Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Khaalis" data-source="post: 1373809" data-attributes="member: 2167">A short rebuttal.This concept of foreknowledge is your perception of how the system works and that’s fine. I am just not going to re-write how magic items work to single out one class, when I feel that following the logic of the restriction should affect all classes equally.  You are also choosing to ignore bards who also have a “ceiling” on spells following your logic. Personally I feel the “ceiling” does not matter. Technically the Sorcerer has the “potential” to learn any spell on the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list. Whether you call it foreknowledge or not the possibility to acquire the spells is there. This is purely a matter of semantics and opinion. Its something we aren’t going to agree on.“And that's where you lose me (any time you justify game mechanics with flavor text). I'm sorry, but unless you base such arguments on actual game mechanics, they hold no empirical worth.”This is saying that flavor text holds no empirical worth when designing a class. You repeatedly said that the flavor text means nothing, that only your view of the sorcerer matters, and that flavor text cant be used as empirical evidence. So yes you are choosing to ignore it, for whatever reasons, its still ignoring it.As for the editing process and doing mech before flavor, Im sorry but I see the process as flawed in this particular case. I do not see where knowing about the editing process has anything to do with whether or not the flavor text should be used to correct the sorcerer. This is not a class being built from the ground up.  If it were, we would have a loose idea of what the class was supposed to do and we could design mechanics before flavor text.  However, we aren’t doing that. We are trying to make new Mechanics to MATCH the flavor text of the class.  As much as you may not like it – the Flavor Text is the defining point of the sorcerer and it is NON-Negotiable.  The flavor text is Non-OGL. If WotC defines the class in its flavor text – then that is the definition of the class. If you want it to be defined differently, its time to a write a new class with your own flavor text written to match your choice of mechanics.  In fact this has been done by many sources.If you are basing sorcerers having Knowledge on the fact that Humans are curious about ourselves, your logic is flawed.  For one, its humanocentric and ignores sorcerers of the other races that are NOT described as being so adaptable and curious. For two, as I said earlier – following this logic you must make all Knowledge skills class skills for all classes.As for the logical niche and Knowledge defining the sorcerer etc. I will cover that in a later post.You think this is opinion?  Prove that its not.The sorcerer is identical to the wizard in skills, hit dice, saves, familiar use, and spell list – all the things that define a class. They only differ in spell preparation - gaining automatic Improved Spell Mastery instead of Scribe Scroll and 4 Metamagic Feats. To balance their limited Spell Mastery they can cast an average of one more spell per day than a specialist wizard.  The spells are the same, the method of spell casting is the same.  The sorcerer is a wizard that prepares spells differently. It is the ONLY difference. Wizard came first, sorcerer was designed to give a second arcane caster option. Thus the Sorcerer is a duplicate of the wizard.Hell Yes I do ignore it. So what? Why do their HAVE to be a zillion-and-one PrC’s for Sorcerers? Why do PrC’s even need to come into the discussion? They are NOT a part of the core class system. They are an OPTIONAL rule from the DMG.  PrC’s were never meant to be used as “Here are a dozen ways to quit your class and become a better class”. You do NOT design a base class with the INTENT of making it so people quit the class to enter a PrC.  Can you make PrCs intended for the class to enter - sure. Do you have to? No. Do you have to make it so the class can enter every vaguely related arcane PrC? Definately not.First off, how does this relate to the comment you quoted? What should I be following? Secondly I find the statement rather humorous since you keep telling me I am not basing arguments on a vision, but am basing arguments on using the Flavor Text as gospel.  I guess that makes my own vision the vision of the sorcerer as it is defined.Flaw in the logic. 1) Divine casters do not choose spells, they already know them all. 2) Wizards do NOT have to choose from the levels of spells they are given. They can choose to learn spells of any level available to them. ”At each new wizard level, she gains two new spells of any spell level or levels that she can cast (based on her new wizard level) for her spellbook.”Sounds like you have only playtested it for the short haul. The cost of scrolls may “seem” marginal, but the XP costs add up fast. Over a 20 level game, with a Wizard preparing scrolls and making wands to keep up with the sorcerer, the sorcerer is going to not only outshine the wizard in casting, but will have surpassed the wizard in character levels.  Secondly, using magic items as a “balance” against core class abilities is imbalanced and has even been said so by WotC designers. You cannot take magic items into consideration when balancing a class’s core functionality. Any time you say that a Wizard HAS to take Craft Wand and burn thousands upon thousand of gold and XP just to keep up with the sorcerer, there is a problem.And I fundamentally disagree that spells are a classes only abilities. You have said that a one trick pony is very limiting and that’s what the sorcerer’s spells are. Take into account that EVERY other spellcaster in the game has other abilities to fall back on defies your argument that the sorcerer should have none. Those classes also have abilities that have little or nothing to do with how their spells function – so why should the sorcerer be the only class to fall into that restriction? It is reverse discrimination. You say not to give undo attention to the sorcerer yet you single it out with various forms of sorcerer specific restrictions, even when those restrictions could just as easily be applied to other classes.As I said, we can agree to disagree, but for now I am going back to the original mission at hand. See me following post.</blockquote>

Verification