It is not a sorcerer, it's a completely new class

[Greg K]

The Pathfinder SRD lists 34 bloodlines for sorcerers, with another 10 from 3rd parties. That seems to me to imply far more potential flexibility in player concept and DM campaign design than seen in most classes.

Umbran, it looks as if you were responding while I was editing my post for clarification. One issue that I have with the Draconic Heritage presented is the same issue that I have with Pathfinder. Unlike, 3e heritage feats, they are not as flexible by default. The heritage feats allowed a player of a given heritage to take some, all, or none of the heritage abilities as they leveled. Players could choose something a different feat or, with the exception of the initial feat, take a feat after the minimum level at which it the feat was available. This gives more flexibility in individual character growth and than the hard prescribed powers at a specific levels of the Dragon Heritage or Pathfinder bloodilnes (which, to myself, often seemed to be too arbitrary and would have been better with more options for individual heritages).

A cite on that assertion would be good, 'cause I haven't seen such a statement.

As for casting and unique classes, it is not set in stone, but the following is from Rule of Three 6/26:

In D&D Next, will a different spellcasting system likely be attached the wizard, or to a different class?

For the moment, we're looking at big structural changes (like, for instance, how a character casts spells) likely requires a different character class. While we are definitely excited about the idea of having different ways of casting spells, we also want to make sure that our classes stay balanced and functioning as intended. Plus, it makes it a bit tougher to predict how other game elements (like feats, for example) interact with a class when that class's fundamental mechanics change. In the other direction, we think "alternate spellcasting method" is a strong enough hook to give a class a large portion of its mechanical identity, and again we can really make sure that the class is behaving in a unique, balanced way if we focus all of our efforts on that class's core mechanics.

 

[Greg K]

So? That's what happens with all classes, in all games. Maybe my Rogues don't stab people in the back. Maybe my Warlocks don't make pacts with otherworldly beings. Maybe my Clerics don't hate undead. Maybe my Druids can't change shape..

If your Warlock does not make pacts, use another class. I have already stated elsewhere that innate casting Warlocks like those in Charmed are closer to Sorcerer since their power is innate from family heritage.

And for the Draconic Heritage Sorcerer, the game already has mechanics that can, specifically, cover a sorcererwith additional background training in armor and weapons- backgrounds and specialties. With a simple Battle Sorcerer background and/or specialty, a player can have his or her martial sorcerer regardless of heritage while leaving the default class heritages as non-martial caster.

 

[DogBackward]

If your Warlock does not make pacts, use another class. I have already stated elsewhere that innate casting Warlocks like those in Charmed are closer to Sorcerer since their power is innate from family heritage.

And for the Draconic Heritage Sorcerer, the game already has mechanics that can, specifically, cover a sorcererwith additional background training in armor and weapons- backgrounds and specialties. With a simple Battle Sorcerer background and/or specialty, a player can have his or her martial sorcerer regardless of heritage while leaving the default class heritages as non-martial caster.

"If your Dragon Sorcerer does not use armor and weapons, use another class." Specialties and Backgrounds cover Pacts just as well as they'd cover proficiencies. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to use only the Fighter, Rogue, Wizard and Cleric (or even Adept, Expert and Warrior) and just cover everything else with Backgrounds and Specialties. But as long as we're going to have distinct classes with special abilities, you're going to have to deal with the fact that some of those abilities might not fit with the exact concept you have in mind.

 

[Blackwarder]

People get too hung up on names.

You realize that if every time they make a change that isn't perfectly consistent with someone's idea of that name, they also have to change the name, they'll rapidly run out of iconic names?

Plus, it doesn't seem at all like something new entirely. They're taking a bit of the fluff they started with, and making it actually *mean* something - a tactic shown to be extremely successful and interesting in Pathfinder.

In 3e, "sorcerer" is pretty much just "spontaneously casting wizard". That's *boring*, and insufficiently differentiated from the Wizard to merit inclusion on its own - you should not need an entirely new class just for purposes of having a slightly different spell resource mechanic! If they plan to work modularity such that "spontaneously casting wizard" will fit under "wizard", then the sorcerer name is freed up to be something different.

Can't XP you, but I agree with all of it.

Personally, I'm thrilled with the new sorcerer. Both mechanicly and with the class concept.

Warder

 

[Greg K]

"If your Dragon Sorcerer does not use armor and weapons, use another class." Specialties and Backgrounds cover Pacts just as well as they'd cover proficiencies. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to use only the Fighter, Rogue, Wizard and Cleric (or even Adept, Expert and Warrior) and just cover everything else with Backgrounds and Specialties. But as long as we're going to have distinct classes with special abilities, you're going to have to deal with the fact that some of those abilities might not fit with the exact concept you have in mind.

And, yet, you did nothing to address that point that I made regarding there already being mechanics that handles additional training due to background- they are called backgrounds and feats. I, however, gave you a mechanical reason why a non pact Warlocks could be a sorcerer depending upon spellcasting mechanics.

A heritage is supposed to be a bloodline. As such, there is no reason not to use the existing background system for a player that wants a sorcerer with martial training- bloodlines don't inherently provide training.
a. A Battle Sorcerer background would allow any sorcerer to be a martial sorcerer regardless of heritage (as per Unearthed Unearthed Arcana battle sorcerer) if a player wants to pursue that option while remaining consistent with mechanics that exist.
b. It allows for Dragon Heritage sorcerers to be non martial as per 3e sorcerer rather than forcing it into a warrior niche.

 

[avin]

Judging how popular Dragon Disciple was at 3E I'm not surprised they went that way.

But add me as one of "we need more transformation types" dudes.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

There real problem here is one that I pointed out over a year ago: All the good, established names for something vaguely wizard-like have been hijacked in recent culture to mean something very much in keeping with the D&D wizard idea--potent spellcaster in robes. This is despite the fact that not all of these names are necessarily associated with such an archetype.

Now maybe "sorcerer" is not the best one to repurpose, but then which one do you pick? My choice was "witch" when I last brought that up, but that has its own issues. "Gish" stinks! I guess we could go way back and call all fighter/mages "elves". "Loremaster" would be a good choice, if people can get over that lousy 3E prestige class making it a sage synonym. How about "druid"? That's more of a priest/wizard mix in myth, and really should be used for that. "Bard"? Well, if we can get back to "wizard-like guy in a martial culture who can wield weapons and magic" and relegate the "alternate tricky guy" stuff to illusion instead of rogue abilties. If not those, nominate something better that isn't more of the "compound name" silliness.

No matter what you pick, it has implications for other classes. Let's not pretend like it doesn't.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

And, yet, you did nothing to address that point that I made regarding there already being mechanics that handles additional training due to background- they are called backgrounds and feats. ...

A heritage is supposed to be a bloodline. As such, there is no reason not to use the existing background system for a player that wants a sorcerer with martial training- bloodlines don't inherently provide training.

Um, what? A background is three trained skills plus a non-combat feat. Maybe you mean specialty?

a. A Battle Sorcerer background would any sorcerer to be a martial sorcerer regardless of heritage (as per Unearthed Unearthed Arcana battle sorcerer) if a player wants to pursue that option while remaining consistent with mechanics that exist.
b. It allows for Dragon Heritage sorcerers to be non martial as per 3e sorcerer rather than forcing it into a warrior niche.

This would make even less sense than replacing Cleric Domains with specialties.

Your origin determines your HP progression, weapon and armor proficiencies, physical attack bonus, and one (pseudo)spell per spell level - at the very least. That's way too much stuff to cram into a two-feat series, and it's way too sorcerer-specific anyway.

And the draconic origin is actually incredibly well-knit anyway. The bonus spells and effects from spending Willpower are all carefully designed both to seem draconic and to make you a sweet gish. How would it make sense for a feyborn battle-sorcerer to have a breath weapon or spontaneously gain elemental resistance?

The sub-kits they've built into each class are pretty clever, IMO: they allow for more flexibility within each class than feats and skills would organically achieve, and then allow you to further customize on top of that. So as it stands now, you can play a draconic sorcerer defender, or a draconic sorcerer magic-user, or whatever. You couldn't do that if the martial aspect of the draconic sorcerer was separated out into a specialty.

And as a final note, what exactly makes a sorcerer "draconic" without the claws and scales and breath weapons? If he plays exactly like a typical wizard but with spontaneous casting, why wouldn't you just take the most vanilla d4-HP cloth-armor sorcerer origin and have your character talk a lot about the blood of dragons boiling in his veins?

 

[Falling Icicle]

My post that you quoted was in reference to armor and weapon training granted by the dragon heritage which is a separate issue from the manifestation (with which I also have issue).
For my tastes, as long as the additional armor and weapon training are built in to the Draconic heritage, it will not be fine. I am not saying not to have the option of a martial sorcerer. I like the concept and was a fan of the battle sorcerer from Unearthed Arcana. However, martial training should be a background decision that some dragon heritage sorcerers, logically, may or may not pursue. Therefore, pull out the additional armor and weapon training and create a background that grants that training, create a new Arcane Warror class, or both. This leaves the player the choice and also allows other sorcerers to also pursue martial training or not as fits the individual character regardless of heritage.

I agree with this. I'd rather weapon and armor proficiency not be a part of any bloodline/origin. If I want to play a battle sorcerer, I should be able to do so with specialties/feats regardless of what my sorcerer's heritage is. Likewise, the same option should be available to wizards. Isn't that what specialties are for? By making this part of the draconic bloodline, they're basically forcing anyone who wants to play a "gish" into playing a sorcerer and picking the draconic bloodline. I don't like that at all.

 

[Jester David]

* Spellpoint system? Excellent.
* Extra powers tied to decreasing willpower? Very cool. Perfect in fact.
* Powers tied to bloodlines, like claws and dragonbreath? It works and, very Pathfinder. Not perfect, but works.
* Higher hit dice? Okay, I'll buy a d6 for sorcerers (they're not bookworms) and a d8 for dragon heritage. Dragons be tough.
* Second soul favour and mandatory shapeshifting? A little out of nowhere, which is odd for an edition trying to be the "best of" edition. Bit of a retconned for, well, every sorcerer in the fiction or game.
* Melee weaons, and heavy armour? Here's where the line is crossed. Sorcerers just don't strike me as the gish class. Extra weapons sure, but not as many as they have. And while I'd buy leather, scale or plate is a bit much.