What are the unifying thematics of sorcerer?

[Witty Username]

A thing that has been rattling in my mind recently.
I believe that classes to function (at least in the scope of 5e) they need 2 components on the thematic end.
-be broad enough in scope to support multiple archetypes and concepts
- those archetypes being unified conceptual overlap and a shared central theme.

Paladin, for a case test, has a central theme, a warrior with divine power and conviction
And multiple archetypes
-the who, how and why they serve

But the main topic of my concern, Sorcerer.
Sorcerer definitely supports multiple archetypes, blood of dragons, blessed by the gods, imbuded with chaotic power, etc. On the other hand, how they are united, is much less clear to me. There is a theme of bloodline, but that isn't applied consistently with subclasses. Just out of the PHB, draconic sorcerer is clearly a bloodline associated with specific creatures, but wild magic is much more tied to phenomena and mindset. And it has become less clear as subclasses have gone on.

Now why does this matter? Well, the unified theme informs what is accessible to the base class. Rime's binding ice is regularly cited as a spell that should have been sorcerer exclusive, and I agree it fits nicely with a draconic sorcerer (specificly Silver or White dragon blood). However, does it make more sense as a spell accessible to clockwork soul than evoker wizard, not really.

I personally find that sorcerer could use some refinement to a more specific class, or possibly being broken up into classes with more distinct themes.

But what do other people think? Is this even an issue? Are there thematics of sorcerer that should be discussed? What would you like to see changed or stay the same with sorcerer (either on WOTCs end or as homebrew for games)?

[Unoriginal]

A thing that has been rattling in my mind recently.
I believe that classes to function (at least in the scope of 5e) they need 2 components on the thematic end.
-be broad enough in scope to support multiple archetypes and concepts
- those archetypes being unified conceptual overlap and a shared central theme.

Paladin, for a case test, has a central theme, a warrior with divine power and conviction
And multiple archetypes
-the who, how and why they serve

But the main topic of my concern, Sorcerer.
Sorcerer definitely supports multiple archetypes, blood of dragons, blessed by the gods, imbuded with chaotic power, etc. On the other hand, how they are united, is much less clear to me. There is a theme of bloodline, but that isn't applied consistently with subclasses. Just out of the PHB, draconic sorcerer is clearly a bloodline associated with specific creatures, but wild magic is much more tied to phenomena and mindset. And it has become less clear as subclasses have gone on.

Now why does this matter? Well, the unified theme informs what is accessible to the base class. Rime's binding ice is regularly cited as a spell that should have been sorcerer exclusive, and I agree it fits nicely with a draconic sorcerer (specificly Silver or White dragon blood). However, does it make more sense as a spell accessible to clockwork soul than evoker wizard, not really.

I personally find that sorcerer could use some refinement to a more specific class, or possibly being broken up into classes with more distinct themes.

But what do other people think? Is this even an issue? Are there thematics of sorcerer that should be discussed? What would you like to see changed or stay the same with sorcerer (either on WOTCs end or as homebrew for games)?

Well, the theme of the Sorcerer is innate/inherent magic.

Bloodlines are a way to get inherent magic, but it's not the only way. A Draconic Sorcerer may be a Dragon's grandchild or have been infused with draconic power due to taking a nap on a hoard. A Wild Magic Sorcerer is inherently magical on top of being a magic user... but I admit what they get from it isn't that representative of the thematics.

Later subclasses got better at representing that, I think, but still suffer from the base class having the "they got spells, it's enough" problem.

Ideally a Sorcerer rework would lean more on the "they're magical, not just magic users" concept, but we know it's not the direction the the design team for 5e-that-will-be-published-in-2024 is taking.

[Hytheter]

They're basically the comic book origin story class. You or your ancestor got struck by lightning/blasted with radiation/drank some mystic fountain water, and now you have weird super powers.

[Frogreaver]

As long as the basic caster solution, especially for arcane casters, is to give a big list of incredibly diverse spells with no particular themes to them except (doesn't heal) then most sorcerers and wizards are going to feel fairly similar. Sorcerer even more so than Wizard as the fewer spells known really forces you to pick all very good ones. This leads to generic feeling casters. The solution IMO is to give the subclass a more curated list, similar to cleric domains, and then grant maybe 1 spell from the class list per level outside those. Less generic spell picking and more subclass unlocks most of your spell package.

[Dienekes]

Unorginal has the gist of it. The theme of Sorcerer is something naturally attuned to magic.

Whether the mechanics actually bare that out is debatable. I personally "No." Largely because Sorcerer is saddled with its origin being "let's make a wizard for players who don't want to use Vancian." Back in 3e.

I would love it if game designers dug deeper into these concept to create truly unique mechanics that not just gesture toward but firmly plant their foot in the ground and firmly proclaim what the class is? Yes. But that's a lot of work. And I don't think WotC is really going to do that.

[RSP]

The theme was stated: innate magic from a third-party source that now is tied to their being.

The class aspect of it, however, was way too overly simplified (in my opinion). If you’re Elsa, why are you casting Fireball?

In my estimation, they should have curated spell lists for each type of Sorcerer, that reflects the innate magic within them.

Wizard makes sense having a broad range of spells they can access as they can study, in theory, any magic and learn it.

Sorcerers, though, should be limited to only those spells that make sense with their source.

That’s where WotC failed the theme.

[Dienekes]

The theme was stated: innate magic from a third-party source that now is tied to their being.

The class aspect of it, however, was way too overly simplified (in my opinion). If you’re Elsa, why are you casting Fireball?

In my estimation, they should have curated spell lists for each type of Sorcerer, that reflects the innate magic within them.

Wizard makes sense having a broad range of spells they can access as they can study, in theory, any magic and learn it.

Sorcerers, though, should be limited to only those spells that make sense with their source.

That’s where WotC failed the theme.

Personal opinion. I'm not even certain I think Sorcerers should have spells. At least not in the normal way. Spells are complicated, learned things. They have material components, require specific words, and hand movements, and learning. All of it is complicated and studious. You have to worry about spell slots, and long rests, and rituals.

Sorcerers should have none of that. Give them a range of flavorful versatile features that fit their subclass fluff that they can effectively spam without worrying about spell slots and all that stuff. Go all out with it. This is the magic class that doesn't get their magic because they have to learn, or make deals, or recite the catechisms of a deity. This magic is them.

Mind you, doing that is an entire 100% class rewrite. But still, I think the result would be interesting if nothing else.

[Witty Username]

Yeah, that matches some of my thinking if I was doing the game design.
Dragon disiple, dragonfire adept and the stuff from Races of the Dragon in 3.5 matches more what my mind would conjure with a mortal with the blood and power of a dragon.

Some of them have spellcasting or similar, alot of them just have wings and breath weapons.

Another thing on that line is sorcerer as subclass (the 5e Psionics treatment) where sorcerer would be refited as subclasses with an inate power theme for other classes.
We already see some of this in thought with wild soul and the psionic classes.

[CTurbo]

My single biggest gripe about the 5e Sorcerer when strictly speaking about flavor and what makes sense is that they're required to have material components. It their power is truly within them, then it doesn't make sense for them to need "stuff and things" to cast their spells with.

This is why ALL of the groups I have ever played with in 5e have long houseruled that Sorcerers do not need any material components to cast their spells.

Some say it's too powerful of a boost, while others think it's fine. I've known some DMs to not make any class keep up with material components.

I

[Psyren]

The class aspect of it, however, was way too overly simplified (in my opinion). If you’re Elsa, why are you casting Fireball?


In-universe you probably aren't choosing your spells like that - it's a gameplay convenience thing. The sorcerer's spells should just come to them, and if you're say descended from a silver dragon then it's true that you probably shouldn't have a bunch of fire spells.


My single biggest gripe about the 5e Sorcerer when strictly speaking about flavor and what makes sense is that they're required to have material components. It their power is truly within them, then it doesn't make sense for them to need "stuff and things" to cast their spells with.

This is why ALL of the groups I have ever played with in 5e have long houseruled that Sorcerers do not need any material components to cast their spells.

Some say it's too powerful of a boost, while others think it's fine. I've known some DMs to not make any class keep up with material components.

Any? Even costly ones? Because I agree that's a bit much. Even dragons need costly spell components.

[Unoriginal]

Any? Even costly ones? Because I agree that's a bit much. Even dragons need costly spell components.

Personally, I've no issues with magical beings in the D&D world having the innate capacity to cast some spells and sometime requiring components.

Making Sorcerers THE metamagic class was a good move, too. Credit where it's due.

[RSP]

My single biggest gripe about the 5e Sorcerer when strictly speaking about flavor and what makes sense is that they're required to have material components. It their power is truly within them, then it doesn't make sense for them to need "stuff and things" to cast their spells with.


They have Subtle Spell for that though, which, for my current PC that has it, I view not as “1 SP makes it so there’s no S, V component needed” but rather “his spells don’t need V or S components, but it’s easier on him if he uses them.” This translates to just assuming each spell costs +1 SP, unless he uses the components to make it less stressful on his body.

I don’t necessarily disagree with your post, I just think generalized rules for Spellcasting kind of prevents this.

Clerics literally get their spells from a god: why do they need components? It could be that the god demands them, but it could also be because WotC didn’t want to have different rules for different classes.

Likewise with Warlocks and Bards (who use the Words of Creation used by the gods - not the S and M components of creation, mind you - for their magic).

Wizards make sense to need components when going off the traditional idea they’re mastering what words and movements to pull magic into existence (like a stage magician saying “abracadabra”). Maybe Druids too, depending on the lore you’re pulling from.

But none of the other classes really have lore that requires it: it’s solely a function of D&D tradition and 5e simplified Spellcasting


In-universe you probably aren't choosing your spells like that - it's a gameplay convenience thing. The sorcerer's spells should just come to them, and if you're say descended from a silver dragon then it's true that you probably shouldn't have a bunch of fire spells.

Yes and no. I don’t think anything in the Sorcerer class (not counting the additional spells some bloodlines give) states this, or that spells should be selected in theme.

Which I believe was how the OP was framed. If it did, then at least anyone playing Sorc would have that stressed as a theme of the class.

[Mastikator]

They're basically the comic book origin story class. You or your ancestor got struck by lightning/blasted with radiation/drank some mystic fountain water, and now you have weird super powers.

That is a fantastic summary. +1

[RSP]

They're basically the comic book origin story class. You or your ancestor got struck by lightning/blasted with radiation/drank some mystic fountain water, and now you have weird super powers.


That is a fantastic summary. +1

Agreed, though it’s been a pet peeve of mine since learning of the 5e Sorcerer that they get the same amount of Prof as Wizards.

Wizards spend years in study to learn their magic. Sorcerers just have it happen.

Yet Sorcerers have zero to show for all that extra time they didn’t spend studying magic; while Bards get a bunch of extra stuff and know some words of creation…

[KorvinStarmast]

But the main topic of my concern, Sorcerer.

Sorcerer definitely supports multiple archetypes, blood of dragons, blessed by the gods, imbuded with chaotic power, etc. On the other hand, how they are united, is much less clear to me. There is a theme of bloodline, but that isn't applied consistently with subclasses. Just out of the PHB, draconic sorcerer is clearly a bloodline associated with specific creatures, but wild magic is much more tied to phenomena and mindset. And it has become less clear as subclasses have gone on. Get rid of the silly Tasha's Sorcerers and the themes are almost coherent.
Storm and Shadow are both thematically viable. For my money, Aberrant Sorc was already handled by GOO Warlock. Theme-wise.

But what do other people think? Is this even an issue? Are there thematics of sorcerer that should be discussed? What would you like to see changed or stay the same with sorcerer (either on WOTCs end or as homebrew for games)? The Wild Magic sorcerer is, thematically, one of the best parts of the game even though the mechanics could use another tweak. Magic is both powerful and dangerous, and the WM sorcerer is a channel for that powerful, dangerous thing that is magic.

They're basically the comic book origin story class. You or your ancestor got struck by lightning/blasted with radiation/drank some mystic fountain water, and now you have weird super powers. +1


Largely because Sorcerer is saddled with its origin being "let's make a wizard for players who don't want to use Vancian." Back in 3e. And the abomination that is making Charisma a casting stat. :smallfurious:


But that's a lot of work. And I don't think WotC is really going to do that. As I watch the UA for D&Done come out, they seem to be mailing it in.

The theme was stated: innate magic from a third-party source that now is tied to their being. Warlock, for the win. Don't need Sorcerer for that. :smallcool:

In my estimation, they should have curated spell lists for each type of Sorcerer, that reflects the innate magic within them.
Wizard makes sense having a broad range of spells they can access as they can study, in theory, any magic and learn it.
Sorcerers, though, should be limited to only those spells that make sense with their source.
That’s where WotC failed the theme. Agreed. And IMO, they ought to keep getting increases in the numbers of cantrips as the tiers go up. The cap at 6 seems weird to me as the are supposed to channel magic through themselves naturally, which speaks to me of them being far more able to tap into it for both minor and major majicks.
Agree on the need for thematic, curated spell lists, though.

Personal opinion. I'm not even certain I think Sorcerers should have spells. {snip} Sorcerers should have none of that. Give them a range of flavorful versatile features that fit their subclass fluff that they can effectively spam without worrying about spell slots and all that stuff. Go all out with it. This is the magic class that doesn't get their magic because they have to learn, or make deals, or recite the catechisms of a deity. This magic is them.

Mind you, doing that is an entire 100% class rewrite. But still, I think the result would be interesting if nothing else. If we are going to have a sorcerer, yes, I think you have hit the nail on the head. But as above, the devs are mailing it in. Doubt this would happen.

This is why ALL of the groups I have ever played with in 5e have long houseruled that Sorcerers do not need any material components to cast their spells. OK, keep the spells known as is, but no material components ... except for spells that consume expensive material components. How about that?

Making Sorcerers THE metamagic class was a good move, too. Credit where it's due. Concur. They just need one more at 7, and the D&Done idea to be able to swap Meta Magic during a long rest I think is one of the better ideas they have come up with.

[Mastikator]

Agreed, though it’s been a pet peeve of mine since learning of the 5e Sorcerer that they get the same amount of Prof as Wizards.

Wizards spend years in study to learn their magic. Sorcerers just have it happen.

Yet Sorcerers have zero to show for all that extra time they didn’t spend studying magic; while Bards get a bunch of extra stuff and know some words of creation…

Who says sorcerers don't practice and hone their magical craft?

[Vahnavoi]

"Sorcerer" is a near-synonym for "wizard" and "parent was dragon/faerie/demigod/whatever so they were born with it!" is background trivia that ought to be something you can affix to any class.

That's the truth of it. There is no reason for "sorcerer" to exist as a base class alongside wizard. It only does because of an artificial 3rd edition era split. Basically, WotC made a slightly different magic system and instead of saying "oh, so if you don't like classic Vancian, here's an alternative to use in its place", they made a minimally different second class.

The same points largely apply to "Warlock". "Made pact with supernatural forces" is a background explanation for wizards and clerics, depending on nature of those powers. There is no thematic justification for "warlock" being an entire different base class. It is so because during 3rd edition era, some supplement introduced an alternate magic system that got popular enough to get carried over.

In other words, the real unifying theme for sorcerers is that they use Charisma as their primary casting stat, and use spontaneous spell rules instead of classic Vancian. That's it. There is no non-mechanical answer that isn't just taking classic wizard themes and rebranding them as "sorcerer". The unifying them for the Emperor's new clothes is that he has none, never had. :smalltongue:

[lall]

In other words, the real unifying theme for sorcerers is that they use Charisma as their primary casting stat, and use spontaneous spell rules instead of classic Vancian. That's it.
So the unifying theme is non-dorks.

[InvisibleBison]

My single biggest gripe about the 5e Sorcerer when strictly speaking about flavor and what makes sense is that they're required to have material components. It their power is truly within them, then it doesn't make sense for them to need "stuff and things" to cast their spells with.

I don't think this is an issue. Just because sorcerers have magic within them doesn't mean they don't need tools to make that magic actually do anything.



Who says sorcerers don't practice and hone their magical craft?

Yes, exactly. Being inherently magical and being a sorcerer are not the same thing. It takes work to learn how to use your inherent magic to actually produce spells.

[RSP]

Warlock, for the win. Don't need Sorcerer for that. :smallcool:


As class design perhaps, however, thematically, Warlocks are way closer to Clerics than Sorcerers. They each get their powers from another being directly, in a dependent relationship (even if the PC isn’t aware of the relationship).

Sorcerers have that power in their own being, without ever having or needing that relationship.

Put another way, Warlocks and Clerics in an ancestry, lead to Sorcerous offspring in later generations.

[J-H]

Bloodline magic... which is what Warlocks used to be until they got swapped to patron.

In 5e the other unifiers are "they can slightly break the rules of magic a few times per day" and "You don't have to mess with a spellbook and have so much bookkeeping."

Like Ranger, they're a bit of a mess.

[Willie the Duck]

Fundamentally, I agree with a lot already said. Particularly

Sorcerers are a distinction used to justify a mechanical difference back in 3e pushed forward past where that mechanic is meaningful
D&D arcane magic (particularly any class that gets most of it, like wizards and sorcerers) are the main culprit in the lack of theme, since arcane magic is 'anything except cures (usually).'




Yeah, that matches some of my thinking if I was doing the game design.
Dragon disiple, dragonfire adept and the stuff from Races of the Dragon in 3.5 matches more what my mind would conjure with a mortal with the blood and power of a dragon.
Some of them have spellcasting or similar, alot of them just have wings and breath weapons.


I think, if the devs hadn't landed on ranger and paladin as the half-casters, there would have been some room to make some 'half-caster, but some decent extra abilities like either good combat skills (re-making the 5e paladin, but with different name/potential themes) or a bunch of stuff like wings&breath weapon' classes. Perhaps not unlike latest playtest warlock.

[KorvinStarmast]

There is no reason for "sorcerer" to exist as a base class alongside wizard. It only does because of an artificial 3rd edition era split. Basically, WotC made a slightly different magic system and instead of saying "oh, so if you don't like classic Vancian, here's an alternative to use in its place", they made a minimally different second class. The choice to make Charisma a casting stat was another unfortunate "design" choice. (Rant not indulged in)

There is no non-mechanical answer that isn't just taking classic wizard themes and rebranding them as "sorcerer". The unifying them for the Emperor's new clothes is that he has none, never had. :smalltongue:


Fundamentally, I agree with a lot already said. Particularly

Sorcerers are a distinction used to justify a mechanical difference back in 3e pushed forward past where that mechanic is meaningful
D&D arcane magic (particularly any class that gets most of it, like wizards and sorcerers) are the main culprit in the lack of theme, since arcane magic is 'anything except cures (usually).'
He shoots, he scores!
Cranky Old Man Voice:
Sorcerer and Warlock are Magic User levels before Name Level, which is Wizard. :smallyuk: :smallfurious:

[Psyren]

Personally, I've no issues with magical beings in the D&D world having the innate capacity to cast some spells and sometime requiring components.

I'm okay with them eschewing the free stuff, maybe even treating their body as an arcane focus or something. But costly materials aren't just there for a game balance reason, they demonstrate that some magic can't be divorced from the world around you.


Making Sorcerers THE metamagic class was a good move, too. Credit where it's due.

While I agree with this, I do wish we could get a little more metamagic on other casters. Say, if Metamagic Adept granted 4 points instead of 2, or could be taken more than once.

[RSP]

Who says sorcerers don't practice and hone their magical craft?

Well, it being “innate” says that: it’s an antonym of “acquired” or “learned”. If you have to do extra stuff to acquire the magic, then it isn’t innate.

But further, why don’t Bards and Druids have to practice and hone their craft? Or Artificers? Yet they all apparently had plenty of time not only to learn their magic, “practice and hone” it, AND learn, practice and hone skills, weapon proficiency and armor proficiency.

Sorcerers, if nothing else, never had to put the time in learning anything: it’s innate.

Arbitrarily deciding that regardless of their power being innate, that they need to “practice and hone” their magic, which takes the equivalent time of a person learning wizardry magic from scratch, and practicing and honing that magic, is, indeed, just arbitrarily making that up.

1. [practice and honing] = Sorcerer

2. Learning magic + [practice and honing] = Wizard

3. Learning magic + [practice and honing] + 1 more Skill + 3 musical instruments + long swords, rapiers, short swords, hand crossbows, clubs, great clubs, hand axe, javelin, light hammer, mace, sickle, spear and short bow = Bard

So why is a Sorcerer “practicing and honing” INNATE magic so much more time consuming than either a Wizard or Bard doing the same? Why does it take so much more time to master something INNATE over something LEARNED???

To add to this: the PHB states under Downtime Activities that to learn a tool, “The training lasts for 250 days and costs 1 gp per day. After you spend the requisite amount of time and money, you learn the new language or gain proficiency with the new tool.”

Musical instruments are “tools” in 5e. Therefore, the Bard had 750 days and 750 gold, in extra time and money just to learn their instruments; that the Sorc, for whatever reason, had to spend on “learning” their innate magic.

[Hytheter]

Sorcerers are arrogant, entitled, and lazy. They don't bother to learn other skills because they feel like they've already got life sorted. :smallamused:

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well, it being “innate” says that: it’s an antonym of “acquired” or “learned”. If you have to do extra stuff to acquire the magic, then it isn’t innate.


I don't see how this follows.

There are two parts to casting a spell--having the knowledge and having the magical "juice". Neither side is sufficient--a commoner who gets a book of 9th level spells can't cast them even if he can memorize them exactly. No spell slots. Similarly, a wizard who didn't prepare any spells can't cast them even if he has slots free.

Sorcerers have the knowledge innately. They have to train and practice to develop the "stamina" (spell slots) to actually produce the effect. A sorcerer is "born"[1] knowing every spell he'll ever know[2]. A wizard is "born" knowing zero spells and must acquire them through training. A cleric never knows the spells in detail[3]; they're mediated by a third party. A bard learns spells--like a wizard, he starts at 0 and acquires them. He just can't offload them to a written storage because of how they're learned.

In fact, all PC casters use the "acquired" route except for sorcerers. At least in the fiction.

[1] created, awakened, whatever.
[2] switching spells at level up is a non-diagetic gameplay convenience, not something fictionally active. For any of the classes that do so.
[3] They know the Universe SDK functions to call and have working API keys; wizards are hacking direct requests in curl.

[Hurrashane]

My ideal sorcerer would work more like the kineticist from Pathfinder. At will magic damage that you can shape various ways for a cost. Throw in some utility spells that they can cast component free or just always have (always on detect magic, identify x/lr, etc) and it'd work really well for an innately magical character.

Otherwise as said something simple like them being able to use themselves as an arcane focus would go a ways to sell that theme.

[Amechra]

Bloodline magic... which is what Warlocks used to be until they got swapped to patron.

Umm... I don't know what alternate timeline you've come from, but Warlocks have never primarily been bloodline-based. Oh, sure, it was an option back in 3.5 to go "my parents made the pact, and now I've got EVIL MAGIC POWERS because I don't own my own soul"... but the "I made a pact" stuff was always in the forefront.


Yet Sorcerers have zero to show for all that extra time they didn’t spend studying magic; while Bards get a bunch of extra stuff and know some words of creation…

That's because the 5e design team made the decision to turn the Bard's "traditional" weird 2/3rds casting (they capped out at 6th level in both 2e and 3.X) into full-casting instead of half-casting. Which... yeah, I've never been too happy with that decision.

[RSP]

I don't see how this follows.

There are two parts to casting a spell--having the knowledge and having the magical "juice". Neither side is sufficient--a commoner who gets a book of 9th level spells can't cast them even if he can memorize them exactly. No spell slots. Similarly, a wizard who didn't prepare any spells can't cast them even if he has slots free.

Sorcerers have the knowledge innately. They have to train and practice to develop the "stamina" (spell slots) to actually produce the effect. A sorcerer is "born"[1] knowing every spell he'll ever know[2]. A wizard is "born" knowing zero spells and must acquire them through training. A cleric never knows the spells in detail[3]; they're mediated by a third party. A bard learns spells--like a wizard, he starts at 0 and acquires them. He just can't offload them to a written storage because of how they're learned.

In fact, all PC casters use the "acquired" route except for sorcerers. At least in the fiction.

[1] created, awakened, whatever.
[2] switching spells at level up is a non-diagetic gameplay convenience, not something fictionally active. For any of the classes that do so.
[3] They know the Universe SDK functions to call and have working API keys; wizards are hacking direct requests in curl.

Is this your home brew lore / personal head cannon?

I don’t see this stated anywhere in 5e.

Explaining why a Sorc may have different spells after a metagame level swap, can be explained other ways, while maintaining what’s in 5e’s themes of the Sorcerer. For instance: the Sorc’s powers may just mature in a certain way over time.

The theme of the 5e Sorc is that they are innate casters, though.

I can certainly see various in-game ways to explain what’s occurring during the RP/story of leveling; but I think the class descriptions (which provide the 5e thematics of the class, as I see it) are really just for level 1.

The story will dictate what happens after the character is created.

But again, even if you assume they need to get a handle on their innate magic, why does that take so much longer than doing the same for other classes? And, then, what does having innate magic even mean?

Do other innate magic beings require years to get a handle on their innate magic?

Per the themes, having innate magic is actually a detriment to being a magic user in 5e fiction, as it takes significantly less time to learn arcane magic through Words of Creation, Patron’s teaching, etc., with no innate spark; then it does to learn Arcane magic with the innate spark.

[J-H]

Umm... I don't know what alternate timeline you've come from, but Warlocks have never primarily been bloodline-based. Oh, sure, it was an option back in 3.5 to go "my parents made the pact, and now I've got EVIL MAGIC POWERS because I don't own my own soul"... but the "I made a pact" stuff was always in the forefront.
You had me question myself, so I looked it up. Complete Arcane page 5. It's both, but leads off with bloodline, and is really a bit self-contradictory.


Born of a supernatural bloodline, a warlock seeks to master the perilous magic that suffuses his soul. Unlike sorcerers or
wizards, who approach arcane magic through the medium of spells, a warlock invokes powerful magic through nothing
more than an effort of will. By harnessing his innate magical gift through fearsome determination and force of will a warlock can perform feats of supernatural stealth, beguile the weak-minded, or scour his foes with blasts of eldritch power.
Adventures: Many warlocks are champions of dark and chaotic powers. Long ago, they (or in some cases, their ancestors) forged grim pacts with dangerous extraplanar powers, trading portions of their souls in exchange for supernatural power. While many warlocks have turned away from evil, seeking to undo the wrongs of their former colleagues, they are still chained by the old pacts through which they acquired their powers. The demand to further the designs of their dark patrons, or to resist them, drives most warlocks to seek the opportunities for power, wealth, and great deeds (for good or ill) offered by adventuring.



Background: Warlocks are born, not made. Some are the descendants of people who trafficked with demons and devils long ago.
Some seek out the dark powers as youths, driven by ambition or the desire for power, but a few blameless individuals are simply marked
out by the supernatural forces as conduits and tools. The exact nature of a warlock’s origin is up to the player to decide; just as a sorcerer is not beholden to the magic-wielding ancestor that bequeathed his bloodline with arcane power, a warlock is not bound to follow the source that gifted him with magic.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Is this your home brew lore / personal head cannon?

I don’t see this stated anywhere in 5e.

Explaining why a Sorc may have different spells after a metagame level swap, can be explained other ways, while maintaining what’s in 5e’s themes of the Sorcerer. For instance: the Sorc’s powers may just mature in a certain way over time.

The theme of the 5e Sorc is that they are innate casters, though.

I can certainly see various in-game ways to explain what’s occurring during the RP/story of leveling; but I think the class descriptions (which provide the 5e thematics of the class, as I see it) are really just for level 1.

The story will dictate what happens after the character is created.

But again, even if you assume they need to get a handle on their innate magic, why does that take so much longer than doing the same for other classes? And, then, what does having innate magic even mean?

Do other innate magic beings require years to get a handle on their innate magic?

Per the themes, having innate magic is actually a detriment to being a magic user in 5e fiction, as it takes significantly less time to learn arcane magic through Words of Creation, Patron’s teaching, etc., with no innate spark; then it does to learn Arcane magic with the innate spark.

That's one possible interpretation that prevents "innate" from meaning "no effort". Which is enough to make the statement I quoted false.

And no, the class descriptions are very much present throughout the whole class. You don't stop being bound by an Oath after 3rd level as a paladin. You don't stop being any of the class descriptions as you level. There is no fluff/crunch distinction--those class descriptions are rules. Rules you can deviate from with DM permission, like any other rule, but rules nonetheless.

-------

As for "requiring years"...who says it does? Where are you getting that bold section? It's not in any kind of rule that I see.

It's totally plausible that most wizards have to start early (say 11) and practice consistently for years to be able to do any magic at all, while most sorcerers come into their initial power very rapidly. This also fits the "innate magic" trope to a T--the guy who wakes up one day and can shoot fire. Not in any particularly controlled way (which is what the effort is), but can shoot fire without training. Or the guy who has to work and struggle to make this alien thing be under his control.

[RSP]

That's because the 5e design team made the decision to turn the Bard's "traditional" weird 2/3rds casting (they capped out at 6th level in both 2e and 3.X) into full-casting instead of half-casting. Which... yeah, I've never been too happy with that decision.

The designers made a bunch of questionable decisions in their “let’s keep it simple” philosophy (which the success of 5e has shown to be a good philosophy to grow the game).

I think designing classes with more unique structure to show magic (like the Warlock got with invocations and their Pact Magic casting), would have been better than just “everyone does Spellcasting the same”, without necessarily making the game more complicated.

For instance, as is, every caster needs to know V, S, M components, but the designers could have diversified how those rule interact with different classes.

Sorcerers may not need components due to their innate magical nature.

Likewise Bards could have been V component only casters, reflecting their words of creation. Silence would have been a hard shutdown for their unique style of magic, but they don’t need special stuff to hold weapons or a shield (or their instrument): it fits their theme more.

Leave the full V, S, M stuff for Wizards, which would be much more thematic to them, show why they don’t wear a shield, need component pouches, foci, etc.

Druids maybe don’t need M components when they’re outdoors in their natural environment, but otherwise need a focus.

These are all just off the top of my head but don’t make Spellcasting more complicated, you just need to know different aspects of the current rule to play your specific class; and can get away with knowing less of the component rules to play your specific class.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The designers made a bunch of questionable decisions in their “let’s keep it simple” philosophy (which the success of 5e has shown to be a good philosophy to grow the game).

I think designing classes with more unique structure to show magic (like the Warlock got with invocations and their Pact Magic casting), would have been better than just “everyone does Spellcasting the same”, without necessarily making the game more complicated.

For instance, as is, every caster needs to know V, S, M components, but the designers could have diversified how those rule interact with different classes.

Sorcerers may not need components due to their innate magical nature.

Likewise Bards could have been V component only casters, reflecting their words of creation. Silence would have been a hard shutdown for their unique style of magic, but they don’t need special stuff to hold weapons or a shield (or their instrument): it fits their theme more.

Leave the full V, S, M stuff for Wizards, which would be much more thematic to them, show why they don’t wear a shield, need component pouches, foci, etc.

Druids maybe don’t need M components when they’re outdoors in their natural environment, but otherwise need a focus.

These are all just off the top of my head but don’t make Spellcasting more complicated, you just need to know different aspects of the current rule to play your specific class; and can get away with knowing less of the component rules to play your specific class.

This I can mostly get behind, but honestly components are the least important thing. I'd rather move away from Spellcasting as the dominant feature and have it more in a supporting role for most classes.

[RSP]

And no, the class descriptions are very much present throughout the whole class. You don't stop being bound by an Oath after 3rd level as a paladin. You don't stop being any of the class descriptions as you level. There is no fluff/crunch distinction--those class descriptions are rules. Rules you can deviate from with DM permission, like any other rule, but rules nonetheless.

The class descriptions are present throughout the class, and whereas you don’t stop being them, they only really have meaning for the pre-campaign story character. The story generated in cooperative play will dictate what happens to them during the campaign.

For instance, the Wizard class states “Though the casting of a typical spell requires merely the utterance of a few strange words, fleeting gestures, and sometimes a pinch or clump of exotic materials, these surface components barely hint at the expertise attained after years of apprenticeship and countless hours of study.”

That only applies to the theme of the class until you start playing the game: the Wizard doesn’t actually need additional years of study to go from level 1 to level 20, or to gain new spells (upon leveling, though they can add other spells which require, in part, time).



As for "requiring years"...who says it does? Where are you getting that bold section? It's not in any kind of rule that I see.

It's totally plausible that most wizards have to start early (say 11) and practice consistently for years to be able to do any magic at all, while most sorcerers come into their initial power very rapidly. This also fits the "innate magic" trope to a T--the guy who wakes up one day and can shoot fire. Not in any particularly controlled way (which is what the effort is), but can shoot fire without training. Or the guy who has to work and struggle to make this alien thing be under his control.

That’s my point: if Sorcerers just “pop” and start shooting fire one day, how come they have nothing to show for whatever they did before that occurred? Bards get so much more AND still need to explain how they learned all their magic.

Sorcerers forego having to “learn” their magic, but have even less to show for having that extra time.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The class descriptions are present throughout the class, and whereas you don’t stop being them, they only really have meaning for the pre-campaign story character. The story generated in cooperative play will dictate what happens to them during the campaign.

For instance, the Wizard class states “Though the casting of a typical spell requires merely the utterance of a few strange words, fleeting gestures, and sometimes a pinch or clump of exotic materials, these surface components barely hint at the expertise attained after years of apprenticeship and countless hours of study.”

That only applies to the theme of the class until you start playing the game: the Wizard doesn’t actually need additional years of study to go from level 1 to level 20, or to gain new spells (upon leveling, though they can add other spells which require, in part, time).


Leveling up is in a weird state for lots of classes. There's a long runway and then a quick takeoff, it seems. But yes, the wizard model of "learned it myself because I'm so smart" is completely incoherent, I agree.



That’s my point: if Sorcerers just “pop” and start shooting fire one day, how come they have nothing to show for whatever they did before that occurred? Bards get so much more AND still need to explain how they learned all their magic.

Sorcerers forego having to “learn” their magic, but have even less to show for having that extra time.

Sure. They should get more. I'm not claiming that sorcerers are well designed. Far from it. They've always been the lesser, mostly-ignored step-children of the wizard. But I was only responding to one particular thing. That being "innate" contradicts having to put any effort in.

I could see a case to be made for sorcerers having to work hard to control the magic (sort of the inverse of a wizard, who has to work hard to learn it in the first place) and that taking the extra time. But mostly I see sorcerers as being normal people (who don't get mechanical proficiencies in anything, because mechanical proficiencies are entirely adventuring-related) for longer.

Imagine a world where all adventurers start at age X (adjusted for lifespan).

So a fighter begins training his adventuring-related weapons and armor stuff at age X - Y (generally). Before that, he was <background>.

A wizard begins training his adventuring-related spell stuff at age X - Z (where Z >> Y). Before that, he was <background>.

A sorcerer begins training his adventuring-related spell stuff at age X - epsilon (where epsilon << Y, maybe even just a few days). From there, he has to labor to train and develop that magic. But everything he'll ever get to is part of him. So a sorcerer is just a (say) acolyte longer. Or starts adventuring earlier. Etc.

There's no text that says that the "post background, pre-adventuring training phase" has the same length for every character, let alone every class.

[RSP]

This I can mostly get behind, but honestly components are the least important thing. I'd rather move away from Spellcasting as the dominant feature and have it more in a supporting role for most classes.

I agree that Spellcasting, the ability, is to blame.

I’m guessing you’re fine with more complexity. So am I. I was just going with components because they’re probably the most complex thing about the Spellcasting feature, while not actually adding anything of real substance to game play. More often than not, it’s either handwaived by DMs, or you take a feat to get around them. I was using th components rule set to show they could have been more interesting without being more complex.

I’d love if every magic class had different mechanics in terms of how they use/access magic. Warlock is a fantastic example of how they should have done magic users.

Have Wizards be the standard magic system, keeping it as is. Then Warlock is an alternative, while Sorcerers use Spell Point Variant as a base feature rather than slots (among other changes like the spells they have being related to their magic source).

That’s more interesting, to me, than just slapping “Spellcasting” on classes and calling it a day.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I agree that Spellcasting, the ability, is to blame.

I’m guessing you’re fine with more complexity. So am I. I was just going with components because they’re probably the most complex thing about the Spellcasting feature, while not actually adding anything of real substance to game play. More often than not, it’s either handwaived by DMs, or you take a feat to get around them. I was using th components rule set to show they could have been more interesting without being more complex.

I’d love if every magic class had different mechanics in terms of how they use/access magic. Warlock is a fantastic example of how they should have done magic users.

Have Wizards be the standard magic system, keeping it as is. Then Warlock is an alternative, while Sorcerers use Spell Point Variant as a base feature rather than slots (among other changes like the spells they have being related to their magic source).

That’s more interesting, to me, than just slapping “Spellcasting” on classes and calling it a day.

My WIP system takes a different tack. First, everyone uses the cleric/druid "prepare from whole list every day" model. But with a lot fewer spells. And spell points (ish, with differences) and no spell levels/slots. Just bare spell point costs.

There aren't wizards. There are three "full-casting" classes:
- Priests, covering divine magic. They get the ability to tack on rider effects to their spells. Things like "casting a damaging spell lets you heal someone as a bonus action" or "casting a healing spell gives a buff to the person healed/lets you damage someone as a bonus action." Their other big thing will be Miracles--basically Divine Intervention scaled so it comes on at a much lower level for lower effect, increasing in effect size as you level.

- Shamans, covering primal magic (replacing druids). They get the ability to manifest elemental zones, basically placeable auras. Each one does something, mostly control oriented, and they can detonate them for increased effect (but ending the use). Their spellcasting is more effective when targeted on people in their elemental zones.

- Arcanists, replacing wizards and sorcerers. They get metamagic as their big thing, expanded to include stuff like changing shapes, etc. Their subclasses basically boil down to "how did you learn your magic". Some learn it via books, gaining an increased repertoire but a smaller pool of effort. Some have it innate, meaning a smaller set of spells but more "mana" to throw around. Etc.

Three (currently) half-casters, all taking "gish" attitudes:

- Spellblade (replaces bard): debuff/damage "magus". Can combine spell and sword. Gets offensive Bardic Inspiration; some subclasses get to use it like 5e's BI instead. Very little support.

- Oathbound (replaces paladin, but is a very close copy): Support/damage "divine gish". Basically unchanged.

- Ranger: Gains more control and more damage.

And then one "weird" caster: warlocks. They're moving more to the 3e model of mostly altering eldritch blast with shapes and effects. They'll get to learn spells by spending (more abundant) invocations, but not very many. But won't be limited by list. No list of their own, with EB as a class feature not a spell.

Oh, and I'm removing force damage as a thing. Force effects will still exist, but force damage will become magical piercing or bludgeoning instead.

[RSP]

I could see a case to be made for sorcerers having to work hard to control the magic (sort of the inverse of a wizard, who has to work hard to learn it in the first place) and that taking the extra time. But mostly I see sorcerers as being normal people (who don't get mechanical proficiencies in anything, because mechanical proficiencies are entirely adventuring-related) for longer.

Normal people do get skills and other proficiencies though. You have craftsmen, merchants, guards, thieves, etc.

Even if they’re an Acolyte for 5 years longer than the Wizard PC, who left to go learn magic spells they should have something to show for that (even in the over-simplistic “their entire life is defined by being an acolyte). The PHB states they could have learned at least 5 tools in that time, for instance (though I completely understand not wanting that level of granularity in PC creation, I appreciated 2e’s starting age modifiers).



Imagine a world where all adventurers start at age X (adjusted for lifespan)…

There's no text that says that the "post background, pre-adventuring training phase" has the same length for every character, let alone every class.

I’m not sure “pre-adventuring training phase” even exists independent of the background. It could be backround ramps right up to [campaign start]. This is more how I think if it anyway; Background is a broad overview of what you did prior to the campaign starting.

So you’re a Criminal who just had innate magic start happening the morning of the events the DM starts describing in their session 1. Likewise Soldier straight into Fighter, etc.

But, regardless, the training of a Bard involves learning way more stuff than the “training” of a Sorcerer (which doesn’t need training to be a Sorcerer, outside of skills).

(Side rant: the Sorc has horrible skill choices. “I have innate magic within me so I must then be inclined towards Arcana, Deception, Insight, Intimidation, Persuasion, and Religion.” Makes zero sense.).

[PhoenixPhyre]

(Side rant: the Sorc has horrible skill choices. “I have innate magic within me so I must then be inclined towards Arcana, Deception, Insight, Intimidation, Persuasion, and Religion.” Makes zero sense.).

After some reflection, I think the concept of class skill lists doesn't make much sense. I'd rather have classes give some 1-2 fixed proficiencies and then put the "choose X skills" directly in the character creation part or maybe in backgrounds.

Like fighters could get Athletics, wizards and sorcerers arcana, clerics religion, etc.

[RSP]

Like fighters could get Athletics, wizards and sorcerers arcana, clerics religion, etc.

I like having it be more of a choice, though I’d still argue why being born with a magical bloodline makes you proficient in knowing about Arcane lore.

[Just to Browse]

You had me question myself, so I looked it up. Complete Arcane page 5. It's both, but leads off with bloodline, and is really a bit self-contradictory.

Bless you for doing the research on this. I was 100% sure warlocks were bloodline casters too.

[tKUUNK]

Sorcerers are arrogant, entitled, and lazy. They don't bother to learn other skills because they feel like they've already got life sorted. :smallamused:

ha. yeah that's it right there!

[Amechra]

You had me question myself, so I looked it up. Complete Arcane page 5. It's both, but leads off with bloodline, and is really a bit self-contradictory.

Thank you kindly! I was mostly going off my recollections of how the rest of the edition treated them, which generally leaned more towards the "you made a pact!" side of things.

[Pex]

Your idea is sound, but there is an underlying problem. Sorcerers can have any spell on their list. They aren't made to play in their own theme. A silver/white dragon sorcerer can and often will still cast Fireball to a player's happy content. A divine soul sorcerer can inflict wounds as cure them, create undead and banish demons, while still casting Fireball.

Only their non-spell class features give a hint to their personal forte. Without forced specialization no overall theme can exist without fiat of saying "bloodline" as an excuse. Paladins can have different subclass features, even spell choices, but they play samey so you can recognize a common characteristic. All the classes do, except for sorcerer and wizard. Their spells are too varied in effect. You will find the occasional cleric who does not cast Spiritual Weapon, the druid who does not cast Moonbeam, but you will know they are a cleric or druid.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Your idea is sound, but there is an underlying problem. Sorcerers can have any spell on their list. They aren't made to play in their own theme. A silver/white dragon sorcerer can and often will still cast Fireball to a player's happy content. A divine soul sorcerer can inflict wounds as cure them, create undead and banish demons, while still casting Fireball.

Only their non-spell class features give a hint to their personal forte. Without forced specialization no overall theme can exist without fiat of saying "bloodline" as an excuse. Paladins can have different subclass features, even spell choices, but they play samey so you can recognize a common characteristic. All the classes do, except for sorcerer and wizard. Their spells are too varied in effect. You will find the occasional cleric who does not cast Spiritual Weapon, the druid who does not cast Moonbeam, but you will know they are a cleric or druid.

And this, to me, is the main thematic weakness of both the wizard and sorcerer. There's really no "hey, that's a sorcerer/wizard" calling card. Metamagic sorta counts for sorcerers, but wizards really have no such thing.

[Hytheter]

And this, to me, is the main thematic weakness of both the wizard and sorcerer. There's really no "hey, that's a sorcerer/wizard" calling card. Metamagic sorta counts for sorcerers, but wizards really have no such thing.

Have you considered that maybe being able to pull from a wide array of disparate abilities is the theme?

Mind you I think having more than one class in this zone is a mistake, and the wizard definitely needs some sort of limiter. But I think there's merit to the idea of a 'catch-all magic' archetype.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Have you considered that maybe being able to pull from a wide array of disparate abilities is the theme?

Mind you I think having more than one class in this zone is a mistake, and the wizard definitely needs some sort of limiter. But I think there's merit to the idea of a 'catch-all magic' archetype.

"I can do <this> today and be completely different tomorrow"...isn't a theme. It's an anti-theme. It's the absence of thematic coherence. And that's where wizards (not sorcerers, due to very limited spell selection) sit.

Personally, "I can do all magic", especially when "magic" is as loose and unbound as D&D magic is, is a synonym for "I can do anything". Which is horrible both for worldbuilding and especially for the game. It's not jack of all trades, master of none, it's master of all trades. And that shatters the whole underlying concept of a team-based TTRPG to shreds. Even bards, the official jack-of-all-trades class can really only build for mastery in one of those in any given character. Not swap back and forth basically at will.

Having any "catch all" classes, whether magic or not, is a mistake in a class/level game. Because classes are supposed to be thematically coherent and limiting. Yes, I said it. Classes are supposed to define what you can't do, what you're bad at. And "I do it all" isn't much of a limitation. Which means it's a badly designed class.

[Amechra]

Have you considered that maybe being able to pull from a wide array of disparate abilities is the theme?

The thing is that that worked back in the days when the Magic-User was one of four classes whose whole thing was that they had a few weird magic tricks that they could pull out of their butt (emphasis on few). It's more awkward when the Wizard is one of twelve classes (of which three of them have the same "broad access to magic tricks" theme), and has automatic and consistent access to a large spell list full of broadly effective spells.

[Witty Username]

And this, to me, is the main thematic weakness of both the wizard and sorcerer. There's really no "hey, that's a sorcerer/wizard" calling card. Metamagic sorta counts for sorcerers, but wizards really have no such thing.
The theme of wizard is spellcasting through knowledge, creativity and practiced repetition.
Subclasses lend themselves to traditions, fields of study and practical vocations.

Because wizard works with the premise that magic use is a body of knowledge and skills that can be applied, this lends itself to why different archetypes can bleed together (A chemist is not forever bound to a lack of understanding of creative writing for example).

Wizard does also get to cheat a bit as it hews the closest to the magic-user of the oldest editions. Much of how wizard functions mechanically and thematicly is strongly tied to D&D in terms of setting.
The dividing line between wizard and bard back in the day was non-existent in terms of spellcasting method, because it was the same, just the bard divided attention between other skills as well.

Sorcerer acts to complicate this, as sorcerer implies a hard divide between learning and aptitude, which is incoherent on the face of it. Bloodline is the attempted solution to this, sorcerers don't cast, they are. But it doesn't follow through with this idea, or establish why the bloodlines would have any similarity to eachother.
Sorcerer's distinctions are entirely mechanical, spontaneous casting in 3.5, metamagic in 5e, charisma casting in both. But these have no or tenuous conection to the stated themes. Which makes sense as the primary design goal is gameplay, mostly simplicity of play in comparison to other casters.

This isn't to say wizard doesn't have problems, but its problems are less class theme and archetype, and more that magic (and consequently spellcasting) in 5e is nebulously defined. And martial classes not getting Tier 3 and 4 abilities worth anything, which is the more glaring problem in my mind.

[InvisibleBison]

"I can do <this> today and be completely different tomorrow"...isn't a theme. It's an anti-theme.

Being a generalist is absolutely a theme. It may not be one that works particularly well in D&D, but it's hardly nonsensical.


Which is horrible both for worldbuilding

I don't see how the ability of any spellcaster to cast any sort of spell inherently causes any worldbuilding problems.

[TaiLiu]

Personally, "I can do all magic", especially when "magic" is as loose and unbound as D&D magic is, is a synonym for "I can do anything". Which is horrible both for worldbuilding and especially for the game.
I think the way magic worked in Jack Vance's writings was pretty coherent and made for some pretty nifty worldbuilding.

[Amechra]

I think the way magic worked in Jack Vance's writings was pretty coherent and made for some pretty nifty worldbuilding.

Yeah, it's a shame that D&D's magic effectively has nothing to do with how magic works in Vance's stories, despite branding itself as "vancian".

[Witty Username]

I don't see how the ability of any spellcaster to cast any sort of spell inherently causes any worldbuilding problems.

Magic does benefit from an understanding of what it can and cannot do, or at least a vibe.
Alternatively what magic costs to use/learn.

D&Ds current assumptions is that spellcasters have increasing limitations based on the type of magic.
-Divine inspiration has hard limits on spellcasting in exchange for greater ease for martial capacity and practical skill.
(Cleric, some interpretations of warlock)
-practical knowledge, has reduced limits on spellcasting but is able to access other traits through specialization.
(Wizard, some interpretations on Warlock, Bard)
-innate talents, no limitations on spellcasting at all or drastically reduced, but no martial capacity
(Sorcerer)

But wizards get all the spellz, I here you say. Wizards get the most spells available at one time by way of the rituals as part of the spellbook, and have a significant base list. But the have limits the other casters don't have, wizards have a difficult time stealing spells from other lists (UA material and feats accessible to everyone). Every other class has capacity to do this, either by base class or subclasses.
Sorcerer has the largest accessible spell list in the game due to this, as it has several subclases that swipe large amounts of spells, divine soul being the most egregious at the entire cleric list.

Now these assumptions for D&D and there implementation are problems in of themselves that could use refinement. But to keep it focused on sorcerer, thematic problems are highlighted in this framework.
Innate casting reads as, "I just can", can I just get the entirety of the cleric class, sure why not. Defining limits in this framework is simply impossible, as limits are predicated on a link between reason for why thing and and how that informs function of thing.

While all spellcasters are affected by lack of world building in 5e, sorcerer is an active detriment to worldbuilding by premise, at least in its current state.

[InvisibleBison]

Magic does benefit from an understanding of what it can and cannot do, or at least a vibe.
Alternatively what magic costs to use/learn.

That's more of a storytelling principle than a worldbuilding principle. There's no reason why you can't have a setting with magic users whose abilities don't have well-defined limits.


Innate casting reads as, "I just can", can I just get the entirety of the cleric class, sure why not. Defining limits in this framework is simply impossible, as limits are predicated on a link between reason for why thing and and how that informs function of thing.

No, it's quite easy to define limits for sorcerers in 5e. For one thing, sorcerers are limited in the number of spells they can learn, so even if a sorcerer is able to learn any spell, she won't be able to cast any spell. For another, there are a limited number of spells in the game, that only do a limited amount of things. Admittedly, it's not a particularly well-designed set of things, and in theory it can expand as new spells are written, but it is a limit. And in a given game it's not hard to curate the list to some extent to firm up the limit if you so desire.


While all spellcasters are affected by lack of world building in 5e, sorcerer is an active detriment to worldbuilding by premise, at least in its current state.

Class mechanics can't be an impediment to worldbuilding in 5e unless you choose to make them be one, because in 5e NPCs don't have to have class levels. If you find that sorcerers cause problems with the way you want your world to work, you can just not have there be any sorcerers in your world until a PC chooses to play one.

[TaiLiu]

Yeah, it's a shame that D&D's magic effectively has nothing to do with how magic works in Vance's stories, despite branding itself as "vancian".
Maybe! Vance's spell system is more metaphysically coherent and interesting for sure, but it may work better as something to read about in books than for gameplay.

[Sindal]

What are the uniting thematically of a sorceror? hmm

I always like to explain differences between sorceror and wizard like a magic is a train and to use magic you need a ticket.

A wizard looks up where they want to go and which class they want to sit in, then pays for thr appropriate ticket using their hard earned money . They don't have to keep buying tickets I'd they don't want to but they certainly can

A sorceror is given a ticket. The destination may not be their choice and their class could vary but they are undoubtedly on the train with all the comodities of it. They must get on the train every day but thr train takes them to wonderful or frightening places.

As for the themes
1. A visible body change . This is purely narrative but sorcerors are usually some kind of strange person. Scales over their face. Weird coloured eyes. Shadowy skins. Fur in places their shouldn't be. They are unusual in a way that only magic can explain. You might know a wizard is a wizard because of what he has but a sorceorr is more aparent from the get go.

2. Subclass starting with a defensice mechanism. Your magic is alive and wants to stay that way. Most if not all sorcerors initial perks make them more likely to be alive. Dragonborn get free mage armour. Shadow have the cheat death feature. Divine soul can fix saving throws (plus healing). Often your magic will manafest in a way that make you a bit more naturally survivable. compared to wizards who's featured make their spells 'more' spell. A wizard can cast spells to protect themselves, sometimes even better than a sorceror can, but only because they picked those defensive spells in their book.

3. Metamagic. It's just our thing. We can change the rules of magic (within the rules and limitatiom) if the sitsutokn calls for its. Need to be quieter? More bombastic? Enduring? Metamagic tries to cater to those needs of flexible requirements of thr life of a adventurer. Can a wizard also bend rules? Yeah but they would have studied to break a rule that specific way. We choose if we want go break the rule.

4. Thus is a bit more true of the recent onednd changed, but they're given a lot of more generalized (blasting) tools for people that don't want to make too many agonizing zpell decisions. All onednd sorcs get access to their new cantrip, aoe, self healing and body morph spell. If its combat, a sorceror will always be able to respond so that even a sorceor that takes all utility and sneak spells can still toss acid at someone in a pinch. I imagine this would make thrm a little easier for people new to casting to pick up, compared to the preparation encouraged behavior a wizard typically has.

Their existence, I feel, makes a world more implicitly interesting. There are people out there who are touched by magic. Magic is mysterious. Magic is power. Magic is filled with arcane secrets and wonder.

I personally don't mind that they still need material components. They're an extention of magic, not magic the entity. Even they need help directing their spells. That's what catalysts are for after all. Like how cyclops needs his glasses to focus his beams. Therrs also narrative space for having very personal focuses.

Unrelated:
I love the idea of wizards and sorcerors interacting too. The drama. The teamwork. The heart and mind of magic.

"I studied for years to obtain this privilege. Do not lecture me about magic."
"Did you get chased out of town by a mob because everyone was convinced you were a cursed child turning into a bugbear? I didn't choose the lecture. The lecture came to me."

"Laura! You were right! I was looking at the runes you use to cast my illusion and just thinking about the shapes really helps me aim it!"
"Haha. I win the bet. You have to let me study your focus now"

"More fire?"
"MORE WILD FIRE!"

[LumenPlacidum]

Regardless of what the themes are now, I think there is plenty of narrative room for both to coexist.

If I were to try to design a metaphysical niche for the spellcasters, they would be:

Wizard: Master of manipulating the power of the environment. A wizard learns to carefully direct ambient magic to follow patterns a bit like a programmer, all to create "spells", which are prescribed magical programs. These can be incredibly specific and precise. As a wizard levels up, they become better at designing spells to achieve the exact result they wanted and they get better at building magical channels that can handle more energy throughput.

Warlock: Someone who bargained for their power, but once purchased, the power belongs to them! The warlock has no intrinsic ability to understand what they do, but their abilities are reliable and potentially very strong. As a warlock levels up, they continue to bargain away more and more, gathering more abilities into their collection. The patron has no ability to shut down the warlock's access because the deal is already struck.

Sorcerer: Someone for whom magical abilities are inevitably bubbling out of them. A sorcerer without training is likely to accidentally destroy themselves. For the sorcerer, using magic is a necessity, but using magic without collateral damage is a matter of endurance or discipline. As the sorcerer gains levels, they become more able to control the flow of raw energy that seeps from their body. They could always pour power into a manifestation, but before learning control, such a thing was an extreme gamble.

Cleric: Someone who channels power from a divine being. The powers of a cleric never belonged to themselves. At every moment, the use of that power is subject to the approval of the divinity. As a cleric levels up, they gain more personal and specific attention from their god and more authority among the god's followers. Unlike a warlock, a cleric can be shut off from their power of they lose connection with their god.

Bard: A master of manipulating others, the magical talents of the bard come from those upon whom the bard is using their talents. When a bard inspires you, they are unlocking some magical potential in you. When they charm, they are manipulating your own basic magic to accomplish this. As a bard levels up, they learn to unlock and steal more of their targets' source and learns to manipulate objects and natural phenomena. A bard with no audience has no power over anyone.

Paladin: The abilities of a paladin ultimately stem from an oath they make to themselves. They are made more by the raw determination made manifest by their own words and beliefs. As a paladin levels up, their sheer will becomes greater. Their magical effects happen because they MUST happen. Otherwise (inconceivably), the paladin might fail to uphold their word.

I don't really have any good ideas for druids and rangers...

[Witty Username]

Druid and Ranger are about manipulating magic as it flows naturally, and so the their spells are inherently tied to the natural world. In the case of druid this is veneration, the natural world is something to protect, serve and call apon. For rangers this is a more practical consideration, as the natural world is their living space. For both, this translates to magic that manipulates life and force primarily, Animal friendship, plant growth, goodberry, but also firestorm and call lightning. This is distinct from cleric as while druids and rangers can serve nature deities the service of the deity is secondary to the service of nature, rather than the other way around. This is also distinct from wizard as, despite magic is an inherent force in the world and therefore natural, the wizard is agnostic to the world "as it is." And so lose that more specific connection.

This complicated by Cleric having principle based archetypes, for those that don't want the deities. My take on this, is that druid and ranger are narrower than cleric in scope, but still broad enough to carry distinct archetypes. And while packing together classes like this is possible. it looses distinction.

To bring it back to sorcerer, the main thing that tie sorcerers together is, they have access to magic without an obvious outside source, this can cover alot of ground for characters, but it leaves the base weak, as the primary definition is negative space rather than a set of traits. Cleric, Paladin and Warlock have some similar growing pains as the are defined by pacts and service, and so thematically are tied strongly to the specific kind of thing they are pacted to, which can get a bit weird with base class stuff. A celestial warlock casting Hunger of Hadar is the kind of thing here, or clerics having alot of healing and radiant damage. I personally think alot of design problems with sorcerer in comparison to other classes leads back to this, as thematically sorcerer is a bit confused on what it can/should be doing as a regular thing due to tensions between the base class and subclass, and giving alot of information of what a sorcerer likely cannot do but little of what it can.

I like the above of sorcerer, tying sorcerer more strongly to wild magic, but that is more the thing, sorcerer needs to have something and stick with it, or have alot more shifted from base class to subclass than, at least I feel, the 5e system would reasonably tolerate.