Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Psion" data-source="post: 1242054" data-attributes="member: 172">Guess I should answer this question.Try the Quintessential Sorcerer. It has some really neat variants. My favorite is the &quot;song of will, song of blood&quot;, which lets them trade some spell slots for persistent abilities. These abilities have a really neat flavor and make them seem like being of magic.There are a number of &quot;touched&quot; and &quot;legacy&quot; templates. Each of these templates is +1 ECL and adds a small selection of special abilities to the sorcerer. Two of the templates (fiend and celestial legacy) need to be toned down, but overall, I think they are a great idea and make the sorcerer very distinctive from the wizard.Check out these two threads for more info:<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=65568" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=65568</a><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=68746" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=68746</a>In my own campaign houserules, I have a feat called &quot;sorcerous patron&quot; which allows the sorcerer an extra spell known per level chosen froma specific list, but the character must perform services for a fey or outsider patron. This is similar to an article from a recent dragon that had bloodline feats.Personally, I really do not like the BoEM II sorcerer, for a few reasons.I do like the new skill list. However, I don't think that the sorcerer is weak enough that they deserve a higher HD type. Further, I beleive that they should use the same spell list as wizards. First, many of the spells monte takes away from sorcerers are the exact sorts of spells that I tended to give hedge wizards and witches that I felt the sorcerer archetype fit exactly; apparently Monte thinks that &quot;blast mage&quot; is a good enough archetype (here I go again with my &quot;core classes must be broad&quot; nit!) Second, I didn't find his argument on why to take haste and similar spells away compelling (and they are all the less compelling in 3.5e). Third, I like the logical correspondance between the spells sorcerers cast and the fact that creatures with innate magical abilities (like dragons, rakshasa, and aranea) have sorcerer levels, and I didn't think it made sense to differentiate them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Psion, post: 1242054, member: 172"] Guess I should answer this question. Try the Quintessential Sorcerer. It has some really neat variants. My favorite is the "song of will, song of blood", which lets them trade some spell slots for persistent abilities. These abilities have a really neat flavor and make them seem like being of magic. There are a number of "touched" and "legacy" templates. Each of these templates is +1 ECL and adds a small selection of special abilities to the sorcerer. Two of the templates (fiend and celestial legacy) need to be toned down, but overall, I think they are a great idea and make the sorcerer very distinctive from the wizard. Check out these two threads for more info: [url]http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=65568[/url] [url]http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=68746[/url] In my own campaign houserules, I have a feat called "sorcerous patron" which allows the sorcerer an extra spell known per level chosen froma specific list, but the character must perform services for a fey or outsider patron. This is similar to an article from a recent dragon that had bloodline feats. Personally, I really do not like the BoEM II sorcerer, for a few reasons. I do like the new skill list. However, I don't think that the sorcerer is weak enough that they deserve a higher HD type. Further, I beleive that they should use the same spell list as wizards. First, many of the spells monte takes away from sorcerers are the exact sorts of spells that I tended to give hedge wizards and witches that I felt the sorcerer archetype fit exactly; apparently Monte thinks that "blast mage" is a good enough archetype (here I go again with my "core classes must be broad" nit!) Second, I didn't find his argument on why to take haste and similar spells away compelling (and they are all the less compelling in 3.5e). Third, I like the logical correspondance between the spells sorcerers cast and the fact that creatures with innate magical abilities (like dragons, rakshasa, and aranea) have sorcerer levels, and I didn't think it made sense to differentiate them. [/QUOTE]

Verification