D&D General One thing I hate about the Sorcerer

[EzekielRaiden]

I know you like to think that it's merely the "Wizard fanboys" fault that 4E wasn't embraced by more of the community... but that is such an simplistic take with little basis in truth that I don't know why you keep clinging to it.

Is it simplistic? It reflects precisely what I've seen--and argued against--for years and years and years.

If we are to accept this argument, then, am I permitted to expect others to avoid simplistic, inaccurate glosses about 4e? Like the one we literally just got in this very thread, where someone said that every Striker attack was copy-pasted from every other, even though the proof that that isn't true is trivially easy to provide?

I assume you do it just to make yourself feel better to have someone to blame-- that it's all the fault of that one small group of people that the game didn't resonate, and now you rail against that group and their cause celebre any chance you get... but at some point you're going to have to accept that there were a lot more issues and a lot more people who didn't enjoy 4E for what it was beyond "Wizard fanboys".

The vast majority of people I have spoken to who so thoroughly hated 4e did so on the basis of blatant misrepresentations, self-admitted total ignorance, or intentional omissions. These folks were quite easily able to spread a great deal of falsehoods, and got a lot of people very riled up over nothing, or over extremely little. (Consider, for example, the three different users on another forum who point-blank claimed that it was impossible to roleplay while playing 4e--not that it was hard for them, for whatever reason, but that it was impossible for anyone to roleplay while doing it. Hell, the [in]famous Justin Alexander literally made that exact claim in his eternally-cited, rarely-read "dissociated mechanics" posts, an argument which he then proceeded to promptly abandon the moment it applied to a system he liked.)

Now, does this mean 4e was some sort of flawless diamond? Absolutely the hell not. Its presentation was very poor. Several early adventures were absolute dog feces. Skill Challenges were almost never actually used well in official publications, and were almost never explained well. Certain classes came out half-baked and required fixes or extra love (Paladin, Warlock, and Wizard, for example.) Some of the rules for certain elements, like stealth, were not well-made and thus got adjusted later. The designers made some decisions that, in the long term, proved unwise (e.g. I am completely convinced that it was 100% intentional that the game got very slightly more difficult at higher levels, forcing players to demonstrate better teamwork and cooperation in order to "keep up" with the power curve--but people complained about that, and then complained about the fix, and all the while complained that the whole thing was a treadmill, meaning it was impossible for WotC to make a correct move.) The monsters erred too much on the side of caution/"fat sack of HP with only moderate damage" when they should have leaned toward more danger. Class skills were not well-handled and carried forward certain unwise choices from 3e (e.g. giving Fighters fewer skills than other classes for literally no other reason than "Fighters got few skill points in 3e.") Somewhere around half of all feats and powers just...really didn't need to exist, as they were just not particularly worthwhile.

I could go on: the point is, I'm quite well aware that 4e has flaws, that it isn't perfect, that there are reasons to be critical of it, to demand better, etc. But the vast majority of criticisms actually levied on 4e had literally nothing to do with the game at all--and everything to do with a committed, vocal minority actively crusading to bring it down by whatever means necessary.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If we are to accept this argument, then, am I permitted to expect others to avoid simplistic, inaccurate glosses about 4e? Like the one we literally just got in this very thread, where someone said that every Striker attack was copy-pasted from every other, even though the proof that that isn't true is trivially easy to provide?

Absolutely. A lot of the people who had an issue with 4E have been exceedingly lazy in giving their reasoning-- the "it's just World of Warcraft" being the most obvious. I do not fault you or anyone else for getting annoyed at those people.

Had this been a thread about 4E specifically and I was reading it I'd probably make a similar point in that vein about the lame reasons people were giving about hating 4E... but since this is a thread about the differences of Sorcerers and Wizards and Minigiant's arguments all devolved down to them hating Wizards because they thought fans of Wizards is what caused 4E to not be embraced... I made the point I did.

 

[Minigiant]

I know you like to think that it's merely the "Wizard fanboys" fault that 4E wasn't embraced by more of the community... but that is such an simplistic take with little basis in truth that I don't know why you keep clinging to it. I assume you do it just to make yourself feel better to have someone to blame-- that it's all the fault of that one small group of people that the game didn't resonate, and now you rail against that group and their cause celebre any chance you get... but at some point you're going to have to accept that there were a lot more issues and a lot more people who didn't enjoy 4E for what it was beyond "Wizard fanboys".

Again I did not say that was the only reason why people didn't like 4e.

I said it's the main reason why Wizard fanboys didn't like 4e.

There were other reasons to not like 4e but those aren't relevant.

The relevant aspect was reverting wizards back into every role, demanding other arcanists not getting exclusive spells, and making all nondivine casters redundant.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Again I did not say that was the only reason why people didn't like 4e.

I said it's the main reason why Wizard fanboys didn't like 4e.

There were other reasons to not like 4e but those aren't relevant.

The relevant aspect was reverting wizards back into every role, demanding other arcanists not getting exclusive spells, and making all nondivine casters redundant.

I'd be very curious where exactly you hang out, because I've yet to see any of these "Wizard fanboys" you describe in the manner you do. They certainly aren't around here. I've yet to see anyone here on EN World throw a hissy fit that Warlocks get Eldritch Blast and Arms of Hadar and Sorcerers get Chaos Bolt but Wizards don't. Or cackling wildly that Sorcerers, Bards, and Warlocks no longer have a reason to exist (when most people know full well they exist because the classes all have interesting narratives and stories to tell, not because they require unique spells.)

 

[Minigiant]

I'd be very curious where exactly you hang out, because I've yet to see any of these "Wizard fanboys" you describe in the manner you do. They certainly aren't around here. I've yet to see anyone here on EN World throw a hissy fit that Warlocks get Eldritch Blast and Arms of Hadar and Sorcerers get Chaos Bolt but Wizards don't. Or cackling wildly that Sorcerers, Bards, and Warlocks no longer have a reason to exist (when most people know full well they exist because the classes all have interesting narratives and stories to tell, not because they require unique spells.)

Jeremy Crawford literally said they cut the Arcane Spell list because Wizards fans said the iconic aspect of Wizards is that Wizards have all the spells and they felt other Arcanists felt wrong having them. Even though they were planning on both general and specific class spell lists and could handle that with it.

you have tons of people who keep saying sorcerer and warlock should be wizard subclasses. Here in ENworld.

You have this very thread were people understand a Wizard only spell but blank on the concept of Sorcerer only spells.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Jeremy Crawford literally said they cut the Arcane Spell list because Wizards fans said the iconic aspect of Wizards is that Wizards have all the spells and they felt other Arcanists felt wrong having them. Even though they were planning on both general and specific class spell lists and could handle that with it.

you have tons of people who keep saying sorcerer and warlock should be wizard subclasses. Here in ENworld.

You have this very thread were people understand a Wizard only spell but blank on the concept of Sorcerer only spells.

Just as many people say Wizards should be a Sorcerer subclass. But in either case... they say that not because they are "Wizard fanboys" wherein the Wizard is the absolutely bestest greatest class in the world... but because they do not see enough difference between Sorcerers and Wizards. You can make that observation not caring one lick about the wizard class.

And yes... there are more spells that are for Wizards and not Warlocks/Sorcerers than there are spells for Warlocks/Sorcerers but not Wizards. I do not disagree with that. But I don't see anyone complaining that Warlocks and Sorcerers have the spells they have and that Wizards don't. What you say the so-called "Wizard fanboys" are doing. No one complains ("Wizard fanboys" or even just regular players) that Sorcerers can cast Chaos Bolt and Wizards can't. And no one complains that Eldritch Blast isn't on the Wizard spell list. And if/when WotC was to make more spells for Warlocks and Sorcerers that Wizards didn't get... few people would. Let alone all the so-called "Wizard fanboys".

But you know what? That's neither here nor there. You think there are "Wizard fanboys" who are peeing in the punchbowl for everyone else. That's fine. Believe whatever it is you want. I'll just say though that the more you push this narrative... this narrative that I think is more from your personal biases than any sense of objective realism... you are making it much easier for people to just ignore your complaints. As conspiracy theories become more outrageous and less tethered to what is actually going on... the easier it is to just let them wash away. So speaking personally... I think you are doing yourself a disservice to your own opinion by creating this derogatory cadre of players that are secretly controlling the ways and means of the game and constantly banging that drum. But hey... you do you.

 

[Willie the Duck]

You spelt clockwork sorcerer wrong.

hehe, maybe
but nothing beats, for me, psionic sorcery feature. The way spellcasting should be. No yapping or flapping hands like a spastic.
also clockwork would be better fit for artificer class

Tbf the Aberrant Mind looks better.
Until you look at the Abjuration and Alteration spell lists.

The Clockwork Sorcerer is a sorcerer who gets around the rather limiting spells-known issue by getting free Absorb Elements, Shield, Enhanced Ability, Knock, Counterspell, Dispel Magic, Banishment, Polymorph, Animate Objects, and Telekinesis*. *or a similar list of generally useful wizard/warlock/sorcerer spells (plus Lessor and Greater Restoration).

An Aberrant Mind Sorcerer is one that actually changes the way they cast -- both without people necessarily realizing you are casting a spell, and in that you can swap spells slots between levels at a reasonably efficient rate. That, along with ten extra spells over 9 levels that are still useful*, but hardly as efficient** at fleshing out your spell options.
*get your Detect Magic and Identify out of the way instead of Absorb Elements and Shield, for example
**there probably weren't two Divination/Enchantment spells you would have wanted from each of levels 1-5 that this frees your other spells-known up from having taken

Each has their uses (as does Divine Soul). And yes, Aberrant Mind is just Psion-lite and Clockwork Soul is the thematically the bloodline no one was asking for.

Because the design space is too crowded due too many classes for similar niche!

I would disagree. Obviously the wizard gobbling up any and all spells not cordoned off as divine creates a real limitation on what sorcerers can do to define themselves. However, there is still plenty of design space that theoretically could be taken up that simply is not being done.

• Bloodline-specific spells (as they are now, or as spells literally only available to a given bloodline) can work.
• Making them the half-caster/2-attack@L5 arcane ranger/paladin analog would work.
• Making them the 2/3 caster that bard used to be would work
• For that matter, making them closer to a bard analog --all levels of spells, but some scope limit, and then some real significant class feature support akin to expertise and bardic inspiration (and either enhanced inspiration or better armor/weapon options as subclasses) would work.
• Something akin to druids over clerics (wildshape or equivalent rather impactful non-spell feature) would work.

Or something else entirely (I picked these examples because they are familiar, but something genuinely new is not impossible. They did it with warlocks). Point is, the status quo of 'just like wizards, but with worse spell selection and less spells known in exchange for the minimally-playstyle-changing meta-magic' isn't the only option amongst the possibilities.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I'd be very curious where exactly you hang out,

Here.

Dear lord, just take a look at any martial vs spellcaster debate, or any of the DD1 threads where warlocks or sorcerers were getting something. It's so common, it would show up as part of the atmospheric makeup.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Here.

Dear lord, just take a look at any martial vs spellcaster debate, or any of the DD1 threads where warlocks or sorcerers were getting something. It's so common, it would show up as part of the atmospheric makeup.

The Martial vs Spellcaster debate isn't full of "Wizard fanboys" from what I've seen (in my opinion)... rather it's all been filled with "Spellcaster Haters" that continually bang the drum that spellcasters are overpowered. THEY are the people I see way more often than any ones that say "Wizards have to be the best." I personally don't care either way so it's not like I have a need to defend the Wizard class... I just see what I see. And that's many more people complaining that Martials are not as good as Casters, than Casters complaining they aren't more better than Martials.

But I think you've pinpointed exactly what we have here. We have all these people who THINK there must be "Wizard fanboys" milling about because the Wizard class seems to get an inordinate amount of stuff. So why else would this happen unless there was this group of Wizard class lobbyists in the background slipping cash to WotC to make sure this all came about?

I do not doubt that there are players who love Wizards. 3E designer Monte Cook made no bones about his love of the Wizard class. But just because there are people who love the Wizard class doesn't mean they have any ways to influence policy by banding together into a group of "Wizard fanboys" and having that actually work. After all... there are people who love Fighters out there... why haven't THEY been able to bang the drum to get Fighters more stuff as a group of "Fighter fanboys"? What's been their problem? Why are the "Fighter fanboys" apparently getting their butts handed to them and not been able to convince Jeremy et. al. about what Fighters need? Seems to me that they might need to step up their game if these "fanboy" groups all actually exist.

 

[ezo]

but blank on the concept of Sorcerer only spells.

Chaos Bolt. That was it for a long time, their might be more now... I couldn't tell you.