D&D General One thing I hate about the Sorcerer

[James Gasik]

Here's a random but related question.

When you play, do you prefer characters who adhere to tropes, or do you prefer characters who violate them?

Likewise, what do you prefer when you're DMing?

I love playing against type or having unique characters. I mean, I'm currently playing a Wizard who thinks they're a Cleric and calls their spellbook a "prayer book" and has even managed to acquire a spell that can restore hit points (Bardo, from Deep Magic by Kobold Press), in addition to their "bind wounds" spell (actually the Healer Feat). I've played Halfling Barbarians and Gnome Fighter/Priests, and in 4e had an Eladrin hybrid Blackguard Paladin/Warlock who both worshiped and made a Pact with Corellon Larethian (making the argument Corellon is effectively an Archfey).

I love it when my players get creative as well.

 

[MoonSong]

I love playing against type or having unique characters. I mean, I'm currently playing a Wizard who thinks they're a Cleric and calls their spellbook a "prayer book" and has even managed to acquire a spell that can restore hit points (Bardo, from Deep Magic by Kobold Press), in addition to their "bind wounds" spell (actually the Healer Feat). I've played Halfling Barbarians and Gnome Fighter/Priests, and in 4e had an Eladrin hybrid Blackguard Paladin/Warlock who both worshiped and made a Pact with Corellon Larethian (making the argument Corellon is effectively an Archfey).

I love it when my players get creative as well.

It really depends, not all tropes are the same. Some are more inspiring and some are more trite and played off or just less interesting. I sometimes like to play against type, sometimes I just look for the class that helps me the best to play a trope, and some times I just want to play the character without thinking if I'm fulfilling or breaking a platonic ideal.

That's part of what I like about the sorcerer, there are next to no mandatory trappings. One can take as little or as much as one wants from the class, and that means there are plain more characters possible than outside the class.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Here's a random but related question.

When you play, do you prefer characters who adhere to tropes, or do you prefer characters who violate them?

Likewise, what do you prefer when you're DMing?

Depends on my mood, well as a player it does. DM I tend to stick more to tropes, just because it is quicker and easier. But I also like throwing curveballs to catch people off-guard. If the obvious thing is that the princess would be bold and adventurous, constrained by her title... then I might make her actually love her position and the finer niceties of social maneuvering, while still being brash and bold in a different way.

I also like to mix tropes. I had a paladin who was a huge "patriot" for his city, so he had elements of the football fan and the freedom fighter mixed in with him being a cop. And generally, I've found, by mixing tropes you can end up with some interesting things that only sort of break tropes. Like a Totem barbarian orc who is a shaman and scholar, it technically doesn't break the scholar tropes, but it is a half-step to the left of what people expect to see.

 

[ezo]

Here's a random but related question.

When you play, do you prefer characters who adhere to tropes, or do you prefer characters who violate them?

Likewise, what do you prefer when you're DMing?

TROPE TROPE TROPE!!!

Well, to a point. I am happy for players to go against tropes in a way that feels plausible. What I don't like are PCs who are made just to be silly or completely out of place in the fantasy world-- I find them to be distracting more than amusing.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Here's a random but related question.

When you play, do you prefer characters who adhere to tropes, or do you prefer characters who violate them?

Likewise, what do you prefer when you're DMing?

trope subversions are basically as common as playing things straight nowadays it seems so i'm going to have to go with adhering to them, 'there are no new ideas' and all that, but even considering that i think i do lean more to playing things vaguely towards tropes than away from them.

though your choice of the word trope does puzzle me slightly to what you actually intended to ask with this question, tropes can be many many things.

 

[TwoSix]

trope subversions are basically as common as playing things straight nowadays it seems so i'm going to have to go with adhering to them, 'there are no new ideas' and all that, but even considering that i think i do lean more to playing things vaguely towards tropes than away from them.

though your choice of the word trope does puzzle me slightly to what you actually intended to ask with this question, tropes can be many many things.

You could substitute "classic archetype" instead, I suppose.

Playing to trope, as an example, would be the wise cleric of the sun god, who heals and uses a morningstar and plate armor. Playing against trope would be the atheistic cleric whose power comes internal belief and who likes to cast fireball.

 

[ezo]

Playing against trope would be the atheistic cleric whose power comes internal belief and who likes to cast fireball.

Aren't those called Sorcerers???

 

[TwoSix]

Aren't those called Sorcerers???

That's the question of the thread, isn't it?

 

[ezo]

That's the question of the thread, isn't it?

LOL! Touché!!!

 

[Minigiant]

Concerning this whole "pact" issue, I think there is a difference here that perhaps is being overlooked?

Pact (big "P") = Warlock

vs.

pact (small "p") = Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer

The difference being what your PC is "given" and I think lacking a firm distinction between the two is a bit of a failing by the designers.

IME Warlocks, for instance, should really have their patron directly involved with the PC. The two made a bargain, magical knowledge and power for "occasional services performed on the patron's behalf." How often and in what way the patron communitates with their warlock depends on the relationship between the two and the vision created by player and DM.

Sorcerers, on the other hand, have many ways in which magic was infused into their being. In the case of the Draconic Bloodline, being the first of a bloodline might involve a pact (again, small "p") or bargain as well. If your PC is the "first of a new bloodline", and you are actually playing your PC as a sorcerer, then the bargain has either been satisfied or perhaps needs to be (like part of the first adventure!). Either way, the magic is in your blood now, and can't be removed (at least not easily...). Of course, the dragon could always "enforce" the bargain if you welch--in which case your PC won't have a long adventuring career.

Over all, Sorcerers (if they have a "pact") due to their bloodline, already have the magic and it the bargain is likely done, but Warlock have an on-going arrangement with their Patron. Finally, Patrons are other-worldly beings, which depending on how you run your game, dragons usually aren't.

That's my take, anyway.

I think the big issue is that the 5e designers refused to call out the Warlock Pact as a specific thing.

In 3e and 4e, the warlock pact as specifically a different type of magic. It was stil arcane but it "lorewise" followed different rules. It is the monk of the arcane, an alternate path with alternate rules.

5e refused to call it out as a loophole magic or its own subsystem. It tries to lets you have the cake (play a different resource system) and eat it too (roleplay is as a cleric or wizard). So you ended up with people having pacts with the importance of the pact being part of them.

Sorcerers lack a pact altogether as the thing holding thier power together. A sorcerer is just pumped up with magic.