Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
What RPG was primary designed rules-first? I really don't get it.It works both ways: lore can follow mechanics, mechanics can follow lore. Or as it's better known, "top down" and "bottom up" design.
What RPG was primary designed rules-first? I really don't get it.It works both ways: lore can follow mechanics, mechanics can follow lore. Or as it's better known, "top down" and "bottom up" design.
D&D 4e?What RPG was primary designed rules-first? I really don't get it.
"(Dis)Advantage" is probably an example of doing that. A mechanic was created and a justification was tossed on to out it literally everywhereFair enough. I just can't understand how D&D could be seen to be created rules-first across the board, as was claimed. Occasionally, sure, but not as a general thing.
More flights of fancy here. That was actual wordplay. Not me pointing out that you are making up fluff about both wizard and sorcerer.No it is your wordplay.
This is not in dispute that this is how the overwhelming majority of wizards do it. It is also not actually mechanically supported in any way other than a little cramming of their spellbook.STUDY, LEARN, APPRENTICESHIP. All there.
But somehow literally extraordinary in a world with magic.Non-magical creating event.
A few relevant words are worth more than paragraphs of irrelevant ones.This is funny. A simple phrase mentioned once used as proff compared to my words which are used more.
Or just lebelling up and multiclassing. Apprenticeship and long periods of study are common but entirely unnecessary.Wrong. The event is not what to become a wizard. Study, apprenticeship, stuff is how they become one.
I'm not the one wasting time by irrelevancy here.As you waste my time?
I've just proven apprenticeship is unnecessary. And they can study as hard as they like - but without the class it does diddly squat for casting spells. Meaning there must be something magical happening to the caster - and in that case sorcerer is 100% appropriate.You want option 1, but option 2 is how wizards work by rules. They have no magical gift or event that lets them cast spells. They can cast spells because of study, apprenticeship, and stuff.
But you could stop being wrong - or even start by saying things that are either relevant or not in conflict with the rules.I cannot be more clear.
I'm not interested in your house rules.If you want to play option 1, wizard as sorcerer subclass is good. But that is not the rules now, so not how wizards work.
But the concepts 4e designed rules for already existed first in previous editions of D&D. WotC just wrote new rules for them.D&D 4e?
That is one (albeit influential) concept in 5e. It's not the whole game, which is full of lore concepts that existed in D&D prior to rules being made for them. And at the beginning, they were concepts drawn from history, literature and folklore that the designers then made rules for. None of that is rules-first, and I would argue the things done since then that are are pretty limited in number compared to the lore-first stuff."(Dis)Advantage" is probably an example of doing that. A mechanic was created and a justification was tossed on to out it literally everywhere
You need to let go of the idea of wizard as a sorcerer subclass. I'm among posters who have proposed it, but it isn't entirely a genuine desire. Rather it started as a reaction to posters who want to get rid of sorcerer by shoving it under wizard. The argument "but wizards have a gift for magic too" was first made by them to try to justify sorcerer erasure. The current "if they have an inherent gift for magic, then wizards should be sorcerers" is just taling their arguments to the logical conclusion.As you waste my time? You want option 1, but option 2 is how wizards work by rules. They have no magical gift or event that lets them cast spells. They can cast spells because of study, apprenticeship, and stuff. I cannot be more clear. Nothing about wizard in the rules say they have an innate gift for magic--that is sorcerer.
If you want to play option 1, wizard as sorcerer subclass is good. But that is not the rules now, so not how wizards work.
This one maybe?What RPG was primary designed rules-first? I really don't get it.
This is true from my perspective (and I've played far more wizards over the years than sorcerers). This thread is literally entitled "the sorcerer shouldn't exist" and is proposing eliminating the sorcerer in favour of thf wizard from the OP. If one goes then both logically and thematically it should be the wizard but there's no reason to get rid of either.You need to let go of the idea of wizard as a sorcerer subclass. I'm among posters who have proposed it, but it isn't entirely a genuine desire. Rather it started as a reaction to posters who want to get rid of sorcerer by shoving it under wizard. The argument "but wizards have a gift for magic too" was first made by them to try to justify sorcerer erasure. The current "if they have an inherent gift for magic, then wizards should be sorcerers" is just taling their arguments to the logical conclusion.
Trust me, we sorcerer fans are happy with wizards being a thing. We wouldn't be here if wizard fans just accepted their favorite class isn't the only spellcaster around and let it go. But no, they keep beating the bush, and here we are.