Sorcerers are an interesting one. When what they excel at comes up it’s phenomenal. But most sorcerers need to be so specialised cos of the spells known. The two new sorcerer classes get around the problem with a reasonably fair solution I expect will roll out to the others sooner or later. I think a book within the next few years will give sorcerers known spells. Even if swapping out isn’t an option always. It gives you a staple base you can build On.
i think metamagic is both over and under valued. It has extremely high highs and very low lows. Metamagic is either relevant or not. And I think metamagic is perfectly fine as a feature. Even on a day where no uses of it are made, you have a built in way to get spells back, or upgrade lower level spells you don’t use or need.
I cannot agree with the D ranking having played a few. It so grossly ignores the raw power of just a base spell casting class. It ignores some amazing uses of metamagic. Double haste is fun. Subtle modify memory is excellent. The immunity to counter spell is unique. Twin polymorph, disintegrate, banishment. Being able to quicken a mind sliver to bump saving throws. Being able to quicken spells that let you activate the effect on with an action. Hit an enervation or immolation quickened and then use your action on the same turn to hit them again. hell even twin enervation to give yourself a metric tonne of healing. Even if you just use empowered on spells to bump a dud fireball
and how these metamagic are easily done with other features blows my mind as a statement. Metamagic adept you get a fraction of the potential. So limited a choice it’s virtually useless minus niche cases, or for a sorcerer.
So sure. The class has problems and has some fairly obvious fixes. But a D? This class is a solid B I would say. Enough flaws to be weaker than other casters some of the time. But below the ranger? Below the artificer? Nah I can’t go with that. I’d say they tie with druids. Less flexibility in situations out of their expertise. More when I am good I excel
Oh I agree.... It's the worst full caster but that still puts it in the middle somewhere just due to how amazing spell casting is.
I wouldn’t say the worst caster. It’s a caster with the highest highs and lowest lows. A well played sorcerer can be as effective if not more so that a lot of other classes when in their field. But I really don’t think their is a “worst” caster. Things are just better in some cases than others, and worse in other ways. It’s inconsistency doesn’t put it at the top by any stretch (cough wizards cough). But when a sorcerer hits a twinned dominate or a disintegrate, or even a twinned haste. Very few classes can match that.
I think what gets forgotten in the Wizard Vs Sorc. debate is the fact that Sorc uses CHA.
So many get hung up on the mechanical combat side of DnD, they forget that having a High CHA in general is extremely powerful. Deception and persuasion are some of the most useful skills in the game and can often change the trajectory completely. So while yes, a wizard will be a better spell caster than a sorc Mechanically, Sorc has ALL the benefits of a full caster and a REALLY good spell list on TOP of being alowed to focus CHA
In my game where theres both a Sorc. and a wizard, no one complains about the Sorc being underpowered when she subtle spells charm person and rolls a 25+ to persuasion
I think what gets forgotten in the Wizard Vs Sorc. debate is the fact that Sorc uses CHA.
So many get hung up on the mechanical combat side of DnD, they forget that having a High CHA in general is extremely powerful. Deception and persuasion are some of the most useful skills in the game and can often change the trajectory completely. So while yes, a wizard will be a better spell caster than a sorc Mechanically, Sorc has ALL the benefits of a full caster and a REALLY good spell list on TOP of being alowed to focus CHA
In my game where theres both a Sorc. and a wizard, no one complains about the Sorc being underpowered when she subtle spells charm person and rolls a 25+ to persuasion
That's a good roll sure but lack of expertise means that is really only possible routinely at high levels.
Also I would say an apple to apples comparison would be more Sorcerer and Bard then as they both use CHA.
And in that....oof sorcerer is not even close IMO.
Especially with the Eloquence bard who is always going to roll high from level 3 on.
Also warlock is a CHA caster and is generally seen more favorable to sorcerer due to strong subclass and pact features.
Speaking of stats, sorcerers get con saving throws. They excel at concentration checks. Having a reasonable con score to go with it isn’t a bad thing either. There are also a LOT of con save abilities out there. While not tanky they are more durable than people give them credit for.
I think what gets forgotten in the Wizard Vs Sorc. debate is the fact that Sorc uses CHA.
So many get hung up on the mechanical combat side of DnD, they forget that having a High CHA in general is extremely powerful. Deception and persuasion are some of the most useful skills in the game and can often change the trajectory completely. So while yes, a wizard will be a better spell caster than a sorc Mechanically, Sorc has ALL the benefits of a full caster and a REALLY good spell list on TOP of being alowed to focus CHA
In my game where theres both a Sorc. and a wizard, no one complains about the Sorc being underpowered when she subtle spells charm person and rolls a 25+ to persuasion
That's a good roll sure but lack of expertise means that is really only possible routinely at high levels.
Also I would say an apple to apples comparison would be more Sorcerer and Bard then as they both use CHA.
And in that....oof sorcerer is not even close IMO.
Especially with the Eloquence bard who is always going to roll high from level 3 on.
Also warlock is a CHA caster and is generally seen more favorable to sorcerer due to strong subclass and pact features.
Yes a bard is going to be a better face. I'm not saying Sorc is the best face, I'm saying they get a bit of BOTH.
Yeah a bard will be better at skill checks, but they lack the big blasting spells that Sorcerer has Yeah wizard is better at spell slinging and having the right spell for the right moment, but they don't have the face potential that Sorcerer has
So THAT's what I'm saying, its not that they're (sorcs) AMAZING faces, its that they ARE faces in addition to a blaster caster
I think what gets forgotten in the Wizard Vs Sorc. debate is the fact that Sorc uses CHA.
So many get hung up on the mechanical combat side of DnD, they forget that having a High CHA in general is extremely powerful. Deception and persuasion are some of the most useful skills in the game and can often change the trajectory completely. So while yes, a wizard will be a better spell caster than a sorc Mechanically, Sorc has ALL the benefits of a full caster and a REALLY good spell list on TOP of being alowed to focus CHA
In my game where theres both a Sorc. and a wizard, no one complains about the Sorc being underpowered when she subtle spells charm person and rolls a 25+ to persuasion
That's a good roll sure but lack of expertise means that is really only possible routinely at high levels.
Also I would say an apple to apples comparison would be more Sorcerer and Bard then as they both use CHA.
And in that....oof sorcerer is not even close IMO.
Especially with the Eloquence bard who is always going to roll high from level 3 on.
Also warlock is a CHA caster and is generally seen more favorable to sorcerer due to strong subclass and pact features.
Yes a bard is going to be a better face. I'm not saying Sorc is the best face, I'm saying they get a bit of BOTH.
Yeah a bard will be better at skill checks, but they lack the big blasting spells that Sorcerer has Yeah wizard is better at spell slinging and having the right spell for the right moment, but they don't have the face potential that Sorcerer has
So THAT's what I'm saying, its not that they're (sorcs) AMAZING faces, its that they ARE faces in addition to a blaster caster
Wizards have the knowledge type proficiencies to go with their big brains. Not as sexy as the face skills, but just as useful.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I think what gets forgotten in the Wizard Vs Sorc. debate is the fact that Sorc uses CHA.
So many get hung up on the mechanical combat side of DnD, they forget that having a High CHA in general is extremely powerful. Deception and persuasion are some of the most useful skills in the game and can often change the trajectory completely. So while yes, a wizard will be a better spell caster than a sorc Mechanically, Sorc has ALL the benefits of a full caster and a REALLY good spell list on TOP of being alowed to focus CHA
In my game where theres both a Sorc. and a wizard, no one complains about the Sorc being underpowered when she subtle spells charm person and rolls a 25+ to persuasion
That's a good roll sure but lack of expertise means that is really only possible routinely at high levels.
Also I would say an apple to apples comparison would be more Sorcerer and Bard then as they both use CHA.
And in that....oof sorcerer is not even close IMO.
Especially with the Eloquence bard who is always going to roll high from level 3 on.
Also warlock is a CHA caster and is generally seen more favorable to sorcerer due to strong subclass and pact features.
Yes a bard is going to be a better face. I'm not saying Sorc is the best face, I'm saying they get a bit of BOTH.
Yeah a bard will be better at skill checks, but they lack the big blasting spells that Sorcerer has Yeah wizard is better at spell slinging and having the right spell for the right moment, but they don't have the face potential that Sorcerer has
So THAT's what I'm saying, its not that they're (sorcs) AMAZING faces, its that they ARE faces in addition to a blaster caster
Bards can blast just fine with Magical Secrets....its not like they have to pick only utility spells.
Also their spells do tend to be more control or divide/conquer, healing, and single target damage with good riders (Heat Metal, Dissonat whispers etc...)
Overall as a class bard is much better than sorcerer IMO as they have more versatility and better out of combat abilities. Plus their Inspiration helps increase damage output of others which should factor in to consideration for their damage output.
I get what you are saying now but I sill think that sorcerers are the worst full casters in 5e...but that still puts them at worst middle of the road and no worse.
I would say Sorcerers are way better now thanks to the most recent subclasses. I'd actually put them higher than wizards since in the right hands a sorcerer can be devastating with their meta magic. For example, twinned haste is insane. In fact, the Divine Soul Sorcerer makes an awesome healer / support and still has great damage options.
Besides, spells known is a bit of a red herring. The majority of spells either fall into the category of awful or average so it really isn't as big as an issue as people make out.
I think what gets forgotten in the Wizard Vs Sorc. debate is the fact that Sorc uses CHA.
So many get hung up on the mechanical combat side of DnD, they forget that having a High CHA in general is extremely powerful. Deception and persuasion are some of the most useful skills in the game and can often change the trajectory completely. So while yes, a wizard will be a better spell caster than a sorc Mechanically, Sorc has ALL the benefits of a full caster and a REALLY good spell list on TOP of being alowed to focus CHA
In my game where theres both a Sorc. and a wizard, no one complains about the Sorc being underpowered when she subtle spells charm person and rolls a 25+ to persuasion
That's a good roll sure but lack of expertise means that is really only possible routinely at high levels.
Also I would say an apple to apples comparison would be more Sorcerer and Bard then as they both use CHA.
And in that....oof sorcerer is not even close IMO.
Especially with the Eloquence bard who is always going to roll high from level 3 on.
Also warlock is a CHA caster and is generally seen more favorable to sorcerer due to strong subclass and pact features.
Yes a bard is going to be a better face. I'm not saying Sorc is the best face, I'm saying they get a bit of BOTH.
Yeah a bard will be better at skill checks, but they lack the big blasting spells that Sorcerer has Yeah wizard is better at spell slinging and having the right spell for the right moment, but they don't have the face potential that Sorcerer has
So THAT's what I'm saying, its not that they're (sorcs) AMAZING faces, its that they ARE faces in addition to a blaster caster
Bards can blast just fine with Magical Secrets....its not like they have to pick only utility spells.
Also their spells do tend to be more control or divide/conquer, healing, and single target damage with good riders (Heat Metal, Dissonat whispers etc...)
Overall as a class bard is much better than sorcerer IMO as they have more versatility and better out of combat abilities. Plus their Inspiration helps increase damage output of others which should factor in to consideration for their damage output.
I get what you are saying now but I sill think that sorcerers are the worst full casters in 5e...but that still puts them at worst middle of the road and no worse.
bards are a very good caster with some pretty damn amazing abilities. Bards CAN blast fine absolutely, but they tend not to. And their blasting is just that. Fine. Just like a sorcerer can heal but tend not to. I would actually say their control spells can also be equal. They may get more, but a sorcerer can get fancy with them and do things bards just can't. Twinned dominates, subtle charms and dominates, things like that. And I am not knocking the bards. Sorcerers do not match anything like the inspirations that they give out. They can't match their skills. But when it comes to casting sorcerers can do most of the things bards can do if they are built that way. Bards can build wider and focus on more areas. But a focused sorcerer is VERY hard to beat in the area it specialises in. I am not saying sorcerers are better or worse casters than bards. They are just different. Sorcerers are absolutely more limited than bards (and it does need addressing), but I do think people only focus on the low points with sorcerers.
It comes up to what the sorcerer does (like with all classes). Also they have in theory more spell slots than any other class thanks to Font of Magic.
Also even if this is more in the hand of the dm...their class exclusive magic items (the shards) are bonkers as they attach pretty much 1st and 2nd level spell effects to each time u metamagic.
It comes up to what the sorcerer does (like with all classes). Also they have in theory more spell slots than any other class thanks to Font of Magic.
Also even if this is more in the hand of the dm...their class exclusive magic items (the shards) are bonkers as they attach pretty much 1st and 2nd level spell effects to each time u metamagic.
Magic items are good and all but honestly I hate the concept of "fixing" a class with items.
It's something i see a lot and it's a bit disheartening that we have to rely on items to make the classes more balanced.
I wouldnn't call them a fix. Just that the Tasha's additions to the Sorcerer are extremely potent (while the rest was strong, but not as strong...). I mean a free misty step, resistance you can freely pick until your next turn, 2d10 fire damage, a combination of calm emotions and lesser restoration, etc...all simply for using meta magic. These things are overkill, but aren't needed to make a strong sorcerer.
What's so good about wizards? I got so tired of them after my dnd friend would only be one (Now he'll either be a wizard or an artificer, which i don't like much either). I personally like rogues, because i like sneak attacking people. I don't honestly like bards, but i really like the cantrip vicious mockery because it's really really funny. I also like druids, because, duh, shape-shifting!
One of my hobbies when I'm about to start a new campaign is to look at online guides ranking the core classes (which now include the artificer). However, I've sort of run out of those... so I figured I'll make my own.
I've written a bit of info about each class, starting with suggested roles in the party. At the end of each description, I will include a rank, from D to S (D, C, B, A, S, with S being the best and D the worst).
Artificer: Support, defender (battle smith), frontliner (armorer), blaster (artillerist, mostly), handyman. Artificers do support different from other classes, functioning mostly on items rather than buffs and heals. Each archetype has its own favored style, with alchemists leaning into the support role, armorers being a frontliner, artillerists being a blaster, and battle smiths being a defender. Battle smith actually reminds me of the improved beastmaster, although their companion operates on a different action economy than the beastmaster. One thing I like about the artificer is that even when they pick their niche, they are still incredibly versatile, and can adapt to almost any situation. When you play an artificer, remember: sharing is caring. Don't hog all the infusions for things like homunculus servant. Instead, infuse your party members items, and keep one or two for yourself. The artificer is meant to be a team player, even if they are very self-sufficient. Rank: A
Barbarian: Defender (spirit guardian archetype fits this best), Tank. Barbarians are excellent in combat, but outside of it, they have very few skills. They have a decent list of skills, amplified by the optional class features from TCoE, but other than that, they can't do much... they're not exactly sneaky, and often have low charisma and/or intelligence. However, with their high hit die and good natural armor, they make a solid tank or frontliner. Rank: C
Bard: Support, Frontliner (valor and swords only), Face. Bards have a great list of spells, including a whole lot of excellent buffs, debuffs, and control spells. With charisma as their primary ability, and a good list of social skills, they make an excellent party face as well. However, without a subclass like valor or swords which grants more martial abilities, they don't have much offensive power themselves. Rank: A
Cleric: Support, Frontliner, Blaster. Clerics are an interesting class. They have a huge list of subclasses, second only to wizards, and get a variety of good weapon and armor proficiencies from these archetypes. They also have a decent amount of offense spells, with some OP exclusives like guiding bolt. The main role people usually choose for them is healer, which makes sense, especially if you play a life cleric. Most of their archetypes give heavy armor proficiency, allowing them to stay alive longer. Rank: S
Druid: Support, Handyman, Scout. Druids have great flavor, and some good class features. Their spell list is nice too, with some good exclusives like storm of vengeance, moonbeam, and healing spirit (which has now been nerfed). The thing that people remember about them is wildshape, an excellent feature which allows them to morph into a beast (or an elemental for moon druids, or a weird fungi guy with spores). Wildshape typically isn't useful in combat, but out of combat, it's pretty great. It's excellent for disguise and mobility, allowing them to be good scouts. If you're a moon druid, you can also morph into elementals, or higher CR beasts, allowing you to make a more effective combatant. It's also worth mentioning that they have decent martial skills, with some good finnesse weapons, light and medium armor, and shields. Rank: B
Fighter: Any martial role, Blaster (eldritch knight only). Fighters are pretty straightforward: weapons. They excel in combat, getting more attack than anyone except for monks. They also have proficiency in every weapon and armor type in the game, although they're somewhat lacking in skills. The eldritch knight archetype adds a bit more versatility, giving you some handy utility spells from the wizard spell list, as well as some more blasty spells like fireball. Rank: A
Monk: Striker, Scout, Sneak. Monks are notoriously MAD (multiple ability dependent), although they do have their fair share of good abilities. They have the martial arts feature, which gives their unarmed strikes better damage, and essentially gives you the two-weapon fighting style. They also have the flurry of blows, which allows them to take two extra attacks as a bonus action. They also have extra speed, immunity to old age, the ability to walk along walls and water, and proficiency in all saving throws, at higher levels. Monks are extremely powerful, but they take a while to become that way. Rank: A
Paladin: Striker, Support, Tank, Defender. Paladins, although they are slightly MAD, are undeniably powerful. 5 levels of spells, divine smite for massive damage, and some cazy powerful auras- these guys have everything, magic-wise, plus martial abilities nearly as good as the fighter. Rank: S
Ranger: Scout, Sneak, Striker, Archer. Recently, rangers got an update. TCoE fixed a lot of the class features that made rangers weak... now, they're at least a bit better. They have some handy utility spells and abilities, some good combat abilities, and an excellent amount of disguise and stealth abilities. They still have a few flaws, mainly that they tend to be a bit niche still, but all in all, they're a good pick. Rank: A
Rogue: Sneak, Handyman, Scout, Control (arcane trickster only) Rogues are pretty cool. They're a bit weak in combat, but they have a bunch of utility, especially with the arcane trickster subclass. I find some of their features lacking, but I would still play one. Rank: B
Sorcerer: Blaster, Face. I never liked sorcerers. They only know 15 spells, and have to wait until they gain a level to switch them out. And even then, they can only switch out one at a time. This makes them incredibly niche... in fact, not niche, stuck. They pick their type and they're left with it till level 20. Some of their subclasses ease the pain a bit, giving them access to cleric or wizard spells as well, but it doesn't really help. They do have metamagic, but most of those options are easily granted by other features from different classes. Rank: D
Warlock: Blaster, Control, Support (celestial), frontliner (hexblade). Warlocks are weird. They cast spells differently from every other class in the game, but they have some really good cantrips... namely, eldritch blast. They also have invocations, which can come in handy with some nice disguise, control, and offensive options. Each patron also changes the way they function, with things like genie and fiend making them blasters, hexblade making them a frontliner, and celestial making them a support character. Rank: B
Wizard: Blaster, Handyman, Control. I'm just gonna get this out of the way... wizards are my favorite. They're extremely versatile, with the longest spell list in the game. They don't get very many class features (one every other level), but they have some great subclasses, like the order of scribes and the abjurer. Wizards stand out from other classes just because of sheer versatility. Rank: S
Final List:
wizard
paladin
cleric
monk
bard
artificer
fighter
ranger
rogue
warlock
druid
barbarian
sorcerer
Tell me your favorite class in the poll!
Sorcerer's are really good at doing a bunch of damage and helping the party get good prices on things with spells like charm person. I would rate them 3 or 4th
I think what gets forgotten in the Wizard Vs Sorc. debate is the fact that Sorc uses CHA.
So many get hung up on the mechanical combat side of DnD, they forget that having a High CHA in general is extremely powerful. Deception and persuasion are some of the most useful skills in the game and can often change the trajectory completely. So while yes, a wizard will be a better spell caster than a sorc Mechanically, Sorc has ALL the benefits of a full caster and a REALLY good spell list on TOP of being alowed to focus CHA
In my game where theres both a Sorc. and a wizard, no one complains about the Sorc being underpowered when she subtle spells charm person and rolls a 25+ to persuasion
Warlocks,are the best because they have amazing subclasses (my fav is fiend Patron) and can just cook with hellish rebuke. If you choose the pact of the blade you can attack 3 times in a round. I agree paladins are better but warlocks are top 3
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Oh I agree.... It's the worst full caster but that still puts it in the middle somewhere just due to how amazing spell casting is.
I wouldn’t say the worst caster. It’s a caster with the highest highs and lowest lows. A well played sorcerer can be as effective if not more so that a lot of other classes when in their field. But I really don’t think their is a “worst” caster. Things are just better in some cases than others, and worse in other ways. It’s inconsistency doesn’t put it at the top by any stretch (cough wizards cough). But when a sorcerer hits a twinned dominate or a disintegrate, or even a twinned haste. Very few classes can match that.
I think what gets forgotten in the Wizard Vs Sorc. debate is the fact that Sorc uses CHA.
So many get hung up on the mechanical combat side of DnD, they forget that having a High CHA in general is extremely powerful. Deception and persuasion are some of the most useful skills in the game and can often change the trajectory completely. So while yes, a wizard will be a better spell caster than a sorc Mechanically, Sorc has ALL the benefits of a full caster and a REALLY good spell list on TOP of being alowed to focus CHA
In my game where theres both a Sorc. and a wizard, no one complains about the Sorc being underpowered when she subtle spells charm person and rolls a 25+ to persuasion
That's a good roll sure but lack of expertise means that is really only possible routinely at high levels.
Also I would say an apple to apples comparison would be more Sorcerer and Bard then as they both use CHA.
And in that....oof sorcerer is not even close IMO.
Especially with the Eloquence bard who is always going to roll high from level 3 on.
Also warlock is a CHA caster and is generally seen more favorable to sorcerer due to strong subclass and pact features.
Speaking of stats, sorcerers get con saving throws. They excel at concentration checks. Having a reasonable con score to go with it isn’t a bad thing either. There are also a LOT of con save abilities out there. While not tanky they are more durable than people give them credit for.
Yes a bard is going to be a better face. I'm not saying Sorc is the best face, I'm saying they get a bit of BOTH.
Yeah a bard will be better at skill checks, but they lack the big blasting spells that Sorcerer has
Yeah wizard is better at spell slinging and having the right spell for the right moment, but they don't have the face potential that Sorcerer has
So THAT's what I'm saying, its not that they're (sorcs) AMAZING faces, its that they ARE faces in addition to a blaster caster
Wizards have the knowledge type proficiencies to go with their big brains. Not as sexy as the face skills, but just as useful.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Bards can blast just fine with Magical Secrets....its not like they have to pick only utility spells.
Also their spells do tend to be more control or divide/conquer, healing, and single target damage with good riders (Heat Metal, Dissonat whispers etc...)
Overall as a class bard is much better than sorcerer IMO as they have more versatility and better out of combat abilities. Plus their Inspiration helps increase damage output of others which should factor in to consideration for their damage output.
I get what you are saying now but I sill think that sorcerers are the worst full casters in 5e...but that still puts them at worst middle of the road and no worse.
I would say Sorcerers are way better now thanks to the most recent subclasses. I'd actually put them higher than wizards since in the right hands a sorcerer can be devastating with their meta magic. For example, twinned haste is insane. In fact, the Divine Soul Sorcerer makes an awesome healer / support and still has great damage options.
Besides, spells known is a bit of a red herring. The majority of spells either fall into the category of awful or average so it really isn't as big as an issue as people make out.
My top three in no particular order would be:
bards are a very good caster with some pretty damn amazing abilities. Bards CAN blast fine absolutely, but they tend not to. And their blasting is just that. Fine. Just like a sorcerer can heal but tend not to. I would actually say their control spells can also be equal. They may get more, but a sorcerer can get fancy with them and do things bards just can't. Twinned dominates, subtle charms and dominates, things like that. And I am not knocking the bards. Sorcerers do not match anything like the inspirations that they give out. They can't match their skills. But when it comes to casting sorcerers can do most of the things bards can do if they are built that way. Bards can build wider and focus on more areas. But a focused sorcerer is VERY hard to beat in the area it specialises in. I am not saying sorcerers are better or worse casters than bards. They are just different. Sorcerers are absolutely more limited than bards (and it does need addressing), but I do think people only focus on the low points with sorcerers.
It comes up to what the sorcerer does (like with all classes). Also they have in theory more spell slots than any other class thanks to Font of Magic.
Also even if this is more in the hand of the dm...their class exclusive magic items (the shards) are bonkers as they attach pretty much 1st and 2nd level spell effects to each time u metamagic.
Magic items are good and all but honestly I hate the concept of "fixing" a class with items.
It's something i see a lot and it's a bit disheartening that we have to rely on items to make the classes more balanced.
Using items to "fix" a class is admitting that the class itself is badly flawed.
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.
I wouldnn't call them a fix. Just that the Tasha's additions to the Sorcerer are extremely potent (while the rest was strong, but not as strong...). I mean a free misty step, resistance you can freely pick until your next turn, 2d10 fire damage, a combination of calm emotions and lesser restoration, etc...all simply for using meta magic. These things are overkill, but aren't needed to make a strong sorcerer.
Bards are the most fun to play, tbh!
What's so good about wizards? I got so tired of them after my dnd friend would only be one (Now he'll either be a wizard or an artificer, which i don't like much either). I personally like rogues, because i like sneak attacking people. I don't honestly like bards, but i really like the cantrip vicious mockery because it's really really funny. I also like druids, because, duh, shape-shifting!
Sorcerer's are really good at doing a bunch of damage and helping the party get good prices on things with spells like charm person. I would rate them 3 or 4th
That 25+ is crazy 😧
Warlocks,are the best because they have amazing subclasses (my fav is fiend Patron) and can just cook with hellish rebuke. If you choose the pact of the blade you can attack 3 times in a round. I agree paladins are better but warlocks are top 3