Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What about warlocks and sorcerers?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="MoonSong" data-source="post: 6172423" data-attributes="member: 6689464"><p>WARNING: LONG POST AHEAD</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes of course, a very flexible baseline is good to get as many different mechanic/flavor combos as possible, I'm not opossed to one of those in principle. BUT THE CURRENT MAGE CLASS IS NEITHER FLEXIBLE NOR BUILT FOR MAXIMUM VARIABILITY. Check Microlite20, that magic user is truly flexible on a way no D&D MU has ever been. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Second edition, I want to play a spellcaster, but I don't want to have to carry a spellbook, or being smart, In fact I want my character to actively fight the arcane power stored within himself. Or I want to play a character who sold her soul for power, but she still has to be smart and do a lot of hard work just like the guy who didn't sold his soul. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Even assuming the poll has no self-selection bias, said poll is a strong argument for keeping both warlock and sorcerer as their own thing not the other way around, because yes they on their own are just 4 and 3 percent of the poll, but put together they represent more than half the amount of people who prefer wizards (quite the acomplishment given that wizard players are the biggest minority and them being quite recent in comparison). Not having them is going to hurt one third of the game tables!!. Even then I'm myself a warlock and sorcerer advocate who would have voted bard or rogue, so the poll itself just says how many people like them the best, not how many people like them at all. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes I'm not on principle against the conflating either, it is elegant on itself and has a lot of untapped potential (like the possibility of warlock ore sorcerer amking it into the basic game instead of the wizard, you cannot get simpler and more flexible than them), yet I'm a little cynic on the matter and I know the designers are just going to design the class to suit the wizard, then just forcibly tack on the sorcerer and warlock, all of it at the cost of their availability, playability, identity, and inherent simplicity. </p><p></p><p>If you don't believe me, just see how things currently are, the class name is MAGE, an historical name for the WIZARD class, a more generic name like SPELLCASTER would be better suited for a class that is intended to cover so much ground. Morevover when a new player who wants to play a caster is faced with the WIZARD variant as the DEFAULT that could prove intimidating and may never take the time to even consider the more simple sorcerer and warlock; because if they are hidden behind a wall of esoteric modules they must be even more complex than this already complex thing right? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, this too. And my biggest grip with "oh but you can still do that, there are going to be subclasses that do the did", is exactly the same I have with similar aprroaches to multiclassing: You have a very short opportunity window to do so, did you discovered you wanted to go this route after second level? though luck, you are stuck out of it, you should have know it better and plan every single minutia of your character's future career from day one. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The problem with the Warlock wasn't in the warlock itself, ok not all of it, for better or worse it was among the first round of strikers, and even when some corrections were done to the class later in the system life, it simply couldn't compare with the endless flow of splat love for the wizard, apparently no arcane caster can get nice things whithout the wizard taking them away. Heck, we are talking about the edition where the wizard could outstrike the arcane strikers and even outbard the bard! (A wizard with Bardic Ritualist was not only better at bard rituals than the bard, but also got the chance to be insanely better at lore). In order for warlocks and sorcerers not to be second rate again we need for the designers to understand they are fundamentally different form the wizard and thus shouldn't share all of the wizard's nerfs, but rather be developed on their own, their versatility ceiling isn't just as high, otherwise we are faced witht the possibility of they becoming useless and unable to contribute.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="MoonSong, post: 6172423, member: 6689464"] WARNING: LONG POST AHEAD Yes of course, a very flexible baseline is good to get as many different mechanic/flavor combos as possible, I'm not opossed to one of those in principle. BUT THE CURRENT MAGE CLASS IS NEITHER FLEXIBLE NOR BUILT FOR MAXIMUM VARIABILITY. Check Microlite20, that magic user is truly flexible on a way no D&D MU has ever been. Second edition, I want to play a spellcaster, but I don't want to have to carry a spellbook, or being smart, In fact I want my character to actively fight the arcane power stored within himself. Or I want to play a character who sold her soul for power, but she still has to be smart and do a lot of hard work just like the guy who didn't sold his soul. Even assuming the poll has no self-selection bias, said poll is a strong argument for keeping both warlock and sorcerer as their own thing not the other way around, because yes they on their own are just 4 and 3 percent of the poll, but put together they represent more than half the amount of people who prefer wizards (quite the acomplishment given that wizard players are the biggest minority and them being quite recent in comparison). Not having them is going to hurt one third of the game tables!!. Even then I'm myself a warlock and sorcerer advocate who would have voted bard or rogue, so the poll itself just says how many people like them the best, not how many people like them at all. Yes I'm not on principle against the conflating either, it is elegant on itself and has a lot of untapped potential (like the possibility of warlock ore sorcerer amking it into the basic game instead of the wizard, you cannot get simpler and more flexible than them), yet I'm a little cynic on the matter and I know the designers are just going to design the class to suit the wizard, then just forcibly tack on the sorcerer and warlock, all of it at the cost of their availability, playability, identity, and inherent simplicity. If you don't believe me, just see how things currently are, the class name is MAGE, an historical name for the WIZARD class, a more generic name like SPELLCASTER would be better suited for a class that is intended to cover so much ground. Morevover when a new player who wants to play a caster is faced with the WIZARD variant as the DEFAULT that could prove intimidating and may never take the time to even consider the more simple sorcerer and warlock; because if they are hidden behind a wall of esoteric modules they must be even more complex than this already complex thing right? Yes, this too. And my biggest grip with "oh but you can still do that, there are going to be subclasses that do the did", is exactly the same I have with similar aprroaches to multiclassing: You have a very short opportunity window to do so, did you discovered you wanted to go this route after second level? though luck, you are stuck out of it, you should have know it better and plan every single minutia of your character's future career from day one. The problem with the Warlock wasn't in the warlock itself, ok not all of it, for better or worse it was among the first round of strikers, and even when some corrections were done to the class later in the system life, it simply couldn't compare with the endless flow of splat love for the wizard, apparently no arcane caster can get nice things whithout the wizard taking them away. Heck, we are talking about the edition where the wizard could outstrike the arcane strikers and even outbard the bard! (A wizard with Bardic Ritualist was not only better at bard rituals than the bard, but also got the chance to be insanely better at lore). In order for warlocks and sorcerers not to be second rate again we need for the designers to understand they are fundamentally different form the wizard and thus shouldn't share all of the wizard's nerfs, but rather be developed on their own, their versatility ceiling isn't just as high, otherwise we are faced witht the possibility of they becoming useless and unable to contribute. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What about warlocks and sorcerers?
Top