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

[Primal]

The notable thing for me when reading through the Sorcerer is that, in some ways, it feels more like a 'Race' than a Class. The whole Dragon-blood is overemphasized in my view, and it would be interesting to see some alternative 'bloods' for Sorcerers. Personally, I want to see a 'Chaos Sorcerer'.

Interesting... I'm not participating in the playtest, so I don't know how the bloodline features work at this point. However, I know how the bloodlines and bloodline feats work in Pathfinder and 3E (respectively). In fact, it sounds like the (sorcerer) bloodlines in PF might be to your liking. Add in the archetypes (i.e. "kits" or templates that replace some features and spells with others) and you can have a lot of variations of the same class.

I'm sure Meals & co. have paid attention to how the sorcerers work in PF, and I would be surprised if there won't be more bloodlines in the final rules.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

No, you're not reading what I am saying. I am not saying that Charisma pertains to physical attractiveness. I am saying that Charisma denotes personal magnetism and appeal. You can't have magnetism and be repulsive. Indeed I'd like to play a sorcerer so repulsive that they are forced to live in exile as a recluse.

Charisma in post 3rd edition D&D isn't personal magnetism and appeal. It is force of personality, and that can take many forms including personal magnetism and appeal, but it can also include being naturally intimidating.

I have to ask why your sorcerer is repulsive. What is forcing him into exile? Do people fear his powers do to rumors and tales? Did he do something that scared others? Why?

 

[TrippyHippy]

Charisma in post 3rd edition D&D isn't personal magnetism and appeal. It is force of personality, and that can take many forms including personal magnetism and appeal, but it can also include being naturally intimidating.

I have to ask why your sorcerer is repulsive. What is forcing him into exile? Do people fear his powers do to rumors and tales? Did he do something that scared others? Why?

The magic pumping through his veins is making him repulsive. It's turning him into something unnatural and unnerving to behold or be around. Ordinary folk naturally are repulsed and disturbed by his presence, and are unlikely to be sympathetic to his wishes and concerns.

Charisma as a stat is still the basis for reaction rolls, yes?

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

The magic pumping through his veins is making him repulsive. It's turning him into something unnatural and unnerving to behold or be around. Ordinary folk naturally are repulsed and disturbed by his presence, and are unlikely to be sympathetic to his wishes and concerns.

Charisma as a stat is still the basis for reaction rolls, yes?

Reaction rolls don't exist in post-3rd D&D.

The mechanical way you could represent this "repulsion" in Next is to have the Sorcerer Passively Intimidate everyone. A Sorcerer with a Cha 17 would have in effect a DC 13 (or 16 if trained in Intimidate) "Fear Aura".

 

[The Shadow]

I've got no problem with the draconic heritage, I just wish they'd given us another one to compare it with.

I'm hoping there is at least one sorcerer origin that, instead of physical transformation, makes their magic get more wild and dangerous as their Willpower runs low. That's how I've always pictured them in my head.

(My ideal sorcerer would be one that has to make a check of some kind to get a spell off properly, but I don't think we're going to see that happen.)

I'm also hoping that not all heritages share the same spell list we're seeing. I could totally see a fey-bloodline sorcerer that was all about the illusions and enchantments instead of blasting.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Reaction rolls don't exist in post-3rd D&D.

The mechanical way you could represent this "repulsion" in Next is to have the Sorcerer Passively Intimidate everyone. A Sorcerer with a Cha 17 would have in effect a DC 13 (or 16 if trained in Intimidate) "Fear Aura".

Is the ability to charm, persuade, impress and appeal to people who the characters meet no longer associated with Charisma? If not, then the Charisma Ability is bluntly not Charisma anymore.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

Is the ability to charm, persuade, impress and appeal to people who the characters meet no longer associated with Charisma? If not, then the Charisma Ability is bluntly not Charisma anymore.

Charisma still has an influence on those things, but the rules for doing such things were moved from a "reaction roll" and into skills during 3rd edition.

3.X had these charisma based skills (i.e. the skill uses d20+skill ranks+charisma bonus to determine success):

• Bluff - The skill to trick others into believing thing that are not necessarily true. Was also used for feinting in combat.
• Diplomacy - The skill in persuading and influencing attitudes positively.
• Disguise - The skill used to disguise someone.
• Gather Information - The ability to find out what was the word on the street.
• Handle Animal - The skill to control, train and teach animals.
• Intimidate - The skill used to scare others into doing what you wanted them to do. Some feats grant the users with sufficient ranks things like Fear Auras.
• Perform - The ability to use various styles of performance in order to charm, appeal, impress and inspire. Broken up into multiple styles. Was the basis of the Bard's Bardic Music abilities.
• Use Magic Device - The ability to trick magic items into activating even if you did not normally qualify to use them.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Is the ability to charm, persuade, impress and appeal to people who the characters meet no longer associated with Charisma? If not, then the Charisma Ability is bluntly not Charisma anymore.

Sure... those are part of what Charisma can add its modifier to. But those are for characters who 1) consider his Charisma to have an element of charm and stature to it... and 2) actually HAVE those abilities in the first place.

Charisma is made up of MANY different elements, but not every character HAS all the elements in their character. Same way that Dexterity has a part in determining how physically agile you are AND how much manual dexterity you have. But a character with high DEX doesn't necessarily have both... because the easiest way to determine it is whether a high-DEX character has skills like Sleight of Hand. No Sleight of Hand? No guarantee the character has preternatual fine motor skills. Now, yes... he MIGHT... but since no abilities the character has specifically highlights it... the player is free to say whether his PC has it or doesn't.

Same way for you. Your sorcerer might be repulsive and have no appeal or charm or personal magnetism whatsoever... even with a high CHA. Because if you don't have any skills or spells or abilities which use charm or magentism or appeal, then obviously that's not a facet of the wide-open CHA ability that your sorcerer has. Instead, yours might be entirely made up of strong sense of self, a massively horrifying presence that causes people to stare in abject horror or awe, and the ability to influence people and get them to do what you want purely out of fear. Those all all valid interpretations of what Charisma covers... so its just a matter of using whatever parts of the abilities make the most sense.

Or of course you could just do what most people would end up doing in your situation and just making an agreement with the DM that in this one specific case... your character's prime attribute is CON rather than CHA. Because really at the end of the day... it doesn't matter what ANY class's prime attribute is, if the DM is fine with swapping them out.

 

[Starbuck_II]

Furthermore, we don't see anything about Dragon heritage providing innate casting and giving extra armor and weapon proficiencies.

Why wouldn't dragon heritage do that?
a. Dragons innately cast spells. They have in almost every edition (maybe not 4E when they just had spell-like abilities).
They didn't have a spellbook in 2E so they were Sorcerers not wizard.
b. Why wouldn't you train in armor if you want to emulate your bloodline.

The sorcerer gets the innate desire to make his armored like scales (heavy armor) and sharpen his claws and fangs (martial weapon proficiency), what ele if he doing in his youth?

He doesn't train or study for his magic, his magic is innate.

 

[Greg K]

Why wouldn't dragon heritage do that?
a. Dragons innately cast spells. They have in almost every edition (maybe not 4E when they just had spell-like abilities).
They didn't have a spellbook in 2E so they were Sorcerers not wizard.
b. Why wouldn't you train in armor if you want to emulate your bloodline.

The sorcerer gets the innate desire to make his armored like scales (heavy armor) and sharpen his claws and fangs (martial weapon proficiency), what ele if he doing in his youth?

He doesn't train or study for his magic, his magic is innate.

No, there is still no direct correlation. "I can, innately, cast magic" does not equate to " I go train in armor and weapons, because I can innately cast magic". Some characters may. Others may not. That is a character background decision made by players within the confines of a DMs individual campaign setting.