D&D General One thing I hate about the Sorcerer

[EzekielRaiden]

Because if I asked any boxer from Earth to punch through a steel plate they'd laugh me out of the room.

But we aren't on Earth. That's my whole point.

Again, you seem to define mundane as their power source/origin.

Because it is.

I define mundane based on the effect. Whether it is gene-modding, esper abilities, cybernetics, or magic once you can do something a normal earthling from this dimension can no longer do... you are achieving the supernatural.

Then you are saying everyone who is mundane is limited. Which was my whole argument. If, and only if, you give up mundanity, you can have cool powers. Unless and until you do that, you will forever be chained, weak, incapable. That's the problem. Only the magical are allowed to participate.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I think the 5.5 books should come with a handsome slipcover with the words 'NOT EARTH' printed on the front in big, friendly letters with a forward explaining what this 'fantasy' thing is, written by Brandon Sanderson, Margret Weiss, and the ghost of JRR Tolkien.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So they should surpass what we understand are the limits of natural, but not be supernatural? Just sort of more than natural, but less than supernatural?

Not less, different from. And yes, that's the general goal.

The blacksmith whose crafted weapons are artifacts despite her never casting a single spell nor using a single magical ingredient, because the edge she puts on steel exceeds the physical definition of sharpness. The singer, whose voice alone actually beguiles audiences, because music that skillful, that harmonious, compels a response--as when someone bursts out crying at a tragic melody or gasps at the sight of a sublime waterfall. The thief who can take the color of a maiden's eyes, or the name of a famous place, because they have become so skilled at stealing, they can steal immaterial things too.

My term for this is the "transmundane," just as the original term "transfinite" was used for numbers that were greater than any natural number but not absolutely infinite (meaning, they fit into the next-higher-tier of counting, above the natural numbers but below what we now call the "reals"). Likewise, the transmundane covers things greater than any mundane materials, properties, or actions, but not absolutely supernatural. The things that live in the maybe/maybe-not zone, the "no way! ...unless..." space. Which, I freely admit, some of this comes from the fact that I am fully on board for most "Rule of Cool" justifications.

 

[Maxperson]

Not less, different from. And yes, that's the general goal.

The blacksmith whose crafted weapons are artifacts despite her never casting a single spell nor using a single magical ingredient, because the edge she puts on steel exceeds the physical definition of sharpness. The singer, whose voice alone actually beguiles audiences, because music that skillful, that harmonious, compels a response--as when someone bursts out crying at a tragic melody or gasps at the sight of a sublime waterfall. The thief who can take the color of a maiden's eyes, or the name of a famous place, because they have become so skilled at stealing, they can steal immaterial things too.

My term for this is the "transmundane," just as the original term "transfinite" was used for numbers that were greater than any natural number but not absolutely infinite (meaning, they fit into the next-higher-tier of counting, above the natural numbers but below what we now call the "reals"). Likewise, the transmundane covers things greater than any mundane materials, properties, or actions, but not absolutely supernatural. The things that live in the maybe/maybe-not zone, the "no way! ...unless..." space. Which, I freely admit, some of this comes from the fact that I am fully on board for most "Rule of Cool" justifications.

Semantics. Supernatural is one of the strongest synonyms to transmundane. This is like disagreeing with me that I see a car and arguing that instead I see an automobile.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Semantics. Supernatural is one of the strongest synonyms to transmundane. This is like disagreeing with me that I see a car and arguing that instead I see an automobile.

I disagree. Words have meaning and names have power. Especially in a fantasy context, and I don't mean that as "in a fantasy world, the author(s)/creator(s) will decide to make words and names powerful," I mean that when bringing a fantasy to life, word choice is important. Critical, even.

I would absolutely disagree with you, for example, if you said "I see a car" when you were referring to "a horseless carriage," because while the modern word "car" does in fact descend from shortening the word "carriage," "horseless carriage" is much too specific to refer to modern cars; it refers to what existed in the early days of combustion-engine vehicles.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The sorcerer struggles to do anything because no one agrees what it is. Splitting it into more classes won't help, because then they would still fundamentally struggle with that problem, just now its even MORE diluted and themeless.

Here I'd disagree - but I would say it took years for the 5e sorcerer to get there. They are the "I get my magic from [something else] class and I use it for spells where [something else] isn't books and learning, a patron, nature, or music"

 

[Neonchameleon]

A lot of this is veering into the tangential for the sorcerer I think. The big problem is defining what the sorcerer is supposed to be doing. 3e's sorcerer was to allow concepts that the wizard was ill equipped to portray, which honestly is a lot,

Nah. 3e's sorcerer was, as this thread produced the receipts for, explicitly invented to justify the wizard getting so many pages dedicated to unique class features (spells). Being good for new concepts and newbies was a lucky accident.

with a fairly different casting system. 4e made it all about innate magic somehow imbued into the character (Dragon Bloodline, Wild Magic, Mystical Storm Energy, etc). 5e tries to do both, but not very well, with a dash of metamagic. If you want to keep the sorcerer as a separate class, it needs to figure out what it's doing. Whatever that is, it's definitely supernatural however.

The 5e one follows the 4e one fluff wise.

 

[Minigiant]

The sorcerer is basically 3 character tropes

1. The Non-Muggle. You have the "Spark". For whatever reason, you can cast magic without learning magic theory nor the involvement of a magical master. Because of this you don't understand magic much itself as a thing but have more reserves than other casters.
2. The Superhero. You were bitten by a radioactive spider, struck by supernatural lightning, or hit with magic radiation. You have a suite of powers based around who you got your powers and have finer control over it that people who use study or use the power from others due to your physical closeness to it.
3. The Monster Mage. You are a descendant of a magical creature or have a magical creature's magic in your blood somehow. It lets you use power like that creature. Usually it's spells

These 3 tropes aren't really the same except for 2 things ..

1) They don't cast spells via their knowledge of mage. They harness their magic and force it out
2) Signature spells and spell lists. These magics typical have a curated list of spells they known and don't learn "new spells". Often they know spell only they are others like they can uses. They just get better versions of their magic as they gain experience.

#2 is the big one. Elsa has all the ice spells. Harry Dresden knows how to burn stuff and blast stuff but sucks at charms and illusions. Scarlet Witch can twist up your life. Most famous Potterverse wizard has spells or rituals they personally mastered. Natsu knows 20 ways to use dragon fire. Aquaman has all the hydromancy and fish magic. Naruto ninjas all have clan secret jutsu that no clan members can't do without copy magic.

This is the part D&D fails at

Because wizards must have ALL THE SPELLS. Sorcerers are rather given the list of spells and signature spells they need for the trope.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Semantics. Supernatural is one of the strongest synonyms to transmundane. This is like disagreeing with me that I see a car and arguing that instead I see an automobile.

it might be a synonym but there is absolutely not the same subtext/tone, personally i would use 'extraordinary' as a much more natural feeling word, but like, supernatural carries to me strong implications there is an 'additional factor' in what gives them their power, it might not be magic specifically but it implies that a regular person wouldn't be able to do whatever it is they do without some kind of externally sourced facilitator, batman might be extraordinary in what he does but i don't think anyone would call his abilities supernatural.

edit: it's the difference between captain america and spiderman, cap might've had his STR, DEX & CON set at straight 20s but no amount of 'peak human potential' was ever going to give him spidey's wallcrawling or spidersense, extraordinary cap, supernatural spidey.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So why can't a high level swordsman have sword forms that are supernatural? You keep saying that these things "need an explanation" but... you just provided that explanation here, didn't you? They learned a technique that isn't mundane. Simple as that.



Ah, I think this answers my confusion from before. I guess you just misread my third question. So, Fairies and Golems are always supernatural. They are also both player options. Fairies were released in Mordenkainen Presents, Autognomes are a type of golem from Astral Adventurers, and Warforged are a different type of golem from Eberron.

But, when I asked if Fighters or Wizards are supernatural, you said that they were mundane. And for the wizard you explicitly stated the problem. You assume that any time we are talking about a Player Character, we are talking about a human. Additionally, you assume that the humans of the worlds of DnD are NOT supernatural themselves. But... is that true?

Humans are equal to any other player character option.. and one way or another EVERY SINGLE player option is supernatural. We don't need a fighter class that specifies that this fighter is supernatural in some way, because the majority of fighters are already supernatural, they are elves, tieflings, genasi, aasimar, golems, fairies, undead ect ect ect. You keep saying that we need to justify why these characters are supernatural... but they are self-evidently supernatural and always supernatural. So, why not assume the humans of these worlds, who are their equals, are also supernatural from our perspective? After all, the game should not need to state that a Tiefling Fighter and the Human Fighter of equal level are equals, that is simply self-evidently true.

Bevause the books don't make those assumptions. And neither do I. If you don't have supernatural abilities from your class, or from your heritage, you are not a supernatural character. I don't agree that every player option is supernatural; you have made that claim but haven't proven it. Many heritages are, and those PCs are supernatural, magical, or both regardless of class. But if you are not a member of a supernatural heritage, and you are not a member of a supernatural class, then you are not supernatural. I don't understand how this is confusing. It has zero to do with equal power either. I don't know where you're getting that from.