Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sonofapreacherman" data-source="post: 1366655" data-attributes="member: 2315">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.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />In reading this thread, you have made two statements that are contradictory to each other. The first is that you are trying to make a sorcerer with mass appeal, and the second is that you are deliberately embracing radical ideas.Well you can't have it both ways. Radical ideas will inherently have limited mass appeal by their very nature (no matter how much you or the people involved in making those ideas like them). I don't know what your definition of mass appeal is, but if you're looking to create even an official-feeling sorcerer, the word count of this one would dwarfs every other core character class in the printed rulebooks. That alone should tell you something. Essentially, this sorcerer is not generic enough to have mass appeal.Now before you drop a sack of hammers on the word "generic", realize that it's not a dirty word. The ideas contained in this thread are radical, and that's great. It is infinitely better to start with radical ideas (and then pear them down to the most essential radical ideas), than to start with generic ideas in the first place. Now you can create a sorcerer with mass appeal based on strong radical concepts. The creative position is enviable.By saying paring down, realize as well that I am not suggesting the work submitted here has been is in vain. Far from it. What I see is a wealth of sorcerer prestige class material that should be duly exploited once it can be compartmentalized into levels.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.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.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification