So i also want to know what you all want it to be
Melee Arcane Controller
It's not likely to share Implement Mastery or Spellbook with the wizard, but I've no idea what might replace them. The spellbook, especially, is iconic of the wizard.
The Devs have said something akin to the sorcerer 'overflowing with magic' and something about wild magic (hopefully not stupidly implemented like 2e ...) ... I get a vibe that more of the sorcerer's spells will buff the sorcerer rather than impede the opposition like wizards tend to. Bonuses to AC, temporary HP, that sort of thing.
We know it's an Arcane Controller, so there's that.
It's not likely to share Implement Mastery or Spellbook with the wizard, but I've no idea what might replace them. The spellbook, especially, is iconic of the wizard.
The Devs have said something akin to the sorcerer 'overflowing with magic' and something about wild magic (hopefully not stupidly implemented like 2e ...) ... I get a vibe that more of the sorcerer's spells will buff the sorcerer rather than impede the opposition like wizards tend to. Bonuses to AC, temporary HP, that sort of thing.
1st off: I like both ideas, especially a melee arcane controller.:D
2nd off: WILD MAGIC!? yeah lets hope its not implemented like 2e!
EDIT: oh and if it is a melee arcane controller, I'll give you props for guessing it correctly
I personally kind of hope either the Sorcerer or some Primal class gets the ability to use "monster" magic... That's one thing D&D has almost always lacked.
Wiz, I think it's been lacking that because the concept practically prints invitations to be abused. Cool idea, but wicked tough to implement fairly.
I'm curious about the Sorcerer as well. Thematically, I think he'll look reasonably similar to 3.5E's Sorcerer, but beyond that, I dunno. I've heard about wild magic, aftereffects, and being an Arcane Controller. I can't wait until 26. January, when we can learn some more!
It could be like the barbarians rages that some sorcerer spells have effects that last awhile.
That, plus the invoker and his 'divine covenants' covering a controller-based take on the system, probably means the sorcerer will go in a different direction.
The 'spontaneous magic' may be replicated by a class ability that lets the Sorcerer burn an encounter (or daily) power to use another encounter power of equal or lower level, even if he's already used it. Alternatively or additionally, 'wild magic' may take the form of a class ability that lets the Sorcerer 'reuse' a power with the risk of a backlash or similar unintended side-effect if he rolls poorly.
EDIT:
One issue with the sorcerer is that its primary unique trait in 3.5e (magical bloodlines) is already covered by other classes (such as the Warlock and his pacts).
No, nothing in 4E covers deriving magic from your heritage. Pacts and bloodlines are not the same thing, and I have no idea what you're talking about.
Other than that its main differences from the Wizard were mechanical in nature.
Well there's also the fact that Sorcerer casts magic without need for any book learning...
I really hope they don't make the Sorcerer melee...
I personally kind of hope either the Sorcerer or some Primal class gets the ability to use "monster" magic... That's one thing D&D has almost always lacked.
Define 'monster magic'?
As such, I imagine lots of Close Blasts and Close Bursts, perhaps some aura effects that linger a couple squares around the Sorcerer stuff like that.
Pacts could be bloodlines, if a player wants. Remember, fluff is mutable. If he wants his Infernal powers to be because of family history, that's perfectly legal and doesn't change the mechanics of the class.
I agree but I'm having a big problem differentiating them from the Warlock. Not that they can't be I just can't see it right now. Still aura effects that last to the end of your turn or the next sound cool.
Define 'monster magic'?
I'm assuming he means something like FF Blue Magic.
I could also see them getting bloodlines, but they would probably be kept separate from Warlock's pacts. Perhaps Draconic, a few kinds of Elementals, and Demonic?
And how cool would having TOTALLY different powers than the wizard be? No MMs or Flaming Spheres, but something truly unique, something as different from wizard's spells as ranger's powers are. No more shared spell lists, like in 3e., would be nice.
With its focus on transformation... Sorcerer bloodlines and the possiblity of transformative powers are much better suited to the Primal power source...
We already know the Druid is the Primal Controller and the Barbarian is the Primal Striker, that leaves Leader and Defender open for a Primal Sorcerer.
I like the idea of a Sorcerer being a Primal Defender, using their wild magic and tainted bloodline to transform themselves into semi-monstrous entites for a short period... much like the Barbarian's Rage.
If the Sorcerer was a Primal Defender, that leaves
- Divine Striker
- Martial Controller
- Primal Leader
Still to be filled... with the Avenger (or is it Warden?) on its way too... you can bet it will be the Divine Striker, plop the Monk in as a Martial Controller and that's nearly every slot accounted for...
And the Primal Classes are also confirmed to be Barbarian (Striker), Druid (Controller), Warden (Defender), and Shaman (Leader).
I really hoped they'd go with something like Szatany's Ultimate Sorcerer for the 4e. sorc, because 3e.'s "I'm a wizard, just a bad one that couldn't afford a spellbook" didn't really work for me. Bloodlines would be the way to go, although they'd probably look like lock's Pacts(which is not a bad thing at all, just something that's already there...) in the terms of mechanics.
And how cool would having TOTALLY different powers than the wizard be? No MMs or Flaming Spheres, but something truly unique, something as different from wizard's spells as ranger's powers are. No more shared spell lists, like in 3e., would be nice.
Since every class has a unique power list, I think that last issue is covered.
I agree but I'm having a big problem differentiating them from the Warlock. Not that they can't be I just can't see it right now. Still aura effects that last to the end of your turn or the next sound cool.
There might not be a huge difference on certain levels, but I can see it playing very differently.
The warlock "pact" is a theme that controls the warlock's arcane powers. The warlock is a striker, and has three pacts.
The sorcerer's "bloodline" could be a theme that controls the sorcerer's powers. The sorcerer is a controller, and could have pacts with very different themes from the warlock.
It could be done. Don't know if it will, but it could.
Since every class has a unique power list, I think that last issue is covered.
I think it would be cool if some powers looked very similar...like Magic bolt Int vs ref 2d4+cha mod force damage range 20 counts as a basic att...
I think it would be cool if some powers looked very similar...like Magic bolt Int vs ref 2d4+cha mod force damage range 20 counts as a basic att...
Probably more like Cha vs. Ref, if they will keep the idea of sorc being Cha based.
Sorcerer was indeed confirmed to be an Arcane Controller.
And the Primal Classes are also confirmed to be Barbarian (Striker), Druid (Controller), Warden (Defender), and Shaman (Leader).
Even though you're correct about each class and it's power source, there actually hasn't been any confirmation of what role Wardens will use. Speculation says, "Defender," for two reasons:
- Process of elimination: every other role already has a Primal class filling it; and,
- Minotaurs (+2 Strength and Constitution, IIRC) are allegedly good at being Wardens.
EDIT: No, nothing in 4E covers deriving magic from your heritage. Pacts and bloodlines are not the same thing, and I have no idea what you're talking about.
Well there's also the fact that Sorcerer casts magic without need for any book learning...
They're different ideas thematically, but from a mechanics point of view they might end up looking very similar if the developers aren't careful. For instance, a fey-blooded sorcerer might just look like a fey-pact warlock with a bit more controller in it.
As for the Warden, I believe that there was an info leak that said that there would be a primal defender class, which also successfully predicted the Barbarian as a striker. With that, plus the fact that there aren't any other defender classes (unless the Avenger is a second Divine Defender or Leader, which is unlikely given the name), I'd say Warden as a defender is a good bet.
As for the Warden, I believe that there was an info leak that said that there would be a primal defender class, which also successfully predicted the Barbarian as a striker. With that, plus the fact that there aren't any other defender classes (unless the Avenger is a second Divine Defender or Leader, which is unlikely given the name), I'd say Warden as a defender is a good bet.
You're damn straight it's a good bet!
That said, no, I'm pretty sure that "leak" was either false or speculation, because I remember that there was still plenty of debate about the Barbarian right up until the moment it was previewed. Worst of all, it was preceded by a "leak" from a fellow who claimed that one of the designers was in his weekly game, and that he had spoiled a bunch of the class roles, including the Barbarian as a Primal Defender (wrong) and the "Inquisitor" as a Divine Striker (wrong), among other stupidity. Obviously, this fellow had been lying through his teeth, regurgitating common speculations at the time.
Long story short, you're probably right about Warden being a Defender, but it hasn't been reliably spoiled yet, just widely speculated.
You're damn straight it's a good bet!
That said, no, I'm pretty sure that "leak" was either false or speculation, because I remember that there was still plenty of debate about the Barbarian right up until the moment it was previewed. Worst of all, it was preceded by a "leak" from a fellow who claimed that one of the designers was in his weekly game, and that he had spoiled a bunch of the class roles, including the Barbarian as a Primal Defender (wrong) and the "Inquisitor" as a Divine Striker (wrong), among other stupidity. Obviously, this fellow had been lying through his teeth, regurgitating common speculations at the time.
Long story short, you're probably right about Warden being a Defender, but it hasn't been reliably spoiled yet, just widely speculated.
Wrong order. The potentially genuine leak came a week or so before the false leak as I recall. The potentially genuine leak supposedly talked with a dev at Gencon(or some other con, I forgot which honestly). I'll try to remember to find where that post was later. From what I recall from the post though, everything has been right on so far....then again other than getting the divine class names wrong, all of my predictions/guesses have been right on the money so that is hardly evidence of anything.*shrugs*
Wrong order. The potentially genuine leak came a week or so before the false leak as I recall. The potentially genuine leak supposedly talked with a dev at Gencon(or some other con, I forgot which honestly). I'll try to remember to find where that post was later. From what I recall from the post though, everything has been right on so far....then again other than getting the divine class names wrong, all of my predictions/guesses have been right on the money so that is hardly evidence of anything.*shrugs*
Oh right! You told me about that "Dev @ GenCon" spoiler once before, R, and I always forget about it.
...Because it's not in your compilation, which is where I go to remember this sort of stuff. :P
They're different ideas thematically, but from a mechanics point of view they might end up looking very similar if the developers aren't careful. For instance, a fey-blooded sorcerer might just look like a fey-pact warlock with a bit more controller in it.
As for the Warden, I believe that there was an info leak that said that there would be a primal defender class, which also successfully predicted the Barbarian as a striker. With that, plus the fact that there aren't any other defender classes (unless the Avenger is a second Divine Defender or Leader, which is unlikely given the name), I'd say Warden as a defender is a good bet.
IIRC, in D&D (Basic-Expert-etc.) the Avenger was a melee class that was the opposite-alignment flipside of Paladin. With such a history for the name, it's quite possible that the Avenger will be a second divine defender. I'm still leaning toward expecting it to be a striker, but I'm not ruling out defender, especially since the designers have made it pretty clear that grid-filling isn't a priority.
Oh right! You told me about that "Dev @ GenCon" spoiler once before, R, and I always forget about it.
...Because it's not in your compilation, which is where I go to remember this sort of stuff. :P
That's because I'm not able to verify the conversation myself, and I don't include things that I can't verify personally. Doesn't change the fact that I believe him. :P
I really hoped they'd go with something like Szatany's Ultimate Sorcerer for the 4e. sorc, because 3e.'s "I'm a wizard, just a bad one that couldn't afford a spellbook" didn't really work for me. Bloodlines would be the way to go, although they'd probably look like lock's Pacts(which is not a bad thing at all, just something that's already there...) in the terms of mechanics.
I hope you are 100% wrong. You can make a Sorcerer different from a Wizard without going "I have magic because my father was a monster" and the glaringly large inconsistency that such a mechanic would cause.
No they are better off making Sorcerers more wildmagey with the rider effects, which would do more to differentiate the Sorcerer from the Wizard, then ancestor ****.
I'm assuming he means something like FF Blue Magic.
intriguing!their magic should come from what they are not who they are
I don't really care about bloodlines, i want to see something more along the lines of Ragemage
I want Sorcerers to be downright volitile, with one build that focuses on transformation (think Prototype trailers, uses STR) and another that uses highly dangerous Wildmagic (uses CHA)
I'm sorry but I have to ask, when and where did anyone from WotC say that there would be a 4e sorcerer class
Like forever ago. It's going to be an Arcane Controller in the PHB2. :P
Check the sticky.
the warlock looks like a decent replacement
HAHA! No.
would make a sorcerer different from a wizard?
Flavor. Same thing that makes the Ranger different from the Rogue.
I'm sorry but I have to ask, when and where did anyone from WotC say that there would be a 4e sorcerer class, the warlock looks like a decent replacement to me given the way the system works now. With everyone reguardless of class getting the same number of powers per day at the same level what would make a sorcerer different from a wizard?
To add to what Crimson_Concerto mentioned, January's Editorial Calendar (here) says that D&DI subscribers will be getting a preview of the new Sorcerer on 26 January.
Suffice to say, yes, the Sorcerer is confirmed. The answer to, "What will make it different?" will be a lot more clear after we see that preview.
Right, we don't know exactly what will make it different. Odds are, there will be some unique game mechanic built into the class to vary it, much like the Barbarian or the Druid.
Truth.
(And this, of course, is exactly where speculations of "wild magery" and "aftereffects" come in.)
I hope they're CON based, with CHA and STR as a secondary stats
their magic should come from what they are not who they are
I don't really care about bloodlines, i want to see something more along the lines of Ragemage
I want Sorcerers to be downright volitile, with one build that focuses on transformation (think Prototype trailers, uses STR) and another that uses highly dangerous Wildmagic (uses CHA)
EXACTLY!! I would even make them completely physical: Con based with Dex and Str secondary.
The Dex build supposedly would shape spells with movements, and maybe do things like leaving fire trails while running and being a little strikerish at it.
The Str build would have a link between his own strength and its spells, for example exuding auras while tending all the muscles of its body in the strenuous task of pumping the magic out of its body. It would have a lot of temporary HP and would be good in melee, making it defenderish.
This won't happen to this extent, but Dex build is probable in order to keep AC decent while in light armor.
Let me quote my other post about Sorcerer to see if it generates some discussion.
Hmm, I don't agree. Halflings, Drow and Half-Elves make perfect WARLOCKS. Remember that the Warlock stole a good bit of niche of the previous wizard. I mean, those races are pretty "wizardrish" with their warlocks already.
The Sorcerer, although closer to the Wizard than the Warlock in terms of "functions", should be farther from the Wizard then even the Warlock in terms of "concept".
And one way to differentiate it this way is by making it much less intellectual, by not focusing on Int at all. This will not only fill a gap in terms of mechanics and in terms of concept, but will also fill the need of a true blaster for monstrous races.
After all look at Gnolls and Minotaurs. I know it may sound sensible to picture them as devilish warlocks, but do you think it's so fitting for savages like them to use intelligence? They need a more brute-force type of magic and magic user. An individual that simply pumps magic out of his very body. And they need it to be reckless and at ease into the fray of melee, not shadowy and elusive as all Warlocks are by their very nature, or frail and tactical as Wizards.
That's why even if it sounds improbable, I'm for the Sorcerer who uses a physical stat as PRIMARY ability, and even possibly as secondary in one build, leaving WIsdom and Intelligence completely useless. Charisma is just much more probable as primary (due to legacy, more than anything), but at least it's fitting. I would even appreciate the use of Wisdom as a secondary, representing the Sorcerer's "attunement" with the forces of magic both inside and outside of its body, and I can picture a big badass monstrous sorcerer using Con, Str, and Wis,
But PLEASE, no intelligent sorcerers. And as I strongly think the developers also thought a bit this way and very probably left out Intelligence, I also guess Dex will have at least a secondary role.
I can really picture spells that add Dex to damage or radius for this new Sorcerer. My dream concept is that they shape spells with their very movements (Dex / Str), while empowering them by virtue of their internal magical energy (Con).
The traditional meaning of Sorcerer is "One who traffics with spirits". These spirits could be any type of spiritual entity, such as ghosts, demons, devils, Djinn or any other non-corporeal entity, which were used for divination purposes, and at time, controlled. I'm hoping WoTC will use this definition for them rather than the D&D one of versions past. This would make them summoners, and would work well in the role of arcane controllers.
This is the sorcerer I would like to see. I think it's going to be more the "wild magic" guy though.
(And this, of course, is exactly where speculations of "wild magery" and "aftereffects" come in.)
Actually, that's from Races and Classes, one of the preview books. One of the designers said that is the direction they were looking at going with the sorcerer. However, R&C came out over a year ago, and not all of their ideas for the PHB2 classes were kept from then; they were still (and apparently are still; they're putting out playtest versions) works in progress.
IIRC, in D&D (Basic-Expert-etc.) the Avenger was a melee class that was the opposite-alignment flipside of Paladin. With such a history for the name, it's quite possible that the Avenger will be a second divine defender. I'm still leaning toward expecting it to be a striker, but I'm not ruling out defender, especially since the designers have made it pretty clear that grid-filling isn't a priority.
Actually, the history of the name leans toward the Striker role. Although the original Avenger was a chaotic Fighter with some cleric spells, Avengers eventually evolved into Blackguards with their Sneak Attack ability. Thus I'm thinking that the new Avenger is likely to "mug the Blackguard and steal his stuff".
Also, adopting a different role helps drop the whole fallen paladin shtick.
"You can defend, I'll avenge!"
When it comes to ability scores, I'm hoping for Str, Dex and Cha. Whilst Con makes sense, it's a bit overused atm.
Actually, that's from Races and Classes, one of the preview books. One of the designers said that is the direction they were looking at going with the sorcerer. However, R&C came out over a year ago, and not all of their ideas for the PHB2 classes were kept from then; they were still (and apparently are still; they're putting out playtest versions) works in progress.
You're right, it is an old source at this point, but it's the best we've got at the moment. (They've been pretty tight-lipped about the Sorcerer.)
Don't forget, though, that this isn't really a playtest version, but rather a preview version. It's already too late for playtesting; this book will be on shelves around the world in three months!
I'd definitely like to see a defender who doesn't focus on traditional weapons in the future, if there isn't one planned right now.
You're right, it is an old source at this point, but it's the best we've got at the moment. (They've been pretty tight-lipped about the Sorcerer.)
Don't forget, though, that this isn't really a playtest version, but rather a preview version. It's already too late for playtesting; this book will be on shelves around the world in three months!
Ah, March is close. Somehow I was under the mistaken impression that PH2 was scheduled for June. So the version of Sorcerer that we see will be essentially the final version (apart from possible editing issues).
Actually, the history of the name leans toward the Striker role. Although the original Avenger was a chaotic Fighter with some cleric spells, Avengers eventually evolved into Blackguards with their Sneak Attack ability. Thus I'm thinking that the new Avenger is likely to "mug the Blackguard and steal his stuff".
Also, adopting a different role helps drop the whole fallen paladin shtick.
"You can defend, I'll avenge!"
Aside from SA, the Blackguard was a paladin, just an evil one. This does not convince me that Avenger as a defender class is out of the question. It could be a divine defender with a different focus than the paladin, "subbing" striker rather than controller.
Yeah, though I'd have described it as Con for containing massive amounts of power and Wisdom for controlling the effects of more subtle magics. Or wisdom for improving utilities and beneficial effects (gain X+Wisdom modifier benefit).
I'm hoping that the Sorcerer Implement is components: an assortment of random items that they've assigned a role in their spell casting process (like old school sympathetic magic). I could see circlets or bracers being the magic item of enhancement instead of the implement.
I could see Sorcerers as having more utilities and maybe some marks than other controller classes and these would be the metamagic style and magic working off magic style
Freezing Death Sorcerer Attack
Freezes a guy
_______________________ Encounter ✦ Cold
Standard Action Ranged 10
Requirements: Components Target: One creature
_______________________
Hit: 1d10 Cold damage and target is immobilized (save ends) and marked
Fiery Doom Sorcerer Attack
Lights a guy on fire
_______________________
Daily ✦ Arcane Action Ranged 10
Requirements: Components Target: One creature
_______________________
Hit: 4d10+Constitution modifier Fire damage
Miss: 2d10 FIre damage
Special: Deals additional 2d10 damage if target is marked. This removes mark from target
Alternatively you have the magic on magic built in:
Coat in Flames Sorcerer Attack
You engulf a man in flames and then draw the fire back to shield you from retaliation.
_______________________
Encounter ✦ Arcane, Fire Standard Action Ranged 5
Requirements: Components Target: One creature
_______________________
Hit: 3d6+Charisma modifier Fire damage
Effect: You deal 5 fire damage to opponents that attack you until the end of your next turn.
Placeholder Name for Damage path: You deal an additional amount of Fire damage to attackers equal to your Constitution modifier.
And for metamagic as utilities:
Widen Spell Sorcerer Utility 2
Your spell area is larger than normal
_______________________
Encounter ✦ Arcane Minor Action Personal
_______________________
Effect: The next spell you cast has its radius increased by 1.
Shaper: The radius is increased by 1+Wisdom modifer.
where Shaper what've I traditionally referred to metamagic specialists as.
Empower Spell Sorcerer 9
Your next spell will deal not be weak.
_______________________
Daily ✦ Arcane Minor Action Personal
_______________________
Effect: The next spell you cast with have the Brutal 2 property.
Shaper: The spell will critical on 19-20.
Placeholder Name for Damage path: The Brutal value is equal to your Constitution modifier.
or another style:
Field of Ice Sorcerer Attack 3
You create razor sharp ice shards under the feet of your enemies.
_______________________
Encounter Standard Action Area burst 2 within 10 squares
Requirements: Components Target: Enemies in area of effect.
_______________________
Hit: 2d6 Cold damage and Slowed until the end of your next turn.
Shaper: May cast the spell with an area of Wall 1+Wisdom modifier
Placeholder Name for Damage path: Deal additional Cold damage equal to Constitution modifier.
and another possibility for utilities: reactions which show Sorcerers as intuitively controlling elements even of their enemies -
Draw Energy Utility 4
You draw some of the enemies power to shield you from their attack.
_______________________
Daily Immediate Interrupt Ranged 5
Trigger: Enemy hits you or an ally with an attack ability with an Element keyword.
_______________________
Effect: Your or an ally gain Resist 5 to the Element of the attack and your opponents attack damage is reduced by your Cha/Wis (whatever) modifier.
I'm not sure why so many people are suggesting they should not longer be based off of CHA. I understand CON, yes, that would definitely work well as a secondary stat, but owning a sword means nothing in this game if you don't have the strength to swing it. In D&D, Charisma has at least since 3.x carried the extra definition if doesn't have in real life of being tied to willpower, and before people start saying that's WIS, both stats are willpower, CHA being active and WIS being defensive. CHA is like mental STR and WIS is like mental CON.
It's okay; I really don't understand why some folks are so interested in using Strength for Sorcerers, as in, "I can bench 300 pounds, so that means my lightning bolts spells are the most powerful!" I can understand Con or Dex as secondary stats makes sense. Suggesting Str, Dex, and Cha for Sorcerers makes this a physically-based ARCANE CONTROLLER, which sorta strains the imagination.
Why the physicality for a class that isn't really expected to be melee-focused?
Why the physicality for a class that isn't really expected to be melee-focused?
I'm going to agree. I see no reason for the Sorcerer to be melee focused at all. I can almost see it relying more on Close spells than the Wizard, but that's not the same as suggesting it should be in melee. I honestly can't reasonably see the sorcerer as using anything other than CHA primary with CON or WIS or maybe even INT secondary (or three options, just like Wizard or Warlock gets) unless its flavor is completely changed from what it used to be...
Hey, here's a thought. If they're still gonna be using the while exotic bloodline flavor (and I don't see why they wouldn't), maybe each bloodline is what determines their secondary stat. Draconic bloodline uses CON, Celestial Bloodline uses WIS, Elemental Bloodline uses INT... That sounds cool to me. How's that sound to you guys?
I'm going to agree. I see no reason for the Sorcerer to be melee focused at all. I can almost see it relying more on Close spells than the Wizard, but that's not the same as suggesting it should be in melee. I honestly can't reasonably see the sorcerer as using anything other than CHA primary with CON or WIS or maybe even INT secondary (or three options, just like Wizard or Warlock gets) unless its flavor is completely changed from what it used to be...
Hey, here's a thought. If they're still gonna be using the while exotic bloodline flavor (and I don't see why they wouldn't), maybe each bloodline is what determines their secondary stat. Draconic bloodline uses CON, Celestial Bloodline uses WIS, Elemental Bloodline uses INT... That sounds cool to me. How's that sound to you guys?
I'm on board. I don't know that the bloodline thing is necessarily the best way to handle Sorcerers, (it brings up problems like, "If I'm a Sorcerer, why isn't my Dad or my Sister?"), but if they're going to run with that idea again, why not do something similar to what you're suggesting?
Although I'd probably limit it to two different secondary stats, with multiple bloodlines using the same stat, and relying on the bloodline powers to distinguish them. This way, you don't have to worry about, for example, every single Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer multiclassing to become an Infernal Pact Warlock because of the stat synergy.
It's okay; I really don't understand why some folks are so interested in using Strength for Sorcerers, as in, "I can bench 300 pounds, so that means my lightning bolts spells are the most powerful!" I can understand Con or Dex as secondary stats makes sense. Suggesting Str, Dex, and Cha for Sorcerers makes this a physically-based ARCANE CONTROLLER, which sorta strains the imagination.
Why the physicality for a class that isn't really expected to be melee-focused?
I'm going to agree. I see no reason for the Sorcerer to be melee focused at all. I can almost see it relying more on Close spells than the Wizard, but that's not the same as suggesting it should be in melee. I honestly can't reasonably see the sorcerer as using anything other than CHA primary with CON or WIS or maybe even INT secondary (or three options, just like Wizard or Warlock gets) unless its flavor is completely changed from what it used to be...
Hey, here's a thought. If they're still gonna be using the while exotic bloodline flavor (and I don't see why they wouldn't), maybe each bloodline is what determines their secondary stat. Draconic bloodline uses CON, Celestial Bloodline uses WIS, Elemental Bloodline uses INT... That sounds cool to me. How's that sound to you guys?
These are my favorite topics!
If you take a look, I even cheer for a Str/Con/Dex (in no particular order, but let's say Con being primary) Sorcerer.
And, of course, I see them as melee controllers.
Why? Simple! Because we already have ranged controllers! And because we already have Wis and Int controllers.
Yes, it leaves out Cha, and I'm nearly sure it will be the primary stat in the class, but you know it's the Bard's and the Warlock's too.
I don't want Sorc's to be different for the sake of it, I'm saying they CAN be different, they are among the few ones who really can. Because we're talking of having magic inside you. It's not the case of anybody else with the possible (analogous, but not homologous) exception of Scourge-type Warlocks.
That's why I can picture as an original, fun, and even coherent thing the fact of having your physical strength AID your brute-force magic power. I picture lightnings glow through their veins while they tend all their muscles before unleashing a Blanka-style zapping crunch-hold, or arcs of fire going farther from them depending on the precision and speed of their arm movements. This would be different. And as I already said, it would also be useful, because it would give brute-type monster the possibility to play something really flashy, and being a Controller at it.
Of course I understand many do not like this kind of alternative approach, and I'm nearly sure that while being more close range, more melee-capable, and more wild than a Wizard, the Sorcerer will turn out to be a Cha monkey (again putting it among the party speakers, a thing that I always thought is a little ridiculous, because Sorcerers are freaks, they shouldn't be so convincing) with all the stuff people wants.
And I will not be ****** about it, I just say I would be extra-happy with a really different approach, the physical and melee one, because it would make it more unique.
I'm not forgetting though that they are already showing us some kind of "melee controller", and it's the Druid. But come on, it's an entirely different thing from the one I envision for the Sorc.
This guy for example wouldn't be a Water Genasi, but a very Human Sorcerer. As you can see it gives the impression of having three big numbers in his three physical abilities, or at least in two of them.
Note that within this concept sorcery wouldn't require bloodlines or anything like it.
It could be learned through training and meditation like a martial art, but it would require more of a physical CONcentration than a WISeful meditation. A search for an inner magic spark.
Or better you could have been exposed to magic that somehow lingered into your body, learning to channel it alone.
Or maybe you were just born with the gift.
This guy would not be a Ninja from PHb3, but a Brutal Scoundrel Rogue multiclassed into Sorcerer to learn the power of enchanting his weapon. It was more convenient to learn it by sorcery than wizardry because the more strength he put into the spell, the more necrotic energy he would have been able to gather for his weapon. And strength wasn't something he lacked for. Sign of the sorcery would be the markings glowing on his skin when he casts a spell, which linger for some time too.
And feel free to yell at me and accuse me of blasphemy, but this to me should be a Sorcerer:
He may have studied it, but the practice of it involved things completely different from memorizing lines of arcane formulas. He's silent while casting spells, but energy crackles around him while arcane markings light on his body faintly illuminating his surroundings.
Hey, here's a thought. If they're still gonna be using the while exotic bloodline flavor (and I don't see why they wouldn't), maybe each bloodline is what determines their secondary stat. Draconic bloodline uses CON, Celestial Bloodline uses WIS, Elemental Bloodline uses INT... That sounds cool to me. How's that sound to you guys?
This is a bad idea. Having power come from monsters you can grow stronger than makes less than no sense.
This is a bad idea. Having power come from monsters you can grow stronger than makes less than no sense.
Why? It worked for Dragonball Z. :P
More seriously, I think the idea isn't that the "power" comes from the bloodline itself, but rather that the "power" (Arcane magic) is a universal force to which the bloodline gives access. Mastery of Arcane power comes from experience using it.
Why? It worked for Dragonball Z. :P
More seriously, I think the idea isn't that the "power" comes from the bloodline itself, but rather that the "power" (Arcane magic) is a universal force to which the bloodline gives access. Mastery of Arcane power comes from experience using it.
I'm of the mindset that heritage sorcerers aren't real Sorcerers. Which is why I didn't like Szansy's (the guy that did the Ultimate Class remakes) "Ultimate" Sorcerer, because the heritage's codification actually took away from the mystique of the class. Poor dirt farmer's son raised to power as his steadfast determination and tenacity warps the fabric of reality. Compare to: Your great grandmother was easy.
Which is cooler?
This is a bad idea. Having power come from monsters you can grow stronger than makes less than no sense.
That's called "unsense." Unsense isn't nonsense, it's reverse sense, or imaginary sense (sense times the square root of -1?).
I am for the idea that arcane magic is the universe's cheat codes and Sorcerers are self-taught. It does not take very much intelligence to brute force a code (trying random combinations in order to get the result you desire), all it requires is that you keep at the task. A high charisma character is not going to be intimidated by a task mainly because that have such a strong will (high will defense) and keep at it til they get it right (cast spells).
I will keep this interpretation of Charisma in mind, especially in the context of Sorcerers. Strangely enough I had never realized how high Cha = stubbornly keep trying. It's a real world thing I guess, might explain why highly charismatic people tend to be good at doing many things.
I'm of the mindset that heritage sorcerers aren't real Sorcerers. Which is why I didn't like Szansy's (the guy that did the Ultimate Class remakes) "Ultimate" Sorcerer, because the heritage's codification actually took away from the mystique of the class. Poor dirt farmer's son raised to power as his steadfast determination and tenacity warps the fabric of reality. Compare to: Your great grandmother was easy.
Which is cooler?
I'd like to think I did a good job defending the idea, but I have to admit, your argument is compelling.
Like I said before, I'm not totally sold that heritage is the best way to do things, but they did it before, and I'll make do with it if they do it again.
Having power come from monsters you can grow stronger than makes less than no sense.
Why? Makes perfect sense to me. Just because my dad gave me a sword doesn't mean I can't become a better swordsman than him. Having a bloodline just gives me the tools. The skill is still my own, and my skill can be superior to those of my ancestors.
I think a heritage system is an example of the kind of forced fluff that WotC has backed off from after gamers protested their early plans for 4E Wizards.
Didn't stop them from making the Warlock what it is, now did it? Honestly, I don't see the problem. I think it's a perfectly fine default flavor to have, and if I feel like switching it up, I will. My Warlock, for example, was reflavored to be a pyromancer. There's nothing wrong with a class having a default flavor so long as it's easy to adapt and change.
Oh, and sorry for the double post. I meant to make it an edit but forgot...
It be nice to just have a Sorcerer consumed by unknowable, eldritch, arcane power that explodes forth in a surge of arcane energy, with lots of close blasts and bursts and touch spells, etc.
I'd like to think I did a good job defending the idea, but I have to admit, your argument is compelling.
I've been making this argument for a while, since the whole misconception of Sorcerer's=Dragonkin started. A misconception which prevents cool character concepts: A prince with sorcerous talent who can trace his line "back before the sun" would be a fun roleplaying experience. While conversely, playing Joe Average who only has powers because Grandma Kaiba had a dragon fetish? Not so much. I can come up with a lot of fun characters to play if Sorcerers just gain power because. But I can't think of one fun character who has powers because of his ancestors sexual habits.
Like I said before, I'm not totally sold that heritage is the best way to do things, but they did it before, and I'll make do with it if they do it again.
If by did it before, you mean included a throwaway line in the Sorcerer's entry in the PHb then yes they did do it before. Non-humanoid heritages would be better as a group of feats that give racial bonuses rather than one class' defining feature. Why is a Celestial-blooded Fighter less mechanically different from a Dragon-blood fighter, when a Celestial-blooded Sorcerer only shares a class name and a few powers with the Dragon-blooded Fighter?
I think a heritage system is an example of the kind of forced fluff that WotC has backed off from after gamers protested their early plans for 4E Wizards.
I'd forgotten about that wizard fluff stuff! Interesting, but not for my base class please. Maybe it'll return in DMGII.I therefore don't expect to see Sorcerers shoehorned into a heritage system, nor would I welcome it. If an individual DM wants to write sorcerous bloodlines into his campaign, more power to him; it's not something that should be forced on every DM.
I agree. Heritage stuff seems to be more appropriately "written in" through character race, racial feats, and PPs. Base classes should be a step removed from all that. Just MHO. We'll have to see what the devs do. I don't dislike the heritage/bloodlines concept; I just don't think I want it hardwired into a class.
Originally Printed in Player's Handbook v.3.5 p.51
Sorcerers create magic the way a poet creates poems, with inborn talent honed by practice. They have no books, no mentors, no theories---just raw power that they direct at will. Some sorcerers claim that the blood of dragons courses through their veins...
...Others hold that the claim is either an unsubstantiated boast on the part of the sorcerer or envious gossip on the part of those who lack the sorcerer's gift
I edited out the middle, where the text explains that such claims are possible but difficult to prove either way, and I bolded for emphasis, but otherwise that's how the text read.
Personally, I don't see how this little bit of flavor is overly binding. Certainly it seems less restrictive than that of the Warlock, who had to make a bargain with an extraplaner force to gain their power. Certainly draconic heritage is proposed as one origin for the sorcerer's power, but the same text also says that might be absolute fiction.
A Sorcerer's powers could be the result of direct lineage from a magical creature, such as a dragon, or dragon blooded could just mean that a dragon saved the character's life in the past with a blood transfusion. Its also just as possible that the character's arcane linage links to a power wizard or warlock as an ancestor. Finlay, maybe a sorcerer's arcane power has no linage and the character was just born under write configuration of stars or any other explanation the player cares to put forth.
The important part isn't were the sorcerer gets his power, it's how it manifests. It's about arcane power as a natural talent, that may or may not have any rational explanation.
I've been making this argument for a while, since the whole misconception of Sorcerer's=Dragonkin started. A misconception which prevents cool character concepts...
It doesn't prevent anything.
And it doesn't always have to be dragons... And it doesn't always have to be anything at all. It's all just flavor, so do what you want with it. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't have a default flavor. So long as it's easy to change and adapt, it should be no problem.
A prince with sorcerous talent who can trace his line "back before the sun" would be a fun roleplaying experience. While conversely, playing Joe Average who only has powers because Grandma Kaiba had a dragon fetish? Not so much. I can come up with a lot of fun characters to play if Sorcerers just gain power because. But I can't think of one fun character who has powers because of his ancestors sexual habits.
That's... Really weird of you.
Honestly, when I write one of my sorcerer's backgrounds (and sorcerer was my most-played 3.5 class), I almost never make any sort of mention of why he has his powers because it's just not important to the character. When asked about it, they usually respond with, "I don't know. Why does it matter?" Are you saying you can't make a fun sorcerer without including the origin of his powers in his background? I don't think I've ever heard of anybody who feels the need to do that. That's... Really weird of you.
That's... Really weird of you.
Honestly, when I write one of my sorcerer's backgrounds (and sorcerer was my most-played 3.5 class), I almost never make any sort of mention of why he has his powers because it's just not important to the character. When asked about it, they usually respond with, "I don't know. Why does it matter?" Are you saying you can't make a fun sorcerer without including the origin of his powers in his background? I don't think I've ever heard of anybody who feels the need to do that. That's... Really weird of you.
You misunderstand, I rarely ever go into a Sorcerer's power source, the only time a Sorcerous character's ever had their power source spelled out was a Rogue/Sorcerer, who was too impatient to learn Wizardry and paid someone to tattoo vast arcane symbols over her body to let her channel magic as if she had always had the ability, and used it be be a more effective cat burglar. She's the only one. Everyone else (as sorcerers were my most played class as well) were just dudes that could do crazy things.
You misunderstand, I rarely ever go into a Sorcerer's power source... ...Everyone else (as sorcerers were my most played class as well) were just dudes that could do crazy things.
So then why does it matter how they got their power? They don't know, they don't care, so what's the problem? Even in the metagame, you don't have to know or care. Just pick the mechanical benefit that fits the character the best, and suggest that it may have been derived from some other source than the default flavor suggests or even no source at all.
I'm not seeing any problem here.
I for one find origin stories fulfilling, even if they don't have en effect on the game or if they don't come up. If I was to make a Sorcerer I would think about where they got their power, becuase even though it does not matter, it's part of who they are and if I wasn't interested in who they are i wouldn't have made a character out of them.
it may seem pointless to you Dr. Spock, but we humans are a complicated bunch.
...coming up with where your sorcerer got his/her power is not wierd either...
I never said it was. What was weird was the impression I got from Zeful's post that he believed that how a sorcerer gets its powers is what makes or breaks it as an interesting character.
EDIT: Zeful, you said it's very often that you don't give your sorcerers any set power origin at all, right? Well what if one of these characters, as it turned out, did have a dragon as an ancestor and that was the origin of his powers. Did that character suddenly become less interesting? Because that's the impression I got from that post.
Zeful, you make me sick
I never said it was. What was weird was the impression I got from Zeful's post that he believed that how a sorcerer gets its powers is what makes or breaks it as an interesting character.
EDIT: Zeful, you said it's very often that you don't give your sorcerers any set power origin at all, right? Well what if one of these characters, as it turned out, did have a dragon as an ancestor and that was the origin of his powers. Did that character suddenly become less interesting? Because that's the impression I got from that post.
Only if I start off knowing that, yes. If it comes up after I've been playing the character for a while, no. I don't care where the power comes from, but I find it harder to create new characters where everything's already pre-explained for me. Mostly because I can't not care about said power source or you know create my own explination. Especially if I have to select a set of class features from that take that away from me.
Zeful, you make me sick[.]
Go away and be sick then.
I edited out the middle, where the text explains that such claims are possible but difficult to prove either way, and I bolded for emphasis, but otherwise that's how the text read.
Personally, I don't see how this little bit of flavor is overly binding. Certainly it seems less restrictive than that of the Warlock, who had to make a bargain with an extraplaner force to gain their power. Certainly draconic heritage is proposed as one origin for the sorcerer's power, but the same text also says that might be absolute fiction.
A Sorcerer's powers could be the result of direct lineage from a magical creature, such as a dragon, or dragon blooded could just mean that a dragon saved the character's life in the past with a blood transfusion. Its also just as possible that the character's arcane linage links to a power wizard or warlock as an ancestor. Finlay, maybe a sorcerer's arcane power has no linage and the character was just born under write configuration of stars or any other explanation the player cares to put forth.
The important part isn't were the sorcerer gets his power, it's how it manifests. It's about arcane power as a natural talent, that may or may not have any rational explanation.
I'm not protesting the 3E approach. where it's suggested that a sorcerer's power could have come from an exotic bloodline. That's all fine and dandy; it's just a suggestion. What I don't want to see is a heritage system that defines my character's powers as having come from such a bloodline. That kind of restriction would make the class less interesting to me.
I see the parallel some of you are suggesting between the warlock pact and a heritage system, but the logic of this is flawed. Fluff-wise, a warlock's pact is derived from a decision the warlock made. The warlock entered into a pact (probably willingly, possibly under duress) with some eldritch entity. The details are largely left up to the player as to how this came to pass. The player is empowered to come up with a story regarding the entity in question, the background of the pact, and any other salient details.
A heritage system, on the other hand, takes power away from the player. It says, "if you're a sorcerer, you have your power because you had X supernatural ancestor." As a player, you aren't given a lot of room to work in building the story around your character's powers. You were born with them because you're not entirely human (or not entirely dragonborn, or not entirely half-elf). Rather than empowering you to come up with your own tale, the mechanics have shoehorned you into blaming your powers on the indiscretions of an ancestor. Hence, this is worse forced fluff than the early wizard stuff, where specific powers or build choices were going to be related to wizard orders. At least with orders you have some of the same freedom you have with a warlock's pact choice.
I see the parallel some of you are suggesting between the warlock pact and a heritage system, but the logic of this is flawed. Fluff-wise, a warlock's pact is derived from a decision the warlock made.
I think the real problem here is that you don't completely understand the parallels between the warlock pacts and a heritage system.
A heritage system, on the other hand, takes power away from the player. It says, "if you're a sorcerer, you have your power because you had X supernatural ancestor." As a player, you aren't given a lot of room to work in building the story around your character's powers. You were born with them because you're not entirely human (or not entirely dragonborn, or not entirely half-elf). Rather than empowering you to come up with your own tale, the mechanics have shoehorned you into blaming your powers on the indiscretions of an ancestor.
Let me twist this around to show you...
A pact system, on the other hand, takes power away from the player. It says, "if you're a warlock, you have your power because you made a pact with some supernatural beings." As a player, you aren't given a lot of room to work in building the story around your character's powers. You obtained them through some eldritch pact. Rather than empowering you to come up with your own tale, the mechanics have shoehorned you into blaming your powers on some contract you signed.
So you question is, "What if I want to play a Sorcerer without using a heritage system?" My question is, "What if I want to play a Warlock without using a pact system?" I've played two warlocks in 4E, but I've never used their suggested pact flavor. One was a pyromancer, and I just reflavored the Infernal Pact to fit, and the other was a voodoo priestess, and I just reflavored the Dark Pact to fit. However, that doesn't mean that I feel that the pacts are a bad default flavor for the Warlock to have. Likewise, if I play a Sorcerer in 4E, I might just ignore any heritage system completely in favor of my own interpretation, but that doesn't mean that the heritage system is a bad default flavor for the Sorcerer to have. There is nothing wrong with giving a class some default mechanical flavor so long as it's easy to modify to suit alternate interpretations.
Do you understand now?
I think the real problem here is that you don't completely understand the parallels between the warlock pacts and a heritage system.
Let me twist this around to show you...
A pact system, on the other hand, takes power away from the player. It says, "if you're a warlock, you have your power because you made a pact with some supernatural beings." As a player, you aren't given a lot of room to work in building the story around your character's powers. You obtained them through some eldritch pact. Rather than empowering you to come up with your own tale, the mechanics have shoehorned you into blaming your powers on some contract you signed.
So you question is, "What if I want to play a Sorcerer without using a heritage system?" My question is, "What if I want to play a Warlock without using a pact system?" I've played two warlocks in 4E, but I've never used their suggested pact flavor. One was a pyromancer, and I just reflavored the Infernal Pact to fit, and the other was a voodoo priestess, and I just reflavored the Dark Pact to fit. However, that doesn't mean that I feel that the pacts are a bad default flavor for the Warlock to have. Likewise, if I play a Sorcerer in 4E, I might just ignore any heritage system completely in favor of my own interpretation, but that doesn't mean that the heritage system is a bad default flavor for the Sorcerer to have. There is nothing wrong with giving a class some default mechanical flavor so long as it's easy to modify to suit alternate interpretations.
Do you understand now?
Wow, could you try to make that a little more patronizing? Like I said, I understand the parallel you're suggesting, and I don't agree with you. Insinuating that I'm stupid because I don't agree with you is not going to convince me that you're right and I'm wrong. Take a trip back through kindergarten and learn some manners, please.
Wow, could you try to make that a little more patronizing? Like I said, I understand the parallel you're suggesting, and I don't agree with you. Insinuating that I'm stupid because I don't agree with you is not going to convince me that you're right and I'm wrong. Take a trip back through kindergarten and learn some manners, please.
WHOA! Back up. Something got lost in translation here. I didn't intend to be patronizing in any ways, and I certainly wasn't insinuate that you were stupid.
Now, if you can get past whatever part of what I said that offended you, I was really looking forward to hearing how you feel about this:
A pact system, on the other hand, takes power away from the player. It says, "if you're a warlock, you have your power because you made a pact with some supernatural beings." As a player, you aren't given a lot of room to work in building the story around your character's powers. You obtained them through some eldritch pact. Rather than empowering you to come up with your own tale, the mechanics have shoehorned you into blaming your powers on some contract you signed.
...in comparison to what you said.
WHOA! Back up. Something got lost in translation here. I didn't intend to be patronizing in any ways, and I certainly wasn't insinuate that you were stupid.
Ah, then I apologize. I mistook your suggestion that I did not understand the parallels which I previously had stated that I fully understand. Then let me clarify why I think a pact system is viable while a heritage system is not.
It really comes down to one thing: participation. A PC participates in the forging of a pact, but does not participate in the formation of a heritage. I can come up with plenty of stories about how my character was involved in gaining a pact-based power, but a heritage-based power doesn't afford me that degree of leeway. It states that my PC inherited his power, period. I find this to be a much more limiting idea than that of a pact; the story of why my character is a sorcerer is already written -- he was born. I can't say, for instance, that my character was tricked into being born with (for instance) draconic blood. I can't say that he stole a draconic heritage (well OK, maybe I could get away with this one), or tricked or cajoled a dragon into being his grandfather. I can't say that he was promised great power if he let a dragon be his grandfather, and agreed to that, or that he sought out a dragon to become his grandfather. A warlock pact is a story hook; a heritage is a railroad.
If you disagree with that (and I gather you do), you're welcome to do so, but please refrain from suggesting that I don't understand what I'm talking about because you don't agree with what I'm saying.
EDIT: To see if I can clarify this further, I see it as though the default flavors should be that if you want participation, Warlock is what you're looking for, but if you don't want participation, Sorcerer is what you're looking for. In terms of default flavor, that is. Both should have mechanics that are flexible enough to allow for alternative interpretations, however, but the two classes to need to be different somehow, don't they?
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
Their repertoire might turn toward more 'subtle' magics than the wizard or warlock (similar to the bard), though with the speculated focus on 'wild magic' this doesn't seem likely. The image of wild magic conjures up flashy explosions and random mayhem. "Subtle" magic may be more the purview of the shadow or psionic classes.
Another possibility is that the sorcerer may be based on "transmutation" effects, inheriting a lot of the 'buff' effects from the wizard (and minoring in leader). This could work with a Charisma/Intelligence/Strength setup, with certain effects allowing the sorcerer to blast or debilitate enemies, such as "baleful polymorph" effects or the sorcerer catching fire to damage nearby enemies.
It really comes down to one thing: participation. A PC participates in the forging of a pact, but does not participate in the formation of a heritage.
Quite honestly a PC doesn't actually participate in "forging" his pact. The fact that a warlock has forged a pact is simply part of the character's back story, the same as a sorcerer's heritage.
I can come up with plenty of stories about how my character was involved in gaining a pact-based power, but a heritage-based power doesn't afford me that degree of leeway. It states that my PC inherited his power, period.
No offense intended, but your inability to come up with a variety of back stories related to a character's heritage does not mean that it can't be done. There are all sorts of stories that can be told about how and why that supernatural blood entered into your family line. It seems to me that your problem is that those are stories that pre-date your character's personal history and so you feel like you have no control over it, but you do. You have the same control as a fighter who wields the sword of his heroic grandfather on a quest to fulfill the oath of his own father to slay an evil lich king.
Alternatively, don't focus on how or were you got your special powers. Instead focus on how being different set you apart while you were growing up and how it shaped and motivated the adventurer that your character has become.
Rather than empowering you to come up with your own tale, the mechanics have shoehorned you into blaming your powers on the indiscretions of an ancestor.
Also, why do you seem to be fixated on the idea of a sorcerer's supernatural ancestry being a mistake. You make it sound like one becomes a sorcerer because Thieu great great grand mother cheater on her husband with a dragon, but what if that dragon was in-fact her husband.
I understand what you're saying, and I totally see where you're coming from, but what I don't understand is why you can't simply reflavor your sorcerer heritage the same way that I reflavor my warlock pact. I get your problem with heritage being the default flavor for the Sorcerer, but what I don't get is why you can't ignore it the same way that I ignore pacts being the default flavor for the Warlock. After all, there are some people who do like the old arcane blood heritage flavor that the sorcerer had.
EDIT: To see if I can clarify this further, I see it as though the default flavors should be that if you want participation, Warlock is what you're looking for, but if you don't want participation, Sorcerer is what you're looking for. In terms of default flavor, that is. Both should have mechanics that are flexible enough to allow for alternative interpretations, however, but the two classes to need to be different somehow, don't they?
Sure, you can always change the default flavor. If I want my wizard to get his power from the gods or from eldritch, Lovecraftian entities then I can do that, too. I don't have any problem with doing so, or with a player doing so in my campaigns.
Let me put it this way: I think that having all sorcerers be heritage-based is too narrow for a base class, just as if all fighters were noble-born knights who were given formal training from an early age. I think heritage is fine as one among a group of options, but I don't think it's broad enough to base a class on. If the PH2 sorcerer has heritage as hardwired fluff, then I am going to rewrite the sorcerer fluff for my campaigns, but as I've already stated, I don't think I will need to. I don't think that WotC's designers are going to publish a class with that narrow of a focus.
No offense intended, but your inability to come up with a variety of back stories related to a character's heritage does not mean that it can't be done. There are all sorts of stories that can be told about how and why that supernatural blood entered into your family line. It seems to me that your problem is that those are stories that pre-date your character's personal history and so you feel like you have no control over it, but you do. You have the same control as a fighter who wields the sword of his heroic grandfather on a quest to fulfill the oath of his own father to slay an evil lich king.
Oh, I could write back stories related to my character's heritage until the sun goes down. That doesn't make them interesting to me, and they don't involve the character itself, just its ancestors. My point isn't some "inability to come up with" stories, it's the fact that those stories aren't as compelling as the ones that involve the character itself.
Oh, I could write back stories related to my character's heritage until the sun goes down. That doesn't make them interesting to me, and they don't involve the character itself, just its ancestors. My point isn't some "inability to come up with" stories, it's the fact that those stories aren't as compelling as the ones that involve the character itself.
Then as I said...
Alternatively, don't focus on how or were you got your special powers. Instead focus on how being different set you apart while you were growing up and how it shaped and motivated the adventurer that your character has become.
Furthermore, quite honestly a sorcerer's "special" heritage isn't likely to be something a mere two or three generations back. While the bloodline is still that strong the character would likely be some kind of mix-breed race. Sources are anomalies that pop up a half-dozen or more generations after their supernatural ancestor (that's grandfather/grandmother with 4 greats in front, of which a person has 32). I don't know about you, but I don't even know detailed (or even vague histories) in regards to all of my ancestors that far back.
It's usually so far back that its very unlikely that the origin of the the sorcerer's powers can be easily traced, unless a detailed genealogy of the family exists. Such family histories are uncommon, unless one is a member of some nobility. Adoptions, divorces, and orphaning are all likely to muddy up any clear line of decent as well.
Furthermore, quite honestly a sorcerer's "special" heritage isn't likely to be something a mere two or three generations back. While the bloodline is still that strong the character would likely be some kind of mix-breed race. Sources are anomalies that pop up a half-dozen or more generations after their supernatural ancestor (that's grandfather/grandmother with 4 greats in front, of which a person has 32). I don't know about you, but I don't even know detailed (or even vague histories) in regards to all of my ancestors that far back.
It's usually so far back that its very unlikely that the origin of the the sorcerer's powers can be easily traced, unless a detailed genealogy of the family exists. Such family histories are uncommon, unless one is a member of some nobility. Adoptions, divorces, and orphaning are all likely to muddy up any clear line of decent as well.
It still shoehorns the conceptions of the class. Such that players that would otherwise play a Sorcerer would instead play something else. If the generic fluff describes all Sorcerers as X (it really doesn't what X is at this point), then players who like X will create Sorcerers that are X, while people who don't like X will say that it ruined the class. Yes one could rewrite the fluff so it's not X but that will do nothing to change the conception of the class in the eyes of the players.
WotC would be better served by using something along the lines of the 3.x Sorcerer fluff, with more emphasis on the unknown. Let the players fill in the gaps as they feel necessary. Rather than the blanket of "Your great-to-the-nth-power-grandparent was a dragonlayer"
"Little Tim Topsie was born on the night of two moons. That was the only time in Toril two moons where ever seen in the sky. His parents say he can make the broom move for him when he cleans the stables. That and he has his favorite toy light up when he wants to stay up late." said Rusty.
"I told my girl Sarah to not play with him.........that boy ain't right. I would say he was a wizard 'cept he can't even read the common script yet. My cousin Job said his 'lil girl was born that night. He makes her go fetch the well water 'cause he hopes it will turn into wine. Heh, I guess I would, too."
" Ok, George, I gota go check in with the wife. We are trying for our fifth kid to help with the crops. Boy, they may be a pain the put up with, but they sure are fun to make!"
I feel that part of the heritage/pact issue is making the class distinct from wizard. Sorcerers, warlocks, and wizards all use arcane powers - and in the case of 3.x Sorcerers and Wizards used the same spells - so the question becomes what makes them different?
Consider the question: how did you get your heroic powers? The initial answer (in terms of the arcane) determines class. Pact with a higher power = warlock, Scholastic training = wizard, Combat training (kind of) = Swordmage. The next portion - delineating the rest - is where one has the chance to make a character unique. Who did you make a pact with or receive training from? Did you pick up any personal quirks or habits from that person (perhaps you have one verdant green eye from making a pact with the Summer Queen or you coordinate your socks to the spells you've prepared for the day because your master did)?
Now let's look at the way class mechanics and background interact in Fourth edition - specifically things which could be seen to dictate character (beyond the focus on just good-ish characters) background beyond the normal for a class feature (Healing Lore versus Healing Word).
Clerics - Healing Lore: the character has been presumed to study healing. Doesn't make much sense for a Cleric of a deity that doesn't have much to do with healing beyond the miracles needed to keep the faithful going (One of my favorite characters was a Cleric of a deity for sailors. He had no ranks in heal but was maxed out in Profession(Sailor)).
Fighter - Woo! Genericy!
Paladin - Class features are pretty on par; every paladin would have them though you don't have any options... because paladins are less generic than Fighters.
Ranger - Rangers became much more focused: archer or dual-wielder. Beyond that; the sky's the limit.
Rogue- Rogue Weapon Talent technically falls afoul of the critera. Why would a Swashbuckler (best done with Rogue class) be better with a dagger and a shuriken than a rapier or longword or whatever the dueling weapon of choice it?
Warlock - This has been covered pretty well by others, but the Pact system overall. However, once we get beyond the initial Pact choice, one has unlimited freedom in deciding the details of the Pact and the Patron.
Warlord - Inspiring Word: seriously, why have Inspiring Presence and Tactical Presence options (covers the Warlord background spectra pretty well) and then specifically have a must-take class power that works off of "inspiring"?
Wizard - Arcane Implement Mastery: suffers from the same problem as Pacts. Again, once you get past it...
[Heritage] doesn't make [Sorcerers] interesting to me, and they don't involve the character itself, just its ancestors. My point isn't some "inability to come up with" stories, it's the fact that those stories aren't as compelling as the ones that involve the character itself.
And herein lies the crux: even the dictating features mentioned above revolve around actions the character's actions led to in one way or another. Sorcerers, of all the classes discussed, are the most passive in acquiring their powers because they are born with them - at least in the current paradigm. Heritage, mysterious birthing circumstances, those are all ways to make the passiveness interesting. The Heritage Feats, at least, represented the character making the choice to actively promote the otherworldly aspect.
For the Fourth edition iteration of Sorcerer - in line with other changes - do we have to keep the concept of the Sorcerer as a natural born magic user? I'm going to assume that WotC asked themselves this question and answered it already when designing the class. If the answer was no then we need to start a completely new train of questioning. If the answer was yes then let's continue.
How can we take such a "generic" starting point for a character and come up with some options to reflect a narrowing down to specifics (like Warlock = Pact but you have options for Patron)? More specifically, how do we keep in the realm of a character's choice and not something that they had no control over?
Tharag Boc's and Styphathal's approach brings up the point: how do the people around you (the sorcerer) react to your uncanny powers and what does that in turn foster in you (megalomania, paranoia, insecurity, or what not)? Is that something we can turn into a mechanic?
Or do we not bother with it? Is it too complex/difficult to work such things into mechanics? Should we instead focus on how the character's manifestations occur (i.e. power or subtlety)?
i'm gonna take a wild guess here and say the sorcerer might be the warlock's primal counterpart.
No. Sorcerer is an Arcane Controller. This has been confirmed.
Therefore not Primal and not a Striker (if that's what you meant by Warlock counterpart).
A few more things that could help in that regard:
1. De-emphasize the use of obvious implements. A sorcerer doesn't strike me as the sort of person that waves magic sticks around to cast his spells. Sorcerers seem to be more the "point at stuff and it goes boom" type. One way to get this idea across is to have the sorcerer use runes as an implement (basically, magic sigils or tattoos that help the sorcerer focus his powers so he doesn't accidentally blow people up).
2. The "spontaneous casting" feature could be represented by letting the sorcerer use lower-level powers more often by 'burning' higher-level powers. This could help represent the dynamic 3E had of "the wizard gets more spells, but the sorcerer can use the ones he has more often".
1. De-emphasize the use of obvious implements. A sorcerer doesn't strike me as the sort of person that waves magic sticks around to cast his spells. Sorcerers seem to be more the "point at stuff and it goes boom" type. One way to get this idea across is to have the sorcerer use runes as an implement (basically, magic sigils or tattoos that help the sorcerer focus his powers so he doesn't accidentally blow people up).
I was wondering about that myself, tats would be cool, but I doubt it will be anything new.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1126468
Included is the idea that the Sorcerer implement will be 'components,' random bits and pieces that the Sorcerer has come to associate with casting certain spells.
Such a confirmation pretty well rules out the use of Heritage as a founding mechanic for a base class.
No. Sorcerer is an Arcane Controller. This has been confirmed.
Therefore not Primal and not a Striker (if that's what you meant by Warlock counterpart).
ok didn't know that. i hope they don't make them like wizards. not that i have anything against wizards but for some reason my spirit takes more to the chaotic, free-spirited classes such as rogue, ranger, sorcerer, and warlock.
frankly i think 3.5 sorcerers sucked. it's liked they just took the wizard, stripped him of everything and gave some more spell slots. however none of that stopped me from falling absolutely in love with that skin-and-bones class.
The really weird part is dismissing the age old "I've got powers because I'm descended from gods/demons/dragons/whatevers" as "ancestor's weird sexual habits." Take THAT, real world mythology! Or something!
Indeed.
The idea of having power or being somehow special because of your ancestry/bloodline pre-dates D&D by a couple thousands years and it's probably the first 'power source' in human storytelling history. Even the Spartans claimed they were the descended of Hercules, who himself was half-god...
It has its place in D&D... in fact, it has much more of a place than the 'Divine' power source, which is honestly quite under represented in your typical fantasy world (How many non-D&D settings actually have Cleric and Paladin like the one in D&D? Not Tolkien's, not Jordan's, etc).
Yet, you have so many people here who find the concept repulsive/unappealing/etc... that just comes out as extremely weird to me. Thousands years ago, some of the fiercest warriors known to mankind claimed with pride that their ancestor had 'weird sexual habits', and nowaday a bunch of people sitting in front of their computer look down at the concept for their fictional character.
Heh.
We get a sorcerer preview next week, so we'll know the answer soon.
In today's podcast, they were asked what the next controllers would be like. They only mentioned the Invoker and Druid (I believe they specifically said that "both have been previewed already"), which makes me wonder what's going on with the sorcerer.
We get a sorcerer preview next week, so we'll know the answer soon.
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, but it is suspect.
There are at least three distinct possibilities:
The person answering merely forgot about the sorcerer as a controller in PH2.
They didn't want to mention the sorcerer since it hadn't been previewed yet.
The sorcerer is not actually a controller.
Defender has always seemed, more or less, like a Melee Controller. Its powers would be Close ranged, creating things like walls of fire (sustain minor) to funnel opponenets in a certain direction. Maybe there could even be a series of Powers (possible build?) that focuses on imbuing weapons with arcane power. Basically, it would just mean that certain weapons become implements (or at least keywords) for the powers, causing debuffs when they hit enemies.
I'm throwing this out in the dark, but I'm going to say Arcane Defender with hints of Controller. Now for rationale...
Defender has always seemed, more or less, like a Melee Controller. Its powers would be Close ranged, creating things like walls of fire (sustain minor) to funnel opponenets in a certain direction. Maybe there could even be a series of Powers (possible build?) that focuses on imbuing weapons with arcane power. Basically, it would just mean that certain weapons become implements (or at least keywords) for the powers, causing debuffs when they hit enemies.
I would very much appreciate this, but it's unlikely due to the various confirmations of its controller role. I however hope for at least a good secondary defender role.
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, but it is suspect.
There are at least three distinct possibilities:
The person answering merely forgot about the sorcerer as a controller in PH2.
They didn't want to mention the sorcerer since it hadn't been previewed yet.
The sorcerer is not actually a controller.
You forgot possibility number 4, they did that on purpose just to screw with me/us(Future Release forum regulars). It's a conspiracy!:P
If Sorcerer were a defender, then Arcane would have all four roles without including the setting books.
I still think the Sorcerer would be better suited as a Striker or a Strikery Controller. Like the Barbarian, people played Sorcerers to blow stuff up; I believe the Barbarian typically replaced Fighters and Sorcerers typically replaced Wizards (meaning Barbarians were "defenders" and sorcerers were "controllers"), but the designers seem to be (for the best I guess) looking at what classes were played for, not which of the four "base classes" they replaced in the traditional party.
Admittedly, I will miss the bloodline part of the Sorcerer if it isn't included. My own houserule version of the Sorcerer gained bonus bloodline feats, and my group really enjoyed that way of looking at the Sorcerer.
ok didn't know that. i hope they don't make them like wizards.
There's no more danger of that than there was of Ranger and Rogue being alike. :P
frankly i think 3.5 sorcerers sucked.
That's funny. It was the 4th most powerful class in the PHB. That just always gets overlooked because the Wizard is better in almost every way.
Anyways, with the new podcast, maybe they won't be controllers after all. Honestly though, I really hope they just made a mistake and the sorcerer really is going to be a controller. That's what we were told before, and I don't see why they would have decided to change it. Controller seems to fit the concept better than any of the other roles, unless of course they decided to change up the concept completely... If they don't make controller, though, I could see them being good leaders, I suppose...
If this is so, then the Sorcerer might be the 'transmuter' or 'buff mage' class. While a Swordmage focuses on elemental strikes and attacks combining sword and spell, the Sorcerer enhances himself with arcane energy and releases it in bursts and blasts. Some of his powers might also allow him to transform enemies into other forms as debuffs, which might mean the return of the 'baleful polymorph' spell (if the shaman or druid doesn't get it).
Regardless, I'm patiently wait for the Sorcerer Preview ten days from now.
Sorcerers had a limited number of spells known, Wizards could use any spell they had in thier spellbook.
Wizards had to prepare(choose) their spells each day, Sorcerers could cast any they knew, within the spells per level per day limitation.
Wizards were better generalists, Sorcerers were forced to be more specialized.
Given the stated 4e goal of overall simplefication there is no good way to implement the first two in 4e.
I wouldn't mind seeing the Sorcerer redone in to an elemental(power source) based caster with bonuses for specialization. But like the Wizard, have options in melee as well as ranged and control.
Wizards were better generalists, Sorcerers were forced to be more specialized.
Wow, I think you have that VERY backwards. Wizards we the better specialists, even explicitly having it as a class feature, while sorcerers were forced to be generalists specifically because they had so few spells known. See, Wizards were able to specialize and still perform tasks outside of their specialty, further encouraging their specialization. Sorcerers didn't have that luxury; if they specialized, they were stuck in that role and unable to perform other tasks that were expected of them, and so instead of specializing, were forced to diversify their spells and pick multi-purpose spells and stuff.
I'm throwing this out in the dark, but I'm going to say Arcane Defender with hints of Controller. Now for rationale...
Isn't that a Swordmage?
The Sorcerer has an elemental affinity based Aura. Each Aura is linked to a damage/type under Arcane magic. So...
Fire aspects crackle with heat and emit waves of flame when they cast spells. Ice Sorcerer chill the room and freeze whatever they touch. Force types have a almost physical shimmer and small objects drift lazily about them.
The Aura is a direct damaging effect, kinda an offensive shield based on type/elemental effect. And just like a Fighter gets a Weapon bonus based if it's his speciality, the Sorcer gets loads of lovely side effects (ongoing damage bump, immoblization, etc) when he uses a typed spell that's linked to his affinity.
Just my 2c on the concept of a cool Sorcerer. We'll see what's real next week.
I'm not sure what is so difficult to accept about Sorcerer PROBABLY not being a controller. I'm sensing some confirmation bias here, because people are seeming to forget about the difficulty the devs expressed in making the sorcerer into an arcane controller that looks and feels different from the wizard.
Actually I believe they said they were excited at making the Sorcerer an Arcane Controller that was different from the Wizard.
Actually I believe they said they were excited at making the Sorcerer an Arcane Controller that was different from the Wizard.
Stay with the program, they just said that PHBII has 2 controllers and that both of them have been previewed. Hence the current confusion regarding the role.
Stay with the program, they just said that PHBII has 2 controllers and that both of them have been previewed. Hence the current confusion regarding the role.
I wouldn't hold spoken word to the same rigorous interpretation of lingusitics that a written statement would be subjected to. The may have simply wanted to restrict the conversation to 'both of the controllers that have been previewed' and the wording got a bit tongue-tied. While it is possible that the class has gotten a significant reworking, I'd still say odds favor it being a controller.
I wouldn't hold spoken word to the same rigorous interpretation of lingusitics that a written statement would be subjected to. The may have simply wanted to restrict the conversation to 'both of the controllers that have been previewed' and the wording got a bit tongue-tied. While it is possible that the class has gotten a significant reworking, I'd still say odds favor it being a controller.
You're right, especially given the "PH2 Spoiler-Correction" debacle of last year; spoken word isn't as good as written, especially when it comes to confirming things. That said, that situation also indicates another factor that could be involved: the reality that even the best plans can change.
I still think it'll prolly be a Controller. If not, Striker remains the best other bet. Either way, we will inevitably see half of us pointing fingers at the other half, saying, "Nyah-nyah-nyahnyah-nyah!" a couple weeks from now.
- Spoken commentary is more likely to be a mistake, so the backtrack may be coming soon. (What is this, politics?! :P)
- If the Sorcerer is not a Controller anymore, I'd guess Striker. The possibility of launching fireball after fireball (or some other spell) was always a stand-out feature of how their spontaneous casting worked in 3.x, whether you built your sorcerer that way or not. I know that's an AoE spell, but I'm just getting at the general shtick of dishing it out repeatedly.
- If the Sorcerer is a Striker, maybe the aura mechanic functions something like described a few posts above except serving as a mobility feature. I mean that in the same way that the Barbarian's hp allow it to move around; the aura may simply keep enemies from hitting the Sorcerer as easily.
A point of conflict, however:
Stay with the program
Don't get saucy with me, béarnaise, I was just pointing out something I read.
You should really tone down the zealot-like attitude in regards to new releases information/speculation (I dig some of your posts, but sometimes just a tad passive-aggressive).
If by chance it is not a Controller, the only role I could see it filling is Striker, like marius4 said, just blapping the crap out of people with energy spells or something. But I'm still thinking it will be a Controller.
Sorcerer for Leader! Think about it, auras could be all kinds of crazy beneficial to party members. Like an Aura of Flame that rejuvenates allies, wind that speeds them up, earth that toughens them, water that makes them do something else.
Cool ideas, but that would mean 3 Arcane Leaders (artificer, bard, sorcerer), and I highly doubt that this soon.
A second Arcane Leader wouldn't be too bad, but not very likely in the same book...
Are we sure the Sorcerer is slated for Arcane... if it is supposed to have 'wild' magic it might be a 'Primal' 'Wizard'
But, like I said, it might just be a more specialized Wizard, just like 3e.
If you don't agree that the 3e/3.5e Sorcerer was a specialist, just think of the limited number of spells known, to be of the most use, you have to specialize with your limited resources, you can dabble with some utility, but at the core must specialize.
The 3e/3.5e Wizards were not under that constrant, unless thay chose to be, but that still had a rather unlimited spell pool to work from. Sure specialize you spells per day, but your spells known can be any thing you need.
A 3e Wizard could buy/learn any spell he needed, therefore, Generalist.
A 3e Sorcerer can't change what he knows, therefore, Specialist.
A Generalist Sorcerer(3e) is a Jack of All Trades, Master of None.
A Generalist Wizard(3e) is a Jack of All Trades, Master of All.
Both did well specialized, but that Sorcerer had to, or be the party's third wheel.
The only concern I have with this is that, if I remember correctly, "Elemental" is supposed to be a power source, which implies that the Sorcerer can't be an "x"mancer without taking away part of what would make Elemental classes unique.
Through that thinking, maybe the Sorcerer will focus on certain schools of magic? Maybe a Conjuration line, for example, where all spells contain the Conjuration keyword.
Though I do like your idea of specialization along the old 8 Schools, that is a more trained method...
I would see it more along the damage/effect types or some sort of pairing/grouping...
Not to say mine is the only way...
The schools don't necessarily have to be linked to any training, though. A natural talent with arcane magic still has to manifest itself somehow; perhaps the sorcerer is born with a strong grasp over one of the 8. Also, nothing states directly that a sorcerer can't have had any training at all, just that their skills come from within themselves moreso than those of the wizard. The case is true in many other fields; you have tones of musicians with a great deal of natural talent that didn't adhere much to formal training (but some values would carry through simply due to environmental influences) acheiving as much success as a musician with less raw talent but with a strong practice regiment/work ethic. The same parallel could be drawn between Sorcerers and Wizards.
As far as heritage vs. pact arguement that happened here, I have a bit of experience with this as my Hellock's back story is that her parents made the deal before she was born (not unlike the story of the tv show Reaper) and her trying to find a way out of that pact, while growing in strength so one day she may actually be able to battle her way our of her soul's pact, makes for very compelling substories to our game. This could be one way to interperet and use a backstory (like heritage) to organically grow the story and create opportunities for DMs to make it more invested. After all, who among us doesn't have some albatros around our neck, either genetic, social, physical or family-based that we don't have to deal with and that is out of our control? Would we be who we are today without that?
As far as my reasoning for striker: 1) the martial classes have 2 strikers, so it's not unheard of, 2) there was the comment about the sorceror being more about "wild magic" 3) the striker classes are probably considered the most "fun" to play (at least everyone that I know thinks this), so give the people what they want. 4) The wizard falls short (at least, some believe) in the artillery department and the Warlock is more of a 1-on-1 sniper than a cannon.
Anyway, my 2 coppers
My guess will be Arcane Controller (as we've got confirmed). I think that, thematically, Arcane favors Control, so having two Arcane Controllers would not be out-of-line. I'm hopeful the secondaries may be Defender (could be interesting) and Striker. I also hope we see Heritage-based sorcery, with said heritage having a large impact on the character design. Draconic would be the most obvious.
If you don't agree that the 3e/3.5e Sorcerer was a specialist, just think of the limited number of spells known, to be of the most use, you have to specialize with your limited resources, you can dabble with some utility, but at the core must specialize.
I completely disagree. The limited number of spells known was exactly why the sorcerer couldn't afford to specialize. It had to generalize or else end up incompetent at what was expected of its party role as an arcane caster.
A 3e Wizard could buy/learn any spell he needed, therefore, Generalist.
A 3e Sorcerer can't change what he knows, therefore, Specialist.
Again, I disagree. The fact that the sorcerer couldn't change his spell selection was another reason why it was a better idea to generalize. If you were an enchanter in an undead campaign, you got screwed over.
Both did well specialized, but that Sorcerer had to, or be the party's third wheel.
I feel that the generalist sorcerer was a party asset while the specialist sorcerer was the third wheel.
Unless, of course, your party has multiple arcane casters. In such a case, extra specialization is easier to get away with. Of course this is the same as any party with multiple members covering the same role...
Interesting, could it be that there's a trend to be drawn here? That those who saw the sorcerer as specialists would prefer the striker role while those who saw the sorcerer as generalists would prefer the controller role?
If you don't agree that the 3e/3.5e Sorcerer was a specialist, just think of the limited number of spells known, to be of the most use, you have to specialize with your limited resources, you can dabble with some utility, but at the core must specialize.
I completely disagree. The limited number of spells known was exactly why the sorcerer couldn't afford to specialize. It had to generalize or else end up incompetent at what was expected of its party role as an arcane caster.
Again, I disagree. The fact that the sorcerer couldn't change his spell selection was another reason why it was a better idea to generalize. If you were an enchanter in an undead campaign, you got screwed over.
Kinda two sides of the same coin, here, right? If you were creating a strictly themed sorcerer like a pyromancer you could pick all fire spells and cast them repeatedly and flexibly (with metamagic). If you wanted to be a viable magical virtuoso who could stand on his/her own next to any wizard, you cleverly optimized a broad spell selection. The first option has good flavor but is problematic when you run into the red dragon (or even a resist fire spell). The second option is highly flexible and adaptable, but many choices aren't a fun or possibly even fair trade off. (Think of that first 3rd-level spell you had to choose: You can dispel effects like any "real" caster, or you can lob a fireball...one or the other.) That's why in 4e they will first make the sorcerer viable on its own, and then spice it up with flavor.
I also hope we see Heritage-based sorcery, with said heritage having a large impact on the character design. Draconic would be the most obvious.
Like I said eariler in the thread. I hope you are 100% wrong. The entire class would be designed around ancestor ****/being easy or some other very stupid general justification (otherwise all characters of the class would be the same (they are anyway)). Heritage-based sorcery is as stupid as alignment restrictions, we all see where they went.
.....5 Elements(Air/Earth/Fire/Water/Metal)[Asian] or 4 Elements(Air/Earth/Fire/Water)[Western]
Chinese. ;)
Like I said eariler in the thread. I hope you are 100% wrong. The entire class would be designed around ancestor ****/being easy or some other very stupid general justification (otherwise all characters of the class would be the same (they are anyway)). Heritage-based sorcery is as stupid as alignment restrictions, we all see where they went.
Ouch! I think this is what failing a Diplomacy check looks like.
Having said that, in very general terms I agree with your stance. The Dhampyr article shows us a cool way heritage (other than typical race) can play a big part in character mechanics at the player's option. It seems unnecessary to hardwire it into a single class. The bonus heritage feat was a good idea, though, if things were to go that way.Like I said eariler in the thread. I hope you are 100% wrong. The entire class would be designed around ancestor ****/being easy or some other very stupid general justification (otherwise all characters of the class would be the same (they are anyway)). Heritage-based sorcery is as stupid as alignment restrictions, we all see where they went.
I really think it's offensive that you relate heritage with ****. Lets hope you're offbase with your opinion. Western mythology is rife with Gods (or whatever you choose) mating with mortal women, NO **** involved or even hinted at. Eastern mythology flavors it differently in most cases, but still no **** in the vast majority of cases, if at all. Unlike marius4 I do not agree with your stance at all....we all have opinions just like we all have brains.
In my opinion the Sorcerer was never good choice as the primary caster for a party because of it's limited and static spell pool... not enought to adiquitly genralize... personally I think about 2-3 spells per level had to be specialized to the same goal but different methods, the rest being open to utility(genralization).
I probably should qualify a couple of points...
The build of a Sorcerer needed to be fairly specialized, as noted above, but the play style was more generalized, the benifit of 'spontanious' casting.
The build of a Wizard should have been very gereralized, as befits the wider spell pool, but the play style was more specialized. (ie. have prepared spells lists set up of a number of different 'roles' and use them when needed)
I really think it's offensive that you relate heritage with ****. Lets hope you're offbase with your opinion. Western mythology is rife with Gods (or whatever you choose) mating with mortal women, NO **** involved or even hinted at. Eastern mythology flavors it differently in most cases, but still no **** in the vast majority of cases, if at all. Unlike marius4 I do not agree with your stance at all....we all have opinions just like we all have brains.
There was no hinting of **** in the Half-Orc racial entry either. But look where that went.
And yes I'm aware of the Mythological examples. Odepus' mother was locked in a tower and seduced by gold coins, because Odepus' dad didn't want to die at the hands of his son. Except Odepus had no magic powers, none. I can't really think of any example where sex with gods gave someone powers even close to what a heritage sorcerer represents, so they aren't valid examples. I don't know of any Eastern examples, could you provide some? I'm starting to vaugley recall a chinese swordsman who's dad was a dragon (though that could be me mixing Hero with Dragonheart). Otherwise, all those stories tell of people with incredible martial prowess rather than mystical abilities. Based on western myth you'd have more luck making a Martial class heritage based than the Sorcerer.
The problem I have with heritage sorcerers in 4e is that your background come almost prewritten for you. Your class features are: Draconic Bloodline, Clestial Bloodline, Inferno Bloodline or some inane variation of the same. So you got an ancestor/s who at some point slept with a dragon, Demon, or angel. And that's it. Because it's so far removed you can't even pull a unique "I lived with my abomination of a parent before going out and adventuring, totally explaining my lack of social skills/hatred of others." Barely half a line of text between, "Mom got laid by my abomination of a parent" and "Adventure starts".
I'll admit that I could just be bad at thinking up backstories, but I'm not being given anything to really work with, heck I can't even dare to not care about it because hey look, my class features is right there on the character sheet, I can't be a philosopher looking for where this power comes from because it's in the bloodly family history. Yes I could reflavor the class features/writeup (no you didn't mention it) and then explain which class feature I chose anyway (great way to keep immersion there) so that others understand me. And if I pull out the home-brew, I will never get to play it because the moment I mention it 90% of all DMs will say no without looking it over because they'll assume it's going to give my character some uber advantage or they will look it over and say it doesn't fit with the world.
And just to point out I'm not against heritage granting cool stuff, but do it like the Greeks did. People like Hercules/Herakles and Odepus were augmented human fighters at best, not some multiclass deal. I've even provided an example of how I think heritage would be better implemented in this thread:
Non-humanoid heritages would be better as a group of feats that give racial bonuses rather than one class' defining feature.
And finally, yes everyone is allowed their opinion. I'm of the opinion that heritage sorcerers don't work and are to restrictive for 4e. You're welcome to disagree and try to prove me wrong, but I am very stubborn.
The problem I have with heritage sorcerers in 4e is that your background come almost prewritten for you. Your class features are: Draconic Bloodline, Clestial Bloodline, Inferno Bloodline or some inane variation of the same. So you got an ancestor/s who at some point slept with a dragon, Demon, or angel. And that's it.
Every class has that problem if one adheres too strictly to the default flavor.
Most notably Every Cleric and Paladin is the servant of some deity or another. Sure one can come up with any number of ways they came to their calling or how they go about their devotion, but it all originates from being a divine servant. Warlock's a have a similar origin, except they made a deal with some extraplanar power less than a god. There could be any myriad of reasons why they made that pact but the fact that a pact was made is inescapable.
I'll admit that I could just be bad at thinking up backstories, but I'm not being given anything to really work with, heck I can't even dare to not care about it because hey look, my class features is right there on the character sheet, I can't be a philosopher looking for where this power comes from because it's in the bloodly family history.
And why can't you be a seeker searching for the origins of your mysterious powers? No one in the world, including your character, can see your character sheet. Labels like "fey pact", "brutal scoundrel", and "inspiring presence" are just that, LABELS. They exist only as a means to swiftly identify a game mechanic, and need not have any bearing on in-game perceptions of a character.
It could be twisted to fit a melee striker role by involving auras and some shapeshifting abilities similar to the Warden's but themed around the Sorcerer's strange heritage. Cool, but possibly too similar to the Warden albeit from a primarilly Striker point.
I do however feel there's a good chance that the Sorcerer will employ summoning quite heavily... as a striker this would make it too similar to the Invoker BUT if its geared towards a different role such as Defender or Leader then it could work out quite differently.
Sorcerer as a defender would leave a bad taste in my mouth. But a summoning defender WOULD be interesting. A summoning controller would fit better to me but as i'm trying to figure out ways the Sorcerer may not be a controller i'll just ignore that.
A leader would fit the sorcerer's stereotypical style and theme very well, to be honest the only thing that puts me off the idea is the existance of the bard but, as has already been mentioned, the Rogue and Ranger can happilly fill the same power source/role so surely the Sorcerer and the Bard can get along.
The problem I have with heritage sorcerers in 4e is that your background come almost prewritten for you. Your class features are: Draconic Bloodline, Clestial Bloodline, Inferno Bloodline or some inane variation of the same. So you got an ancestor/s who at some point slept with a dragon, Demon, or angel. And that's it. Because it's so far removed you can't even pull a unique "I lived with my abomination of a parent before going out and adventuring, totally explaining my lack of social skills/hatred of others." Barely half a line of text between, "Mom got laid by my abomination of a parent" and "Adventure starts".
The problem with this argument is that fluff is completely customizable. If you don't like the idea of your character being descended from a supernatural being, you're certainly within your rights to customize it however you like within the context of your campaign. Sorcerers are likely to be presented as having a supernatural heritage - that was their distinguishing characteristic in 3.x and the designers have indicated a desire to preserve the fluff from that edition. However, just because a class is presented in a certain way doesn't mean your character is tied to that origin.
The problem with this argument is that fluff is completely customizable. If you don't like the idea of your character being descended from a supernatural being, you're certainly within your rights to customize it however you like within the context of your campaign.
Go back and read the next the next paragraph, I covered that.
Sorcerers are likely to be presented as having a supernatural heritage - that was their distinguishing characteristic in 3.x
This is just not true. There was one line of text about people who feared Sorcerers making that claim. According to the guy that wrote the class the Sorcerer's distinguishing characteristic was:
The 3rd Edition sorcerer was spurred by the simple observation that an enormous hunk of valuable real estate in the Player's Handbook was devoted to the support of a single class--the wizard. I asked the question, "Is there some other way we can utilize all these spells?" That and the idea of cast-on-the-fly from a limited list was enough to get the sorcerer into the book, and it became one of the most popular innovations of the 3rd Edition game.
So I'm kinda doubting the fearful claims of the ignorant fluff is their defining feature.
and the designers have indicated a desire to preserve the fluff from that edition.
Would you like to provide a link to back up that claim?, I've seen nothing indicating that.
However, just because a class is presented in a certain way doesn't mean your character is tied to that origin.
But it will shot immersion in the foot. I happen to like immersion, so breaking it is a very bad thing in my book
But it will shot immersion in the foot. I happen to like immersion, so breaking it is a very bad thing in my book
Not only that, being classes in 4e so much more important and heavy than in 3e, reflavoring becomes not only a matter of rewriting the fluff text, but also of rewriting names of the powers (if not entire mechanics of powers), feats, and future references to the class.
Because 4e doens't just give its classes as tools to build something like somebody said, that was 3rd edition IMO. With 4e we see a conjunction of battle role identity, powers identity, fluff identity and whatsoever aspect of identity of a class, all united within it to give it a stereotypical, strong appeal. We would never change the fact that Warlocks do pacts. I doubt we would ever change the fact that Sorcerers function through bloodlines if they really made them so. And that again would be bad, because you choose to make pacts, covenants, oaths, ordinations, studies, training and whatsoever, but you DON'T choose a bloodline.
Bloodlines should remain an external "secondary race" chain of feats that favor certain classes depending on the particular bloodline.
I'm fine if the fluff of the Sorcerer tells me that many of them empower themselves through the arcane heritage in their blood. Which means it's ok if many a bloodline will grant modifications and bonuses to Sorcerer at-wills and class features.
But if they make bloodline a class feature, do you realize the stupidity they would be doing? They would, among all the stupidities, preventing Sorcerers from really taking bloodline feats! Because they already have one! And please no Bloodline Versatility there, please.
Primal Controller.
No further explanation given I guess.
I would have accepted Elemental Controller as well.
With regards to one thing I read, the post about Arcane Defender who uses walls, auras and bursts: this sounds like Geomancer to me.
I havn't heard anything official one way or the other yet, but here is my take:
Primal Controller.
No further explanation given I guess.
I would have accepted Elemental Controller as well.
With regards to one thing I read, the post about Arcane Defender who uses walls, auras and bursts: this sounds like Geomancer to me.
Sorcerer is going to be Arcane, because they are listed in the tag line for Arcane Power.
New options for wizards, warlocks, sorcerers, bards, and swordmages...
This tome focuses on the arcane heroes: characters who wield strange and mysterious spells and rely on their mastery of magic for survival.
This book provides new archetypal builds for the wizard, warlock, sorcerer, bard, and swordmage classes, including new character powers, feats, paragon paths, and epic destinies.
Little intreging. I expect the flavour text to be different then... something less 'power from within' I guess.
I havn't heard anything official one way or the other yet, but here is my take:
Primal Controller.
We already have a Primal Controller: the Druid.
I'm still positive the Sorcerer will be an Arcane Controller.
Except there is a difference in having a drop of dragon blood in your blodline do to the actions of a person so far in the past no-one remembers him and a person who has dragon blood and is the son of a vampire.
Yes. One of those grants enough power to base an entire class around, and the other doesn't.
The problem with heritage based system is that it's really easy to make the fluff too important. Look at the Dhampir article for example. The powers you get let you drain someone's blood and turn into mist, which itself screams "Vampire". It even goes so far as to make you count as a vampire for abilities. Try and reflavour that.
True, as it's a feat chain it doesn't matter too much, but still.
For a class, it's a nightmare;
Sorcerer 1: "My character is Reynold Archibold Smyth! He gained his power by bathing in the pool of destiny!"
DM: "Ahha. And what class feature did you chose?"
Sorcerer 1: "I can breath fire! And Bite People!"
Sorcerer 2: "Idiot. MY character is Andromolek Folacor, heir to the Dragon King Alacus the Red."
DM: "That sounds better. What daily did you pick?"
Sorcerer 2: "The one that lets me summon a horde of spiders that deal cold lightning damage."
Bard: "I'm Communism!"
Long story short, it's easier to refluff into a heritage than out of one.
I suspect that sorcerers won't actually be innate casters anymore, instead being self taught. Because their spells don't follow the usual codified guidelines Wizards use, they create spells that (A) Shouldn't Work and (B) are Really Wierd (see the aforementioned Lightning-Ice-Spiders).
For implements, I call Wand, Rod and Spiked-Gauntlet.
Not mearly due to the flavour art of 3.0, but the Short Spear or Staff has always been the iconic implement for Sorcerers to me.
Wand seems to be the generic Arcane implement now. I suspect Sorcerer will continue the trend. But will he also get Totems, from the Primal characters? or Rods? Tune in Monday for the next exciting installment!
Wand is, because in the writeup about magic wands it says ANY arcane encounter can be put into as a daily, ergo: Wands are universal impelments, like I assumed holy symbol would be for divine.
Not mearly due to the flavour art of 3.0, but the Short Spear or Staff has always been the iconic implement for Sorcerers to me.
Yeah, me too, I see them having a big implement, not a little orb or wand (mind out of the gutter, people).
The totem idea is also interesting that Anubis Reynard mentioned – can't wait to see them in full.
Wand is, because in the writeup about magic wands it says ANY arcane encounter can be put into as a daily, ergo: Wands are universal impelments, like I assumed holy symbol would be for divine.
No it says that any encounter power for a class that uses wands as an implement can be put into a wand. It can then be used by any character that has a power which shares a power source with the encounter power.
Swordmage encounter powers, even though they are arcane, cannot be stored into wands because they don't gain wand proficency.
No it says that any encounter power for a class that uses wands as an implement can be put into a wand. It can then be used by any character that has a power which shares a power source with the encounter power.
Swordmage encounter powers, even though they are arcane, cannot be stored into wands because they don't gain wand proficency.
...but a swordmage can use any wand with an arcane encounter power within it. Or even a fighter with a single swordmage power via multiclassing could use such a wand. Is that correct??
...but a swordmage can use any wand with an arcane encounter power within it. Or even a fighter with a single swordmage power via multiclassing could use such a wand. Is that correct??
Nope.
If you are a member of a class that can use a wand as an implement, you can apply the enhancement bonus of a wand to the attack rolls and the damage rolls of any of your powers from that class that have the implement keyword, and you can use a wand’s properties and powers. Members of other classes gain no benefit from wielding a wand.
...but a swordmage can use any wand with an arcane encounter power within it. Or even a fighter with a single swordmage power via multiclassing could use such a wand. Is that correct??
Had to check this one. And strangely enough yes, it says that if you have a POWER of the arcane power source through multiclassing, you can then use the power stored in a wand.
It could be a slight error in my opinion, since it would be far more logic that you have to take a power from a class which actually uses wands not Swordmage, basically. But since swordmage is actually the only exception, I wouldn't care that much.
Nope.
Yes
Using a wand’s power works like using the power normally. To do so, you need to be able to use at least one power from the same power source as the wand. For example, a rogue who has picked up at least one wizard power through multiclassing feats could use a wizard power in a wand, since each knows one power that uses the arcane power source.
Right below the text you took.
Yes
Right below the text you took.
Swordmages have no benefits when using a wand which includes using the power. They might have "access" to arcane powered wands, but they can't actually use them as they lack any ability which enables the use of wands meaning that the last sentence of what I quoted takes precedence.
However were there ever to be a non-arcane class that could use wands, it would create an interesting situation with the swordmage. If a member of that class were to multiclass into a swordmage they would gain access to arcane wand dailies despite swordmages not having them on their own. Likewise a swordmage who multiclassed into this theoretical class would gain access to wand dailies from both the arcane power source and whatever power source this theoretical class belonged to.
Swordmages have no benefits when using a wand which includes using the power. They might have "access" to arcane powered wands, but they can't actually use them as they lack any ability which enables the use of wands meaning that the last sentence of what I quoted takes precedence.
They can use the daily power, it is specifically said in the text.
They can use the daily power, it is specifically said in the text.
.....Swordmages gain no benfits, proporties or powers, from wielding a wand. A daily power is a benefit. Therefore swordmages do not gain use of the daily power. It is specifically said in the text.
.....Swordmages gain no benfits, proporties or powers, from wielding a wand. A daily power is a benefit. Therefore swordmages do not gain use of the daily power. It is specifically said in the text.
These statements are deduced, not written. And the statement that says the power can be used by any who has access to at least one arcane power appears after the text you quoted, so if anything it adds an exception.
Note: the swordmage is not gaining a power. Nor anybody else who uses a wand. They are USING a WAND'S power, a little different.
Not sure. The text could perhaps use a clarification; however, the general vs. exceptions point is a big one. It sounds like a swordmage can use a wand's power, but cannot gain a wand's implement bonus.
Exactly. And it's logic if you think about it: the wand's power is not tied to class features like a rod's one could be, or like a holy symbol one could be. They're just wizard encounter powers made daily.
EDIT: I think they added this exception to re-work the old Use Magic Device skill. They want any character to cast a fireball if they spend a little effort in training (multiclass feats in this case).
These statements are deduced, not written.
No more than your "specifically said in the text" example was.
And the statement that says the power can be used by any who has access to at least one arcane power appears after the text you quoted, so if anything it adds an exception.
Note: the swordmage is not gaining a power. Nor anybody else who uses a wand. They are USING a WAND'S power, a little different.
The statement doesn't say that anyone who has the same power source can use a wand's power, it says you need to have a power from the same power source to use a wand's power. You need to be 11th level to take the Shadow Captain paragon path, that doesn't change the fact that there are other requirements needed to take the paragon path as well.
It isn't an exception. An exception would be saying that "Swordmages however can use wand powers". This is a limitation which is basically saying, "Shadow wand users cannot use powers from an arcane wand." To use a wand's power there are two requirments. The first is training in the wand and the second is having a power of the same power source. Having one does not automatically over ride the other.
And access to a daily power is a benefit. They may not be gaining the daily power itself, but they are gaining a benefit from having access to it.
Edit: Removed an edit because it felt to "snippy".
If you are a member of a class that can use a wand as an implement, you can apply the enhancement bonus of a wand to the attack rolls and the damage rolls of any of your powers from that class that have the implement keyword, and you can use a wand’s properties and powers. Members of other classes gain no benefit from wielding a wand.
Ranadiel is right
Using a wand’s power works like using the power normally. To do so, you need to be able to use at least one power from the same power source as the wand. For example, a rogue who has picked up at least one wizard power through multiclassing feats could use a wizard power in a wand, since each knows one power that uses the arcane power source.
... Could be interpreted as an exception. It could also be interpreted as an additional specification to the former, without any exception, but in that case it could use an errata to change "you need to be able to use at least one power from the same power source as the wand" to "you need to be able to use at least one power from a class that can use the wand as an implement".
It's already specified before, so you could see it useless, but the nesting of the two rules is not immediately clear to anyone, as the first poster of the issue demonstrated with its claim, which I doubted, and went to check. I'm glad to see that at a closer look, the snippet can be interpreted as a specification and not as an exception, since swordmages using wands look pretty ridiculous.
While currently only Arcane classes can use wands, it is entirely possible a future class from a different power source may have access to them as well. So, a character with the Shadow power source might be able to use an Arcane wand and benefit from its properties, but the character would need to know an Arcane power to use its power.
A Swordmage cannot use a wand as an implement, so the second part of the rule doesn't matter.
If you are a member of a class that can use a wand as an implement, you can apply the enhancement bonus of a wand to the attack rolls and the damage rolls of any of your powers from that class that have the implement keyword, and you can use a wand’s properties and powers. Members of other classes gain no benefit from wielding a wand.
Using a wand’s power works like using the power normally. To do so, you need to be able to use at least one power from the same power source as the wand. For example, a rogue who has picked up at least one wizard power through multiclassing feats could use a wizard power in a wand, since each knows one power that uses the arcane power source.
The second paragraph is simply adding aditional restrictions, IF you already meet the requirements of the first.
::thinks some more::
Okay, I think I get it. I think it's right. It's the "properties and powers" bit. So...
A swordmage cannot use a wand at all.
A wizard can use a wand fully.
A fighter mcSwordmage cannot use a wand.
A fighter mcWarlock can use a wand, both triggering its powers and gaining its implement bonus on warlock powers.
Nobody can trigger a wand's powers if they cannot also gain its implement bonus, because the latter is a prereq.
Are those correct? A pre-emptive(sp?) "thanks" to all, here.
Wouldn't the rules be clearer if they stated "you need to have the power source" and "you need access to the implement category" together in the same sentence??
Okay, I think I at least see the other side now. RAW still seems a little funny though.
::thinks some more::
Okay, I think I get it. I think it's right. It's the "properties and powers" bit. So...
A swordmage cannot use a wand at all.
A wizard can use a wand fully.
A fighter mcSwordmage cannot use a wand.
A fighter mcWarlock can use a wand, both triggering its powers and gaining its implement bonus on warlock powers.
Nobody can trigger a wand's powers if they cannot also gain its implement bonus, because the latter is a prereq.
Are those correct? A pre-emptive(sp?) "thanks" to all, here.
Wouldn't the rules be clearer if they stated "you need to have the power source" and "you need access to the implement category" together in the same sentence??
Yeah you got it. And yeah there are a lot of ways they could have made that read better.
I expect to see some kind of "wild magic" element to the class as well. This differs from what I hope to see, which is a focus on summoning. However, since we know that Invoker has summoning abilities and it sounds like Shaman is packing something similar, I think I'm going to be disappointed in my hope to see a Sorcerer that actually lives up to the implications of the name -- i.e. a caster who gains power through deals with spirits and similar "higher beings."
My money is still on self-taught or spontaneously manifested (i.e. not heritage-based) arcane controller. That (an arcane controller, I mean) is the last thing they told us the Sorcerer would be, and despite an omission in the podcast, they have not specifically contradicted this in reference to the Sorcerer.
I expect to see some kind of "wild magic" element to the class as well. This differs from what I hope to see, which is a focus on summoning. However, since we know that Invoker has summoning abilities and it sounds like Shaman is packing something similar, I think I'm going to be disappointed in my hope to see a Sorcerer that actually lives up to the implications of the name -- i.e. a caster who gains power through deals with spirits and similar "higher beings."
You know, your idea is interesting, and it being more close to the original meaning only makes it better. I think they could have tried something like it but you know what? There's still much symmetry in 4e and given the arcane power of the sorcerer, the type of beings summoned would have been fey more than any other, and that would have caused many critiques I guess, a part from the partial but too close overlap with Fey Pact warlocks...
And consider all the number of power sources already taken into account in their plans, they have the Elemental one, that even if someone speculates will have to deal more with demons than elements, it will still contain a great deal of elements, or they would have called it abyssal and not elemental...
I mean, we can't expect a Sorcerer or any other arcane class to summon archons or elementals or anything similar.
Another idea I had about the sorcerer is a kind of "possessed" frenzied mage. Dailies would create encounter-enduring effects like those of the Warden, and would augment their spells accordingly. Some allowing the sorcerer to repeat them, or maybe cast two at-wills in one turn and things like that.
The auras would then be included in the daily power. And encounter powers would deal more damage depending on the daily "arcane frenzy" activated. This would, paradoxically, make the sorcerer a little less resourceful than the wizard, so maybe class features will give some more resources some way. Maybe a basic type of these effects given by the dailies is an encounter class feature, to allow all encounters to be enjoyed a bit more.
What do you think?
I guess we're just very close to release, I bet we all can't wait :D The sorcerer is my favorite class and concept ever, so you can bet I'm excited.
EDIT: I'd also like (and expect) a much more flexible approach to implements. If the wizard changes accordingly to the implement he/she masters, for the sorcerer is just a matter of adding power, but he focuses on other things (augmenting). So if they really take this approach, I really hope they considered "Anything", as the implement for sorcerers! :D that would even make them more deadly in melee (weapons as implements), like it's right.
...given the arcane power of the sorcerer, the type of beings summoned would have been fey more than any other...
WTF? No. Why?
I mean, we can't expect a Sorcerer or any other arcane class to summon archons or elementals or anything similar.
Sure we could. The ability to summon would be arcane, but the power of whatever is summoned is completely independent of the power of the caster. Celestial and Elemental beings are fair game for arcane summoners in 4E the same way they were in 3E.
WTF? No. Why?
Sure we could. The ability to summon would be arcane, but the power of whatever is summoned is completely independent of the power of the caster. Celestial and Elemental beings are fair game for arcane summoners in 4E the same way they were in 3E.
I was referring to the symmetry of plane-power. Arcane is connected to the feywild.
Primal to the world, Shadow to the Shadowfell, Elemental to Elemental Chaos, Martial and Ki to any living being, body and spirit, Psionic to Far Realm or any living being, mind, Divine to Astral Sea, and again Arcane to Feywild.
I'm not saying this is official, I'm saying that from what we see, they're following this scheme. Invokers, divine, summon angels. That's why I made the assumption. You won't see celestial beings summoned by arcane characters anymore, believe me, the living proof is the Invoker class. They'll never overlap with it now that they created it.
I was referring to the symmetry of plane-power. Arcane is connected to the feywild.
I very much disagree. Just look at the Warlock for proof. Last I checked, the Abyss was not located in the Feywild. For that matter, neither are stars. :P
I don't see any reason arcane summoners could not call upon angels or devils or whatever else. The fact that the Invoker summons Angels just makes it a specialized summoner, the same way that Alienists were specialized summoners back in Complete Arcane.
I very much disagree. Just look at the Warlock for proof. Last I checked, the Abyss was not located in the Feywild. For that matter, neither are stars. :P
I don't see any reason arcane summoners could not call upon angels or devils or whatever else. The fact that the Invoker summons Angels just makes it a specialized summoner, the same way that Alienists were specialized summoners back in Complete Arcane.
Warlocks make pacts. Of course you can summon things from other planes when there's a magical bond between the two of you. I was just stating that arcane, the power source, is connected to the feywild. At least more than to anywhere else. If not, it would be the "jolly power source", which takes from anywhere to obtain anything. And that would make it inherently stronger. And we don't play 3.x no more.
Sure we could. The ability to summon would be arcane, but the power of whatever is summoned is completely independent of the power of the caster. Celestial and Elemental beings are fair game for arcane summoners in 4E the same way they were in 3E.
I disagree. It might have been fair game int 3E, but an Arcanist summoning divine servitors goes against the flavor of the 4E power source structure.
That being said, I do agree that limiting arcanists to fey is going to far. The warlock clearly illustrates that arcanists can tap the power of the Far Realm and the Nine Hells as well. I say let arcanists summon fey, devils, aberrations, constructs, and demons. I'd be hesitant to let them summon elemental as that seems more in line with the Elemental power source. Likewise, I would hold of undead and shadows so the Shadow power source has something to summon.
I hope they keep the innate caster thing in the fluff. Self-taught is okay, but not what I prefer.
Correct me if I'm wrong (I haven't made it all the way through the draconomicon yet) but haven't they taken away the only means for there to even BE draconic bloodlines anymore? Do dragons polymorph to mate with humans? Making a bloodlines sorcerer unlikely?
Entirely a fluff matter that doesn't need to represented with the battle stats. They could very easily say there is a ritual for dragons to take human shape, or alternatively it could be an ability for the metallic dragons, who have not been statted out yet. Or hey you could just have one really messed up bloodline.
"Alright son, your great-great-great-great-grandmother was the daughter of tiamet who had an affair with the right hand titan of one of the high primordials. Their son, your great-great-great-grandfather then married a giant and had many happy children until they were both killed during a flood. Their third child, your great-great-grandmother ended up running away and joining the circus.....you don't want to know about you great-great-grandfather. Anyways their daughter ended up marrying a goliath, and their son, your great-grandfather, married a human. Their daughter, your grandmother, had a fling with a dwarf resulting in me. And that my son is why you are the tallest gnome in existence.....and also why you have scales."
So... fourteen hours from now, we'll know all about the Sorcerer! Who's pumped?
Yo. Whatever it's going to be I'm curious.
So... fourteen hours from now, we'll know all about the Sorcerer! Who's pumped?
Sweet! I'm excited.
Entirely a fluff matter that doesn't need to represented with the battle stats. They could very easily say there is a ritual for dragons to take human shape, or alternatively it could be an ability for the metallic dragons, who have not been statted out yet. Or hey you could just have one really messed up bloodline.
"Alright son, your great-great-great-great-grandmother was the daughter of tiamet who had an affair with the right hand titan of one of the high primordials. Their son, your great-great-great-grandfather then married a giant and had many happy children until they were both killed during a flood. Their third child, your great-great-grandmother ended up running away and joining the circus.....you don't want to know about you great-great-grandfather. Anyways their daughter ended up marrying a goliath, and their son, your great-grandfather, married a human. Their daughter, your grandmother, had a fling with a dwarf resulting in me. And that my son is why you are the tallest gnome in existence.....and also why you have scales."
Wow, I'm not sure I want to know why you chose gnome to be the final product, but damn.
EDIT: I'd also like (and expect) a much more flexible approach to implements. If the wizard changes accordingly to the implement he/she masters, for the sorcerer is just a matter of adding power, but he focuses on other things (augmenting). So if they really take this approach, I really hope they considered "Anything", as the implement for sorcerers! :D that would even make them more deadly in melee (weapons as implements), like it's right.
This. Implement-based handicaps to multiclassing are the last major hurdle 4th edition needs to clear before the feat-based MC system can really find it's wings. (can I hold a wand in my shield hand... and use it? How about an Orb? How come Divine characters don't have to use a hand to benefit from their Holy Symbols, making multiclassing Divine [from an outside power-source] inherently better than Arcane? When will we ever get magic Weapon properties that can apply as an Implement bonus? Adventurer's Vault 5? How am I going to convince my party to part with enough monetary resources to keep me updated with not one but TWO attack bonus items?)
I think a big mistake was made when Swordmages (either multi-classing into or out of the class) weren't explicitly allowed to use their swords as Arcane implements. Then again, the Spellscarred class got it right (after the revision) with:
...A spellscarred can use his or her class’s implements, as well as implements he or she can wield because of a feat, with spellscarred powers that have the implement keyword.
Entirely a fluff matter that doesn't need to represented with the battle stats. They could very easily say there is a ritual for dragons to take human shape, or alternatively it could be an ability for the metallic dragons, who have not been statted out yet. Or hey you could just have one really messed up bloodline.
"Alright son, your great-great-great-great-grandmother was the daughter of tiamet who had an affair with the right hand titan of one of the high primordials. Their son, your great-great-great-grandfather then married a giant and had many happy children until they were both killed during a flood. Their third child, your great-great-grandmother ended up running away and joining the circus.....you don't want to know about you great-great-grandfather. Anyways their daughter ended up marrying a goliath, and their son, your great-grandfather, married a human. Their daughter, your grandmother, had a fling with a dwarf resulting in me. And that my son is why you are the tallest gnome in existence.....and also why you have scales."
This was funny, btw! I totally didn't see "gnome" coming. Hahahaha.
So, powers and features and minor details aside.........if you HAD to choose in the final hours now: Do you think the sorcerer will be a Controller (as the devs originally described several months ago) or another role (since the recent podcast mentioned that "both" PHBII controllers [invoker & druid] have already been previewed). No prizes or penalties here; just a quick one or the other choice.
Personally, I'm going to go with STRIKER. When I think back on 3e, the sorcerer seems to be known for its ability to blast repeatedly, and there are future power sources and classes to capture other 3e sorcerer types. (I'd be perfectly happy with a controller though. :D)
In the words of a wise man: "I like Big Boom"
This was funny, btw! I totally didn't see "gnome" coming. Hahahaha.
So, powers and features and minor details aside.........if you HAD to choose in the final hours now: Do you think the sorcerer will be a Controller (as the devs originally described several months ago) or another role (since the recent podcast mentioned that "both" PHBII controllers [invoker & druid] have already been previewed). No prizes or penalties here; just a quick one or the other choice.
Personally, I'm going to go with STRIKER. When I think back on 3e, the sorcerer seems to be known for its ability to blast repeatedly, and there are future power sources and classes to capture other 3e sorcerer types. (I'd be perfectly happy with a controller though. :D)
I could relate to a character by the gnome thing, as the druid in the 3.5 game I am playing in only can reincarnate people into gnomes, which is why I did not find the end result of gnome being that weird.
This was funny, btw! I totally didn't see "gnome" coming. Hahahaha.
So, powers and features and minor details aside.........if you HAD to choose in the final hours now: Do you think the sorcerer will be a Controller (as the devs originally described several months ago) or another role (since the recent podcast mentioned that "both" PHBII controllers [invoker & druid] have already been previewed). No prizes or penalties here; just a quick one or the other choice.
Personally, I'm going to go with STRIKER. When I think back on 3e, the sorcerer seems to be known for its ability to blast repeatedly, and there are future power sources and classes to capture other 3e sorcerer types. (I'd be perfectly happy with a controller though. :D)
:P I'm glad you liked it. I do not think it will end up being a controller. I want it to be a striker, but my gut is telling me that it will be a defender and I'll be screaming bloody murder over that.
:P I'm glad you liked it. I do not think it will end up being a controller. I want it to be a striker, but my gut is telling me that it will be a defender and I'll be screaming bloody murder over that.
I still want it to be a Controller. :P Striker just seems like such a cop-out role.
I still want it to be a Controller. :P Striker just seems like such a cop-out role.
Yes well, I trust the developers in the podcast so controller isn't likely to me. That just leaves striker, defender, and leader. I don't think it is going to be leader, and I really dislike the idea of it being a defender. That just leaves striker.
Sorcerer: Arcane Controller (sub-group: Striker or Defender)
- Charisma, Constitution and Dexterity
- Uses a variety of Melee Touch, Close Burst and Close Blast spells.
- Most Spells will have secondary effects oriented around defending the Sorcerer, or making the immediate area dangerous around the Sorcerer.
- The secondary effect could be with each spell, or be a Class Feature, or Daily-Minor.
Controller I could also see being Defender though (if the whole podcast thing proves true).
Yes well, I trust the developers in the podcast so controller isn't likely to me. That just leaves striker, defender, and leader. I don't think it is going to be leader, and I really dislike the idea of it being a defender. That just leaves striker.
You're right: Defender is pretty contrary to the previous role Sorcerer filled, so it hopefully won't be that. We're already getting two other Arcane Leaders, so that's probably out. Of Controller or Striker, I would much prefer Controller. I don't know why, that's just how it is. :P
You're right: Defender is pretty contrary to the previous role Sorcerer filled, so it hopefully won't be that. We're already getting two other Arcane Leaders, so that's probably out. Of Controller or Striker, I would much prefer Controller. I don't know why, that's just how it is. :P
I think everyone would prefer Controller... but since they said it isn't one of those... I'm going to guess... Defender. If only because its an absurd idea.
I think everyone would prefer Controller... but since they said it isn't one of those... I'm going to guess... Defender. If only because its an absurd idea.
They didn't say it wasn't a Controller, they simply didn't mention it when they were talking about Controllers. Logically, that's not the same thing. Plus, at one time, they did say it's a Controller; add this tiny influence -- acknowledging the possibility of plans to change -- to the logical wash discussed above, and I think Controller comes out slightly ahead.
Mostly, I'm just justifying my belief to myself here.
Mostly, I'm just justifying my belief to myself here.
Hehehe. Join the species. :pile:
I am such a nerd. I've been waiting at my computer like an hour already! :P
Hehehe. Join the species. :pile:
I am such a nerd. I've been waiting at my computer like an hour already! :P
lol You're a nerd? I've been here all day, because I have nowhere else to be...
(:P)lol You're a nerd? I've been here all day, because I have nowhere else to be...
Well, you could be doing something else... like playing D&D :D
I wouldn't be surprised if it was a defender, my reasoning......
artificer is arcane leader, but setting specific, bard is going to be the "core" arcane leader
swordmage is arcane defender, but setting specific. No "Core" arcane defender.
Then again I still think it will be controller.
Of Controller or Striker, I would much prefer Controller. I don't know why, that's just how it is. :P
I know why. Because then we'd have more Controllers. Right now we have three Defenders, three Strikers, two Leaders, and ONE (1!) Controller. What's supposed to be an important role, equal to all the rest, has only one solitary representative. So not a whole lot of choice for those players who're willing to play a Controller. In addition, due to there being only one Controller, we've yet to see how far that class role can be stretched.
Thankfully the PHB 2 will provide at least two more with the Druid and the Invoker, but even so. By the time the PHB 2 is out we'll have four Defenders, five Strikers, four Leaders, and three Controllers. So once again, the Controllers are still lagging. It'd sure be nice if the Sorcerer were a Controller, too, so that Controllers would have around the same amount of representation that the other roles have. But if it's a Striker? That'd mean we'll have six Strikers, and really, don't we have enough of those at this point? Do we really need more at the expense of the Controllers?
So I don't know about you, but that's why I'd like the Sorcerer to be a Controller. By the time the PHB2 comes out, we'll have had NINE MONTHS of a lack of variety when it comes to Controllers. It'd sure be nice if, once it was out, the number of Controllers got knocked up to four rather than three, and give those interested in playing a Controller a wee bit more variety.
Incidentally, wasn't the Warlock originally supposed to be a Controller, only to end up as a Striker? Is it really necessary to create another Arcane Controller class and then end up turning them into a Striker, again? Hell, how many Strikers do we really need at this point? We've got the Ranger, Rogue, Warlock, Avenger, and Barbarian. That's MORE then enough, and we can certainly wait til the PHB 3 to get a sixth, seventh, etc.
Besides, I sincerely want the Sorcerer to get as far away from, "Isn't the Sorcerer just a crappy Wizard?" as possible.
There are never enough Strikers. :P
Besides, I sincerely want the Sorcerer to get as far away from, "Isn't the Sorcerer just a crappy Wizard?" as possible.
They could do that by simply making them different. After all, the Druid and Invoker are plenty different from the Wizard while still being Controllers. Why can't the same be true of the Sorcerer?
They could do that by simply making them different. After all, the Druid and Invoker are plenty different from the Wizard while still being Controllers. Why can't the same be true of the Sorcerer?
Druid: Primal
Invoker: Divine
Wizard: Arcane
Sorcerer:...Arcane :S
The whole, "Similar but not," thing is just annoying. Besides, I want my Warmage back!!!!
Well, you could be doing something else... like playing D&D :D
You're right. Nothing could be nerdier than that!
:PI know why. Because then we'd have more Controllers. Right now we have three Defenders, three Strikers, two Leaders, and ONE (1!) Controller. What's supposed to be an important role, equal to all the rest, has only one solitary representative. So not a whole lot of choice for those players who're willing to play a Controller. In addition, due to there being only one Controller, we've yet to see how far that class role can be stretched.
Thankfully the PHB 2 will provide at least two more with the Druid and the Invoker, but even so. By the time the PHB 2 is out we'll have four Defenders, five Strikers, four Leaders, and three Controllers. So once again, the Controllers are still lagging. It'd sure be nice if the Sorcerer were a Controller, too, so that Controllers would have around the same amount of representation that the other roles have. But if it's a Striker? That'd mean we'll have six Strikers, and really, don't we have enough of those at this point? Do we really need more at the expense of the Controllers?
So I don't know about you, but that's why I'd like the Sorcerer to be a Controller. By the time the PHB2 comes out, we'll have had NINE MONTHS of a lack of variety when it comes to Controllers. It'd sure be nice if, once it was out, the number of Controllers got knocked up to four rather than three, and give those interested in playing a Controller a wee bit more variety.
Incidentally, wasn't the Warlock originally supposed to be a Controller, only to end up as a Striker? Is it really necessary to create another Arcane Controller class and then end up turning them into a Striker, again? Hell, how many Strikers do we really need at this point? We've got the Ranger, Rogue, Warlock, Avenger, and Barbarian. That's MORE then enough, and we can certainly wait til the PHB 3 to get a sixth, seventh, etc.
Hey, stop with all the in-depth, intelligent critiquing. We're trying to have a countdown party here! ;) (J/k.)
Druid: Primal
Invoker: Divine
Wizard: Arcane
Sorcerer:...Arcane :S
The whole, "Similar but not," thing is just annoying. Besides, I want my Warmage back!!!!
Yeah, and the power source is just thematic. It doesn't mean much more then that. You really think they can't distinguish between the Wizard and Sorcerer the way they distinguished between the Wizard and Invoker/Druid simply because they share the same power source? Sorry, but that's nothing more than a weakness of imagination on your part. :P
As for your "warmage", no reason he can't be a Controller. Hell, it makes FAR more sense as a Controller than as a Striker. After all, what army wouldn't want a Sorcerer who can blast apart enemy formations from afar and hinder their progress with all sorts of magical impediments, which is what Controllers do? Strikers are good at killing one guy. Controllers are good at killing numerous opponents and hindering them. So really, which one is more suitable as a "warmage"?
But I want to see thet Sorc!!!!
Gah....so ...tired.....must sleep.....
But I want to see thet Sorc!!!!
Stick with us!
::uses a majestic word on Quizzit::
How about: "Resplendent!" ?
Did it work?? :P
No, the point is that it was annoying that THEY couldn't be more inventive than, "This guy has this cool stuff, and this guy...well, he's the same, but with a different subsystem. They use the same spelllist, though!" I'd just like an Arcane Caster that does decent DAMAGE, for goodness sakes. I know they were uber and all in 3E, but that's no reason to make them WEAK in 4E.
Stick with us!
::uses a majestic word on Quizzit::
How about: "Resplendent!" ?
Did it work?? :P
It did!!!!! I have 3 min left in me now, I can feel it!
My Prediction:
Sorcerer: Arcane Controller (sub-group: Striker or Defender)
- Charisma, Constitution and Dexterity
- Uses a variety of Melee Touch, Close Burst and Close Blast spells.
- Most Spells will have secondary effects oriented around defending the Sorcerer, or making the immediate area dangerous around the Sorcerer.
- The secondary effect could be with each spell, or be a Class Feature, or Daily-Minor.
Controller I could also see being Defender though (if the whole podcast thing proves true).
I'm going to guess Intelligence, Charisma, and Strength for the Sorcerer's stats. Good sorcerer races will include dragonborn(a nod to the 3E 'dragon-blooded sorcerer' fluff), gnomes, genasi, and tieflings. Role could be either Striker or Controller, but I think there will be both ranged and melee builds for the class. Implements may include staffs and runes(a new implement that won't require any hands free and consists of a magical tattoo).
The "battle sorcerer" build (CHA/STR or INT/STR, depending on which is the primary stat) will likely include a lot of close burst powers and buffs that enhance the sorcerer's combat ability. The "chaos sorcerer" build (CHA/INT) will be more of a "ranged blaster" or "warmage" class with a bit of "wild mage" thrown in.
Alternatively, they could go the "sneaky, subtle mage" route, but that archetype (involving illusions and enchantment) may be reserved for the shadow and psionic sources.
DAMMIT YOU BEAT ME CL!
WITH CONTROLLER SECONDARY!
:: PASSES OUT CIGARS ::
Edit: LOL....majorly ninja'd. :P
Strikers. Warmages do DAMAGE, as they add Int to damage from their spells, get higher-level attack spells a level lower than normal, and usually kill enemies with single-target high-powered spells (Orb spells, for instance). I would expect Warmagi in 4E to have massive AoE Dailies and Single-target, high-power Encounter and At-Will Powers.
If you really wanted a class that'd live up to the name "Warmage" then it'd be a Controller, not a Striker. A Striker spellcaster is more appropriate for an assassin mage, not a "war" mage.
To put it another way, if you were a general of an army, who would you prefer to have in your army? A Warlock or a Wizard? Odds are the Wizard, as it'll be FAR more useful to you in the battle than the Warlock. The Warlock may be able to kill a guy dead with every shot, but the Wizard will be able to maul whole regiments with his magic, slow them down, or otherwise interfere with the enemies battle plan.
No, the point is that it was annoying that THEY couldn't be more inventive than, "This guy has this cool stuff, and this guy...well, he's the same, but with a different subsystem. They use the same spelllist, though!" I'd just like an Arcane Caster that does decent DAMAGE, for goodness sakes. I know they were uber and all in 3E, but that's no reason to make them WEAK in 4E.
I never said they should be weak in 4E. And making them Controllers doesn't make them weak. Nor does making them Controllers mean they're just lamer copies of the Wizard. Just look at the Ranger and the Rogue. Same exact power source, same exact role, and yet they're very different. Here's another example. The Artificer and Bard. They're both Arcane, they're both Leaders, and yet they're both very different. So why do you believe that making Sorcerers Arcane Controllers means that they won't be good?
Likewise, why would making them Arcane Strikers be a good thing? After all, if making them Arcane Controllers means they're just crappier copies of the Wizard, then wouldn't making them Arcane Strikers mean that they'll just be crappier copies of the Warlock?
Nobody's talking about making them weak in 4E, or making them stripped-down Wizards with an alternate spell system like they were in 3E. All I'm saying is that they make FAR more sense as Controllers than Strikers. And if you REALLY wanted a class which was actually suitable as a warmage (rather than being a literal interpretation of the Warmage class), then you'd want a class that was a Controller, not a Striker.
Now I can make my Sorceror/Rogue Dragonborn!
remember that there are two Martial Strikers
THIS IS SO AWESOME!!! AHAHHAHAHA!!!! YES!!!! Controller secondary! EVEN BETTER!! It has PUSH AT-WILLS!!!
Someone PLEASE share some of their stats! At least their at-wills! I'm dyin' here!
Daily; Arcane, Implement, Radiant
Standard Action Ranged 10
Target: One creature
Attack: Charisma vs. Will Hit: 6d6 +Charisma modifier radiant damage. Wild Magic: If you rolled an even number on the attack roll, the target takes a penalty to attack rolls against you equal to your Dexterity modifier (save ends).
I like it. :D I think it's awesome!
Its coolness totally overshadows any past desires of mine for it to be a controller.I LOVE BURNING SPRAY!
Dragonborn? Check.
Pushing Things? Check.
Random Effects? Check.
Killing things with crazy-big spells? Check.
Tank-style melee mage? *buzz*
Well darn. 4/5 ain't bad! :D
striker...but with no Xd6 damage riders...these guys at first looked like they were low damge...
I think you missed the fact that they get to add either STR or DEX to all of their arcane power damage depending on if they have Dragon Blood or Wild Magic...
I'm not sure what disappoints me more the fact that they are a primary roll striker or the fact that they are a secondary role controller. Maybe I should be happy that they are at least a little controller like, but it bothers me because Warlocks already had the role of Arcane Striker (sub-controller) filled.
Well there's not much sense in fussing about it now. What's done is done. They look look pretty solid, and the wild magic mechanic looks like it could be kind of fun, though I wish they had more then one option per level. Wild magic should offer more variety. Also, while I've like the alternate AC stats so far, STRENGTH to AC, seriously? Of all the ability scores that just boggles me. I think I'd have preferred it draconic sorcerers just got proficiency with heavy armor. Heck, it would even make sense to have them wearing SCALE armor.
I like the fluff on Spell Source. The sorcerer can have dragon power without having to have a dragon ancestor, but if the player wants it to be from an ancestor, it's not really a stretch.
Things I like:
- ABILITIES, STR AND DEX IN ARCANE ARE VERY ORIGINAL.
- The mechanics of Spell Source.
- The general outlook of powers.
Things I don't like:
- Role. Not much to say, I simply think there are too many strikers, and there is VERY MUCH overlap with Warlock here. I hope they play at least a little different.
- DRAGON MAGIC... Come on... (But I admit few other things could describe better adding Str to spell power)
- Implements. They could have been more and/or more different/original
- General originality, which is LOW. It's a straight port of the old Sorcerer. With the good and bad of it (the bad being this dragon thing more than anything).
All in all, I give a 7/10. I think it's at least the second CHILDISH class they make.
Edit:
Example of Dragon Magic stupidity: Genasi would be mechanically good sorcerers but people are gonna itch when thinking about their half elemental character having to stick with a random dragon theme stitched on it. It makes the whole build suboptimal for anything not a dragonborn. Too specific. It could have just been called "raw magic" or "primordial magic" or "mighty arcana" or whatever.
Its an arcane striker.
There we go. Did anyone not see that coming?
Make that 5/5!! You can add STR instead of INT or DEX to AC for Dragon-style as long as you keep Light Armor on, and with the Swordmage MC Feat Blade Initiate, you can use Heavy or Light Blades as Implements!! Hello, Gish! :D:D
Wouldn't Swordmage implements be limited to Swordmage powers? If not, what would prevent Clerics from taking Blade Initiate and use heavy blades as implements for their powers? Where is this issue of "what can you cast with your implement" covered?
Wouldn't Swordmage implements be limited to Swordmage powers? If not, what would prevent Clerics from taking Blade Initiate and use heavy blades as implements for their powers? Where is this issue of "what can you cast with your implement" covered?
swordmage implements are written diffrent then PHB implements...it appears they can be used for any power...but it might be a misunderstanding...
I am gonna see how much work I would have to do to alter the Sorcerer around into the more melee-oriented style was hoping for. I won't need to change the Bursts and Blasts. So I am thinking of making the Ranged ones Melee Touch (probably make it easier to hit with then). Probably give the Sorcerer leather armour and higher HP. Hmm... I dunno what else, shall have to see.
As well as doing my usual thing when it comes to Arcane classes and most classes in general. Getting rid of lots of the elemental spells and making it non-elemental (long lasting pet peeve of mine is the amount of elemental stuff there is).
Fluff wise, *shrugs shoulders* since it is natural imbued magical talent it is gonna be whatever the player wants. No matter which they take Dragon or Chaos, so they can be Dragon and have nothing to do with Dragons for instance. For myself... Probably will go the path of climatic event unlocking what is essentially a internal path to all that eldritch energy.
So true controllers have an at-will area burst (which a controller could choose to not select) and they have ritual casting for free (but so do clerics). I stand by my earlier statement that the Controller role is poorly defined.
Enough nay-saying, though; I'm in love with the new Sorcerer. I'm glad they kept the dragon ties, and that they also inserted something new.
Genasi Sorcerers are flavor-tied to Wild Magic, since they have ties to the elemental chaos. But, they get a racial Strength bonus, so they would make great Dragon Magic Sorcerers. Dragons are practically elemental beings themselves, so I think Dragon Magic Genasi make absolutely perfect sense. You're just going to have to live with a 16 Str and Cha instead of getting an 18 Cha (or you could spend a lot of your point-buy buying that 18 Cha and nothing else).
Interestingly, there is a lot of room to insert other magic sources, especially a Con based source.
I also find it fun that Halflings are perfectly stated for being a Wild Sorcerer.
Genasi Sorcerers are flavor-tied to Wild Magic, since they have ties to the elemental chaos. But, they get a racial Strength bonus, so they would make great Dragon Magic Sorcerers. Dragons are practically elemental beings themselves, so I think Dragon Magic Genasi make absolutely perfect sense. You're just going to have to live with a 16 Str and Cha instead of getting an 18 Cha (or you could spend a lot of your point-buy buying that 18 Cha and nothing else).
Interestingly, there is a lot of room to insert other magic sources, especially a Con based source.
I also find it fun that Halflings are perfectly stated for being a Wild Sorcerer.
Well about Genasi, true till you see that they actually sprout scales when bloodied. It NEEDS refluff, something that too many PHb2 classes do, at least in some cases.
Good call on the halfling, and I call for another: elf. Not so much for Dex bonus but for their accuracy, that could give them not only a second chance to hit, but a second chance to hit with the wanted even roll... I guess halflings will get a racial-class feat to represent their luck with wild magic though. It would be right.
I believe the sorcerer now shows us what is required of all controllers: an area burst at-will attack. The sorcerer has a close blast 3 in it's at-will arsenal, and with the proper power selection they could have enough AoE and control powers (they have two multitarget at-wills and one at-will that pushes) that you could probably play them as a Controller.
For me it's always been:
Controller = Indirect Fire
Striker = Direct Fire
Controllers having better bursts and zones makes sense.
They didn't say it wasn't a Controller, they simply didn't mention it when they were talking about Controllers. Logically, that's not the same thing. Plus, at one time, they did say it's a Controller; add this tiny influence -- acknowledging the possibility of plans to change -- to the logical wash discussed above, and I think Controller comes out slightly ahead.
Mostly, I'm just justifying my belief to myself here.
I've noticed that you haven't posted since the role has been revealed. Oh well. *takes a victory pose*:P
I know it might be moot now since the Sorcerer is a Striker, but to all the naysayers who said two Arcane Controllers couldn't work:
remember that there are two Martial Strikers
There are also now two arcane strikers. :P
There are also now two arcane strikers. :P
Yeah, and they're both sub-controllers. I'd be a lot more excepting of sorcerers being made into strikers if they didn't fill the exact same party role (including sub-role) as the Warlock.
As it stands, it just makes me feel like it would have been better if WotC had just added a dragon pact and a wild-magic pact to the warlock.
Yeah, and they're both sub-controllers. I'd be a lot more excepting of sorcerers being made into strikers if they didn't fill the exact same party role (including sub-role) as the Warlock.
As it stands, it just makes me feel like it would have been better if WotC had just added a dragon pact and a wild-magic pact to the warlock.
Or renamed the Warlock the Sorcerer. That way they could please people who demanded carrying over the names of classes from the old edition to th new one.
Yeah, and they're both sub-controllers. I'd be a lot more excepting of sorcerers being made into strikers if they didn't fill the exact same party role (including sub-role) as the Warlock.
As it stands, it just makes me feel like it would have been better if WotC had just added a dragon pact and a wild-magic pact to the warlock.
Well, the classes are meant to be able to stand in for others of the same role, so part of that overlap is intentional. As you know, a standard party of four will have one of each role, in which case the similarities between a warlock and a sorcerer or a fighter and a paladin won't be unduly highlighted.
Furthermore, IMHO there is a distinct difference between how the sorcerer and warlock read and (it appears) how they will play...even though they have the same role/subrole. Warlocks clearly have the spooky, stealthy, forbidden thing down. Sorcerers sound much more fierce and loud and wild, as promised. I would totally not be down with a simple dragon pact and wild-magic pact.
None of this, of course, entirely discredits your points or opinions; it's just what alleviates those concerns in my view.
Sorcerer = Ranger
Same dif, different Source. I see nothing to complain about. ',: |
Well, the classes are meant to be able to stand in for others of the same role, so part of that overlap is intentional. As you know, a standard party of four will have one of each role, in which case the similarities between a warlock and a sorcerer or a fighter and a paladin won't be unduly highlighted.
While true at least the fighter and the paladin have divergent sub-roles, but the have different power sources as well so may not be the best comparison. Rogue and Ranger share their source and role, but don't seem to share the same sub-role, though I'm not sure what their sub-roles are.
Furthermore, IMHO there is a distinct difference between how the sorcerer and warlock read and (it appears) how they will play...even though they have the same role/subrole. Warlocks clearly have the spooky, stealthy, forbidden thing down. Sorcerers sound much more fierce and loud and wild, as promised. I would totally not be down with a simple dragon pact and wild-magic pact.
I'll admit that they read different enough and probably will play different enough. I also agree that warlock's are definitely more focused on stealth and subtlety, however, if WotC had designed warlocks with class skills based upon pact it could have worked. Of course that's not how WotC designed the warlock, so it some what useless speculation, but the fact that had they made such a design decision in the first place that the sorcerer as presented could just be another set of warlock pacts still nags at me anyway.
None of this, of course, entirely discredits your points or opinions; it's just what alleviates those concerns in my view.
Thanks for being thoughtful enough to acknowledge as much. This is the first of the class preview that has particularly disappointed me (druid kind of did, but it was more so that I was surprised they retained wildshape than any actual disappointment), and I had been really looking forward to the sorcerer, which may just be leaving me overly critical for the time being. Hopefully come arcane power, which won't be too long a wait, there will be enough options to truly separate the sorcerer from the warlock and I'll be able to alleviate my own concerns
Pacts could be bloodlines, if a player wants. Remember, fluff is mutable. If he wants his Infernal powers to be because of family history, that's perfectly legal and doesn't change the mechanics of the class.
I am running a Tiefling warlock of the Infernal Pact and have worked in a twist where my pact actually comes from my blood line. Most of my immediate family, when they were alive, were warlocks of the Infernal pact. So it can easily be considered that my pact comes from my blood line.
He He.... never mind i found it.