Uses Staffs and Magic Daggers as implements. Proficient with Cloth armor, Simple Melee and Simple Ranged weapons. +2 bonus to Will.
Primary attack stat is Charisma. Secondary stat is Dexterity or Strength, depending on build.
Main class feature is "Spell Source": either Dragon Magic (Strength secondary), or Wild Magic (Dexterity secondary). Both are similar, gaining a small, flat-damage bonus rather than rolling for bonus damage like other Strikers. Dragon Sorcerers get more powerful when bloodied, and have a specific type of energy resistance (as well as limited ability to overcome it), while Wild Sorcerers get resistance (and the ability to overcome resistance) to a randomly determined energy type after each extended rest, as well as gaining a different benefit based on attack roll: odd numbers grant a free saving throw, even numbers grant an AC bonus. Wild Sorcerers also get an effect on a Critical Hit (20) or a Critical Miss (1). Dragon Sorcerers can use Strength to determine AC.
Powers are almost all Close or Ranged. All use Charisma, all appear to target non-AC defenses, and none deal untyped damage, AFAICT.
Given the abilities, Dragonborn and Dragon Sorcerer were literally made for each other. Drow and Halflings are going to make dandy Wild Sorcerers. Sorcerers are also probably going to multiclass very well with Warlocks (Shared role, power source, and attack stat? Yes please.), Inspiring Warlords, Artful Dodger Rogues, as well as Bards and Paladins.
Personally, I'm going to use Blade Initiate to make a good Gish now! :D
I wonder, in fact, if they don't overshadow wizards somewhat? Wizards are controllers, I know, but they minor in striker, sorcerers are strikers minoring in controller. The classes share a power source. But sorcerers are much, much better damage dealers, and though they seem to lack some of the "lock down" abilities wizards have, I think those are overrated. Wizards, however, remain the master ritualists, and it seems from what little we've seen, the master utility users.
They certainly seem to be awesome strikers- maybe the best yet, even.
I wonder, in fact, if they don't overshadow wizards somewhat? Wizards are controllers, I know, but they minor in striker, sorcerers are strikers minoring in controller. The classes share a power source. But sorcerers are much, much better damage dealers, and though they seem to lack some of the "lock down" abilities wizards have, I think those are overrated. Wizards, however, remain the master ritualists, and it seems from what little we've seen, the master utility users.
The Wizard is... outdated. It was written back before the designers and developers really had a clear idea of what a Controller was supposed to do, and now, a year later, they have a heck of a lot better idea, particular of how the Wizard fails in this regard. We know this because they said as much, and because they are generally out-shined by the Druid and Invoker coming up in PH2.
What we can expect is hopefully some newer, up-to-date Wizard builds in Arcane Power.
Suggested Feat: Implement Expertise
is that a general feat...what does it do...it sounds hawt
did you guys find this little hidden nugget...
is that a general feat...what does it do...it sounds hawt
. . . Any chance that's like Weapon Proficiency? But for Implements?
Wizards still have AoE Spells, Wall Spells, and Status effects far above anyone else.
To further differentiate, it looks like sorcerers will have a bit of metamagic available to them via utilities if stretch spell is any indication.
. . . Any chance that's like Weapon Proficiency? But for Implements?
or maybe a bonus like weapon focus...or mastery...
or maybe a bonus like weapon focus...or mastery...
Since wizards have the implement mastery feature, I doubt "mastery" will enter into it. "Expertise" may grant a simple, static bonus to something...maybe even to damage.
CHA-Warlock/Sorcerer + Pact Blade? Nice. :D
Personally, I'm going to use Blade Initiate to make a good Gish now! :D
...Gnome Sorcerer/Swordmage?! I love it!
And not even in the numbers, but why is getting a +2 useful for Sorcerers? What are Sorcerers going to use that +2 for?
I suppose there are some benefits, but it strikes me as odd.
Otherwise, I like the Sorcerer. And I rue that we have two months or so before we finally get to use them for reals. I'm kind of happy that they're not Arcane Controllers, but I would've liked it all the same if they were. I suspected they'd be Arcane Strikers, but shrugged it off by suggesting how Warlocks are that. Turns out they're a whole other kind. Wild Magic. Heh.
One more week until we get to see the Shaman.
It looks like you can do damage or be zaney... zaney seems fine if there is another striker already, but if you are the only one...
I really like that we finally have a reasonable risk for using so-called "wild" magic: Unfettered Power on a 1. It's not exactly catastrophic, but it's great flavor and should have a noticeable impact.
Since wizards have the implement mastery feature, I doubt "mastery" will enter into it. "Expertise" may grant a simple, static bonus to something...maybe even to damage.
or "Implement Expertise" may allow other weapons to be used as an implement...
they are generally out-shined by the Druid and Invoker coming up in PH2.
While they might do the Controller role better (up till now my Wizard has primarily been a ranged attacker doing one or two enemies at a time, I'm experimenting more with attacking large groups of people though), they are comparable in the damage they output. So I wouldn't say they're outshined by Invokers.
While they might do the Controller role better (up till now my Wizard has primarily been a ranged attacker doing one or two enemies at a time, I'm experimenting more with attacking large groups of people though), they are comparable in the damage they output. So I wouldn't say they're outshined by Invokers.
and no invoker or druid power could possible unseat Orb locks...stunlocks right...only errat can do that :D
(back on topic): I'm liking this class, it appears that dragon magic is more damage focused, while wild magic is more 'controllerish'
Critical Miss (1).
This was SO CLOSE to being totally awesome (as opposed to just mostly awesome). How bad are the critical misses?
This was SO CLOSE to being totally awesome (as opposed to just mostly awesome). How bad are the critical misses?
It could actually be a good thing--you push everything within 5 one square. I like it.
It could actually be a good thing--you push everything within 5 one square. I like it.
And since you can always choose to push less than the indicated distance, you can choose not to push at all. Whew ... I was afraid this was gonna be some utter hose job like 'target an ally' or 'lose d4 healing surges' or 'your head explodes' kind of critical misses.
Like the ones that crop up in the Homebrew forum ... *shudder*
Worries averted, carry on.
You missed a word there. It says you must push each creature within 5 squares of you 1 square. So yeah, it'll push your allies too.
Well, that kinda stinks, but at least it stinks as opposed to sucks.
Well, that kinda stinks, but at least it stinks as opposed to sucks.
I don't know, I think it could be awfully handy. You can set up flanking, ruin enemy flanking, provide some space for the frontliners to reposition, get those damned lurkers off of the wizard, et cetera. Combine that with, say, a Ring of the Ram, and you've got some fun opportunities for controllery.
I don't know, I think it could be awfully handy. You can set up flanking, ruin enemy flanking, provide some space for the frontliners to reposition, get those damned lurkers off of the wizard, et cetera. Combine that with, say, a Ring of the Ram, and you've got some fun opportunities for controllery.
Ruin your own flanks, accidentally push teammates over a precipice, move your allies out of a helpful zone, move your allies into a harmful zone ...
There are times it could be cool, yes. There are also times it could really, really stink.
Hey...chaos power and dragon power do not have the 1/perround limit like Quarry, Sneak attack and curse...
Yes, but keep in mind it has to come from an arcane power. So: sorcerer, wizard, swordmage, warlock, bard or artificer.
And I don't see dragon soul as the main "damage dealer." AFAICT they are fairly equitable on damage, dragon soul is just more predictable than wild soul.
It really cool to me how they sync'ed up the "dragon flavour" of race and class here.
6 Strikers isn't the worst. I've found that a great deal of players just want to be heavy hitters anyway.
Yeah, that's another problem, too many people seem to want to be Strikers, because most people want the limelight, and don't want to be as supportive to others as a Leader (or god forbid do less damage) or what have you. Strikers, are the easiest classes to play, tactically.
Yeah, that's another problem, too many people seem to want to be Strikers, because most people want the limelight, and don't want to be as supportive to others as a Leader (or god forbid do less damage) or what have you. Strikers, are the easiest classes to play, tactically.
But what should WotC do about this? Publishing less strikers won't change peoples desire to play strikers. So publish more, give them more options and sell more books.
Publishing more defenders and leaders won't really push people in that direction.
It's a striker, but it's also so much controller. Reading through the powers, I sometimes forgot their role, in fact. The class just feels unrefined, which is perfect given what it is. It rides a fine line between the Warlock and Wizard perfectly, imho.
This.
Also I'd rather have good strikers than bad controllers.
Poor warlock gets nothing like Dazzling Ray. Sort of. I can't tell when things are balanced or not.
But what should WotC do about this? Publishing less strikers won't change peoples desire to play strikers. So publish more, give them more options and sell more books.
Publishing more defenders and leaders won't really push people in that direction.
Actually, I think you are wrong there. Some people play based on style, cool factor, or "attitude".
I'm currently playing a Dragonborn Fighter (shield, hammer, STR/CON, tank style), not because I wanted to play a defender, but because I wanted to get in the thick of battle and squish things. Once I read the fighter powers, Tide of Iron sounded like fun, so my play style has evolved from that. I'm very sticky, very direct, and very tank-like. Had they made a tank striker, I'd have considered that too.
If you give people more/better interesting defender, leader, and controller builds, people may find them interesting. I'm certainly eager to see the Druid, and its a controller.
Anyway, sorcerer:
<3
Must play dragonborn sorcerer! I was hoping for a more durable, melee-magic class, but I suppose it's OK. I'll just have to take feats to get hide armor, and toughness. From what I hear, Sorcerers aren't going to need much in the way of bonus damage from feats. ^_^
or "Implement Expertise" may allow other weapons to be used as an implement...
I hope your guess is correct. To me the forced use of wands, orbs, etc. is just obnoxious.
While I like the class, I have to say I'm disappointed it isn't a Controller, but I guess in the end they couldn't think (design) of an Arcane Controller that was sufficiently different from the Wizard. And now we have 6 Strikers and 3 Controllers.
Maybe, but instead they made something that might not be sufficiently different from the warlock. Both class share not only the same power source and role, but the same sub-role as well and the both can cast off of charisma. Sure maybe there are some mechanical differences (different extra damage features), but it still feels to me like WotC could have just given the warlock a dragon pact and a wild-magic pact and created the same flavor effect.
At least if sorcerers had been controllers they could have distinguished them selves from wizards by using charisma as a primary attack stat instead of intelligence.
On the other, I'm glad they managed to avoid a relapse into the "needless symmetry" they said they were trying to avoid. If they have a good idea for a certain class, they'll make it, regardless of whether its power source and role are already filled. The primal classes made me worried about this (due to the one controller, one striker, one leader, and one defender), but never mind now.
The only thing that seriously worries me now is power creep. I'll have to playtest these new classes to know for sure, but the Warden, Sorcerer, and Invoker all seem a bit stronger than their PHB1 counterparts. Could be wrong, of course, and even if I'm not, I'm sure later supplements will bring the original classes up to par.
Anyway, I'm quite excited for the PHB2.
The only thing that seriously worries me now is power creep. I'll have to playtest these new classes to know for sure, but the Warden, Sorcerer, and Invoker all seem a bit stronger than their PHB1 counterparts. Could be wrong, of course, and even if I'm not, I'm sure later supplements will bring the original classes up to par.
Anyway, I'm quite excited for the PHB2.
Ditto. :|
(off-topic): You in favor of errattaing ORb of imposition GMforPowergamers?
yes I am...but I am not holding my breath...
On the other, I'm glad they managed to avoid a relapse into the "needless symmetry" they said they were trying to avoid.
It's not within my rights to berate you for your opinions, as every person is welcome to make D&D into whatever fits their needs. But I do want to point out that, IMHO, "needless symmetry" is as much an oxymoron as "military intelligence." Having a balanced selection of sources/roles makes me happy. In fact, I was compiling an anthology of fan works to complement the PHB and PHB2... five races, eight classes, blah, blah, blah... and the classes I picked depended on the sorcerer being a controller, not a striker. To say that I was miffed was a bit of an understatement.
But, ah, well. This is WotC's baby, not mine. I get to adjust what they put out, not make them adjust it for me.
Maybe, but instead they made something that might not be sufficiently different from the warlock. Both class share not only the same power source and role, but the same sub-role as well and the both can cast off of charisma. Sure maybe there are some mechanical differences (different extra damage features), but it still feels to me like WotC could have just given the warlock a dragon pact and a wild-magic pact and created the same flavor effect.
They also could have just given the rogue a TWF build and an archery build and then gotten rid of the ranger.:P
Yeah, that's another problem, too many people seem to want to be Strikers, because most people want the limelight, and don't want to be as supportive to others as a Leader (or god forbid do less damage) or what have you. Strikers, are the easiest classes to play, tactically.
Steely, some gamers like leaders and some gamers like strikers. That's just how they are; don't hold it against them! ;)
I don't know, I think it could be awfully handy. You can set up flanking, ruin enemy flanking, provide some space for the frontliners to reposition, get those damned lurkers off of the wizard, et cetera. Combine that with, say, a Ring of the Ram, and you've got some fun opportunities for controllery.
I think situations like this will be awfully rare coincidences, but certainly exciting if/when they occur.
Ruin your own flanks, accidentally push teammates over a precipice, move your allies out of a helpful zone, move your allies into a harmful zone ...
This is much more likely. Bad, yet not--as you succinctly put it, Salla--"your head explodes" bad.
Personally I think that the random element of the Wild magic effect for Chaos Sorcerers pretty much balances out any overpowered-ness. Visualizing my gaming table, I can just see the guy playing the sorcerer counting on rolling a 20 or an even number or a 1 or whatever, and throwing away an Encounter or a Daily just when the party needs him most.
Regarding the discussion on class roles, I think that we play with what we have. My personal favourite is the Leader, and except for the Cleric (which I've never liked conceptually, but admit is quite awesome in 4e), every leader class that's come out I would like to play at some point (holding my breath for the Shaman here...) I don't feel that having more options of one role affects my choices...
Up until now, all the classes defined as strikers have elicited a "nice, but I wouldn't play it" response from me. The Sorcerer is the first one that I think I would enjoy playing -- owing to the unique randomness it offers on top of dicerolling. We'll see...
I can't wait for the PH2.
Unseen Aid is the most unfortunately useless level 2 utilities I've seen. And I don't say that in the "there are worse ones" sense, I mean that it rivals on the list of "useless ones" I keep in my noggin. +2 to a single skill check made THIS turn? Why is this useful?
And not even in the numbers, but why is getting a +2 useful for Sorcerers? What are Sorcerers going to use that +2 for?
It's an encounter power. read it as, "Get a +2 (untyped) bonus to all skill checks out of combat." That's like skill focus, but for EVERYTHING.
It's an encounter power. read it as, "Get a +2 (untyped) bonus to all skill checks out of combat." That's like skill focus, but for EVERYTHING.
OOOOOHHH!! Nice call, Anubis!!
Oh, and I agree with Ranadiel: No one complains about the Rogue/Ranger similarities, so why start now??
somehow I don't ssee that being a popular choose for lv 2 utlities...but it is far from worthless...
1. The "dragon touched" spell caster, who's either descended from them or was taught by them
2. The unrefined, naturally talented spell caster who's a fount of arcane power.
Seems like I'd be able to build Abdel Fallowthorn (my old tiefling sorcerer summoner) as a Sorcerer/Wizard with summoning spells once the PHB 2 and arcane power come out. :D That makes me so very happy.
Here is an interesting debate, looking at the wording of how the sorcerer uses daggers as a impliment and then the wording of sneak attack which only requires you to be "useing a weapon from the light blade... weapon group." A Sorcerer with the Sneak of Shadows [Multiclass Rogue] feat would so long as they are useing a dagger (a weapon from the light blade group) as an impliment be able to add sneak attack damage with in the limitations of the feat on any of thier powers. Am I the only one that sees that as being very strong particularly if you were to use it with dazzling ray.
Don't you have to use the dagger as the attack method (rather than a spell) to use sneak attack? Using a dagger as an implement is an entirely different thing, no?
Don't you have to use the dagger as the attack method (rather than a spell) to use sneak attack? Using a dagger as an implement is an entirely different thing, no?
Thats why I said look at the sneak attack wording. The wording doesn't say anywhere that you have to use it as a weapon, nor does it say you can't use it as an impliment. So I see no reason why it wouldn't work.
Don't you have to use the dagger as the attack method (rather than a spell) to use sneak attack? Using a dagger as an implement is an entirely different thing, no?
This is argued back and forth. I honestly would rather it be allowed, mostly just to allow someone other than Tempest Fighters and overly-Rougish characters anyway a way to make use of sneak-attack.
Yeah, that's another problem, too many people seem to want to be Strikers, because most people want the limelight, and don't want to be as supportive to others as a Leader (or god forbid do less damage) or what have you. Strikers, are the easiest classes to play, tactically.
People enjoying their characters is a problem to you?
Just because you enjoy doing one thing doesn't mean everyone has to enjoy doing it to. I love my Warlord, but I like being a heavy hitter too. It is fun. You shouldn't judge which is right and wrong. To each their own.
Unseen Aid is the most unfortunately useless level 2 utilities I've seen. And I don't say that in the "there are worse ones" sense, I mean that it rivals on the list of "useless ones" I keep in my noggin. +2 to a single skill check made THIS turn? Why is this useful?
And not even in the numbers, but why is getting a +2 useful for Sorcerers? What are Sorcerers going to use that +2 for?
I suppose there are some benefits, but it strikes me as odd.
It is an Encounter Power. That means it is basically plus 2 to all skills outside of combat (usually) and to one skill in combat (which isn't terribly important). To me, this is an amazing Utility, and one worth multiclassing for. That said, the daily Utility is good too, not sure which I will be taking. But anyone who calls a power which effectively says "You gain +2 to all skills" is not seeing the whole picture (i.e. the game continues outside of combat).
EDIT: I see I was not the only person to realize this.
Actually, I think you are wrong there. Some people play based on style, cool factor, or "attitude".
I'm currently playing a Dragonborn Fighter (shield, hammer, STR/CON, tank style), not because I wanted to play a defender, but because I wanted to get in the thick of battle and squish things. Once I read the fighter powers, Tide of Iron sounded like fun, so my play style has evolved from that. I'm very sticky, very direct, and very tank-like. Had they made a tank striker, I'd have considered that too.
If you give people more/better interesting defender, leader, and controller builds, people may find them interesting. I'm certainly eager to see the Druid, and its a controller.
I will disagree with you, because in every game I think I have played, MMO or table top, "killing things" is nearly always more popular than "tanking things" or "healing things". There is always more "strikers" than needed and always a shortage/borderline-shortage of "defenders", "leaders" and "controlers.
Go to an RPGA game, I know this is true there for our local RPGA place.
Go to an RPGA game, I know this is true there for our local RPGA place.
I have only once sat down at an RPGA game and not had atleast 2 strikers...
Heck I play the weekly delves too, and most new players drift toward rouge and warlock...
Anyone else pleasantly surprised at the way they integrated the bloodlines thing? It's like, there but not there. Builds are based on it, but it doesn't necessarily have to be an ancestry thing.
I really like that we finally have a reasonable risk for using so-called "wild" magic: Unfettered Power on a 1. It's not exactly catastrophic, but it's great flavor and should have a noticeable impact.
I am specifically pleased with Spell Source. I really didn't want to see the Sorcerer forced into gaining his powers based on a bloodline; I think it's nice that the option is still there if a player wants to take the fluff in that direction.
Overall I like the look of the Sorcerer, but I am worried about one thing. It has an awful lot of AoE for a striker. I suppose they playtested the class and found this acceptable, but I'm still going to need to see it in play for my suspicions of power creep to be allayed.
I will disagree with you, because in every game I think I have played, MMO or table top, "killing things" is nearly always more popular than "tanking things" or "healing things". There is always more "strikers" than needed and always a shortage/borderline-shortage of "defenders", "leaders" and "controlers.
Go to an RPGA game, I know this is true there for our local RPGA place.
This might be based on MMO players having a misconception of what the D&D class roles do. The fighters in the 4E games I've played in and run have done just as much killing as the strikers.
Here is an interesting debate, looking at the wording of how the sorcerer uses daggers as a impliment and then the wording of sneak attack which only requires you to be "useing a weapon from the light blade... weapon group." A Sorcerer with the Sneak of Shadows [Multiclass Rogue] feat would so long as they are useing a dagger (a weapon from the light blade group) as an impliment be able to add sneak attack damage with in the limitations of the feat on any of thier powers. Am I the only one that sees that as being very strong particularly if you were to use it with dazzling ray.
You're just now asking this? The question has been on the table from warlock pact blades for a while now. The FAQ stating that Weapon Focus (heavy blade) works for swordmage implement powers suggests that it would work--to my dismay.
Extension: Dragon Sorcerer/Kensei. Choose daggers as your weapon of choice. +1 to hit and +4 damage with all your sorcerer powers, and having a couple of melee powers isn't bad in a pinch.
Anything Cha based (Paladin, Bard, Warlock)
and
Anything Strength based (Paladin, Warlord, Fighter etc...)
Also,
Wild sorcs will multiclass well with
Anything cha based (see above)
and anything dex based (Ranger, Rogue)
Oddly enough... Sorcerers don't mix well with wizards and vice versa. Odd isn't it? No more ultimate magi =P
Yes, they do. Sorcerer's get to add their extra damage to all Arcane Powers. Dragonborn Ultimate Magi FTW.
Well that does seem to be a point but when you look at wizard attacks being mostly all int based and all but a hand full of swordmage attacks being the same. From a purely stat point, though you get the damage bonus, you won't be very accurate with those powers. However the sorcerer warlock would be a very effective and natural combination.
The wording doesn't say anywhere that you have to use it as a weapon, nor does it say you can't use it as an impliment. So I see no reason why it wouldn't work.
I do: Logic.
But I know better than to invoke that seriously on the internet. :P
I do: Logic.
But I know better than to invoke that seriously on the internet. :P
can i just ask what you mean...
They also could have just given the rogue a TWF build and an archery build and then gotten rid of the ranger.:P
Well, at least Rangers use strength for their melee attacks. I will admit that it is possible that I might just be splitting hairs, but I don't get the same sense of sameness from the Ranger and Rogue. Neither of them seems to step overly into each other's territory. While I'm not entirely sure what secondary roles they are best at filling, they don't seem like they would be the same. Unlike the Sorcerer and the Warlock, who rather assuredly have not only the same source and role, but the same sub-role as well.
Well, at least Rangers use strength for their melee attacks. I will admit that it is possible that I might just be splitting hairs, but I don't get the same sense of sameness from the Ranger and Rogue. Neither of them seems to step overly into each other's territory. While I'm not entirely sure what secondary roles they are best at filling, they don't seem like they would be the same. Unlike the Sorcerer and the Warlock, who rather assuredly have not only the same source and role, but the same sub-role as well.
Can I contribute something odd to this line of reasoning? When 4e first came out and we made the first characters for our group, I remember thinking that the Warlock was a class that seemed to be cut out for beginners, since so many of the options were determined by *one* choice (the pact). The two players with the least gaming experience in our group --separately and without talking to each other -- picked Warlock.
The Sorcerer, OTOH, seems to be cut out for people who've already played a bit and either a)don't mind a little goofiness in the way their characters behave mechanically when it's down to brass tacks; or b) want to be able to dive in and duke it out if necessary, even while playing a magic-user that's conceptually adverse to melee combat.
It is also interesting to me that the Dragon magic Sorcerer seems a perfect glove fit for Dragonborn, whereas the Warlock always seems to fit the tiefling better, both fluff- and crunch-wise.
can i just ask what you mean...
Sure. Knowing how to use a weapon better doesn't mean jack if you're not using it as a weapon.
Kind of like being able to juggle some crystal balls doesn't make you a better fortune teller, or being able to count to 100 doesn't mean you're good at multiplying, or being CEO of a pen company doesn't make you a good writer.
Using something as an implement and using it as a weapon are completely unrelated skills, so I house ruse that such wording oversights will not work in my games. Of course, that's just me using logic, and I know not everybody is a fan of that, so I digress. I know it's not RAW, and I'm not pretending it is. :P
This might be based on MMO players having a misconception of what the D&D class roles do. The fighters in the 4E games I've played in and run have done just as much killing as the strikers.
Unless, every fighter in the games you have played is using the great weapon/Maul fighter build I fail to see how the tanks in your group are putting out the same damage or more than the strikers unless the people in your game who are playing strikers usually roll like absolute crap. As regards Strikers in 4E I will say that while I enjoy 4E I do think strikers are the definate stars of 4E and the class most people desire to play because strikers often do the most damage and get the kill shot and most people like being the star of the show not being a part fo the supporting cast. As, I stated in another thread I remember when DnD 4E was announced and the designers in several interviews likened the roles in DnD 4E to the roles on a sports team like basketball or whatever where everybody has a vital role to play to achieve the overall goal, but to use that same analogy basketball fans respect everybody's role on the time i.,e the guy who catches rebounds, etc but people love Michael Jordan and Strikers are the MJs of 4E with every other role supporting them. Strikers especially rogues and rangers are the Michael Jordans of 4E scoring the most points and doing the slam dunks that makes everybody go gaga, followed by the Defenders (the point guards) who don't really do much but keep the opponents from getting to the shooter, the Leaders (more like field medics that run out onto the field when the player gets injured and help them out), and the coaches (the Controller who come up with game plans to hinder the enemy or play that really helps out Mike to set him up for the slam dunk), and all that is fine and good but don't kid yourself just like basketball fans respect the importance of all those other roles but really loves Michael Jordan llkewise all the roles are important in 4E but one can't help but feel that strikers are the stars of the show in this edition, which is not to say I don't like 4E I'm actually enjoying playing it, but let's be real it is what it is, everybody wants to be like Mike but not everybody is running out to be like Bill Cartwright.
Peace,
Fallstorm
Second, you've obviously never played, researched, or even watched much Basketball. The Utah Jazz constantly beat out other teams, and WITHOUT a star player like Mike. They have an almost unbeatable defense, however, and therefore WIN.
Here's how it works:
Center - Rushes the front, drops the hits, scores the points. The Frontman. Ranger, Barbarian.
Small Forward - Assists when needed, plays off the Power Forward and Center to score a LOT. Rogue, Warlord.
Power Forward - Mid-to-short range scorer, good on offense, but can quickly switch to D. Fighter, Paladin.
Point Guard - Extremely skilled at defense and/or mobility. Assists the entire team as necessary. Cleric, Wizard.
Shooting Guard - Long-range scorer and backup D. Good mobility, highly skilled, very reliable. Warlock, Sorcerer.
Michael Jordan? Kobe Bryant? SHOOTING GUARDS.
Anyone can be the Star of the Show, as long as you know how to play the game. The rest of the team is just as important as the Center, or the Shooting Guard, or the Power Forward. Without teammates, Michael Jordan, Kobe, Shaq, and even Johnson all lose.
First off, do you BREATHE when you talk, or what?? :P
Yeah, I breathe when I talk but not as fast as I type.
Second, you've obviously never played, researched, or even watched much Basketball. The Utah Jazz constantly beat out other teams, and WITHOUT a star player like Mike. They have an almost unbeatable defense, however, and therefore WIN.
Here's how it works:
Center - Rushes the front, drops the hits, scores the points. The Frontman. Ranger, Barbarian.
Small Forward - Assists when needed, plays off the Power Forward and Center to score a LOT. Rogue, Warlord.
Power Forward - Mid-to-short range scorer, good on offense, but can quickly switch to D. Fighter, Paladin.
Point Guard - Extremely skilled at defense and/or mobility. Assists the entire team as necessary. Cleric, Wizard.
Shooting Guard - Long-range scorer and backup D. Good mobility, highly skilled, very reliable. Warlock, Sorcerer.
Michael Jordan? Kobe Bryant? SHOOTING GUARDS.
Anyone can be the Star of the Show, as long as you know how to play the game. The rest of the team is just as important as the Center, or the Shooting Guard, or the Power Forward. Without teammates, Michael Jordan, Kobe, Shaq, and even Johnson all lose.
Dude, did you just use the Utah Jazz as an example? Excuse me, how many championships has the Utah Jazz won(and Western Conference doesn't mean crap)? They haven't won any Championships that I recall and if they have won a Championship and it had to be before they were in the NBA. So, I will stand by my statement everybody wants to be a Michael Jordan nobody wants to be a support character. Yes, I agree with you that how a player uses their character can go along way towards making even a bad class better but that doesn’t change the fact that one class or role is more gears towards being a star than the other. If concentrated damage is the best tactic in 4E vs spreading the damage thin against multipe targets (and in previous editions of the DnD game as well this was the best strategy) as Bill Slavicsek and Richard Baker stated then Strikers are going to naturally be more opted to shine in the game by default than other classes.
Peace,
Fallstorm
P.S. Since you seem to be a Jazz fan I just thought I would send you this from You Tube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRCTp57LQro&feature=related
Michael Jordan’s last shot as a Bull. I believe those are Utah Jazz fans in the stands crying;)
Yeah, I breathe when I talk but not as fast as I type.
AHH. Yeah, I know that one.
Dude, did you just use the Utah Jazz as an example? Excuse me, how many championships has the Utah Jazz won? None that I recall and if they have won a championship it had to be before they were in the NBA. So, I will stand by my statement everybody wants to be a Michael Jordan nobody wants to be a support character. Yes, I agree with you that how a player uses their character can go along way towards making even a bad class better but that doesn’t change the fact that one class or role is more gears towards being a star than the other. If concentrated damage is the best tactic in 4E (and previous editions of the DnD game as well) as Bill Slavicsek and Richard Baker stated then Strikers are going to naturally be more opted to floss in the game by default.
Peace,
Fallstorm
Personally, I stick to Shooting Guard. I can't hit lay-ups to save my LIFE.
However, I know many people who like to play very specific spots on any given team, and most of those people don't CARE how many points they score in a game, they just like to play for the love of the game. It's the same in DnD; you may have a bunch of Strikers if the only people you play with are from the CharOp Boards, sure! However, most people aren't from the CharOp Boards, and so they like to play for the fun of playing. Now this isn't to say they don't Opp their characters, but what you're Optimizing towards tends to differ from person-to-person.
P.S. Since you seem to be a Jazz fan I just thought I would send you this from You Tube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRCTp57LQro&feature=related
Michael Jordan’s last shot as Bull. I believe those are Utah Jazz fans in the stands crying;)
Oh, don't worry about making me feel bad. I'm actually a big Knicks fan.
Oh, don't worry about making me feel bad. I'm actually a big Knicks fan.
Hey, I like the Knicks at least they had Patrick Ewing shooting for them back in the day
But as far as DnD 4E is there is definately a reason that more people seem to be playing strikers and strikers are outnumbering other roles: the role is more opted to shine by the combat standard of 4E than other classes.
Peace,
Fallstorm
Oh, and yeah, Ewing was pretty much my favorite player...until he got all wimpy and had to sit out halfway through every game because his wrist hurt, or his ankle hurt, or wah wah wah.
Hey, I like the Knicks at least they had Patrick Ewing shooting for them back in the day
But as far as DnD 4E is there is definately a reason that more people seem to be playing strikers and strikers are outnumbering other roles: the role is more opted to shine by the combat standard of 4E than other classes.
Peace,
Fallstorm
I'm thinking you may have a point. I'm starting a game with my old gaming group online, and all of them are newbies to 4E. And wouldn't you know it? One is playing a Ranger, one is playing a Rogue, and one is playing a Warlock. Though thankfully we also have a Bard, while I'll be playing either a Warlord or a Fighter/Warden. Depends on what another players plays (Seeing as how the Bard player won't join in right away). If he picks a Leader then I'll play a Defender, but if he picks a Defender then I'll play a Leader.
I'm fairly certain the Druid and Invoker will have something to say about that.
Well, I certainly hope so but honestly just looking at the previews of the Druid and Invoker I haven't off the cuff seen anything that will make them shine more than Rangers or Rogues in combat, but we'll see. Likewise, I am certain that Arcane Power will give a big boost to the Wizard class including new class features and builds that help them perform their role of control the same way Martial Power did for Fighters, Rangers, Rogues, and Warlords.
Oh, and yeah, Ewing was pretty much my favorite player...until he got all wimpy and had to sit out halfway through every game because his wrist hurt, or his ankle hurt, or wah wah wah.
Well, overpaid NBA players whinning seems to be the norm these days I mean look at Kobe Bryant. He is constantly whinning about something. I mean, I like Kobe Bryant okay but everytime he hits the court it is like watching the Trail of Tears.
Peace,
Fallstorm
Striker classes, the new PrC! There must be at least three in every PHB!
I'm thinking you may have a point. I'm starting a game with my old gaming group online, and all of them are newbies to 4E. And wouldn't you know it? One is playing a Ranger, one is playing a Rogue, and one is playing a Warlock. Though thankfully we also have a Bard, while I'll be playing either a Warlord or a Fighter/Warden. Depends on what another players plays (Seeing as how the Bard player won't join in right away). If he picks a Leader then I'll play a Defender, but if he picks a Defender then I'll play a Leader.
Hello, GK:
It isn't just newer players playing strikers. I play with a veteran gaming group and we started playing 4E with Kobold's Hall the mini adventure in the back of the DMG and continued up through KotSF and Thunderspire Mountain. We have just started Pyramid of Shadows now, but out of my group I am playing wizard, one guy is playing a warlord, and the other three guys are a Rogue and a Ranger, and I have to say the Rogue and Ranger...moreso the Rogue seems to shine more in combat that any other character. We have all been playing DnD since at least 2nd edition and some of us since first so I don't think it is because people playing non-strikers is why the strikers are shining more than other characters I think the role itself lends itself to be more noticeable. A role that has high mobility or an ability to hide and pumps out more damage than other classes is by default going to be the star role of game, which again doesn't in anyway mean other roles are not important but let's call it like it is.
Peace,
Fallstorm
You know, just the other day I was like, "Man, I don't think there are enough classes in 4e that focus on dealing damage."
Really? Because just the other day I was thinking we need more classes that focus on not dealing damage, like the baker, the serving wench, or the cobbler. I guess some of us just like roleplaying.
:PAt-Will - Trade, Weapon, Food
Requires Rolling Pin
Attack: Strength vs AC
Hit: 1[w] and you make a very tastey cake, too bad that goblin is feeling the pain right now.
You forgot the bard. :P
Actually, the bard got a good power boost in 4E because people didn't want to play a role-play only class and complained so much about the bard being a support class in previous editions like 3.5:P
Peace,
Fallstorm
Way I see it, 40 damage to BBEG = 10 damage to BBEG and his three buddies.
Then again, maybe I don't pay attention enough to my groupmate's damage output while I'm playing a leader or defender (PSYCHED about Shaman preview next monday, btw; my favorite 3e char was a homebrew Shaman based off the WoW class). I just know either way their damage output is almost always more than mine :D
Yeah, that's another problem, too many people seem to want to be Strikers, because most people want the limelight, and don't want to be as supportive to others as a Leader (or god forbid do less damage) or what have you. Strikers, are the easiest classes to play, tactically.
The people I play with always seem willing to fill in the necessary roles (Controllers and Strikers have been deemed to be the least necessary so we won't go out of our way to fill in these roles and they're always the first to be sacrificed). The other night we played a game that had 2 clerics and an artificer (all leaders), along with a defender and a rogue.
So it all depends on who you're playing with. I personally have written up a character for almost every single class from PHB1 (I'm not overly interested in Paladin). Here they are with the current level they're on:
* Elven Ranger (Archer) - Level 1
* Dhampyr (Human) Ranger (Two-handed) - Level 1
* Minotaur Ranger (Beastmaster) - Level 1
* Gnoll Rogue - Level 1
* Halfling Warlord (Inspiring) - Level 1
* Tiefling Warlord (Resourceful) - Level 1
* Dwarven Fighter - Level 1
* Human Warlock - Level 2
* Drow Swordmage - Level 3
* Warforged Cleric - Level 4
* Genasi Wizard - Level 8
Only one striker has progressed beyond Level 1, while all but 2 of my non-Strikers have.
it still feels to me like WotC could have just given the warlock a dragon pact and a wild-magic pact and created the same flavor effect.
Agreed.
They also could have just given the rogue a TWF build and an archery build and then gotten rid of the ranger.:P
The thing is though, the Dragon Source seems pretty much like an Dragon Pact. A dragon gives you access to its magic. That's a Pact. I like the small additions they've made to avoid this, but it still feels very much like a pact to me.
No one complains about the Rogue/Ranger similarities, so why start now??
Their flavour is different though. Rogues live in cities and are good at stealing. Rangers live in the wilds and are good at hunting. I actually feel the Warden is a bit too similar to Ranger in terms of fluff.
Go to an RPGA game, I know this is true there for our local RPGA place.
My experiences are all RPGA games (with the exception of my halfling Warlord who will be joining a homebrew next week. Its also why I have a tiefling warlord as I'll always want a leader at level 1-4 range so I can join any game and bring in a healer if its needed.
I'll admit there were lots of strikers to begin with, but this is dying down considerably with me often not seeing a warlock in a party (which is how I got to play mine
).I'm thinking you may have a point. I'm starting a game with my old gaming group online, and all of them are newbies to 4E. And wouldn't you know it? One is playing a Ranger, one is playing a Rogue, and one is playing a Warlock.
Well as a newbie to D&D (a session or two worth of 3.5 not withstanding) and the first class I picked was a Wizard :P I actually got a bit of sick of playing Wizards so I branched out to Swordmage, and then Warlock, and then the other classes.
Funny, when I think of damage-dealing classes, I think of both Controllers and Strikers.
Way I see it, 40 damage to BBEG = 10 damage to BBEG and his three buddies.
Yes but you don't get the shot that kills him as often as strikers so it doesn't count.
1) People enjoying their characters is a problem to you?
2.) Just because you enjoy doing one thing doesn't mean everyone has to enjoy doing it to. I love my Warlord, but I like being a heavy hitter too. It is fun. You shouldn't judge which is right and wrong. To each their own.
1.) Nope, never said that, I said seems, as in a personal observation; please don't put words in my mouth; it makes you come off as defensive.
2.) Again, I never said I didn't enjoy playing a striker, and only enjoy playing leaders (I'm always the DM, so I never get to do either) or that I judge others on what they prefer, I was merely saying I've noticed a preponderance of strikers since 4th Ed, man, you're really batting a thousand right now, I am not your enemy or judging you, back off, please.
For the record, after having a really good look at the Sorcerer preview last night, I really dig the class, and don't think it steps on the toes of any others (though I do have views on it being 2 new warlock pacts, as others have mentioned, I mean "tapping into the power of primordial beings").
But how in the hell does wild magic even resemble a pact with extradimensional beings? :P
The thing is though, the Dragon Source seems pretty much like an Dragon Pact. A dragon gives you access to its magic. That's a Pact. I like the small additions they've made to avoid this, but it still feels very much like a pact to me.
Their flavor is different though. Rogues live in cities and are good at stealing. Rangers live in the wilds and are good at hunting. I actually feel the Warden is a bit too similar to Ranger in terms of fluff.
Note, the core flavor of the sorcerer (naturally talented) is different from the warlock (made a questionable deal with a extraplaner force), though they could both easily be refluffed into each other. My bigger problem is that they almost completely overlap in party function. They are both arcane strikers (sub-controller), who can even share a primary attack stat. Two arcane strikers and I could have shrugged it off, though I would still have been disappointed that sorcerer, but them both also sharing the exact same sub-role as well makes them feel just a bit too much the same to me.
As I said before, it feels to me as if in trying too hard to make sorcerers distinct from wizards that WotC has unintentional made sorcerers too much like warlocks.
But how in the hell does wild magic even resemble a pact with extradimensional beings? :P
Maybe it's the fact that one of the planes is called the Elemental CHAOS.
1.) Nope, never said that, I said seems, as in a personal observation; please don't put words in my mouth; it makes you come off as defensive.
Actually, you did say that.
6 Strikers isn't the worst. I've found that a great deal of players just want to be heavy hitters anyway.Yeah, that's another problem, too many people seem to want to be Strikers
Throwing the word "seems" in there does not detract from your overall statement that you feel people enjoying Strikers is a problem. And yes, I realize this is your personal observation, but that really does not change anything, since my comment was based on your personal observation and opinion.
2.) Again, I never said I didn't enjoy playing a striker, and only enjoy playing leaders (I'm always the DM, so I never get to do either) or that I judge others on what they prefer, I was merely saying I've noticed a preponderance of strikers since 4th Ed, man, you're really batting a thousand right now, I am not your enemy or judging you, back off, please.
I never claimed to be your enemy, but when someone says "People wanting to play Strikers is a problem", I am going to call them on it. Too often person A puts down person B because person A prefers to play one way (usually a heavy roleplayer) and feels that makes them superior in the DnD world to person B.
Perhaps you did not mean to say that people enjoying Strikers is a problem, and in your head it sounded different, but that is what you typed.
Note, the core flavor of the sorcerer (naturally talented) is different from the warlock (made a questionable deal with a extraplaner force), though they could both easily be refluffed into each other. My bigger problem is that they almost completely overlap in party function. They are both arcane strikers (sub-controller), who can even share a primary attack stat. Two arcane strikers and I could have shrugged it off, though I would still have been disappointed that sorcerer, but them both also sharing the exact same sub-role as well makes them feel just a bit too much the same to me.
As I said before, it feels to me as if in trying too hard to make sorcerers distinct from wizards that WotC has unintentional made sorcerers too much like warlocks.
I don't buy that, sorry. Sorcerers are way more about various energy attacks to multiple targets. The fact that they share a primary attack stat and a role and power source is no different from an Archer Ranger and a Ranged Rogue, who are both Martial Strikers who use Dexterity.
Maybe it's the fact that one of the planes is called the Elemental CHAOS.
...I don't follow. "Elemental Chaos" means "pact" now? Some part of this explanation is missing.
I see and understand how Pact and Spellsource seem similar. For one, they are both drawing Arcane power from a (typicly) otherworldy power. Secondly, if you don't follow the default flavor exactly, IE, a literal pact in the case of the warlock and heritage/natural talent in the case of the sorcerer, the flavor of how the classes get power is VERY similar, or it can be.
For instance, I recall one reflavoring of a Dwarf Warlock to represent not a pact with devils, but the race's natural affinity with mountains and volcanoes. Similarly, the "Dragon Pact" in the 3.5 Dragon Magic supplement makes Sorcerers feel very much like a Warlock.
Things like "being born of a cursed linage" and "being implanted with a slaad embryo" really REALLY blur the line between the two classes... In terms of flavor. In terms of mechanics, these classes are (thankfully) very distinct.
Maybe it's the fact that one of the planes is called the Elemental CHAOS.
Did that really leap out at you? The flavor sounds almost exactly like 2nd edition wild magic, not "I'm friends with a slaad."
Making a pact vs. having a bloodline; these are very distinct concepts, and have co-existed in the game ever since the warlock was introduced during 3.5. Of course, you can change the default flavor on each. But really, unless you want to make the sorcerer Generic Genericsson, the bloodline/source flavor was the way to go. The wizard/artificer/swordmage studies, the warlock makes a pact, the sorcerer wakes up one day to find he's set his bed aflame.
And while I agree with you that "natural talent" and "pact magic" are indeed quite different, I must point out that, as I showed earlier, there is some over-la based on interpretation of what can constitute a replacement for a pact or heritage.
I don't see a problem with the abundance of striker classes. The classes that are strikers naturally fit conceptually into that role, and that's the important thing. The more classes there are, the more character options there are, and that's a good thing. More character options per role is good, but I'd rather have lopsided options than not have options at all.
I like the sorcerer preview. It looks flavorful and fun. I, personally, wouldn't be caught dead with a wild-magic sorcerer character, but I can see why others might enjoy it. I do suspect that the sorcerer will be preferred over the warlock and especially the wizard for a while, due to seeming just flat-out superior, but I see that as a shortcoming of those classes instead of something to criticize the sorcerer class for. Hopefully Arcane Power will even things out again.
I'm itching to see what a controller can do, and hope i can join a campaign with an invoker.
Luckily, this get remedied in PHB II
Thank God for that, though I'm not very keen on there being only three Controllers in comparison to the other roles. Once the PHB2 is out, we'll have 4 Defenders, 4 Leaders (5 if you count the Artificer Playtest), and 6 Strikers, with only 3 Controllers. One more Controller to give some more variety there would've certainly been nice. Though thankfully, I do like both the Druid (I may actually finally play one) and the Invoker, so if the opportunity arises I'll probably end up playing one or the other.
Note, the core flavor of the sorcerer (naturally talented) is different from the warlock (made a questionable deal with a extraplaner force)
Yeah okay I'll give you that. ALTHOUGH I am sure I have read a Dragon article that not all pacts are actual pacts. Sometimes someone just gains the powers for reasons unknown to them.
My bigger problem is that they almost completely overlap in party function.
It really isn't. Looking at the At-Wills, the similarities are:
Eldritch Blast = Acid Orb
Spiteful Glamour = Chaos Bolt.
Hellish Rebuke = Burning Spray (difference is Ranged vs Blast)
Dire Radiance = Tempest Breath (difference is Ranged vs Blast and At-Will vs Encounter)
NOT MATCHED: 1 Warlock; 3 Sorcerer
However once I began looking at Encounters the differences were much more pronounced.
...I don't follow. "Elemental Chaos" means "pact" now? Some part of this explanation is missing.
Fey Pact: bargain with an entity from the Fey Wild
Infernal Pact: bargain with an entity from the Nine Hells
Star Pact: bargain with an entity from the Far Realm
Making a pact vs. having a bloodline; these are very distinct concepts,
The problem isn't that weather or not the concepts are distinct, I even already acknowledged they were as much. Rather, it's that they are easily interchangeable, as the rather common tendency to reflavor warlocks as getting their power through blood line shows. The fact that the sorcerer flavor out right states that their power can, in addition to birth right, be the result of a deal or ritual certainly doesn't help.
Fey Pact: bargain with an entity from the Fey Wild
Infernal Pact: bargain with an entity from the Nine Hells
Star Pact: bargain with an entity from the Far Realm
And so, because of an offhand reference to gaining Sorcerous power from a deal, rather than a bloodline, and because one of the primary Sorcerer builds shares a single word (chaos) with the name of a plane, you're going to argue that the classes (or their respective fluff) are too similar? I see the point you're trying to make, Tharag, but it's not an especially strong one: it's a flimsy connection, and it's over a superficial and mostly trivial factor, fluff.
The problem isn't that weather or not the concepts are distinct, I even already acknowledged they were as much. Rather, it's that they are easily interchangeable, as the rather common tendency to reflavor warlocks as getting their power through blood line shows. The fact that the sorcerer flavor out right states that their power can, in addition to birth right, be the result of a deal or ritual certainly doesn't help.
What's "common" is subjective. Of all the characters my players have made, I can't honestly say that I've encountered anyone who wanted to suggest that their Warlock powers were based on a bloodline rather than a pact.
Is the default fluff really that big a deal?
Its the one thing that stops me from considering Rogues and Rangers to be redundant :P
Its the one thing that stops me from considering Rogues and Rangers to be redundant :P
Different armor proficiencies, different weapons, entirely different mechanics, different important attributes, different fighting styles, different class skills, and the fluff is what makes you think of them as two different things?
I see the point you're trying to make, Tharag, but it's not an especially strong one: it's a flimsy connection, and it's over a superficial and mostly trivial factor, fluff.
Agreed, and were it only that tiny bit of off-hand fluff I wouldn't even care. My real grudge against the Sorcerer as presented is that they share with the warlock, not only power source and role, but sub-role as well. The fact that the fluff is easily interchangeable between the two classes is only a problem, for me, because of those additional similarities.
What's "common" is subjective.
True, and perhaps I chose my words poorly. I speak only of what I have observed on these boards, and I will say that by my observation it is not an "uncommon" practice for people to speak of reflavoring the warlock as heritage based.
1.) Actually, you did say that.
2.) when someone says "People wanting to play Strikers is a problem", I am going to call them on it. Too often person A puts down person B because person A prefers to play one way (usually a heavy roleplayer) and feels that makes them superior in the DnD world to person B.
Perhaps you did not mean to say that people enjoying Strikers is a problem, and in your head it sounded different, but that is what you typed.
1.) No, I typed something completely different.
2.) Okay, this is getting dull, now I think you're just passive-aggressively under-the-bridge-dwelling, maybe sparked by an initial defensive reaction, and now you won't let it go.
I have no problem with strikers or the people who play them (I would play anything at this point…), that was not my point, but let's let this lie as you are obviously personally offended by something I never intended.
Taker her easy, and have a blast playing whatever you enjoy.
But either way, I think that on a sheer mechanics level, it works nicely, and is quite distinct from the warlock and wizard.
1.) No, I typed something completely different.
2.) Okay, this is getting dull, now I think you're just passive-aggressively under-the-bridge-dwelling, maybe sparked by an initial defensive reaction, and now you won't let it go.
I have no problem with strikers or the people who play them (I would play anything at this point…), that was not my point, but let's let this lie as you are obviously personally offended by something I never intended.
Taker her easy, and have a blast playing whatever you enjoy.
I am not sure why you think I am upset, but the point is moot. You said "People wanting to play strikers is a problem", and I called you on it. You can say"I didn't type that" all you want, but it is right there in black and white, you did type that. What your intent with your words was I can not speak to, but your words are right there for everyone to see. Saying "I typed something completely different" doesn't make them go away.
As I said though, the point is moot, if that is not what you meant, that is fine, just say that. But don't try and deny what is written down for all to see.
Sticks you're twisting his words.
No I am not, I am taking his words at the literal meaning. I admitted previously that his intent might have been different, intent does not come across on the internet well. But I did not twist anything. Now I am confused that he professes he did not type something that I can see he typed.
It is not really a big deal, and really there is no need to even be spending time on this. He said that people enjoying playing Strikers is a problem, I said that is not cool, he should have just come back and corrected his statement to clarify his intent. Instead he is trying to claim he did not type what he typed. Color me confused.
Agreed, and were it only that tiny bit of off-hand fluff I wouldn't even care. My real grudge against the Sorcerer as presented is that they share with the warlock, not only power source and role, but sub-role as well. The fact that the fluff is easily interchangeable between the two classes is only a problem, for me, because of those additional similarities.
I can appreciate what you're saying here, Tharag. i suppose the main reason you and I can't see eye-to-eye on this is probably that point about sharing a role and sub-role; the nature of those roles are obvious, (they're both Strikers, obviously, and it's pretty clear that they're also both a bit Controller-y), but you and I quantify those roles differently.
Let me explain what I mean, Tharag. I've gathered that you see both Warlock and Sorcerer as Arcane Strikers/sub-Controllers. However, in my mind, even though both Warlock and Sorcerer are made of the same ingredients, they use dramatically different proportions; I think of the Warlock as about 75% Striker and 25% Controller, but I think of the Sorcerer as about 51% Striker and 49% Controller.
Of course, that's just my own impression, based on a single reading of a three-level preview of one of those classes. (I hope that "ingredient" metaphor was helpful, too.) YMMV.
Let me explain what I mean, Tharag. I've gathered that you see both Warlock and Sorcerer as Arcane Strikers/sub-Controllers. However, in my mind, even though both Warlock and Sorcerer are made of the same ingredients, they use dramatically different proportions; I think of the Warlock as about 75% Striker and 25% Controller, but I think of the Sorcerer as about 51% Striker and 49% Controller.
I can appreciate that, and probably even agree to some extent. I'm perfectly willing to except that the sorcerer is more controllery than the warlock, and that wouldn't be surprise as some one from WotC had originally been quoted that the Sorcerer would be a controller. Most likely the class was initially designed as a controller (sub-striker), but at some point during development it got it's roll and sub-roll flipped. It is the same reason that the druid has some very strikery tendencies, due to originally being designed as a hybrid controller+striker (though I personally find the finished version more of a sub-defender than sub-striker).
Getting back to my problem, it has less to do with how similar the warlock and the sorcerer are and more to do with how similar they could have been. For me they are the same enough as is that only a minimal effort would need be expended to effectively merge them to the point of indistinguishableness. Thus as I have said before, it feels to me that in trying to move the sorcerer away from the wizard WotC moved it too close to the Warlock.
Different armor proficiencies, different weapons, entirely different mechanics, different important attributes, different fighting styles, different class skills, and the fluff is what makes you think of them as two different things?
Salla, I'm pretty sure JohnLynch's post was tongue-in-cheek.
To address the current issue of Sorcerer being too close mechanically to Warlock, they look to me like they're going to play quite differently. Warlock creeps around the edge of the combat, moving as much as possible to take advantage of shadow walk, and is well-served to pick off stragglers such as artillery that keep to the back rank or skirmishers. Sorcerer has piles of blast attacks, and is better served to get up close to the front line with the defenders and spread the love, hitting as many enemies as possible with each attack. Sorcerer won't have the at-will damage output with Acid Orb that a Warlock has with Eldritch Blast; in order to earn his striker role, he actually needs to act more like a controller and try to maximize the effects of his close and area attacks.
Salla, I'm pretty sure JohnLynch's post was tongue-in-cheek.
It was. I'm glad someone got that
Warlock creeps around the edge of the combat, moving as much as possible to take advantage of shadow walk, and is well-served to pick off stragglers such as artillery that keep to the back rank or skirmishers. Sorcerer has piles of blast attacks, and is better served to get up close to the front line with the defenders and spread the love, hitting as many enemies as possible with each attack.
Not sure I see that. By my count, the preview sorcerers has 12 ranged, 6 close, and 1 area attack power(s). This gives them plenty of options for ranged combat. With Acid Orb they can even take out enemies from a greater distance than the Warlock. Also unlike the warlock's curse, the sorcerer's damage boosting feature has no targeting restriction, making it even easier for them to focus on key enemy targets.
Sorcerer won't have the at-will damage output with Acid Orb that a Warlock has with Eldritch Blast; in order to earn his striker role, he actually needs to act more like a controller and try to maximize the effects of his close and area attacks.
Acid Orb is inferior to Eldritch Blast? They both do the same damage and target the same defense the differences are that Acid Orb is longer range, deals acid damage (bad if the enemy has resistance, good if they have vulnerability, also means it can be boosted with Burning Blizzard). To me this give Acid Orb a slight edge.
Further more, I don't see how the sorcerer has to "earn" his striker role. Most warlock at-wills do d6 damage, but not one sorcerer at-will does less than d8. Sorcerers at-wills may not get the added conditional damage the most warlock at-wills get, but they don't have to rely on enemy behavior to get the added effects of their attacks either.
I am not sure why you think I am upset, but the point is moot. You said "People wanting to play strikers is a problem", and I called you on it. You can say"I didn't type that" all you want, but it is right there in black and white, you did type that. What your intent with your words was I can not speak to, but your words are right there for everyone to see. Saying "I typed something completely different" doesn't make them go away.
As I said though, the point is moot, if that is not what you meant, that is fine, just say that. But don't try and deny what is written down for all to see.
I really think you should drop this, lest you embarrass yourself further, I mean, come on, man, it's just a game, and you're acting like I'm attacking your lifestyle, whatever that may be.
He said that people enjoying playing Strikers is a problem
Brotherjgizmo called it, stop, I never mentioned the word "enjoy"…really…
...And I'm not a "he"; I'm a scorching hot pre-op transsexual.
Anyrate there is one reason why I'll prefer a Warlock over a Sorcerer every time. Control. Not the 'put people x' or cause status effect 'z'. No, it's lack of splash damage and more direct control over who and what I hit. The last thing I need if I'm mixing it up is for my Chaos Bolt to zing back and smack me in the face or my breath attack to reach out and hit my friends. More so than a Wizard I need to pay attention to my targets and intent when using that high firepower. Warlock is clinical in their precision. Even a DarkLock has better control over who gets his with most of his powers.
In fluff yeah they can but you can make all classes overlap in fluff if you want to change it from what they give us.
In mechanics they may share a role and sub-role but as others have pointed out they do play different.
The semi-randomness and nature of the sources for sorcerers is distinctly different from the pacts of warlocks.
The sorcerer and warlock use different implements.
The majority of sorcerer powers appear to be pretty strictly damage with very little lingering effects or status alterations.
A warlock's curse can work off of any warlock power and you can curse more targets throughout combat and does a d6 per tier of damage.
A sorcerer's bonus damage is a fixed amount based on an attribute bonus so even at epic tier isn't going to be able to do as much damage as a warlock's extra damage. They just don't have to mark a target first.
So yes while similar the two do have fluff and mechanical differences that will result in playing differently even if in the end they both dish out damage.
I really think you should drop this, lest you embarrass yourself further, I mean, come on, man, it's just a game, and you're acting like I'm attacking your lifestyle, whatever that may be.
Whatever.
Anyway, back to the subject at hand, I am really looking forward to making a Sorcerer Gish. Spend a few feats getting Heavy Armor Prof, Leather Armor, and maybe Hide Armor, and you can have a base AC of 18-19, which is not too bad. Then when you become bloody (GO DRAGONBORN!) you get an extra 2. I think this has some solid potential. Can't wait to see the rest of the class!
A sorcerer's bonus damage is a fixed amount based on an attribute bonus so even at epic tier isn't going to be able to do as much damage as a warlock's extra damage.
Epic Warlock's Curse: 3d6 (avg 10.5), or 3d8 (avg 13.5) with a feat.
Epic Sorcerer's "Power": Assuming a starting score of 16 and boosted every level to a final score of 24, the damage will be 11.
Sorcerer is about the same as the warlock, not counting the feat, but I'd call it a safe bet to assume the sorcerer will get a similar feat.
You missed one thing: Sorcerer's deal their bonus damage to ALL targets, not one per turn.
That too. Plus they don't have to spend a minor action to get their bonus damage, nor do they have to worry about who the closest enemy is.
What's the Warlock's d6 to d8 feat? I don't recall them having one.
My bad. I knew ranger and rogue had them and mistakenly presumed the pattern held for warlocks as well.
I will disagree with you, because in every game I think I have played, MMO or table top, "killing things" is nearly always more popular than "tanking things" or "healing things". There is always more "strikers" than needed and always a shortage/borderline-shortage of "defenders", "leaders" and "controlers.
Go to an RPGA game, I know this is true there for our local RPGA place.
He said "some" which assumes that many, perhaps even most, are not in the group of which he is speaking.
Just a point of clarification, not terribly important.
Personally, I'm looking forward to the Bard more than anything else that is coming out. Right now I have a rogue and a ranger, but both those choices were made because of flavour, not a desire to be the guy dealing the most damage. If it were my ranger wouldn't have the ritual caster feat, and the rogue wouldn't have the alchemy feat. they would just get in the way of maximizing damage output. I don't worry about party role when deciding what class to play unless something is missing from the group dynamic. Instead I start forming a personallity in my head, and make a race and class choice based on that, then figure out how to make that character fit his given role well.
Plenty of people enjoy playing characters, rather than classes, and I think that if there were more non striker classes many would players would choose them for flavour, rather than the strikers, of which many have perfectly cool flavour.
This is especially true in light of the fact that a key part in 4E class design was the reduction in numerical variation between classes in order to address the 3.X nightmare of finding the perfect opponent who could reliably hit the Fighter, but not one-hit the Wizard.
Just as with a numerical comparison, a Tactical comparison of any two classes can be made from the most obvious (Role comparisons), to the most Subtle.
A comparison between the Sorcerer, and the Warlock is on the subtle end of that spectrum, as both classes have the same Power Source and Role....already resulting in some degree of overlap as a result.
A Close Burst/Blast is (tactically) very different from a Ranged Attack, and depending on how heavily a Sorcerer leans towards Dragon Soul powers, I fail to see how these two classes fill the same tactical niche, even when ignoring the impact of other factors which further differentiate the classes in the tactical environment (eg. Movement, Resistances, Secondary Targets/Effects, Feats, Multi-Class Synergies etc).
For one thing, the Warlock has far more mobility powers/effects than the Sorcerer (from what little we have seen)... another tactical variance which pigeon-holes each class into widely different tactical roles.
I called it.
did you guys find this little hidden nugget...
is that a general feat...what does it do...it sounds hawt
. . . Any chance that's like Weapon Proficiency? But for Implements?
This is something I have always thought missing from feats. Hope it isn't limited to Sorcerers
