Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GameDoc" data-source="post: 6033368" data-attributes="member: 53915">I can see where you are coming from and greatly appreciate the sentiment.&nbsp; That was actually a big disappointment for me when they presented their basic 4 classes in the playtest.&nbsp; Why not make the basic arcane caster operate like the 3e sorcerer and let the Vancian caster be the more complex option?&nbsp;&nbsp; That said, the 3e sorcerer you are talking about above is not the sorcerer we have thus far been presented in the D&amp;D Next Playtest.&nbsp; It was something else entirely with it's own complicated mechanic that appears to have been an effort to save some thematic concepts from the 4e sorcerer.&nbsp; The 3e sorcerer hasn't been around in D&amp;D proper since, well, 3e (Pathfinder notwithstanding). I'm just glad we are getting it back in some fashion.FWIW, the way I read the article was that &quot;class category&quot; meant class and that Mearls was perhaps being imprecise in his choice of phrasing.&nbsp; It seems consistent that the basic 4 classes all have a build option embedded within them.&nbsp; The fighter has a fighting style that effects his maneuvers, the rogue has the choice of schemes that impact the use of stealth and sneak attacks, and the cleric has domains (or perhaps now an actual deity or religion in the next packet).&nbsp; These are baked into the classes.&nbsp; The wizard was the only one that lacked such an option and it seemed the &quot;arcane traditions&quot; that were previously in the works were going to fill that design space.&nbsp; In other words, I read that as the core class may now actually be &quot;Magic User&quot; and the build options are casting methods titled wizard, sorcerer, etc.&nbsp; I know that leaves out the cleric, but maybe they will give the cleric a similar option, or maybe they will just wait and see how people respond to the idea with magic-users before incorporating it into the cleric.&nbsp; This is of course, all speculation on my part.&nbsp; I won't be upset if it turns out I'm wrong.&nbsp; If I'm right though, I know one thing that will go in my feedback is to find a better term than &quot;magic-user&quot; for a class name.&nbsp; I know it's D&amp;D tradition but it always struck me as awkward compared to the other class names.&nbsp; If it's meant to include sorcerers, wizards, and perhaps other arcane casters, I would prefer something like &quot;Arcanist&quot;, &quot;Adept&quot;, or &quot;Mage&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GameDoc, post: 6033368, member: 53915"] I can see where you are coming from and greatly appreciate the sentiment. That was actually a big disappointment for me when they presented their basic 4 classes in the playtest. Why not make the basic arcane caster operate like the 3e sorcerer and let the Vancian caster be the more complex option? That said, the 3e sorcerer you are talking about above is not the sorcerer we have thus far been presented in the D&D Next Playtest. It was something else entirely with it's own complicated mechanic that appears to have been an effort to save some thematic concepts from the 4e sorcerer. The 3e sorcerer hasn't been around in D&D proper since, well, 3e (Pathfinder notwithstanding). I'm just glad we are getting it back in some fashion. FWIW, the way I read the article was that "class category" meant class and that Mearls was perhaps being imprecise in his choice of phrasing. It seems consistent that the basic 4 classes all have a build option embedded within them. The fighter has a fighting style that effects his maneuvers, the rogue has the choice of schemes that impact the use of stealth and sneak attacks, and the cleric has domains (or perhaps now an actual deity or religion in the next packet). These are baked into the classes. The wizard was the only one that lacked such an option and it seemed the "arcane traditions" that were previously in the works were going to fill that design space. In other words, I read that as the core class may now actually be "Magic User" and the build options are casting methods titled wizard, sorcerer, etc. I know that leaves out the cleric, but maybe they will give the cleric a similar option, or maybe they will just wait and see how people respond to the idea with magic-users before incorporating it into the cleric. This is of course, all speculation on my part. I won't be upset if it turns out I'm wrong. If I'm right though, I know one thing that will go in my feedback is to find a better term than "magic-user" for a class name. I know it's D&D tradition but it always struck me as awkward compared to the other class names. If it's meant to include sorcerers, wizards, and perhaps other arcane casters, I would prefer something like "Arcanist", "Adept", or "Mage". [/QUOTE]

Verification