D&D (2024) The sorcerer shouldn't exist

[Yaarel]

Heh.

1e Golden Age of D&D (formative brilliance)
2e Silver Age (venerable tradition)
3e Bronze Age (redefining, rise of artisanry)
4e Iron Age (redefining, clashing, and disruptive)
5e Classical Age (settling into expansive empires)

We will see if 5e 2024 turns out to be Post-Classical (with clinging WotC and indy Dark Ages?), or if the Classical Age continues.

 

[pemerton]

The 4e mechanics were intentionally designed to invite players to reflavor any mechanic.

This is exaggeration.

The 4e PHB does not invite anyone to reflavour races, or classes, or power sources. There is mention of changing the flavour text of powers. Given that the game has feats and items for mixing and changing damage keywords, it is clearly not assumed that these will be changed at will.

The DMG2 (p 21) does have a sidebar that encourages the GM to work with their players to make character concepts work:

A player's character is an important aspect of the game for that player. So a DM should help each player create a fun character who won't unbalance the game (which would hinder the fun of the other players). Sometimes it proves easy within the limits of the rules. Other times, you have to be more creative.​

The example given is of using a 7th level rogue as base for building a fire archon PC. The work is done by the GM.

In my own 4e game, I adapted published themes to be better suited for my players' characters.

Only in a discussion of 4e would this sort of GMing, based around the clarity and stability of the 4e core chassis, be presented as at odds with realising the desired fiction in play!

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is exaggeration.

The 4e PHB does not invite anyone to reflavour races, or classes, or power sources. There is mention of changing the flavour text of powers. Given that the game has feats and items for mixing and changing damage keywords, it is clearly not assumed that these will be changed at will.

The DMG2 (p 21) does have a sidebar that encourages the GM to work with their players to make character concepts work:

A player's character is an important aspect of the game for that player. So a DM should help each player create a fun character who won't unbalance the game (which would hinder the fun of the other players). Sometimes it proves easy within the limits of the rules. Other times, you have to be more creative.​

The example given is of using a 7th level rogue as base for building a fire archon PC. The work is done by the GM.

In my own 4e game, I adapted published themes to be better suited for my players' characters.

Only in a discussion of 4e would this sort of GMing, based around the clarity and stability of the 4e core chassis, be presented as at odds with realising the desired fiction in play!

How does the work being done by the GM end up at odds with the concept @Yaarel expressed?

 

[Yaarel]

This is exaggeration.

The 4e PHB does not invite anyone to reflavour races, or classes, or power sources. There is mention of changing the flavour text of powers. Given that the game has feats and items for mixing and changing damage keywords, it is clearly not assumed that these will be changed at will.

The DMG2 (p 21) does have a sidebar that encourages the GM to work with their players to make character concepts work:

A player's character is an important aspect of the game for that player. So a DM should help each player create a fun character who won't unbalance the game (which would hinder the fun of the other players). Sometimes it proves easy within the limits of the rules. Other times, you have to be more creative.​

The example given is of using a 7th level rogue as base for building a fire archon PC. The work is done by the GM.

In my own 4e game, I adapted published themes to be better suited for my players' characters.

Only in a discussion of 4e would this sort of GMing, based around the clarity and stability of the 4e core chassis, be presented as at odds with realising the desired fiction in play!

I played and enjoyed 4e. It is intentionally reflavorable. Players are far more free in 4e than in other editions, to play anything they want.

The individual "powers" can reflavor in any way. Its format officially has a "text box" where the default flavor is. Any player can replace this text box in any way. The rest of the format is a mechanical description that avoids flavor as much as possible.

It is true that damage types such as "Fire" are part of the mechanical description, but one can reflavor this Fire in any way, such as natural fire, solar radiation, hell fire, whatever. The idea was to pick a concept, then hunt for the mechanics that best match it.

Players routinely reflavor races and classes, picking a character concept first and then picking whatever race and class best suits this concept.

A remarkable example is someone who wanted to play a "bear" as a character. I forget which race he chose, maybe Orc. But he picked the Monk for the ferocious attacks that a bear makes. The reflavoring worked vividly and convincingly.

If I recall correctly, in 4e Eberron, you can use any race − Elf, Drow, or Eladrin − to represent any Eberron Elf community.

Changing mechanics requires DM permission. But changing flavor is fungible.

And so on. 4e design is intentionally reflavorable.

 

[pemerton]

How does the work being done by the GM end up at odds with the concept @Yaarel expressed?

Just for starters, the GM is not a player (in the relevant sense).

Second, we see that that - when the GM helps the player build their PC - concept is coming first.

A remarkable example is someone who wanted to play a "bear" as a character. I forget which race he chose, maybe Orc. But he picked the Monk for the ferocious attacks that a bear makes. The reflavoring worked vividly and convincingly.

This is concept prior to mechanics.