Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Khaalis" data-source="post: 1366794" data-attributes="member: 2167">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.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. /shrugYes 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/Fighter1HD: C = 2d8 (ave 8) / SF = 1d6+1d10 (ave 8)BAB: C = +1 / SF = +1Saves: C = +2 Fort, +2 Will / SF = +2 Fort, +2 WillAC (with 12 Dex, Plate & Shield): C = 20 / SF = 20Skills: Both suffer -6 to physical skillsAbilities: <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">C = Turn Undead, Spontaneous Healing, 2 Domain Powers, Spells, No Spell Fail</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">S = Heritage, 1 Sorcerer Ability, Spells, No Spell Fail</li> </ul>Spells Per Day (with Stat Bonus): <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">C = 4 0-level, 4 1st-level</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">S = 6 0-level, 5 1st-level</li> </ul>Spells Accessible (with Stat Bonus): <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">C = 12 0-Level, 25 1st Level + Any Domain not already in those 37 spells</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">S = 6 0-Level, 2 1st Level</li> </ul>Seems basically balanced to me.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.  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!</blockquote>

Verification