Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="thewok" data-source="post: 5999942" data-attributes="member: 60907">And what about me?  Who loved the sorcerer in 3E, loved it even more in 4E and really enjoys the way this dragon-heritage sorcerer looks?  I'm already looking at how to convert my campaign setting from 4E to 5E, and seeing the sorcerer was a major impetus behind that.I actually see this as its major strength.  A class should be more than just a name.  it should be a unique play experience.  Playing a Sorcerer whould be very different from playing a wizard, and not just because they get to choose their spells on the fly.  In the same vein, playing a ranger or paladin should be very different from playing a fighter, druid or cleric, despite their shared heritage.I agree.  And this is what WotC has done.  I do think the Sorcerer spell list needs to be expanded to encompass the entire Wizard list, though.Actually, I view it as a natural evolution of the lore.  In 3E, the sorcerer write-up hinted at a powerful ancestor in the bloodline, and dragons were mentioned (Pathfinder would even take this and run with it, making sorcerers choose bloodlines at creation).  Later, there would be numerous splatbooks printed that built off the idea of that draconic heritage of the sorcerer.  In 4E, a sorcerer chose a sorcerous heritage, one of which was draconic, and it included powers that could physically transform (in the flavor text, anyway) the sorcerer when used.  Next is pretty much just talking it to the next step.I'm sure they did.  Honestly, I'm not a huge fan of the "second soul" idea.  I think it's great for a single character (or small number of characters), but not as a general rule.  I'll be sticking with the fluff in the playtest packet, myself.I highly disagree.  In the case of the Draconic sorcerer, the mechanic of transformation fits very well with the flavor.  It makes sense to me that since dragons are innately magical creatures, someone with dragon blood in his veins would come to resemble a dragon as he uses magic.It should also bee noted that, at GenCon, Mearls stated that there are currently no plans to make spell system modular.  A wizard will be Vancian.  If you want a spell-point wizard, make a sorcerer and call it a wizard.  The caveat is that, should the demand be high enough, they'll look into swapping spell systems or, alternatively, swapping heritage for wizard tradition.  But, as it stands, if you're playing a Wizard, you're a Vancian caster.It's not like that.  Sorcerous Heritage is really nothing more than a more flavorful cleric domain.  The Dragon heritage is the analogue to the War cleric.  The dragon sorcerer has probably had dreams of adventure for a long time, and he probably learned how to use a sword (dragons must protect their home and hoard with breath and claw, after all).Besides, the dragon sorcerer may have a greatsword in its gear package, but its not proficient with it.  You can check that in the packet.  The dragon heritage grants proficiency with martial weapons, and the greatsword is a Heavy weapon.  He should have been given a bastard sword in his gear package.The sorcerer hasn't been forced into the melee caster role.  The dragon sorcerer has been given the ability to engage in melee fairly competently (kind of like in 4E, where my dragon sorcerer had Strength to rival pure Fighters).  Other heritages will likely be more focused on pure magical damage.  It will all come to the choice you make at character creation.But no one's calling the sorcerer the swordmage.  Or the bladesinger.  Or whatever.  I imagine the swordmage will probably have attack bonuses closer to those of the Fighter, making him a more effective melee fighter off the bat than the dragon sorcerer.  I also imagine that the swordmage's class features will key off specific weapons, since that's the thing that struck me about them in 4E: the bond between swordmage and weapon.Long story short ("Too late!"): I loved the sorcerer in 3E, and I love it even more in this iteration.</blockquote>

Verification