That's no Sorcerer, that's a Paladin (of Bahamut) kinda.. sorta

I am 100% sure that this is only one aspect of the sorcerer and that by core we will have at least 3 such aspects to choose form.

Just like wizards will have several traditions, clerics will have several domains and rouges will have several schemes.
Agreed.

However, the L&L article suggests all sorcerers will transform. So this is a representational build. They didn't release this one of the builds by accident. They wanted to know what people thought of the idea.

Does this look like a sorcerer? Is is iconic? Does everything scream "sorcerer"? Is it as much a sorcerer as the rogue is a rogue, and the fighter is a fighter? Is it the summation and best bits of the sorcerer from all previous editions? Does it capture the flavour of the sorcerer so well you could put it in a 3e or 4e game and have everyone remark "oh yeah, that's totally a sorcerer."
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Agreed.

However, the L&L article suggests all sorcerers will transform. So this is a representational build. They didn't release this one of the builds by accident. They wanted to know what people thought of the idea.

Does this look like a sorcerer? Is is iconic? Does everything scream "sorcerer"? Is it as much a sorcerer as the rogue is a rogue, and the fighter is a fighter? Is it the summation and best bits of the sorcerer from all previous editions? Does it capture the flavour of the sorcerer so well you could put it in a 3e or 4e game and have everyone remark "oh yeah, that's totally a sorcerer."

I'll be honest, for me, this sorcerer is the best interpretation of sorcerer till now.

I always found 3e sorcerer not that different than a wizard only the sorcerer don't need to preper his spells in advance.

This sorcerer works for me.

Warder
 


I'll be honest, for me, this sorcerer is the best interpretation of sorcerer till now.

I always found 3e sorcerer not that different than a wizard only the sorcerer don't need to preper his spells in advance.

This sorcerer works for me.
I could be wrong, but you strike me as someone who isn't a big sorcerer fan. Fine. No biggie. But it's sorcerer fans, people who default to the sorcerer, people whose favorite class is the sorcerer should be the ones weighing in first and most listened to.

Just like the people who hated fighters prior to 4e may not be the go-to people when designing a fighter that spans editions, people who found the sorcerers bland wizard clones shouldn't be the target audience when designing a new sorcerer.

Ideally, there should be a midde ground, where sorcerer fans groove on the class still and acknowledge it as a worthy heir while everyone else wants to give it a try for the unique flavour.
 

I could be wrong, but you strike me as someone who isn't a big sorcerer fan. Fine. No biggie. But it's sorcerer fans, people who default to the sorcerer, people whose favorite class is the sorcerer should be the ones weighing in first and most listened to.

Just like the people who hated fighters prior to 4e may not be the go-to people when designing a fighter that spans editions, people who found the sorcerers bland wizard clones shouldn't be the target audience when designing a new sorcerer.

Ideally, there should be a midde ground, where sorcerer fans groove on the class still and acknowledge it as a worthy heir while everyone else wants to give it a try for the unique flavour.

You are right, I'm not a big Sorcerer fan, but tbh I spend my days behind the screen DMing so I haven't had time to pick a favorite class.

That being said, the fact that I'm not a sorcerer fan shouldn't make my opinion of the class irrelevant, on the contrary, both as a DM and as a Player I find the new sorcerer much more appealing than the (for me) bland class it used to be, both mechanicly and more importantly thematically and I think that as a play tester it's my right and duty to express this.

Warder
 
Last edited:

I'll be honest, for me, this sorcerer is the best interpretation of sorcerer till now.

I always found 3e sorcerer not that different than a wizard only the sorcerer don't need to preper his spells in advance.

This sorcerer works for me.

Warder

This is exactly how I feel about it, and I'll chime in with others in reminding everyone that this is just one sorcerer build. Sure, D&D has a lot of things that are set in stone as 'feeling' like D&D, but there needs to be room for new stuff as well, and this is new stuff done right. It is recognizable as a spellcaster, but it isn't just a wizard with spontaneous casting, though wotc should probably make sure that a build appears which Monica the 3e Sorcerer for people who don't like cool transformations (though I can't fathom why they wouldn't like it. )
 

I feel weird about this sorcerer too. Mechanically it's very interesting, as it reminds me of 4e Essentials Barbarian who would switch roles mid fight. Fluff-wise, it's weird because not even the warlock seem as flavor heavy as the sorcerer. I understand and accept everything they say in its description as what a sorcerer is, but it feels like extra luggage you don't need for a base class.

Or maybe it's just the flavor *in this particular build* that is too strong.

Then why not showcase another, less intense, bloodline? Well, there's no other more iconic sorcerer bloodline, is it? Wild magic is cool and all, but dragon magic is much more popular, IMO. And to be honest, I think this is the best way to show how powerful and untamed the dragon's blood is. Other bloodlines need not be so "vulgar".

Perhaps, like wizards, we need to see a sorcerer with a bit less fluff. Or they must offer so many different bloodlines that they confuse our perception of fluff in the class. You don't associate the entire fighter class with one single style, even though you're not just "a fighter" anymore, you're a "duelist fighter". This is even more pronounced in what they are doing with the cleric and all different deities/domains - it's like there's no base cleric to draw from.
 

That being said, the fact that I'm not a sorcerer fan shouldn't make my opinion of the class irrelevant, on the contrary, both as a DM and as a Player I find the new sorcerer much more appealing than the (for me) bland class it used to be, both mechanicly and more importantly thematically and I think that as a play tester it's my right and duty to express this.
It shouldn't be irrelevant, no. Your opinion should matter (and does!). But it shouldn't be the most listened to voice.
You're not meant to like every class. If there's no class for you that is a problem: if your favorite class doesn't work for you that's a deal breaker. Which is the issue; if sorcerer fans are losing their favorite class so it appeals to non-sorcerer fans the edition is failing.


There are 5 reasons the sorcerer doesn't work.

It isn't a wizard clone.
This is an issue. The sorcerer is the class for people who like wizards but dislike the default magic system. As such, it should still feel similar to a wizard. There should absolutely be differences, but they should have more in common than not.
The solution to sorcerers being too much like the wizard isn't to remove similarities but to add differences. Paladins are very similar to fighters, and the fix isn't to reduce paladin's armour and weapon choices while reducing hitpoints.

It's very tacked on.
The new sorcerer hook (transforming as spells are used) is brand new. It comes out of nowhere, having no real relation to prior sorcerers in the game or in the fiction. It's not an evolution like the fighter's mechanic or clerics channeling divinity.
Even the flavour seems like a justification. The fluff in Legends & Lore doesn't mesh with the fluff in the playtest. It reads like they added the mechanic and started changing and tweaking the story to fit the mechanic.

The unique mechanic doesn't mesh with the unique flavour.
The hook for sorcerers is that they have inborn magic. The class' unique mechanic is that they transform as resources are spent. There's no overlap.
The willpower system doesn't count, as there's likely to be an optional module that lets wizards use it. Sorcerers exist so there's a core option that uses it for players whose DM only wants to use the core.
The sorcerer's unique mechanic should directly relate to their inborn magic, to spells being instinctive to them, to magic being their heritage.

It shouldn't affect what it does
In the current iteration of the rules, bloodline determines hit dice, armour proficiency, weapon proficiency, all in addition to bonus powers.
So... granddaddy was a brass dragon so you know how to use a greatsword? That's just effed up.
I'm okay with sorcerers having higher HD than wizards (they're not bookworms). Leather armour and expanded weapons are also good. I like them having spears in 3e. But, at the same points, it shouldn't go as far as it does.

It steals the swordmage thunder.
We'll eventually have a Gish class. We need one. Whether it's a bladesinger or swordmage or duskblade or magus is irrelevant. It's a solid niche to be filled.
Forcing the sorcerer into the melee caster role does a disservice to both. It means we get a less than ideal sorcerer and a less than ideal swordmage.
It'd be like calling the war domain build of the cleric "the paladin". It does the job fine and is an adequate compromise, but no one is really happy.

This is a bit big for this thread, co-opting the OP's discussion. I really should re-post this as its own topic.
 
Last edited:

For the last time, paladins don't owe anything to the gods, their powers aren't granted by a deity, they come from the paladin's own and inexorable dedication to good and justice. The paladin need's not to follow a god, some do, but not even most. As a result there are no paladin's of bahamut or paladins of melora, or paladins of the raven queen, but rather paladins that follow a certain deity.

...in your campaign, anyhow.

For many people, you may have it exactly backwards.
 

Remove ads

Top