Bard & Sorcerer - what should they be?
- Thread starter Kzach
- Start date
Nightchilde-2
First Post
Gone? 
JVisgaitis
Explorer
lutecius said:
Yeah, why not. The Warlord is one of the brightest spots in 4e IMO. The Bard would be flavored a lot differently, so I think he'll fit without any problems.
Ruin Explorer
Legend
Kzach said:
Yeah and I like the Paladin as a Knight-ly type whose bravery and devotion are his shield better than some glowing avenger of the light using god-energy to force people to attack him, teleporting, and generally magically owning face, but I suspect both of us are in minority positions in these regards.
I think the "renaissance romanticised version of a fop" as a vastly broader appeal to people interested in fantasy (whether in RPGs, computer games, novels or what-have-you) than some Celtic lorespeaker. I think also fits into the assumed D&D setting a lot better.
I dunno if that means he's a shoe-in for "Arcane Leader", but given the heavy emphasis on illusion, charm, and so on that the bard has had lately, I think it's workable.
Doctorhook - I strongly disagree, and I think your view is ill-thought-through. Whilst hybrid classes should be carefully marked as such, they're a perfectly good idea, especially for smaller-than-usual groups, where the basic roles may well not be covered if people are actually choosing classes based on what they want to play, rather than what they "must" play.
I'm really disappointed with the insistence that Sorcerer will be just another arcane controller.
If you look at the (admittedly brief) history of the sorcerer in D&D, it's a class that had fluff indicating that its powers were derived from a natural connection to magic and the elements, often suggested as derived through a bloodline.
Further, as sorcerers had a more limited spell selection, and initially had to choose spells that were more or less useful throughout their careers (and even later you could only swap out a few spells at a time), the class lent itself well to specialized builds and themes - the touch attack specialist, the ray specialist, the summoner, and so on. Taking out those builds that could and probably will be a class in their own right in 4e (summoner, illusionist, necromancer, etc), you're left with a lot of sorcerer builds and concepts that depended on direct damage (and often a lot of single target spells.)
It seems to me that they're ignoring a lot of the sorcerer's past in D&D (intrinsic spellcasting, perhaps through a primal or elemental connection, focused builds, often focused on damage) in order to highlight perhaps the most lackluster aspect of the sorcerer's past - "just like the wizard, but different!"
It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, and seems like a gigantic waste of potential. Honestly, I think the class fit better when we thought it would be an Elemental or Primal Striker.
One year out from the edition's release, isn't it a bit early for 4e to start featuring "just like X, but different fluff" classes? Especially given that there are so many other classes that people want to see or "need" to convert their campaigns to 4e.
There's a bizarre duality to WotC's willingness to sacrifice sacred cows: they'll get rid of the substance of a sacred cow, changing rules mechanics, leaving certain elements of the game out entirely, redefining the way something works mechanically. But then, they try to force every concept back into old names and categories. Why on Earth would you do that?
I don't know... out of everything I've seen - released or announced - I think this decision is the one I despise the most. And there isn't a whole lot that I dislike. But this one thing just annoys me to no end.
Edit: The other issue with the "just like the wizard - but different!" approach is that there's no longer a mechanical need for that. In 3e, it filled a gap for people that wanted somewhat less Vancian concepts in their arcane spellcasters, who didn't have to rely on a spellbook and technically didn't "forget" spells once they cast them, someone that didn't have to spend a lot of time fiddling around with which spells they would memorize that day. Almost all of that need is gone now in 4e. (50% gone, counting utilities and dailies, and that remaining 50% is watered down - all classes have to have once/day powers, even a proposed sorcerer class.) Leaving the sorcerer with nothing but the fluff, and the common uses and builds for the class, which do not lend themselves to being another arcane controller.
Of the one Vancian aspect left to Wizards - picking from one of two dailies or utilities each day, one of three with a feat - I'm also really concerned with what they'll come up with to compete with that from another arcane controller that won't be ridiculously overpowered or potentially game breaking. One of the major remaining appeals of the wizard is the ability to change utility and daily powers every day, from two or (quite easily) three choices, whereas everyone else gets one. To make a sorcerer an arcane controller that is a valid and desirable choice compared to the wizard, they're going to have to offer up something really good. Probably too good.
If you look at the (admittedly brief) history of the sorcerer in D&D, it's a class that had fluff indicating that its powers were derived from a natural connection to magic and the elements, often suggested as derived through a bloodline.
Further, as sorcerers had a more limited spell selection, and initially had to choose spells that were more or less useful throughout their careers (and even later you could only swap out a few spells at a time), the class lent itself well to specialized builds and themes - the touch attack specialist, the ray specialist, the summoner, and so on. Taking out those builds that could and probably will be a class in their own right in 4e (summoner, illusionist, necromancer, etc), you're left with a lot of sorcerer builds and concepts that depended on direct damage (and often a lot of single target spells.)
It seems to me that they're ignoring a lot of the sorcerer's past in D&D (intrinsic spellcasting, perhaps through a primal or elemental connection, focused builds, often focused on damage) in order to highlight perhaps the most lackluster aspect of the sorcerer's past - "just like the wizard, but different!"
It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, and seems like a gigantic waste of potential. Honestly, I think the class fit better when we thought it would be an Elemental or Primal Striker.
One year out from the edition's release, isn't it a bit early for 4e to start featuring "just like X, but different fluff" classes? Especially given that there are so many other classes that people want to see or "need" to convert their campaigns to 4e.
There's a bizarre duality to WotC's willingness to sacrifice sacred cows: they'll get rid of the substance of a sacred cow, changing rules mechanics, leaving certain elements of the game out entirely, redefining the way something works mechanically. But then, they try to force every concept back into old names and categories. Why on Earth would you do that?
I don't know... out of everything I've seen - released or announced - I think this decision is the one I despise the most. And there isn't a whole lot that I dislike. But this one thing just annoys me to no end.
Edit: The other issue with the "just like the wizard - but different!" approach is that there's no longer a mechanical need for that. In 3e, it filled a gap for people that wanted somewhat less Vancian concepts in their arcane spellcasters, who didn't have to rely on a spellbook and technically didn't "forget" spells once they cast them, someone that didn't have to spend a lot of time fiddling around with which spells they would memorize that day. Almost all of that need is gone now in 4e. (50% gone, counting utilities and dailies, and that remaining 50% is watered down - all classes have to have once/day powers, even a proposed sorcerer class.) Leaving the sorcerer with nothing but the fluff, and the common uses and builds for the class, which do not lend themselves to being another arcane controller.
Of the one Vancian aspect left to Wizards - picking from one of two dailies or utilities each day, one of three with a feat - I'm also really concerned with what they'll come up with to compete with that from another arcane controller that won't be ridiculously overpowered or potentially game breaking. One of the major remaining appeals of the wizard is the ability to change utility and daily powers every day, from two or (quite easily) three choices, whereas everyone else gets one. To make a sorcerer an arcane controller that is a valid and desirable choice compared to the wizard, they're going to have to offer up something really good. Probably too good.
Last edited:
lutecius
Explorer
:\ that was the etymology. I gave a brief description and historical sources in the next line, too.Kzach said:
Roman Gaul is part of the history curiculum in french schools, i just tried to keep it short.
But please do enlighten me with your in-depth knowledge. What's the basis for your idea of a "celtic bard"?
Precisely, the fluff in the op was pretty much the same as the warlord's. But I think dnd needs a bard, and the leader role seems appropriate. I don't see the warlord as a bright spot though. he's more like an embarassing stain, imoJVisgaitis said:
Last edited:
This might seem odd, but I wouldn't mind Bard to essentially be split into two different types of classes. The lute playing and charm using pansy can be the arcane leader, the more earthly storyteller can be the primal leader. The first uses charm to increase moral and illusions for other stuff, the second sings out epic poems or tales of old to embolden their team mates.
To put it in terms of characters, the first would be your standard D&D perform (instrument) or (singing) guy, the second could be the more bardbarian character. I'm reminded of a character I had, a dwarf bard who loudly told the old poems of dwarven heroes while beating the rhythm with hammer and shield. Not what I'd call focusing on charm and illusion.
I just think there's too much baggage in the current idea of "bard" for just one class. You have too many types of characters all shoved into one group called "bard," and they don't like sharing the space with one another.
To put it in terms of characters, the first would be your standard D&D perform (instrument) or (singing) guy, the second could be the more bardbarian character. I'm reminded of a character I had, a dwarf bard who loudly told the old poems of dwarven heroes while beating the rhythm with hammer and shield. Not what I'd call focusing on charm and illusion.
I just think there's too much baggage in the current idea of "bard" for just one class. You have too many types of characters all shoved into one group called "bard," and they don't like sharing the space with one another.
Tangential discussion about combat role hybridism
I disagree that anyone in any party "must" play anything; combat roles don't provide the class concepts (ie: "what [players] want to play"), they simply inform effective contribution in combat.
I believe "hybrid" classes are a bad idea because, I believe, such classes invite imbalance. I believe that hybrid-class characters would either have to be fully contributory in both roles (eg: "I'm a good Leader and Striker simultaneously!") or subpar in each role (eg: "I'm an ineffective Leader and an ineffective Striker simultaneously...."); anything other than perfect balance between a hybrid class's multiple roles would make such a class more one role than another, and thus not truly a hybrid, right? This kind of quasi-hybridism already exists in 4E, both in single classes like the Paladin (a Defender with a bit of Leader) or the Warlock (a Striker with a bit of Controller), as well as in multiclass combinations of all types; in these cases, (particularly with multiclassing) the character can be effective in two roles simultaneously, and yet remains more one role than the other.
In short, I don't believe that hybrid roles are necessary in any form other than that in which they already exist in 4E, nor do I believe that it would be desirable to include any other form of role hybridism.
Feel free to rebut!
I appreciate the response, Ruin Explorer.Ruin Explorer said:
I disagree that anyone in any party "must" play anything; combat roles don't provide the class concepts (ie: "what [players] want to play"), they simply inform effective contribution in combat.
I believe "hybrid" classes are a bad idea because, I believe, such classes invite imbalance. I believe that hybrid-class characters would either have to be fully contributory in both roles (eg: "I'm a good Leader and Striker simultaneously!") or subpar in each role (eg: "I'm an ineffective Leader and an ineffective Striker simultaneously...."); anything other than perfect balance between a hybrid class's multiple roles would make such a class more one role than another, and thus not truly a hybrid, right? This kind of quasi-hybridism already exists in 4E, both in single classes like the Paladin (a Defender with a bit of Leader) or the Warlock (a Striker with a bit of Controller), as well as in multiclass combinations of all types; in these cases, (particularly with multiclassing) the character can be effective in two roles simultaneously, and yet remains more one role than the other.
In short, I don't believe that hybrid roles are necessary in any form other than that in which they already exist in 4E, nor do I believe that it would be desirable to include any other form of role hybridism.
Feel free to rebut!
Olgar Shiverstone
Legend
Bard: arcane leader.
Sorcerer: Gone. The wizard & warlock killed him & took his stuff.
Sorcerer: Gone. The wizard & warlock killed him & took his stuff.
Similar Threads
D&D 5E (2024)
Last minute guesses about what WotC did with the Bard
