Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Khaalis" data-source="post: 1421586" data-attributes="member: 2167">First let me please thank you all for keeping this going in my absence. My last bought of chemo put me down pretty hard. A special thanks to Coredump – you were right on the mark and saved me much time.On the Mass Reply…Its not a derail, it is a viable discussion for the sorcerer. If we hammered this out it would make a fine addition to the “Spells” section of the class to make them a bit more unique.I can understand this from a physics point of view, but as it exists, I think the mechanic doesnt quite work so well for standard D&D spells.  AU spells Really ARE a completely different animal.I can see this as a point as well.  This might also pertain to…Does anyone think the mechanic needs a failsafe to prevent mass abuse as mentioned above (ie: getting 8 1st level spells for a 9th) or is that a fair trade?I think it’s a fair trade myself. It grants more flexibility for quite a bit less power.While I like these, they are a bit complex. Weaving 2 lower level spells to get a spell level one level higher is much more simple, but much more costly as well. I am not sure which way to lean, Simplicity or Lower Cost. Although I think Zoa is mostly correct here...The only problem I have here is that it will take away yet more weight from the 0-level spell. Its already hard to get people to use them for much more than detect magic as it is. The more I look at it the more I am not sure what the ratio should be. The 1.5 is a good range but the Fraction factor makes it a bit clunky to deal with. I am almost forced to lean to simplicity and say it is simply a +X spell level ratio. Similar to Unweaving at N-1 gain in spell levels, the cost to Weave would be something like Cost = N+1, where N is the spell level attempting to be woven.Thus:1st level would cost 2 Spell levels (4 cantrips)2nd level would cost 3 Spell levels (3 1st or 2 1st + 2 cantrips)3rd level would cost 4 Spell levels (4 1st level, 2 2nd, 1 2nd + 2 1st)4th level would cost 5 Spell levels (5 1st level, 2 2nd + 1 1st, 1 4th + 1 1st, 1 3rd + 1 2nd)etc.If they were done as feats most likely. I am personally leaning toward them being a part of the sorcerer spell mechanic myself. Something to truly make the sorcerer feel unique and fit the flavor text quotes:* ”A Sorcerer’s power is inborn, and part of his soul. Sorcerers cast spells through innate power rather than through carefully trained skills. Their magic is intuitive rather than logical. For Sorcerers, magic is an intuitive art, not a science.” * “Sorcerers create magic the way a poet creates poems, with inborn talent honed by practice. They have no books, no mentors, no theories – just raw power that they direct at will.” Most excellent. Let us know what happens. I will try to get over there and check them out myself, but I cant promise I will have the time.This is correct. If I wanted a Spellcaster with pure versatility, I would play a Wizard. If I want to play a Spellcaster that fits a very specific archetype with little versatility form that archetype, I would play the sorcerer. Also, the Wizard (as it exists in core) is a great class to MC or PrC with if that is your thing (such as the Archmage).Right on the mark. The bonus known spells are 2-fold.1)    It gives that tiny “bump” in spells known (10 spells by 20th level) since 90% of the complaints in the class is that there are too few spells known.2)    It keeps the bonus spells known from being “abused” by forcing them into a specific theme (which brings us back to matching the flavor text).Exactly. I don’t know how often I can say that the “lineages” are NOT a part of the core class material. They are no more a part of the core than the Domain text in the Cleric.  The actual Lineages would be a part of another section (an addendum or chapter insert of their own).As for Gypsy – yes it is very game specific. It was meant to be. It is an example of how to make campaign specific Lineages. Not all lineages have to be as openly generic as Celestial or Draconic. For example some campaign worlds allow for Undead to create living spawn. In such a campaign world you could have for example a Sorcerer of Vampiric Lineage.  Will I attempt to detail every possible Lineage someone can think up to justify? No. These are examples. DM’s will take and use what they will and create their own as they see fit.  As I have stated before there are 3 very perfect templates of this: Domains, and the classes in the AU – Witch and Totem Warrior (each of which use a class template design that allows for unlimited possibilities to be created in place of the core examples).Good points all. Let me just add that as in #2 above, the entire point is to create a class that can be viably balanced with all of the other classes in the game WITHOUT the need to PrC.  People seem to forget that PrC’s are a DM OPTION.  They are NOT a part of the Core Class system. They have run amok due to the proliferated d20 publishing.  As was mentioned in an earlier part of the thread NO class should be built with even the slightest Thought of PrC’s in mind.  PrC’s are written to match core classes. Core classes are not written to fit into PrC’s.Correct.   I hope to put this to rest once for all…The sorcerer as I have written takes up 1.5 pages (2 column size 8 font like the PHB, without flavor text) while the PHB sorcerer uses up 2.25 pages.  In publishing terms, per SRD material, the core sorcerer, counting only from “Class Features” forward (not the table, the skills or the flavor text) is comprised of 2,073 words or 11,834 characters with spaces (including Familiar and Armor sidebars).  The Alt.sorcerer presented on page 1 here is comprised of 1,442 words or 8,334 characters with spaces.Shadow as it appears here is based on its use in most of the existing D&D d20 material. Shadow is comprised of both “Shadow” and “Darkness” and is generally linked in some manner to evil/necromancy. As for the Angels – they were chosen specifically because they are the listed celestials most linked to light and radiance.Welcome back – hope spring break was a good vacation. I miss those days…Ok, +1 caster level is of some use (I personally still don’t see it as a big deal, in MOST cases, its not even enough to get you an extra damage die).IF we were to use this mechanic I would prefer to see it used as a constant ability rather than a “Use per day” ability.  However – to what would it apply? Lineage spells only is way too limited. I also don’t want the celestial and fiendish to end up being champions of good/evil. The only restrictions they have is a strength toward one side.  In other words a celestial sorcerer could be CN. He just cant be evil (too much ‘good’ blood). I don’t want to force them into powers that only work against evil – they aren’t Paladins and they aren’t champions of light – they just have celestial lineage that grants them certain celestial-like powers.Still don’t have anything better. There really are NO powers unique to celestials other than something like this.I have thought about this and I am leaning toward this taking the effect of a dragon’s overall resistance, basically granting CHA mod versus spells, spell-like and supernatural abilities. Much more restricted and fits closer to other abilities – not a watered down divine grace.In what way? This is basically taken directly from the SRD with a few tweaks to fit a class ability.On this one I have to state I disagree. Most of the lineages do not have so many restrictions, but if you look at the thread post where this is discussed (Post #47) you will see that it is basically necessary for the Celestial to create a “Fair” and “accurate” representation of the magic they are banned from using.On a purely personal note – I have no sympathy for lazy players. There is a difference between the principle of KISS and sacrificing accuracy for lazy people. As I showed in Post 47 it doesn’t take that much effort to pick up the book and “look” to see what a spell’s descriptor is.Agreed – A hearty ”Huzzah!” to all.Ok, that’s all I can handle for right now. Time to go recuperate a bit again.  I look forward to everyone’s replies.  And again, as always….THANK YOU!</blockquote>

Verification