Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 6742604" data-attributes="member: 92511">I don't know if the point is to make the sorcerer "more unique." Their "unique" is innate magic, as supported by the metamagic and spell point mechanics that are their specific shtick. Both of those, obviously could use some beefing up and improvement to satisfy the sorcerer fans.What I'm talking about is/would be a totally new take on "sorcerer." A rebirth/rebranding of "sorcerer" into something else. The sorcerer would be "dead", long live the <whatever this other new Innate Caster guy gets called that, purposely, isn't 'Sorcerer'>. That flavor/"unique" side of things is kinda automatic/done. The bulk of the mechanical features we have in the Sorcerer base class seem more than capable and usable, if needing some tweaking and/or repositioning. Cantrips, spells known, and spell slot mechanics are seem usable as is. Leave the "choose your Origin at 1st level" as they are now, and makes the most sense. Throw in Ritual Casting maybe or some kind of spend a spell point for auto attunement or something like that to give them more "innate magic-user" flavor.Again, keep in mind, this is all spit-balling off the top of my head. None of this is intended to be read/viewed as "complete/usable" mechanics or anything off the page. [Though, naturally, I am now leaning toward throwing something about it together into a PDF for folks who want to give a playtest-shakedown.]Not to my knowledge. Again, their "stand apart feature" is the innate magic shtick. Metamagic and spell points, both set them apart. As for their "problem", what I keep seeing over and over from fans is that they are dissatisfied with the "amount" on the spell list. They want "moar." They aren't versatile enough (which makes sense, to me, from a design point since the wizard and bard already cover this niche). The fact this seems to be on purpose/by design is irrelevant to the folks that "want more." At the same time the complaints about wanting "more" come in, is the complaint that they are too "blaster and I don't want to have to play a blaster." This, I find, to be similarly overblown. But it's what folks say.What I'm saying is, instead of approaching these perceived problems with "give me more spells to make me more special", I believe the "problems" are better resolved by giving the sorcerer less, more specific/specialized spell options.Instead of saying, they should be adding "bonus spells" to all sorcerer subclasses (when, it seems evident they want to keep "bonus spells" as "something coming from an outside source" thing), say that every sorcerer should be getting their "bonus spells [from within]" and that's all. Every sorcerer doesn't need access to everything (spellwise) [keeping in mind "cuz I wants it" is the path that leads splat-bloated madness]. But letting every sorcerer-player/-concept have a means to access anything (spellwise) to achieve their concept. Once they have chosen what they'll have access to...they're done. That's what they get. As they advance, it's what they can DO with it that changes.They can do more with less. They would have features in place [mechanics] that offer flexibility, versatility and utility through flexibility, rather than just needing "more" to get that flexibility and utility. The "Class that would be formerly known as Sorcerer" would have a "depth" of magic vs. a "breadth" of magic.And that, in itself and additionally, sets CTWBFKA Sorcerer apart from the "arcane knowledge experts" (wizards) or the "cross-disciplinary dabblers" (bards) or the "got my arcane power from the outside" (warlocks). The devil [changes] would be in the details. Tweaks to the features. New features. Subtle alterations/broadening of the subclass archetypes. i.e., you dont' need to have a Dragon Origin Sorcerer and an Fey Origin Sorcerer and a Genie Origin Sorcerer...you just have the Ancestral Origin "Sorcerer." Yes, their specific parentage is going to give them different things, but the bulk of their abilities will be the same....because they're all getting these powers from their magical bloodline.Well, cuz the player wants to play a sorcerer. If the player's character concept is "I want to play a dragon-person" and not "I want to play an innately magical person/use magic in the game [cuz my grandpappy had sex with a magic lizard]"...then yeah. Sure. Play a dragonborn of some/any other class. Sure, I suppose...akin to it. And the Bard. And a Blade-Pacted Warlock. And any warrior class that multiclasses into a spellcasting class or takes a Magic Initiate feat. And any spellcaster that multiclasses into a warrior class or takes a Martial Adept feat. Yes. It is/would be like that. 5e gives you lots of different ways of getting to a similar concept. You just take the one you [think you'll] like best, a.k.a. "will be the most fun to play."Sure. Probably. I was more going for, as the 5e design seems about, establishing [without "forcing"] differentiation between a class's archetypes. In addition to another avenue to "gish" [gods I hate that term], if the Fated becomes the more martial/magic-mix one, then that sets it off in one more way than just origin, from its more "castery" or more "either/or" compatriots. It helps give the archetype a reason to exist, moreso than just some corner case character concept that a subset(handful) of a subset(sorcerer players) like.Well, I do apologize. I had no intentions of making anyone "cringe." Though Halloween is upon us. So, I guess, "BOO!"Yeah. Probably. Again, spit-balling/brainstorming/"throwing it out there." If we build a type of magic resistance into the base class: whether that, mechanically, is actually a damage reduction "resistance", advantage to saves, proficiency to saves, or any combination there of. Then, sure, in the subclass why not allow some kind of energy resistance to "Dragon Ancestry Sorcerers" with fire breath or lightning resistance to storm sorcerers or radiant (or necrotic) resistance to Favored Souls or advantage against saves vs. illusion from Fey-Ancestry or Enchantment/Illusion-Savants? All makes good thematic sense to me.No no. They have one resistance from their base class ("The Class [that would be] Formerly Known As Sorcerer") and one from their subclass.Part of the class design game. Even whether you are designing with race in mind or not, there are some races that will naturally gain mechanical advantage in one way or another. All you can do is "balance" [which I find to be a self-perpetuated delusion anyway] things as best you can. In the case of classes, you balance it against the other classes and their features. You do not "balance"classes against races...or vice versa. People that want to find loopholes or exploit/abuse bonuses or whatever, are going to do that. You can't stop them.So? That's about their race. If I want to play a half-elf, then sure, I get that. If I don't want to play a half-elf, because that's not the character concept I have, I want to be a gnome [or whatever]! I'm not going to [nor does the game, itself, anywhere suggest you should] be half-elf just because I get "xyz."That is a differing perspective of playstyle that indicates, it is entirely likely, you and I will not be able to come to a "clarity" of vision here because we are approaching the game, class design, character creation, et al. from two completely different angles. But let's keep going and see how it goes.Well, EK's and Arcane Tricksters each get two...so maybe we open it up to two schools...but, yes, for the thematic purposes, 1 damage type. That would seem to make sense.Yes. That would be challenging. I do not adhere to the idea this is "bad" or that any character is EVER "useless" in a fight. When a [just because it's so popular nowadays], let's say, an Ice [Savant] Sorceress wanders into some place that has a monster immune to ice/cold damage? No, she can't cause damage directly to the beast. Yeah, she'd better start getting creative in her choices and magic-use. Stay in the back. Assist the others. Make a Wall of Ice to hold it back. Cause a Sleet/Ice Storm to cover a retreat or just confuse/blind it while your friends get into a better attack positions or prep some fire attacks. Hit it with Ray of Frost to slow it down while knowing you're not taking away HP...but you're most certainly not "useless" in the fight just because your magic isn't going to do "cold damage" against this creature.Right. If you want to be an Illusion-based Innate Magic-worker, your goal is deception, creativity, trickery, getting past/through without being noticed and, if you're using your magic well, not having a single combat. That's what the character is/can do. If you want a "blaster sorcerer", you're not going to pick an Illusion-based MU. Maybe, occasionally, deal a bit of psychic damage, but mostly you're looking to inflict conditions or, as I said, avoid confrontation entirely.Yes. That is, again, a player choice to make. A choice point in character creation. If you want to be an evoker with versatility and utility spells...then you go be a wizard. If you want to be an "evoker blaster", then you can specialize as a Wizard Evoker, or be an Evocation specialized "TCFKASorcerer"...because you want to be a BLASTER and that's it. Right. It'll be a sorcerer class for people that want to be this kind of sorcerer: good with magic that does this one [style/theme/array] thing. Yes. If you don't like it, there are a minimum of 2 other subclass archetypes with a myriad of other origin story/options kinds of "TCFKAS" for you to be...and if you don't like those then there are other "casting classes" for you to choose from.Any given class/subclass doesn't [and can not realistically ever] offer all things to all people. To expect any one of them to is utter folly.The object here, from what I've heard (and liked) in the thread, is to present a "generic caster" class, with options of varying difficulty/complexity, like the Fighter: Champion/BM/EK.Well, I hope I have informed better, somewhat. Whether you "get it" or not, I can not guarantee. And I have certainly read (and received) harsher. So no worries there. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification