Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Next Q&A 11/22/13
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Argyle King" data-source="post: 6225279" data-attributes="member: 58416"><p><em>Right now, the warlock is a spellcasting class that has a power selection like other primary spellcastering classes. The warlock's subclasses focus on his or her warlock pact; the source of their magical ability. For example, having an infernal pact is one method of obtaining magical power, but another one we’re exploring is exposure to wild magic via a fey pact.</em></p><p></p><p>Obviously, I changed some of that. The point is that the idea behind the setup sounds a lot like the 4E Warlock (to me.) You gain power just like other classes, but the source of your power is a choice made in the beginning. While, yes, that does also sound like the 3rd Edition (and Pathfinder) Sorcerer, and the manner in which you choose a bloodline, something about the presentation sounds more like the Warlock to me. At the very least, it sounds similar enough to the Warlock that I'd like the two classes to be more distinct. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>With the current mage (wizard) appearing to function like something stuck somewhere between the 3rd Edition Wizard and 3rd Edition Sorcerer (again, my opinion; that's how slots currently feel to me,) I think it would be rather easy to just play a wizard and simply call it a sorcerer in-game. Some of the magic paths available also already give options for shaping your spells to some extent; adding a sorcery path which focused more on doing that wouldn't be difficult. Being suave and other such things could be achieved via background, feats, and/or having charisma. </p><p></p><p>If all else fails, talk to the GM about playing a wizard; ask if you can base your spells on Cha instead of Int. Receiving training in one less lore skill; replacing it with a social skill. Then trade out one of the other wizard class features (I don't have the packets in front of me to pick one) in exchange for some sort of growing bonus die on charisma checks to portray your presence and force of personality... maybe the start the die at 1d4 (added to Cha checks) for levels 1-3; then it turns into 1d6 at level 4. I would do that instead of giving advantage because adding a die instead of giving advantage means spells which give advantage on Cha checks are still useful.</p><p></p><p>What I liked about the early versions of the sorcerer were that they played up the idea of a sorcerer having innate power rather than book-learned and book-studied power. They were literally infused with magic to the point where their mortal bodies had trouble containing it. I'm not so sure I liked the idea of the sorcerer suddenly becoming a melee class, but I certainly did like the idea that sorcerers could lose control of themselves in a manner somewhat akin to barbarian rage. I feel that gave a really nice relationship among the various classes; the wizard and sorcerer would then have a relationship similar to the relationship that barbarians and fighters have... nature versus nurture; that also plays nicely into the D&D concepts of law and chaos. </p><p></p><p>Now that I think about it, it also gave a pretty cool relationship to the warlock and wizard and sorcerer. The warlock has the ability to buy into the power of a higher being; gain some of it, but a sorcerer is born with it and just has it without question. The wizard reads about and learns his power. I like this because it also gives some thematic reasons for multiclassing between different casting classes. The sorcerer who wishes to better understand his nature might seek out a place to study it in a scholarly manner (mc into wizard,) or the sorcerer who wishes to better understand his nature might seek out a powerful patron to show him how to use it (mc into warlock.) </p><p></p><p>Basically, what it boils down to is that I feel the early versions gave the sorcerer its own place; its own niche. In a way, I can also see thematic reasons for going the opposite direction; it does sort of make sense to me that a create innately born with power would have greater control over it, but it just doesn't seem as interesting to me as the original ideas. Besides, if part of the mentality behind Next is trying to recapture tradition, wizards (at least in third edition) were traditionally the class which had the most access to metamagic via bonus feats. With that in mind, I think going with the early ideas serves two different things: 1) it allows players who want a more traditional approach to the wizard and the sorcerer to use the existing mage class; 2) it allows players who feel a new edition should come with some new ideas to have some novelty value built into the game.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Argyle King, post: 6225279, member: 58416"] [I]Right now, the warlock is a spellcasting class that has a power selection like other primary spellcastering classes. The warlock's subclasses focus on his or her warlock pact; the source of their magical ability. For example, having an infernal pact is one method of obtaining magical power, but another one we’re exploring is exposure to wild magic via a fey pact.[/I] Obviously, I changed some of that. The point is that the idea behind the setup sounds a lot like the 4E Warlock (to me.) You gain power just like other classes, but the source of your power is a choice made in the beginning. While, yes, that does also sound like the 3rd Edition (and Pathfinder) Sorcerer, and the manner in which you choose a bloodline, something about the presentation sounds more like the Warlock to me. At the very least, it sounds similar enough to the Warlock that I'd like the two classes to be more distinct. With the current mage (wizard) appearing to function like something stuck somewhere between the 3rd Edition Wizard and 3rd Edition Sorcerer (again, my opinion; that's how slots currently feel to me,) I think it would be rather easy to just play a wizard and simply call it a sorcerer in-game. Some of the magic paths available also already give options for shaping your spells to some extent; adding a sorcery path which focused more on doing that wouldn't be difficult. Being suave and other such things could be achieved via background, feats, and/or having charisma. If all else fails, talk to the GM about playing a wizard; ask if you can base your spells on Cha instead of Int. Receiving training in one less lore skill; replacing it with a social skill. Then trade out one of the other wizard class features (I don't have the packets in front of me to pick one) in exchange for some sort of growing bonus die on charisma checks to portray your presence and force of personality... maybe the start the die at 1d4 (added to Cha checks) for levels 1-3; then it turns into 1d6 at level 4. I would do that instead of giving advantage because adding a die instead of giving advantage means spells which give advantage on Cha checks are still useful. What I liked about the early versions of the sorcerer were that they played up the idea of a sorcerer having innate power rather than book-learned and book-studied power. They were literally infused with magic to the point where their mortal bodies had trouble containing it. I'm not so sure I liked the idea of the sorcerer suddenly becoming a melee class, but I certainly did like the idea that sorcerers could lose control of themselves in a manner somewhat akin to barbarian rage. I feel that gave a really nice relationship among the various classes; the wizard and sorcerer would then have a relationship similar to the relationship that barbarians and fighters have... nature versus nurture; that also plays nicely into the D&D concepts of law and chaos. Now that I think about it, it also gave a pretty cool relationship to the warlock and wizard and sorcerer. The warlock has the ability to buy into the power of a higher being; gain some of it, but a sorcerer is born with it and just has it without question. The wizard reads about and learns his power. I like this because it also gives some thematic reasons for multiclassing between different casting classes. The sorcerer who wishes to better understand his nature might seek out a place to study it in a scholarly manner (mc into wizard,) or the sorcerer who wishes to better understand his nature might seek out a powerful patron to show him how to use it (mc into warlock.) Basically, what it boils down to is that I feel the early versions gave the sorcerer its own place; its own niche. In a way, I can also see thematic reasons for going the opposite direction; it does sort of make sense to me that a create innately born with power would have greater control over it, but it just doesn't seem as interesting to me as the original ideas. Besides, if part of the mentality behind Next is trying to recapture tradition, wizards (at least in third edition) were traditionally the class which had the most access to metamagic via bonus feats. With that in mind, I think going with the early ideas serves two different things: 1) it allows players who want a more traditional approach to the wizard and the sorcerer to use the existing mage class; 2) it allows players who feel a new edition should come with some new ideas to have some novelty value built into the game. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Next Q&A 11/22/13
Top