D&D General One thing I hate about the Sorcerer

[Chaosmancer]

My point was obvious -- there is most definitely an overlap of theme.

The theme of... religion? I don't think we need to worry about that kind of overlap, in fact, that sort of overlap is GREAT. If the only religious characters were clerics, then a game centered around a Temple Hierarchy would feature only clerics, or a cleric and a bunch of non-religious classes.

Not at all. Some are tied to Fey, Fiends, etc. no where nearly celestials.

Wut? Which Cleric domains are tied to Fey? Or Fiends for that matter. I have made clerics for fiends before, because I like that flavor, but that isn't an official option in any DnD book I've ever seen.

No, they have to deal with Death, which is related to undeath. Shadow Sorcerer have Strength of the Grave, which mimics Undead Fortitude.

I never said they were the same, I said they overlap.

Okay? Dealing with Death is also the province of the Necromancer, the Phantom Rogue, The Spirits Bard, and Ancestral Guardian Barbarian then... and "Death" is such a broad theme, again I struggle to see the problem? Heck, you also have the Shadar-Kai, The Reborn and the Dhampir which are racial options that can deal with Death as a thematic element. We shouldn't be reducing this type of overlap, this is the good type of overlap.

What other possibilities are there? The patron is involved in granting you more magic as you advance, or they aren't. Seems fairly binary to me.

Because you simplified to be binary.

Is the patron directly involved in granting you all your magic as you advance?
Is the patron not directly involved in granting you all your magic as you advance?
Is the patron indirectly involved in granting you all your magic as you advance?
Is the patron directly involved in granting you some your magic as you advance?
Did the patron send a servant to grant you some magic as you advance, but next level you have figured out something they didn't want you to know?
Did a patron's rival grant you some magic as you advance?

I can break this into more and more questions, are some of these things even possible? What about gaining magic from magical items that you picked up? What about your allies teaching you something?

You seem to constantly want to simplify things into having only one or two possible explanations or options, and I think that goes against the very thing that makes DnD work as DnD.

Which is why I put them in parenthesis, bolded, and a different color. And the connections are not misrepresented.

The point is one possible origin for sorcerer is interaction with an Entity. The magic is put in their blood by that Entity or that interaction. I never said they are the same sort of thing, only that each of the four has an Entity involved in how they have magic. You're inferring a lot, to be honest.

I am directly responding to your post. If channeling from a different entity or channeling from yourself are both "an entity is involved in how they have magic" then... every casting class has an entity involved. Wizards are involved in how they have magic, because they are the one who studied magic, therefore they are involved.

You need distinctions, or everything just becomes a singular category.

FOR THE LAST TIME: I am NOT "claiming" the bloodline HAS to come from an Entity. IT IS ONE POSSIBLE OPTION OUTSIDE OF THE EVENT, which is also there, and you seem to be focusing on to the exlusion of the Entity option. Both exist. Whether the Entity deals directly with the sorcerer or with an ancestor, it is there in those cases.

It isn't a problem except the one you keep imposing on this discussion. I mean, really, READ MY POSTS! Stop trying to think you know what I am saying and take my post at its value. Sorcerer orgins come from two possible sources: ENTITY or EVENT (heck, possibly a mix of the two LOL!).

Sigh... which I never claimed it was. You inferred it.

It isn't a weak distinction at all. I have been talking about both possibilities since the beginning. Also, not all sorcerers are "born" with power, even from an Entity. A sorcerer CAN be the first of their bloodline with that Entity.

A solar might bless a peasant with power, making that peasant a Sorcerer, for some brave deed they did. They are now a Divine Soul sorcerer and the first of their bloodline to have it. See? ENTITY.

It is a weak point that you hinged on the "if". Let us go back to the original post.

The "event" is the key to the sorcerer. I would like to think if the event is an encounter with an entity, from whom you or your ancestor received magic, how does this differ from the Pact of the Warlock? I know it *can, the question is HOW???

So, IF the event is an encounter with an entity how does that differ from a Warlock Pact. Now sure, both exist, both exist, both exist. I get now that I missed your "if" and originally read your post as " I would like to think the event is an encounter with an entity" which is wear my original refutation came from. But that doesn't make it better, just a different problem.

So, let us take that example you gave. A peasant does a brave deed, and a Solar descends from the Celestial Realms and blesses them with power. How is this different than a warlock pact?

Well... if someone stopped you on the street, and gave you a check for 1 million dollars, how is that different from seeking out a venture capitalist, convincing them to enter into a business contract with you, signing an enforceable legal document, and then them giving you 1 million dollars based on the conditions of that legal document?

I would imagine the difference is... fairly obvious? The person who was just handed 1 million dollars is under no obligation to do anything with that money, they didn't ask for it, they didn't agree to use it for any particular purpose, they might not even want it and consider it a burden on their lives because of how disruptive it would be. They could resent the person who gave them that money enough to spend some of it acting against that person, because the money led to a schism in their family and the loss of their best friend. But none of those things make sense for the person who SOUGHT OUT that money and SIGNED A CONTRACT.

You keep presenting these things as though, as long as any two sentient beings are involved in the exchange, it is basically the same situation. But it isn't. That peasant sorcerer can't go to the Solar and demand they revive their daughter, because the angel promised they would be safe... because the angel never promised them anything. They gave them a gift. And if that gift ruined their life... then the angel is under no responsibility to even care about that. But a warlock has a pact, they have a legal agreement, they have promises and duties.

And sure, you COULD add an agreement to the story of the peasant sorcerer, but at a certain point, you are doing the equivalent of saying you offered someone a basket of strawberries, because you provided a gallon drum of fruit salad and that has strawberries in it. The sorcerer covers SO MANY concepts, and even if you allowed a pact between a sorcerer and another entity to make someone into a sorcerer, you've diluted the themes to the point that they barely exist.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Which is unfortunate to me. That's a balancing mechanism lost.

Balance is not obtained by making people guess how many times they will need to cast silence in a day. It just makes all the problems people have with cookie cutter classes and cookie cutter spell selection worse.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Gotta admit, I could make a very strong case if I wanted that cleric should be a "white robe caster" class and the druid a half-caster (with a shaman/green witch full primal caster). The warrior of faith is already filled by the paladin.

I think they're fine as is, but I could argue that if we're going for internal consistency, they should both be stripped of either their martial prowess or full casting.

Well, ironically, one of the principal reasons I’m against discarding the sorcerer is that the Divine Soul is the principal way to play the “white magic caster without combat training” archetype.

 

[Remathilis]

I explained that already. Clerics (and druids) have a more limited spell list thematically. And honestly both are getting a little too crowded for my tastes anyway. Themed subsets of the greater divine list would suit me better, so neither class has full access to everything a cleric or druid could possibly cast.

And yet, we want to remove the only three arcane classes with spells known and have them be part of the "learn every spell in the game" wizard class.

If you want D&D to be balanced, kill the wizard and keep the sorcerer, warlock and bard. There is virtually no overlap in their spell lists and they are limited to choosing fixed lists at level. Get rid of the "give me 24 hours and I'll cast a Fix Problem spell" wizard.

 

[Remathilis]

Well, ironically, one of the principal reasons I’m against discarding the sorcerer is that the Divine Soul is the principal way to play the “white magic caster without combat training” archetype.

Yes, I love divine soul white mages.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I explained that already. Clerics (and druids) have a more limited spell list thematically. And honestly both are getting a little too crowded for my tastes anyway. Themed subsets of the greater divine list would suit me better, so neither class has full access to everything a cleric or druid could possibly cast.

Tell that to Arcana, Tempest and Light clerics, who all have extremely strong spell lists. Honestly, with the exception of the trait that allows bards to grab 2 spells from other lists, the bard’s spell list is pretty restricted.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Thank you for your permission.



See, it is difficult to even disagree with you, because this is all so vague. What is a "very diverse spell list"? Most Bards I see take the same few spells, with minor variations, so their list doesn't seem very diverse to me. How is simple weapons plus finesse swords and the longsword "decent" weapon proficiency? They lack access to the best melee weapons, but even wizards can get a d8 melee weapon and a d8 ranged weapon, is it just the Rapier that makes it decent? Why is their limitation to light armor (less than the druid and cleric) not a mark against them for melee?

And I disagree that it strengthens their narrative to be even better at fighting in melee, but worse at spells. But that is likely because I disagree with you about what their narrative even is.



Clerics need twice the spells on their list that they currently have. Every cleric ends up with the same limited list, because they have so few spell options per spell level, and most of them are situational. I'm not saying they lack power, I'm saying they lack options, getting the fewest options out of every full caster in the game.



Not because they are so popular, but because the wizard flavor is so weak. There are only two things that the wizard has going for them in terms of flavor. 1) They study magic, 2) They have a spellbook.

Well, if you give them innate magic, then they no longer need to study magic. They can be born naturally talented, meaning the single thing defining the wizard is their spellbook... a thing that already gets practically written out of a large percentage of wizard characters. You would be left with nothing that actually makes a wizard different from anything else, and the wizard would be reduced to nothing. The class name would be gone, the story of studying magic without an innate talent would be gone, and the spellbook would be a vestigial organ most tables forget about.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. I don't agree with your view on any of these points.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Which is unfortunate to me. That's a balancing mechanism lost.

I'm sure with some group think we can bring back Vancian. Perhaps I'll start a thread.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Balance is not obtained by making people guess how many times they will need to cast silence in a day. It just makes all the problems people have with cookie cutter classes and cookie cutter spell selection worse.

Well, good thing for you they stopped using it then. Others feel differently, and their opinions are just as valid.

 

[Scribe]

Balance is not obtained by making people guess how many times they will need to cast silence in a day. It just makes all the problems people have with cookie cutter classes and cookie cutter spell selection worse.

Sure it is, you have to plan, and your resources are constrained by the choices made.