D&D 5E Truly Understanding the Martials & Casters discussion (+)

[Crimson Longinus]

And I'm still gonna argue against that point. Warlock and Sorcerer being mechanically similar was the mistake, the thematic ideas of what they represent are so far-flung from each other they shouldn't even be vaguely recognisable as one another.

They're not. The pact is vague and usually useless fluff. They both gain supernatural power from connection to a magical being. The exact nature of that connection doesn't need to be rigidly defined to a degree that it results a full separate class.

Merging them into one just erodes away a case for future expression and flavour, because your concept for "I am born of celestials and can call on my bloodline, sprouting forth wings and going full on DO NOT FEAR" also has to fit "I made a deal with a celestial and can fire a few thematic spells as a consequence" so you lose the impact in needing to make it generic.

Yeah, those don't need to be different.

But, of course, this drags us back to "Dropping Playtest Sorcerer was a mistake"

Probably. Currently the mechanics of sorcerer and warlock are wrong way around. If they are to be separate classes, the mechanics should be swapped! Sorcerer, as inherently magical being should have rapidly recharging magic and always on magical effects (like those wings you mention would make a perfect sense as an invocation) and Warlock as a person who has acquired magical cheat codes should be the one who can make their spells to do things that they're not normally meant to do!

 

[Mecheon]

If they are to be separate classes, the mechanics should be swapped! Sorcerer, as inherently magical being should have rapidly recharging magic and always on magical effects (like those wings you mention would make a perfect sense as an invocation) and Warlock as a person who has acquired magical cheat codes should be the one who can make their spells to do things that they're not normally meant to do!

See, I was just gonna start banging the "Sorcerer should be Con based" drum (And also slip in my normal "Sorcerers should transform to vaguely resemble whatever they got their power from as they level up" bias)

But I will freely admit 13th Age's approach to the sorcerer has very much coloured my worldview

 

[DND_Reborn]

"Sorcerer should be Con based"

They should have been from the start...

 

[FrogReaver]

See, I was just gonna start banging the "Sorcerer should be Con based" drum (And also slip in my normal "Sorcerers should transform to vaguely resemble whatever they got their power from as they level up" bias)

But I will freely admit 13th Age's approach to the sorcerer has very much coloured my worldview

They should have been from the start...

That's something I'd push back very hard on. IMO no class should be Con based in a game that ties Con to hp in the way that 5e does.

 

[DND_Reborn]

That's something I'd push back very hard on. IMO no class should be Con based in a game that ties Con to hp in the way that 5e does.

CON shouldn't add to hp, but that is a different issue. Once you remove CON from adding to hp, Sorcerers based on CON works fine.

Frankly, it worked fine even before we removed the link between hp and CON, but is even better now.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

CON shouldn't add to hp, but that is a different issue. Once you remove CON from adding to hp, Sorcerers based on CON works fine.

Frankly, it worked fine even before we removed the link between hp and CON, but is even better now.

If Con doesn't contribute to HP, you can remove Con from the game. It's basically its main purpose.

 

[DND_Reborn]

If Con doesn't contribute to HP, you can remove Con from the game. It's basically its main purpose.

A conversation best left for another thread. If you wish to discuss it further, feel free to PM me.

 

[FrogReaver]

CON shouldn't add to hp, but that is a different issue. Once you remove CON from adding to hp, Sorcerers based on CON works fine.

That’s true but it’s rather backwards IMO. You design classes based on the systems you have. You don’t design classes and then figure out what attributes linked to all classes mean.

Frankly, it worked fine even before we removed the link between hp and CON, but is even better now.

Is this a 4e reference? If so 4e didn’t link con and hp the same way as 5e.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Is this a 4e reference? If so 4e didn’t link con and hp the same way as 5e.

No. I never played 4E or even seen much of it.

 

[FrogReaver]

No. I never played 4E or even seen much of it.

What was it a reference to?