Well all right then. Sorcerers no longer have exclusive access to metamagic. Ergo, the sorcerer is no longer fine. So fix it. Improve the base class such that losing exclusive access to metamagic does not automatically invalidate them from any serious consideration for use.
Fixing how the base Sorcerer works has been something I've been on board with for a while now, but the Class Features Variants (if/whenever/wherever that is coming out in anything official) is the closest 5e will probably get IMO. Also, as I said, I have no actual issue with these feats.
Well all right then. Sorcerers no longer have exclusive access to metamagic. Ergo, the sorcerer is no longer fine. So fix it. Improve the base class such that losing exclusive access to metamagic does not automatically invalidate them from any serious consideration for use.
Fixing how the base Sorcerer works has been something I've been on board with for a while now, but the Class Features Variants (if/whenever/wherever that is coming out in anything official) is the closest 5e will probably get IMO. Also, as I said, I have no actual issue with these feats.
The Class Feature Variants UA did absolutely nothing to address the problem with Sorcerers, and this UA does basically the same thing. It's like the Sorcerer and Ranger classes are both sinking boats, and they're trying to patch the holes in the classes with duct tape.
Edit: I remembered this thread I created this months ago about this problem.
Well all right then. Sorcerers no longer have exclusive access to metamagic. Ergo, the sorcerer is no longer fine. So fix it. Improve the base class such that losing exclusive access to metamagic does not automatically invalidate them from any serious consideration for use.
Fixing how the base Sorcerer works has been something I've been on board with for a while now, but the Class Features Variants (if/whenever/wherever that is coming out in anything official) is the closest 5e will probably get IMO. Also, as I said, I have no actual issue with these feats.
The Class Feature Variants UA did absolutely nothing to address the problem with Sorcerers, and this UA does basically the same thing. It's like the Sorcerer and Ranger classes are both sinking boats, and they're trying to patch the holes in the classes with duct tape.
Hey, duct tape worked for astronauts. Don't insult duct tape. WotC is definitely using Scotch.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
Yes, it is. Wizards are the 3rd most played class, and Sorcerer is the 2nd least played, just ahead of Druids. (Druids make sense, as they're a bit more difficult for new players to play than most other classes)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Well all right then. Sorcerers no longer have exclusive access to metamagic. Ergo, the sorcerer is no longer fine. So fix it. Improve the base class such that losing exclusive access to metamagic does not automatically invalidate them from any serious consideration for use.
Fixing how the base Sorcerer works has been something I've been on board with for a while now, but the Class Features Variants (if/whenever/wherever that is coming out in anything official) is the closest 5e will probably get IMO. Also, as I said, I have no actual issue with these feats.
The Class Feature Variants UA did absolutely nothing to address the problem with Sorcerers, and this UA does basically the same thing. It's like the Sorcerer and Ranger classes are both sinking boats, and they're trying to patch the holes in the classes with duct tape.
Hey, duct tape worked for astronauts. Don't insult duct tape. WotC is definitely using Scotch.
Mythbusters tried using duct tape for boats. It works for a bit, but eventually fails. I chose the brand of tape purposefully.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Well all right then. Sorcerers no longer have exclusive access to metamagic. Ergo, the sorcerer is no longer fine. So fix it. Improve the base class such that losing exclusive access to metamagic does not automatically invalidate them from any serious consideration for use.
Fixing how the base Sorcerer works has been something I've been on board with for a while now, but the Class Features Variants (if/whenever/wherever that is coming out in anything official) is the closest 5e will probably get IMO. Also, as I said, I have no actual issue with these feats.
The Class Feature Variants UA did absolutely nothing to address the problem with Sorcerers, and this UA does basically the same thing. It's like the Sorcerer and Ranger classes are both sinking boats, and they're trying to patch the holes in the classes with duct tape.
Hey, duct tape worked for astronauts. Don't insult duct tape. WotC is definitely using Scotch.
Mythbusters tried using duct tape for boats. It works for a bit, but eventually fails. I chose the brand of tape purposefully.
Interesting fact. Duct tape has been defeated.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
So what needs to happen to keep Ranger and Sorcerer afloat is to force people to level dip into them if they want the access to the ONE ability that they have?
We know that the classes won't be revised. Done Deal, Not Happening in 5e. These classes are not going to fixed.
Well all right then. Sorcerers no longer have exclusive access to metamagic. Ergo, the sorcerer is no longer fine. So fix it. Improve the base class such that losing exclusive access to metamagic does not automatically invalidate them from any serious consideration for use.
Fixing how the base Sorcerer works has been something I've been on board with for a while now, but the Class Features Variants (if/whenever/wherever that is coming out in anything official) is the closest 5e will probably get IMO. Also, as I said, I have no actual issue with these feats.
The Class Feature Variants UA did absolutely nothing to address the problem with Sorcerers, and this UA does basically the same thing. It's like the Sorcerer and Ranger classes are both sinking boats, and they're trying to patch the holes in the classes with duct tape.
Edit: I remembered this thread I created this months ago about this problem.
It didn't, but it did introduce more Metamagic options, and it gave you new things to do with the Font of Magic, which means that you have things you can do at the base class beyond casting spells (like the Druid's Wildshape or the Bard's Bardic Inspiration). So while it didn't fix the limited spell selection, the limited sorcery point pool, and the limited Metamagic selection (and these do still need to be addressed in some way), using the sorcery points for a variety of spell-like effects (especially effects thematically appropriate to the subclass) might be an interesting avenue to look into. The Shadow Sorcerer does something close to this already with Eyes of the Dark and Hound of Ill Omen, and it seems to work well enough.
So what needs to happen to keep Ranger and Sorcerer afloat is to force people to level dip into them if they want the access to the ONE ability that they have?
We know that the classes won't be revised. Done Deal, Not Happening in 5e. These classes are not going to fixed.
Maybe it is time to move on.
I guess a way to look at it is that now that every caster can potentially be a discount sorcerer with Metamagic Adept, it can open up more interesting gameplay like Clerics in general being able to use Cure Wounds with Distant Spell instead of this trick being exclusive to Divine Souls or Sorcerers who dip into Cleric (or vice-versa).
It occurred to me that Crusher would work very well with Booming Blade.
Whack, damage, movement, damage.
Hmmm.
The thing about Booming Blade's secondary damage is that it doesn't factor forced movement. If you are pushed, you don't trigger Booming Blade's secondary damage. You have to choose to move.
It occurred to me that Crusher would work very well with Booming Blade.
Whack, damage, movement, damage.
Hmmm.
The thing about Booming Blade's secondary damage is that it doesn't factor forced movement. If you are pushed, you don't trigger Booming Blade's secondary damage. You have to choose to move.
Hmm, well at least you pushed them back 5ft, and you can mostly likely move away w/o provoking. So if they want to attack next round they'll have to move.
That's helpful. The other useful thing about it is if you have someone who's in melee with a character you don't want them in melee with, you can now slide them away while still dealing damage to them.
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.
The Class Feature Variants UA did absolutely nothing to address the problem with Sorcerers, and this UA does basically the same thing.
The purpose of UA is not to address a problem with a class. The fact that this UA did not attempt to address a problem with a class is appropriate and correct.
The Class Feature Variants UA did absolutely nothing to address the problem with Sorcerers, and this UA does basically the same thing.
The purpose of UA is not to address a problem with a class. The fact that this UA did not attempt to address a problem with a class is appropriate and correct.
Detrimentally narrow viewpoint.
UA, generally, is for the purpose of playtesting potential new features, to get an outside opinion beyond the scope of the designer's bubble. This data can give designers insights into things they were unsure of, things they overlooked, etc, to better inform their design decision for further iteration.
The CFV UA, specifically, was an experiment to evaluate a set of possible changes, which individual DMs had the option of using or not using, to perhaps improve the QoL of playing the classes to which they were assigned. Some classes, lik the Ranger, were an extremely popular success, but raised the concern of 1 level dips into the class from others. Others, like the Sorcerer, were interesting options that were viewed as popular, but ultimately didn't address any of the problems of the class.
It's correct that the CFV UA was not meant to solve the problems, however, it's reasonable to assume that any changes resulting from that UA would have the intention of making the affected classes better. While not the same as buffing the class, it suggests a deeper intention.
The Class Feature Variants UA did absolutely nothing to address the problem with Sorcerers, and this UA does basically the same thing.
The purpose of UA is not to address a problem with a class. The fact that this UA did not attempt to address a problem with a class is appropriate and correct.
Detrimentally narrow viewpoint.
UA, generally, is for the purpose of playtesting potential new features, to get an outside opinion beyond the scope of the designer's bubble. This data can give designers insights into things they were unsure of, things they overlooked, etc, to better inform their design decision for further iteration.
The CFV UA, specifically, was an experiment to evaluate a set of possible changes, which individual DMs had the option of using or not using, to perhaps improve the QoL of playing the classes to which they were assigned. Some classes, lik the Ranger, were an extremely popular success, but raised the concern of 1 level dips into the class from others. Others, like the Sorcerer, were interesting options that were viewed as popular, but ultimately didn't address any of the problems of the class.
It's correct that the CFV UA was not meant to solve the problems, however, it's reasonable to assume that any changes resulting from that UA would have the intention of making the affected classes better. While not the same as buffing the class, it suggests a deeper intention.
This is very accurate.
My hope is that when they ask for feedback for this UA, they'll hear the response saying "Metamagic Adept is a cool idea that makes me realize how badly the Sorcerer needs some support in terms of exclusive Metamagic options. It's the only thing the class has going for it but it never gets more exciting after the initial ability unlock at level 3."
Sorc and Ranger are literally the only classes I can't find a single interesting character concept for and that is a tragedy.
The Class Feature Variants UA did absolutely nothing to address the problem with Sorcerers, and this UA does basically the same thing.
The purpose of UA is not to address a problem with a class. The fact that this UA did not attempt to address a problem with a class is appropriate and correct.
I guess you've never seen Class Feature Variants or Revised Ranger, then. You are correct on part of the second part, this UA did not attempt to address a problem with existing classes, which is kind of the problem. It opened up a can of worms without being prepared to deal with them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
My hope is that when they ask for feedback for this UA, they'll hear the response saying "Metamagic Adept is a cool idea that makes me realize how badly the Sorcerer needs some support in terms of exclusive Metamagic options. It's the only thing the class has going for it but it never gets more exciting after the initial ability unlock at level 3."
Sorc and Ranger are literally the only classes I can't find a single interesting character concept for and that is a tragedy.
For me, the tragedy is not that I can't come up with interesting character concepts for those classes, but it's that I can come up with those concepts, and they fall short in mechanical execution. It's similar with Monks as well, but they're not as much of a problem as Sorcerers and Rangers.
I also hope that the general consensus in the feedback for this UA is that it raises the issues of the Sorcerer and Ranger being lackluster, instead of that they don't like these feats. If WotC does get that feedback, I hope they don't back off and decide to drop this UA, I hope they make this UA while fixing the problematic classes and features.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
The Class Feature Variants UA did absolutely nothing to address the problem with Sorcerers, and this UA does basically the same thing.
The purpose of UA is not to address a problem with a class. The fact that this UA did not attempt to address a problem with a class is appropriate and correct.
I guess you've never seen Class Feature Variants or Revised Ranger, then. You are correct on part of the second part, this UA did not attempt to address a problem with existing classes, which is kind of the problem. It opened up a can of worms without being prepared to deal with them.
As we know for certain from the Revised Ranger, we will never see a Revised class in this edition. The core of the classes will never be altered in this edition. The best we will see is the Class Feature Variant and apparently that still won't be enough. Truly fixing Sorcerer or Ranger would require a full rewrite. These Feats look to be a way to address Level Dipping, not fixing classes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Well ain't that depressing.
Fixing how the base Sorcerer works has been something I've been on board with for a while now, but the Class Features Variants (if/whenever/wherever that is coming out in anything official) is the closest 5e will probably get IMO. Also, as I said, I have no actual issue with these feats.
The Class Feature Variants UA did absolutely nothing to address the problem with Sorcerers, and this UA does basically the same thing. It's like the Sorcerer and Ranger classes are both sinking boats, and they're trying to patch the holes in the classes with duct tape.
Edit: I remembered this thread I created this months ago about this problem.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Hey, duct tape worked for astronauts. Don't insult duct tape. WotC is definitely using Scotch.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Yes, it is. Wizards are the 3rd most played class, and Sorcerer is the 2nd least played, just ahead of Druids. (Druids make sense, as they're a bit more difficult for new players to play than most other classes)
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Mythbusters tried using duct tape for boats. It works for a bit, but eventually fails. I chose the brand of tape purposefully.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Interesting fact. Duct tape has been defeated.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
So what needs to happen to keep Ranger and Sorcerer afloat is to force people to level dip into them if they want the access to the ONE ability that they have?
We know that the classes won't be revised. Done Deal, Not Happening in 5e. These classes are not going to fixed.
Maybe it is time to move on.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
It didn't, but it did introduce more Metamagic options, and it gave you new things to do with the Font of Magic, which means that you have things you can do at the base class beyond casting spells (like the Druid's Wildshape or the Bard's Bardic Inspiration). So while it didn't fix the limited spell selection, the limited sorcery point pool, and the limited Metamagic selection (and these do still need to be addressed in some way), using the sorcery points for a variety of spell-like effects (especially effects thematically appropriate to the subclass) might be an interesting avenue to look into. The Shadow Sorcerer does something close to this already with Eyes of the Dark and Hound of Ill Omen, and it seems to work well enough.
I guess a way to look at it is that now that every caster can potentially be a discount sorcerer with Metamagic Adept, it can open up more interesting gameplay like Clerics in general being able to use Cure Wounds with Distant Spell instead of this trick being exclusive to Divine Souls or Sorcerers who dip into Cleric (or vice-versa).
It occurred to me that Crusher would work very well with Booming Blade.
Whack, damage, movement, damage.
Hmmm.
The thing about Booming Blade's secondary damage is that it doesn't factor forced movement. If you are pushed, you don't trigger Booming Blade's secondary damage. You have to choose to move.
Hmm, well at least you pushed them back 5ft, and you can mostly likely move away w/o provoking. So if they want to attack next round they'll have to move.
That's helpful. The other useful thing about it is if you have someone who's in melee with a character you don't want them in melee with, you can now slide them away while still dealing damage to them.
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.
The purpose of UA is not to address a problem with a class. The fact that this UA did not attempt to address a problem with a class is appropriate and correct.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Detrimentally narrow viewpoint.
UA, generally, is for the purpose of playtesting potential new features, to get an outside opinion beyond the scope of the designer's bubble. This data can give designers insights into things they were unsure of, things they overlooked, etc, to better inform their design decision for further iteration.
The CFV UA, specifically, was an experiment to evaluate a set of possible changes, which individual DMs had the option of using or not using, to perhaps improve the QoL of playing the classes to which they were assigned. Some classes, lik the Ranger, were an extremely popular success, but raised the concern of 1 level dips into the class from others. Others, like the Sorcerer, were interesting options that were viewed as popular, but ultimately didn't address any of the problems of the class.
It's correct that the CFV UA was not meant to solve the problems, however, it's reasonable to assume that any changes resulting from that UA would have the intention of making the affected classes better. While not the same as buffing the class, it suggests a deeper intention.
This is very accurate.
My hope is that when they ask for feedback for this UA, they'll hear the response saying "Metamagic Adept is a cool idea that makes me realize how badly the Sorcerer needs some support in terms of exclusive Metamagic options. It's the only thing the class has going for it but it never gets more exciting after the initial ability unlock at level 3."
Sorc and Ranger are literally the only classes I can't find a single interesting character concept for and that is a tragedy.
I guess you've never seen Class Feature Variants or Revised Ranger, then. You are correct on part of the second part, this UA did not attempt to address a problem with existing classes, which is kind of the problem. It opened up a can of worms without being prepared to deal with them.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
For me, the tragedy is not that I can't come up with interesting character concepts for those classes, but it's that I can come up with those concepts, and they fall short in mechanical execution. It's similar with Monks as well, but they're not as much of a problem as Sorcerers and Rangers.
I also hope that the general consensus in the feedback for this UA is that it raises the issues of the Sorcerer and Ranger being lackluster, instead of that they don't like these feats. If WotC does get that feedback, I hope they don't back off and decide to drop this UA, I hope they make this UA while fixing the problematic classes and features.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
As we know for certain from the Revised Ranger, we will never see a Revised class in this edition. The core of the classes will never be altered in this edition. The best we will see is the Class Feature Variant and apparently that still won't be enough. Truly fixing Sorcerer or Ranger would require a full rewrite. These Feats look to be a way to address Level Dipping, not fixing classes.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master