It is more power as in situations where an additional resistance is the more useful, there more powerful option, the mixed sorcerer is able to take it while the double sorcerer can not and thus is weaker in this situation. And there is nothing to compensate as there is no situation where the double sorcerer can do something the mixed sorcerer can not.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E The curious case of the double-dragon sorcerer
- Thread starter Joe Liker
- Start date
It is more power as in situations where an additional resistance is the more useful, there more powerful option, the mixed sorcerer is able to take it while the double sorcerer can not and thus is weaker in this situation. And there is nothing to compensate as there is no situation where the double sorcerer can do something the mixed sorcerer can not.
ThirdWizard
First Post
This is the same logic that says having magic missile and shield is no more powerful than just having magic missile, and it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
...and it's weaker in situations where an additional resistance would be of some usefulness, but less useful than Subtle Spell (for instance). And I'm repeating myself, but balancing classes based on "use in any potential situations" is not a solid basis for measuring power in a game like D&D where the potential situations are literally limitless. So that's kind of a wash -- niche situations might prove the ability to be weaker or stronger depending on that situation like every other ability.
More options are not more power, they're just more options. If you don't have any cause to ever actually cast the shield spell, having it there doesn't mean anything.
In fact, specifically, if (for the purposes of discussion) magic missile ends combat one round early and shield negates one enemy's turn, it really doesn't matter if you only have one or the other. If critters are doing, say, 5 damage per round, then either one avoids 5 damage.
Analogy: You and your buddy can buy two things with $5, blue boxes or red boxes. Say you guys want both equally, 50% chance of buying either -- you can't say whether you're going to want them to be blue or red when you're buying them. At some point, your buddy finds a store that also sells green boxes for $5 as well, and now there's a 33% chance of him getting any one product -- we still don't know what color is going to be more useful, so there's an equal chance of any color getting chosen.
66% of the time, the green box isn't going to matter. Functionally, you both come back with a red box or a blue box, you've both spent $5, you have the exact same outcome for the exact same investment.
33% of the time, your buddy buys a green box instead.
In that case, your buddy doesn't have anything more valuable or more important or more vital than you. Remember, we can't predict the situations we're going to use this box in, we don't know up front which color is going to actually be better (if any), because there's just too many variables.. If your friend has a green box, doesn't have more boxes than you at the end of the day. He didn't get more for his money. He doesn't have more than you. He's still bought one box for $5, he's spent the same amount and received the same amount as you have. In some small subset of the time, he just did something you couldn't do -- buy a green box.
More options isn't more power. You get the same amount of return for the same amount of investment. No one got more out of their input than anyone else, you just got different things. Having access to that green box doesn't make your buddy any more likely to pick the most useful kind of box, since the situations are functionally infinite, any box has about the same potential utility (which is why they all cost $5).
More options IS more options, though. That's not nothing, it's just not necessarily better. It's variety, complexity, adaptability, but it's not more powerful. 66% of the time, being able to buy a green box doesn't change the actual outcome at all. 33% of the time, the outcome changes, and that's only relevant in specific niche situations that you can't predict when you're buying the box. And heck, sometimes it's not even a GOOD relevance - if your buddy buys a green box this time and you discovered later that the blue box was more valuable, your buddy's extra option just cost him. You have no way of knowing what box is going to be more useful, because you don't know what the situation is going to be when you're choosing your box.
Options aren't nothing, but they aren't power, and if you are concerned about a specific build's lack of options, that's a different conversation than their lack of power.
Last edited:
No, its not. Having the option to do something is not a weakness if that option is not the optimal one. You do not have to take it.
Even if the second option is never the better one, something very unlikely to happen, you are not weaker by having it. Having more options is always an advantage which is why everyone would prefer the sorcerer with two known spells over the completely identical sorcerer with only one known spell.
Your example is beyond flawed. People don't spend sorcery points at random like in your analogy. They do it when it is useful. Or in your example your buddy does not buy a box at random in the hope it will be useful in the future. He waits till he knows which is useful and buys that one. And because he has the option of buying the green box too, he always has the "correct" box at hand (assuming those are the only 3 choices existing) while you do not have an appropriate box 1/3 of the time.
Options are power and someone who lacks option is weaker than the one who has them at no additional cost.
ThirdWizard
First Post
Versatility can be shown to be direct power.
If you take two participants in rock/paper/scissors and one can only throw rock & paper, while the other can throw rock, paper, and scissors one is obviously more powerful than the other.
The question isn't, to my mind, are more options more power but instead to what degree does the additional option grant power?
If you take two participants in rock/paper/scissors and one can only throw rock & paper, while the other can throw rock, paper, and scissors one is obviously more powerful than the other.
The question isn't, to my mind, are more options more power but instead to what degree does the additional option grant power?
Nergal Pendragon
First Post
That second question tends to be a bit subjective, which is why I do not think it has one answer. What may grant a high degree of power to one person can grant no power to another.
ThirdWizard
First Post
Right, its going to vary from DM to DM and from campaign to campaign.
Fralex
Explorer
OK, I see what you're saying now. Yes, an extra option doesn't add to a character's power if they still have to choose one or the other to use. But wouldn't you agree that if someone is better-prepared, they benefit from the versatality in a way that someone with one less option does not match? The things they do using those options are no better than the thing the other person can do with one option, but one person can do more things. This benefit can be considered another kind of power. Power isn't just about numbers!
Like, suppose there was a 3rd-level spell that behaved exactly like fireball, except it could deal any damage type you wanted, including fire damage. They both cost one slot and do the same damage, but it's hard to argue the any-damage-type-ball is not strictly better than the fireball. It will always be at least as useful as fireball, and has the potential to be more useful in a way fireball does not.
Last edited:
