Vaalingrade
Legend
I like how the complaint was mostly that there was one thing sorcerer's had that wizards hadn't taken from them... and it turns out they already lost being born to magic in part ten years ago.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D General One thing I hate about the Sorcerer
- Thread starter cbwjm
- Start date
Remathilis
Legend
The thing is, D&D has expanded a lot of the tropes in ways that allow some interesting ways. The Atheist priest whose throws divine fire could be a light cleric, or a divine soul sorcerer, or a celestial warlock, or even a wildfire druid. And none of those tropes are wrong per se, just nontraditional expressions of the concept. And I think that's fine, as long as the concept isn't designed to be a joke or a meme.
ezo
Where is that Singe?
Yep, this is the type of stuff that kills the concept for me.
TwoSix
"Diegetics", by L. Ron Gygax
And I agree with that. But it has sounded in this thread that some people might view playing a mechanical light cleric as concept wise something closer to a sorcerer wouldn’t be happy with that in their game.
Crimson Longinus
Legend
In a class based game I really want the classes to mean something in universe too. If classes are just arbitrary mechanical packages you can fluff however, then I rather not have them at all. This doesn't mean you need to be a stereotype, but I want one class to have coherent metaphysics for their powers and stick to that. So if you're cleric, you're channelling power of a god or some such, if you're a wizard, your power comes from mastering arcane formulae etc.
Remathilis
Legend
I can see that. I got really annoyed when looking for a psion and get told "just play a sorcerer and call it psionic." Classes should mean something, but I also feel they should not be straightjackets. I would not want to go back to a 2e-level where classes had specific role-playing elements to it (such as paladin, druid, or ranger).
Remathilis
Legend
Again, I don't think it's all or nothing. For example, you could have a witch (let's call her Tasha). She learned arcane magic by studying it, but she learned it from her adopted mother (a powerful hag) and was exposed to a variety of arcane energies across the planes. By D&D terms, she could be a wizard, warlock or sorcerer and it could be justified. Likewise, a cleric can be a member of the Athar in Sigil and draw power from the Great Unknown without believing in the Gods. However, I wouldn't want someone running a warlock as a guy with nonmagical gun but uses Eldritch Blast to model it. I think 5e mostly threads that needle.
Chaosmancer
Legend
I always want to put an asterisk on the "no jokes or memes" point.
Like, sure, I don't want someone who is playing a sentient sandwich. That would be annoying.
But, I'm also listening to a podcast DnD game (Fool's Gold: Sands) where the two characters are... kind of joke characters. A half djinni chaos gremlin who is played for the purpose of making jokes, and a demon cleric who is the dumb stoic "straightman" who is also played for jokes. But... the story WORKS. And I've had people who played "serious" characters who have been bad characters for jokes or memes [A dragonborn paladin who had a serious backstory, and also wanted to where a hat of spaghetti to a king's fancy dinner party].
I think, for me, what it really comes down to, is the timing of the joke.
I'm currently playing a Rogue who is a murder doll who got a soul, sort of a mix between Chucky and the Velveteen Rabbit. I'm playing it into memes and jokes sometimes, with the intent of being the creepy doll child. There is a meme behind it, jokes and I'm playing it for laughs, but I also know when to make a joke and when to be serious. Because silly joke characters can have EPIC scenes, if the player knows how to utilize their timing correctly.
Chaosmancer
Legend
I think I'm fine with the class USUALLY meaning something, but they don't always have to mean it. Barbarian's are one I like to refluff quite a bit. I actually have an NPC who, technically, would be a sorcerer, but I'm statting them as a Storm Herald Barbarian with some cantrips, or another character who would technically be a warlock, but I've statted as a wild magic barbarian with the blade pact option.
And part of that is because, while the metaphysics are there, there are always people who would blur the lines. People who would just not quite fit the traditions, and I feel like as long as it is a change that makes sense, then it is fine to get "close enough"
Classes do exist in this kind of liminal space where they are both packages of discrete, themed abilities and a in-universe construct. Often, rulebooks will lump members of different classes together into a discrete group, like, say:
EDIT: oops, hit the wrong button.
In D&D fiction, or in sections of the books where NPC's are presented as talking in-universe, D&D has a long history of people being addressed as or described as (insert class name here). Now this isn't true of all games, and in some, it seems a little weird, but it's far from uncommon.
EDIT: oops, hit the wrong button.
In D&D fiction, or in sections of the books where NPC's are presented as talking in-universe, D&D has a long history of people being addressed as or described as (insert class name here). Now this isn't true of all games, and in some, it seems a little weird, but it's far from uncommon.
Similar Threads
D&D General
Bizuids and Clercerocks
