Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana: Sorcerer and Warlock

There's a new Unearthed Arcana from WotC today, hot on the heels of the recent one for barbarian and monk. "Two classes, the sorcerer and the warlock, discover new playtest possibilities this week. The sorcerer receives a new Sorcerous Origin feature: the Aberrant Mind. Meanwhile, the warlock gains a new Otherworldly Patron feature: the Lurker in the Deep. We’ve also included a new cantrip: mind sliver."

 

[Xenonnonex]

And a few of the old 4e crew is over at Paizo now, making PF2. Funny old world.

And people still choose not to see the similarities to 4e with PF2. Weird.

 

[Charlaquin]

And people still choose not to see the similarities to 4e with PF2. Weird.

People either don’t realize or don’t want to admit that their problems with 4e had far more to do with presentation than design.

 

[Parmandur]

People either don’t realize or don’t want to admit that their problems with 4e had far more to do with presentation than design.

Well, presentation matters: and for PF2, a lot of the comparisons are related to presentation.

 

[Charlaquin]

Well, presentation matters: and for PF2, a lot of the comparisons are related to presentation.

It definitely does! And yeah, the ways in which PF2’s presentation is similar to 4e’s are the most obvious of the similarities between the editions.

 

[Leatherhead]

I don't know - single-target d6-base, with a weak 1-turn partial-bane effect? The fact that it targets Intelligence makes it stand on its own two feet, but I would not take it over a firebolt, eldritch blast, or even ray of frost necessarily. I'd say it sounds balanced - I really can't see someone spamming it because it's so good or anything.

Over all INT is is the softest defensive stat, and an easier target than AC by the equivalent of 1 number on a d20 roll. That -1d4 on a saving throw effect is worth about 2. Half Cover throws on another 2 (in my experience, half cover is trivially easy to get because you just have to stand behind someone, even if they are an enemy).

Which means there is about a 5 point difference in terms of accuracy between Spamming Firebolt and Mind Sliver. I believe that would make up the 2 average damage difference, if my only goal was DPR.

Of course, this is ignoring the obvious 1-2 punch of lowering someones saving throw and then following up with a real spell.

 

[grimslade]

First thoughts, Aberrant dragonmarks are being tested on the bones of a dragon sorcerer.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Over all INT is is the softest defensive stat, and an easier target than AC by the equivalent of 1 number on a d20 roll. That -1d4 on a saving throw effect is worth about 2. Half Cover throws on another 2 (in my experience, half cover is trivially easy to get because you just have to stand behind someone, even if they are an enemy).

Which means there is about a 5 point difference in terms of accuracy between Spamming Firebolt and Mind Sliver. I believe that would make up the 2 average damage difference, if my only goal was DPR.

In a book that features Psionics, I suspect there's probably going to be cantrips that do even more damage than 1d6 and require an intelligence save. They probably won't have rider effects though.

Intelligence looks to be the go to saving throw for many attacks that do psychic damage.

 

[Parmandur]

In a book that features Psionics, I suspect there's probably going to be cantrips that do even more damage than 1d6 and require an intelligence save. They probably won't have rider effects though.

Intelligence looks to be the go to saving throw for many attacks that do psychic damage.

The Wizard's day has come at last...

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

In a book that features Psionics, I suspect there's probably going to be cantrips that do even more damage than 1d6 and require an intelligence save. They probably won't have rider effects though.

Intelligence looks to be the go to saving throw for many attacks that do psychic damage.

The Wizard's day has come at last...

so this is why they're introducing the artificer.

 

[Campbell]

Well, presentation matters: and for PF2, a lot of the comparisons are related to presentation.

While presentation does matter, I fundamentally disagree that it even comes close to telling the whole story. Fourth Edition is a great game, but it fundamentally is a game with a drastically different narrative arc and core story to almost every other edition of Dungeons and Dragons. It recasts the adventurers as epic heroes destined to participate in a grand cosmic struggle, largely eschews dungeon delving, embraces indie design, and has a fundamentally different combat narrative experience.

They also originally eschewed many classic elements of the game like gnomes and bards, recast a number of creatures in light of the Dawn War, and embraced new elements that highlighted the narrative arc of the game like Warlords and Dragonborn.

It had a glorious attitude that flaunted all this. It was in your face, visceral, and did not give a damn.

All of these things are things I love about the game, but served to make it less popular with the core audience. When they attempted to bring things back to the core narrative of Dungeons and Dragons with Essentials they had issues maintaining their existing audience that loved the game that Fourth Edition was.

Pathfinder 2 is concerned with continuing and embracing the core narrative of Pathfinder. It passionately embraces Golarion. The only changes to the setting are the result of their Adventure Paths. Monsters pretty much have the same levels as they had CR in Pathfinder. The narrative of combat is much the same and the narrative roles of the classes and races/ancestries largely remain unchanged. Changes to the system were largely done to embrace the stories they wanted to tell with Pathfinder 1.

There are definitely challenges, mainly that some fans were used to having a high level of certainty due to elements of character build and the new system highlights the drama of those desperate moments even though character build definitely still does matter. Still, so far they are doing better than I thought they would. Comments from developers on the Paizo board seem thrilled about how the game is doing.

Is it setting the world on fire? No. I do not think it like has to though. They were never going to unseat Fifth Edition at what it does best. I would love to discuss this in more depth, but this is probably not the place for it.