D&D General One thing I hate about the Sorcerer

[Minigiant]

I will have to admit that as my son is approaching 20, and we watched the Potter movies when he was a kid, I'm not fully versed in what makes a 'Potter' mage. WoW Mage? Depends on the era and abilities I guess but, D&D Wizard/Sorc/Warlock, are distinct, and as 5th is evergreen for a bit here now, I dont think what you are describing is a class, its an uber-Mage.

It's more like a INT based Warlock with ritual casting and more spells known instead of Invocations..

Awesome! Those are great ideas. Do you also need WotC to make them?

No.
I need ENWorld publishing, Kobold Press, MCDM, and other publishers to make it together.
You know how every publisher makes Fighter subclasses.

Or in simple terms.

You know how people say "Use 3PP classes".

Well those 3PP classes don't get the support and marketing and community discussion. Nothing about a Illrigger, Blood Hunter, Thuerge, Apothecary, or the many Psion, Warlord, or Shapeshifter classes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's more like a INT based Warlock with ritual casting and more spells known instead of Invocations..


No.
I need ENWorld publishing, Kobold Press, MCDM, and other publishers to make it together.
You know how every publisher makes Fighter subclasses.

Or in simple terms.

You know how people say "Use 3PP classes".

Well those 3PP classes don't get the support and marketing and community discussion. Nothing about a Illrigger, Blood Hunter, Thuerge, Apothecary, or the many Psion, Warlord, or Shapeshifter classes.

So, you either want someone with WotC's level of clout but without WotC's sensibilities, or you want a mass of 3pp to join into some sort of gaming Federation?

 

[Minigiant]

So, you either want someone with WotC's level of clout but without WotC's sensibilities, or you want a mass of 3pp to join into some sort of gaming Federation?

No

I want a 3PP class that has more than 5 subclass that I can go to 10% of DMs and they know what the hell it is.

 

[Scribe]

No

I want a 3PP class that has more than 5 subclass that I can go to 10% of DMs and they know what the hell it is.

Not likely, unless 3PP gets fully into Wizards online tools.

 

[Minigiant]

Not likely, unless 3PP gets fully into Wizards online tools.

And that's the Problem


The "Go to 3PP" issue hinges on the 3PP classes having even a significant fraction of the visibility of as the IP holder. This hasn't happened.

It more or less requires a major character builder to support 3PP classes. Like DNDB.

So instead we are jamming every nonbook mage into the sorcerer and killing it's lore, flavor, and mechanics.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Just for the sake of discussion, I disagree with a few of these. Though that could also be not understanding the themes you are going for.

I agree with the need for a Warlord (martial support character). I can maybe see the Shaman, if I squint, but that seems more aesthetic to me than mechanical. Maybe as a class that buffs itself with stacking buffs? I'm not sure what the mechanical hook would be. Alchemist.... yes and no. I think we need better crafting rules to cover the alchemist concept, but I'm not sure how to make it work mechanically, especially since it is simply making items. Summoner is one I agree that could be needed thematically, but mechanically it is just constantly a pain to try and make work.

Psion? Not interested in a psychic class. Sorry. I can see why people might want it, but I don't.

Assassin? The rogue works for that. They aren't the BEST assassin able to do every assassin thing, but that's the nature of trying to make a solo operator work in a team game. Rogues do fit the archetype pretty closely though. And trying to make an Assassin class who CAN work solo in a team game is asking for trouble. And to be clear, I'm talking thematics and overarching mechanics, I agree the existing Assassin Rogue is not working up to snuff.

Swordmage? Eh, maybe? We have a ton of gish concepts, and I think they can be handled well enough with the existing subclasses. I know you aren't happy with subclasses at level 3, but enough of my games start at level 3, and we can start with the Magic initiate feat, so I'm fine with it.

Avenger? Warden? I'm not sure what these would be. Same with Invoker and Machinist, I'm just not sure what concepts you are trying to call on here.

So, for me... Warlord, better crafting rules, and maybe a shaman/warden concept of nature infused self-buffing. That would cover the few concepts I don't see a satisfactory way to make in DnD.

Here's the list, with explanations/thematics, if that would be more relevant to you. Again, first the existing ones; both lists lightly edited from the original post.

Spoiler

• Artificer, the engineer-as-magician, with shades of other professional fields (blacksmith, surgeon, sapper, etc.), where craft-ken is magic
• Barbarian, the warrior-of-passion, whether it be warp-spasms or altered states of consciousness or spirit-indwelling.
• Bard, the artist-as-magician, whether that art be music, dance, oratory, fencing, whatever--the magic of the fine and performing arts.
• Cleric, the devotee-as-magician, servant and shepherd both, remembering that a shepherd's crook was both tool and weapon.
• Druid, (these days) merging shapeshifter-as-magician and geomancer-as-magician, calling on the magic of land and beast.
• Fighter, the warrior-of-skill, who transcends the limits of IRL mundane soldiers through grit and tenacity.
• Monk, the warrior-of-discipline, who transcends limits through enlightenment and practiced form, often semi-spiritual in nature.
• Paladin, the warrior-of-devotion, power manifest through purity, both in keeping promises and in inspiring others by their example.
• Ranger, the warrior-of-the-hunt, who straddles the line between man and beast, city and wilderness, tools and nature.
• Rogue, the warrior-of-trickery, who knows the ways of not being struck or spotted, and of striking and seeing, of locks and keys.
• Sorcerer, the inheritor-as-magician, who has magic power not because it was sought, but because it is part of who they are.
• Warlock, the bargainer-as-magician, who represents the power of Faustian bargains and clever swindlers cheating evil powers.
• Wizard, the scientist-as-magician, who represents pure knowledge unlocking ultimate power, the deep secrets of reality.

And here's the ones I think should exist. Not in any particular order, this is just my spitballed order.

Spoiler

• Assassin, the warrior-of-shadow, whose skill with all the subtle ways to stalk (and un-alive) someone transcends mortal limits.
• Warlord, the warrior-of-tactics, who transcends limits by cooperating with others rather than purely through her own mettle.
• Swordmage, the warrior-as-magician, for whom swordplay is magic, and magic is swordplay (or other weapons), one and inseparable.
• Shaman, the spiritualist-as-magician, who straddles the line between material and spirit, the bridge connecting these realms.
• Psion (etc.), the telepath-as-magician, who draws on ESP, the paranormal, occult "science" etc. to bend the rules of reality in their favor.
• Alchemist, the chemist-as-magician, who uses magical ingredients and concoctions to control the world...or themselves.
• Avenger, the warrior-of-zeal, whose absolute focus is both shield and sword against their enemies, who executes the turncoat apostate.
• Warden, the warrior-of-the-land, who wears Nature's power like a cloak, and wreaks Her wrath where he walks.
• Summoner, the overseer-as-magician, whose magic lies in getting other beings to use magic for her.
• Invoker, the emissary-as-magician, who calls down disaster upon the foes of the faith, Elijah calling fire down against the altar of Baal.
• "Machinist" (not my fav name), the warrior-of-technology, who uses guns, machines, and tools to overcome their foes.

Some of these things are closer together than others, that's just how archetypes work. It's not a science, we don't carve up the spectrum into perfectly equal chunks. Colors work the same way.

Note, also, that all of these have existed in either 3.5e, 4e, or PF1e--and usually at least two of those three.

And, finally...as I said upthread, classes are not made for all people. I get that some folks have zero or even negative interest in, for example, an independent Warlord class or an independent Psion class. But there are enough people out there who really, really want those things, that I can't justify telling them "nope, sorry, the way is shut."

 

[Shadowedeyes]

As @CreamCloud0 said, the fighter is popular because it has to be a dozen different archetypes: knight, mercenary, soldier, archer, and everything else that fights with a weapon, doesn't cast spells, and isn't a barbarian or rogue. I'm sure if you took the wizard, sorcerer, bard, warlock and druid and crammed them into one class, it'd be popular too because it would be your only choice. If you replaced it with knight, warlord, slayer, and gladiator classes, each would be better supported and not rely on one class to do all the heavy lifting.

I don't entirely disagree, and I even think having a Warlord class ala 4e, which I thought was awesome from my limited experience with that edition, would be pretty cool. What I don't want is 3e's Swashbuckler from Complete Warrior. Likewise, some stuff, like an archer class, doesn't feel like it can support too many sub-classes, which I think is necessary for a concept to warrant a class. It's definitely a balancing act though.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Learned Arcanist- Wizard
Innate Arcanist- Sorcerer
Borrowed Powered Arcanist- Warlock

Learned Warrior- Fighter
Innate Warrior- Fighter
Borrowed Powered Warrior- Fighter

how would borrowed-powered warrior even work?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I will have to admit that as my son is approaching 20, and we watched the Potter movies when he was a kid, I'm not fully versed in what makes a 'Potter' mage. WoW Mage? Depends on the era and abilities I guess but, D&D Wizard/Sorc/Warlock, are distinct, and as 5th is evergreen for a bit here now, I dont think what you are describing is a class, its an uber-Mage.

Some of the problem is that Harry Potter magic is ridiculously OP if you're going to truly port it over directly, and if you don't port it over directly, you're looking at already adapting it, which means you're already limiting it (severely) compared to the books.

HP wizards essentially treat all spells like cantrips, and only get tired after literally hours of continuous spellcasting. With just a modicum of training (aka, what Dumbledore's Army could cobble together just with their own efforts), you can get quite competent duellists who function more like impressively-armed soldiers than like Hermetic wizards with tricksy powers. Spells also often have nearly unlimited range ("Accio Firebolt!"), durations of hours to days, the ability to trivially-easily lock down enemies or end combats with a single well-struck spell, etc. While at the same time, things that are trivial magic to a D&D character are notoriously, fiendishly difficult magic. Even the simplest kinds of transfiguration and conjuration are profoundly difficult magic. Summoning man-sized creatures out of thin air is something only the most powerful and talented HP wizards can do. Performing magic without a wand is nearly impossible for the vast majority of people. Etc.

HP magic works the way it needs to work to make an interesting book series. It is absolutely rife with abuse potential for anyone actually trying to use it scientifically (as analyzed, IMO poorly, by the [in]famous "Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality" fan fiction.) A huge amount of why it is so fun is that it's unexplained, mysterious, and folks just...don't use it with all that much cleverness or subtlety in the books, apart from scoundrels like Rita Skeeter. Even Voldemort himself has a hilariously limited view of what magic can actually achieve, and his whole thing is supposed to be power for power's sake and nothing else.

At best, a "Harry Potter Wizard" class would only limitedly approximate what HP wizards do. It couldn't be represented with Vancian spellcasting, even in principle, because Vancian spellcasting isn't compatible with the kinds of magic done--not even the Warlock model actually captures it. You'd be, effectively, building an entire level 1-20 spellcasting class that never learns anything above a cantrip...but their cantrips can become ridiculously powerful...but they can only use so many until they have to rest a bit, etc., etc. It just ends up being "I want to use a fundamentally different conception of what magic is than what D&D has had baked into it for all but one edition."

Ironically, 4e would have no problem making a Harry Potter Wizard, you'd just reskin the Power Point classes for it, and indeed the whole "spam your best option" bug/feature that Power Point classes have in 4e would fit even better for the Harry Potter theme than it does the Psionics theme. Hell, you can even rename "Battlemind" to "Auror" and you're already off to the races.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I also don't think D&D need to be able to represent any concept anyone ever came up in fiction. They need to choose a bunch of concepts that they want to be archetypal for their game and focus on them. That in different IPs have mages that work differently doesn't mean you can or should just shove them all into one IP. The end result is just an incoherent mess.