D&D General One thing I hate about the Sorcerer

[Crimson Longinus]

How many NPCs in your world are leveled in one of the PHB classes? Not "archmage" or "veteran" but "4th level fighter" or "18th level sorcerer"?

In mine, a lot. Almost every powerful person of humanoid species has a class at least nominally. Granted, in practice they might get often represented by a "monster" statblock with some class features added on top, instead of a full PC-like sheet, but that's just for convenience as I'm lazy, not because they're supposed to be a different sort of entity than PCs with classes.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Because not everyone wants to play an explicitly supernatural character right out of the gate. Zero to hero is still a thing, until the game says it isn't. Say what you will about 4e, they didn't pretend they were something they weren't.

Except no 1st level DnD character is a zero.

I've actually been writing/running an experimental story where the main character started off with the stats
Strength: -1 (8)
Constitution: +0 (10)
Dexterity: -1 (8)
Awareness: -1 (8)
Intelligence: +0 (10)
Charisma: +1 (12)
HP 4
AC 9

No proficiencies, no armor, no abilities. This is what a "zero" looks like in DnD. And after every adventure I rolled to increase their stats, and they gained Xp from losing. It took three adventures to defeat a single opponent. They have never even fought something above CR 1/2. This is not what a 1st level rogue or fighter looks like. DnD does not actually facilitate "zero to hero" stories, unless you skip the first few chapters of "zero".

 

[Micah Sweet]

So where does it state that a Human Fighter is less capable than a Tiefling Fighter? Because if I wanted to justify "how can you coat your sword in fire" by saying "I have demonic blood that calls forth hellfire" that is.. an explanation, just like you constantly demand.

Is your point that a human fighter doesn't have that demonic blood? That's fine. They can learn a sword form that causes the same effect, which you yourself agreed is a perfectly valid explanation. So... why are we saying the books do not assume equity between the power of humans and the power of all other races in the game?



What is a non-supernatural heritage? Are Aarcrockra supernatural? Yes.
Aasimar? Yes
Elf? Yes
Autognome and Warforged? Yes
Bugbear? Yes
Centaur? Yes
Changeling? Yes
Gnome? Yes
Dhampir? Yes
Dragonborn? Yes
Dwarf? Yes
Fairy? Yes
Firbolg and Goliath? Yes
Genasi? Yes
Giff? Yes
Gith? Yes
Goblin and Hobgoblin? Yes
Orc? Yes
Halfling? Yes
Harengon? Yes
Hexblood? Yes
Kalashatar? Yes
Kenku? Yes
Kobold? Yes
Leonin and Tabaxi? Yes
Lizardfolk? Yes
Minotaur? Yes
Plasmoid? Yes
Reborn? Yes
Satyr? Yes
Shifter? Yes
Thri-Kreen? Yes
Tiefling? Yes
Triton? Yes
Vedalken? Yes
Verdan? Yes
Yuan-Ti? Yes

Human no? 1/42 ancestries are non-supernatural? 2.4% of them? Except... some of those ancestries came from humans, humans can be barbarians, monks, sorcerers, ranger, paladins, clerics, bards, wizards, artificers... so even fewer than 2% of people in DnD are non-supernatural?

What about the classes? 2/13 or 15% are the only one's not obviously supernatural... except the rogue does have Evasion which we've already discussed is a supernatural seeming ability.

So it is just the fighter? Well, not really, because the fighter has six subclasses that are explicitly supernatural as well. So only 4/10 or 40% of fighters are not outright supernatural...

So, what, the books needs to explicitly call out that the 0.062% of not explicitly supernatural things are also supernatural? When a human fighter is already capable on inhuman feats of durability and strength? Can't we just assume that the parity we know is intended (because you don't make one option weaker than ALL of the others on purpose) is there?

You can assume whatever you want that isn't evident in the text, but I don't. I want there to be non-supernatural class and heritage options, and the book gives them to me. The fact that both are a small percentage of the total options available is completely irrelevant; they exist, and they exist on purpose. Like I said above, every other class and heritage explicitly describes some supernatural or magical element but fighter, rogue, and human. They don't have that narrative not because they forgot, or because its obvious that they are supernatural, but because the game doesn't make the assumption that you are insisting I make.

And none of this has anything to do with equity. That's another unfounded assumption on your part.

 

[Maxperson]

But then you're limiting the necessary power upgrades that supernatural abilities provide to just the subclass level abilities. 16 other levels have to provide power within the confines of "can't look remotely supernatural".

I mean, I don't have an issue with the base class achieving supernatural abilities at higher levels. As has been said, you are going toe-to-toe with gods, demon lords and other forces of the multiverse at that point. If you want it at lower levels, though, it sort of has to happen through subclasses. Otherwise there's no mundane anything and a lot of folks want all or mostly mundane PCs to be possible.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because then any guard could kill a demon lord if the city's mayor is rich enough to get magical gear for them. It means your character does not matter.

And? A demon lord-killing set of gear would be hideously expensive and likely hard to find. And if that's the way it goes anyway, maybe your PC should find something else to do.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Except no 1st level DnD character is a zero.

I've actually been writing/running an experimental story where the main character started off with the stats
Strength: -1 (8)
Constitution: +0 (10)
Dexterity: -1 (8)
Awareness: -1 (8)
Intelligence: +0 (10)
Charisma: +1 (12)
HP 4
AC 9

No proficiencies, no armor, no abilities. This is what a "zero" looks like in DnD. And after every adventure I rolled to increase their stats, and they gained Xp from losing. It took three adventures to defeat a single opponent. They have never even fought something above CR 1/2. This is not what a 1st level rogue or fighter looks like. DnD does not actually facilitate "zero to hero" stories, unless you skip the first few chapters of "zero".

True, true, but it is the phrase. And what people who say that they want that mean, is that they don't want the starting point to be moved even farther from the zero.

 

[Maxperson]

The lore is what is written in the blurb. The issue is the mechanics often barely display that lore in a significant way to justify it.

Not that the lore is not justified for a class. The class design is just weak in order to appease a vocal minority of fans.

Right. The lore is both backstory and class description. This is the core of the sorcerer class from the class description.

"One can't study sorcery as one learns a language, any more than one can learn to live a legendary life. No one chooses sorcery; the power chooses the sorcerer."

It's innate/intuitive power and can't be learned.

This is backstory to explain the base of the class.

"Sorcerers carry a magical birthright conferred upon them by an exotic bloodline, some otherworldly influence, or exposure to unknown cosmic forces."

Thot is lore on some of the ways that the innate magic can be caused to manifest, not the lore of what the class is.

 

[Maxperson]

The 5e fighter isn't mundane for 20 levels.

We disagree. The only questionable ability is action surge, and that's..........................questionable. I can see arguments for it both ways.

 

[Maxperson]

You're right!

It doesn't even reach mundane levels of power.

I mean, I personally have mundane levels of power. Mike Tyson has even greater mundane levels of power and would wreck me, but I'm still at a mundane level.

 

[Maxperson]

To my mind, the iconic version of the "badass normal" "Just That Good" high-level fighter is John Wick.

Nothing he does seems supernatural, but the results are obviously that of a creature of myth and legend.

One of these days I'm going to have to watch John wick.