D&D General One thing I hate about the Sorcerer

[TwoSix]

Put that principle in the game then, don't just assume it.

I think mundane character classes should explicitly transition to supernatural at a certain point.

OK. I don't see the point considering the obvious narrative that the granted powers create, but the fact that it's a nothingburger to me doesn't mean it can't have salience to you.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Of course a fighter can learn to do supernatural martial things. But then they're no longer mundane, and some folks really want to cling to that word.

So what makes learning magical formula supernatural, but learning sword forms mundane?

I agree, people are clinging to the word, but I think it is because they DON'T want the fighter to be using "magic" like a wizard. Which agree with.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Put that principle in the game then, don't just assume it.

I think mundane character classes should explicitly transition to supernatural at a certain point.

At what point does a Golem transition from mundane to supernatural? What about a Fairy, at what point do they move from Mundane to supernatural?

 

[TwoSix]

i think a better term for "mundane" in the context of this martial/caster debate (whose presence here is rather bizarre, considering the original topic) would be "extraordinary" - it implies something beyond the mundane but not really magical, and it has precedence in earlier editions (specifically 3e/3.5e).

so a fighter isn't (by default) "supernatural" or (after a certain point) "mundane", but rather a fighter is "extraordinary" - they're doing things normal people can do at a level they couldn't possibly imagine replicating, not because they're magical but because their skill and talent is so far beyond that of a mortal being that it's difficult to comprehend.

and if someone agrees with everything there but is adamant on calling the fighter "supernatural", then...i mean, at that point, we're just talking semantics, so unless those tags become a thing again, does it actually matter?

I've always preferred the term "preternatural", but getting this terminology clarified didn't work when it was argued about in the Edition Wars era, so I doubt it will be any better now.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Some people seem to think magic in the D&D sense and supernatural mean the same thing.

I agree that seems to be the problem. But you also keep demanding explanations, while having a single, glaring assumption you keep making.

Regarding the orc, I will concede the pointvthatvthey have supernatural aspects. I don't regard that as the same as having boss actions on par with a dragon or a lich.

Okay? The question was how they could bench-press an ogre, not how they created a lava field around their house by sleeping there for a few days.

 

[Minigiant]

Well, obviously a lot depends on the specifics, but if I'm a caster I generally have weaker armor, which means instead of six options, I'd have 3 on my turn unless you fundamentally change the nature of the spells. And those cantrips are already designed to stand in for at-will attacks, especially if you've taken a subclass that adds a modifier to the damage.

It still sounds like, to me, you are essentially just giving more powerful attacks to a class, in exchange for being able to do little else. Which does not sound like it would be an interesting class to actually play.



How are options 1 and 5 different? Why do I need more cantrips if I'm barely going to use all of the ones I have? It looks like this ends up being a choice between three options. 1) Become a spellcaster with complex options (defeating the point of the design) 2) Becoming a spellcaster with ritual options and better exploration (which is something most other casters are doing already) 3) Become even stronger in combat.

I'm not saying that the vision in your head is bad, but what I'm seeing reads a lot like "I get to do more damage in exchange for being worse at the types of things casters excel at" And they would likely STILL struggle to get better at-will cantrip damage than a Warlock.

Actually it'll average out to more options as you will have more Cantrips than a full caster has higher level spell

You'll have a pure damage cantrips, a damage and freeze cantrip, a block down cantrip, a bonus action damage cantrips, etc.

It sounds bad but once you contextualize the illusion of options, it's not as bad as it sounds.

Basically trading AOE or the strongest effect for not consuming resources.

 

[James Gasik]

Good point. I actually hate evasion as written, but taking away player power that right there in the book is a dangerous proposition, and often not worth it socially.

As I posted upthread, the Rogue has several high level abilities that don't have much explanation and are clearly not "mundane". Their capstone being my favorite. "What, I missed? No I didn't."

 

[Micah Sweet]

Answer me these questions.

1) Is a Level One Fighter Mundane?

2) Is a Level One Wizard Mundane?

3) Is a Golem Mundane?

1) yes, as in not-magical in nature or ability, not making of magic.

2) yes, as in not-magical in nature (they're still a human like the fighter for purposes of this question), but no in the sense of the magical abilities they are learning to harness in a so-far limited way.

3) yes as in magical in nature (it's a moving statue, for Gygax's sake!) Most golems also have some sort of magical trick they can do, and the degree of resilience all golem possess is part of their magical nature, but golem punches are mundane punches (from a magically-animated stone fist, but mundane nonetheless).

For that last point, you could consider golem punches magical, as they are made with what is essentially a magical object.

 

[Micah Sweet]

i think a better term for "mundane" in the context of this martial/caster debate (whose presence here is rather bizarre, considering the original topic) would be "extraordinary" - it implies something beyond the mundane but not really magical, and it has precedence in earlier editions (specifically 3e/3.5e).

so a fighter isn't (by default) "supernatural" or (after a certain point) "mundane", but rather a fighter is "extraordinary" - they're doing things normal people can do at a level they couldn't possibly imagine replicating, not because they're magical but because their skill and talent is so far beyond that of a mortal being that it's difficult to comprehend.

and if someone agrees with everything there but is adamant on calling the fighter "supernatural", then...i mean, at that point, we're just talking semantics, so unless those tags become a thing again, does it actually matter?

That implies PCs aren't mortal beings.

 

[TwoSix]

It still sounds like, to me, you are essentially just giving more powerful attacks to a class, in exchange for being able to do little else. Which does not sound like it would be an interesting class to actually play.

Martial classes say "Hello".

I'm not saying that the vision in your head is bad, but what I'm seeing reads a lot like "I get to do more damage in exchange for being worse at the types of things casters excel at" And they would likely STILL struggle to get better at-will cantrip damage than a Warlock.

It's pretty much Mage Hand Press' Warmage class. It's warlock level at-will damage, but with more options than EB, with some utility invocations and SR recharge damage boosters.

It's essentially a fighter with a caster skin. It's quite fun (I played one for about a year), if you like your characters straightforward, but definitely on the "less-strong" side. It's weaker than a Warlock, for sure. But so are Fighters and Rogues and Monks, and people still play them.