Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sonofapreacherman" data-source="post: 1369659" data-attributes="member: 2315">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.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.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.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).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.Whoa there buddy! Didn't say anything about freedom. No putting words in mouth, deal?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.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.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.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.<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=":)" />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).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).<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />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 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.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).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.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.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</blockquote>

Verification