Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Khaalis" data-source="post: 1374895" data-attributes="member: 2167">Everyone’s entitled to their say and opinion. I am sorry that my challenging your views has so upset you.First off I have never spoken trash, I have consistently quoted you verbatim and pointed out what your statements come across as (as have other people).  Secondly, please sit back and look at who is getting offensive and talking trash. I am not the only one that has pointed out to you the escalating tone of hostility in your posts. As for the flavor text and quoting you, I have said from the very beginning (Post #1) that the POINT of this thread was to create a Sorcerer that MATCHED the Flavor Text, not one that ignored the flavor text, “rule zeroed” the flavor text, re-defined the flavor text, or used it as a vague guideline to pick and choose what we wanted to use from it. You are choosing to “Rule Zero” the flavor text where it suits you, and for you and your view of a sorcerer and your campaign world – Rule 0 the flavor text all you want - that’s Great for you – Huzzah!  But it is not what I am seeking to do and never was, so please do not tell me that quoting the Flavor Text to design the build is no justification, that it is irrelevant, or that the sorcerer isn’t what it is described to be.In my lowly and inexperienced (I’ve only been gaming for 20 years) and unpublished view, flavor text IS the definition of the class: its the focus, it’s the reasoning for why the class exists, it’s the definition on how the class relates to a party, it’s the definition of the reason the class adventures, and how its fits into the D&D world.  The flavor text is what defines the class and determines the type of abilities a class should have.  As for never saying flavor text means nothing, there is such as thing as saying something “in not so many words”.  Your entire argument on flavor text is a series of Rule Zero. The more you rule zero the flavor text the more it comes across to all who have read it and commented on it, as you ignoring the flavor text as meaning nothing. This is what I mean by you are saying it means nothing. No you never said “flavor text means nothing” in exactly those words, but you accumulated statements come across as meaning the same thing.Some examples…Continuing on the topic of Innate Spell-Ability and Flavor Text:Your quote: “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.”Unless you can show me in print where the developers state this, and that the flavor text is in errata, it is just your belief.  As for the argument about writing the text last and the class mechanic first – it’s a mute point. We aren’t developing a class from scratch and we don’t have that luxury.  Unless you are going to rename the class and write all new flavor text from scratch with no relation to the Sorcerer, then Sorcerer Flavor Text is Non-OGL and can’t be changed no matter how much you envision the sorcerer as something other than what it says it is. Its Non-negotiable. Not to mention the flavor text was kept through various development revisions before release in 3.0, never changed in 3.0 Errata, and was also kept through a round of revision to be re-releases in 3.5, and again has yet to be put into errata.In regard to a Sorcerer’s Heritage as written in the Flavor Text:Your quote: ”You are arguing a game mechanic issue with a flavor text issue, and (not to put too fine a word on it) irrelevant flavor text at that.”The use of a highly stressed “irrelevant” (“not to put too fine a word on it”), is rule zeroing the flavor text. Whether you like it or not, the Flavor Text states that ““Some Sorcerers claim the blood of dragons courses through their veins. Sorcerers even often have striking good looks, usually with a touch of the exotic that hints at an unusual heritage.” By choosing to consider this irrelevant, is Rule 0. That is saying the flavor text means nothing in this case regardless of that fact that WotC has embraced the concept.2 other related examples of your “Rule Zero” on the Flavor Text: Your view of Diplomacy and Knowledge Arcana.Your Quote: ”I see nothing quintessentially diplomatic about sorcerers. They are force of personality and innate power. Once they come into their own, sorcerers shouldn't have to negotiated.”Regardless of the fact that the Flavor Text specifically states that “Since Sorcerers often have a powerful presence that gives them a way with people, they frequently serve as the “face” for an adventuring party, negotiating, bargaining, and speaking for others. The Sorcerer’s spells often help him sway others or gain information, so he makes an excellent spy or diplomat for an adventuring party.”…You choose to Rule 0 this flavor text statement and say that in your view there is “nothing quintessentially diplomatic about sorcerers”.  That is saying the flavor text means nothing in this case.You also repeatedly argue that Knowledge Arcana is required for the sorcerer because sorcerers should all want to learn the scientific methodology and the obscure non-spell related metaphysical and tangential topics related to magic (not to mention the argument that it damages their entry to PrC’s), regardless of the fact that the flavor text mentions repeatedly that they DO NOT have any formal training in magic. No books, no mentors, and that ”they don’t have the background of arcane knowledge that most Wizard’s have” etc. Yet you think they should all have access to a skill that requires training from a learned expert and that is the study of “ancient mysteries, magic traditions, arcane symbols, cryptic phrases, constructs, dragons, magical beasts” – none of which have anything to do with learning about the intuitive magic of the sorcerer. Per the PHB that knowledge of a sorcerer’s magic (spells – the great strength of the class as you point out) is Spellcraft – not Knowledge (Arcana). In this case you are not only choosing to Rule 0 the Flavor text stating they receive no formal training, but you are also Rule Zeroing the mechanics of the Knowledge skill. Again, that is saying the flavor text means nothing in this case and neither does the rules for the Knowledge skill. We both agree that class is underpowered and that the mechanics are poorly written. However, my “view” of the sorcerer is what the Flavor Text says it’s supposed to be. You view is the one that differs from this as can be seen by the string of Rule 0’s on the flavor text and skill definitions.  Game mechanics alone do not 100% dictate what a class is.How is it unrelated? It had everything to do with it. You argued that because it was in the core class that it belonged. I in turn argued that the only reason it was in the core class to start with is because the Sorcerer is an exact shadow of the wizard. To which you told me I was making arbitrary assumptions. I simply showed how I did not see it as an arbitrary assumption. Everything about the sorcerer is a carbon copy of the wizard except spell prep including the skills. Knowledge (arcana) was included because the Wizard had it not because it was relevant to the Sorcerer’s magic.In regard to ignoring the fact that Sorcerers without Knowledge Arcana are delayed into Wizard oriented PrC’s…(Hmm, what was that about talking trash?)1st of all, and most to the point - I will again point out the argument you chose to ignore. PrC’s are NOT a part of the core game. They are an option first of all. 2nd of all, No class should be designed with the intent to make them fit existing PrC’s. The point of the class system is not to make players take PrC’s. If you argue otherwise, then your personal love of PrC use over solid core class design is showing through.  I HAVE playtest core classes and the PrC system. I have been playing 3.X since the day it was pre-released. I personally feel, as I will state again, that the PrC abuse has gone far enough as it is. PrC’s were meant to allow for specialized classes to fill world specific needs and were never meant to be used willy-nilly as excuses to leave a core class for a more powerful class. No class should be designed with fitting into a PrC as part of its core design. If you want Sorcerer PrCs that are easy for the Sorcerer to fit – then write them or change the requirements on the PrC in question, but don’t give abilities to a base class just so it can more easily get into a PrC.To quote p.176 DMG “Prestige Classes are purely optional and always under the purview of the DM. We encourage you, as the DM, to tightly limit the prestige classes available in your campaign. The example prestige classes are certainly not encompassing or definitive. They might not even be appropriate for your campaign. The best prestige classes for your campaign are the ones you tailor yourself.”2nd of all, of the WotC published arcane Spellcaster PrC’s those that are intended for Sorcerers simply require ranks in Spellcraft or simply spell level requirements. Only those with a specific requirements to know something obscure about magic require Knowledge (Arcana) – such as the dragon disciple since knowledge arcana includes devoted study on dragons or the Fatespinner which needs a fundamental metaphysical understanding of magic versus the universe. You are only arguing one specific instance. Wizards are not always prepared to face a sorcerer. In your example not only would the wizard need to know he was going to face a sorcerer, but would also have to know the “one spell” the sorcerer knew to have prepared the correct defensive spell, and on top of that would have to be prepared before actually facing the sorcerer to have the defense in place. That happens about 5-10% of the time in a real campaign. The argument also ignores the properly play-tested sorcerer who uses metamagic to “alter” a spell so that it can penetrate specific defenses to the original version of the spell. It also ignores that option systems exist such as spell templates and exalted spells that can alter a spell’s functionality. On this argument I agree with WotC and Cook, giving the sorcerer spell levels at the same level as the other casters weakens the other class' contributions, thus the balance.In response to my comment “And I fundamentally disagree that spells are a class’s only abilities.”(Hmm, what was that about talking trash?)Ok, what about the wizard then? The wizard gets the same “strength” as the sorcerer – its spells (with flexibility over quantity), yet they get 6 additional class abilities above and beyond their spells.  Does this mean that the Wizard was also written by someone who “understood very little about the greatest strength” of the wizard?This is argument for arguments sake and quibbling over wording to avoid the topic. It has nothing to do with being P.C., it is simply the best term to prove the point.  You argue about not targeting a specific class with beneficial rules yet is fine to target a specific class with restrictive rules especially when those said rules could just as easily apply to other (if not all) classes.You also argue that a sorcerer should be restricted to using only spell trigger items that they have a known spell for, yet on the other hand you turn right around and want to give them Use Magic Device which would allow them to use ANY device, regardless of spell list, class, race, alignment, or ability restriction. If you are going to allow them to pick up divine scrolls and wands and use them, and let them bypass the arcane restriction on spell trigger item use that you yourself put on them, why bother restricting them in the 1st place?(And you still honestly believe that “I” am the one that’s talking trash…)What it comes down to...If you don’t like what I am trying to do in concept – which is to design a sorcerer mechanic that matches the flavor text and that balances the class’s obvious imbalance with the other core classes; and you can do nothing more than tell me I am stupid (in not so many words), not understanding of concepts, short sighted, inexperienced and rude – then I politely ask you to please leave the thread. You obviously have your view of the sorcerer and have built one that makes you happy. Great for you … Huzzah!  However, I am tired of wasting my time arguing irreconcilable differences and of being insulted.  This is MY project and I have more supporters than I have nay sayers so I feel that the project is not in vain.  I thank you for your constructive inputs, which have actually helped in many ways to concrete my beliefs, but the degenerating into spiteful “rebuttals” is more than I choose to deal with.  Have a nice day.</blockquote>

Verification