D&D (2024) The sorcerer shouldn't exist

[Corinnguard]

i feel like it would be just as easy to dig up one of the many old threads that discuss that very topic and have over half the work already done for us.

but personally i think the major missing positions are
warlord
swordmage
psion
shapeshifter
summoner/pet class

Very true. Or we find a master brewer like Laser Llama or Kibblestasty to satisfy our need for a new class for 5e. I also wouldn't mind seeing some conversions of PF1 classes to 5e.

Swordmage- Magus
Psion- Psychic
Shapeshifter- Shifter (the Legendary Games version)
Summoner- Summoner

 

[tetrasodium]

You need to let go of the idea of wizard as a sorcerer subclass. I'm among posters who have proposed it, but it isn't entirely a genuine desire. Rather it started as a reaction to posters who want to get rid of sorcerer by shoving it under wizard. The argument "but wizards have a gift for magic too" was first made by them to try to justify sorcerer erasure. The current "if they have an inherent gift for magic, then wizards should be sorcerers" is just taling their arguments to the logical conclusion.

Trust me, we sorcerer fans are happy with wizards being a thing. We wouldn't be here if wizard fans just accepted their favorite class isn0't the only spellcaster around and let it go. But no, they keep beating the bush, and here we are.

Using whatever criteria you used to define "spellcaster" to exclude claeric bard druid etc, that bold bit is backwards because currently wizard is the only "spellcaster" around. The shade thrown at sorcerer isn't out of a desire to make wizard the only spellcaster around, it's an expectation that sorcerer needs to be something unique due to the fact that "wizard but hot" is so unquestionably a wizard or there would be enough noteworthy about the class to not require it be summarized as a wizard subclass.

Going beyond that is the fact that the "sorcerer needs to be a wizard subclass" is only part of why it comes up, the other part is an IF statement about how sorcerer should find its own niche rather than a niche that is so weak & underrepresented mechanically in the class that it needs to be described as a wizard subclass

 

[Remathilis]

What RPG was primary designed rules-first? I really don't get it.

Pathfinder. It was designed to create new lore for existing rules.

And you're mixing up three distinct parts of design: concept, mechanics, lore. Concept is just that, an Idea that can have multiple expressions. Take the goblin. The concept of a goblin can lead to the 5e fey creature or the Pathfinder pyromaniac, and nothing in the mechanics would change. If lore was sacrosanct, there would be no way Pathfinder could have changed our expunged so many D&Dism over the years (including the most recent OGL purge). Golarion wasn't designed first, it was designed to make sense of the stuff in the SRD.

 

[Corinnguard]

Going beyond that is the fact that the "sorcerer needs to be a wizard subclass" is only part of why it comes up, the other part is an IF statement about how sorcerer should find its own niche rather than a niche that is so weak & underrepresented mechanically in the class that it needs to be described as a wizard subclass

Would you say that both classes are conceptually different from one another? In earlier editions of D&D and PF1, the sorcerer was viewed as a spontaneous spellcaster who inherited some of their magical nature from some magical ancestor such as a dragon, a celestial or a fiend. The wizard otoh was the prepared spellcaster who studied and learned the ways of magic. Two completely different concepts.

 

[Vael]

of course not, it's just if there's a choice between creating a new thread or necroing an old one my inclination is to use the one we've already got.

Fair enough

but personally i think the major missing positions are
warlord
swordmage
psion
shapeshifter/monster class
summoner/pet class

This is more or less my same list, but I would separate out the Shapeshifter as a generic metamorph class and create a two Monster classes, Lycanthrope and Vampire. I think they are unique enough to warrant their own classes.

 

[Vaalingrade]

No they don't. Most will - but a compelling character does not require a compelling backstory. In fact the point of some characters (including the LotR hobbits) includes not having their backstories dominated by specific events. Sometimes the most compelling thing to do for a story is take a deliberately fairly ordinary person and have the extraordinary events happen after the story starts.

That doesn't make anything actively extraordinary.

Doesn't make any of those events magical either.

Which is the point.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Pathfinder. It was designed to create new lore for existing rules.

And you're mixing up three distinct parts of design: concept, mechanics, lore. Concept is just that, an Idea that can have multiple expressions. Take the goblin. The concept of a goblin can lead to the 5e fey creature or the Pathfinder pyromaniac, and nothing in the mechanics would change. If lore was sacrosanct, there would be no way Pathfinder could have changed our expunged so many D&Dism over the years (including the most recent OGL purge). Golarion wasn't designed first, it was designed to make sense of the stuff in the SRD.

Designers can and do change rules and lore all the time for different expressions of a concept, but ultimately concept/lore comes first the vast majority of the time. Nearly all the lore concepts of Pathfinder came before any rules expression of them, certainly before Pathfinder designers put their hand in.

I feel like we're talking past each other. What are you trying to say?

 

[TwoSix]

Pathfinder. It was designed to create new lore for existing rules.

And you're mixing up three distinct parts of design: concept, mechanics, lore. Concept is just that, an Idea that can have multiple expressions. Take the goblin. The concept of a goblin can lead to the 5e fey creature or the Pathfinder pyromaniac, and nothing in the mechanics would change. If lore was sacrosanct, there would be no way Pathfinder could have changed our expunged so many D&Dism over the years (including the most recent OGL purge). Golarion wasn't designed first, it was designed to make sense of the stuff in the SRD.

Exactly. D&D wasn’t created to create a new way to explore Greyhawk, Greyhawk was created to be a framework to hold games of D&D.

 

[CreamCloud0]

and on the topic of classes, while it wouldn't be the same thing as introducing new classes wholesale i think you could get quite alot of mileage out of bringing back spheres/themed spell lists and using them interchangably on the current class chassis', with different classes having access to a different number of spheres, a wizard has three spheres, a sorcerer, druid or bard have two, a cleric, paladin or warlock have one, that sort of thing

 

[tetrasodium]

Would you say that both classes are conceptually different from one another? In earlier editions of D&D and PF1, the sorcerer was viewed as a spontaneous spellcaster who inherited some of their magical nature from some magical ancestor such as a dragon, a celestial or a fiend. The wizard otoh was the prepared spellcaster who studied and learned the ways of magic. Two completely different concepts.

In PF1? Yes conceptually different enough to both exist. The PF1 wizard is vancian✪ prep with more spells to prepare from scribe scroll & bonus feats for various significant things that lead to a rabbit hole. in PF1 the sorcerer is spontaneous spells known with more slots but gains spell levels a level late. Too many of those things in 5e are identical removed or eroded to the point of having little meaning & that's a big problem because wotc looked at that then said/designed for "spell list" as the wizard's key identity but didn't actually follow through on preserving it.

✪ before you ask I have no issues with the return of vancian casting & I'm sure you could find old posts of mine saying that it should be put back in to one degree or another but I'm not going to go hunting for one. Getting rid of it would do a lot to restore functionality of scrolls & wands as useful but not game wrecking items.