Preview: The Sorcerer

[Rechan]

I was kinda disappointed that there wasn't any use of Con in the Sorcerer. I've got an Infernal Warlock, and I'd love SOME other class out there to eventually be Con based as well. In the meantime, I'm multi-ing Wizard using my secondary stat.

While I agree there is a severe LACK of Con-related builds, I knew the Sorcerer would be Charisma-focused. That's pretty much been their schtick.

However, I have the feeling that at least ONE of the psionic classes will have something con-related. Probably the defender.

 

[garyh]

While I agree there is a severe LACK of Con-related builds, I knew the Sorcerer would be Charisma-focused. That's pretty much been their schtick.

However, I have the feeling that at least ONE of the psionic classes will have something con-related. Probably the defender.

True. I was just holding out hope, as I didn't see any other chance for a Con class (particularly ranged) in PHB2.

It's not fair. Cha warlocks get extra power choices from the Dark Pact in the FRPG and an article in Dragon, and an option to multi into Sorcerer. Con warlocks get... to look forward to Arcane Power.

 

[Rechan]

True. I was just holding out hope, as I didn't see any other chance for a Con class (particularly ranged) in PHB2.

It's not fair. Cha warlocks get extra power choices from the Dark Pact in the FRPG and an article in Dragon, and an option to multi into Sorcerer. Con warlocks get... to look forward to Arcane Power.

SEVERAL of the StarPact powers are Con-based. StarPact seems to straddle between Con and Cha.

 

[garyh]

SEVERAL of the StarPact powers are Con-based. StarPact seems to straddle between Con and Cha.

True. I left Star out of the equation because it helps both styles. Still, that leaves Con warlocks with a pact and a half, and charisma warlocks with two and a half pacts, a Dragon article, and easy Sorcerer multiclassing.

 

[RefinedBean]

Con probably gets less love because it directly affects HP and healing surges, making it a bit difficult to balance out.

This is another piece of evidence that Warlocks are supposed to be "tougher" strikers than Sorcerers, with their access to Con-attack powers.

Meanwhile, the Int-based classes grind their teeth and wait for Arcane Power.

 

[Starbuck_II]

I just realized my primary issue with 4E.

All the classes use the same mechanic. They all have the same at wills (in terms of numbers). The sorcerer no longer has the ability to know lots of stuff, but cast less of them. This makes all the classes too similar for me somehow. I love 4E, this isn't a rant, just an observation.

Um, you just described the Wizard in 3.5 not the Sorceror.

Ther Sorceror knew less but cast more. You said the opposite.

 

[Zaukrie]

d'oh. trying to type at work.

Either way, my point is that the primary difference right now is the spells and fluff, not anything that makes them really different. At this point, couldn't you just have classless spellcasters?

 

[Nivenus]

Not really. I mean yes, they have the same spellcasting system, unlike in 3e where bards, sorcerers, warlocks, and wizards all had different styles of casting, but in terms of just about everything else - no, not really. From my experience in 4e wizards and warlocks feel very different, with wizards hitting lots of people with little bits of damage or putting them to sleep while warlocks pretty much flay one or two guys alive.

Actually, the party in the campaign I'm running has both a warlock and a wizard and the way their style comes across is quite different. True, some of its just flavoring. But mechanically, they're pretty different as well.

Now, having not run a sorcerer character I can't confirm or deny how different the sorcerer's going to be. But I imagine it'll be about as different from the wizard as the warlock is, though it might be a little too similar to the warlock. Hopefully, though, the warlock and sorcerer will be as different as the rogue and ranger, which have worked out pretty well in my mind, possibly through the controllery-aspects of the class as well as the "everything and the sink gets hit" flavor to many of the powers.

 

[BarkingDeathSquirrel]

Arcane Striker, eh? It feels more controller than striker, imho. At least by PHB1 standards

No real complaints with it, but there are a few things that touch on pet-peeves of mine:

1.The usage of Str/Dex feels... tacked on to me, for whatever reason. Still, it's easy enough to change them to Con/Int, respectively.

2.If a class is only given a certain level of Armor Proficiency, they damn well better be given some sort of incentive to stay at that level. And, no, gaining the ability to use your Secondary-stat instead of Dex/Int (or having a secondary-stat of Dex/Int) doesn't count. Having nifty Cloth-only enchantments can only go so far, as well.

3.Magical Daggers as implements is also weird. Could have just been the atham... er I mean "pact blades"... but they are geared towards Warlocks-only, I suppose. Of course, so are Rods, but the Artficier uses them...

 

[Shroomy]

d'oh. trying to type at work.

Either way, my point is that the primary difference right now is the spells and fluff, not anything that makes them really different. At this point, couldn't you just have classless spellcasters?

Huh? I don't really get your point. Shouldn't the spells and fluff be the biggest difference between the classes (and you're discounting the big difference in class features)? The core 3.5e sorcerer and wizard share the same spell list, familiar rules, BAB, save progression, hit dice, skill points, and skill list overlap. Yeah, they gain spells at a different rate, can cast a different number of spells per day, and "recharge" them in a different fashion, but they're still the exact same spells. IMO, they are much more alike than their 4e counterparts.