Sorcerer Fix - Continued from "D&D Rules"

[Khaalis]

Firstly I would like to apologize to all for letting this thread get derailed from its intent. To correct this I will place us back on track by clearly stating (and posting on Post #1) the mission statement for this thread.

Mission Statement: To create a dynamic and appealing version of the sorcerer class that:
A) Make a sorcerer class mechanic that Matches the Flavor Text as designated in the PHB.
B) Balances the class to the existing core classes of the PHB.
C) Could be used as a substitute for the core sorcerer of the PHB.
D) Present further options to advance and customize the sorcerer.​

Now on to some specific topics…

ON SKILLS…

ON DIPLOMACY
Logic Proof

Since the Flavor Text states:
“Since Sorcerers often have a powerful presence that gives them a way with people, they frequently serve as the “face” for an adventuring party, negotiating, bargaining, and speaking for others. The Sorcerer’s spells often help him sway others or gain information, so he makes an excellent spy or diplomat for an adventuring party.”

And Diplomacy is defined as:
“This skill represents the ability to give others the right impression of yourself, to negotiate effectively, and to influence others.”

Then:
I must agree with Stormborn and Knight-Errant. Diplomacy is a fitting skill to the sorcerer and stays in the skill list.​

ON INTIMIDATE
Logic Proof

Since Intimidate states:
”You can change another’s behavior”. “Intimidate consists of verbal threats and body language.”
Diplomacy states:
”You can change the attitudes of others.” “to persuade” “to convince” “to negotiate”
]“This skill represents the ability to give others the right impression of yourself, to negotiate effectively, and to influence others.”

This shows that they are not in antithesis of one another, they are rather companion skills. Two sides of the same coin. One uses guile to influence while the other uses the same knowledge and skill to use the right words to intimidate.​

ON KNOWLEDGE (Arcana)
Logic Proof

Since the Flavor Text states:
“Since Sorcerers gain their powers without undergoing the years of rigorous study that Wizards go through, they don’t have the background of arcane knowledge that most Wizard’s have.”
And States:
“Sorcerers cast spells through innate power rather than through carefully trained skills.”
And states:
“Sorcerers find they have most in common with members of the other self-taught classes, such as Druids and Rogues.”
And States:
“Sorcerers have no sense of identity as a group. Unlike Wizards, they gain little by sharing their knowledge and have no strong incentive to work together.”
And States:
“For Sorcerers, magic is an intuitive art, not a science.”
And States:
“{they} have no books, no mentors, no theories…”

And Knowledge is defined as:
“Knowledge represents a study of some body of lore, possibly an academic or even scientific discipline.”
And States:
“The {Knowledge skill} check represents what you know, and thinking about a topic a second time doesn’t let you know something you never learned in the first place.
And States:
“An untrained knowledge check is simply an Intelligence check. Without actual training, a character only knows common knowledge.

On PrC’s and Knowledge (Arcana):
There are no specific abilities that require the use of Knowledge (Arcana) beyond PrC entry. PrC entry is not an argument for class builds. A class should not be designed based on what PrC’s it can take as the core game should focus on playability of a class from levels 1-20 and not ASSUME nor ENCOURAGE the use of PrC’s.

On Comparison to the Bard:
Bards specifically state that they receive dedicated training in their skills from mentors and bardic colleges.

Then:
I must deduce that regardless of effect on PrC qualification, Knowledge Arcana does not fit within the definition of the sorcerer class.​

While I am not completely comfortable with sorcerers being able to pick up any spell-trigger item and use it; I am leery of changing magic item rules to suit or restrict a class.

ON MAGIC ITEM USE
Logic Proof

Since the DMG states:
“Spell Completion: This is the activation method for scrolls. A scroll is a spell that is mostly finished. The preparation is done for the caster, so no preparation time is needed beforehand as with normal spellcasting. All that’s left to do is perform the finishing parts of the spellcasting (the final gestures, words, and so on). To use a spell completion item safely, a character must be of high enough level in the right class to cast the spell already. If he can’t already cast the spell, there’s a chance he’ll make a mistake. Activating a spell completion item is a standard action and provokes attacks of opportunity exactly as casting a spell does.”
And
“Spell Trigger: Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it’s even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken. Anyone with a spell on his or her spell list knows how to use a spell trigger item that stores that spell. (This is the case even for a character who can’t actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin.) The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it. Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.”
And
“Command Word: If no activation method is suggested either in the magic item description or by the nature of the item, assume that a command word is needed to activate it. Command word activation means that a character speaks the word and the item activates. No other special knowledge is needed.
A command word can be a real word, but when this is the case, the holder of the item runs the risk of activating the item accidentally by speaking the word in normal conversation. More often, the command word is some seemingly nonsensical word, or a word or phrase from an ancient language no longer in common use. Activating a command word magic item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Sometimes the command word to activate an item is written right on the item. Occasionally, it might be hidden within a pattern or design engraved on, carved into, or built into the item, or the item might bear a clue to the command word.
The Knowledge (arcana) and Knowledge (history) skills might be useful in helping to identify command words or deciphering clues regarding them. A successful check against DC 30 is needed to come up with the word itself. If that check is failed, succeeding on a second check (DC 25) might provide some insight into a clue.
The spells identify and analyze dweomer both reveal command words.”
Then for Spell Completion:
Since spell completion is actually completing a spell casting, and since the rule states “To use a spell completion item safely, a character must be of high enough level in the right class to cast the spell already. If he can’t already cast the spell, there’s a chance he’ll make a mistake.”…
Then does that mean a sorcerer can only freely use scrolls for spell on their Spell Known list and must resort to the standard Spellcraft skill check to cast an unknown spell? Or is Spell Level access the only restriction?

Then for Spell Trigger & Command Word:
Since both use a single word to activate that must be learned and the rules state:
Trigger: “Anyone with a spell on his or her spell list knows how to use a spell trigger item that stores that spell. (This is the case even for a character who can’t actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin.) The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it.”…
Completion: “Command word activation means that a character speaks the word and the item activates. No other special knowledge is needed.”
Words: “The Knowledge (arcana) and Knowledge (history) skills might be useful in helping to identify command words or deciphering clues regarding them. A successful check against DC 30 is needed to come up with the word itself. If that check is failed, succeeding on a second check (DC 25) might provide some insight into a clue.
The spells identify and analyze dweomer both reveal command words.”

Then the sorcerer is already naturally slightly limited in the spell triggers/command word items that they will be able to use based on learning and delayed spell level access. Though learning can easily be overcome with the use of spells, the spell level delay, delays the sorcerers use of these items. No “special” rules need be applied nor do the core magic item rules need to be altered to single out the sorcerer class.​

Which leads to…

I think that I tend to agree with your last statement here Son, Use Magic Device does seem to fit sorcerers; more so than Knowledge: Arcana IMO. I would think that this skill would be of more practical use to the class than any knowledge skill. Add to this idea that it is another charisma based skill and you start to get a list that is more in line with the other core classes skill lists; that is to say that they frequently have several skills that draw from their primary attribute rather than a few.
Also, there should probably be some stipulation that allows the sorcerer to only use magic device on arcane items rather than any magic item he may encounter.

ON USE MAGIC DEVICE
Logic Proof

Since the Use Magic Device states:
“Use this skill to activate magic devices,…that you could not otherwise activate.
And
“Use Magic Device lets you use a magic item as if you had the spell ability or class features of another class, as if you were a different race, or as if you were of a different alignment.”

Then allowing this skill would be not only overcoming the Sorcerers natural restriction with Spell Completion, Spell Trigger and Spell Completion items, you would also be overcoming the inherent class oriented “arcane” nature of the sorcerer and allowing them to use ANY magical device regardless of Racial, Alignment, Ability Score or Class restrictions. This means that a sorcerer may not only use any Divine Spell Completion and Spell Trigger items, they may defeat their own restrictions on these items placed by the core rules such as being able to use items that would normally be delayed to them due to spell level access. They also gain the ability to use specifically restricted items such as the Holy Avenger.

As I have stated before, the skill is specifically defined as a skill of deceit and trickery in that it allows you to “fool” a magic item into thinking you are something that you aren’t. It has nothing to do with an the manipulation of the magic in the item.

This is a HUGE advantage to the sorcerer as it not only removes some of its natural restrictions, but grants them the ability to mimic spell ability from any class’s spell list. Thus I am not sure it should be included in the skill list of the sorcerer. However, with that said, I do see it as possible due to it being a Charisma based skill and the sorcerer does lack in skills and abilities based on its Primary Stat, as well as the fact that the sorcerer is supposed to be a character that relies on their ability to blend in and fool others (spy, diplomat, etc.)​

The questions falls down to this:

Do we want the sorcerer to be able to freely use Spell Items from ANY spell list, and magic items normally restricted to specific classes, races, alignments or ability score requirements?


On another topic…

ON HEREDITY
Since the Flavor Text states:
“A Sorcerer’s power is inborn, and part of his soul.
And
“Some Sorcerers claim the blood of dragons courses through their veins. Sorcerers even often have striking good looks, usually with a touch of the exotic that hints at an unusual heritage.”

Do we want to actually quantify Heredity in the core class or leave it to a PrC build?

The tricky part of the topic is that it almost delves into mixing class and race, as does the “Dragon Disciple” PrC.

There are two options:
1) Bring Heredity into the core class and lay the basis of heredity for a future growth into specialized evolution of the heredity aspect through a PrC.
2) Simply not mention heredity in the core class, but expand on the option with specialized evolution of the heredity aspect through a PrC.

I think I am leaning toward a Heredity-free base class but creating a Sorcerer PrC along the lines of the an “Enlightened Sorcerer” using the ideas portrayed in the Unearthed Arcana “Prestigious Character Classes” (converts Bard, Ranger, Paladin into PrC’s).

It could basically either be a 15 level PrC that would use all of the standard Sorcerer information we develop in the core class as far as Skills, BAB, Saves, etc. but instead of using the generic class abilities, would instead follow a heredity path of abilities (standard template so others could be developed) and slightly more abilities, Or it would be a very small PrC that simply developed the heredity package.
This would have to be based upon a Sorcerer specific class ability, such as “Spell Path” from the current build idea, as it is a PrC only open to those of the Sorcerer class.

Requirements:
Skills: Spellcraft 8 ranks
Special: Must be able to spontaneously cast spells of 2nd level or higher.
Special: Must have chosen a spell path from the Spell Path class ability.

Example Class progressions using the current build:
5….. Heredity, Improved Innate Ability
6….. Sorcerer Ability
9….. Improved Innate Ability
10… Sorcerer Ability
13… Greater Innate Ability
14… Sorcerer Ability
16… Greater Innate Ability
18… Sorcerer Ability
20… Master Innate Ability

OR (+1 level of existing spellcasting class @ each level)
1….. Heredity, Heredity Innate Ability
3….. Heredity Sorcerer Ability
5….. Heredity Innate Ability

Heredity: All Sorcerers are born to the heritage of Sorcerous power, though some do not know what heritage it is that brings them their power and these are the un-enlightened sorcerers. The sorcerer’s heritage plays a dramatic part in determining what each individual sorcerer actually is, and what they can do. No two sorcerers will ever be identical. The sorcerer may choose from the following types of heritage: Arcane Experiment, Child of Magic, Child of Nature, Child of the Elements, Divine Receptacle, and Sorcerous Family.

Each Heredity:
• Gain one Class Skill related to the heredity.
• Gain an appropriate bonus language (draconic by default)
• Special Bonuses
o Specific Ability related to the heredity
o Spell List designation – what spells the heredity may learn outside of the Wizard spell list, and any restrictions on spells they may not learn at all
• Additional Spell Path (gain a Spell Path related to the heredity)

Example (Child of Magic – Dragon)
• Gain Survival as a Class Skill.
• Gain Draconic as a bonus language
• Special Bonuses
o Strange Appearance: The draconic sorcerer manifests minor but strange colorations in their hair and/or skin reflecting the coloration for their draconic heritage. This grants a +2 racial bonus to Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information and Intimidate skill checks, but applies a -4 racial penalty to all Disguise skill checks.
o The sorcerer may learn any spell with the energy descriptor of their ancestral dragon type (if that dragon has more than one energy type, choose one) regardless of spell list. However, the sorcerer may not learn any new spells that are of that energy type’s oppositional energy type.
• Gain the Dragon Domain Spell Path. The sorcerer gains the spells of this domain as bonus known spells as soon as they are able to cast spells of that spell level. These bonus domain spells are cast as if the sorcerer were one level higher.
o Dragon Domain Spell Path: 0 – Resistance; 1st - Comprehend Languages; 2nd - Darkvision; 3rd - Protection from Elements; 4th - Fear; 5th - Mind Fog; 6th - True Seeing; 7th - Vision; 8th - Mind Blank; 9th - Dominate Monster

Innate Ability would change to making the sorcerer choose their Heredity Spell Path or Specific spells that relate to the heredity as Innate Abilities.
Example: Dragon would have to choose from the Dragon spell path or could choose spells that their dragon ancestor gets as a spell-like ability.


Thoughts, comments?

 

[Buttercup]

Mission Statement:

This is good.

ON DIPLOMACY...ON INTIMIDATE...ON KNOWLEDGE (Arcana)

I already agreed with you on all these points, but for those who weren't following the logic, it's good you included your comments here.

ON MAGIC ITEM USE

Do we want the sorcerer to be able to freely use Spell Items from ANY spell list, and magic items normally restricted to specific classes, races, alignments or ability score requirements?

I would say no. If that were done, one might as well eliminate all other casting classes as playable. I do think that, although sorcerers should continue to have a limited repetoire of spells, this repetoire can be based on their heritage. In other words, it isn't inconceivable that a certain heritage might have access to spells from, say, the druid list, but this would be at the penalty of not having access to many spells from the sorcerer/wizard list. But even in this case, the sorcerer should only be able to use wands/scrolls and the like which store items on his specific spell list.

ON HEREDITY

Do we want to actually quantify Heredity in the core class or leave it to a PrC build?...

There are two options:
1) Bring Heredity into the core class and lay the basis of heredity for a future growth into specialized evolution of the heredity aspect through a PrC.
2) Simply not mention heredity in the core class, but expand on the option with specialized evolution of the heredity aspect through a PrC.

I'm leaning toward option 1. It doesn't seem reasonable to choose one's heredity later on in one's adventuring career. However, I'm ok with the idea that most abilities don't manifest for several levels. It's sort of like the feat Spell Casting Prodigy from the FRCS. You must take it at first level, even if you start out as a non casting class. (But then, let me state that I have a bias in this direction generally. For example, I *really* don't like the idea of multiclassing into a barbarian. To me it's something you're born into...or not.) I think the build could be made to work either way, but the second option seems to put the cart before the horse to me. ("The DM throws lots of undead at us in this game, so I'm going to choose a heritage that will make me a super-duper undead killer!")

 

[Buttercup]

Knight_ Errant and Buttercup.

I think we can safely assume that no flame war is forthcoming. That said, I am not without a rebuttal.

You misunderstand me. I was merely suggesting that we need to move on. You have stated your opinions forcefully and repeatedly, but not everyone agrees with you. Continuing to state them with ever escalating force is, at this point, fruitless. You don't like Khaalis' ideas for the sorcerer. Got it.

One of the great beauties of D&D is rule 0.

 

[Khaalis]

This is good.

Thanks! I wanted to be as clear and concise as I could be.


On Use Magic Device

I would say no. If that were done, one might as well eliminate all other casting classes as playable.

I tend to agree on this point, but I am open to hear arguments to the contrary of the logic so far introduced before I make up my mind.


On Heredity

I do think that, although sorcerers should continue to have a limited repetoire of spells, this repetoire can be based on their heritage. In other words, it isn't inconceivable that a certain heritage might have access to spells from, say, the druid list, but this would be at the penalty of not having access to many spells from the sorcerer/wizard list. But even in this case, the sorcerer should only be able to use wands/scrolls and the like which store items on his specific spell list.

I'm leaning toward option 1. It doesn't seem reasonable to choose one's heredity later on in one's adventuring career. However, I'm ok with the idea that most abilities don't manifest for several levels. It's sort of like the feat Spell Casting Prodigy from the FRCS. You must take it at first level, even if you start out as a non casting class. (But then, let me state that I have a bias in this direction generally. For example, I *really* don't like the idea of multiclassing into a barbarian. To me it's something you're born into...or not.) I think the build could be made to work either way, but the second option seems to put the cart before the horse to me. ("The DM throws lots of undead at us in this game, so I'm going to choose a heritage that will make me a super-duper undead killer!")

I fully agree on the logic of a sorcerer being a bordeline Racial Class. I have the same issues with Barbarian. IF I had my way (and I will in my revised Classes) I would rename the Barbarian to Berserker and remove all pseudo-cultural references from the flavor text. A barbarian "culture" belongs to a race or in a campaign world write-up. I do however see the possibility to allow a sorcerer to come into their power but not know their heredity. However once going that route, I do see the ability to abuse the "conecting" to one's heredity. As you mention, pick a heredity that best suits the style.

I do feel that heredity should be chosen at the sorcerer's 1st level though as it makes the most logical sense. I am thinking that the "knowledge" of one's heredity should be player choice. Just as any player can choose their background, so should the sorcerer. Some sorcerers may know their heritage while others may not. For example Sorcerer A might know that his great great grandfather was a 1/2-Dragon, but Sorcerer B might Not know that his great great grandfather was 1/2-Celestial.

What we have to ask is...Will this effect the game mechanic?
Do we force heredity? Or do we make it an option that must be chosen or not at first level? Something along the line of allowing a sorcerer to truly not know their heritage or their heritage is so old (ie so generic) that it isnt strong enough to influence the sorcerer in any way.

The large question is how to introduce Heredity to the class without making it too restrictive, or too powerful.

How do we quantify ability to access spells outside of the Wizard list, but do it so that it is set generic ability/restriction? Or de we specify certain heredities and their capabilities?

What I was thinking of starting by defining a basic generic Heredity Template such as:

• Gain one Class Skill related to the heredity.
• Gain an appropriate bonus language (draconic by default)
• Special Bonuses (set number?)

• Specific Ability related to the heredity
• Spell List designation – what spells the heredity may learn outside of the Wizard spell list if any, and any restrictions on spells they may not learn at all

• Additional Spell Path (gain a Spell Path related to the heredity)
​

This would give the class some defined Heredities of the more common types, as well as provide the template for new ones to be developed. This would be similar to Cleric Domains providing a list of base domains for reference with many other possibilities to be devised later. Two examples classes like this are Monte's Totem Warrior and Witch.

If we do go with something like this. What do we begin with in the core? Do we begin offering all of the "Typical" sorcerer heredities or only one or two such as focusing on the Dragon and a Divine Inspired?

Once heredity is designed, how do we want to link heredity to class abilities or do we?


Here is an Example:

At 1st level grant "Spell Path" as the set class ability. This would be the same level of "Mutability" as in the Cleric's Domain Choice, the Monk's Style Choice, or the Ranger's Weapon Style Choice.


Spell Path: Each sorcerer’s magic is somewhat unique. At 1st level the sorcerer may choose one of the following magic paths: Unknown Heredity or Heredity.

Unknown Heredity: The sorcerer's magic ancestry is so old that it has no overtly obvious source and takes on a more broad effect for the sorcerer. The sorcerer of an unknown heredity may choose one of the following Spell Paths.

Sorcerous Specialization: The sorcerer chooses a single school of magic known as their specialty school. The sorcerer is most attuned with the spells from that given school. When choosing the specialist school, the sorcerer must also choose opposition schools that are banned to them. If they choose to specialize in Divination they may choose any one other school (excluding Universal). If they choose any other school they must choose any two schools of opposition except Divination and Universal. The benefit of sorcerous specialization is that the sorcerer gain one extra spell known of their choice per spell level, from their specialist school only, these spells are cast as if the sorcerer were one level higher and they also increase the save DC of all spells used from the Specialty School by +1.
Domain Sorcerer: The sorcerer chooses an Arcane Domain from those listed on p.57 of Unearted Arcana. This domain may never be changed even through spell swapping. A domain sorcerer gains the spells of their arcane domain as bonus known spells as soon as they are able to cast spells of that spell level. These bonus domain spells are cast as if the sorcerer were one level higher and they also increase the save DC of all spells used from the Specialty School by +1.
The domains a sorcerer may choose are: Abjuration, Antimagic, Battle, Cold, Conjuration, Divination, Enchantment, Evocation, Fire, Illusion, Necromancy, Storm, Transmutation.​

Heredity: The sorcerer has a specific heredity that has a strong influence on their abilities. The sorcerer may choose from the Arcane Experiment, Child of Magic (dragons; celestial or fiend {maybe just Outsider?}; shapeshifters; and storm giants {or just giants?}), Child of Nature, Child of the Elements, Divine Receptacle, and Sorcerous Family.

Examples

Child of Magic - Dragon: The sorcerer has the blood of a dragon in their veins. The connection to their draconic heritage is strong in the sorcerer and has manifested itself in the sorcerer's abilities.

• Gain Survival as a Class Skill.
• Gain draconic as a bonus language.
• Strange Appearance: The draconic sorcerer manifests minor but strange colorations in their hair and/or skin reflecting the coloration for their draconic heritage. This grants a +2 racial bonus to Bluff, Diplomacy, Gather Information and Intimidate skill checks, but applies a -4 racial penalty to all Disguise skill checks.
• Energy Focus: The sorcerer's draconic blood gives them an affinity for energy spells that relate to their specific draconic heritage. The sorcerer may choose one energy descriptor based on their dracon ancestor's breath weapon (if the dragon type has 2, choose 1). That energy descriptor is now a specialty for the sorcerer and the sorcerer can learn any spell with that descriptor regardless of spell list. However, when this ability is chosen the sorcerer is banned from learning that energy descriptor's opposition element descriptor (such as acid vs. electricity), or if there is no opposition they must choose a banned energy descriptor.
• Draconic Spell Path: This spell path may never be changed even through spell swapping. The sorcerer gains the spells of this spell path as bonus known spells as soon as they are able to cast spells of that spell level.
  0 – Resistance; 1st - Comprehend Languages; 2nd - Darkvision; 3rd - Protection from Elements; 4th - Fear; 5th - Mind Fog; 6th - True Seeing; 7th - Vision; 8th - Mind Blank; 9th - Dominate Monster

Child of Nature: The Child of Nature is the descendant of a supernatural fey species such as Satyrs, Faeries, etc. or possibly even been imbued with their special powers by the powers that control nature. This ancestry is powerful and of all heredities, most directly links the sorcerer to the forces of their heredity – nature, imbuing in them a sense of need to protect nature. Their personalities are even reflective of the changing of the seasons. The nature sorcerers powers are born and influenced by this heritage.

• Gain Survival as a Class Skill.
• Gain sylvan as a bonus language.
• Woodland Stride: The Sorcerer may move through natural ground covered terrain (shrubs, thorns, etc.), at their normal speed and without suffering damage or other impairment. This does not provide protection from enchanted or magically manipulated areas.
• Nature Focus: The sorcerer may learn any spell from the Druid spell list. In return however, they may not learn spells of the Evocation school.
• Nature Spell Path: This spell path may never be changed even through spell swapping. The sorcerer gains the spells of this spell path as bonus known spells as soon as they are able to cast spells of that spell level.
  0 – Know Direction; 1st - Summon Nature's Ally I; 2nd - Summon Nature's Ally II; 3rd - Summon Nature's Ally III; 4th - Summon Nature's Ally IV; 5th - Summon Nature's Ally V; 6th - Summon Nature's Ally VI; 7th - Summon Nature's Ally VII; 8th - Summon Nature's Ally VIII; 9th - Summon Nature's Ally IX

Note that while the Non-Heredity options do not gain a new Class Skill or Language, they do gain 2 abilities (+1 caster level and +1 spell DC) and a Spell Path.


Thoughts, Opinions and Ideas?

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Yes, it's called a rebuttal. So try as you might to hit and run, I do have something to say in return. So if you'll excuse me for resisting my censors...

This concept of foreknowledge is your perception of how the system works and that's fine. I am just not going to re-write how magic items work to single out one class, when I feel that following the logic of the restriction should affect all classes equally. You are also choosing to ignore bards who also have a "ceiling" on spells following your logic. Personally I feel the "ceiling" does not matter. Technically the Sorcerer has the "potential" to learn any spell on the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list. Whether you call it foreknowledge or not the possibility to acquire the spells is there.

This is purely a matter of semantics and opinion. Its something we aren't going to agree on.

Hold on for a moment here. Let me get back to this in a second.

You repeatedly said that the flavor text means nothing, that only your view of the sorcerer matters, and that flavor text cant be used as empirical evidence. So yes you are choosing to ignore it, for whatever reasons, its still ignoring it.

I challenge you again, rather than talking trash, to find it. Let me make it easy. You won't. You have quoted me saying that "flavor text cannot be used to justify game mechanics". I have never said that "flavor text" means *nothing*. I have even said that flavor text should be used a *guide* for game mechanics. However, the difference between the word "justify" and "guide" seems to be lost on you.

For somebody who just discarded a logical argument because it contained (oh my gosh) semantics (see above), you sure don't understand what semantics are in the first place. Foreknowledge of spells (in the case of wizards, clerics, and druids) is a logical game mechanic of heroic spellcasting. In the case of bards, that foreknowledge extends from their bardic knowledge. In the case of sorcerers, it does not exist.

I understand that you have chosen to ignore an argument based on logic (I.E. evidenced by simply stating your opinion again rather than actually looking at the game mechanics for sorcerers, bards, and every other spellcasting class). But more anything, I understand that you avoid such arguments because they do not fit into your personal perception of what it means to be a sorcerer.

If you are basing sorcerers having Knowledge on the fact that Humans are curious about ourselves, your logic is flawed. For one, its human-centric and ignores sorcerers of the other races that are NOT described as being so adaptable and curious. For two, as I said earlier – following this logic you must make all Knowledge skills class skills for all classes.

Do you seriously think that other races are not curious about themselves? Moreover, why would a character class, that is not inherently magical, need to be anything more than introspective to learn about themselves? Unless you have a skill called Knowledge (self-analysis) in your game, this argument is downright silly.

Khaalis: "The reason it is included is because the sorcerer was made to be nothing more than a duplicate of the wizard..."

Sonofapreacherman: For somebody who keeps claiming that my views are just that, you have been guilty of basing your arguments on arbitrary opinions far more often than me.

Khaalis: You think this is opinion? Prove that its not.

You have taken a quote completely out of context and applied it to an unrelated statement. This is an ongoing problem. As a civilized request now, please make a greater effort to avoid doing this. This quote and follow up you refer to here came from an argument about Knowledge (arcana). It had very little to do with the sorcerer being a duplicate of the wizard.

Hell Yes I do ignore it. So what?

Spoken like a player who does little very play-testing before making sweeping changes.

First off, how does this relate to the comment you quoted? What should I be following?

It relates to how utterly ridiculous your threadbare arguments can be. To claim that any prestige based on race should discarded was a huge leap, even for you.

Flaw in the logic. 1) Divine casters do not choose spells, they already know them all.

Are you kidding? Of course they do. They choose their spells every day when they meditate.

2) Wizards do NOT have to choose from the levels of spells they are given.They can choose to learn spells of any level available to them. "At each new wizard level, she gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that she can cast (based on her new wizard level) for her spellbook."

What the hell do you think I was talking about when I said "there are mechanics already in place for this"?

Over a 20 level game, with a Wizard preparing scrolls and making wands...

Whoa there horsy! I said nothing about the cost of wands being marginal. I was talking about scrolls at the time and you know it.

Moreover, when it comes to casting higher levels spells at the same time as wizards (and clerics and druids), the strongest argument here is the one you avoided. It's beginning to feel like clockwork.

"Let the sorcerer spontaneously cast the same spell over and over again at the wizard. The basic utility of any properly play-tested wizard will have a host of spell defenses to negate the (count them) 1 spell that a sorcerer would know at the same level as the wizard. Spell repetition means nothing if you only know one trick. Giving sorcerers access to higher-level spells at the same time as wizards unbalances nothing."

And I fundamentally disagree that spells are a classes only abilities.

That much is obvious. Which leads me to believe, and this is just my opinion of course, that you understand very little about the greatest strength of the sorcerer (I.E. their spells).

You have said that a one trick pony is very limiting and that's what the sorcerer's spells are. Take into account that EVERY other spellcaster in the game has other abilities to fall back on defies your argument that the sorcerer should have none.

No, I most certainly did not. I said that whatever abilities sorcerers "do" get, should be based on augmenting or modifying their existing spells (I.E. their greatest strength). Those spells constitute what should be their *primary* abilities.

Those classes also have abilities that have little or nothing to do with how their spells function – so why should the sorcerer be the only class to fall into that restriction?

Because those classes are casting divine spells.

It is reverse discrimination.

You're grasping at straws. Reverse discrimination? You bring political correctness into a debate about sorcerer game mechanics? I genuinely hope you realize how ridiculous that sounds. There's nothing even remotely discriminatory about the fact that arcane spells offer more combat power and non-combat utility than divine spells. They were designed that way on purpose to achieve a sense of balance; something you all too carelessly overlook.

-----

Reading on now, watching you underline Logic Proof over and over again, I wanted to thank you for making your true colors so easy to see.

I think I am leaning toward a Heredity-free base class...

If you take away nothing else that I have added to this thread, then I am glad you have taken this. (Now watch, you'll change your mind completely again.)

Those of us who don't use rule 0 as an excuse to "do anything" with the rules, will continue making highly scrutinized changes accordingly.

 

[Stalker0]

Just a suggestion guys, if you want the majority of people to read your posts, make them a bit shorter than 5 pages long.... its sad but true because I like to write a lot too, but when there's a really long post we sometimes gloss over them.

 

[Khaalis]

Just a suggestion guys, if you want the majority of people to read your posts, make them a bit shorter than 5 pages long.... its sad but true because I like to write a lot too, but when there's a really long post we sometimes gloss over them.

Thanks stalker I will try to put information together and split this into yet another new post when I have a better starting point.

 

[Khaalis]

Yes, it's called a rebuttal. So try as you might to hit and run, I do have something to say in return. So if you'll excuse me for resisting my censors...

Everyone’s entitled to their say and opinion. I am sorry that my challenging your views has so upset you.

I challenge you again, rather than talking trash, to find it. Let me make it easy. You won't. You have quoted me saying that "flavor text cannot be used to justify game mechanics". I have never said that "flavor text" means *nothing*. I have even said that flavor text should be used a *guide* for game mechanics. However, the difference between the word "justify" and "guide" seems to be lost on you.

First off I have never spoken trash, I have consistently quoted you verbatim and pointed out what your statements come across as (as have other people). Secondly, please sit back and look at who is getting offensive and talking trash. I am not the only one that has pointed out to you the escalating tone of hostility in your posts.

As for the flavor text and quoting you, I have said from the very beginning (Post #1) that the POINT of this thread was to create a Sorcerer that MATCHED the Flavor Text, not one that ignored the flavor text, “rule zeroed” the flavor text, re-defined the flavor text, or used it as a vague guideline to pick and choose what we wanted to use from it. You are choosing to “Rule Zero” the flavor text where it suits you, and for you and your view of a sorcerer and your campaign world – Rule 0 the flavor text all you want - that’s Great for you – Huzzah! But it is not what I am seeking to do and never was, so please do not tell me that quoting the Flavor Text to design the build is no justification, that it is irrelevant, or that the sorcerer isn’t what it is described to be.

In my lowly and inexperienced (I’ve only been gaming for 20 years) and unpublished view, flavor text IS the definition of the class: its the focus, it’s the reasoning for why the class exists, it’s the definition on how the class relates to a party, it’s the definition of the reason the class adventures, and how its fits into the D&D world. The flavor text is what defines the class and determines the type of abilities a class should have.

As for never saying flavor text means nothing, there is such as thing as saying something “in not so many words”. Your entire argument on flavor text is a series of Rule Zero. The more you rule zero the flavor text the more it comes across to all who have read it and commented on it, as you ignoring the flavor text as meaning nothing. This is what I mean by you are saying it means nothing. No you never said “flavor text means nothing” in exactly those words, but you accumulated statements come across as meaning the same thing.

Some examples…

Continuing on the topic of Innate Spell-Ability and Flavor Text:
Your quote: “I believe the sorcerer was originally designed with spell-like abilities until the designers realized the foibles of such a mechanic. The flavor text, however, may not have changed, which explains the dichotomy between the class and the class description. In general, it is probably best to write the text last, after the class mechanic has been settled on.”

Unless you can show me in print where the developers state this, and that the flavor text is in errata, it is just your belief.

As for the argument about writing the text last and the class mechanic first – it’s a mute point. We aren’t developing a class from scratch and we don’t have that luxury. Unless you are going to rename the class and write all new flavor text from scratch with no relation to the Sorcerer, then Sorcerer Flavor Text is Non-OGL and can’t be changed no matter how much you envision the sorcerer as something other than what it says it is. Its Non-negotiable. Not to mention the flavor text was kept through various development revisions before release in 3.0, never changed in 3.0 Errata, and was also kept through a round of revision to be re-releases in 3.5, and again has yet to be put into errata.

In regard to a Sorcerer’s Heritage as written in the Flavor Text:
Your quote: ”You are arguing a game mechanic issue with a flavor text issue, and (not to put too fine a word on it) irrelevant flavor text at that.”

The use of a highly stressed “irrelevant” (“not to put too fine a word on it”), is rule zeroing the flavor text. Whether you like it or not, the Flavor Text states that ““Some Sorcerers claim the blood of dragons courses through their veins. Sorcerers even often have striking good looks, usually with a touch of the exotic that hints at an unusual heritage.” By choosing to consider this irrelevant, is Rule 0. That is saying the flavor text means nothing in this case regardless of that fact that WotC has embraced the concept.

2 other related examples of your “Rule Zero” on the Flavor Text: Your view of Diplomacy and Knowledge Arcana.
Your Quote: ”I see nothing quintessentially diplomatic about sorcerers. They are force of personality and innate power. Once they come into their own, sorcerers shouldn't have to negotiated.”

Regardless of the fact that the Flavor Text specifically states that “Since Sorcerers often have a powerful presence that gives them a way with people, they frequently serve as the “face” for an adventuring party, negotiating, bargaining, and speaking for others. The Sorcerer’s spells often help him sway others or gain information, so he makes an excellent spy or diplomat for an adventuring party.”…
You choose to Rule 0 this flavor text statement and say that in your view there is “nothing quintessentially diplomatic about sorcerers”. That is saying the flavor text means nothing in this case.

You also repeatedly argue that Knowledge Arcana is required for the sorcerer because sorcerers should all want to learn the scientific methodology and the obscure non-spell related metaphysical and tangential topics related to magic (not to mention the argument that it damages their entry to PrC’s), regardless of the fact that the flavor text mentions repeatedly that they DO NOT have any formal training in magic. No books, no mentors, and that ”they don’t have the background of arcane knowledge that most Wizard’s have” etc. Yet you think they should all have access to a skill that requires training from a learned expert and that is the study of “ancient mysteries, magic traditions, arcane symbols, cryptic phrases, constructs, dragons, magical beasts” – none of which have anything to do with learning about the intuitive magic of the sorcerer. Per the PHB that knowledge of a sorcerer’s magic (spells – the great strength of the class as you point out) is Spellcraft – not Knowledge (Arcana). In this case you are not only choosing to Rule 0 the Flavor text stating they receive no formal training, but you are also Rule Zeroing the mechanics of the Knowledge skill. Again, that is saying the flavor text means nothing in this case and neither does the rules for the Knowledge skill.

I understand that you have chosen to ignore an argument based on logic (I.E. evidenced by simply stating your opinion again rather than actually looking at the game mechanics for sorcerers, bards, and every other spellcasting class). But more anything, I understand that you avoid such arguments because they do not fit into your personal perception of what it means to be a sorcerer.

We both agree that class is underpowered and that the mechanics are poorly written. However, my “view” of the sorcerer is what the Flavor Text says it’s supposed to be. You view is the one that differs from this as can be seen by the string of Rule 0’s on the flavor text and skill definitions. Game mechanics alone do not 100% dictate what a class is.

You have taken a quote completely out of context and applied to a completely unrelated statement. This is an ongoing problem. As a civilized request now, please make a greater effort to avoid doing this. This quote and follow up you refer to here came from an argument about Knowledge (arcana). It had very little to do with the sorcerer being a duplicate of the wizard.

How is it unrelated? It had everything to do with it. You argued that because it was in the core class that it belonged. I in turn argued that the only reason it was in the core class to start with is because the Sorcerer is an exact shadow of the wizard. To which you told me I was making arbitrary assumptions. I simply showed how I did not see it as an arbitrary assumption. Everything about the sorcerer is a carbon copy of the wizard except spell prep including the skills. Knowledge (arcana) was included because the Wizard had it not because it was relevant to the Sorcerer’s magic.

In regard to ignoring the fact that Sorcerers without Knowledge Arcana are delayed into Wizard oriented PrC’s…

Spoken like a player who does little very play-testing before making sweeping changes.

(Hmm, what was that about talking trash?)
1st of all, and most to the point - I will again point out the argument you chose to ignore. PrC’s are NOT a part of the core game. They are an option first of all. 2nd of all, No class should be designed with the intent to make them fit existing PrC’s. The point of the class system is not to make players take PrC’s. If you argue otherwise, then your personal love of PrC use over solid core class design is showing through. I HAVE playtest core classes and the PrC system. I have been playing 3.X since the day it was pre-released. I personally feel, as I will state again, that the PrC abuse has gone far enough as it is. PrC’s were meant to allow for specialized classes to fill world specific needs and were never meant to be used willy-nilly as excuses to leave a core class for a more powerful class. No class should be designed with fitting into a PrC as part of its core design. If you want Sorcerer PrCs that are easy for the Sorcerer to fit – then write them or change the requirements on the PrC in question, but don’t give abilities to a base class just so it can more easily get into a PrC.

To quote p.176 DMG “Prestige Classes are purely optional and always under the purview of the DM. We encourage you, as the DM, to tightly limit the prestige classes available in your campaign. The example prestige classes are certainly not encompassing or definitive. They might not even be appropriate for your campaign. The best prestige classes for your campaign are the ones you tailor yourself.”

2nd of all, of the WotC published arcane Spellcaster PrC’s those that are intended for Sorcerers simply require ranks in Spellcraft or simply spell level requirements. Only those with a specific requirements to know something obscure about magic require Knowledge (Arcana) – such as the dragon disciple since knowledge arcana includes devoted study on dragons or the Fatespinner which needs a fundamental metaphysical understanding of magic versus the universe.

Moreover, when it comes to casting higher levels spells at the same time as wizards (and clerics and druids), the strongest argument here is the one you avoided. It's beginning to feel like clockwork.

"Let the sorcerer spontaneously cast the same spell over and over again at the wizard. The basic utility of any properly play-tested wizard will have a host of spell defenses to negate the (count them) 1 spell that a sorcerer would know at the same level as the wizard. Spell repetition means nothing if you only know one trick. Giving sorcerers access to higher-level spells at the same time as wizards unbalances nothing."

You are only arguing one specific instance. Wizards are not always prepared to face a sorcerer. In your example not only would the wizard need to know he was going to face a sorcerer, but would also have to know the “one spell” the sorcerer knew to have prepared the correct defensive spell, and on top of that would have to be prepared before actually facing the sorcerer to have the defense in place. That happens about 5-10% of the time in a real campaign. The argument also ignores the properly play-tested sorcerer who uses metamagic to “alter” a spell so that it can penetrate specific defenses to the original version of the spell. It also ignores that option systems exist such as spell templates and exalted spells that can alter a spell’s functionality.
On this argument I agree with WotC and Cook, giving the sorcerer spell levels at the same level as the other casters weakens the other class' contributions, thus the balance.

In response to my comment “And I fundamentally disagree that spells are a class’s only abilities.”

That much is obvious. Which leads me to believe, and this is just my opinion of course, that you understand very little about the greatest strength of the sorcerer (I.E. their spells).

(Hmm, what was that about talking trash?)
Ok, what about the wizard then? The wizard gets the same “strength” as the sorcerer – its spells (with flexibility over quantity), yet they get 6 additional class abilities above and beyond their spells. Does this mean that the Wizard was also written by someone who “understood very little about the greatest strength” of the wizard?

You're grasping at straws. Reverse discrimination? You bring political correctness into a debate about sorcerer game mechanics? I hope genuinely hope you realize how ridiculous that sounds. It's not like we're saying boys are better sorcerers than girls. There's nothing even remotely discriminatory about the fact that arcane spells offer more combat power and non-combat utility than divine spells. They were designed that way on purpose to achieve a sense of balance; something you all too carelessly overlook.

This is argument for arguments sake and quibbling over wording to avoid the topic. It has nothing to do with being P.C., it is simply the best term to prove the point. You argue about not targeting a specific class with beneficial rules yet is fine to target a specific class with restrictive rules especially when those said rules could just as easily apply to other (if not all) classes.

You also argue that a sorcerer should be restricted to using only spell trigger items that they have a known spell for, yet on the other hand you turn right around and want to give them Use Magic Device which would allow them to use ANY device, regardless of spell list, class, race, alignment, or ability restriction. If you are going to allow them to pick up divine scrolls and wands and use them, and let them bypass the arcane restriction on spell trigger item use that you yourself put on them, why bother restricting them in the 1st place?

Reading on now, watching you underline Logic Proof over and over again, I wanted to thank you for making your true colors so easy to see.

(And you still honestly believe that “I” am the one that’s talking trash…)

What it comes down to...

If you don’t like what I am trying to do in concept – which is to design a sorcerer mechanic that matches the flavor text and that balances the class’s obvious imbalance with the other core classes; and you can do nothing more than tell me I am stupid (in not so many words), not understanding of concepts, short sighted, inexperienced and rude – then I politely ask you to please leave the thread. You obviously have your view of the sorcerer and have built one that makes you happy. Great for you … Huzzah! However, I am tired of wasting my time arguing irreconcilable differences and of being insulted. This is MY project and I have more supporters than I have nay sayers so I feel that the project is not in vain. I thank you for your constructive inputs, which have actually helped in many ways to concrete my beliefs, but the degenerating into spiteful “rebuttals” is more than I choose to deal with.

Have a nice day.

 

[Terath Ninir]

Don't let it get you down, Khaalis. SOAPman has been like this since Eric Noah's second message board. Going on four years, now. Just don't ever talk about the fireball spell around him.

I like some of your ideas. My alt.sorcerer (well, the Nutkinland.sorcerer, actually) takes a different tack. They can use *any* spell from the cleric, druid, or wizard list -- but at the highest level it is available on those three lists. So cure light wounds is a 1st level spell, but cure moderate wounds is a 3rd level spell.

After reading your posts, I find myself intrigued with the spell-like ability idea. I'm not quite sure if I'll move our alt.sorcerer in that direction, but it is a neat idea.

All in all, while your sorcerer is not quite my cup of tea, it does look very, very interesting. Good work to you and everyone else involved.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

In my lowly and inexperienced (I've only been gaming for 20 years) and unpublished view, flavor text IS the definition of the class: its the focus, it's the reasoning for why the class exists, it's the definition on how the class relates to a party, it's the definition of the reason the class adventures, and how its fits into the D&D world. The flavor text is what defines the class and determines the type of abilities a class should have.

Then by all means, hang your hopes on flavor text. I hope that works out for you.

As for never saying flavor text means nothing, there is such as thing as saying something "in not so many words". Your entire argument on flavor text is a series of Rule Zero. The more you rule zero the flavor text the more it comes across to all who have read it and commented on it, as you ignoring the flavor text as meaning nothing. This is what I mean by you are saying it means nothing. No you never said "flavor text means nothing" in exactly those words, but you accumulated statements come across as meaning the same thing."

Some examples…

Continuing on the topic of Innate Spell-Ability and Flavor Text:
Your quote: "I believe the sorcerer was originally designed with spell-like abilities until the designers realized the foibles of such a mechanic. The flavor text, however, may not have changed, which explains the dichotomy between the class and the class description. In general, it is probably best to write the text last, after the class mechanic has been settled on."

All you have done here is provide yet another example of your continued inability to read a statement in context.

Whether "in" so many words, or "not" in so many words, I still haven't said that "flavor text means nothing". On the other hand, I have said (in so many words) that "flavor text cannot be used to justify game mechanics". The two statements are not the same. If you cannot differentiate them, that is not my problem. I use flavor text as a guide, but the fact that you treat flavor text as "sacred gospel" seems to have sensitized you to anything that might question it. Again, an issue that you should be dealing with on your own.

In regard to a Sorcerer's Heritage as written in the Flavor Text:
Your quote: "You are arguing a game mechanic issue with a flavor text issue, and (not to put too fine a word on it) irrelevant flavor text at that."

The use of a highly stressed "irrelevant" ("not to put too fine a word on it"), is rule zeroing the flavor text.

Remember what this was really about? No? It was about game balance and spell-like abilities. Character's don't have them. Monsters do. Does game balance text take a back seat to flavor text when it comes to granting player-chosen spell-like abilities at 1st-level? Hell no. Have I implied that "flavor text means nothing" here? Not even a little. Sorry but you're still guilty of putting words in my mouth when it suits your argument to do so.

Your Quote: "I see nothing quintessentially diplomatic about sorcerers. They are force of personality and innate power. Once they come into their own, sorcerers shouldn't have to negotiated."

Regardless of the fact that the Flavor Text specifically states that "Since Sorcerers often have a powerful presence that gives them a way with people, they frequently serve as the "face" for an adventuring party, negotiating, bargaining, and speaking for others.

Am I selective with the flavor text I use as my guide? Hell yes. Have I implied that "flavor text means nothing" here. No. Try again.

You also repeatedly argue that Knowledge Arcana is required for the sorcerer because sorcerers should all want to learn the scientific methodology...

Actually, what I did was "suggest" that sorcerers are capable of learned knowledge, and that 1 such skill could "represent" that learned knowledge. That is all. In the mean time, however, you have convinced yourself that I repeatedly argued that Knowledge Arcana is required for the sorcerer. Again, take issue with yourself. Not me.

How is it unrelated? It had everything to do with it. You argued that because it was in the core class that it belonged. I in turn argued that the only reason it was in the core class to start with is because the Sorcerer is an exact shadow of the wizard. To which you told me I was making arbitrary assumptions. I simply showed how I did not see it as an arbitrary assumption.

You actually showed me nothing. While I may agree that the printed sorcerer mimics the wizard far too much, you have no proof that this was intentionally so. It is simply an arbitrary opinion. At least my weakest piece of evidence, that the sorcerer flavor text was written for an earlier build of the sorcerer that never saw print, is based on something I either heard or read from Wizards of the Coast.

I will again point out the argument you chose to ignore. PrC's are NOT a part of the core game.

Never ignored it. But I did imply that in order to take prestige classes into account, you needed to be "far-sighted". About 5 levels far-sighted. If you wish to redesign the sorcerer in a bubble devoid of prestige classes, be my guest. I am not so "short-sighted" to think that the "option" of prestige classes won't be universally desired by players. I would never design a core character class specifically with prestige classes in mind, but among the many little details that float around inside of my head when I am making sweeping changes to a core class, prestige classes are one of them.

You are only arguing one specific instance. Wizards are not always prepared to face a sorcerer.

Anybody who is not prepared to encounter somebody else will do badly against them. That is irrelevant. When the two combatants are aware of each other (you know, a controlled example) the wizard fairs much better than the sorcerer more times than not.

That happens about 5-10% of the time in a real campaign.

Let me put this to you with actual game mechanics rather than an arbitrary % (based on what exactly?) you decided to spit out. Two 3rd+ level characters. One wizard. One sorcerer.

Assuming the wizard hasn't already seen the sorcerer use their highest-level one trick spell in a previous round, the wizard readies an action to cast a spell just before the sorcerer starts casting. What kind of spell is that sorcerer casting? One free action Spellcraft check later, the wizard casts resist energy against the energy type of that spell. At later levels resist energy is replaced by protection from energy, which is replaced by a globe of invulnerability; you know, because there is no limit on the number of spells a wizard can learn.

That is how to use a wizard at suboptimal capacity.

Ok, what about the wizard then? The wizard gets the same "strength" as the sorcerer – its spells (with flexibility over quantity), yet they get 6 additional class abilities above and beyond their spells. Does this mean that the Wizard was also written by someone who "understood very little about the greatest strength" of the wizard?

No, the wizard does not need to be changed. The sorcerer needs new abilities, but once again, only abilities that augment their spells and spellcasting talents. They don't need bonus abilities that mimic what their spells should be doing.

This is argument for arguments sake and quibbling over wording to avoid the topic.

You = pot. Me = kettle. Pot says to kettle: You're black.

It has nothing to do with being P.C., it is simply the best term to prove the point. You argue about not targeting a specific class with beneficial rules yet is fine to target a specific class with restrictive rules especially when those said rules could just as easily apply to other (if not all) classes.

No. I argue that arcane spells are more powerful and have more utility than divine spells.

What I have also said is that the restriction I placed on sorcerers (spell trigger items based on their spells known rather than their spell list) logically extends both from the ceiling of spells that sorcerers can learn and their lack of foreknowledge regarding spells. This is then complimented with skill access to Use Magic Device, compensating for their spell trigger loss (a magically intuitive skill based on Charisma, but dodgy at best until higher levels).

There is nothing trashy about backing up what you say with good old fashioned logical rationality. Putting your foot down on a something simply because it's your opinion and that's enough (as you have done repeatedly) is trashy.

If you don't like what I am trying to do in concept – which is to design a sorcerer mechanic that matches the flavor text and that balances the class’s obvious imbalance with the other core classes; and you can do nothing more than tell me I am stupid (in not so many words), not understanding of concepts, short sighted, inexperienced and rude

I never called you stupid.

As for not understanding concepts, being short sighted, inexperienced, and rude, I am well aware now, after who knows how many words have been exchanged between us, that you are incapable of dialoguing ideas unless those ideas match the ones in your head. The biggest mistake I made was in thinking that you were past the egotistical stage of game designing, whereby the creator believes that their ideas are the best ideas (rather than actually going with the best idea, regardless of origins). Basically, I have realized that instead of leading with objectivity, you lead with your ego.

This is MY project...

And there it is.

Thank you, I will have a nice day.

-----

Hey there Cyberzombie. Ah yes, fireballs. If only they could be more like balls of fire...

No. That time is behind me.