Sorcerer Fix - Continued from "D&D Rules"

[Khaalis]

Khaalis. You asked for constructive feedback earlier, so I will do my best. First of all, the level of cooperation on this thread is inspiring. The shear volume of writing you have collectively produced is mind-numbing (to say the least). But I think everybody here already knows that, so I won't linger with the compliments too long.

I think that was a compliment… So thanks.

In regard to your reply, forgive me if I ramble on but its been a long night of work and I am writing this between tasks.

I think I should clarify my statement of mass appeal. “My” definition in this case is creating an appeal to those who agree that the current sorcerer is not only poorly written, since it relates in no way to the class description, but also to the fact that the class is entirely underpowered compared to any other class in the game and is barely better than an Adept. By mass appeal I do NOT mean writing something that 100% of the people would scream – I want THAT in the Player’s Handbook because face it – all people will never be happy with it no matter what.

Yes the ideals are “radical” but only to those of the more purist mind-set. Simplicity in form is not always the best design concept especially in a gaming environment. The only truly radical thing about the class is the concept of true versatility. You can “Choose” your path with this class unlike the standing classes like the Rogue, Druid, etc. The Fighter is the perfect example of a free-choice class. Rangers and Monks have made a step toward this by allowing “style” choices. The idea behind that change was so that every level 8 Ranger wouldn’t be a cookie-cutter copy of one another’s abilities. For instance, as I have said before – why should a Charlatan concept Rogue be trained in traps and sneak attacks? Why would a pacifist priest be trained in warfare?

Well this should follow true for a Sorcerer as well. If the “purist” mindset does not like the idea of Sorcerer heritage nor of customizability in the class – then the class description is what needs to change to satisfy “mass appeal”. Keep in mind that even Monte’s Cookie-Cutter sorcerer did not set well with the purist mind-set and he did very little to change the class. In my original Poll that began all of this, 66% of the people said that the Sorcerer was fine. These are the people that believe because WotC wrote it, that it is gospel and beyond reproach. I am aiming at the other 44% that believe the class is not well written, and that are dissatisfied with the cookie-cutter approach to class design.

I do not wish to make yet another boring, bland, repetitive cookie-cutter class. I realize generic isn’t a dirty word, but it is not what I am seeking to create with this build. I don’t want to create another Rogue that says at X level you get this ability, and Y level this ability. All Sorcerers of Y level have the same abilities and only different due to the spells they chose. A sorcerer should be defined by more than their spell selection. The Sorcerer description is the most unique class description that has been developed and offered into D&D fantasy in a long time and fills the void that many fantasy literature fans wanted filled, but the class itself falls far short of its description – simply being nothing more than a Wizard without a spellbook.

While I respect what you are saying, and have addressed this concern with myself repeatedly – I just do not want a generic Sorcerer that looks like a glorified Wizard. I really don’t even want it to look like a Druid for that matter with set abilities at each given level – the PC should have choices. As for Prestige Classes being the solution – I loathe the thought. I think PrC’s have become too widespread and too ill-used for this to be a viable solution. The last thing I (and many others) want to see is yet another list of generic PrC’s to be an excuse for someone to abandon a base class.

Now with that said, I may, after this build is finalized take a more “Purist” pass at it and pair it down to the specifics of what the Sorcerer class says – Dragon heritage. I may offer it as a specific Pin-Holed version of the sorcerer as a Generic, no frills, no choices version.

But to present all of this material as a replacement for the core character class sorcerer...? There is simply too much writing. The minute attention paid to the sorcerer would outweigh every other character class.

On this I think you are giving people too little credit. I think people are actually CRAVING more detailed classes and more detailed attention given to the classes. Why else are there a slew of alternate class and class development books out there? The entire Quintessential Class line has done so well as to warrant a Q2 Line. There are also all of the alternate classes that have sold very well: Shaman, Necromancer, Tarot Mage, Chaos Mage, Avatar, Assassin, etc. People want this level of detail and level of choice for their characters. Yes there are purists that say that “diversity” comes only from good Role-Playing but there are many who feel that diversity begins in having a unique character. As for outweighing the other classes, I have done something similar in the way of creating a Choice Path Class build for all of the classes, though the boring and basic Fighter cant really be changed a whole lot (though it could use some work).

With that said, am I ever expecting this to be a “formal” substitute to the Sorcerer as someone suggested earlier? Hell no. I’m too realistic to believe that. Do I feel that this material would make a good alternative source material for those who want to throw out the Sorcerer as-is or even the basic cookie—cutter class structure as it is? Sure. But maybe I’m just dreaming. /shrug

As for the specifics of these ideas, probably the biggest problem I can see is that you are trying to marry spell-like abilities to sorcerers.
Assuming that you have not modified the rules for spell-like abilities, too many rule abuses present themselves ... not the least of which is material components. I'm sure somebody has brought this up already, but casting even a 1st-level spell with costly material components, like identify, for free, not only saves hundreds of gold pieces per day, it can earn that much in the right marketplace. This is a hugely broken game mechanic in the hands of a 1st-level character.
Now if I have overlooked any contingencies that this thread has created to avoid abuses like this, forgive me. But even so, getting rid of somatic and verbal components means that every sorcerer can take 1 level of fighter, suit up in full-plate, and become a one-man Juggernaught of magic.

Yes you missed the restriction but considering the length of the material I am not surprised. Most people scan the boards and don’t read all the posts in detail.
“Spell-like Abilities Known: A Sorcerer’s spell-like ability arsenal is limited when compared to that of a wizard. The fact that sorcerers use spell-like abilities rather than spells, limits the sorcerer in the spell-like abilities that they can use. Any spell-like ability with a material component equal to or greater in value than 1gp is not useable by a sorcerer, unless otherwise noted as a special ability with the individual spell-like ability. However, those spell-like abilities that have an XP cost (but not a material component cost over 1gp) can still be learned and used by paying the XP cost normally.”

I have also found an addendum that needs to be made to this to also exclude any spell that requires more than a Standard action to cast (unless specially noted elsewhere).

As for the Juggernaught of Magic, I do not see this as a huge issue. Even IF the Sorcerer were to Suit up in Plate Male at 2nd level after gaining fighter where is he overbalanced to say – the Cleric?

Cleric2 vs. Sorcerer1/Fighter1
HD: C = 2d8 (ave 8) / SF = 1d6+1d10 (ave 8)
BAB: C = +1 / SF = +1
Saves: C = +2 Fort, +2 Will / SF = +2 Fort, +2 Will
AC (with 12 Dex, Plate & Shield): C = 20 / SF = 20
Skills: Both suffer -6 to physical skills
Abilities:

• C = Turn Undead, Spontaneous Healing, 2 Domain Powers, Spells, No Spell Fail
• S = Heritage, 1 Sorcerer Ability, Spells, No Spell Fail

Spells Per Day (with Stat Bonus):

• C = 4 0-level, 4 1st-level
• S = 6 0-level, 5 1st-level

Spells Accessible (with Stat Bonus):

• C = 12 0-Level, 25 1st Level + Any Domain not already in those 37 spells
• S = 6 0-Level, 2 1st Level

Seems basically balanced to me.

Like them or not, spell components are needed to maintain game balance, and that includes the sorcerer. It would be best if you found a way to rationalize spell components for sorcerers in a way that both sets them apart from wizards and still pays tribute to their innate magic.

Why? Personally I think the whole idea of components fits great for a Wizard who’s magic is based on scientific/alchemical formulae etc. etc. but for someone who channels it from within - why? When was the last time you saw a dragon or a demon pull out a pouch of spell components, and start chanting and flailing their arms around when they cast their Sorcerer spells? You don’t.

The rules already exist in the game to allow and balance spell-like abilities. The only “radical” thought is that people need to clear the image of a Sorcerer being nothing more than a Wizard out of their mind. They should be seen as they are described.
“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.” And if that isn’t enough… “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.”
And this is exactly how every other creature in the D&D universe that “Casts as a Sorcerer” casts spells yet the Sorcerer doesn’t.

I have a chosen way of doing this for my own sorcerer (created in large part by a collaborative effort very much like this one), but that quintessential sorcerer thread shares little in common with the radical sorcerer being created here. Moreover, my intention is not submit my own version of the sorcerer, but to offer constructive feedback on the one that is being presented, as per requested.
Do with it as you will. I hope it helped.

Please add the link, as I would be interested in seeing the discussion. Just because I wish to create this build does not mean I am not interested in other builds as well. I appreciate all of the comments and it has made me take yet another hard look at the class build but only concreted me in my footing to the idea that the Sorcerer as described should exist as I am portraying it. However, it lends to the idea that as you say, a more Generic Class build needs to exist to fix the imbalance in the core Sorcerer. However, would I call this a Sorcerer or base it on the Sorcerer Description? No. I would rename the build something like MAGUS or ARCANUS and replace the Sorcerer with the a NEW description that depicts them as a derivative of the Wizard that has no need of rote memorizing spells from tomes and has an innate ability to simply permanently memorize a few incantations – which is what the Sorcerer is now.

Just my thoughts on it. More comments more than welcome!

 

[handforged]

Though with my version there is no need to place the Still Spell use for arcane spell failure. Spell-Like abilities are simply not affected by arcane spell failure.

Seasong's sorceror does not suffer from arcane spell failure as posted, the still spell feat is for situations such as being grappled or tied up.

Thus, I really feel that the best way to represent Sorcerous magic, as it is described in the Sorcerer Description as well as how it used by all the creatures that use magic “As a Sorcerer” is that it should be Spell-Like Abilities. The above “system” basically creates the same effect except for Verbal components – making it more of a “Will and the Word” (Eddings) style magic which is more akin to Psionics.

Both alternatives attempt to achieve the same results as far as "will and the word." Seasong's has a narrow approach meant to have a specifically defined role and flavor whereas your approach is a very wide approach with many possible roles.

Only issue I have with this is that it does not force a Sorcerer to take any Cantrips. They could begin with 6 1st level spells. Other than mine granting 6 Cantrips and 2 1st level spells – Spells Known is the same.

Except that if Seasong's sorceror wants to know any spells of schools other than his chosen one at first level they must be cantrips.

I do not allow this much freedom in spell selection. Sorcerers are still arcane casters and I would not want to see Sorcerers running around with Cure or Harm spells.

This is a flavor issue, and was much debated, but the idea behind the varied spell list is that the sorceror draws from his own power to cast his spells and why would this be limited from healing if that was what a person with innate magical power wanted to focus their power on, and since the non-school spells come a level later, it wouldn't be unbalancing.

An interesting feat for the build, but I don’t necessarily like the idea of building new feats to fit a class revision. I was trying to rebuild the Sorcerer to fit within the existing rules structure without a need to invent new rules such as the need for new feats.

Almost every core class has feats that are tailored to it. The Wizard has Spell Mastery, the Fighter; Weapon Specialization, improved Rage and Wildshape Feats for the Barbarian and Druid, improved Bard Song feats for the Bard, improved Turning feats for the cleric, etc. Since you are giving the class so many options within the mechanics of the class itself, feats are not as important, but I do not feel that having one specifically tailored feat is a valid criticism for a class.

Just some ideas. I still like your class.

~hf

 

[Khaalis]

Seasong's sorceror does not suffer from arcane spell failure as posted, the still spell feat is for situations such as being grappled or tied up.

My only issue is that under the armor section it simply states that Arcane Failure doesnt apply - but not why. My only issue is that you needed to add the "and acts like this feat" to cover grappling etc. when there is already a single mechanic in the core rules that covers all of these options without heaping piles of "feat-like abilities in specific situations" to the class. That was all I was saying is that One Core Rule is better than adding a group of legalease-like rules.

Both alternatives attempt to achieve the same results as far as "will and the word." Seasong's has a narrow approach meant to have a specifically defined role and flavor whereas your approach is a very wide approach with many possible roles.

Similar but not the same. My variant uses true spell-like abilities. There are no vocal components, it is purely force-of-will as stated in the class description. Dont get me wrong, I like the idea of Will-and-the-Word magic, but it just didnt fit the description of the sorcerer. I do like the take on it in Seasong's work though - especially with the Strong Voice focus etc. Its a great build for that style of magic.

Except that if Seasong's sorceror wants to know any spells of schools other than his chosen one at first level they must be cantrips. This is a flavor issue, and was much debated, but the idea behind the varied spell list is that the sorceror draws from his own power to cast his spells and why would this be limited from healing if that was what a person with innate magical power wanted to focus their power on, and since the non-school spells come a level later, it wouldn't be unbalancing.

But doesnt have to. When able to choose from Cleric, Druid, and Wizard lists, there are very few schools I cant round up 6 1st level spells for. As for a Sorcerer using healing, I already mentioned my personal view and stipulation. If you want a Sorcerous Cleric there is always the Mystic. There is a reason that Cure spells are so closely guarded to the Divine- it unbalances the game for Arcane casters to be able to heal. If every sorcerer could take Healing and be a healing battery it really wouldnt matter that they get their spells one level later than a cleric because they can still heal more than most clerics of equal level. Just a style and taste difference.

Almost every core class has feats that are tailored to it. The Wizard has Spell Mastery, the Fighter; Weapon Specialization, improved Rage and Wildshape Feats for the Barbarian and Druid, improved Bard Song feats for the Bard, improved Turning feats for the cleric, etc. Since you are giving the class so many options within the mechanics of the class itself, feats are not as important, but I do not feel that having one specifically tailored feat is a valid criticism for a class.

Tailored to yes, but included as part of the class. Fighters dont get Specialization at 4th level. Its an option they MAY choose and they gain the oh-so-minor boon to be the only ones that CAN take it. Spell Mastery isnt automatically gained either, its a choice but their is no other boon though because its useless to any other class.

Just some ideas. I still like your class.
~hf

Its appreciated. As I said, any constructive comments are welcome as it helps me to continue formulating the ideals of the class and solidifying it.

 

[Tuzenbach]

But to present all of this material as a replacement for the core character class sorcerer...? There is simply too much writing. The minute attention paid to the sorcerer would outweigh every other character class.

Not so! If you look at the larger picture, you'll see that all of this writing and thought put into the Sorerer is extremely necessary when juxtaposed with the other character classes. Why? Because......Long long ago, in a galaxy far far away, there was Basic Dungeons & Dragons, which was derived from a thing called Chainmail and spawned other variants such as *Advanced* Dungeons & Dragons and (God only knows why) *Expert* Dungeons & Dragons. And then man created Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, 2nd Edition. And then 3E and finally 3.5E, but you know all this. The thing is, throughout all of D&D's previous incarnations were classes such as "The Fighter", "The Ranger", "The Cleric", "The Magic-User" (aka "Mage", aka "Wizard"), "The Thief" (aka "Rogue"), and even "The Paladin" and "The Monk". Based upon a QUARTER OF A CENTURY of playing (which, essentially, is the best form of GAME TESTING), D&D3E was able to draw upon extant and extict forms of these classes to determine what worked, what didn't work, what needed to be changed, modified, manipulated, improved, reduced, etc., etc., etc.......

.............ENTER THE SORCERER

Erm......who? Now, we all knew perfecetly well who and what a Ranger was and did because those of us who've been playing the game since the 90's (or if you're like me, '79!) were familiar with previous treatments of that class. Ditto the Cleric, Druid, Fighter, and every other class in 3.0. We'd seen them before, so irregardless of the lack of an accurate written description, we still had several reference works to draw upon to embrace a fuller "feel" of what made these classes tick.

Unfortunately, we don't have this for The Sorcerer. He's brand new and I don't know of anyone who'd created this class before the 3.0 PHB was introduced. The closest thing to this class that I'd experienced prior to 3.0 was Gygax's "Wu Jen" spellcaster he detailed in the "Oriental Adventures" book (1986), and even then it wasn't the "innate magical abilities" bit but the "chaotic" bit.

Unlike every other class in the PHB, The Sorcerer hasn't ever been officially written up before, not in 1995 (Players Option), not in 1989 (2E) and certainly not in 1978 (1E). We don't have old tomes for references as to what "used to be" the flavor of this class (i.e., how many people knew that 1E rules allowed a 12th level Ranger to gain a +12 for damage against Hobgoblins, Orcs, Kobolds, Gnolls, Bugbears, etc.....?). We learn from the past. Based upon what failed in the past, we know what to try and what not to try for the future......Mostly!

The Sorcerer has no past. We've got to analyse it as much as possible because, by developmental standards, it's tailing the other core classes by 25 years!!!

As for the specifics of these ideas, probably the biggest problem I can see is that you are trying to marry spell-like abilities to sorcerers.

Now if I have overlooked any contingencies that this thread has created to avoid abuses like this, forgive me. But even so, getting rid of somatic and verbal components means that every sorcerer can take 1 level of fighter, suit up in full-plate, and become a one-man Juggernaught of magic.

Khaalis makes a good point with his remark about demons and devils and dragons not having to whip out spell components. They have innate abilities, The Sorcerer does, too.

As for the armor issue, all I can suggest is that armor would interfere with The Sorcerer casting his spells not due to constriction of movement, but based upon the fact that a Sorcerer needs to feel "at one" with himself for the proper channeling of his energies. I'm not sure what that means but it sounds like a defense a being with "innate, magical abilities" would offer. So, I vote no for the allowance of armor for The Sorcerer, but also no for material spell components. V & S?.....well, the jury's still out but I'm thinking one or the other would be essential unless a truly psionic-feel to magic is allowed to establish itself. Not a bad thing, but different, definitely different............

Like them or not, spell components are needed to maintain game balance, and that includes the sorcerer. It would be best if you found a way to rationalize spell components for sorcerers in a way that both sets them apart from wizards and still pays tribute to their innate magic.

As I stated above:

Material components; no.
V & S; definately maybe, if not essential.



Oh, and this one's for Khaalis: If you use the term "cookie-cutter" one more time in your arguments I'm going to break into your house while you're sleeping and paint you orange! LoL

 

[Khaalis]

Oh, and this one's for Khaalis: If you use the term "cookie-cutter" one more time in your arguments I'm going to break into your house while you're sleeping and paint you orange! LoL

Mass snipage for now - more coherent arguments later (its about 3 hours past my bedtime and I have to be up for work in 5 hours). Take this as the humor its meant to be but also kind of makes my point...

As for the *not to be mentioned term* - this is the entire point of the class build - to break out of that 25 year "mold" we are stuck in (22 yrs for me). Why should a Sorcerer HAVE to wave his arms around and do little happy dances and chant nonsensical verbiage to cast spells? Just because 1e and 2e tells us this is how arcane magic works?? Remember - you yourself pointed out - Sorcerer who?

Its ALL new! Why not break the mold and actually DO something new? Other systems do it. I cant wait to get my hands on Green Ronin's Psychic's Handbook just because it is something new to 3.X (though its a rehash of 2E). I cant wait to get my hands on Unearthed Arcana - ground breaking (to D&D) concepts - OH MY!

Heh - I'll write later when I am conscious and coherent....

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

I think that was a compliment… So thanks.

It was ... so you're welcome.

Yes the ideals are "radical" but only to those of the more purist mind-set. Simplicity in form is not always the best design concept especially in a gaming environment. The only truly radical thing about the class is the concept of true versatility. You can "Choose" your path with this class unlike the standing classes like the Rogue, Druid, etc. The Fighter is the perfect example of a free-choice class. Rangers and Monks have made a step toward this by allowing "style" choices.

I couldn't agree more. The first class I revised when 3.0 came out was the monk. It drove me mad that each monk who ascended the level ladder ended up exactly the same. Version 3.5 tried to fix this, but didn't go far enough in my opinion. Still, a balance has to be reached in Dungeons and Dragons between core character class "flavor" and strong heroes, fast heroes, quick heroes, and so forth. People who want a completely mutable character generation method should switch to d20 Modern and tailor it for fantasy.

Well this should follow true for a Sorcerer as well. If the "purist" mindset does not like the idea of Sorcerer heritage nor of customizability in the class – then the class description is what needs to change to satisfy "mass appeal".

Yes and no. Role-players (read: good role-players) don't need abilities to fuel their imagination. That said, good role-players are not a dime a dozen. I consider myself an "okay" role-player. As such, the best sorcerer build (to my way of thinking) doesn't hand-hold me with abilities to feel like a sorcerer, but it isn't shy with the abilities either. I think both sets of ideals should be represented in any well-designed character class. Too much of one of the other is a mark of failure.

Keep in mind that even Monte's Cookie-Cutter sorcerer did not set well with the purist mind-set and he did very little to change the class.

I think that's because Monte's sorcerer didn't go far enough, while some sorcerers variants go too far.

In my original Poll that began all of this, 66% of the people said that the Sorcerer was fine. These are the people that believe because WotC wrote it, that it is gospel and beyond reproach.

Well, you can only do so much for the faith driven, but the other 44% (34%?) are definitely growing in number.

The Sorcerer description is the most unique class description that has been developed and offered into D&D fantasy in a long time and fills the void that many fantasy literature fans wanted filled, but the class itself falls far short of its description – simply being nothing more than a Wizard without a spellbook.

While the sorcerer description is certainly colorful, the trick is not to get carried away. This is where that balance I was talking about needs to come into play. That colorful sorcerer description is flavor text; not gospel. Which is funny, because you're treating the flavor text as gospel.

While I respect what you are saying, and have addressed this concern with myself repeatedly – I just do not want a generic Sorcerer that looks like a glorified Wizard. I really don't even want it to look like a Druid for that matter with set abilities at each given level – the PC should have choices.

We agree that the sorcerer is the weakest of the core character classes. It definitely needs more revision to separate it from the game mechanics of wizards.

The thing is, your sorcerer abilities hand-hold characters through their heritage, when really, wouldn't you rather empower characters to do that for themselves (through spell choice and feat choices)? You have not given players enough generic sorcerer abilities to do so. You, and the contributors of this thread, have created those heritages instead. To be honest, I don't blame you. That's the fun part after all.

As for Prestige Classes being the solution – I loathe the thought. I think PrC's have become too widespread and too ill-used for this to be a viable solution. The last thing I (and many others) want to see is yet another list of generic PrC's to be an excuse for someone to abandon a base class.

Don't be so quick to judge. While many prestige classes are based on +1 level of existing arcane spellcasting class, very few are specifically designed for sorcerers. The material you have created here, however, is ripe for it.

On this I think you are giving people too little credit. I think people are actually CRAVING more detailed classes and more detailed attention given to the classes. Why else are there a slew of alternate class and class development books out there? The entire Quintessential Class line has done so well as to warrant a Q2 Line.

Couple of things. First of all, don't paint me as the bad guy by claiming I am not giving people enough credit. That's cheap. Second of all, the Quintessential Mongoose lines operate on the premise of quantity first. No offense to their prolific writers. There are good ideas in everything.

Yes there are purists that say that "diversity" comes only from good Role-Playing but there are many who feel that diversity begins in having a unique character.

Insert your level of imagination here. We must be thinking along the same lines because this relates directly to what I already said. Do you create all the options for your players and then let them choose? Or do you empower players by giving them just enough game mechanic and flavor text to run off on their own?

As for outweighing the other classes, I have done something similar in the way of creating a Choice Path Class build for all of the classes, though the boring and basic Fighter cant really be changed a whole lot (though it could use some work).

Sounds like material for your specific campaign setting (rather than the sweeping changes being proposed here).

As for the Juggernaught of Magic, I do not see this as a huge issue. Even IF the Sorcerer were to Suit up in Plate Male at 2nd level after gaining fighter where is he overbalanced to say – the Cleric?

Cleric2 vs. Sorcerer1/Fighter1
HD: C = 2d8 (ave 8) / SF = 1d6+1d10 (ave 8)
BAB: C = +1 / SF = +1
Saves: C = +2 Fort, +2 Will / SF = +2 Fort, +2 Will
AC (with 12 Dex, Plate & Shield): C = 20 / SF = 20
Skills: Both suffer -6 to physical skills
Abilities:

• C = Turn Undead, Spontaneous Healing, 2 Domain Powers, Spells, No Spell Fail
• S = Heritage, 1 Sorcerer Ability, Spells, No Spell Fail

Spells Per Day (with Stat Bonus):

• C = 4 0-level, 4 1st-level
• S = 6 0-level, 5 1st-level

Spells Accessible (with Stat Bonus):

• C = 12 0-Level, 25 1st Level + Any Domain not already in those 37 spells
• S = 6 0-Level, 2 1st Level

Seems basically balanced to me.

Then say to me (with a straight face no less) that arcane spells and divine spell are equally balanced.

Why? Personally I think the whole idea of components fits great for a Wizard who's magic is based on scientific/alchemical formulae etc. etc. but for someone who channels it from within - why? When was the last time you saw a dragon or a demon pull out a pouch of spell components, and start chanting and flailing their arms around when they cast their Sorcerer spells? You don't.

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. Demons and dragons start out with spell-like abilities. Player characters do not. Components are a game mechanic that creates game balance between the spellcasters. You are kicking that game balance out the door without so much as a how do you do?

The rules already exist in the game to allow and balance spell-like abilities. The only "radical" thought is that people need to clear the image of a Sorcerer being nothing more than a Wizard out of their mind. They should be seen as they are described. They should be seen as they are described.

Sorry Khaalis, not at the expense of game balance. And quoting flavor text like scripture doesn't change that. Believe me. I did the same thing when I first started a thread on these very boards called "The Sorcerer (A Quintessential Revision)". It lasted several months. And yes, that was before Mongoose released their first "Quintessential" sourcebook. I'm not trying to insult you Khaalis. It's just that your argumentative tactics are very similar to my own flawed arguments at the time. You have to argue game mechanics with game mechanics and flavor text with flavor text.

Please add the link, as I would be interested in seeing the discussion. Just because I wish to create this build does not mean I am not interested in other builds as well.

Tell you what ... if you are genuinely interested in that sorcerer build, please visit my web site and sign up on the message boards. But I won't clutter your sorcerer thread with my own. I'll send you an E-mail instead.

Take care for now.

Kolja

 

[Khaalis]

It was ... so you're welcome.

I couldn't agree more. The first class I revised when 3.0 came out was the monk. It drove me mad that each monk who ascended the level ladder ended up exactly the same. Version 3.5 tried to fix this, but didn't go far enough in my opinion. Still, a balance has to be reached in Dungeons and Dragons between core character class "flavor" and strong heroes, fast heroes, quick heroes, and so forth. People who want a completely mutable character generation method should switch to d20 Modern and tailor it for fantasy.

I disagree. I don’t own d20 Modern but there is nothing wrong with making the existing system mutable. Take for example the much argued Ranger. This class is so generic and broad that people are constantly fighting and arguing over what a Ranger should be. Is it Aragorn? Is it Legolas? Is it the Eagle Scout Nature Boy? Is it the militant Druid? Etc. Or the Rogue – why do all Rogues train in Traps and Sneak Attack if not all Rogues are thieves and murderers? There is more difference between a Charlatan and a Thug than skill ranks. The system can be made to be mutable and still hold exactly the same “core” concept.

For example, my Alt.Rogue. Instead of giving them Sneak Attack +1d6 and Trap Finding at first level, I give the class 2 Rogue Abilities (of choice).
Basically the table changes to look like:
1…..+0…..+0…..+2…..+0…..2 Rogue Abilities
2…..+1…..+0…..+3…..+0…..Rogue Ability
3…..+2…..+1…..+3…..+1…..2 Rogue Abilities

Examples of Rogue Abilities attainable at level 1 (Gain 2): Bonus Feat*, Sneak Attack 1, and Trap Finding.
Examples of Rogue Abilities attainable at level 2 (Gain 1): Evasion, Plus any ability from 1st level Not taken at 1st.
Examples of Rogue Abilities attainable at level 3 (Gain 2): Sneak Attack 2 (If they have Sneak Attack 1), Trap Sense 1, Weapon Training, Plus any ability from 1st or 2nd level Not already taken.

Example Bonus Feats (PHB): Acrobatic, Agile, Alertness, Athletic, Blind-Fighting, Combat Reflexes, Deceitful, Deft Hands, Diligent, Dodge, Improved Critical, Improved Grapple, Improved Unarmed Strike, Investigator, Magical Affinity, Mobility, Negotiator, Nimble Fingers, Persuasive, Quick Draw, Self-Sufficient, Skill Focus, Stealthy, Track, Weapon Finesse
Example Bonus Feats (Song & Silence): Alluring, Arterial Strike, Charlatan, Chink in the Armor, Dash, Fleet of Foot, Flick of the Wrist, Hamstring, Jack of all Trades, Quicker than the Eye, Trustworthy
Weapon Training (PHB): If the Rogue has a Base Attack bonus of +2 or higher, they may choose this ability to become proficient in any 2 Martial wepons or 1 Exotic weapon of choice, of up to Medium size.

Its really not difficult to make the classes mutable and retain the standard abilities and progressions of the class.

Yes and no. Role-players (read: good role-players) don't need abilities to fuel their imagination. That said, good role-players are not a dime a dozen. I consider myself an "okay" role-player. As such, the best sorcerer build (to my way of thinking) doesn't hand-hold me with abilities to feel like a sorcerer, but it isn't shy with the abilities either. I think both sets of ideals should be represented in any well-designed character class. Too much of one of the other is a mark of failure.

I don’t think this has too much of one or the other. The core sorcerer just has nothing. I just cannot understand what was going through the Dev team’s mind when they put that in the book other than that someone said we need a 2nd Pure Arcane Caster to balance with the dual divine casters (Cleric & Druid). There is nothing to distinguish the Sorcerer from a Wizard, even down to the familiar.

As for imagination and mechanics. Having a good imagination is one thing, having no mechanics to support it is another. How far would a Fighter get using their imagination to say “I am an unarmored swashbuckling fighter,” when there are no mechanics to support that style of character? Not much farther than a quick 6’ down. Role-playing and mechanics Have to meet at a middle ground somewhere or the entire endeavor of a class based system is worthless and pointless.

I think that's because Monte's sorcerer didn't go far enough, while some sorcerers variants go too far.

Is that veiled hint?

Well, you can only do so much for the faith driven, but the other 44% (34%?) are definitely growing in number.

Yeah… me and math when busy posting and working at the same time don’t go together. IN fact I didn’t even use the right numbers now that I look at the poll again. Its only 52% that think the core class is balanced and fine the way it is; 31% purely underpowered; 4% said overpowered (people who love Low-to-No magic worlds); 5% believe the class is purely worthless; 8% others that believe its basically not well written but no idea how to fix it.

While the sorcerer description is certainly colorful, the trick is not to get carried away. This is where that balance I was talking about needs to come into play. That colorful sorcerer description is flavor text; not gospel. Which is funny, because you're treating the flavor text as gospel.

Not as gospel per say, but the class needs definition and the place a class gets its definition is its flavor text. A class without accurate flavor text is nothing. What is a Sorcerer if it is not what is described in the flavor text? What is its purpose? What is its source? Why does it exist? If the flavor text isn’t to be used and is not to be used as the class definition – why include it?

We agree that the sorcerer is the weakest of the core character classes. It definitely needs more revision to separate it from the game mechanics of wizards.

However, without the use of its flavor text and creating new mechanics for the class – this isn’t going to happen. It will always be nothing more than a hedge-wizard with Spell Mastery.

The thing is, your sorcerer abilities hand-hold characters through their heritage, when really, wouldn't you rather empower characters to do that for themselves (through spell choice and feat choices)? You have not given players enough generic sorcerer abilities to do so. You, and the contributors of this thread, have created those heritages instead. To be honest, I don't blame you. That's the fun part after all.

How does the class hand-hold the character and allow no freedom? The characters are still fully empowered to make a unique character or a generic character. They still choose their spells, can still choose feats and abilities unique to each sorcerer. If a character doesn’t want to “mess with” a heritage – they simply fall into the Arcane Orphan group and become a general sorcerer again. Even if they choose a heritage it doesn’t mean they have to develop heritage abilities – they could focus on standard feats instead.

As for a hand-holding in a specific heritage, I don’t like the idea of NOT providing some form of structure to the heritage because otherwise it will be abused. You see it all the time on the “Rules” board. If it can be abused it will be. Thus there has to be some defined structure to the abilities within a heritage or you will end up with inappropriate and nonsensical matches - for example you will end up with Celestial sorcerers running around casting demonic spells or Draconic sorcerers with celestial auras.

I also feel that these types of class abilities are essential to creating the right feel for a class such as this. What would a Druid be without its unique class abilities of Woodland Stride, Wild Shape, etc.? Or a Monk without Ki? Or Paladin without Smite? There is nothing to make the Sorcerer unique – so I am trying to create something that does make it truly unique.

What I don’t agree with is that the Sorcerer be made like a Druid or Monk or Paladin – in saying that every Sorcerer of level 1 gets X ability, and every Sorcerer of level 2 gets Y ability, and so and and so forth.

Don't be so quick to judge. While many prestige classes are based on +1 level of existing arcane spellcasting class, very few are specifically designed for sorcerers. The material you have created here, however, is ripe for it.

I can see where this could be true to a point. What I don’t like is the path I think I see forming in your thoughts. Having a “Generic Sorcerer” that can later on CHOOSE a heritage to focus on? The Sorcerer is very difficult to work since its power is supposed to be innate which means the character has always had the power. Its actually more of a racial attribute than a class. How does that translate to a PrC? I can see how but again, it would require a re-write of the core premise of the Sorcerer’s flavor text to make them a generic spellcaster hedge-wizard.

Couple of things. First of all, don't paint me as the bad guy by claiming I am not giving people enough credit. That's cheap. Second of all, the Quintessential Mongoose lines operate on the premise of quantity first. No offense to their prolific writers. There are good ideas in everything.

I didn’t mean it to come across as taking a shot. It wasn’t meant that way. I am simply saying that by saying there is too much writing for the masses to accept I think is an unfair assessment of the masses. There is a proven desire in the masses for more advanced and more detailed focus on character classes.

Insert your level of imagination here. We must be thinking along the same lines because this relates directly to what I already said. Do you create all the options for your players and then let them choose? Or do you empower players by giving them just enough game mechanic and flavor text to run off on their own?

Its actually combination of both. I give them a wide range of set abilities to choose from but they are also used as a template for what “should” be abilities relating to a class. However, I find that if you let players run off on their own with too little mechanics to reign them in – they will Always find a way to abuse it. You see it constantly on the “Rules” boards even with the core mechanics.

Then say to me (with a straight face no less) that arcane spells and divine spell are equally balanced.

I do feel that overall arcane and divine spells are balanced. They each have their own purpose and their own strengths and weaknesses. It all depends on what you want to do. Personally if I wanted to play a Melee/Spellcaster type I would go Fighter/Cleric any day of the week over any arcane mix, Especially if the Mystic is a viable option or the new rules from Unearthed Arcana. Now if you only want to gage balance by combat spells? Then arcane magic is much stronger because wizards rely solely on their spells while a Cleric or Druid is just as likely to don armor grab a weapon and bash your skull in. But when comparing balance – which is more powerful: being able to smite enemies a few times per day or be able to cure your party as well as smite foes in melee? Or more fundamentally which is more powerful Slaying or Healing?

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. Demons and dragons start out with spell-like abilities. Player characters do not. Components are a game mechanic that creates game balance between the spellcasters. You are kicking that game balance out the door without so much as a how do you do?

If the flavor text is “irrelevant” – why is it there? In that argument, the entire class should just be scrapped and tossed and go back to just being Wizards. The flavor text is the Only thing that differentiates the Sorcerer from the Wizard. Without the flavor text – the Sorcerer is just nothing more than a weakened wizard with automatic but limited Spell Mastery. On a more general note – game mechanics are based on flavor text in all other aspects of the game – why is it to be ignored for the sorcerer?

As for components, they may be a mechanic used for its set purpose but it doesn’t mean that everything in the game should have to be bound by them nor are they.
As for Dragons etc. they also gain Spellcasting not just spell-like abilities. As I mentioned above – the Sorcerer’s power is supposed to be innate which is more of a racial trait than a class, but to make it fit a class we have to focus on the mechanic that makes it work.

Sorry Khaalis, not at the expense of game balance. And quoting flavor text like scripture doesn't change that. Believe me. I did the same thing when I first started a thread on these very boards called "The Sorcerer (A Quintessential Revision)". It lasted several months. And yes, that was before Mongoose released their first "Quintessential" sourcebook. I'm not trying to insult you Khaalis. It's just that your argumentative tactics are very similar to my own flawed arguments at the time. You have to argue game mechanics with game mechanics and flavor text with flavor text.

I don’t take it as an insult. Its all a matter of perception and opinion. With that said, I have to disagree here. As has been stated earlier, flavor text cannot be ignored. If the Sorcerer is not supposed to be an innate caster and is nothing more than a variant hedge-wizard with Spell Mastery – it needs to be described as such. A Druid’s powers are designed to fit its flavor text – why does it not apply to the Sorcerer? Most classes have a “set” view in people’s mind of what they are because they have been around forever, and because their flavor text matches the class design. This doesn’t hold true on either account with the sorcerer. The sorcerer is designed to fill a nitch from fantasy literature that ISNT based on the classic pointy-hat wearing, staff bearing, chanting, arm-waving Gandolf. There are scores and scores of fantasy literature that use magic that is not based on the “component” system and it can work in the game mechanic as well. The rules already exist. Its just a matter of taking the step “out of the box” and using them.

As I have said, I may also make a pass at a “generic” sorcerer build but when I do, the first thing to be done will be to re-write the Flavor text to match the new class concept.

Tell you what ... if you are genuinely interested in that sorcerer build, please visit my web site and sign up on the message boards. But I won't clutter your sorcerer thread with my own. I'll send you an E-mail instead.

I have checked it out. I haven’t joined the boards, as I don’t want to disrupt the general consistency of the posts. You have a strong following for your build and that’s cool. In review of your version, I will be taking an idea from the related discussion about it: Aura. It fits the mechanic already in precedent for Clerics and is very fitting for the sorcerer.
Aura (Ex): A sorcerer has a particularly powerful aura of magic about them since they are a focus of innate raw magic. When viewed by detect magic or arcane sight the sorcerer radiates with the presence of a single magical aura of universal origin unless the sorcerer is of a heritage that lends them to a specific type of magic, or they have specialized their spell selection in a school of magic, such as a Shapechanging Sorcerer will more than likely radiate a Transmutation aura. The DC to determine a specific type of magic to the aura requires a successful Spellcraft check (DC 15+Sorcrerer class level).

As for the Thematic specialization I already use Spell Paths.

Evolving Spell-Like Abilities: Sorcerer spell-like abilities can also grow in time and evolve into more powerful versions of old spell-like abilities. This concept is based on the concept of spell paths (by Sean K. Reynolds), a series of spells that build and grow upon the same basic premise.
When a sorcerer acquires new known spell-like abilities, and they have a spell-like ability that exists on a spell path with an appropriate higher-level spell-like ability available, the sorcerer can choose to “upgrade” the spell path spell-like ability they already know, replacing the original spell-like ability with the upgraded spell-like ability. They may then fill the abandoned spell-like ability slot with another spell-like ability that is available to them of the same spell level. A sorcerer can only upgrade one spell-like ability at any given level, even if they have multiple options for upgrading.
Example: Vond is a Sor5 who knows the invisibility spell-like ability. Upon reaching Sor6 he chooses to acquire 2 new 3rd-level spell-like abilities known. Invisibility is a 2nd-level spell-like ability on the Path of Invisibility and invisibility sphere is a 3rd-level spell-like ability on the Path of Invisibility. Vond decides to upgrade his invisibility to invisibility sphere, which uses one of his new 3rd-level spell-like ability known slots. He now has an open spell-like ability known slot at 2nd level (formerly occupied by invisibility), which he may use to learn any other 2nd-level spell-like ability available to him.

Well back to work for me. Looking forward to more comments.

 

[Buttercup]

I'm surprised that the issue of spell components has come up, frankly. I've never gamed with anyone who used them, except perhaps for the odd rare or expensive component, the acquisition of which could be turned into a quest in itself.

So I started a poll on this subject in general.

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

I disagree. I don't own d20 Modern but there is nothing wrong with making the existing system mutable. Take for example the much argued Ranger. This class is so generic and broad that people are constantly fighting and arguing over what a Ranger should be. Is it Aragorn? Is it Legolas? Is it the Eagle Scout Nature Boy? Is it the militant Druid? Etc. Or the Rogue – why do all Rogues train in Traps and Sneak Attack if not all Rogues are thieves and murderers? There is more difference between a Charlatan and a Thug than skill ranks. The system can be made to be mutable and still hold exactly the same "core" concept.

I never said it couldn't be mutable. I am saying that if mutability is taken to extremes, the flavor of Dungeons and Dragons is oftentimes lost.

Its really not difficult to make the classes mutable and retain the standard abilities and progressions of the class.

Of course not. If you look at the aforementioned monk on the web site link I sent you, I have done exactly that. However, while some abilities are chosen by the player, I have also left other quintessential monk abilities in, to retain the flavor of Dungeons and Dragons (which is what I'm talking about). It's about striking a fine balance. If you cannot be bothered retaining the existing "flavor" of each Dungeons and Dragons class, then take a look at the class system in d20 Modern. There are six character types; strong hero, fast hero, tough hero, smart hero, dedicated hero, charismatic here. The rest is up to the character.

The core sorcerer just has nothing. I just cannot understand what was going through the Dev team's mind when they put that in the book other than that someone said we need a 2nd Pure Arcane Caster to balance with the dual divine casters (Cleric & Druid). There is nothing to distinguish the Sorcerer from a Wizard, even down to the familiar.

Again we agree. But your version of the sorcerer is definitely heavy on the abilities and light on the self-determined background. I really don't think you can argue that with multiple heritage abilities. Moreover, I am not saying that this is bad for a radical concept sorcerer; just that it weakens the creative role of the each player and places more emphasis on abilities than role-playing. Again, don't get me wrong, I like abilities. But too many abilities is suffocating, especially when they start to define my entire character.

As for imagination and mechanics. Having a good imagination is one thing, having no mechanics to support it is another.

We have never disagreed on this point. But spell-like abilities (the elimination of all components) is not the way to go (that is, if you care one pip about game balance).

As However, without the use of its flavor text and creating new mechanics for the class – this isn't going to happen. It will always be nothing more than a hedge-wizard with Spell Mastery.

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.

How does the class hand-hold the character and allow no freedom?

Whoa there buddy! Didn't say anything about freedom. No putting words in mouth, deal?

The characters are still fully empowered to make a unique character or a generic character.

But all the fun heritage work has already been done by this sorcerer. That is how your sorcerer hand-holds the player. It takes the incentive to develop own backgrounds away. Everybody can choose their own spells and feats.

If a character doesn't want to "mess with" a heritage – they simply fall into the Arcane Orphan group and become a general sorcerer again. Even if they choose a heritage it doesn't mean they have to develop heritage abilities – they could focus on standard feats instead.

You missed the point. This is not about ignoring your heritage. This is about creating more incentive for the player to come up with their own heritage, by not doing it for them.

As for a hand-holding in a specific heritage, I don’t like the idea of NOT providing some form of structure to the heritage because otherwise it will be abused.

The spells a character chooses provides that structure. Do you plan on creating specific abilities for every creature with spell-like abilities that a sorcerer could have possibly inherited their spells from? No, that would really make the sorcerer class heavy-handed and unwieldy. One ability, however, that provides consistent, slightly mutable, bonuses for different heritages would be a lot more consistent, open-ended, and empowering. For more detailed heritages, like I said, the material presented in this thread should not be wasted. There are so multiple mechanics in Dungeon and Dragons that could readily use this material.

You see it all the time on the "Rules" board. If it can be abused it will be. Thus there has to be some defined structure to the abilities within a heritage or you will end up with inappropriate and nonsensical matches - for example you will end up with Celestial sorcerers running around casting demonic spells or Draconic sorcerers with celestial auras.

What I see on the boards and what reaches the gaming table are two very different extremes; clearing bisected by the dungeon master. On the boards, power-gamers can dream.

I can see where this could be true to a point. What I don’t like is the path I think I see forming in your thoughts. Having a “Generic Sorcerer” that can later on CHOOSE a heritage to focus on? The Sorcerer is very difficult to work since its power is supposed to be innate which means the character has always had the power. Its actually more of a racial attribute than a class. How does that translate to a PrC? I can see how but again, it would require a re-write of the core premise of the Sorcerer’s flavor text to make them a generic spellcaster hedge-wizard.

Not at all. Sorcerers can translate easily into prestige classes, and with no rewrite required. The power to cast spells comes from within. As sorcerers learn to channel that power into more and more powerful spells, they also learn how to shape the power itself, giving rise to a new manifestations of that power (I.E. defined by a prestige class).

I didn’t mean it to come across as taking a shot. It wasn’t meant that way. I am simply saying that by saying there is too much writing for the masses to accept I think is an unfair assessment of the masses.

Fair enough. But what I am saying is that all character classes deserve equal attention. The sorcerer is not special (the apple of my eye perhaps, but not inherently special).

However, I find that if you let players run off on their own with too little mechanics to reign them in – they will Always find a way to abuse it. You see it constantly on the “Rules” boards even with the core mechanics.

What I also see on the boards are a lot of dungeon masters who exert too much control over their players and think that power-gaming is a dirty word. A good player is equal parts power-gamer and role-player. Let them run off and create their own heritage. They still have to come back to the table, at which point the dungeon master is free to say yes or no. The dungeon master will always be the final check and balance of any game.

The thing is, I am not talking about letting players create their own abilities. I am talking about letting them choose their own heritage based on established rules with consistent bonuses, as per my suggestion above. A form of heritage specialization. Because if even one of your pre-created heritage packages offers more or less power than another, you have failed to balance the game mechanics.

I do feel that overall arcane and divine spells are balanced. They each have their own purpose and their own strengths and weaknesses.

I am sorry for being so blunt, but you are kidding yourself. Arcane spells are vastly more powerful. They draw on multiple types of energy and can inflict multiple types of damage. Putting combat aside, arcane spells also offer far more utility than divine spells. You can simply do more fantastical things with arcane magic than you can with divine magic, and that by design.

Now if you only want to gage balance by combat spells? Then arcane magic is much stronger because wizards rely solely on their spells while a Cleric or Druid is just as likely to don armor grab a weapon and bash your skull in. But when comparing balance – which is more powerful: being able to smite enemies a few times per day or be able to cure your party as well as smite foes in melee? Or more fundamentally which is more powerful Slaying or Healing?

Slaying. Because when you die, that's it. Healing is only useful if you haven't died. Furthermore, you gain access to arcane damage spells far sooner than divine resurrection spells. And those arcane damage spells do not require expensive components or XP costs or both to cast. Resurrection spells do.

Getting rid of components with spell-like abilities is unbalancing in the extreme. Either the sorcerer has to use components, or every other spellcaster has to get rid of them. It is one or the other (again, if even want to look at game balance). The trick is to design a game mechanic for making spell components unique to sorcerers (as I have done).

If the flavor text is "irrelevant" – why is it there?

You just answered your own question. The flavor text is there for flavor. The game mechanics are there for game mechanics. And try as you might to find it, the flavor text says nothing about granting sorcerers spell-like abilities.

In that argument, the entire class should just be scrapped and tossed and go back to just being Wizards. The flavor text is the Only thing that differentiates the Sorcerer from the Wizard.

Only if you have based your entire premise for revising the sorcerer on the flavor text. It's a nice piece of creative writing designed to excite players about the class, and that's all. Moreover, it worked. But it is not a springboard to justify game mechanics. That is a flawed argument, especially one for game balance. While the flavor text is the only thing that differentiates the sorcerer from the wizard (right now), this thread exists to changes that. Remember, we agree that the sorcerer needed to be changed. But justifying wildly unbalancing game mechanics (I.E. spell-like abilities for 1st level characters) because of flavor text is folly.

On a more general note – game mechanics are based on flavor text in all other aspects of the game – why is it to be ignored for the sorcerer?

No. Flavor text is written to "describe" the game mechanics. In the case of the sorcerer, however, there is some discrepancy. That does not make it the rule. That makes it the exception to the rule.

Kolja

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

Howdy Buttercup.

I'm surprised that the issue of spell components has come up, frankly. I've never gamed with anyone who used them, except perhaps for the odd rare or expensive component, the acquisition of which could be turned into a quest in itself.

As I said to Khaalis, if you are not going to use spell components for sorcerers, then none of the spellcasters should be bound to them (and everybody can cast from their repetoire as spell-like abilities). If you are cool with that, then game balanced is maintained.