Is the Sorcerer Story Too Narrow for a Base Class?

[Yora]

A spell point wizard doesn't fit the D&D core rules.

Why? What core rules?

 

[Wednesday Boy]

I love the concept. To me it's more interesting than making Sorcerers spontaneously casting Wizards and doesn't spoil the basic element that Sorcerers are innate spellcasters to a point where it would ruin a character concept that I had.

 

[synthapse]

There's something that's always bugged me about the wizard/sorcerer divide. Having a class (sorcerer) that manifests magic innately implies that wizards do not have any kind of special gift. Don't wizards have to have the gift of magic in order to become wizards? Can anybody learn to be a wizard?

I can think of plenty of fantasy wizards who find out that they have a gift for magic and start out using it accidentally until they learn to control their gift. Such characters don't fit within either the wizard or the sorcerer mold. D&D divides innate and learned magic into two completely different classes even though many fantasy mages have both.

See, this is why I think that the second soul design is excellent. A second soul is a form of innate magic, but in a much better way.

Wizards have (since 2E, at least) been described as having an innate ability for magic. This makes sense-- if wizard magic was only the result of study, why wouldn't every sage be an archmage? Also, if wizard magic was a learned trait only, wouldn't sorcerers make the best wizards? They already have a leg up on other mortals.

The second soul concept puts a definite, defining line between wizard and sorcerer, one that wasn't really there to begin with. I quite like it.

 

[TrippyHippy]

My perception, rightly or wrongly, is that the 3E Sorcerer was largely inspired by RuneQuest Sorcery. My evidence for this was partially in the spell-point-ish method of spell casting, along with the 'meta-magic feats' that were similar to the manipulation skills used by RQ Sorcerers. Jonathon Tweet was also, very much a student of the RuneQuest rules and a lot of the design aspects came from him.

However, a rule mechanic does not make a Character Class, and their does need to be some 'clear blue water' between the Sorcerer and the Wizard to make it work. Personally, I think the best way to go is not to get boiled down in a fluff based definition of 'innate vs learned' magic, but rather simply make them spell-casters who can wear armor and utilize weapons alongside casting spontaneous magic. Effectively make them the collective 'warrior-mage' type that incorporates 'Sword-Mages', 'Hexblades' and the like. Elric would be an example of a Sorcerer to a degree (although his magic seems closer to a Warlock at times...).

The Dragon-Blooded Sorcerers already seem to be a bit like this, but it is contradicted in the core description (can't use armor, weak HD, weapon choice, etc). Make it consistent as a core class description, then allow whatever 'power source' fluff you want to add.

 

[Tovec]

See, this is why I think that the second soul design is excellent. A second soul is a form of innate magic, but in a much better way.

Wizards have (since 2E, at least) been described as having an innate ability for magic. This makes sense-- if wizard magic was only the result of study, why wouldn't every sage be an archmage? Also, if wizard magic was a learned trait only, wouldn't sorcerers make the best wizards? They already have a leg up on other mortals.

The second soul concept puts a definite, defining line between wizard and sorcerer, one that wasn't really there to begin with. I quite like it.

A few things first, neither of these statements take into account how leveling or classes work at all in DnD.

Also, the statement of every sage being an archmage is akin to saying everyone who goes to university should become a professor.

As for the sorcerers becoming the best wizards? I think that has a lot to do with the basic assumptions of how classes work and more importantly how mutliclassing works. Sorcerers MIGHT get a leg up if they were to multiclass with wizards, they might not. Just because you feel magic in you doesn't mean you can scribe scrolls that well. Put another way the football star may not be the best english major out there.

Also, I've always assumed, and perhaps falsely, that sorcerers advance as they learn more and access their own inner pools. To me that means they are devoting their time and energy to stretching and testing their limits - which in turn leads to granting more/better powers.

In that sense, if they want to be able to wear armor and get weapon training they should take levels in fighter. If they want to become a wizard then they should become a wizard. If they want to train in their own natural talents then they should stay sorcerers.

That is part of what I dislike about the most recent articles attempt at writing up sorcerers. I can see it as a force they don't necessarily understand or can't fully control but I dislike the two souls thing as I feel that is very cludgy. I love KM's description of sorcerer, but not his warlock sadly.

 

[Wulfram]

It seems kind of white wolfy

 

[GX.Sigma]

It's a cool story, but I don't want WotC to tell me what my character's story is.

All the sorcerers I've known are just sorcerers; arcane magic is just a talent they have. They don't have two souls or any of that crap. They should have that as one explanation, but don't say all sorcerers are like that (that goes for all other classes, btw).

They should change it to something like: "Some sorcerers describe their power as simply an inborn talent, which they shape and control. Some describe it as like having a second soul which takes over their body when their willpower is spent...." etc.

 

[Falling Icicle]

They should change it to something like: "Some sorcerers describe their power as simply an inborn talent, which they shape and control. Some describe it as like having a second soul which takes over their body when their willpower is spent...." etc.

Yeah, I don't mind them offering fluff suggestions, but they should keep them open-ended and up to the player and DM to define. Some sorcerers might want to have a second soul. That's cool. It just shouldn't be forced on my sorcerer. If I have another way of explaining how my sorcerer got his powers, or if I'd prefer to just leave it an enigma, I should be able to do that.

In a system that boasts its modularity as one of its main selling points, they shouldn't try to force such specific fluff on characters.

 

[Tovec]

Yeah, I don't mind them offering fluff suggestions, but they should keep them open-ended and up to the player and DM to define. Some sorcerers might want to have a second soul. That's cool. It just shouldn't be forced on my sorcerer. If I have another way of explaining how my sorcerer got his powers, or if I'd prefer to just leave it an enigma, I should be able to do that.

In a system that boasts its modularity as one of its main selling points, they shouldn't try to force such specific fluff on characters.

As much as I hate to admit it there is ultimately going to be a default explanation and you can always change that fluff. I think it is more important to get the details right than to say that I have to come up with new fluff every time. That is part of why I find the two souled sorcerer so wrong in my opinion.

 

[Sunseeker]

The concept of magic physically affecting your being is not new, and I think it's a fair thing to incorporate. As you expend your power, your inner magical nature becomes more exposed, that could encompass a lot of things, from dragons to demons to angels and old ones and everything in between.

It may be somewhat specific, but I think that adding specificity to certain classes can be beneficial.

I mean, how was the Sorcerer ever really different from the Wizard? One reads a book, the other makes things up. Aside from that, they were really pretty much the same.