It is clear from your complaints that you do not like how many people are using multi-classing.
OK, so throughout your post, you've put a lot of words into my mouth and claimed that I've said things that I hadn't. Like the above - I criticised the attitude of "if a class doesn't work properly, just MC the problem away", I never criticised how people use MCing, because I really couldn't care less. So, here's the deal: Whenever you claim that I've said something, quote me exactly where I said and what I said as you make the claim. That way, you can see and engage with what I've actually written and respond to it, and I can see where you are coming from. I'm going to have to insist on this - if you don't support those claims, then I'm going to ignore what you've said.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Sorcerers are fine where they are at for known spells. They get the limit due to meta-magic being given to them as a class ability and its flexibility. If you want more spells learned without metamagic, then play a wizard. That being written, you can always homebrew a Sorcerer to be whatever you want and as powerful as you want. Charisma is the primary stat for paladins, bards, warlocks and sorcerers - you have a wide variety of classes to multi-class with as well. Wizards can multi-class with artificers or a rare subclass in another class. With flexibility you get a limit to your known spells, bards have the same thing again for them due to their abilities and equipment they can wear. If you want to increase the slots for sorcerers just remove wizards from the game because they will become less useful compared to sorcerers.
While I agree there should be a difference - Sorceror does get goodies that Wizards don't - that loss has to be proportional. If the Paladin had all their spells taken away as well as armour and weapon proficiencies on the basis that Paladins get Smites (insert your logic about Sorcerors v Wizards here], then you'd complain that they were too heavily nerfed, right? Now, Metamagic is really cool in theory, but as RAW is quite underwhelming. You start off with two options, which is hardly the changing-your-casting on the fly awesomeness that it's billed as. They do get more options later, but get orogressively worse options as the valuable ones get taken first. It's just underwhelming, and a Wizard gets more spells by Level 8 than Sorcerors ever get - and that's without their ability to gather more spells. While Sorcerors should get fewer spells than some (including Wizards), it's just disproportionate to their gains.
Personally, my preferred option is to improve meta-magic. Lean into what makes the sorceror unique. Give them more options from the outset, and let them gain them faster. Having only two options for most of a campaign (given most campaigns stoo before L13) really sucks and you normally only ever get three, and you will only ever get four if you stick it out to L17 - hardly the on-the-fly-versatility that matches a Wizard but I a different way! One of the suggestions that I was given when I first came to the site was to actually let them have access to all options when they gain the ability.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Sorcerers are fine where they are at for known spells. They get the limit due to meta-magic being given to them as a class ability and its flexibility. If you want more spells learned without metamagic, then play a wizard. That being written, you can always homebrew a Sorcerer to be whatever you want and as powerful as you want. Charisma is the primary stat for paladins, bards, warlocks and sorcerers - you have a wide variety of classes to multi-class with as well. Wizards can multi-class with artificers or a rare subclass in another class. With flexibility you get a limit to your known spells, bards have the same thing again for them due to their abilities and equipment they can wear. If you want to increase the slots for sorcerers just remove wizards from the game because they will become less useful compared to sorcerers.
While I agree there should be a difference - Sorceror does get goodies that Wizards don't - that loss has to be proportional. If the Paladin had all their spells taken away as well as armour and weapon proficiencies on the basis that Paladins get Smites (insert your logic about Sorcerors v Wizards here], then you'd complain that they were too heavily nerfed, right? Now, Metamagic is really cool in theory, but as RAW is quite underwhelming. You start off with two options, which is hardly the changing-your-casting on the fly awesomeness that it's billed as. They do get more options later, but get orogressively worse options as the valuable ones get taken first. It's just underwhelming, and a Wizard gets more spells by Level 8 than Sorcerors ever get - and that's without their ability to gather more spells. While Sorcerors should get fewer spells than some (including Wizards), it's just disproportionate to their gains.
Personally, my preferred option is to improve meta-magic. Lean into what makes the sorceror unique. Give them more options from the outset, and let them gain them faster. Having only two options for most of a campaign (given most campaigns stoo before L13) really sucks and you normally only ever get three, and you will only ever get four if you stick it out to L17 - hardly the on-the-fly-versatility that matches a Wizard but I a different way! One of the suggestions that I was given when I first came to the site was to actually let them have access to all options when they gain the ability.
Just weaken meta-magic then. Limit its uses to be based on proficiency bonus per long rest (max 5 uses) and give them unlimited spells they can learn if you want to homebrew it.
If your party is going to TPK but you need to max damage with a spell OR you need the best possible chance of the spell to not be resisted, well the heighten spell gives you the ability to impose disadvantage on the save for all sorcerer subclasses or the empowered spell allows you to pick and choose what damage dies to reroll up to your charisma modifier. Out of the arcane casters they have the most flexibility of their core class abilities. You can't do both of those with the Wizard or Bard, meanwhile the sorcerer can easily as a base class ability available to all subclasses. You can put a Wizard, a Bard and a Sorcerer right next to each other and have them cast the exact same damage spell, statistically speaking the Sorcerer will beat the Wizard and Bard every single time. Only the evoker subclass at level 14 will be able to statistically beat the sorcerer but would eventually die trying past a number of tries.
Whenever I read these "give the sorcerers more memorized spells" its the same as "I want to be in god mode". You don't see it, most likely you never will till you start thinking of 2nd and 3rd order consequences of changes for this. Why would anyone play a Wizard if you can increase the sorcerers memorized spell list? I mean wizards core abilities are ability to regain some spell slots on short rest and to learn new spells by scroll for a price and ritual magic casting, why play a wizard when you can play a sorcerer get meta-magic and gee now you have all these extra memorized spells to take away the pain of choosing what spells to know for the benefit of meta-magic. Why even have the wizard class at that point, just play a sorcerer, its better in combat for almost all situations. Oh right, the wizard was given an unlimited amount of spells known to compensate for not being as good as the sorcerer in combat saves and damage and the sorcerer was given a limited spell list the same as bards to compensate for their innate benefits of class.
So what would you give the Wizard to increase their abilities in regards to sorcerers if you increase the sorcerers spell list? Would you give the Wizard the ability to impose disadvantage on a saving throw based on their proficiency bonus or how about the ability to wear medium armor regardless of race? You'll have to give the Wizard something to compensate, otherwise most players will go with sorcerer as the default, because wizards would be arguably inferior to sorcerers.
Going with your analogy, you would argue that because the fighter gets 4 attacks and the poor paladin only gets 2 attacks, then up the paladins attacks to 3, its only fair right? Ignoring paladins gets an improved divine smite adding an extra 1d8 to their attacks, meaning they already get the equivalent of a 3rd attack at level 11, assuming their first two attacks hit doing an extra 2d8. It is 2nd order consequences you are choosing to ignore.
The best thing I can tell you is to look at the D&D Beyond study on classes made, not played, but made. Wizards were 8% and sorcerers were 7% of the played classes. The original creators of 5E did a good job balancing. As a dm, anecdotally, I've seen sorcerers played twice as often as wizards in my campaigns. And even then, more often the wizards come in as a character replacement once the players are 2nd+ tier of play due to how weak wizards are in combat till level 5. Meanwhile sorcerers are either the main from level one or part of a multi-class build just to bring meta-magic into the fray.
Every sorcerer subclass is second to the two in Tasha's for a very simple reason; spells known. The Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul both have 2 extra spells known per spell level up to spell level 5. That's a huge bonus. To fix this, every subclass needs similar treatment.
If you wanted to play a necromancer style shadow sorcerer, consider adding a similar feature with the spells you'd like.
The Dungeon Dudes (very knowledgeable D&D youtubers) actually discuss this in a fairly recent video. When they discuss The Shadow Sorcerer, they add a lot of spells I think you'll like.
Cause Fear, False Life
Darkness (although they already get that), Shadow blade
Animate Dead, Summon Shadowspawn (you could substitute this for Summon Undead and it wouldn't break anything if you like the undead more than the shadowy stuff)
Dimension Door, Shadow of Moil
Danse Macabre, Seeming
They also use this subclass with the expanded list in their Dungeons of Drakkenhiem episodes if you want to see how it plays. I really don't think this in any way makes a shadow sorcerer overpowered. I know it sucks requiring DM approval but this is something I think reasonable DMs would allow.
l wanted to make a Necromancer Sorcerer (Twin spell meta magic plus reanimation spells FTW)
Soooooo these two things don't actually work together. Twin spell requires you cast a spell that targets a single creature. Animate Dead, Danse Macabre, and the Summon Shadowspawn/Undead spells don't target a creature. I don't think any spells that reanimate or summon do. Animate Dead targets objects (corpses) as does Danse Macabre (which also targets multiple objects). Animate Dead cannot be used with twin spell when cast to maintain control of your minions either because it can target more than one of your undead creatures. Summon Shadowspawn/Undead target a point in space within range to summon the creature. It would be cool if this worked although likely OP.
I added this feature to the Divine Soul Sorcerer to fix it:
Divine Spells
1st-level Divine Soul feature
You can prepare an additional cleric spell that is available for you to cast, choosing from the cleric spell list. The spell must be of a level for which you have spell slots. You can prepare an additional spell at 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 9th level.
You can change your list of prepared spells when you finish a long rest. Preparing a new list of cleric spells requires time spent in prayer and meditation: at least 1 minute per spell level for each spell on your list. These spells count as Sorcerer spells for you, but do not count against your number of known spells.
It doesn’t add as many spells as the Tasha’s subclasses, but the flexibility of this feature I feel is well worth the trade off.
Every sorcerer subclass is second to the two in Tasha's for a very simple reason; spells known. The Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul both have 2 extra spells known per spell level up to spell level 5. That's a huge bonus. To fix this, every subclass needs similar treatment.
If you wanted to play a necromancer style shadow sorcerer, consider adding a similar feature with the spells you'd like.
The Dungeon Dudes (very knowledgeable D&D youtubers) actually discuss this in a fairly recent video. When they discuss The Shadow Sorcerer, they add a lot of spells I think you'll like.
Cause Fear, False Life
Darkness (although they already get that), Shadow blade
Animate Dead, Summon Shadowspawn (you could substitute this for Summon Undead and it wouldn't break anything if you like the undead more than the shadowy stuff)
Dimension Door, Shadow of Moil
Danse Macabre, Seeming
They also use this subclass with the expanded list in their Dungeons of Drakkenhiem episodes if you want to see how it plays. I really don't think this in any way makes a shadow sorcerer overpowered. I know it sucks requiring DM approval but this is something I think reasonable DMs would allow.
l wanted to make a Necromancer Sorcerer (Twin spell meta magic plus reanimation spells FTW)
Soooooo these two things don't actually work together. Twin spell requires you cast a spell that targets a single creature. Animate Dead, Danse Macabre, and the Summon Shadowspawn/Undead spells don't target a creature. I don't think any spells that reanimate or summon do. Animate Dead targets objects (corpses) as does Danse Macabre (which also targets multiple objects). Animate Dead cannot be used with twin spell when cast to maintain control of your minions either because it can target more than one of your undead creatures. Summon Shadowspawn/Undead target a point in space within range to summon the creature. It would be cool if this worked although likely OP.
Its called Splat Books and breaking game balance, WotC and TSR did it at the end of an edition to get you to buy new books to keep up with the game meta. We are about 1 1/2 years out till release of D&D 5.5E, I'd expect the next splat book will make those two sorcerers look worse yet. There isn't a financial incentive to update the old work and make the new work look less appealing. You would do better off homebrewing the original sorcerer classes to your liking. They've already released a new version of the old books with the censored content removed. Most likely when the new 5.5E book comes out they'll update the classes to make them stronger as well as the MM creatures as well.
There is no sanctioned in person adventurers league now, so you are most likely playing with friends, you can do what you want at this point. It might impact you for tournament play at best.
There isn't a financial incentive to update the old work and make the new work look less appealing.
They did a lot of this in Tasha's with optional rules. I'm also not suggesting that official rules are incoming or should be. I'm just offering up what I think is a good option to solve the issue the OP is having.
There isn't a financial incentive to update the old work and make the new work look less appealing.
They did a lot of this in Tasha's with optional rules. I'm also not suggesting that official rules are incoming or should be. I'm just offering up what I think is a good option to solve the issue the OP is having.
Updating the old classes is pretty much exactly what the rules update that was announced as set for 2024 is going to do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
There isn't a financial incentive to update the old work and make the new work look less appealing.
They did a lot of this in Tasha's with optional rules. I'm also not suggesting that official rules are incoming or should be. I'm just offering up what I think is a good option to solve the issue the OP is having.
Updating the old classes is pretty much exactly what the rules update that was announced as set for 2024 is going to do.
Hence the statement:
Most likely when the new 5.5E book comes out they'll update the classes to make them stronger as well as the MM creatures as well.
This is the most long winded argument I've ever read, especially for something that is very simple to say and to fix. Give the sorcerer five subclass appropriate spells. There I believe they still have the lowest amount of spells known out of any class, and they've no way to get more, but they do have a nice selection of appropriate spells.
Alternatively keep the current spells known but just merge their list with the wizards, because right now it seems like they just flip a coin to decide what spells the wizard gets that the sorcerer doesn't. Then make metamagics less garbage or make the sorcerer function off something like the Spell Point system, so there's actually a difference.
This is the most long winded argument I've ever read, especially for something that is very simple to say and to fix. Give the sorcerer five subclass appropriate spells. There I believe they still have the lowest amount of spells known out of any class, and they've no way to get more, but they do have a nice selection of appropriate spells.
Alternatively keep the current spells known but just merge their list with the wizards, because right now it seems like they just flip a coin to decide what spells the wizard gets that the sorcerer doesn't. Then make metamagics less garbage or make the sorcerer function off something like the Spell Point system, so there's actually a difference.
I dunno, looking at the Sorcerer & Wizard non-overlaps, it doesn't really seem like a coin flip, especially after Tasha's added some PHB spells as optional for both classes. The Sorcerer list has some overlap with Druid that Wizard doesn't, most notably Earthquake. And as an example, I don't think it makes sense for a Sorcerer to know the Clone spell and carry out all the prep that it requires... but it makes a LOT of sense for a Sorcerer to use Wish so they can gain a Clone immediately!
Five appropriate subclass spells would be the better fix I think. And it seems more likely for a DM to agree to, even if they think it's OP for the two new subclasses to get ten.
I will admit that was an exaggeration on my part. But to counter your point, it also doesn't make much sense that Wizard can cast something like Elemental Bane when a Sorcerer cannot. I don't recall if Tasha's patched all of those up but I feel my point still stands.
Either way the subclass spells is I feel the smarter move.
I will admit that was an exaggeration on my part. But to counter your point, it also doesn't make much sense that Wizard can cast something like Elemental Bane when a Sorcerer cannot. I don't recall if Tasha's patched all of those up but I feel my point still stands.
Either way the subclass spells is I feel the smarter move.
Oof, looking at Elemental Bane, I definitely agree with you that Sorcerer should have it since Druid and Wizard both have it. Tasha's does not resolve that one unfortunately.
Tasha's doesn't add any additional spells from Xanathar's Guide to the Sorcerer list. It's part of WotC's standard policy of not having sourcebooks reference other sourcebooks (though they made an exception for the Artificer spell list).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Tasha's doesn't add any additional spells from Xanathar's Guide to the Sorcerer list. It's part of WotC's standard policy of not having sourcebooks reference other sourcebooks (though they made an exception for the Artificer spell list).
Oh right, that makes sense. I wonder if it was originally excluded from the Sorcerer list because they really didn't want it to be Twinnable? Or at least, not Twinnable for only 34 sorcery points.
It's wild to me that people think buffing sorcerer would threaten wizards. They're a terrible class. Metamagic is literally their only native class feature, it's distribution is incredibly miserly, and it's the worse type of option - a fixed pool where you pick the best parts first and are stuck with the leftovers at later levels when other classes are getting increasingly beneficial features. You could give them every single metamagic at level 2 and actual features later on and they still wouldn't be better than wizards.
Yes, it's fine when you played it at level 3. And the idea of fewer spells but "massive flexibility" with them is solid. But the execution sucks. The subclasses, options, and magic items in Tasha's are not typical powercreep, they are attempts to fix a badly designed class.
If your party is going to TPK but you need to max damage with a spell OR you need the best possible chance of the spell to not be resisted, well the heighten spell gives you the ability to impose disadvantage on the save for all sorcerer subclasses or the empowered spell allows you to pick and choose what damage dies to reroll up to your charisma modifier. Out of the arcane casters they have the most flexibility of their core class abilities. You can't do both of those with the Wizard or Bard, meanwhile the sorcerer can easily as a base class ability available to all subclasses. You can put a Wizard, a Bard and a Sorcerer right next to each other and have them cast the exact same damage spell, statistically speaking the Sorcerer will beat the Wizard and Bard every single time. Only the evoker subclass at level 14 will be able to statistically beat the sorcerer but would eventually die trying past a number of tries.
That's...not how it works. Yes, a Sorceror will statistically outperform them, so long as they have their sorcery points to spend AND they're doing the same spell. However,, that explicitly bypasses the strengths of the Wizard and the very weakness of the Sorceror that some are complaining about - the lack of spell choice. Let's take a hypothetical Sorceror set up - it only ever maxes out at 2 sorcery points, everything else remains as it is now. That's a pretty heavy nerf, right? Would you ever want to play such a class? Yet according to you logic, it's absolutely fine because while he has sorcery points left, he potentially outshoot other classes. It doesn't work like that - what effects he can have, how often he can use them, and how many effects he can have in his pool to choose from at a given time all have to be balanced against the weakness he has against the other classes. It's a common complaint that he comes up short.
I also note that tou say that a class designed for control can, with a blaster focused subclass, out blast a blaster class. That doesn't speak well for parity.
That the Sorceror is the second least used class, second only to the Druid, strongly suggests that people are putting their money where their mouth is, so to speak, regarding this criticsm.
Whenever I read these "give the sorcerers more memorized spells" its the same as "I want to be in god mode". You don't see it, most likely you never will till you start thinking of 2nd and 3rd order consequences of changes for this. Why would anyone play a Wizard if you can increase the sorcerers memorized spell list? I mean wizards core abilities are ability to regain some spell slots on short rest and to learn new spells by scroll for a price and ritual magic casting, why play a wizard when you can play a sorcerer get meta-magic and gee now you have all these extra memorized spells to take away the pain of choosing what spells to know for the benefit of meta-magic. Why even have the wizard class at that point, just play a sorcerer, its better in combat for almost all situations. Oh right, the wizard was given an unlimited amount of spells known to compensate for not being as good as the sorcerer in combat saves and damage and the sorcerer was given a limited spell list the same as bards to compensate for their innate benefits of class.
All this says to me is "WotC created it, therefore it must be right". Ranger says otherwise. In terms of flavour and concepts, Sorcerors would be my favourite class. They just don't have enough going for them to be good, at least with RAW.
So what would you give the Wizard to increase their abilities in regards to sorcerers if you increase the sorcerers spell list? Would you give the Wizard the ability to impose disadvantage on a saving throw based on their proficiency bonus or how about the ability to wear medium armor regardless of race? You'll have to give the Wizard something to compensate, otherwise most players will go with sorcerer as the default, because wizards would be arguably inferior to sorcerers.
Why would I give Wizards anything? The problem is that Sorcerors are substantially weaker than Wizards and for every 2 Sorcerors played, there are 3 Wizards...and it's for a reason. Nobody in their right mind would simply put a Sorceror's spells list equal to a Wizard..they're asking for a boost, and suggesting a few extra spells. Personally, I'd lean towards the sorcery points system instead, but that's me.
Going with your analogy, you would argue that because the fighter gets 4 attacks and the poor paladin only gets 2 attacks, then up the paladins attacks to 3, its only fair right? Ignoring paladins gets an improved divine smite adding an extra 1d8 to their attacks, meaning they already get the equivalent of a 3rd attack at level 11, assuming their first two attacks hit doing an extra 2d8. It is 2nd order consequences you are choosing to ignore.
No, I wouldn't say that. Because Paladins get spells and smites that Fighters don't and I don't think that we need to boost Paladins to bring them up to par. People feel that Sorcerors are under par, and need a boost. You can't isolate a single mechanic to assess a class like you have so far.
The best thing I can tell you is to look at the D&D Beyond study on classes made, not played, but made. Wizards were 8% and sorcerers were 7% of the played classes.
No. Classes made means little. How many of those actually made it off the drawing board? How many of those did the player see how the the character worked and decided that a Sorceror wasn't all that great after all? Comparing the two statistics suggests this:
A Wizard is substantially more likely to be kept from the drawing board and actually played than average.
A Sorceror is less likely to be kept from the drawing board and actually played than average, and they're less likely to have been created in the first place.
The original creators of 5E did a good job balancing.
This is an assertion. Players as a whole disagree - or at least, they disagree that it couldn't be improved. Even the creators agree with the sentiment and revised the Ranger.
As a dm, anecdotally, I've seen sorcerers played twice as often as wizards in my campaigns. And even then, more often the wizards come in as a character replacement once the players are 2nd+ tier of play due to how weak wizards are in combat till level 5. Meanwhile sorcerers are either the main from level one or part of a multi-class build just to bring meta-magic into the fray.
Nice to know your anecdote, but the data says otherwise. I like the flavour of the Sorceror, but while I've played Wizard to L13 and currently planning a top up adventure to take him to L20, my Sorceror is sitting on the shelf unplaced. Why? Just too little going for him. The meta-magic is cool, but just too restricted to swing the scales back to be on par with other casters.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It's wild to me that people think buffing sorcerer would threaten wizards. They're a terrible class. Metamagic is literally their only native class feature, it's distribution is incredibly miserly, and it's the worse type of option - a fixed pool where you pick the best parts first and are stuck with the leftovers at later levels when other classes are getting increasingly beneficial features. You could give them every single metamagic at level 2 and actual features later on and they still wouldn't be better than wizards.
Yes, it's fine when you played it at level 3. And the idea of fewer spells but "massive flexibility" with them is solid. But the execution sucks. The subclasses, options, and magic items in Tasha's are not typical powercreep, they are attempts to fix a badly designed class.
Agreed. Yeah, Sorcerors are better at the beginning, but then taper off while everyone else is accelerating. I also think that Metamagic is too restrictive. You start off with two options and at level 10 finally get a third. It's meant to be that Wizards are versatile while Sorcerors are flexible...except Wizards are very versatile and Sorcerors are sort of flexible. Internet henbest solutions would be to give Sorcerors more MM options from the get-go, then add a few tiered options, like you do with Eldritch Invocations.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It's wild to me that people think buffing sorcerer would threaten wizards. They're a terrible class. Metamagic is literally their only native class feature, it's distribution is incredibly miserly, and it's the worse type of option - a fixed pool where you pick the best parts first and are stuck with the leftovers at later levels when other classes are getting increasingly beneficial features. You could give them every single metamagic at level 2 and actual features later on and they still wouldn't be better than wizards.
Yes, it's fine when you played it at level 3. And the idea of fewer spells but "massive flexibility" with them is solid. But the execution sucks. The subclasses, options, and magic items in Tasha's are not typical powercreep, they are attempts to fix a badly designed class.
This is why I will forever vote for the DnDNext Sorcerer to come back as a full class. Not only is it more interesting and fun, there's also zero chance of it stepping on the Wizard or anyone elses toes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
OK, so throughout your post, you've put a lot of words into my mouth and claimed that I've said things that I hadn't. Like the above - I criticised the attitude of "if a class doesn't work properly, just MC the problem away", I never criticised how people use MCing, because I really couldn't care less. So, here's the deal: Whenever you claim that I've said something, quote me exactly where I said and what I said as you make the claim. That way, you can see and engage with what I've actually written and respond to it, and I can see where you are coming from. I'm going to have to insist on this - if you don't support those claims, then I'm going to ignore what you've said.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
While I agree there should be a difference - Sorceror does get goodies that Wizards don't - that loss has to be proportional. If the Paladin had all their spells taken away as well as armour and weapon proficiencies on the basis that Paladins get Smites (insert your logic about Sorcerors v Wizards here], then you'd complain that they were too heavily nerfed, right? Now, Metamagic is really cool in theory, but as RAW is quite underwhelming. You start off with two options, which is hardly the changing-your-casting on the fly awesomeness that it's billed as. They do get more options later, but get orogressively worse options as the valuable ones get taken first. It's just underwhelming, and a Wizard gets more spells by Level 8 than Sorcerors ever get - and that's without their ability to gather more spells. While Sorcerors should get fewer spells than some (including Wizards), it's just disproportionate to their gains.
Personally, my preferred option is to improve meta-magic. Lean into what makes the sorceror unique. Give them more options from the outset, and let them gain them faster. Having only two options for most of a campaign (given most campaigns stoo before L13) really sucks and you normally only ever get three, and you will only ever get four if you stick it out to L17 - hardly the on-the-fly-versatility that matches a Wizard but I a different way! One of the suggestions that I was given when I first came to the site was to actually let them have access to all options when they gain the ability.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Just weaken meta-magic then. Limit its uses to be based on proficiency bonus per long rest (max 5 uses) and give them unlimited spells they can learn if you want to homebrew it.
If your party is going to TPK but you need to max damage with a spell OR you need the best possible chance of the spell to not be resisted, well the heighten spell gives you the ability to impose disadvantage on the save for all sorcerer subclasses or the empowered spell allows you to pick and choose what damage dies to reroll up to your charisma modifier. Out of the arcane casters they have the most flexibility of their core class abilities. You can't do both of those with the Wizard or Bard, meanwhile the sorcerer can easily as a base class ability available to all subclasses. You can put a Wizard, a Bard and a Sorcerer right next to each other and have them cast the exact same damage spell, statistically speaking the Sorcerer will beat the Wizard and Bard every single time. Only the evoker subclass at level 14 will be able to statistically beat the sorcerer but would eventually die trying past a number of tries.
Whenever I read these "give the sorcerers more memorized spells" its the same as "I want to be in god mode". You don't see it, most likely you never will till you start thinking of 2nd and 3rd order consequences of changes for this. Why would anyone play a Wizard if you can increase the sorcerers memorized spell list? I mean wizards core abilities are ability to regain some spell slots on short rest and to learn new spells by scroll for a price and ritual magic casting, why play a wizard when you can play a sorcerer get meta-magic and gee now you have all these extra memorized spells to take away the pain of choosing what spells to know for the benefit of meta-magic. Why even have the wizard class at that point, just play a sorcerer, its better in combat for almost all situations. Oh right, the wizard was given an unlimited amount of spells known to compensate for not being as good as the sorcerer in combat saves and damage and the sorcerer was given a limited spell list the same as bards to compensate for their innate benefits of class.
So what would you give the Wizard to increase their abilities in regards to sorcerers if you increase the sorcerers spell list? Would you give the Wizard the ability to impose disadvantage on a saving throw based on their proficiency bonus or how about the ability to wear medium armor regardless of race? You'll have to give the Wizard something to compensate, otherwise most players will go with sorcerer as the default, because wizards would be arguably inferior to sorcerers.
Going with your analogy, you would argue that because the fighter gets 4 attacks and the poor paladin only gets 2 attacks, then up the paladins attacks to 3, its only fair right? Ignoring paladins gets an improved divine smite adding an extra 1d8 to their attacks, meaning they already get the equivalent of a 3rd attack at level 11, assuming their first two attacks hit doing an extra 2d8. It is 2nd order consequences you are choosing to ignore.
The best thing I can tell you is to look at the D&D Beyond study on classes made, not played, but made. Wizards were 8% and sorcerers were 7% of the played classes. The original creators of 5E did a good job balancing. As a dm, anecdotally, I've seen sorcerers played twice as often as wizards in my campaigns. And even then, more often the wizards come in as a character replacement once the players are 2nd+ tier of play due to how weak wizards are in combat till level 5. Meanwhile sorcerers are either the main from level one or part of a multi-class build just to bring meta-magic into the fray.
Every sorcerer subclass is second to the two in Tasha's for a very simple reason; spells known. The Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul both have 2 extra spells known per spell level up to spell level 5. That's a huge bonus. To fix this, every subclass needs similar treatment.
If you wanted to play a necromancer style shadow sorcerer, consider adding a similar feature with the spells you'd like.
The Dungeon Dudes (very knowledgeable D&D youtubers) actually discuss this in a fairly recent video. When they discuss The Shadow Sorcerer, they add a lot of spells I think you'll like.
They also use this subclass with the expanded list in their Dungeons of Drakkenhiem episodes if you want to see how it plays. I really don't think this in any way makes a shadow sorcerer overpowered. I know it sucks requiring DM approval but this is something I think reasonable DMs would allow.
Soooooo these two things don't actually work together. Twin spell requires you cast a spell that targets a single creature. Animate Dead, Danse Macabre, and the Summon Shadowspawn/Undead spells don't target a creature. I don't think any spells that reanimate or summon do. Animate Dead targets objects (corpses) as does Danse Macabre (which also targets multiple objects). Animate Dead cannot be used with twin spell when cast to maintain control of your minions either because it can target more than one of your undead creatures. Summon Shadowspawn/Undead target a point in space within range to summon the creature. It would be cool if this worked although likely OP.
I added this feature to the Divine Soul Sorcerer to fix it:
It doesn’t add as many spells as the Tasha’s subclasses, but the flexibility of this feature I feel is well worth the trade off.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Its called Splat Books and breaking game balance, WotC and TSR did it at the end of an edition to get you to buy new books to keep up with the game meta. We are about 1 1/2 years out till release of D&D 5.5E, I'd expect the next splat book will make those two sorcerers look worse yet. There isn't a financial incentive to update the old work and make the new work look less appealing. You would do better off homebrewing the original sorcerer classes to your liking. They've already released a new version of the old books with the censored content removed. Most likely when the new 5.5E book comes out they'll update the classes to make them stronger as well as the MM creatures as well.
There is no sanctioned in person adventurers league now, so you are most likely playing with friends, you can do what you want at this point. It might impact you for tournament play at best.
They did a lot of this in Tasha's with optional rules. I'm also not suggesting that official rules are incoming or should be. I'm just offering up what I think is a good option to solve the issue the OP is having.
Updating the old classes is pretty much exactly what the rules update that was announced as set for 2024 is going to do.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Hence the statement:
Most likely when the new 5.5E book comes out they'll update the classes to make them stronger as well as the MM creatures as well.
This is the most long winded argument I've ever read, especially for something that is very simple to say and to fix. Give the sorcerer five subclass appropriate spells. There I believe they still have the lowest amount of spells known out of any class, and they've no way to get more, but they do have a nice selection of appropriate spells.
Alternatively keep the current spells known but just merge their list with the wizards, because right now it seems like they just flip a coin to decide what spells the wizard gets that the sorcerer doesn't. Then make metamagics less garbage or make the sorcerer function off something like the Spell Point system, so there's actually a difference.
I dunno, looking at the Sorcerer & Wizard non-overlaps, it doesn't really seem like a coin flip, especially after Tasha's added some PHB spells as optional for both classes. The Sorcerer list has some overlap with Druid that Wizard doesn't, most notably Earthquake. And as an example, I don't think it makes sense for a Sorcerer to know the Clone spell and carry out all the prep that it requires... but it makes a LOT of sense for a Sorcerer to use Wish so they can gain a Clone immediately!
Five appropriate subclass spells would be the better fix I think. And it seems more likely for a DM to agree to, even if they think it's OP for the two new subclasses to get ten.
I will admit that was an exaggeration on my part. But to counter your point, it also doesn't make much sense that Wizard can cast something like Elemental Bane when a Sorcerer cannot. I don't recall if Tasha's patched all of those up but I feel my point still stands.
Either way the subclass spells is I feel the smarter move.
Oof, looking at Elemental Bane, I definitely agree with you that Sorcerer should have it since Druid and Wizard both have it. Tasha's does not resolve that one unfortunately.
Tasha's doesn't add any additional spells from Xanathar's Guide to the Sorcerer list. It's part of WotC's standard policy of not having sourcebooks reference other sourcebooks (though they made an exception for the Artificer spell list).
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Oh right, that makes sense. I wonder if it was originally excluded from the Sorcerer list because they really didn't want it to be Twinnable? Or at least, not Twinnable for only
34 sorcery points.Hard to guess.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
It's wild to me that people think buffing sorcerer would threaten wizards. They're a terrible class. Metamagic is literally their only native class feature, it's distribution is incredibly miserly, and it's the worse type of option - a fixed pool where you pick the best parts first and are stuck with the leftovers at later levels when other classes are getting increasingly beneficial features. You could give them every single metamagic at level 2 and actual features later on and they still wouldn't be better than wizards.
Yes, it's fine when you played it at level 3. And the idea of fewer spells but "massive flexibility" with them is solid. But the execution sucks. The subclasses, options, and magic items in Tasha's are not typical powercreep, they are attempts to fix a badly designed class.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
That's...not how it works. Yes, a Sorceror will statistically outperform them, so long as they have their sorcery points to spend AND they're doing the same spell. However,, that explicitly bypasses the strengths of the Wizard and the very weakness of the Sorceror that some are complaining about - the lack of spell choice. Let's take a hypothetical Sorceror set up - it only ever maxes out at 2 sorcery points, everything else remains as it is now. That's a pretty heavy nerf, right? Would you ever want to play such a class? Yet according to you logic, it's absolutely fine because while he has sorcery points left, he potentially outshoot other classes. It doesn't work like that - what effects he can have, how often he can use them, and how many effects he can have in his pool to choose from at a given time all have to be balanced against the weakness he has against the other classes. It's a common complaint that he comes up short.
I also note that tou say that a class designed for control can, with a blaster focused subclass, out blast a blaster class. That doesn't speak well for parity.
That the Sorceror is the second least used class, second only to the Druid, strongly suggests that people are putting their money where their mouth is, so to speak, regarding this criticsm.
All this says to me is "WotC created it, therefore it must be right". Ranger says otherwise. In terms of flavour and concepts, Sorcerors would be my favourite class. They just don't have enough going for them to be good, at least with RAW.
Why would I give Wizards anything? The problem is that Sorcerors are substantially weaker than Wizards and for every 2 Sorcerors played, there are 3 Wizards...and it's for a reason. Nobody in their right mind would simply put a Sorceror's spells list equal to a Wizard..they're asking for a boost, and suggesting a few extra spells. Personally, I'd lean towards the sorcery points system instead, but that's me.
No, I wouldn't say that. Because Paladins get spells and smites that Fighters don't and I don't think that we need to boost Paladins to bring them up to par. People feel that Sorcerors are under par, and need a boost. You can't isolate a single mechanic to assess a class like you have so far.
No. Classes made means little. How many of those actually made it off the drawing board? How many of those did the player see how the the character worked and decided that a Sorceror wasn't all that great after all? Comparing the two statistics suggests this:
A Wizard is substantially more likely to be kept from the drawing board and actually played than average.
A Sorceror is less likely to be kept from the drawing board and actually played than average, and they're less likely to have been created in the first place.
This is an assertion. Players as a whole disagree - or at least, they disagree that it couldn't be improved. Even the creators agree with the sentiment and revised the Ranger.
Nice to know your anecdote, but the data says otherwise. I like the flavour of the Sorceror, but while I've played Wizard to L13 and currently planning a top up adventure to take him to L20, my Sorceror is sitting on the shelf unplaced. Why? Just too little going for him. The meta-magic is cool, but just too restricted to swing the scales back to be on par with other casters.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Agreed. Yeah, Sorcerors are better at the beginning, but then taper off while everyone else is accelerating. I also think that Metamagic is too restrictive. You start off with two options and at level 10 finally get a third. It's meant to be that Wizards are versatile while Sorcerors are flexible...except Wizards are very versatile and Sorcerors are sort of flexible. Internet henbest solutions would be to give Sorcerors more MM options from the get-go, then add a few tiered options, like you do with Eldritch Invocations.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
This is why I will forever vote for the DnDNext Sorcerer to come back as a full class. Not only is it more interesting and fun, there's also zero chance of it stepping on the Wizard or anyone elses toes.