D&D General One thing I hate about the Sorcerer

[Remathilis]

I didn't say limit. I said influence, as in very important to. My background as an acolyte was a very important influence in my PC becoming a cleric. His being an acolyte of Mystra was instrumental in his decision to choose the magic domain and Mystra as the deity he became a cleric of.

I was pushing back against your statement that background stops being important once you get that 1st level in your class. For a lot of us that isn't true. It continues to be important throughout the career of the PC, influencing the subclass chosen as well as possible multiclasses and other subclasses.

My point was to say a class cannot assume a certain background for a character because backgrounds are a separate part of character generation. Your cleric could be a temple acolyte, but he could be a sailor, a criminal, a soldier or guild artisan and none of that changes what he is as a cleric now. The sailor cleric isn't limited to sea spells. The criminal isn't capped on what domain be can take. The fighter should not be stuck being mundane because they have to accommodate mundane origin stories. The fighter is not the farmboy or town guard class. It's the "I was a farmboy or town guard or something else, but now I'm something more" class.

 

[Micah Sweet]

How do you feel about the wuxia genre, where supposedly "normal" martial artists simply learn techniques that allows them to do things that are impossible in the real life? How about just good old Hollywood action movie physics? These often are not even set in a magical world like D&D, but take place on our Earth (or rather a fictionalised movie version of it.)

I'm fine with that, because the narrative is that they are learning supernatural techniques.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But James is correct here: in the Complete Paladin’s handbook, back in 2e, Charlemagne’s paladins are the explicit inspiration for the class.

But its not where their supernatural powers come from, that's where their martial training, code of conduct, and reputation come from.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It is now.

Descriptivism always wins in the end. The only thing that defines a word or idea is group consensus.

Tyranny of the popular then?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, you explicitly conceded that the Rogue’s Evasion was supernatural, as was their stroke of luck feature, which is at least as supernatural as the Barbarian’s Danger Sense.

So that just leaves the Fighter. Which goes back to the fact that a fighter’s combat abilities (such as the ability to beat up an Owlbear in a straight up melee) isn’t natural, either.

Edit. Which brings me back to my original point: what is the purpose of WotC tagging certain abilities as Extraordinary or Supernatural if it is only relevant for 2 subclasses of 1 class?

If it's relevant for anyone, and supports a mundane class narrative many people want that also appears through genre media, then it matters.

 

[Micah Sweet]

True, to bring the discussion back to sorcerers, you could totally create a Divine Soul Sorcerer who instead of being blessed by a Celestial, derives their magic from their powerful faith, without being beholden to a god.

Faith in what? Where does the power come from?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Who gives the ranger and monk superpowers?

They learn supernatural techniques. The narrative about them makes that clear.

 

[TwoSix]

Tyranny of the popular then?

A fact of life.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It’s all about where you set the limits.

I get that it’s a little silly to say “Charlemagne’s paladins were defenders of Christianity, it doesn’t make sense to have them as zealous warriors in an openly polytheistic society”

But is it any less silly to go “having zealous warriors for non-Christian gods is fine, but zealous warriors in defense of a non-god cause or ideal, THAT doesn’t make sense.”

Of course it makes sense to exist. But it shouldn't give you superpowers without a supernatural or magic source.

 

[Micah Sweet]

A fact of life.

Popularity and validity are not linked.