Bard & Sorcerer - what should they be?


log in or register to remove this ad

The problem for the sorcerer is that if it goes striker that's the warlock, and if it goes controller that's the wizard. Biggest complaint people used to make about Sorcerer in 3E was that it filled the same purpose in the party as a Wizard. 4E should change that.

But if it does, what to make them? Defender? Leader? While defender might be very interesting, I doubt we'd see that. Although as long as we've killed all the sacred cows and jumped a herd of sharks already... why not?

Leader would actually make sense, but it seems the Bard is better suited for the role of arcane leader.

As for the Bard... with Perform missing from the list of skills in 4E, whatever book gets bard is going to also have to add some more skills, especially non combat ones. The bard has always been an ideal choice for players who wanted to be strong out of combat - something 4E doesn't even contain anymore... so while it might seem leader is a good choice, its also pretty much open season.
 

Olgar has a point but the sorcerer does have a distinguishing feature - natural, inborn powers. The concept was most likely inspired by the X-Men.

I thought I read somewhere that the 4e sorcerer is going to be a wild mage. Which makes sense, he's a Marvel mutant who's never been to Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters.
 

Doug McCrae said:
Olgar has a point but the sorcerer does have a distinguishing feature - natural, inborn powers. The concept was most likely inspired by the X-Men.

I thought I read somewhere that the 4e sorcerer is going to be a wild mage. Which makes sense, he's a Marvel mutant who's never been to Xavier's School for Gifted Youngsters.

If I remember correctly from Races and Classes, sorcerer spells will almost all have a secondary effect - like an fire spell that also causes him to radiate heat to show that his magic power isn't quite as controlled as the wizards, and that it literally comes straight from him.
 

arcady said:
The problem for the sorcerer is that if it goes striker that's the warlock, and if it goes controller that's the wizard. Biggest complaint people used to make about Sorcerer in 3E was that it filled the same purpose in the party as a Wizard. 4E should change that.

But if it does, what to make them? Defender? Leader? While defender might be very interesting, I doubt we'd see that. Although as long as we've killed all the sacred cows and jumped a herd of sharks already... why not?

Leader would actually make sense, but it seems the Bard is better suited for the role of arcane leader.

As for the Bard... with Perform missing from the list of skills in 4E, whatever book gets bard is going to also have to add some more skills, especially non combat ones. The bard has always been an ideal choice for players who wanted to be strong out of combat - something 4E doesn't even contain anymore... so while it might seem leader is a good choice, its also pretty much open season.

I don't mind role overlap as long as the classes play differently. The rogue and the ranger are both martial strikers, but they seem different to me.

Also, I don't think that a bard necessitates the creation of a new Perform skill, as I think that the ability to perform in some manner will be integrated with the bard's powers (Skill list will probably be Arcana, History, Diplomacy, Bluff, Acrobatics, and Streetwise). Assuming they are an arcane leader as WoTC has suggested, the bard should benefit from an implement. The new implement could be some kind of musical insturment that provides a bonus to attack.
 

That just goes to one of the things that frustrates me in this whole powers concept.

If you integrate perform into the class, then you have to start asking why only a bard can manage a ballroom dance or play the violin...

On the notion that being born with magic is somehow X-Man like, that might be the inspiration the authors of 3E used, but fantasy literature is full of people born to magic as a genre concept that predates the X-Man comic book. 4E would do better to get an inspiration from fantasy rather than taking a page from a super hero comic book.
 

arcady said:
Biggest complaint people used to make about Sorcerer in 3E was that it filled the same purpose in the party as a Wizard.
I'd say biggest complaint people used to make about Sorcerer in 3E was that he was underpowered compared to the wizard. Tons of threads!

On the notion that being born with magic is somehow X-Man like, that might be the inspiration the authors of 3E used, but fantasy literature is full of people born to magic as a genre concept that predates the X-Man comic book. 4E would do better to get an inspiration from fantasy rather than taking a page from a super hero comic book.
The description of lasting elemental auras in R&C instantly reminded me of some marvel mutants (iceman, storm, magma et al) I would have loved that, when i was twelve.

For all we know the sorcerer could be a defender (aggro drawing / damage absorbing / damage dealing auras)
Unless arcane controller was confirmed?
 

arcady said:
That just goes to one of the things that frustrates me in this whole powers concept.

If you integrate perform into the class, then you have to start asking why only a bard can manage a ballroom dance or play the violin...

Well, I don't think that the bard would be the only person who could ballroom dance or play the violin successfully, but he would be the only one who could translate that performance into arcane effects that can be used to attack enemies or buff allies, just like in earlier editions. Really, in 3.x, mechanically speaking, the Perform skill mainly existed for the sake of the bard (and for desperate PCs to make some quick cash as street musicians).

In 4e, if a performance situation became mechanically important to the game, I would resort to two sections of the DMG. The first would be pg. 42 to make the mechanics work out as if this were a combat stunt (maybe a Dexterity check or maybe an Acrobatics check, I'd work with my player to come up with something), and then the section in the front (forget the page number) that says that you should integrate your PCs background into the game. So if someone had a background as a nobleman who attended lots of waltzes as a kid, I'd probably give a +2 bonus to the check.

arcady said:
On the notion that being born with magic is somehow X-Man like, that might be the inspiration the authors of 3E used, but fantasy literature is full of people born to magic as a genre concept that predates the X-Man comic book. 4E would do better to get an inspiration from fantasy rather than taking a page from a super hero comic book.

I think they should draw from both, as there are some damn fine comics out there.
 

If the sorcerer ends up being a wizard, but different, then WotC will have failed. The only way I see to make the sorcerer an arcane controller would be to turn it into a specialty wizard. (Sorcerer, it's the new evoker.)

What I'd like to see is the Sorcerer as a primal/elemental controller. Give him some wiz-bang spells that generally lack subtlety, but get stuff done.

Along with that, I'd like to see what they're calling the shaman (primal leader) be rechristened the druid and have the shape-shifting focus go to another class (totemist?). If you're going to bother having a "druid" in the game and you're going to have a "primal leader", then use the name a little more accurately. The druids were leaders. The way D&D is going with names, in a couple of editions, the name "fighter" will refer to a holy warrior and "rogues" will be the primary melee combatants.

Bards I could see as primal controllers (mainly through things like fascinate and other mind-affecting abilities), primal leaders, or arcane leaders. I think my preference is arcane leader.
 


Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top