Wizard by getting to 11th level. :smallbiggrin: Sub classes are where style of magic varies. Eliminate the "you are of this school" layer.

Move Bard to a variant of of Druid, half caster, the way that a Paladin is a half caster variant on Cleric. INT Caster. Bards know Lore. Bards know History, yadda yadda. That will also mitigate some of the Magical Secrets cheese. :smallcool:

No more Cha casters except Paladins, whose Force of Will and Power of their Oath are thematically a nice fit.

And make Rangers prepared spell casters, while you are at it. And give them 'domain' spells out of the box like Paladins get. :smallfurious:

*ducks the storm of rotted vegetation*

Out of curiosity, why do you dislike Charisma casting? I've seen you bring it up a few times, but I don't think I've ever read an explanation.

Personally, assuming Charisma is supposed to be your force of personality, your ability to implement your will upon others, casting with Charisma just makes sense to me. As the Weave is supposed to be it's own thing which may or may not have sentience. So being able to shape the Weave with your force of personality alone seems an easy way to demonstrate that a character has some direct link to it. Like a sorcerer is supposed to have. You command. The Weave obeys.

[Theodoxus]

If I've got a blank sheet, dump Sorc and Warlock. Rename Wizard Magic User. You gotta earn Wizard by getting to 11th level. :smallbiggrin: Sub classes are where style of magic varies. Eliminate the "you are of this school" layer.

Move Bard to a variant of of Druid, half caster, the way that a Paladin is a half caster variant on Cleric. INT Caster. Bards know Lore. Bards know History, yadda yadda. That will also mitigate some of the Magical Secrets cheese. :smallcool:

No more Cha casters except Paladins, whose Force of Will and Power of their Oath are thematically a nice fit.

And make Rangers prepared spell casters, while you are at it. And give them 'domain' spells out of the box like Paladins get. :smallfurious:

*ducks the storm of rotted vegetation*

So Bards and Rangers take up the same build space? Also, reducing Bards to half-casters (which I'm not against per se), would require a significant boost in another arena. While martial prowess is kinda boring, since the game doesn't have a solid footing for exploration or social, you'd need to create some crunch for the social sphere. I could see Bard being the "Ranger" of the Social pillar where Ranger is the "Bard" of the Exploration pillar. Though I don't think Bards should simply trivialize Social encounters the way Rangers currently do [the Exploration pillar]... But, Bards probably would need to get a Swords/Valor upgrade to the base class to at least be on par with Rangers in combat. Though I'd be happy with keeping them at a d8 HD as their Arcane magics beat Paladin and Ranger handily in the magic department.

(Although, I could see reducing Ranger to spell-less or 1/3 caster max, granting an animal companion (PHB base) as core, and then improving the Beastmaster to the Tasha's standard while granting it a bit more minionmancy... thinking like Dar with his tanking pet, scouting pet and thieving pets... you know, like a Battlesmith can do :smallwink:)

[KorvinStarmast]

So Bards and Rangers take up the same build space? That's my suggestion. And by the way, set the Artificer on fire. Burn it.

Out of curiosity, why do you dislike Charisma casting? Because I think it's a perversion of that stat adapted by WoTC for 3d edition as a clumsy way to get around Vancian Magic. It's a matter of taste. And yes, my rant is kind of pointless, since that ain't gonna change. It's got two decades of inertia.

Making Sorcerers CON based casters in 3d would have made more thematic sense (IMHO) but that's water under the bridge.

If they had not screwed that up, 5e's Warlock could be the INT caster it is supposed to be ... *grumble grumble* ... I"ll show myself out.

[Theodoxus]

And by the way, set the Artificer on fire. Burn it.

If the Ranger took the Artificer's subclasses, I could see doing that. I don't think there really needs to be a 'magic item making adventuring class', but I do like Alchemy as a crutch (subclass), and I think the armorer and artillerist could easily be refluffed as Ranger subclasses - and I definitely think the Battlesmith (completely refluffed, of course) should be baseline Ranger.

It would be a bit of work to do, but I think it would make the Ranger far more interesting.

[CountDVB]

Large part of this I think comes from how Warlock was maintained to be a Charisma caster than Intelligence caster like the initial plan was for 5th edition.

I get the explanation as because charisma supposedly to convince them to become your patron, but hoenstly, make more sense for them to look out for smart cookies willing to make a deal and take short cuts. Plenty more of those.

I would just make Warlock intelligence caster and to keep the theme, probably half-caster like Ranger and Paladin.

[neonchameleon]

Large part of this I think comes from how Warlock was maintained to be a Charisma caster than Intelligence caster like the initial plan was for 5th edition.

I get the explanation as because charisma supposedly to convince them to become your patron, but hoenstly, make more sense for them to look out for smart cookies willing to make a deal and take short cuts. Plenty more of those.

I would just make Warlock intelligence caster and to keep the theme, probably half-caster like Ranger and Paladin.

Honestly there are also a lot of really stupid people willing to make deals and take shortcuts; it's low Wis not high Int that's the relevant characteristic. Cha makes more sense to me. Or no stat at all. Sorcerer as Con based on the other hand does make sense. I don't see the warlock as a half caster when it already has a distinct casting role; if we need an arcane half caster drop the bard back; bards will always be very different from paladins.

[CountDVB]

Honestly there are also a lot of really stupid people willing to make deals and take shortcuts; it's low Wis not high Int that's the relevant characteristic. Cha makes more sense to me. Or no stat at all. Sorcerer as Con based on the other hand does make sense. I don't see the warlock as a half caster when it already has a distinct casting role; if we need an arcane half caster drop the bard back; bards will always be very different from paladins.

True, but if you were an employerer of the upper level, you'd want intelligent employees who would get stuff done and not all patrons are maleficient or have bad intentions toward you. You want to learn more than beyond the norm and hence why you were taken under the wing of your patron. Here is how they were described:

"Warlocks are seekers of the knowledge that lies hidden in the fabric of the multiverse. Through pacts made with mysterious beings of supernatural power, warlocks unlock magical effects both subtle and spectacular. Drawing on the ancient knowledge of beings such as fey nobles, demons, devils, hags, and alien entities of the Far Realm, warlocks piece together arcane secrets to bolster their own power."

Hence why intelligence. You gotta be looking for it for the sake of it. You're smart to find the cracks and get the interest of these upper individuals or groups.

[Man_Over_Game]

At this point, we're basically dividing the classes into Fighting-Man, Magic User, Cleric and Thief, with a bunch of extra multiclassing rules so that you can make custom classes by mixing-and-matching.

I would not be surprised if this is what 6e turns into. Personally, I think it'd be a blessing. No more Arcane Archer/Ranger/Scout situations. Now they're all the same thing with varying levels of the core classes.

I could kinda see it play out as a sort of "Purchase" or "Prerequisite" system. You get Extra Attack for every 3 Fighter levels, AND you can "Spend" your Fighter levels on specific features that change how you fight (for example, "Enchant Weapon" costs 1 Fighter and 1 Wizard level).

People are enjoying more and more multiclassing, and the existing system doesn't support that (look at how many folks make Paladin/Sorcerer builds work just because the mechanics support it, and how many folks struggle to make the Storm Sorcerer/Tempest Cleric work just for thematics). By making things to work as part of relationships as opposed to unrelated classes, it almost guarantees that anyone can play almost anything they want, assuming they do it right.

Regardless of how they do it, I just hope that they take multiclassing seriously next time . That alone forces them to acknowledge how each class performs with each other, as opposed to a white-room situation.