Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Knight_Errant" data-source="post: 1370302" data-attributes="member: 6995">Does this make any sense?It has been some time since I last checked this thread and I see that things have continued in my absence (what, the world doesn’t stop when I’m not in the room?). Before I offer any comments on the topic, I would like to respond to a few comments from Sonofapreacherman and Khaalis. Posted by Son: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.I agree. I think that what the Sorcerer class needs at this point is some definition of what a “quintessential” ability is for the class. While we can argue all day about the fact that there could be literally thousands of options to choose from; this would still not answer the question. Each class that is presented in 3.5E has a niche it occupies. Yes, there are many variations that can be applied to that core focus but that is what I am getting at; the sorcerer has no core. As it stands (and I don’t think many would argue this) it has no easily defined niche or place among the other core classes.This should be one of the goals of this thread is to establish what constitutes the sorcerer class. As another poster (forgive me for not remembering your name and being too lazy to scroll up and find it) pointed out—the sorcerer is brand new. There is no history of the class that we can fall back on to draw our ideas from. All we have to go on (at the moment) is what is written in the PHB and what we can come up with to better define the class.To summarize here: I agree with Son in that there is a delicate balance here that should be considered more closely. I, for one, do not see this argument as opinion based; it is entirely factual. This version of the sorcerer should attempt to satisfy two conditions: 1) define the class and its basic niche in the game, and 2) allow the player to customize (to a point) his sorcerer based on his individual background and so-called “heritage.”Posted by Son: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.While this has been asked and answered several times by my posting; I feel it necessary to interject a few thoughts here. I think what Son is saying is that the current build you are working on is radical in that it offers predetermined paths and an extensive list of abilities and spell-paths that can be chosen based on heritage. IMO what Son is getting at is this: this build of the sorcerer cannot compare to any of the other base classes because it has far more detail and depth of choices in its construction.I am not saying that this is necessarily a bad thing; what I am saying is that you cannot have the number of choices you currently have and create a class that will “fit” in with the other core classes. Is this wrong? Is it right? That is a matter of opinion. What is not a matter of opinion is that you simply cannot open the PHB and point to any other class that lays out in detail a list of abilities that you can choose from to customize your class in that manner.To a point I agree with what Son is saying here; namely that too many choices is not a good thing. Again, that is an opinion, but it is one based on precedent: this build is not the format of the PHB. Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that the PHB is the best written RPG of all time. I am saying that when you design a class (or a revision of one) you do need to take into account this fact. Posted by Son: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 way I interpret this is that the current build has set “paths” of heritage that a player must choose from. This is what is being objected to. Take the Fighter example for instance; each player receives the same basic core abilities, i.e. hit dice, saves, BAB, and feat progression. Where each fighter differs is in that feat selection. That is up to the player entirely to choose. To equate this to the sorcerer build you are working on it would be like presenting a list of “packages” in the fighter class description. For instance, if you wanted to play a “swashbuckler” style fighter, choose the Bucklemeswash package: (see table below)Level1: DodgeLevel2: ExpertiseLevel4: MobilityLevel6: Improved DisarmLevel8: Spring AttackLevel10: Combat ReflexesAnd so on…The point being that the developers of 3E could have conceived of every possible “type” of fighter and made pre-fab packages for each of them and then required the player to choose one of them at first level. The fact is that they didn’t do this for several reasons (though, I don’t pretend to know what they were thinking when they wrote the sorcerer) because it would be seen as heavy-handed and result in what you object to most of all; namely being pinholed into so called “options.” The amusing part about this is that they changed this philosophy slightly in 3.5E with the Ranger class by allowing the player to choose 2 separate “paths” for their character. However, both of the options they presented for the Ranger are viewed by the majority of players as niche abilities of the ranger class.Posted by Khaalis:You also mention that too many abilities is suffocating and that they develop the class. As above, I will never see the ability to have choices of the path one chooses to follow as bad. There is nothing more I dislike than being pin-holed into one specific archetype. I also don’t see how having choices has anything to do with defining the character, nor how in specific the sorcerer’s choices. Class abilities are supposed to give definition to a class, they are what defines what a class is. You are what you can do. However there should be variety among those abilities and multiple paths that can be followed and explored.I don’t think that anyone here is disputing the ability to have choices for the sorcerer class. The dispute lies in the fact that this build has delineated those choices ahead of time by developing the heritage chains. What Son is saying is that there should  be a more generic (yes I said it and I’m not afraid to use the word) template for the sorcerer class. It should have some abilities that define it, as you said: Class abilities are supposed to give definition to a class, they are what defines what a class is, rather than predetermining all of the possible themes a sorcerer could draw from to define himself. Also, realize that the dislike of being “pin-holed” into one specific archetype, is your own personal taste and not necessarily what is or could be considered in the realm of game mechanics or balance issues. That is not a shot either, I am merely pointing out that you can and probably will disagree with what a core class can be broken down into in terms of mechanics and balance. There is nothing wrong with disagreeing with that, my point is that I think you (and all of us) would be better served by focusing more on what defines a sorcerer and sets him apart from the other core classes, rather than developing various specific paths he could choose from.What I would like to see happen is this: devise a generic sorcerer (yes, I used the g word again) first—then work on highly focused versions of the class; or perhaps a mechanics procedure to reach a specialized version, rather than starting out specialized. The flavor text of the sorcerer seems to indicate that they have draconic blood—that seems like a good place to start. Perhaps coming up with fixed (gasp!) abilities at incremental levels that would allow some level of customization (similar to the ranger/druid or fighter) among these generics. The origin of the sorcerer’s power is less important than the feel of the class. They get their power from within and they have to teach themselves how to wield it—that is essentially their niche among the 3.5E classes. I think if we start from there we might be able to come up with a more genericized version that would fit more with the format of the core rules classes.Finally, let me say that I like what I have read so far. It is really becoming one of my favorite classes and topics of debate. The amount of work you have put into this is astounding and of good quality. I am suggesting starting small and working up to that is all. That’s all folks.</blockquote>

Verification