Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Khaalis" data-source="post: 1372519" data-attributes="member: 2167">From SonofapreachermanThis is entirely your personal view.  If you wish to use the argument below about making arguments purely on Mechanics, you cant pick and choose what you feel applies based on the “feel” of a class or based on the potential for a class.  If a sorcerer can only activate items they know – than that rule should apply to all classes across the board – otherwise it is unfairly targeting one class, regardless of the “justification” for it. Bards cast in all manner as a sorcerer.  Their Bardic Lore has nothing to do with the gift with or understanding of magic. That is a purely flavor justification you have added to single out the sorcerer. Aside from holding you to your own arguments of universal rules and not giving undo attention to a single class, your argument above about “Potential” is flawed in its conception. ALL classes have the “Potential” to learn every spell on their spell list and this is why the Core DMG states the rule exactly as it does. A sorcerer has the inherent “potential” to cast any Wizard spells and even specifically states that the “Potential” exists to include rare arcane spells NOT included on the standard Wizard list!  The “Mech” (not the flavor text) is why they have the potential to choose spells from the Wizard spell list.  Also if you follow the logic of your above argument… technically and strictly speaking, then a Sorcerer should only be denied Spell Trigger access to spell levels they have already filled all possible spell known slots for and thus no longer have any “Potential” to learn new spells, otherwise they still retain the “Potential” to learn those spells.  The problem is – though they may “choose” to not learn a spell at a given time, they always have the “Potential”, all the way to 20th level, to still do so due to spell swapping.Then our conversation is pretty much at a close.  We are not drawing inspiration nor information from the same source. I am drawing my information from what WotC has defined the class to be. You are drawing your information from your own view and definition of what a Sorcerer is and should be.I never acknowledged that the flavor text may not have been changed.  The sorcerer was written the way it was with purpose and intent. It was designed to explain what the class is, why it came into existence and to explain its purpose in the game and how to play it to fulfill that purpose. If it had been an oversight – WotC would have re-written it with 3.5.  However, they did not.   Saying that class design has NOTHING to do with flavor text and only on mechanics is the most broken statement I have Ever seen on the topic of game design.  Using that argument is a one-sided justification, and leads to the fact that you might as well throw out the flavor text of EVERY class in the game and give them any ability you feel like because there is nothing to say it doesn’t fit with the character.  A class is not made up 100% of its game mechanic. If that were so there would be no flavor text, there would just be a stat box.  If you follow this argument why is a Barbarian Illiterate? It has nothing to do with the class mechanics, it is there due to the flavor text which states that they are uneducated.  Why do rangers get nature spells and abilities? Because that is how they are defined in the flavor text.Many of the core designers have openly stated that a class needs to be defined as to its specific purpose and intent.  Since you are choosing to ignore what the class is defined as, to suit your own personal view of what a sorcerer is, you need to re-write and re-define the sorcerer.  You cannot try and use arguments for the sorcerer based on the mechanics alone and ignore the text.  If you follow the logic of your argument, you can also stop making such broad statements as “I see nothing quintessentially diplomatic about sorcerers.” This is your personal view of the sorcerer and is not how the class is defined.  If you want to use the argument that the class is not diplomatic because it doesn’t get Diplomacy in the class mech – then you can stop changing the game mechanic of all the core classes, because your argument is saying that if it wasn’t written in the mech to begin with... it wasn’t intended.Really?? Knowledge arcane is the ONLY knowledge skill a sorcerer is interested in? No sorcerer could ever have an interest in nature? Or the Planes? Or Religion? A character’s personal “interests” have nothing to do with the core class.  Tell me that some Fighters might not have an interest in Siege Engineering or that some Fighters have no interest in learning about heraldry & nobility (what if they are of noble birth?). Yet they don’t get Knowledge (Engineering and Nobility) as class skills to cover that “errant fighter”.  Just because an individual sorcerer may be interested in devoted study to magic does not mean the entire class gets Knowledge (arcana) – unless of course you are re-defining what it is to be a sorcerer (which you are).  The reason it is included is because the sorcerer was made to be nothing more than a duplicate of the wizard and that is what you are focused on - and its basically back to my original problem – your view ignores the flavor and individuality of the class and defines it as nothing more than a glorified Hedge Wizard. There is no reference in the sorcerer that indicates that they are a LEARNED class (using your OWN argument). In fact everything about the sorcerer indicates just the opposite – they are NOT learned. Thus having a class skill of Knowledge is inappropriate – as is also defined by the other “unlearned” classes the Barbarian and the Fighter.  If in your personal view, all sorcerers receive training in magic from somewhere – then re-write the class from the ground up to say so. Rogues, Paladins, Druids, Rangers etc. ALL state where and how they receive their specific knowledge training while the sorcerer specifically states it gets NONE.And if you fall back on the Flavor Text means nothing argument then you might as well allow Knowledge (All) to all classes right now, because I can come up with character ideas for any class that has interests in Knowledge skills it doesn’t have.Yep. I do deny them access to PrCs intended for learned Wizards. I am, to be perfectly honest, sick of the overabundance of generic everyone-can-enter PrC. This is not what the DMG originally intended PrC’s to be. There is also nothing wrong with banning characters from certain PrC’s or making it harder for them to get into them.  If you follow your argument you should do away with any PrC that is based on race, or on a specific class ability as it is short sighted and denys access to a host of prestige options.  You are placing the cart before the horse.  PrC availability should have NOTHING what-so-ever to do with core class design.  PrC’s are made to be available to Classes.  Classes are not made to fit into PrC’s!If you follow your argument: “Because of one skill, you deny the devoted sorcerer early access to a host of prestige class options. Not very far sighted.” you have ultimately contradicted yourself with your own PrC design.Lets look at an example of your own published work as an example - the “Invisible Blade.”  The class states (oh my god) in the Flavor Text no less, that Bards, Monks, Barbarians, Fighters and Rangers are ALL good candidates for the class.  However, the “Mech” makes it very clear that this is only meant to be open to Rogues.  You state that the requirements for the class are based on the ability to bluff and to sense others motives.  That DEFINES the requisites for the class, just as being “Studied” in magic (knowledge arcana) is a defining point for other PrC’s.However, by the definition of your PrC you have denied the listed GOOD CANDIDATES of the dedicated Bard, Monk, Barbarian, Fighter and Ranger early access to this PrC. Only the Rogue gains both Prerequisite skills as class skills – everyone else must multiclass or take cross-class ranks. Barbarian, Fighter and Ranger do not have Bluff nor Sense Motive as class skills and Monk and Paladin do not have Bluff as a class skill, and Bards do not have Sense Motive.  So is it still short sighted?No, it is planned. Not all PrC’s are meant to be taken by all classes first off. Second off, not all PrC’s are as easy for some classes to attain than others.  There is NOTHING short sighted about restricting a sorcerer to a delayed entry into a PrC that is intended for a Wizard.  Just as with your class there is nothing short sighted about restricting a Fighter to a delayed entry into a PrC that is intended for Rogues.Really? Then how can you still make the argument?  Why are the Bard and the ROGUE (one of the only 3 non-magical classes) the only ones to get it?  Not clerics, not wizards, not druids – all magical classes.  Who better than someone devotedly trained to the study of magic and how to create magic items and to how they work – the wizard? Yet the wizard doesn’t get it either.  The skill is is specifically defined as a skill of guile, deceit and trickery in that it allows you to “fool” a magic item into thinking you are something that you aren’t. It has nothing to do with an understanding of magic nor with the manipulation OF magic!The number is a quibble. However, the flexibility is NOT. If I am a sorcerer who gains say 11th level. I already know teleport and its really the only 5th level spell I want. Why should I be FORCED to learn another 5th level spell when what I really want might be another 3rd level spell in my repertoire.  Changing spells know was more about flexibility than bonus known spells. However, to make the process SIMPLE it by chance worked out to give them an extra 3 spells.When I want to really add extra known spells, I add the bonus one spell per spell level from the Spell Path. I agree. It is the weakest class – OVERALL. What is “underpowered” in the class is not their Spell Use, it is their spell flexibility as well as their utility as a class.I disagree, and I agree with WotC. A sorcerer who casts 3rd level spells 3 times more than a Wizard at 5th level is unbalanced. I have play tested this. I once felt the same as you, but found quickly that the Sorcerer out-shown and dwarfed the wizard when it came to spell utility if they gained the spells at the same level. The only thing that gave the Wizard an edge was that it could hurl a 3rd level spell when the sorcerer was still being mana-battery for 2nd level spells.Also, what do you consider a well prepared Wizard? That wizard gets one shot with his prepared spell and yes they can create 2 scrolls to match the Sorcerer’s 3-shot pop, but at a large cost to themselves in gold and XP and time, that a Sorcerer doesn’t have to pay.  I agree that a Wizard outshines a sorcerer in flexibility – and that is the point. That is the Wizard’s strength and the sorcerers weakness. However the sheer power a sorcerer gains over a wizard by acquiring spells at the same level is just unduly unfair, and thus unbalancing.However, this again is based on your personal style and definition of balance.  You see it as more balancing to give the sorcerer earlier spell utility power, while I see it as more balancing to give the class a little more utility. I never once said the CLASS was balanced! I said that their delay in spell level acquisiton balanced them against the other spell classes, preventing them from overpowering those casters at EVERY spell level. That is 2 different statements.The sorcerer even with its delay in spells is always a stronger caster (in terms of spell use) than other casters, but to take away the ONLY advantage the other classes have (earlier higher level spell access) is broken and is as you say “giving undo attention” to the sorcerer. Which I disagree with. I don’t personally like the “improvised components” mechanic. But that’s my personal opinion. Druids have a very thematic spell list with a very specific theme yet they get a slew of other class abilities. Clerics have a very thematic spell list yet they also gain additional class abilities.It’s a basis for comparison. No not all abilities are created equal yet some classes abound with them. The sorcerer is the weakest class in the game and this has been playtested repeatedly. There is also the underlying issue that a Sorcerer is NOT a wizard and it needs to be differentiated from the wizard. This is the basis for this thread (its weak and its nothing more than glorified Hedge-Wizard). The sorcerer lacks in both utility and a defining niche, and giving it a few more skills points and a few more known spells (reversible) and granting them higher level spells earlier doesn’t fix the problem in my humble opinion. The best way to fix both problems of class imbalance and class differentiation is with class abilities just as with Barbarian vs. Fighter, Druid vs. Cleric, Ranger vs. Paladin, etc.  What those abilities are for the sorcerer, is still to be determined, but in my and quite a few other’s opinions, they are needed.You have your sorcerer and it works for you - Great.  It doesn’t work for me.  You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine. I thank you for your arguments and for concreting me in my search. Your arguments have shed light on areas, set me mind in others.</blockquote>

Verification