Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MechaTarrasque" data-source="post: 7966595" data-attributes="member: 6801226">Every class (except maybe the fighter and no one can agree on the ranger) has both an idea of how you get power and why others don't.&nbsp; That poor goblin cannon fodder the PC's just killed: He wasn't a wizard because he didn't study to be a wizard.&nbsp; Ditto why he wasn't a monk.&nbsp; He wasn't a sorcerer because no cosmic event happened to him or one of his relatives.&nbsp; He swore an oath, and no one cared, so he wasn't a paladin.&nbsp; Etc.But he had a mind, and that's all you need to be a psion right?&nbsp; That is all the story we are allowed before it gets &quot;too icky&quot; or whatever was complained about the mystic's origin.&nbsp; Form follows function or in this case, class follows story.I heavily favor the &quot;you are turning into a dragon/angel/elemental/etc.&quot; approach myself.&nbsp; But there are people who favor &quot;you are just naturally good with magic&quot; and I think it might have been better from a design perspective to split the two things apart.&nbsp; I figure the &quot;you are turning&quot; one might have been better as a half caster (arguably in 5e, looking at the capstone, you could argue paladins are just taking a long time to turn into something else).&nbsp; Of course, I would argue that once you take out the &quot;dragon/angel/elemental/etc.&quot;, the rationale for it to be a charisma caster pretty much vanishes.&nbsp; If you look at fiction, characters who are &quot;just good&quot; at magic tend to have a feel for the flow of magic, which seems much more wisdom-based character.I doubt 5e will change the sorcerer in any big way. 6e (if it ever comes) will probably start with them trying to push the &quot;turn into a dragon/angel/elemental/etc&quot; idea again (like in the 5e playtest), because there are only so many ways to &quot;just naturally good at magic&quot; and a lot of things you can turn into.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MechaTarrasque, post: 7966595, member: 6801226"] Every class (except maybe the fighter and no one can agree on the ranger) has both an idea of how you get power and why others don't. That poor goblin cannon fodder the PC's just killed: He wasn't a wizard because he didn't study to be a wizard. Ditto why he wasn't a monk. He wasn't a sorcerer because no cosmic event happened to him or one of his relatives. He swore an oath, and no one cared, so he wasn't a paladin. Etc. But he had a mind, and that's all you need to be a psion right? That is all the story we are allowed before it gets "too icky" or whatever was complained about the mystic's origin. Form follows function or in this case, class follows story. I heavily favor the "you are turning into a dragon/angel/elemental/etc." approach myself. But there are people who favor "you are just naturally good with magic" and I think it might have been better from a design perspective to split the two things apart. I figure the "you are turning" one might have been better as a half caster (arguably in 5e, looking at the capstone, you could argue paladins are just taking a long time to turn into something else). Of course, I would argue that once you take out the "dragon/angel/elemental/etc.", the rationale for it to be a charisma caster pretty much vanishes. If you look at fiction, characters who are "just good" at magic tend to have a feel for the flow of magic, which seems much more wisdom-based character. I doubt 5e will change the sorcerer in any big way. 6e (if it ever comes) will probably start with them trying to push the "turn into a dragon/angel/elemental/etc" idea again (like in the 5e playtest), because there are only so many ways to "just naturally good at magic" and a lot of things you can turn into. [/QUOTE]

Verification