Quick and easy Sorcerer

[Fredrik Svanberg]

This is my idea on how to make a Sorcerer until we get an official version. Simply use the rules for Wizards except as follows:

Trained Skills: From the class skills list below, choose four trained skills at 1st level.
Class Skills: Arcana (Int), Bluff (Cha), History (Int), Insight (Wis), Intimidate (Cha), Religion (Int), Streetwise (Cha), Thievery (Dex)

Replace the Spellbook and Ritual Casting class features with Magic In the Blood and Force of Personality.

Force of Personality
Your Wizard spells use your Charisma modifier instead of Intelligence for attack and damage rolls. All other effects that are based on Intelligence remain unchanged.

Magic In the Blood
The first time you become bloodied during an encounter one of your encounter spells recharges.



Sorcerer Feats

Sorcerers count as Wizards for the purpose of fulfilling feat prerequisites.

More Magic In the Blood [Sorcerer]
Prerequisites: Sorcerer, Con 13 or Wis 13
When you use your Second Wind one of your encounter spells recharges.

 

[Samurai]

Here's my quick and dirty sorcerer:


Wizard/Warlock: Sorcerer – A Sorcerer is a Wizard who was born with the natural ability to cast spells, rather than learning and studying them from a spellbook. They are treated as a Wizard, except they get the Class Skills and Proficiencies of a Warlock, do not get the Spellbook, Implement Mastery, or Ritual Casting abilities, and they may choose only 1 of the 4 Cantrips. All of their Wizard spells are cast using either Con or Cha, whichever they prefer, instead of Int. They can't use Implements to enhance the power of their spells, their power increases naturally instead. They also get the following abilities:

• Spontaneous Casting: A Sorcerer may cast a lower level spell in place of a higher level spell of the same kind (Daily, Encounter, or even Utility, if it’s the same frequency), even if he has already used the lower level spell.

• Mystical heritage: A sorcerer’s power can come from the same sources as a Warlock’s Pacts, and grant similar, though more limited, abilities. A Sorcerer gains access to the Warlock spells of a single Pact, and casts them as if a member of that Pact. He may not cast Warlock spells from other Pacts, though. The Sorcerer gains either the Eldritch Blast or appropriate Pact at will power as a bonus at will power, but they don’t gain the Pact Boon for their heritage.

• Power of the Blood – A Sorcerer naturally increases in power by gaining levels, getting an inherent +1 bonus to attack and damage with his spells at 3rd level, and increasing an additional +1 every 5 levels after that. When he’s Bloodied, it’s easier to tap that power, giving him an additional +1 attack and damage, as well as a +1 on saves vs Arcane spell effects. This makes up for the fact that he can't use Implements.

 

[Fredrik Svanberg]

I like my version better, but what I really would like to know is if it's balanced.

 

[Chocobo]

Magic in the Blood is a powerful ability but you give up a lot for it, so I think it does a good job of detailing the major difference between sorcerors and wizards - less spell selection, but able to cast their spells more often.

This seems to be a problem:

Force of Personality
Your Wizard spells use your Charisma modifier instead of Intelligence for attack and damage rolls. All other effects that are based on Intelligence remain unchanged.

It seems like an unnecessary limitation, unless your intent is to make Sorcerors inferior to Wizards. Why not just do a full swap of charisma for intelligence:

Force of Personality:
Your Wizard spells (and Wizard Paragon Path spells) use your Charisma modifier in place of Intelligence.



Also, the feat seems too strong. It basically gives you a free recharge once per encounter, which is probably an epic level effect. Instead, how about:

More Magic In the Blood [Sorcerer]
Prerequisites: Sorcerer, Con 13 or Wis 13
When you use your Second Wind you can choose to recharge one of your encounter spells instead of gaining the normal benefit of Second Wind.


Finally, I'd give the Sorceror leather armor. I know they don't get it in 3.5, but Wizards don't get to add their intelligence to AC in 3.5 either. The Sorceror need something to keep him from being a complete target.

 

[Dr. Halflight]

This is my idea on how to make a Sorcerer until we get an official version. Simply use the rules for Wizards except as follows:

Trained Skills: From the class skills list below, choose four trained skills at 1st level.
Class Skills: Arcana (Int), Bluff (Cha), History (Int), Insight (Wis), Intimidate (Cha), Religion (Int), Streetwise (Cha), Thievery (Dex)

Replace the Spellbook and Ritual Casting class features with Magic In the Blood and Force of Personality.

Force of Personality
Your Wizard spells use your Charisma modifier instead of Intelligence for attack and damage rolls. All other effects that are based on Intelligence remain unchanged.

Magic In the Blood
The first time you become bloodied during an encounter one of your encounter spells recharges.


Sorcerer Feats

Sorcerers count as Wizards for the purpose of fulfilling feat prerequisites.

More Magic In the Blood [Sorcerer]
Prerequisites: Sorcerer, Con 13 or Wis 13
When you use your Second Wind one of your encounter spells recharges.

Its odd, I was thinking of something along these lines, thanks for typing it up!

Have you thought about removing their need for implements for their powers?

As for the feat, what tier is it? I think its ok for Epic Level. Probably over the top for Heroic & maybe too good for Paragon.

 

[mattdm]

even easier

Take the warlock class. Cross out "warlock". Write in "sorcerer". All done!

 

[GnomeWorks]

Take the warlock class. Cross out "warlock". Write in "sorcerer". All done!

Yes, that's very nice.

How about, next time, instead of posting something that is clearly just going to cause an argument, and/or does nothing to add to the thread, and/or completely misses the point, how about you just not post, instead?

Kthx.

 

[mattdm]

I'm actually serious. What is the desired goal of the sorcerer class? In 3E, it's originally simply so that 1/3 of the book — the wizard spells — can be shared with something else. Then, that mechanical need led to what turned out to be some rather interesting other mechanics (cha-based, spontaneous casting) and some potentially interesting but unfortuantely poorly explored flavor (blood of dragons, dark magic).

The first part — reusin' the stuff — is not only unnecessary with the 4E design, but seems actually counter to it. (Even multiclassing is designed for less sharing, all monsters get their own unique powers, etc.)

Spontaneous casting is basically what everyone gets now, so that's a lot less interesting. It did tend to lend itself to a certain sort of blast-cannon spellcaster, though: which in 4E terms means "striker". And for the rest — cha-based attacks, the dark flavor, and the whole bloodline-power-source-thing: the warlock really seems like a good fit.

In fact, if the 3E warlock hadn't existed to explore the at-will mechanic already, it seems extremely likely that the 4E warlock would have been just what I said earlier: exact same thing but with "sorcerer" written where it now says warlock. (And, okay, probably a dragon pact, which I'm kind of surprised there isn't.)

The pretty solid word is that when they do have an official class called "sorcerer", it'll be an arcane controller just like the wizard. Given the above, that seems bizarre to me, but it'll be interesting to see what they do. I suspect they'll go to great lengths to distinguish the class from wizards. This will partly be because "hey, new edition, let's change stuff up", but most importantly because with the old classes required to share spells and most abilities, there wasn't enough room to explore a lot of the unique flavor potential. Suddenly, there will be.

So while I don't see anything particularly wrong with the ideas presented here, I also doubt any characters created with this in mind will map well to whatever they officially come up with.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Now, see, was writing out an actual explanation of your position, instead of crapping on the thread, so hard?

You make valid points, and I personally don't really see a reason for the sorcerer - as presented in this thread, thus far - to exist in 4e.

If you're going to come into a thread and say, "there is no need for this," then you need to explain why. Otherwise, you come off as a jerk.

 

[mattdm]

Now, see, was writing out an actual explanation of your position, instead of crapping on the thread, so hard?

I dunno. Is a gentle reminder harder than being condescending?

If you're going to come into a thread and say, "there is no need for this," then you need to explain why. Otherwise, you come off as a jerk.

You're right, and I apologize.