Sorcerers are weird

[LibraryOgre]

I imagine it’s because nothing in the trait lists it as dependent on being raised by elves. It’s a racial trait, not a learned cultural or societal one.

RAW, an elf raised by Dwarves still has the trait because they’re an elf.

So, dwarves are born as Beer Dwarves, Stone Dwarves, or Metal Dwarves, depending on which innate tool proficiencies they have? A variant human might be born with a crossbow in his hand, indicating that he was divinely ordained to have the Crossbow Expert feat?

"It doesn't say it's not innate"... it also doesn't say it is innate. That is an inference from very bare descriptions, and conflicts with both sense (q.v. Beer Dwarves v. Stone Dwarves) and with the description of what racial traits mean. I direct you to "Racial Traits" on page 17 describes racial abilities as "The description of each race includes racial traits that are common to members of that race." Emphasis added. They're not necessarily innate. Just what a member of a given race is most likely to have. So that high elf raised by dwarves? He might have no reason to know long swords. He may have no reason to know cantrips, or even Elven. From a mechanical perspective, he'd be a custom subrace of one.

[Kane0]

Aaaand that's my next adventure. Thanks!

You're welcome

I am legitimately curious which one of those it is, in your opinion/setting/DM-call.

The sorcerer.
Creatures with 'innate' access to magic can get that from nature and/or nurture in varying amounts based on the particulars of that race (and individual), and of the nature part it may or may not be in the blood or something else (like in the horn of a unicorn for example).
Sorcerers by contrast are much more heavily weighted specifically towards blood with the focus on bloodlines, lineage and whatnot.
You could feasibly extract magic from magically inclined creatures in a variety of ways with varying success, but in this circumstance a blood transfusion will have much better chances of success using a random sorcerer than say, a random tiefling.

Edit: There are of course exceptions, Wild Sorcerers for example are... wildcards.

[RSP]

So, dwarves are born as Beer Dwarves, Stone Dwarves, or Metal Dwarves, depending on which innate tool proficiencies they have? A variant human might be born with a crossbow in his hand, indicating that he was divinely ordained to have the Crossbow Expert feat?

"It doesn't say it's not innate"... it also doesn't say it is innate. That is an inference from very bare descriptions, and conflicts with both sense (q.v. Beer Dwarves v. Stone Dwarves) and with the description of what racial traits mean. I direct you to "Racial Traits" on page 17 describes racial abilities as "The description of each race includes racial traits that are common to members of that race." Emphasis added. They're not necessarily innate. Just what a member of a given race is most likely to have. So that high elf raised by dwarves? He might have no reason to know long swords. He may have no reason to know cantrips, or even Elven. From a mechanical perspective, he'd be a custom subrace of one.

I’m not sure why you seem agitated at me: I didn’t write the rules. I agree that it makes sense to allow things like the optional rules for character creation in Tasha’s, but that’s not what’s in the RAW of High Elves.

Elven character raised by Dwarves? Still has Elven Weapon Training; still has a Cantrip. Why? Because they’re an high elf, not a dwarf.

[Lokishade]

I never liked Sorcs.

The theme of Wizards, has always been "power comes at a cost". Wizards sacrifice everything to unlock the wonders of magic. They have to devote themselves so much to it, they don't have any time left to jog every morning before sword practice. And their social skills usually suffer.

Along comes the Sorcerer, whose powers come at no cost. They're power creep Wizards.

Their magic is innate, so they don't have to carry a fragile spellbook that can get destroyed or stolen. You thought it was about bloodlines or a magical event? No. It was to get rid of a stupid book. Also, they are self-taught, so they don't bow to a master and no league of mages lords over them.

To top is off, their spellcasting stat is charisma, because who want to be an awkward nerd? What, you thought this was because they channel their will? If that were the case, their spellcasting ability would have been Wisdom.

Make no mistake. This is what Sorcerers are about. They weren't built out of a perticular fantasy. They were built as an excuse to bend the rules surrounding the Wizard.

How do you develop your powers? Why do you have to sacrifice your martial proficiency if you don't need to devote time to developing your powers? Are there ceremonies involved? If I drink dragon blood or inject myself with magic crystals, do I get more spells?

The answer to all that seems to be: "Shut up and cast your Fireball".

That's why I never liked Sorcs.

[Bobthewizard]

I’m not sure why you seem agitated at me: I didn’t write the rules. I agree that it makes sense to allow things like the optional rules for character creation in Tasha’s, but that’s not what’s in the RAW of High Elves.

Elven character raised by Dwarves? Still has Elven Weapon Training; still has a Cantrip. Why? Because they’re an high elf, not a dwarf.

You can make an elf raised by dwarves and use the dwarf mechanics. Then they wouldn't have the longsword training and wizard cantrip. They'd have proficiency in hammers and axes and medium armor, and be slower than other elves. But you can role-play them as a high elf.

Or you can make your elf character raised by dwarves and use elf mechanics and say the traits are inborn. Either one is fine. I let the player decide for their character.

[Segev]

I never liked Sorcs.

The theme of Wizards, has always been "power comes at a cost". Wizards sacrifice everything to unlock the wonders of magic. They have to devote themselves so much to it, they don't have any time left to jog every morning before sword practice. And their social skills usually suffer.

Along comes the Sorcerer, whose powers come at no cost. They're power creep Wizards.

Their magic is innate, so they don't have to carry a fragile spellbook that can get destroyed or stolen. You thought it was about bloodlines or a magical event? No. It was to get rid of a stupid book. Also, they are self-taught, so they don't bow to a master and no league of mages lords over them.

To top is off, their spellcasting stat is charisma, because who want to be an awkward nerd? What, you thought this was because they channel their will? If that were the case, their spellcasting ability would have been Wisdom.

Make no mistake. This is what Sorcerers are about. They weren't built out of a perticular fantasy. They were built as an excuse to bend the rules surrounding the Wizard.

How do you develop your powers? Why do you have to sacrifice your martial proficiency if you don't need to devote time to developing your powers? Are there ceremonies involved? If I drink dragon blood or inject myself with magic crystals, do I get more spells?

The answer to all that seems to be: "Shut up and cast your Fireball".

That's why I never liked Sorcs.

Well, sorcerers in 3e and 5e have always been weaker casters, mechanically in practice, than wizards, so they aren't actually getting to be "power creep wizards" in real play.

So there's that, at least.

[animorte]

Well, sorcerers in 3e and 5e have always been weaker casters, mechanically in practice, than wizards, so they aren't actually getting to be "power creep wizards" in real play.

So there's that, at least.

That’s pretty much what I was going to say. They’re more stream-lined, but weaker in just about every way.

Also, a lot of the circumstances mentioned about the details of Wizards almost rarely see play in what’s I’ve witnessed and heard. There’s a lot of immersion (and maybe some role-playing) required to account for the world’s different view of Wizards vs other casters.

I prefer Sorcerers. To each their own.

[hiptobecubic]

To top is off, their spellcasting stat is charisma, because who want to be an awkward nerd? What, you thought this was because they channel their will? If that were the case, their spellcasting ability would have been Wisdom.

Definitely disagree. Charisma is a fine stat to use because their magic is an *expression* of themselves. It might have nothing to do with wisdom at all. Wild Magic is almost antithetical to WIS imo. The fact that being charismatic *also* means you're a smooth talking swindler is just a weakness of the simplicity of D&D. Otherwise i think basically only bards would be charisma based.

How do you develop your powers? Why do you have to sacrifice your martial proficiency if you don't need to devote time to developing your powers? Are there ceremonies involved? If I drink dragon blood or inject myself with magic crystals, do I get more spells?

Just because you didn't learn your magic by reading cookbooks doesn't mean you don't spend your time on it. I would expect sorcerers spend a long time learning to control their innate abilities. Maybe you were born with excellent aim, but you won't make it onto the team without lots of practice.

[RSP]

Just because you didn't learn your magic by reading cookbooks doesn't mean you don't spend your time on it. I would expect sorcerers spend a long time learning to control their innate abilities. Maybe you were born with excellent aim, but you won't make it onto the team without lots of practice.

I get what you’re saying, but that’s not what innate means. Innate is the opposite of learning through experience.

[Unoriginal]

Sorcerers have the innate capacity for magic, that does not mean they don't have to train it.

Same way as most humans have the innate capacity for making complexe sounds, recognizing sound patterns, and associating said patterns with specific ideas/concepts, but we still require to learn a language to communicate with others, and will have to learn *even* more in order to produce what is considered poetry by our specific cultures.

To be more specific: all 5e Sorcerers are born with the capacity to turn sorcery points into spell slots, and the reverse. If they train that capacity they learn to use sorcery points *when* they spend a spell slot in order to modify the spell's parameters.

[RSP]

Sorcerers have the innate capacity for magic, that does not mean they don't have to train it.

Same way as most humans have the innate capacity for making complexe sounds, recognizing sound patterns, and associating said patterns with specific ideas/concepts, but we still require to learn a language to communicate with others, and will have to learn *even* more in order to produce what is considered poetry by our specific cultures.

To be more specific: all 5e Sorcerers are born with the capacity to turn sorcery points into spell slots, and the reverse. If they train that capacity they learn to use sorcery points *when* they spend a spell slot in order to modify the spell's parameters.

All characters have the innate capacity for magic. Training it is what creates Wizards. You don’t need to have magic born in you to do magic. Non-innate casters can become Clerics, Druids, Wizards, Bards, EKs, etc.

Sorcerers have it sans training. That’s what innate means. Or as stated in the PHB: “No one chooses sorcery; the power chooses the sorcerer.” If you choose not to train, you’re still a Sorcerer.

[Keltest]

All characters have the innate capacity for magic. Training it is what creates Wizards. You don’t need to have magic born in you to do magic. Non-innate casters can become Clerics, Druids, Wizards, Bards, EKs, etc.

Sorcerers have it sans training. That’s what innate means. Or as stated in the PHB: “No one chooses sorcery; the power chooses the sorcerer.” If you choose not to train, you’re still a Sorcerer.

Sure, youre just a level 1 sorcerer. Humans have the innate capacity to throw things far and accurately. Doesnt mean every human is equally good at it, or that we dont improve our innate abilities through practice.

[hiptobecubic]

Sure, youre just a level 1 sorcerer. Humans have the innate capacity to throw things far and accurately. Doesnt mean every human is equally good at it, or that we dont improve our innate abilities through practice.

Right. I don't understand why someone would see "innate" as "incapable of refinement." Wizards learn to make all the famous dishes by reading The Joy of Cooking. Sorcerers learn to make their own unique dishes by following their intuition in the kitchen, but that doesn't mean they are born knowing what all their favorite dishes will be.

[LibraryOgre]

I’m not sure why you seem agitated at me: I didn’t write the rules. I agree that it makes sense to allow things like the optional rules for character creation in Tasha’s, but that’s not what’s in the RAW of High Elves.

Elven character raised by Dwarves? Still has Elven Weapon Training; still has a Cantrip. Why? Because they’re an high elf, not a dwarf.

That is not the RAW; that's the suggested. I cited a part of the book that specifically says that is just the common, not innate and necessary. That High Elves have those as innate abilities is an interpretation not supported by the text.

[Slipjig]

It's a holdover from a previous edition that no longer fits the current mechanics. You also have to ask whether Eldritch Knights, Arcane Tricksters, and Bards have to get their papers stamped, too. It's the same issue you have with the Tower of High Sorcery in DL.

Personally, I'd rule that they don't care about you until you are casting Level 2+ spells in public, but that everybody who casts those spells has to register. Yes, that includes all Elves over a certain level, but I think the Elves resenting (or resisting) that could be an interesting plot point.

[Unoriginal]

All characters have the innate capacity for magic. Training it is what creates Wizards. You donÂ’t need to have magic born in you to do magic. Non-innate casters can become Clerics, Druids, Wizards, Bards, EKs, etc.

Sorcerers have it sans training. That’s what innate means. Or as stated in the PHB: “No one chooses sorcery; the power chooses the sorcerer.” If you choose not to train, you’re still a Sorcerer.

As I wrote in the post you're quoting, all Sorcerers are born with the capacity to turn sorcery points (their own internal spark of magic) into spell slots (the abstraction for how much a character can interract with the Weave to activate spells before needing to rest), and the reverse.

That's something no other can do.

A Sorcerer can then train that further, learning how to use their sorcery points while they are casting to modify the spell on the fly, which is what Metamagic is.

Metamagic is 100% something that they learn to do, since anyone can learn it to some extent as shown with the Metamagic Adept feat. But not only the weakest Sorcerer has more of the spark of magic that what can be achieved otherwise (a Metamagic Adept gaining 2 sorcery points to use metamagic with, and that's it), no one can replicate the Sorcerer's "sorcery point to spell slot to sorcery point" innate capacity.

High Elves can't do it, Drow can't do it, Tieflings and Aasimar can't do it.

A Wizard needs to train for years to shoot fire from their fingers, when a Sorcerer can just do it thanks to being a Sorcerer. BOTH the Wizard and the Sorcerer needs to train to be able to cast Polymorph, via different methods of course, and no matter how much he trains the Wizard will never be able to Twin Polymorph's effect as often as the Sorcerer can.

[Witty Username]

I mean the whole idea of magic having regulation is to prevent its reckless use,
It shouldn't matter how one is able to do it.
I would just require the innate casting races to register, heck, for things like Tiefling and Drow, it makes sense that you may have some extra bureaucracy on the boarder given your a low reputation race.

Clerics, druids, etc. Are exempt because of strong religious lobbies.

[Keltest]

Clerics, druids, etc. Are exempt because of strong religious lobbies.

And even that implies the religious lobbies are in turn regulating the behavior of clerics to allow that kind of trust. So it's not necessarily no regulation, just a different group.

[LibraryOgre]

It's a holdover from a previous edition that no longer fits the current mechanics. You also have to ask whether Eldritch Knights, Arcane Tricksters, and Bards have to get their papers stamped, too. It's the same issue you have with the Tower of High Sorcery in DL.

AD&D Tower of High Sorcery would have worked so much better if they put the requirement for the test be "Able to Cast 3rd level spells", rather than "After you can cast 1 2nd level spell, for some reason." If you had to pass the test to go from 4 to 5 without becoming a renegade, then you could have also made bards past the test to go from 6 to 7 (when they get 3rd level spells)

[Witty Username]

Sorcerers have the innate capacity for magic, that does not mean they don't have to train it.

Same way as most humans have the innate capacity for making complexe sounds, recognizing sound patterns, and associating said patterns with specific ideas/concepts, but we still require to learn a language to communicate with others, and will have to learn *even* more in order to produce what is considered poetry by our specific cultures.

To be more specific: all 5e Sorcerers are born with the capacity to turn sorcery points into spell slots, and the reverse. If they train that capacity they learn to use sorcery points *when* they spend a spell slot in order to modify the spell's parameters.

All characters have the innate capacity for magic. Training it is what creates Wizards. You don’t need to have magic born in you to do magic. Non-innate casters can become Clerics, Druids, Wizards, Bards, EKs, etc.

Sorcerers have it sans training. That’s what innate means. Or as stated in the PHB: “No one chooses sorcery; the power chooses the sorcerer.” If you choose not to train, you’re still a Sorcerer.

This dichotomy is probably the biggest reason I dislike sorcerer from a thematic standpoint, first the concept of training is fundamental to the class and level system. So sorcerer must have to train and hone their skills, but they are defined as innate power without needing to study or learn. This has a gap to hide in, the concept of talent vs study and practice, but this thematic split simply confuses the identity of both sorcerer and wizard, as the sorcerer mechanics convey conceptually the gains of iteration and improved understanding (Metamagic). It amounts to the only thematic take away for sorcerer is "The Stupid Wizard"

I honestly think a lot of setting design works better with the removal of the sorcerer, with the possibility of some of its mechanics being reabsorbed into the Wizard, either as base class features or a subclass. Bard is a much more thematic fit for charisma spellcasting, and Warlock has a better mechanical base for being an innate caster anyway (If one wanted to go that route).

[Gignere]

This dichotomy is probably the biggest reason I dislike sorcerer from a thematic standpoint, first the concept of training is fundamental to the class and level system. So sorcerer must have to train and hone their skills, but they are defined as innate power without needing to study or learn. This has a gap to hide in, the concept of talent vs study and practice, but this thematic split simply confuses the identity of both sorcerer and wizard, as the sorcerer mechanics convey conceptually the gains of iteration and improved understanding (Metamagic). It amounts to the only thematic take away for sorcerer is "The Stupid Wizard"

I honestly think a lot of setting design works better with the removal of the sorcerer, with the possibility of some of its mechanics being reabsorbed into the Wizard, either as base class features or a subclass. Bard is a much more thematic fit for charisma spellcasting, and Warlock has a better mechanical base for being an innate caster anyway (If one wanted to go that route).

I think a better analogy to compare the differences between the innate magic of the sorcerer and the technical study of magic of wizards is cooking.

The chef that creates great dishes without any precision versus the food scientist that also create food but following exact formulas.

Does the current iteration of 5e sorcerer and wizards make that distinction? Probably not enough. I feel that at a minimum sorcerers should have the former metamagic feat eschew materials, in that sorcerers should not require a component pouch or even focus to cast, unless the spell calls for a material component with a cost.

Another thing I’d like for the sorcerer is even less spells known but way more metamagic and easier access to metamagic. As well as the ability to change the V,S components of the spells like maybe for this sorcerer they have to have S components for all spells regardless of the original requirements unless they use subtle.

I feel like the design space for sorcerers should be they create spectacular effects innately and on their own terms but of course like the chef that cooks by intuition still need training to become a master chef, the sorcerer would similarly need training to access more powerful spell effects/metamagic effects. Perhaps their training is much less formal than a wizard and is more like self practice and less schooling.

[animorte]

I agree that Bards already cover the Charisma casting well enough.

Another thing I’d like for the sorcerer is even less spells known but way more metamagic and easier access to metamagic.

I’d be absolutely fine with this and I already like Sorcerers.

Perhaps their training is much less formal than a wizard and is more like self practice and less schooling.

Well said. I’ve always felt this way too. Just because you don’t study in the books to improve and expand doesn’t mean you aren’t passionate about what you’re doing.

[Psyren]

So, dwarves are born as Beer Dwarves, Stone Dwarves, or Metal Dwarves, depending on which innate tool proficiencies they have? A variant human might be born with a crossbow in his hand, indicating that he was divinely ordained to have the Crossbow Expert feat?

"It doesn't say it's not innate"... it also doesn't say it is innate. That is an inference from very bare descriptions, and conflicts with both sense (q.v. Beer Dwarves v. Stone Dwarves) and with the description of what racial traits mean. I direct you to "Racial Traits" on page 17 describes racial abilities as "The description of each race includes racial traits that are common to members of that race." Emphasis added. They're not necessarily innate. Just what a member of a given race is most likely to have. So that high elf raised by dwarves? He might have no reason to know long swords. He may have no reason to know cantrips, or even Elven. From a mechanical perspective, he'd be a custom subrace of one.

This is correct. Adding to your quote from PHB 17, we have concrete rules showing that not every member of a given race is guaranteed to get all the racials listed in their entry. The PCs do, because adventurers are assumed to be special by default in 5e (see DMG 37), but the NPCs aren't guaranteed to have these.

For example, MM 342 provides the specific example of taking the Druid statblock and making it a Halfling, but that NPC Halfling is shown to only get the Lucky trait from their race, not Nimbleness or Brave like a PC Halfling would. Similarly, the NPC creation rules on DMG 282 provide suggested racial traits that NPCs can be customized with, and the list does not include every feature from that race's entry - Half-Orc NPCs in the table for example get Menacing and Relentless but not Savage Attacks, and Dwarves get Stonecunning and Resilience but not Combat Training etc.

Essentially, the common features are not all guaranteed for every member of a race, so extrapolating backward from them to conclude "every feature in the race entry must be wholly innate/divine and not involve training, culture, or even variable talent at all" is not supported by the rules. Elves, Tieflings et al can in fact vary in racial magical capability just like they can from class.

[animorte]

Essentially, the common features are not all guaranteed for every member of a race, so extrapolating backward from them to conclude "every feature in the race entry must be wholly innate/divine and not involve training, culture, or even variable talent at all" is not supported by the rules.

I very much like this sentence. It supports my statement a while back on that thread about players opening the monster manual at the table. Just because a basic stat-block says this thing does not logically conclude that everyone of that particular race species shares influence in their history. Everybody is allowed to be at least a little bit different.

[Witty Username]

Well said. I’ve always felt this way too. Just because you don’t study in the books to improve and expand doesn’t mean you aren’t passionate about what you’re doing.

I don’t disagree with the sentiment, so much as self-practice feels thematically wizard to me. In-deapth knowledge and an exacting nature does not require schooling in any formal sense.
My last wizard I concepted was a goblin book-thief that realized he could use arcane power in the same way as the book he stole described, for example.

But this kinda speaks to my sense of confusion, there shouldn't be a line between sorcerer and wizard so much as a gradient, like the chef analogy, many chefs I have known are at times very exacting, and others very freeform, as their mood allows and depending on what they are working with.

[PhoenixPhyre]

To me, a sorcerer's access to spells comes from within. They don't learn spells, they master the ones that are already latent inside of them. Their training isn't learning or study, it's self-mastery. They train to, with their will, bring the spell into being fully (instead of misfiring/fizzling). A teacher or book can guide, give advice, but isn't actually a source of the spells themselves. The spells are inside them, the struggle is to make them useful. Their understanding of magic is instinctive, driven by emotion and passion. They learn about components via trial and error, instinct, and yes, books (especially for material components). But those are more "hey, other people tried this. Let's try that too" instead of actually understanding why those components matter.

On the other hand, a wizard's source of spells is external. They learn them from books, from teachers, from private research. They are an empty vessel that can only be filled by dint of hard intellectual labor. Their understanding of magic is intellectual and "cold" (for lack of a better term). Based on first principles and practice. Being able to learn from others is a benefit that (in a sane world where wizards weren't "I cast all the spells") would also have tradeoffs. Broader range, in exchange for, well...not much. But that's an issue with wizards, not sorcerers.

Both access the same fundamental method of altering the universe (which is why both need the same types of components). And why they can cast similar spells.

Warlocks, on the other hand, cheat. They neither do the first principles understanding themselves nor have the magic indwelling in them. They bargain for scraps of other people's knowledge and the capability to control it. Their power is not theirs (even if their patron cannot withdraw it), although some later come into a stronger understanding of things themselves.

[Snowbluff]

They draw their power from innate abilities tied to their bloodline (or direct exposure that affects their blood). So, if we scrap the game mechanics, specifically the class designation, they’re essentially the same as High Elves, Drow, Tieflings, or any other race that gets to cast spells simply from their race. Are the elven racial casters all “Fey Bloodline Sorcerers”, Tieflings “Fiend Bloodline Sorcerers”, and Aasimars “Celestial Bloodline Sorcerers”?

Because you're right on the money. Sorcs are basically suped up versions of the casting certain creatures get innately. Not unlike a dragon or a demon, a sorcerer is a monster. This is also reflected in their casting stat, which is lost on some people.

Charisma is the stat of influence, but it also extends to the metaphysical level. This is the stat of innate spellcasting. It's not about being pretty, or speaking well, but rather impacting your surroundings. For ordinary people, this is merely being able to influence people socially, but for a monster or sorcerer, this effect is far more tangible. For example an atropal, which is pretty horrifying and grotesque in ways immediately apparent but also existentially, has a huge charisma score (although ironically IIIRC they're wis casters in 5e).

[EggKookoo]

One of the things I'd do with future-D&D -- something that people almost certainly would hate -- is get rid of the wizard class and make "wizard" a subclass of sorcerer. A wizard would be a sorc whose inherent arcane powers are present, but weak. So the sorc needs to bolster that power with some book-learning.

It would take retooling sorcery points so that the bulk of them come from your subclass, and the wizard subclass doesn't add to them, but that's a small change in context.

[Spore]

Waterdeep has a guild that polices Arcane casters. How the heck do they differentiate Drow High Magic casting vs being a Sorcerer? Do all High Elves need to join the guild?

This is some advanced governmental control, so I would say they do not differentiate. I as a DM would go one step beyond and have said races be categorized as arcanists, with everything that comes with it. Registration, laws and punishments, and prejudices.

Law sees the deed, not the source.

[RSP]

One of the things I'd do with future-D&D -- something that people almost certainly would hate -- is get rid of the wizard class and make "wizard" a subclass of sorcerer. A wizard would be a sorc whose inherent arcane powers are present, but weak. So the sorc needs to bolster that power with some book-learning.

It would take retooling sorcery points so that the bulk of them come from your subclass, and the wizard subclass doesn't add to them, but that's a small change in context.

I don’t know that I’d like the approach of rolling Sorc and Wiz together. I like 5e having differences in the how a character became a caster.

I’d actually probably like to see more separating them. Mechanically, I think the point of failure between Sorc and Wiz, what typically I’ve seen here as “Sorcerer is just a worse Wizard”, is that they need more distinction.

I personally like having Sorcerers use the Spell Point Variant (in lieu of Font of Magic, to help the mechanical class distinction.

So you’d have Sorcerers with Spell Points, being different from Warlocks with Pact Magic, and Wizards with their current system.

In the in-game fiction, this would create differences in how those characters do magic. A Warlock can’t help but do big bursts of magic, Sorcerers pull from their pool of strength in whatever ways are needed, and Wizards are beholden to the structure of their learned ways.

I’d even probably make it canon that the same magic effect can be accomplished multiple ways. As is, the rules are silent on whether, say, every Fireball requires the same S movements or the same V sounds. (This adds to the whole weirdness of Sorcerers if they’re all supposed to be the same V and S components, in my opinion.)

Just my thoughts on this, and my preference in more interesting options rather than less.