PDA

View Full Version : D&D NEXT Opinions on the Sorcerer & Warlock



Anderlith
2012-08-24, 10:43 PM
So I've been passively keeping up the with the playtest, & nothing truly caught my attention until now. I didn't want to put this into the current discussion because I wanted a narrow focus.

I think that the new view of the Sorcerer is absolutely amazing. They are finally taking the sorcerer into a cool new direction & I really like how their inner magic bleeds through to corrupt them, but I've seen people who seem to think that this is a terrible idea, so what is the playground's opinion?

I also think that the Warlock is headed in a good direction though I wish they had gone with a different source of the pact than they did, a fae that makes you ugly for power is kind of lackluster (pardon the pun)

Lictor of Thrax
2012-08-24, 11:57 PM
I absolutely love what they are doing with the sorcerer... I don't know if there's more information on what the other blood types but um hoping that they stick with the concept of the class essentially being a by-design hybrid (what with the dragon born being an obvious fighter mage type) because, well hell, my current 5e sorcerer is ultimately trying to be what the current 4e dragon born sorcerer would be if he had the guardian specialty.

I think it finally really separates the sorcerer from the wizard and at the same fills a niche that people have always had to multi-class for.

Haven't really given the warlock deep look yet.

Starbuck_II
2012-08-25, 12:08 AM
So I've been passively keeping up the with the playtest, & nothing truly caught my attention until now. I didn't want to put this into the current discussion because I wanted a narrow focus.

I think that the new view of the Sorcerer is absolutely amazing. They are finally taking the sorcerer into a cool new direction & I really like how their inner magic bleeds through to corrupt them, but I've seen people who seem to think that this is a terrible idea, so what is the playground's opinion?

I also think that the Warlock is headed in a good direction though I wish they had gone with a different source of the pact than they did, a fae that makes you ugly for power is kind of lackluster (pardon the pun)

I'm glad they made the Sorcerer unique. I'm curious how the other bloodlines will differenciate (will there be a more casty bloodline; will there be a more skill user bloodline; even a minor healing bloodline even if weaker than cleric).

Endarire
2012-08-28, 02:09 AM
What's special about the Sorcerer? How does he compare to the Wizard?

Anderlith
2012-08-28, 02:36 AM
What's special about the Sorcerer? How does he compare to the Wizard?

Umm... you are kidding right? Have you seen the playtest stuff?

TheOOB
2012-08-28, 04:24 AM
The sorc uses a spell point system and casts spontanously. They also gain a bloodline with unique powers and abilities. Their spellcasting ability is notably weaker though. I like the Sorc, though i wish they would have shown a more magically orientedbloodline

Leeham
2012-08-28, 08:19 AM
I'm a gig fan of the new sorcerer, I think he's got a lot of potential. Right now, the Dragon Heritage origin seems like a great way to play a Spellswordy type character, which is pretty neat. Something tells me that he's going to be an absolute blast.

GenghisDon
2012-08-28, 03:20 PM
Sorcerer looks aweful to me. Perhaps when other BG's are made it won't be so bad, but I dunno. The fighter/mage path is fine & all, but for some other name/class.

Warlock, on the other hand seems cool. Fey only so far, although the invocations don't reflect that (not a great sign, that)

DrBurr
2012-08-28, 03:47 PM
I like the Sorcerer though I'd like to see more bloodlines, I'd also like them to alter the spell list for Level 1 spells you have only 4 choices and only one is damage oriented. The others are Protective and Utility which don't get me wrong I love utility spell but if this list was used with a more spellslinging centric bloodline he'd get killed

ImperiousLeader
2012-08-28, 04:50 PM
I really wish they got higher level spells at the same time as the wizard (not one level later like 3.5) and had a few more spells in their list, right now you eventually get all the first level spells.

But conceptually? This is pretty darn cool. I like the gish in a can concept of the Draconic heritage, and my human bounty-hunting Necromancer Sorcerer is pretty darn badass.

Gavinfoxx
2012-08-28, 05:26 PM
Umm... you are kidding right? Have you seen the playtest stuff?

I'm guessing the answer is 'no, he hasn't'...

Hence why he is asking.

mcv
2012-08-29, 09:21 AM
I have very mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, I love that there's finally a spell point system. And the bloodline stuff is definitely interesting. On the other hand, I don't think it should be called a sorcerer. I admit I don't know much about sorcerers in older D&D editions, but to me, a sorcerer has always been someone who works with the raw stuff of magic, and not a fighter who can also cast spells.

In our playtest at least, the fighter aspect of the sorcerer definitely dominated. He's a front-line fighter. And when the fight becomes too hard, he can still cast Cause Fear to thin the opposition out a bit, or a number of other spells that support his fighting role.

RedWarlock
2012-08-29, 09:59 AM
I have very mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, I love that there's finally a spell point system. And the bloodline stuff is definitely interesting. On the other hand, I don't think it should be called a sorcerer. I admit I don't know much about sorcerers in older D&D editions, but to me, a sorcerer has always been someone who works with the raw stuff of magic, and not a fighter who can also cast spells.

But then that's just the Draconic heritage. Did you see how they segmented off half the basic class details into the heritage? That says that those numbers and abilities will change depending on which heritage you choose to take.

mcv
2012-08-29, 10:48 AM
But then that's just the Draconic heritage. Did you see how they segmented off half the basic class details into the heritage? That says that those numbers and abilities will change depending on which heritage you choose to take.

I hadn't really looked at it that closely (I was only GMing). Putting hit dice and proficiencies in heritage, can make each heritage pretty much a completely different class. So other heritages can still be very wizardly, although willpower and spells known is determined in the class table. I suppose a more magic-oriented sorcerer could have abilities that give him bonus willpower and bonus spells.

ImperiousLeader
2012-08-29, 11:19 AM
Also, more potent spells. The Draconic heritage already augments their weapon attack feature, a more spellcastery heritage would have bonuses to magic attack and spell DC.

Dimers
2012-08-29, 12:44 PM
I like the structure set up for the sorcerer. It looks like a good thing to build on. That's true for the warlock too, but the 'fey' example given is so weak and wonky that I find it hard to look past the playtest to imagine something better. The penalties for using boons aren't mechanics, so either they're meaningless or they require a great GM to make viable. (A great GM is always a nice thing. But there aren't enough great GMs in the world to ensure every group gets one. Ya know?)

More generally, I'm annoyed that WotC has chosen once again to focus so much on arcane casting and on creepy/freaky sorts. The game I want to play is more about upright heroes and about people who do great things because they're brave, skilled and lucky. Gishing and making pacts with beings who want to eat the earth (or at least wouldn't mind it being remade in their image) isn't where I want to be. Nor is having an entire party of spellcasters. I'd like to see more thinking inside the box.

DrBurr
2012-08-29, 12:58 PM
I like the structure set up for the sorcerer. It looks like a good thing to build on. That's true for the warlock too, but the 'fey' example given is so weak and wonky that I find it hard to look past the playtest to imagine something better. The penalties for using boons aren't mechanics, so either they're meaningless or they require a great GM to make viable. (A great GM is always a nice thing. But there aren't enough great GMs in the world to ensure every group gets one. Ya know?)

More generally, I'm annoyed that WotC has chosen once again to focus so much on arcane casting and on creepy/freaky sorts. The game I want to play is more about upright heroes and about people who do great things because they're brave, skilled and lucky. Gishing and making pacts with beings who want to eat the earth (or at least wouldn't mind it being remade in their image) isn't where I want to be. Nor is having an entire party of spellcasters. I'd like to see more thinking inside the box.

The only reason we're seeing these 2 spellcasters is because Wotc is trying to make a goodwill gesture in a sense showing that they won't be exclusively Vancian in the new edition. Though they should have focused on Developing these classes further before their release to the public playtest.

We will see classes like the paladin, ranger and barbarian later its jsut that they haven't gotten to those classes yet.

mcv
2012-08-29, 02:47 PM
More generally, I'm annoyed that WotC has chosen once again to focus so much on arcane casting and on creepy/freaky sorts. The game I want to play is more about upright heroes and about people who do great things because they're brave, skilled and lucky. Gishing and making pacts with beings who want to eat the earth (or at least wouldn't mind it being remade in their image) isn't where I want to be. Nor is having an entire party of spellcasters. I'd like to see more thinking inside the box.

I agree. On the one hand I like there being different options for magic systems, and I especially like having spellpoints instead of Vancian casting, but I'd appreciate it if they could tone the "these people are really creepy or dangerous" down a couple of points.

That kind of stuff is also too setting dependent to be core. Offer a core that gives clear, distinct classes with interesting options, and have the players figure out what it all means. Don't force classes to be anti-heroes straight from the start. Even the Thief has been turned into a more generic Rogue, right? That approach should also be used for the more exotic spellcasters. Or they should go into a later expansion instead of the core set.

Edit: of course the Paladin still forces you down a very specific moral path. That's one of the reasons I don't like Paladins much, I guess.

Remmirath
2012-08-29, 03:44 PM
So far I like the sorcerer, and find the warlock to be more interesting than I found it to be in 3rd edition - although it's still really not my kind of thing. I will probably try one just to see how it plays, but it isn't now and never has been the kind of class I'd be likely to play otherwise.

I do like that the wizard and sorcerer now have completely different spellcasting systems, with the sorcerer still able to run out of useful spells for the day (just mentioning that because I really dislike it when casters never run out). I had always thought that sorcerer and wizard were just a bit too exchangeable in previous editions.

I would've liked to see at least one alternate bloodline and pact, respectively, but I like the draconic bloodline so far - possibly because I've ended up playing a lot of fighter/mage types over the years, so it appeals to me. I could be forgetting something, but I've seen no indication yet whether or not multiclassing is in. If it is, I could see either that or it becoming slightly reduntant.


That kind of stuff is also too setting dependent to be core. Offer a core that gives clear, distinct classes with interesting options, and have the players figure out what it all means. Don't force classes to be anti-heroes straight from the start. Even the Thief has been turned into a more generic Rogue, right? That approach should also be used for the more exotic spellcasters. Or they should go into a later expansion instead of the core set.


I mostly agree with this, but so far I haven't seen anything that can't be easily tweaked in a different campaign (although I haven't been keeping a particularly sharp eye for that, and this has reminded me that I was going to do so). I think the mechanics of the sorcerer and the warlock could stay pretty much the same while changing around the descriptive bits.

Personally I'd prefer just fighter, mage, cleric and thief (or rogue - although for whatever reason I've always preferred thief) as classes, but I know that lots of people like to have a wide variety of classes available - and there's never anything stopping me from only using the ones I want, whereas it's significantly more difficult to come up with a new one when you want something different.

Zeful
2012-08-29, 03:54 PM
I think that the new view of the Sorcerer is absolutely amazing. They are finally taking the sorcerer into a cool new direction & I really like how their inner magic bleeds through to corrupt them, but I've seen people who seem to think that this is a terrible idea, so what is the playground's opinion?

As the person you are likely referring to about it being a terrible thing.

It's terrible. Same insipid, uninspired crap that has been out since the early 2000s and it wasn't interesting or fun then. It, by nature, is overly restrictive without adding anything of particular value in terms related to the reasons to pick the class to begin with.

Bloodline feats does everything the 5e sorcerer attempts, just better in every possible respect.

TheOOB
2012-08-29, 05:02 PM
As the person you are likely referring to about it being a terrible thing.

It's terrible. Same insipid, uninspired crap that has been out since the early 2000s and it wasn't interesting or fun then. It, by nature, is overly restrictive without adding anything of particular value in terms related to the reasons to pick the class to begin with.

Bloodline feats does everything the 5e sorcerer attempts, just better in every possible respect.

To be fair, in early 2000's. D&D 3e had just come out, and the sorcerer had no class abilities save for summon familiar and arcane spellcasting, and aside froma prestige class or two, unique sorcerer options really didn't start coming around until Complete Arcane(2004), which just offered Draconic feats, which a) for the most part gave very minor boosts, and b)required you to spend nearly all your feats on them to get the full effect, taking away your ability to customize your character.

Pathfinder(2009) greatly expanded upon the concept of sorcerer bloodlines by making them part of the class so you didn't have to be taxed feats for your flavorful abilities, which also helped to close the gap between sorcerer and wizard power, as experience had shown that spontaneous casting is vastly inferior to preparation casting, even with more spells per day.

The new sorcerer looks a lot like the pathfinder sorcerer, which got a lot of praise for it's uniqueness(I also like the idea that WotC may be getting some inspiration from Pathfinder, as it did a number of things right).

So the new sorcerer is just an expansion on an idea that actually seemed pretty revolutionary only 3 years ago. It doesn't restrict your character, as you still have feats, backgrounds, ability scores, race, and spell selection to help make your character unique(as opposed to bloodline feats which basically remove your ability to customize your character with feats), and there will be several bloodlines available in the core rulebook, and likely more as time goes on.

EDIT: Heritage feats (Complete Mage 2006), which are basically new versions of draconic feats, were good for flavor, but like draconic feats they were restrictive(they took away one of the most important resources for customizing your character, feats), and as a rule, they are not very good, especially since, by complete mage there are a ton of really powerful feats out there.

Zeful
2012-08-29, 06:30 PM
To be fair, in early 2000's. D&D 3e had just come out, and the sorcerer had no class abilities save for summon familiar and arcane spellcasting, and aside froma prestige class or two, unique sorcerer options really didn't start coming around until Complete Arcane(2004), which just offered Draconic feats, which a) for the most part gave very minor boosts, and b)required you to spend nearly all your feats on them to get the full effect, taking away your ability to customize your character.

Pathfinder(2009) greatly expanded upon the concept of sorcerer bloodlines by making them part of the class so you didn't have to be taxed feats for your flavorful abilities, which also helped to close the gap between sorcerer and wizard power, as experience had shown that spontaneous casting is vastly inferior to preparation casting, even with more spells per day.There were flaws in the system, but compared to how incidental and worthless the bonuses from the Pathfinder system feel (the oft touted Arcane Bloodline is three feats you could have between levels 6 and 9 spread over 10 levels, with the rest being about as trite and repetitive as you'd expect, there is not a single innovative idea amongst them), it was still vastly superior.


The new sorcerer looks a lot like the pathfinder sorcerer, which got a lot of praise for it's uniqueness(I also like the idea that WotC may be getting some inspiration from Pathfinder, as it did a number of things right).Pathfinder's Sorcerer isn't unique in the least. I had read 4 separate bloodline "fixes" by homebrewers since the early 2000's with Szantany's Ultimate Sorcerer being the first of many. None of the bloodlines introduce new mechanics, or an interesting spin on old mechanics. They're just a handful of feats, chopped up and spread over 5-6 levels with a spell or two thrown in for giggles.


So the new sorcerer is just an expansion on an idea that actually seemed pretty revolutionary only 3 years ago.Except it wasn't. Szantany's Ultimate sorcerer has a listing from 4 years ago, but it was from before that, when the Wizards boards were a vBulletin board at least 8 years ago. Afrokuma wrote up a heritage sorcerer 3 years ago (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113409), with many of the same heritages and progression of those heritages that Pathfinder offers. This is not a remotely new concept.


It doesn't restrict your character, as you still have feats, backgrounds, ability scores, race, and spell selection to help make your character unique(as opposed to bloodline feats which basically remove your ability to customize your character with feats), and there will be several bloodlines available in the core rulebook, and likely more as time goes on.No. Saying that fully optional heritage feats remove your ability to customize your character is essentially saying that only certain kinds of customization are good enough to be allowed, which is spurious at best. Selecting them was choosing to customize your character in a specific fashion, one where exploration of that character's heritage was the point. They may not have been the best feats, but in terms of exploring the character as a character through the mechanics of the game, they were miles better than every single heritage framework stapled on to the Sorcerer.

Anderlith
2012-08-29, 06:35 PM
As the person you are likely referring to about it being a terrible thing.

It's terrible. Same insipid, uninspired crap that has been out since the early 2000s and it wasn't interesting or fun then. It, by nature, is overly restrictive without adding anything of particular value in terms related to the reasons to pick the class to begin with.

Bloodline feats does everything the 5e sorcerer attempts, just better in every possible respect.

While yeah I guess you are one of the many, but I am by no means singling you out.... sorry if you think I was, but you are not the only poster in the playground :/


To be fair, in early 2000's. D&D 3e had just come out, and the sorcerer had no class abilities save for summon familiar and arcane spellcasting, and aside froma prestige class or two, unique sorcerer options really didn't start coming around until Complete Arcane(2004), which just offered Draconic feats, which a) for the most part gave very minor boosts, and b)required you to spend nearly all your feats on them to get the full effect, taking away your ability to customize your character.

Pathfinder(2009) greatly expanded upon the concept of sorcerer bloodlines by making them part of the class so you didn't have to be taxed feats for your flavorful abilities, which also helped to close the gap between sorcerer and wizard power, as experience had shown that spontaneous casting is vastly inferior to preparation casting, even with more spells per day.

The new sorcerer looks a lot like the pathfinder sorcerer, which got a lot of praise for it's uniqueness(I also like the idea that WotC may be getting some inspiration from Pathfinder, as it did a number of things right).

So the new sorcerer is just an expansion on an idea that actually seemed pretty revolutionary only 3 years ago. It doesn't restrict your character, as you still have feats, backgrounds, ability scores, race, and spell selection to help make your character unique(as opposed to bloodline feats which basically remove your ability to customize your character with feats), and there will be several bloodlines available in the core rulebook, and likely more as time goes on.

EDIT: Heritage feats (Complete Mage 2006), which are basically new versions of draconic feats, were good for flavor, but like draconic feats they were restrictive(they took away one of the most important resources for customizing your character, feats), and as a rule, they are not very good, especially since, by complete mage there are a ton of really powerful feats out there.

This is how I see it too, Pathfinder looked at the heritage feats & decided to bake them into the class. DDN saw looked at pathfinder & decided to make it even better, adding in the losing of control & the cracking under the pressure of uncontrolled power.

TheOOB
2012-08-30, 12:16 AM
There were flaws in the system, but compared to how incidental and worthless the bonuses from the Pathfinder system feel (the oft touted Arcane Bloodline is three feats you could have between levels 6 and 9 spread over 10 levels, with the rest being about as trite and repetitive as you'd expect, there is not a single innovative idea amongst them), it was still vastly superior.

I'm confused as to what you think is actually good then? Everything that gets brought up you seem to dislike.


Pathfinder's Sorcerer isn't unique in the least. I had read 4 separate bloodline "fixes" by homebrewers since the early 2000's with Szantany's Ultimate Sorcerer being the first of many. None of the bloodlines introduce new mechanics, or an interesting spin on old mechanics. They're just a handful of feats, chopped up and spread over 5-6 levels with a spell or two thrown in for giggles.

Homebrew doesn't really count. Pathfinder was the first instance I can think of from a major publisher where bloodlines were baked into the base class, and it widely considered good at the time, and pathfinder seems to still have a pretty strong following.


Except it wasn't. Szantany's Ultimate sorcerer has a listing from 4 years ago, but it was from before that, when the Wizards boards were a vBulletin board at least 8 years ago. Afrokuma wrote up a heritage sorcerer 3 years ago (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113409), with many of the same heritages and progression of those heritages that Pathfinder offers. This is not a remotely new concept.

Who is Szantany and why is he relevant, or Afrokuma? Neither we nor wizards can look at every piece of material every written by a fan, and if there stuff was that good they could have published it under the OGL. I'm looking at WotC published content, as well as some from Paizo as they are also a major publisher, and obviously influential in the D&D Next design.


No. Saying that fully optional heritage feats remove your ability to customize your character is essentially saying that only certain kinds of customization are good enough to be allowed, which is spurious at best. Selecting them was choosing to customize your character in a specific fashion, one where exploration of that character's heritage was the point. They may not have been the best feats, but in terms of exploring the character as a character through the mechanics of the game, they were miles better than every single heritage framework stapled on to the Sorcerer.

But they do limit your ability to customize. From level 1-20, a D&D 3.x character will, on average, gain 7 feats. Feats are the primary way you customize your character beyond your class, as most classes follow a linear progression, and skills are much less relevant.

With a heritage, you will make one choice, say I want to be a fae type character, and you'll spend 3-5 feats on it, that's on average, over half of the feats you'll ever earn.

The 5e method of doing things frees up your feats. You make the choice as part of your class, and gain the abilities naturally, so that you still have all your feats to give yourself cool unique abilities that will make you different from the fae sorcerer standing next to you.

Zeful
2012-08-30, 01:03 AM
I'm confused as to what you think is actually good then? Everything that gets brought up you seem to dislike.I like very little, because I spent a lot of my time on forums like these looking for games, and eventually had everything I ever liked about the game torn down because of optimization, something I've never been good at, and with it being so common, it's gotten to the point that I can't run a game without finding someone that can firstly, recognize and quantify optimization, and secondly, do it themselves, at which point I'm just a relic. The culture for medium-to-high optimization on this and other forums made me jaded as hell about the game. Well, that and learning quite a number of axioms of game design which made me look over the material and flip out over just how lazily and poorly designed the system really is.

Of course, I'm probably picking on sorcerous bloodlines because I haven't found one I'd be willing to spend time refluffing to use. If I ever played a Pathfinder or 5e sorcerer, I'd deliberately omit the choice of bloodline entirely, because none of them are actually interesting enough to waste the time it would take to refluff them so they weren't terrible. And running without any of the related bonuses would take much less time for character creation.


Homebrew doesn't really count.
You really think Wizards and Paizo didn't look at them (as such attempts were pretty popular) and decide to try them out? Because I don't.

Pathfinder was the first instance I can think of from a major publisher where bloodlines were baked into the base class, and it widely considered good at the time, and pathfinder seems to still have a pretty strong following.Pathfinder still has a following because they're putting out content for a broken, but beloved ruleset. But in terms of bloodlines, 90% of all of their functions are just stolen from other feats, the rest are just spells.


Who is Szantany and why is he relevant, or Afrokuma? Neither we nor wizards can look at every piece of material every written by a fan, and if there stuff was that good they could have published it under the OGL. I'm looking at WotC published content, as well as some from Paizo as they are also a major publisher, and obviously influential in the D&D Next design.I'm just refuting you saying that what Paizo did or what Wizards is doing was new or revolutionary. Paizo especially would have received a bunch of forum posts and emails concerning the sorcerer, and during the debates on 4e, a good majority of Sorcerer posts were concerning bloodlines in some fashion. They didn't have to look over every bit of homebrew, just what was coming up in these discussions.


But they do limit your ability to customize. From level 1-20, a D&D 3.x character will, on average, gain 7 feats. Feats are the primary way you customize your character beyond your class, as most classes follow a linear progression, and skills are much less relevant.

With a heritage, you will make one choice, say I want to be a fae type character, and you'll spend 3-5 feats on it, that's on average, over half of the feats you'll ever earn.How? In what way is selecting a heritage feat not customization? In order to limit customization, heritage feats would have to somehow remove options that the player had previously, and outside of most versions of the ruleset preventing selecting multiple heritages, how did heritage feats remove a player's options?

They may not be good feats, I haven't argued that, but to say that choosing one of these feats somehow limits the ability to customize a character is just incorrect.


The 5e method of doing things frees up your feats. You make the choice as part of your class, and gain the abilities naturally, so that you still have all your feats to give yourself cool unique abilities that will make you different from the fae sorcerer standing next to you.
Which as a statement goes is entirely predicated on heritage feats somehow not being a valid form of customization. Something you have yet to prove.

Moreover, a class is probably the worst way of doing this. UA's bloodlines, as hard as they are to understand, are a better mechanic. A racial thing the 3.5 dragonborn are a better way to do this. Feats are a better way to do this. Putting it into a class, at all, doesn't serve to make the feat-like "class features" seem that much more interesting, especially if that's going to be the only way to add this kind of heritage to a class, making the decision even worse. Want to have a distant quasi-magical ancestor? Need to buy 1 level of sorcerer before you qualify.

Anderlith
2012-08-30, 05:32 AM
How? In what way is selecting a heritage feat not customization? In order to limit customization, heritage feats would have to somehow remove options that the player had previously, and outside of most versions of the ruleset preventing selecting multiple heritages, how did heritage feats remove a player's options?

They may not be good feats, I haven't argued that, but to say that choosing one of these feats somehow limits the ability to customize a character is just incorrect.


Which as a statement goes is entirely predicated on heritage feats somehow not being a valid form of customization. Something you have yet to prove.

Moreover, a class is probably the worst way of doing this. UA's bloodlines, as hard as they are to understand, are a better mechanic. A racial thing the 3.5 dragonborn are a better way to do this. Feats are a better way to do this. Putting it into a class, at all, doesn't serve to make the feat-like "class features" seem that much more interesting, especially if that's going to be the only way to add this kind of heritage to a class, making the decision even worse. Want to have a distant quasi-magical ancestor? Need to buy 1 level of sorcerer before you qualify.

Having a quasi magical ancestor does not require a level in sorcerer. You just say some where in your background "Hey & my great great grandmother hooked up with a Lamasu."
If you have to choose between choosing Sorcerer Heritage Feats & all the other feats in the game, that is loosing customization. This is a new layer of customization, pick a background, pick a spec, pick Sorcerer as a class, now pick a bloodline.

Kurald Galain
2012-08-30, 05:36 AM
I like the mechanics, but I think the fluff so far is awful.

Zeful
2012-08-30, 06:17 AM
Having a quasi magical ancestor does not require a level in sorcerer. You just say some where in your background "Hey & my great great grandmother hooked up with a Lamasu."
If you have to choose between choosing Sorcerer Heritage Feats & all the other feats in the game, that is loosing customization. This is a new layer of customization, pick a background, pick a spec, pick Sorcerer as a class, now pick a bloodline.

I'm sorry: "Want to have a quasi-magical ancestor that has mechanical backing", something that should go unsaid because the same could be said of the sorcerer as well; which interestingly enough, would make the entire bloodline system, and this discussion a moot point.

Playing Hercules or Merlin should be about as viable as the "Magic Happy Monster Sorcerer" which doesn't really exist in myth, as most magic in myth is a very much a learned thing.

Gwendol
2012-08-30, 08:50 AM
Then play a wizard.

The sorcerer as presented in the playtest is interesting, and I especially like the fact that they got rid of the X slots of Y level spell/day casting in favor of something vastly more spontaneous.
I like the bloodlines (well, we've seen one, so my opinion may change) at least as a concept.

Zeful
2012-08-30, 09:59 AM
Then play a wizard.You seem to be attributing an argument to me I'm not making. Mind sharing?

Madfellow
2012-08-30, 10:21 AM
Playing Hercules or Merlin should be about as viable as the "Magic Happy Monster Sorcerer" which doesn't really exist in myth, as most magic in myth is a very much a learned thing.

That's what he was referring to. And by the way, they are just as viable, or at least that's what WotC is aiming for.

Look, I know what you want from the sorcerer. I know because I asked you over in the 5E discussion thread and you told me. You would prefer that the sorcerer have something similar to school specialization for wizards, domains for clerics, disciplines for psions, or mantles for ardents. Something that alters the spell list or the way spells are cast, but not the more fundamental aspects of the class (such as turning it into a melee gish). And you want the fluff of bloodlines to be separated from the class and instead put into feats like in 3.5.

This is not a bad thing to want. A setup like this would be (and was) a perfectly viable and fun way to play sorcerers and to play bloodlines, possibly but not necessarily at the same time.

Unfortunately for you, that is not the direction in which WotC is taking sorcerers or bloodlines. Homebrewers came up with bloodlines options specifically for sorcerers because of the fluff they already had, and people loved them. Paizo found those homebrews and incorporated them into Pathfinder, and people loved them. And Wizards noticed all this and is planning to incorporate them into 5E.

This is an equally valid and fun way to play sorcerers/bloodlines, because it makes the sorcerer distinct from the other magical classes and it makes bloodlines feel like a more powerful aspect of the game world. And if you look around this forum, you'll see that a lot of people are cautiously optimistic about the idea. I understand that you don't like it. I understand that you found something that works for you that now has been changed.

Hey, you remember those 2 feats in the 5E packet that can grant any character cantrips or orisons? They basically say "Hey, my character's dabbled in magic and has learned a couple of nifty spells." You don't have to be a caster to take them.

And I'd bet my ass that WotC will include a similar feat or feats for bloodlines. And you won't have to be a sorcerer to take them.

But for now, WotC's strategy is to incorporate bloodlines with sorcerers because every time it's been done before people have loved it. By the way, that makes it iconic, not cliched. You've been arguing with people on this forum for days now, and you haven't changed anyone's mind. If you want to try to change someone's mind, put your input in the 5E questionnaires. Alright?

Mando Knight
2012-08-30, 12:49 PM
Pathfinder(2009) greatly expanded upon the concept of sorcerer bloodlines by making them part of the class so you didn't have to be taxed feats for your flavorful abilities

So did 4e, in the PHB2 (also 2009). Although the Wizard and the Sorcerer use completely different power lists in 4e, it's fairly clear from the given flavor of that iteration of the class is that your bloodline is your power, and your spells are a manifestation of that bloodline.

Brass_Robo
2012-09-03, 05:02 PM
You seem to be attributing an argument to me I'm not making. Mind sharing?

I think he means that a magic user who learns their magic (like Merlin) would be a wizard. A sorcerer is specifically someone born with supernatural powers because of some nonhuman ancestry (like a Dhampyr). To help differentiate these two, it would make sense to give the sorcerer powers related to that nonhuman ancestry as part of their core class features. This is annoying if you want a sorcerer whose powers aren't directly tied to their heritage, but it does help the sorcerer stand out more against the wizard.

Anderlith
2012-09-03, 06:42 PM
The Sorcerer's Heritage need not be a "bloodline" just untamable Arcane power that you have to keep in check, it could be from an Abberation that has wiggled into your mind, or you could have a link into the elemental chaos, perhaps you are the embodiment of an ages old arcane caster reincarnated into mortal form (Think Fistandatilus). A sorcerer does not necessarily have to be a gish, I don't know why everyone assumes that. There is plenty of room in the Heritage Template for tons of different paths the dev could take. They have also promised an Arcane Heritage that will essentially be a spontaneous wizard type caster.

Zeful
2012-09-03, 07:47 PM
I think he means that a magic user who learns their magic (like Merlin) would be a wizard.Merlin was also, according to some versions, part demon.


A sorcerer is specifically someone born with supernatural powers because of some nonhuman ancestry (like a Dhampyr).Which is not explicitly stated anywhere. It is implied, but not stated.


To help differentiate these two, it would make sense to give the sorcerer powers related to that nonhuman ancestry as part of their core class features. This is annoying if you want a sorcerer whose powers aren't directly tied to their heritage,Or if you wanted to have a fighter with a magic heritage but no spellcasting.


but it does help the sorcerer stand out more against the wizard.There are other and better ways of doing it that don't force specific rules on entire settings.


The Sorcerer's Heritage need not be a "bloodline" just untamable Arcane power that you have to keep in check, it could be from an Abberation that has wiggled into your mind, or you could have a link into the elemental chaos, perhaps you are the embodiment of an ages old arcane caster reincarnated into mortal form (Think Fistandatilus).Every one of those sounds bad. I'd still deliberately choose to omit the choice of a Heritage entirely, than use any of those things.

Anderlith
2012-09-03, 07:58 PM
Every one of those sounds bad. I'd still deliberately choose to omit the choice of a Heritage entirely, than use any of those things.

So... yeah.

Those were only a few ideas of heritages that I thought of whilst typing I have more.

BTW is there any form of spellcaster than you would accept other than a spontaneous casting wizard? At which I would not call a Sorcerer, I would call that a spontaneous casting wizard

Zeful
2012-09-03, 08:06 PM
So... yeah.

Those were only a few ideas of heritages that I thought of whilst typing I have more.

BTW is there any form of spellcaster than you would accept other than a spontaneous casting wizard? At which I would not call a Sorcerer, I would call that a spontaneous casting wizard

Quite a few. Just not a heritage class.

Anderlith
2012-09-03, 08:12 PM
An auspicious birth results in you being a conduit for arcane magic, though channeling the magic takes extreme effort, like holding back the flow of a mighty river you have little control on the "release valve", the doorway, into this vast pool of power. As you tap the power it alters your biology, reforming your flesh to better channeling power, as if enhancing your body to cast magic as naturally as drawing a breath.

As a child born to a humble shepherd you when to coral the last of the livestock. As you set to grabbing the last stubborn goat a star falls from the heavens striking the earth before you. A cloudy aura surround the stone, when you approach it, the aura seems to draw towards you. Then before you can get away it surrounds you, infuses you... becomes you. Are you this shepherd boy? Are you the entity that traveled though the far realm? You remember both lives, who is to say you are not both?

How about I post a few more of these until you find something you like?

Zerasen
2012-09-03, 08:58 PM
So... Topic Change! :smallbiggrin:

Does anyone else feel warlocks are underpowered so far? I don't know how they worked in 4e but reading it over made me long for the 3e days of infinite invocations. Coming off of that, using a 'favors' system for even lesser invocations feels horribly limited and counter-intuitive to what made them so desirable. If anything, aren't they simply outclassed by wizards, who get WAY more spells per day and still get infinite minor spells and ritual spells, or especially sorcerers, who get more spells uses and more heritage power uses? After all, sorcerers use a similar system of a pool being used for both spells and class features, except sorcerers get 18 points at 5th level and warlocks only ever get 2 favors... Even at first level sorcerers and wizards overpower the warlock. The only redeeming feature I can find is that eldritch blast is unusually strong for a minor spell, but I don't really see that as a through fix to the problem.

Thoughts? :smallconfused: I personally would love to be convinced that they're fine the way they are and I missed something important.

Lanaya
2012-09-03, 10:51 PM
Warlock favour can be recovered during a short or a long rest, so it's basically 2 invocations or pact abilities per encounter.

1337 b4k4
2012-09-03, 11:12 PM
It is implied, but not stated.

Actually, it's not even implied. The only thing implied about sorcerers in the playtest is that they did not come about their magic via book learning, and that they don't have as much control over their magic, so it manifests itself in the caster as they cast. Beyond that, it's up to you and your DM.


Or if you wanted to have a fighter with a magic heritage but no spellcasting.

So make a fighter and give him magic heritage. What part of the playtest or the sorcerer class implies to you that such a thing isn't possible?

Zerasen
2012-09-04, 12:16 AM
Warlock favour can be recovered during a short or a long rest, so it's basically 2 invocations or pact abilities per encounter.

Ah I totally glazed over that point! :smallredface: I just saw 'rest' and assumed 8 hour... I suppose this makes them a little better, but I still feel they're a little weak. Well, it'd be good if they got more favors as they level up. However, I'd still prefer if their invocations were endless, because otherwise they seem to overlap with other, conventional casters too much. Favors for pact boons seems fine, but invocations?.... No? :smallconfused:

Surrealistik
2012-09-04, 12:18 AM
I've said it elsewhere, but now that we've got a thread specifically devoted to these classes, I'll say it here.

The Sorc is incredibly overpowered, especially with the Guardian specialty.

19 AC + granting Disadvantage at-will as a reaction + ability to engage effectively at any range + Web and Cause Fear spam.

My character has gone the entire playtest module without getting damaged.

Also, those two spells singlehandedly win encounters with ease.

Zerasen
2012-09-04, 12:36 AM
I've said it elsewhere, but now that we've got a thread specifically devoted to these classes, I'll say it here.

The Sorc is incredibly overpowered, especially with the Guardian specialty.

19 AC + granting Disadvantage at-will as a reaction + ability to engage effectively at any range + Web and Cause Fear spam.

My character has gone the entire playtest module without getting damaged.

Also, those two spells singlehandedly win encounters with ease.

I get what you're saying, but I think your problem is mostly just a shock from what's usually a caster class being good at combat too. After all, you could have more effective as a fighter using Guardian specialty and Protector fighting style and a longbow (since drawing and sheathing is not an action, you could still be 'effective at all ranges').

The other part of it is Web isn't on the sorcerer spell list and the Defender feat can't be used on yourself, only other people.

I don't think there's anything intrinsically over powered about the sorcerer; I just think you have a build ideal for survival.

Surrealistik
2012-09-04, 01:02 AM
I get what you're saying, but I think your problem is mostly just a shock from what's usually a caster class being good at combat too. After all, you could have more effective as a fighter using Guardian specialty and Protector fighting style and a longbow (since drawing and sheathing is not an action, you could still be 'effective at all ranges').

By the RAW I do 1d8+8 damage melee, 1d6+7 damage ranged + conditions at-will.

Very consistent damage, and the Fighter doesn't top it until later unless he's using two-handeds.

Even if you assume that ability mods don't apply to damage, it's still respectable output while I can throw down pretty much all the encounter crushers I want.


The other part of it is Web isn't on the sorcerer spell list and the Defender feat can't be used on yourself, only other people.

It applies to creatures, not allies specifically, and Web is on the shared Wizard/Sorcerer list.


I don't think there's anything intrinsically over powered about the sorcerer; I just think you have a build ideal for survival.

Even if I didn't use Defender, the outcome would be much the same. I'm pretty much locked into 19 AC unless I make truly suboptimal choices.

Zerasen
2012-09-04, 01:38 AM
By the RAW I do 1d8+8 damage melee, 1d6+7 damage ranged + conditions at-will.

Very consistent damage, and the Fighter doesn't top it until later unless he's using two-handeds.


I honestly don't know how you came up with those numbers so I can't really make a fair comparison to fighter build.


Even if you assume that ability mods don't apply to damage, it's still respectable output while I can throw down pretty much all the encounter crushers I want.

You actually don't add your charisma to magic attack damage: "If Charisma is your magic ability, you add your Charisma modifier to the attack rolls of your spells, and the modifier helps determine the saving throw DCs of your spells." For example, Ray of Frost does a stagnant 1d6+3 damage.


It applies to creatures, not allies specifically, and Web is on the shared Wizard/Sorcerer list.

There is no shared wizard/sorcerer spell list; sorcerers have their own separate spell list in the classes section in their class entry. The wizard spell list in the 'Spells' file is only for wizards. Also, Defender actually does specify allies: "When a creature within 5 feet of you is attacked while you are wielding a shield, you can use a reaction to impose disadvantage on the attack roll." To say 'I'm within 5ft of myself at all times' is totally cutting corners especially when they specifically: "You can interpose your shield between your allies and their attackers." I think WotC's intention is clear with what they wanted for the ability.


Even if I didn't use Defender, the outcome would be much the same. I'm pretty much locked into 19 AC unless I make truly suboptimal choices.

I assume you're looking at chainmail (16) plus a shield (+1) and using the shield spell (+2). Couldn't I easily have exactly the same AC as a cleric doing the same thing with a shield of faith spell?

Surrealistik
2012-09-04, 01:48 AM
You actually don't add your charisma to magic attack damage: "If Charisma is your magic ability, you add your Charisma modifier to the attack rolls of your spells, and the modifier helps determine the saving throw DCs of your spells." For example, Ray of Frost does a stagnant 1d6+3 damage.

How to Play effectively states you add the ability mod you use to make attack rolls to the damage roll.

WotC thread on the matter: http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29341195/Spell_Damage



There is no shared wizard/sorcerer spell list; sorcerers have their own separate spell list in the classes section in their class entry. The wizard spell list in the 'Spells' file is only for wizards.

Oh, my bad.

Cause Fear is the more powerful of the two pound for pound though, and the premier encounter wrecker. Mirror Image = almost complete invulnerability for 1 minute. Close enough.


Also, Defender actually does specify allies: "When a creature within 5 feet of you is attacked while you are wielding a shield, you can use a reaction to impose disadvantage on the attack roll." To say 'I'm within 5ft of myself at all times' is totally cutting corners especially when they specifically: "You can interpose your shield between your allies and their attackers." I think WotC's intention is clear with what they wanted for the ability.

RAI != RAW. You are a creature within 5 feet of yourself. It works.



I assume you're looking at chainmail (16) plus a shield (+1) and using the shield spell (+2). Couldn't I easily have exactly the same AC as a cleric doing the same thing with a shield of faith spell?

Sure, but you don't get Cause Fear.

I never said War Clerics weren't ridiculously powerful either, but Sorc edges out.

Zerasen
2012-09-04, 02:22 AM
How to Play effectively states you add the ability mod you use to make attack rolls to the damage roll.

WotC thread on the matter: http://community.wizards.com/dndnext/go/thread/view/75882/29341195/Spell_Damage

The second post in this thread explicitly states that the single paragraph that misleads one to believe you add [mental stat] to spell damage rolls is the result of bad editing. It was removed from everywhere else except from that paragraph.


Cause Fear is the more powerful of the two pound for pound though, and the premier encounter wrecker. Mirror Image = almost complete invulnerability for 1 minute. Close enough.

Mirror Image is honestly not as impressive as you make it sound and neither is Cause Fear. Mirror Image just gives you a pretty good chance of not taking damage for 2 rounds at best (only 2 images that disappear when hit) and Cause Fear has a chance of disabling an enemy until you hit them. Plus in this case wouldn't the spells be over powered, not the class? Lastly, these spells can be used just as effectively by a wizard.


RAI != RAW. You are a creature within 5 feet of yourself. It works.

As I said, this just makes it seem like you're trying to make the ability stronger than it is or it's intended to be. Why make it stronger, then bother to post and whine about how strong it is? :smallconfused:

I totally get what you're saying, and both sorcerers and war clerics feel a little over powered, but I don't think it's nearly as dramatic as you make it seem. Sorcerers are worse mages than wizards and worse combatants than fighters. That's just gishes; their advantage is that they can still do both acceptably, even if not the best. If your problem is with the gish part of the class in general, WotC has stated that they're releasing an Arcane Heritage for Sorcerers that makes them complete mages instead of gishes.

Surrealistik
2012-09-04, 08:58 AM
The second post in this thread explicitly states that the single paragraph that misleads one to believe you add [mental stat] to spell damage rolls is the result of bad editing. It was removed from everywhere else except from that paragraph.

Read on, and again, remember it's the RAW that's important.


Mirror Image is honestly not as impressive as you make it sound and neither is Cause Fear. Mirror Image just gives you a pretty good chance of not taking damage for 2 rounds at best (only 2 images that disappear when hit) and Cause Fear has a chance of disabling an enemy until you hit them. Plus in this case wouldn't the spells be over powered, not the class? Lastly, these spells can be used just as effectively by a wizard.

Yes, images that disappear when hit and that have my AC. I have 19 AC and Defender (though you can argue RAW I can't Defender my images). Your average enemy in the playtest has a 5% to 20% chance to hit my AC. See the synergy? That Mirror Image spell is going to last awhile. In the meanwhile, assuming a +2 attack bonus, the probability of hitting me just plunged from 1/25 (with Defender) to a little over 1/100 and likely for the totality of the combat.

As for Cause Fear, you are completely underestimating this spell. Just look at it; for a full minute the target can do nothing but run from you, and attack with disadvantage if it has some form of ranged attack. Sure you can't damage it lest the effect end; that's fine. Don't. Instead you attack the fewer than half that weren't subject to the spell and kill them off piecemeal. By the time you hit L3+, you can cast this pretty much with impunity. That said, yes, the spell itself is OP, but this is compounded by a class that can spam it freely in every encounter in an aggressive and optimal way.

Lastly, no, the Wizard can't use them as effectively for several reasons. One is he can't spam them nearly as often. The second is that Cause Fear is a close range spell that requires you be within 20 feet. The Sorcerer is fine about getting that close to the action; the very fragile, bottom tier HP/AC Wizard is not. Third, the Wizard's AC is anemic vis a vis the Sorcerer, so his Mirror Images are unlikely to provide lasting protection.

In the meanwhile the Sorcerer is better in just about every other way. The Wizard has far better spell selection, but that's about irrelevant thus far (Web access is the major thing the Wizard has over the Sorc).


As I said, this just makes it seem like you're trying to make the ability stronger than it is or it's intended to be. Why make it stronger, then bother to post and whine about how strong it is? :smallconfused:

No, I'm telling you how strong it actually _is_, and how it brutally synergizes with a high AC character like the Sorc.


I totally get what you're saying, and both sorcerers and war clerics feel a little over powered, but I don't think it's nearly as dramatic as you make it seem. Sorcerers are worse mages than wizards and worse combatants than fighters. That's just gishes; their advantage is that they can still do both acceptably, even if not the best. If your problem is with the gish part of the class in general, WotC has stated that they're releasing an Arcane Heritage for Sorcerers that makes them complete mages instead of gishes.

Again, I don't think you're considering the whole vs the sum of its parts, and are underestimating the synergies between several major capacities of the class.

'Incredibly overpowered' may be a bit of an exaggeration, but it's not that much of one.

togapika
2012-09-04, 10:32 AM
As long as I can play a warlock who makes a pact with a Genie...

Zerasen
2012-09-04, 12:56 PM
Read on, and again, remember it's the RAW that's important.



Yes, images that disappear when hit and that have my AC. I have 19 AC and Defender (though you can argue RAW I can't Defender my images). Your average enemy in the playtest has a 5% to 20% chance to hit my AC. See the synergy? That Mirror Image spell is going to last awhile. In the meanwhile, assuming a +2 attack bonus, the probability of hitting me just plunged from 1/25 (with Defender) to a little over 1/100 and likely for the totality of the combat.

As for Cause Fear, you are completely underestimating this spell. Just look at it; for a full minute the target can do nothing but run from you, and attack with disadvantage if it has some form of ranged attack. Sure you can't damage it lest the effect end; that's fine. Don't. Instead you attack the fewer than half that weren't subject to the spell and kill them off piecemeal. By the time you hit L3+, you can cast this pretty much with impunity. That said, yes, the spell itself is OP, but this is compounded by a class that can spam it freely in every encounter in an aggressive and optimal way.

Lastly, no, the Wizard can't use them as effectively for several reasons. One is he can't spam them nearly as often. The second is that Cause Fear is a close range spell that requires you be within 20 feet. The Sorcerer is fine about getting that close to the action; the very fragile, bottom tier HP/AC Wizard is not. Third, the Wizard's AC is anemic vis a vis the Sorcerer, so his Mirror Images are unlikely to provide lasting protection.

In the meanwhile the Sorcerer is better in just about every other way. The Wizard has far better spell selection, but that's about irrelevant thus far (Web access is the major thing the Wizard has over the Sorc).



No, I'm telling you how strong it actually _is_, and how it brutally synergizes with a high AC character like the Sorc.



Again, I don't think you're considering the whole vs the sum of its parts, and are underestimating the synergies between several major capacities of the class.

'Incredibly overpowered' may be a bit of an exaggeration, but it's not that much of one.

Ah I get it. They are indeed overpowered when you synergize all these these abilities together. So while the sorcerer alone isn't overpowered and the spells alone aren't overpowered, together they make a very gamebreaking combination. I can agree to that.

As far as going by the RAW goes, this is a playtest; there's bound to be mistakes and bad edits in the RAW. So while you're free to exploit them, I don't understand why you're posting about it on a thread about the Sorcerer and Warlock. Wouldn't that be better suited to the WotC boards, not this one? Either way, I agree with the rest of your points :smallsmile:

Friv
2012-09-04, 01:01 PM
Read on, and again, remember it's the RAW that's important.

It really isn't, though.

I mean, if your argument is "The sorcerer needs to have a few editing artifacts fixed", then fine. But you can't argue "If you interpret two rules in a very broken way, it makes the class broken" as a sign that the class itself is broken. That's a sign that those two rules could, at best, use a bit of clarification.

Surrealistik
2012-09-04, 01:27 PM
It really isn't, though.

I mean, if your argument is "The sorcerer needs to have a few editing artifacts fixed", then fine. But you can't argue "If you interpret two rules in a very broken way, it makes the class broken" as a sign that the class itself is broken. That's a sign that those two rules could, at best, use a bit of clarification.

It's not an interpretation though; it's what the rules actually say, and again, the sorc doesn't even need the ability bonus to damage scores to be OP as I've described. The fundamental synergies that make it so strong persist.


@ Zerasen: Believe me, the WotC boards were my first stop with this.

Anderlith
2012-09-04, 04:24 PM
THIS IS WHY WE CAN"T HAVE NICE THINGS!!!!!!!!!!!

Stop trying to break things! So FREAKING what if the rules aren't in lawyer levels of interpretation! YOU know what they mean, YOU understand what it is supposed to be used for. DON'T be an @$$ & push things to the breaking point. Everything breaks if enough pressure is applied.

VanBuren
2012-09-04, 04:29 PM
It's not an interpretation though; it's what the rules actually say, and again, the sorc doesn't even need the ability bonus to damage scores to be OP as I've described. The fundamental synergies that make it so strong persist.


@ Zerasen: Believe me, the WotC boards were my first stop with this.

Don't be silly. As soon as you parse the words on the page, you've interpreted them. There's no such thing as "not an interpretation".

Nu
2012-09-04, 04:33 PM
THIS IS WHY WE CAN"T HAVE NICE THINGS!!!!!!!!!!!

Stop trying to break things! So FREAKING what if the rules aren't in lawyer levels of interpretation! YOU know what they mean, YOU understand what it is supposed to be used for. DON'T be an @$$ & push things to the breaking point. Everything breaks if enough pressure is applied.

You need to realize that there are a lot of people that enjoy doing just that--pushing a system to its limits. Just to see how far it can go before it breaks. Is that so wrong? I mean, if anything this seems to be the time to do so, since it's currently a playtest and Wizards of the Coast needs feedback on which aspects of the game can be broken.

Though I don't consider myself one of the min-maxing power gamers, I've played with and affiliated with some, and I don't really find severe fault in their approach to the game.

Anderlith
2012-09-04, 04:43 PM
Look it's not that I hate min/max-ers or that I think that the "narrative" (ugh) should come first. I just don't like it when people take something as harmless as that text & start to twist it so blatantly to break it. Shielding yourself is not what that ability does. It shields OTHERS, don't let some massively altered interpretation of that to fuel a min/maxing build. This horrible way of interperting is what causes Reganites & corporations as people with money considered free speech.

mcv
2012-09-04, 05:17 PM
THIS IS WHY WE CAN"T HAVE NICE THINGS!!!!!!!!!!!

Stop trying to break things! So FREAKING what if the rules aren't in lawyer levels of interpretation! YOU know what they mean, YOU understand what it is supposed to be used for. DON'T be an @$$ & push things to the breaking point. Everything breaks if enough pressure is applied.

Calm down, man. This is a playtest. Pushing the rules and trying to break them is the entire point. It's great that this has been discovered, because now it can be fixed before the final release.

Zeful
2012-09-04, 05:22 PM
You need to realize that there are a lot of people that enjoy doing just that--pushing a system to its limits. Just to see how far it can go before it breaks. Is that so wrong? I mean, if anything this seems to be the time to do so, since it's currently a playtest and Wizards of the Coast needs feedback on which aspects of the game can be broken.

Though I don't consider myself one of the min-maxing power gamers, I've played with and affiliated with some, and I don't really find severe fault in their approach to the game.

It tends to drive two very bad things into the game: excessive legalize in a game document, arbitrarily increasing the barrier to entry because none of the rules make any sense any more, and player antagonism towards DMs who don't agree with the interpretation of the rule under scrutiny. For a quick example: Versatile Spellcaster and the Beguiler. "Common Knowledge" says that using Versatile Spellcaster as a Beguiler lets you cast the next level of spells because of a note that Beguiler's know every spell for levels they have access to. Not to get into any deep rules discussion, but this would not fly at my table, because I don't interpret Versatile Spellcaster to actually do that. However due to it's "Common Knowledge" status, I'm the bad guy for disagreeing with the player.

The tendency for Min-maxers to run roughshod is why, until I just gave up on the system as a whole, I ran tight ship on materials that were allowed; if I wasn't personally familiar with the material as a whole, or owned the book, it wasn't up for consideration.

Lanaya
2012-09-04, 05:23 PM
Calm down, man. This is a playtest. Pushing the rules and trying to break them is the entire point. It's great that this has been discovered, because now it can be fixed before the final release.

Exactly, finding problems like this is the whole point of having a playtest. However, it's probably better to present it as "oh hey guys, I just found that the defender ability doesn't say you can't use it on yourself, this should probably be fixed" rather than "defender is super broken, look at how OP this ability is". Playing by RAW rather than RAI during a playtest is silly, we all know what it's supposed to do and that's what we're supposed to be testing, so just point out the flawed wording so it gets fixed and then playtest the rules as they were intended to work.

Surrealistik
2012-09-04, 05:24 PM
Don't be silly. As soon as you parse the words on the page, you've interpreted them. There's no such thing as "not an interpretation".

Only on the most technical and insignificantly pedantic level. If the rules clearly tell me to do something, and there's no real ambiguity to it, I don't feel the descriptor 'interpretation' meaningfully applies.

As for Anderlith, yes it's a playtest, and breaking the game (and verifying that what you perceive to be broken actually _is_) is both encouraged and expected.

That said, even if I _couldn't_ use it on myself, it would still be incredibly powerful.

huttj509
2012-09-04, 06:01 PM
Exactly, finding problems like this is the whole point of having a playtest. However, it's probably better to present it as "oh hey guys, I just found that the defender ability doesn't say you can't use it on yourself, this should probably be fixed" rather than "defender is super broken, look at how OP this ability is". Playing by RAW rather than RAI during a playtest is silly, we all know what it's supposed to do and that's what we're supposed to be testing, so just point out the flawed wording so it gets fixed and then playtest the rules as they were intended to work.

Hear hear.

Surrealistik
2012-09-04, 06:05 PM
The problem with making RAI assumptions like this is that unless it's absolutely blatant, beyond a shadow of a doubt, rather than just likely, you can't really make them with confidence.

Using Defender on oneself makes perfect narrative/fluff sense to me. It's easier than shielding an ally besides. Yes, the flavour text implies that it's to be used on an ally, but that's far from a given.

Knaight
2012-09-04, 06:14 PM
THIS IS WHY WE CAN"T HAVE NICE THINGS!!!!!!!!!!!

Stop trying to break things! So FREAKING what if the rules aren't in lawyer levels of interpretation! YOU know what they mean, YOU understand what it is supposed to be used for. DON'T be an @$$ & push things to the breaking point. Everything breaks if enough pressure is applied.

This is why they have playtesting. Currently, there is a problem with synergy, and there is a problem with how some effects are worded (e.g. creature within 5 feet). Now that this has been observed, it can be fixed.

Zerasen
2012-09-04, 07:02 PM
So back to warlocks, I accept that they work with short rests getting favors back, but I think they could work better. When playing warlock, I just want to take a short rest after every time I use a single lesser invocation or pact boon, and that's just incredibly annoying.

I think the system would do better to make them able to use the invocations at will. Realistically speaking, all the current system appears to do is make sure that they can't use more than two invocations per battle, but invocations hardly seem powerful enough to be dangerous for spamming during combat (if anything eldritch blast is usually the better choice). While I understand the necessity of that with pact boon, because one of them can be used as a reaction and such, it seems unnecessary for invocations.

I would prefer to see invocations at will and favors for pact boons. This way they could have abilities that are too powerful to be invocations be pact boons instead; this would also help to differentiate pacts because their most powerful abilities would be different while still allowing customization through invocations.

I think this change would make them feel more fun and interesting to play. Would this be game breaking? :smallconfused:

Lanaya
2012-09-04, 07:39 PM
I think this change would make them feel more fun and interesting to play. Would this be game breaking? :smallconfused:

I like the idea overall, it feels much more like a warlock (or at least the 3.5 warlock, which is the only one I know), and resting after every single encounter is silly. If it ends up being game breaking, all you have to do is make invocations a little weaker and suddenly it's fine.

Nu
2012-09-04, 09:18 PM
It tends to drive two very bad things into the game: excessive legalize in a game document, arbitrarily increasing the barrier to entry because none of the rules make any sense any more,

It's the opposite, really. Rules should try to be formatted as clearly as they can be without much room for ambiguity to avoid this kind of problem, because you are not going to get rid of power gamers.


and player antagonism towards DMs who don't agree with the interpretation of the rule under scrutiny.

That sounds like a table problem, not a game problem. I'm not familiar enough with 3rd edition to read into your example much.

1337 b4k4
2012-09-04, 10:54 PM
It's the opposite, really. Rules should try to be formatted as clearly as they can be without much room for ambiguity to avoid this kind of problem, because you are not going to get rid of power gamers.

Hmm, I feel the complete opposite, rules should be stated as concisely as conveying the idea allows, preferably with descriptive flavor, because you are not going to get rid of the power gamers, and trying to design your rules around them leads to a rule book that reads like a legal text book. There's a reason why despite its many flaws, so many people find Gygax's DMG to be a great book, it's because the described are less concerned with being precise and mor concerned with conveying the concepts in an evocative manner.

Knaight
2012-09-04, 11:01 PM
Hmm, I feel the complete opposite, rules should be stated as concisely as conveying the idea allows, preferably with descriptive flavor, because you are not going to get rid of the power gamers, and trying to design your rules around them leads to a rule book that reads like a legal text book. There's a reason why despite its many flaws, so many people find Gygax's DMG to be a great book, it's because the described are less concerned with being precise and mor concerned with conveying the concepts in an evocative manner.

Generally speaking concise and precise serve each other well. Excessive length leaves loopholes, which makes a minimalistic style work very well for precision, while also being concise by definition.

Nu
2012-09-04, 11:32 PM
Hmm, I feel the complete opposite, rules should be stated as concisely as conveying the idea allows, preferably with descriptive flavor, because you are not going to get rid of the power gamers, and trying to design your rules around them leads to a rule book that reads like a legal text book. There's a reason why despite its many flaws, so many people find Gygax's DMG to be a great book, it's because the described are less concerned with being precise and mor concerned with conveying the concepts in an evocative manner.

Conciseness and precision are not mutually exclusive, as pointed out by Knaight. My preferred approach is generally to have a set of defined terms and then describe game elements in those terms as much as is possible (such as target, area of effect, named conditions, etc.).

1337 b4k4
2012-09-04, 11:42 PM
My preferred approach is generally to have a set of defined terms and then describe game elements in those terms as much as is possible (such as target, area of effect, named conditions, etc.).

To me, this doesn't make the rules any more concise, it just reduces the word count. Legal documents do the same thing, but no one ever described a mortgage document as concise. Additionally creating a bunch of specifically defined words (usually with definitions different from their dictionary and social definitions), generates a bunch of jargon that acts as a barrier to entry for new players. Ultimately, it's a matter of style, and I'm not crazy enough not to see the pragmatic benefits of jargon lists to people already in the hobby. I would just prefer that as a rule, the designers stick with evocative, concise, natural language where possible, rather than try to close all possible language ambiguities with a contract style jargon list.

Nu
2012-09-05, 12:13 AM
To me, this doesn't make the rules any more concise, it just reduces the word count. Legal documents do the same thing, but no one ever described a mortgage document as concise. Additionally creating a bunch of specifically defined words (usually with definitions different from their dictionary and social definitions), generates a bunch of jargon that acts as a barrier to entry for new players. Ultimately, it's a matter of style, and I'm not crazy enough not to see the pragmatic benefits of jargon lists to people already in the hobby. I would just prefer that as a rule, the designers stick with evocative, concise, natural language where possible, rather than try to close all possible language ambiguities with a contract style jargon list.

I do not feel that the jargon used should be drastically different from "dictionary definitions." The examples I give, like "target" and "area of effect," are generally understood and one would probably only need to look up what you mean by that in the rarest circumstances. Which I feel is an acceptable trade-off to be generally understood most of the time. Ideally, the "jargon" as you call it should be something that a player could infer the meaning of without having to look it up the vast majority of the time.

But I feel that it should still be defined for those edge cases. The way I see it is, the edge cases are going to pop up whether you define the terms or not, and using common language and terms to describe different game elements, when done properly, should not affect the barrier to entry, and thus has no drawback but is advantageous when confusion or a disagreement arises.

Flowery and "evocative" language is nice, but keep it in italics. Or, in DnD Next design, keep it "above the Effect: line."