Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Knight_Errant" data-source="post: 1347860" data-attributes="member: 6995">After giving the topic some considerable thought, I have decided what it is that I think is most lacking with the sorcerer class: class abilities. I know, I know, no one wants to hear that or someone would suggest (as has been done several times in related threads) adding feats at 5th, 10th, and 15th to make up for their lack of, for lack of a better word, umph.I came to this conclusion by examining what the sorcerer is; a poor cousin of the wizard. How dare I make such a claim? Well, consider for a moment what a wizard gets for class abilities:1) Spells2) A Familiar3) Metamagic bonus feats4) a d4 hit die/Poor BAB/willfull save5) Applicable skill list6) An exclusive feat (Spell Mastery)7) Wizard weapon proficiency[IF I have missed any, I appologize]Next, we examine what the sorcerer gets as class abilities compared to the wizard (the reason for this comparison is simple--both are "pure" arcane casters):1) Spells (from the same list as wizards)2) A Familiar3) a d4 hit die/Poor BAB/Willful Save4) A substandard skill list (ever wonder why the wizard's class skills are all based on his primary attribute [Int] and the sorcerer gets almost no class skills based on his [Cha]?)5) Simple weapon profThis is not exactly a news bulletin. The purpose of outlining this is for the benefit of my next comparison.It has been stated in this thread (and elsewhere) that the Druid is an "alternate" of the cleric, another divine caster. The cleric is very similar to wizard in the calibur of its ability: that is to say that both are fairly generic and customizeable by the player and the DM. They have a clear outline of abilities which can be modified slightly by personal tastes, campaign guidelines, and other factors. Now, imagine for an instant that the Druid only received the BAB, hit dice, saves, and spell list of the cleric. How exciting would that be to play? Lump onto that dilemma the weapon, armor, and alignment restrictions, of a druid without any of the class abilities and you have got yourself one divine version of a sorcerer IMO. I'm not even taking into account the lack of domain powers, spontaneous casting of heal spells, turning undead ability, and any others I've forgotten to mention.The bottom line is if you stripped down the cleric's abilities to BAB, Saves, Hit Die, and Spell list and then inserted the "fluff" of the druid class on top of that--you would have a divine version of what is now the sorcerer.How curious is it, then, that the Druid does not do this? They have more class abilities which are relative to their concept as a class than does a cleric. They make up for the lack of versatility given to a cleric by granting some rather unique (and powerful some would argue) class abilities in addition to restrictions to further set them apart. They have a smaller spell list, different skills, etc. They are so different from a cleric that many people probably do not even think of them as related.To take this one step further; the ranger and barabarian are both variants  of the fighter class. The fighter is "similar" to the wizard and cleric in that it is pretty much plain vanilla. You have several bonus feats to distinguish one fighter from the next and decent supporting abilities to your strong points; ie good BAB, d10 hit die, complimentary skills, etc. The barbarian (much like the druid) has several class abilities which distinguish it from its fighter roots. This is to make up for the fact that 1) It is a different class, 2) the barbarian does not get bonus feats like a fighter, and 3) to have something to make up for the lack of diversity of the fighter.That is to say that most barbarians are fairly similar in abilities; whereas no two fighters need be anything alike in abilities (ie feats).The Ranger also continues along this path of class abilities which fill the void of diversity granted to its parent class; the fighter. Again, how exciting would the Ranger be if it got the hit dice, saves, BAB, similar skills, without any of the bonus feats of the fighter? To compound this it didnt get ANY class abilities beyond first level nor could it ever have the same amount of combat prowess as its fighter cousin. That would be like choosing  to play a warrior over a fighter. Huh?This is effectively what the sorcerer is in the current edition. It is an example of how a good idea gets fouled up in mechanics, and that is what makes me think that the concept of class abilities deserves some discussion.All of the examples I mentioned above have abilities to fall back on when their primary focus of the class does not or cannot function at optimum level. The barbarian and ranger have abilities that allow them to do things the fighter cannot necessarily do because they do not have the flexibility of bonus feat selection that the fighter has. To that end, I think that sorcerers should have some class abilities which would follow a progression similar to a druid, barbarian, or ranger. Do I have a list of the abilities I think they should get? Nope. I'm just not that creative. I do have some suggestions though. I think it would make sense for the sorcerer to get something like detect magic at will; similar to the detect evil    ability of a paladin. I think there are plenty of directions this can go in as well--for instance the sorcerer could get SR equal to half his level at certain intervals (similar to a barbarian's damage reduction). Perhaps the ability to blink a number of times a day at a certain level etc.I think you get the idea. I look forward to hearing any thoughts on the matter.</blockquote>

Verification