D&D General One thing I hate about the Sorcerer

[Gammadoodler]

Potential doesn't put food on the table, so to speak. It especially doesn't mean much if it is assumed to be true by a segment of the fan base rather than stated to be true by the text.

Sure. But all the text really needs to say is whether PCs can get extraordinary abilities and what they are.

 

[Shardstone]

211 pages...a glimpse of the nursing home.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Potential doesn't put food on the table, so to speak. It especially doesn't mean much if it is assumed to be true by a segment of the fan base rather than stated to be true by the text.

Okay... but it was stated to be true in the text. We already covered this and you already agreed.

Monk entry states that magical energy from the multiverse is inside every single living body.
Human entry states that most humans have traces of supernatural bloodlines from other races in them.

That was enough, according to you, to stop this demand for explanations from the books.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure. But all the text really needs to say is whether PCs can get extraordinary abilities and what they are.

And it doesn't even do that, for the classes under discussion.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Okay... but it was stated to be true in the text. We already covered this and you already agreed.

Monk entry states that magical energy from the multiverse is inside every single living body.
Human entry states that most humans have traces of supernatural bloodlines from other races in them.

That was enough, according to you, to stop this demand for explanations from the books.

It's still pretty weak as explanations go. WotC 5e is just a pretty incoherent game, and a lot of its players just don't seem to care.

 

[Gammadoodler]

And it doesn't even do that, for the classes under discussion.

Correct. Thus the discontent.

My, personal, frustration, at least insofar as these forum discussions go, is that folks will insist that the classes cannot get anything extraordinary because the word "magic" is never used.

And, for emphasis, the game never calls these classes nonmagical. This is tag people are adding because the text is silent regarding whether magic is involved. And the text is often clear that these classes are a step above their more mundane kindred (There is a direct quote to this effect within the fighter class write-up)

 

[Minigiant]

True, but I think you are kind of missing the point.

Sure, using these spells only makes the wizard a relatively poor copy of a Fighter or a Rogue (Though, a bladesinger or other concept might be able to make good use of it). And a wizard with knock, skill empowerment, mage hand and invisibility really isn't AS good as a rogue, unless they have high stats and the right feats...

But we can build these wizards to do these things.

What Thief Rogue can take the role of a wizard who clears a room with fireball or locks down enemies with web? What Champion Fighter can speak with the dead and use Arcane Eye to spy invisibly on their enemies?

Wizards can use their spells to fill the roles of fighters and rogues. Is it even possible to build a fighter or rogue who is a poor imitation of a wizard WITHOUT giving them wizard spells and spellcasting? After all, the wizard isn't getting the armor proficiencies, extra attacks, expertise, ect ect of the Rogue and Fighter, they are doing it all with THEIR resource. Spells.

This just means there is no Bladesinger version of Fighter. A fighter who can get into Wizardy or Clericy with Fighter resources.

Things possible in many forms of media. Nonmagical sappers, detectives, sages, and doctors exist. D&D designers are just against it.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Why do you say modern? All my AD&D stuff reflects that just as well. Or did I not go from a level 1 schlub in the Village of Hommlet to eventually facing the Demon Princess of Fungi in the same adventure? I'm old, I don't remember stuff so good always.

We’re probably the same age, and I definitely remember becoming a god in my Wrath of the Immortals boxed set.

 

[FrogReaver]

Correct. Thus the discontent.

My, personal, frustration, at least insofar as these forum discussions go, is that folks will insist that the classes cannot get anything extraordinary because the word "magic" is never used.

Its far more nuanced than that.

And, for emphasis, the game never calls these classes nonmagical. This is tag people are adding because the text is silent regarding whether magic is involved.

Right. I wouldn’t expect the rule book to say what everything in the game is not. I would expect it to tell me what they are. If it doesn’t say they are something then I’d expect they are not that something.

As an example. The game doesn’t say a level 1 Fighter can cast Wish once per day. Does anyone believe that means the game is ‘silent’ about whether a level 1 Fighter can cast wish once per day (because he is a Fighter)?

And the text is often clear that these classes are a step above their more mundane kindred (There is a direct quote to this effect within the fighter class write-up)

What is the quote you have in mind?

 

[FrozenNorth]

Getting back to Sorcerers, if the power does come from one's ancestry, why aren't there more Sorcerers running around? There's this bit in Order of the Stick where the Wizard, infused with evil power, murders all the descendants of a dragon that threatened his family with an epic spell.

Then we get a multitude of panels showing all that's dragons' descendants, each of whom is at least part dragon. There really could be some huge Sorcerer family trees in a game world!

If you are playing dragons seriously, not for laughs, how often do you think they have sex and procreate with himanoids?

The bard rolls to seduce the dragon is a tired, silly cliche, and dragons are immensely powerful egotistical beings. Why would there be a large amount of half-dragons around?