Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tuzenbach" data-source="post: 1367980" data-attributes="member: 16155">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 SORCERERErm......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!!!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............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</blockquote>

Verification