Wild Magic Sorcerer preview

[Envyus]

Wild Magic Preview.

http://www.codenamemorningstar.com/blog/i-get-a-wild-magic-oh-what-a-wild-magic/

[EternalHobbyist]

I like the art, but the Wild Magic path seems weak to me compared to some of the other subclasses.

ETA:
You get some random effects, completely at the DM's whim, plus two or three bonus Advantage/Disadvantage rolls per day, then a little extra damage at 18. Very niche-y.

ETA some more:
I guess it really depends on how many of the random effects are positive, maybe? Admittedly, I have no frame of reference for this as I don't know much about previous iterations of Wild Magic. Just scanning a table of possible effects from 3.5 looks like you get a less than 50% chance of something pretty good happening, all other possibilities being either slightly negative or just kind of neutral.

Seems like it would get annoying pretty quickly, imo.

[zorb25]

so lets have look:

Wild magic surge: Weak once per statistical 20 spells you get to roll random table and get some result. Does not work on can trips. This feels pretty bad imho, even if table does have decent effects.

Tides of chaos: Get advantage once per long rest, or if you cast more than statiical 20 spells per day/ get lucky(cantrips do not count). Comes down to how common advantage gain is, but otherwise kinda meh

Bend luck: 6th level Kinda cool ability, but comes down to how common sorcery points are and what you can get out of them, might be bit too strong.

Controlled chaos:14th level Wild magic now triggers once per 10 spells. Good boost for higher end levels, Sorry that would be cool, instead you get second roll/pick one on the wild surge table MEH.

Spell bombardment 18th level. Need to get many dices spell for this to be useful, but it is still only 1dice bonus once per turn pretty underwhelming.

Table of Wild magic surge: Some good, some bad some just meh and again, only once per 20 spells.

Not really fan, feels more like thing that needed to be added in for the sake of tradition, rather than credible choice.

p.s. is it just me or is Draconic presence(18th of Draconic sorcerer on the top of the page) and ridiculously better and significantly than comparatively lame Spell bombardment ?

[da_chicken]

To counteract the inevitable cries of "DM FIAT! EVERYTHING IS RUINED FOREVER!" and "RANDOM CHANCE OF DEATH! EVERYTHING IS RUINED FOREVER!" I'll say that I like it. DMs I run under generally like chaos. I expect to roll d20 on just about every spell cast, and when I use features to have to do a Wild Surge whenever it's most comical. Tides of Chaos and Bend Luck are both very powerful. Controlled Chaos gives you advantage on Wild Surge checks. Spell Bombardment essentially gives you a free +1 spell level -- remember spells don't scale easily in 5e -- but getting it at 18th level is pretty disappointing.

Dragon Wings seems decent, and very flavorful. Draconic Presence seems kind of meh until you consider what it does in non-combat situations... but again it's at 18th level making it pretty moot.

Again, we still don't know what Sorcery points do or how you get them back, so it's very difficult to draw full conclusions.

[Fable Wright]

Tides of chaos: Get advantage once per long rest, or if you cast more than statiical 20 spells per day/ get lucky(cantrips do not count). Comes down to how common advantage gain is, but otherwise kinda meh
You're misreading it. Once you use Tides of Chaos, the DM can just force you to roll on the wild magic table directly (at 100% certainty of effects taking place, rather than 5% certainty) at his discretion, then you gain the use of the ability back. In other words, it can be incredibly useful or incredibly useless, depending on how much your DM likes shaking things up.


p.s. is it just me or is Draconic presence(18th of Draconic sorcerer on the top of the page) and ridiculously better and significantly than comparatively lame Spell bombardment ?
It really depends on how rare sorcery points are. If you have 5 per day, and you get to blow them all for a minute of forcing Wisdom Saves, would you prefer that or the ability to increase your DPR potentially every round?

[da_chicken]

It really depends on how rare sorcery points are. If you have 5 per day, and you get to blow them all for a minute of forcing Wisdom Saves, would you prefer that or the ability to increase your DPR potentially every round?

Well, we know how many you get from the Escapist preview (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/136372-Exclusive-The-Table-of-Contents-and-Sorcerer-From-the-D-D-Players-Handbook). It's 1 per level, so you'd have 18 when you get Draconic Presence. Other than that we have no idea how fast you get them.

[CyberThread]

Honestly, I don't think wild magic option is meant to be OMG FEEL MY POWAH!!!!


I think it is meant more as an rp concept, while still letting the sorcerer being the tier 2 or tier 1 character it will be.
It lets the sorcerer be the rod of wonder that seems popular at times and gives it a better system to happen then 3.5. Yeah it isn't AWESOME!!! but I mean it gives sorcerer something that fully and utterly unique, and the sorcerer class is powerful enough to be perfectly capable of functioning at loss of consistent power increase.

[AuraTwilight]

As someone who loves Wild Magic in every edition of D&D and always goes for it? Hellllllll yeaaaa.

[CyberThread]

so lets have look:


Not really fan, feels more like thing that needed to be added in for the sake of tradition, rather than credible choice.



As someone who loves Wild Magic in every edition of D&D and always goes for it? Hellllllll yeaaaa.


You have your answer Zorb.

[Zaydos]

As someone who loves Wild Magic in every edition of D&D and always goes for it? Hellllllll yeaaaa.

I'm gonna second this and say that I actually kind of want to try and play/run 5e now.

[TripleD]

Is "Bend Luck" cumulative? As in, if you have two sorcerers in your party, could they pool their efforts to create a 2d4 penalty/bonus?

[omniknight]

Wild Mage looks like a potentially "fun" class to play, but mechanically it seems weak. A quick look over the table indicates about a 1/4 chance of a negative (minor or major) outcome. A few of the negative outcomes are potentially PK or even TPK worthy (especially at low level), like fireball or confusion centered on yourself or the inability to speak (cast verbal component spells) for a minute. So the defining feature of the subclass, when it actually occurs in those rare instances, has a ~25% of backfiring to some degree.

Additionally there is about a 30% chance of a "neutral" effect, one that is either useless or potentially slightly positive or negative depending on the DM. So there is only a ~45% chance of a definitively positive outcome from rolling on the Wild Table. Granted some of the positive effects are quite nice, but some are fairly minor boons, and all of their durations are short or one-time, nothing lasting. The other features of the subclass range from decent to good, but nothing at or above great.

Overall some people might choose the Wild Mage subclass for its extra "fun factor," but purely mechanically speaking it is quite underwhelming compared to some other spellcasting choices.

[Graustein]

This is a really DM-dependant class it seems. If the DM doesn't like shaking it up, most of your powers are moot. If they do though, it seems really really fun. It could get tedious if the DM decides every single spell cast merits a Wild Magic roll, but on the other hand... I like it. A lot. So much RP potential there :D

Also, some of those results are totally hilarious. 17-18, 37-38, 41-42 (that is so totally a Douglas Adams reference) are my favourites. I love absurdity. Imagine playing this character in an all-serious party. Imagine the stoic Paladin's reaction to your feather beard. I love it.

[Morty]

It certainly doesn't do a whole lot to dispel the notion of sorcerers being superfluous.

[Lord Raziere]

It certainly doesn't do a whole lot to dispel the notion of sorcerers being superfluous.

oh c'mon, what more do you need to differentiate the two classes? so far:

-they cast Charisma
-they have metamagic points
-they aren't specialized like Wizards are
-they can be awesome dragon guys
-they can be somewhat unpredictable wild mage types

which sounds to me like Wizards while specialized, have static spells. Sorcerers in contrast, while not getting as much specialization in formal schools, get the ability to alter their spells in various ways that Wizards cannot! A Sorcerer can actually bend their spells and thus make them work outside boundaries that wizards can't cross. they can deceive, charm, and socialize with others, they can call upon old primal, elemental forces that no wizard can or would touch, the sorcerer is the barbarian to the wizard's fighter.

apparently being more sociable and charming, calling upon completely different forces of the cosmos and being able to flexibly bend your magic in ways a wizard can't, is not different enough anymore. :smallsigh:

is the barbarian superfluous too? is the monk a superfluous addition when we could just have an unarmed rogue? I swear, people and their urge to generalize and make everything same-y just because they see similarities....:smallconfused:

[Morty]

"Make everything same-y"? It already is, it just pretends it isn't. I was waiting to see if the Sorcerer sub-classes would do a good job at it, at least, but this one doesn't. It's just some decreasingly minor bonuses.

[archaeo]

Table of Wild magic surge: Some good, some bad some just meh and again, only once per 20 spells.

I felt like counting them up, so I did. About 1/2 of the time, you'll roll something unambiguously good or situationally good. About 1/3 of the time, you'll roll something outright bad or situationally bad. And about 1/5 of the time, you'll roll something relatively neutral.

So realistically, every 2 out of 3 wild magic rolls will be pretty friendly. Seems like a decent balance. You have a 1.6% chance of causing a bad effect every time you roll the d20 to see if you surge, and a 3.3% chance of doing something good or neutral.


This is a really DM-dependant class it seems. If the DM doesn't like shaking it up, most of your powers are moot. If they do though, it seems really really fun. It could get tedious if the DM decides every single spell cast merits a Wild Magic roll, but on the other hand...

I kind of like that the wording allows the DM a lot of latitude for wild magic, personally. That gives you space for treating wild magic as a roleplaying-focused character trait, calling surges for setting/character/etc. related purposes, or limiting it to some proportion of rolls, or just calling for surge rolls on a whim, or whatever the table wants.

It means that the rules expect you to talk about them, which isn't really something that bothers me, but I bet it turns other people off.

[omniknight]

I felt like counting them up, so I did. About 1/2 of the time, you'll roll something unambiguously good or situationally good. About 1/3 of the time, you'll roll something outright bad or situationally bad. And about 1/5 of the time, you'll roll something relatively neutral.

So realistically, every 2 out of 3 wild magic rolls will be pretty friendly. Seems like a decent balance. You have a 1.6% chance of causing a bad effect every time you roll the d20 to see if you surge, and a 3.3% chance of doing something good or neutral.

Considering no other subclass offers a feature that can, at times, be strictly (sometimes gravely) negative, I'd say it should have been offset with stronger positives. Positives both on the Wild Table itself and in the other subclass features, which are merely decent.


I kind of like that the wording allows the DM a lot of latitude for wild magic, personally. That gives you space for treating wild magic as a roleplaying-focused character trait, calling surges for setting/character/etc. related purposes, or limiting it to some proportion of rolls, or just calling for surge rolls on a whim, or whatever the table wants.

It means that the rules expect you to talk about them, which isn't really something that bothers me, but I bet it turns other people off.

I don't mind the randomness so much, but to a degree my character and its effectiveness are at the whim of the DM. Yes, WM offers a unique vehicle for roleplaying, but I feel all classes offer that in some way without the negatives and without loss of some control to the DM.

[da_chicken]

I kind of like that the wording allows the DM a lot of latitude for wild magic, personally. That gives you space for treating wild magic as a roleplaying-focused character trait, calling surges for setting/character/etc. related purposes, or limiting it to some proportion of rolls, or just calling for surge rolls on a whim, or whatever the table wants.

It means that the rules expect you to talk about them, which isn't really something that bothers me, but I bet it turns other people off.

It also means that players can't use Wild Magic like a roulette wheel, playing over and over until they get their desired result. That means the good results can actually be good.

I think the original Wild Magic table had a chance of creating a magic item out of a nearby object. A Wild Mage could spend a few months in a closed room casting Reckless Dweomer with a bunch of nonmagical rings and robes and staves trying to create magic items for free.

[Lokiare]

My take is that the entire class can be built around unpredictable random effects without having negative consequences. I mean if it were just negative to the caster that might be one thing, but being negative to the entire party and possibly causing a TPK, no thanks. Not only that but it appears to be baked in so you can't really opt out.

[Kurald Galain]

The main question is, will Nahal's Reckless Dweomer be on the spell list?

I don't like how the chaos abilities depend on DM fiat. Just say you have to roll 1d20 for each non-cantrip spell you cast, and that every short rest you have a 25% chance of recovering tides of chaos.

Bend Luck strikes me as fairly weak; both 3E and 4E have equivalent abilities that give a more substantial modifier, and that are nowhere near overpowered.

The L14 and L18 abilities are extremely unimpressive for those levels.

[ImperiousLeader]

Bend Luck strikes me as fairly weak; both 3E and 4E have equivalent abilities that give a more substantial modifier, and that are nowhere near overpowered.

The L14 and L18 abilities are extremely unimpressive for those levels.

Bend Luck seems to require a lot of open roles from the DM, so you know precisely when to use it. And, yes, L14 and L18 don't even compare well to the Dragon Wings and Draconic Presence of the Draconic build.

I'm tempted to add a bonus ... whenever the Sorcerer rolls a 20 when they roll for a Wild Magic Surge, they can do one of the following with the triggering spell:

Reroll all damage dice with a 1. You must take the second result.
One target of the spell has disadvantage on the saving throw.
You have advantage on the spell attack.

[TheOOB]

I'm not a fan of the Wild Mage, but I've never liked that kind of super random chance. I actually like that it allows the DM to choose how much random chance they want in their game. Obviously you have to cause wild surges to happen sometimes, but you also don't want the wild mage to troll the serious moments of the game.

Overall, I see it like I see the Fighter Champion Archtype, not very good, and not something I'd ever use, but the option kind of has to be there.

[Noldo]

I don't like how the chaos abilities depend on DM fiat. Just say you have to roll 1d20 for each non-cantrip spell you cast, and that every short rest you have a 25% chance of recovering tides of chaos.

I think that handing the power regarding the chaos abilities to the DM is an excellent choice since it ensures that the frequency of wild surges will match the campaign atmosphere.

Of course, once again the most preferable solution is that the player wanting to play Wild Mage and the DM discuss the idea and its suitability beforehand and agree on the frequency at general level (allways / on roll of 1 on D6/D8/D10 by the DM / ...), like most of the abilities should be calibrated to meet both the DM's and player's expectations.

[Graustein]

I kind of like that the wording allows the DM a lot of latitude for wild magic, personally. That gives you space for treating wild magic as a roleplaying-focused character trait, calling surges for setting/character/etc. related purposes, or limiting it to some proportion of rolls, or just calling for surge rolls on a whim, or whatever the table wants.

It means that the rules expect you to talk about them, which isn't really something that bothers me, but I bet it turns other people off.

Yeah it's definitely the kind of class you need to discuss with the DM. They may even outright ban it depending on the seriousness of the campaign.

I really hope we get alternate Wild Magic tables down the track. Not that I dislike this one (I love it), but it would be a cool thing. An imaginative DM could even tailor the table to their campaign, making it more/less absurd or swapping out those randomly summoned monsters for other monsters, etc.

[Rasman]

I was Overwhelmed by my need to play this at first, then I let it sink in and read it a bit more and then it just sort of Whelmed me, finally I read the random table a bit more and after really looking at it I am definitely underwhelmed and really wish they had playtested this. It is just sort of 'meh' now.

[Kurald Galain]

Of course, once again the most preferable solution is that the player wanting to play Wild Mage and the DM discuss the idea and its suitability beforehand

Precisely. If the DM doesn't want wild mages in his campaign (because indeed they don't fit in all campaigns well), then he should just ban the class, not allow it and sneakily never hand out surge rolls.

[CyberThread]

Precisely. If the DM doesn't want wild mages in his campaign (because indeed they don't fit in all campaigns well), then he should just ban the class, not allow it and sneakily never hand out surge rolls.

but..but.....its core

[HorridElemental]

With the way they made the wild blood, any DM could keep it in their game. Most of the bad stuff is DM controlled and plus...

How many of the DMs that will hate this also allow critical fumble tables for weapons?

This is the first time in a whole that rolling a 1 is scary to a caster.

[Dimcair]

I'd prefer it working like the wild mage in baldur's gate.

You can prepare a 'Wild Surge' spell in your spell slots and from it you can cast any spell in your spell book spontaneously as a sorcerer does.
At the chance of a mishap/other effect of course.

[BoutsofInsanity]

I now am making my own Wild Magic table. Themed around stuff.
Like a fire table.

And a Death Table

And a transmutation table.


That is all.

[Tholomyes]

I made a fire table once. Best Trip to Ikea, ever.

[Person_Man]

I have a theory that 5E was designed for experienced DMs who know what they're doing, and who are mature enough to adjudicate the rules in a way that creates a fun game for their players. And thus most of the rules give DMs a maximum amount of power and flexibility, so that they can make the game into whatever they want it to be.

Tides of Chaos is the perfect example of this philosophy. DM fiat could make it one of the most powerful low level abilities in the game, or one of the weakest. And the Wild Magic chart itself is filled with things that are absolutely deadly and powerful and low levels, but increasingly less so as you get into higher levels. Other examples include when to apply Advantage/Disadvantage, the hiding rules, cover rules, basically everything having to do with the theater of the mind (movement, reach, opportunity attacks, targeting, area of effect, etc).

The problem is that most DMs are not Mike Mearls. We didn't design the game ourselves, or spend hundreds of hours playing it, learning the nuances of all the different rules and how to adjudicate them well. By definition, virtually everyone who plays a new edition of a game is going to be new at it. And while we can draw upon our previous DMing experiences, 5E plays very differently from previous editions. And pity the brand new 12 year old DM who picks up the players handbook for the first time and tries to run a game, because they will have no freaking clue how to balance any of these things.

[Millennium]

Am I missing something? I didn't see the "random chance of death" anywhere on the table.

But I did see something that I find odd. I like the implied return of modrons and flumphs, but why is it that wild magic surges -the embodiment of magic-as-chaos- only seem to summon Lawful creatures?

[Graustein]

Am I missing something? I didn't see the "random chance of death" anywhere on the table.

But I did see something that I find odd. I like the implied return of modrons and flumphs, but why is it that wild magic surges -the embodiment of magic-as-chaos- only seem to summon Lawful creatures?

Well, casting a fireball or confusion spell centred on yourself can be pretty deadly at low levels, the potted plant and polymorph ones can as well if enemies capitalise on it. Every creature within 30ft taking 1d10 Necrotic damage or gaining vulnerability to piercing damage can be pretty bad depending on how the rolls go and what everyone's wielding. If you're chaotic and/or evil summoning a unicorn or modron could be bad.
It's mostly the fireball one though, I think.

That is actually pretty weird. Those creatures seem easier for the DM to fiat as hostile, neutral or friendly to you though.

[Cibulan]

And pity the brand new 12 year old DM who picks up the players handbook for the first time and tries to run a game, because they will have no freaking clue how to balance any of these things.Most of those 12 year old kids won't care about mechanical balance at all. Even if they were to pick up 4e instead of 5e, most of them wouldn't apply all the rules anyway. A newbie DM is most likely going to have a chaotic mess of a game for the first time. They'll balance it by doing what "feels" right to them or by what the players will put up with. And if a kid IS inclined to try to apply all the rules and mechanically balance a game right off the bat, he/she is probably mature enough to handle the things you suggest in your post.

[TheOOB]

I have a theory that 5E was designed for experienced DMs who know what they're doing, and who are mature enough to adjudicate the rules in a way that creates a fun game for their players. And thus most of the rules give DMs a maximum amount of power and flexibility, so that they can make the game into whatever they want it to be.

Tides of Chaos is the perfect example of this philosophy. DM fiat could make it one of the most powerful low level abilities in the game, or one of the weakest. And the Wild Magic chart itself is filled with things that are absolutely deadly and powerful and low levels, but increasingly less so as you get into higher levels. Other examples include when to apply Advantage/Disadvantage, the hiding rules, cover rules, basically everything having to do with the theater of the mind (movement, reach, opportunity attacks, targeting, area of effect, etc).

The problem is that most DMs are not Mike Mearls. We didn't design the game ourselves, or spend hundreds of hours playing it, learning the nuances of all the different rules and how to adjudicate them well. By definition, virtually everyone who plays a new edition of a game is going to be new at it. And while we can draw upon our previous DMing experiences, 5E plays very differently from previous editions. And pity the brand new 12 year old DM who picks up the players handbook for the first time and tries to run a game, because they will have no freaking clue how to balance any of these things.

I agree that 5e does seem to be focused on giving the DM more tools to use, which may put an additional burden on the DM, but is it really any greater than 3e? Character power levels varied wildly in 3e, and deciding what play options to allow and disallow could be a pain.

I will agree that the wild mage shouldn't have been in the core rulebook, or at least have separate tables for different level ranges(dealing 28 average damage to your entire group is kind of a deal breaker at level 1).

[Kurald Galain]

I will agree that the wild mage shouldn't have been in the core rulebook

Me too; that's what I said months ago. The wild mage is one of those typical cases where many players don't just want to play one themselves, they don't want any of their teammates to play one either (along with the kender, the "lawful stupid" kind of paladin, and a few others). Such options don't belong in core.

[zorb25]

snip.
I ultimately agree with this sentiment. Wild magic especially as presented should not be core feature, by the way is there another iconic subclass for sorcerer except wild and draconic? I can remember lot of them, but they do have lot of overlap with warlock.

[Sartharina]

There really should have been an "Arcane Font" sourcerer subclass to serve as the 'default', for those who don't want their sorcerers to mutate into ugly scaly things.

[Tholomyes]

I ultimately agree with this sentiment. Wild magic especially as presented should not be core feature, by the way is there another iconic subclass for sorcerer except wild and draconic? I can remember lot of them, but they do have lot of overlap with warlock.Storm Sorcerers and Celestial Sorcerers were in 4e (which don't really overlap with the Warlock too much), or, if you want to borrow somewhat from PF, there are a fair amount that don't overlap with the Warlock, such as Genie bloodlines, Elemental Bloodlines, and such, or other various high-power, non-deity creatures, such as Titans, Angels and the like.

Or as Sartharina mentioned, a simple Arcane bloodline, which could be the generic fluff version, like the Champion fighter or Oath of Devotion paladin, or what have you.

[rlc]

i think they said you don't have to pick a subclass in one of the articles awhile back? i probably couldn't find it even if i tried at this point, but that would basically just mean that the default is the default, if i'm right.

[Tholomyes]

i think they said you don't have to pick a subclass in one of the articles awhile back? i probably couldn't find it even if i tried at this point, but that would basically just mean that the default is the default, if i'm right.The problem is, even if you're not required to pick a subclass (which I doubt, given the language in the Basic PDF, as well as the recent L&L articles and other material we've been given), there doesn't seem to be any indication that there's anything that you get for not picking a subclass. All you're doing is giving up class features with noting in return. I'd much rather see generic subclasses which you can take if none of the specialized subclasses fit, rather than just go without class features, when everyone else in the party picks up features from their subclass.

[zorb25]

i think they said you don't have to pick a subclass in one of the articles awhile back? i probably couldn't find it even if i tried at this point, but that would basically just mean that the default is the default, if i'm right.

If i remember correctly(I might not ), subclasses do not penalize you in general sense and only enhance your character.Not picking one therefore feels more like intentionally hobbling yourself, especially if it is more roleplay dependent class which utilizes subclass to specify itself like priest ,sorcerer or warlock.

[HorridElemental]

If i remember correctly(I might not ), subclasses do not penalize you in general sense and only enhance your character.Not picking one therefore feels more like intentionally hobbling yourself, especially if it is more roleplay dependent class which utilizes subclass to specify itself like priest ,sorcerer or warlock.

They are pretty much class specific feats.

You could choose a subclass for the fluff (or refluffed) and give the class a feat choice.

[Lycoris]

There really should have been an "Arcane Font" sourcerer subclass to serve as the 'default', for those who don't want their sorcerers to mutate into ugly scaly things.

To be fair, Wild Mage is nearly this as is, if you and the DM decide from the beginning to ignore Wild Magic rolls; though Controlled Chaos would admittedly be a useless ability that way, and Tides of Chaos wouldn't be able to replenish itself outside of a long rest (which is probably fine). An easy fix could involve some combination of additional Tides of Chaos uses, Metamagic, or Sorcery Points, and not be too far off the mark.

That said, having a proper alternative would have been appreciated; I just think this is easier to resolve than it seems at first glance (obligatory DMG reference here).

[HorridElemental]

To be fair, Wild Mage is nearly this as is, if you and the DM decide from the beginning to ignore Wild Magic rolls; though Controlled Chaos would admittedly be a useless ability that way, and Tides of Chaos wouldn't be able to replenish itself outside of a long rest (which is probably fine). An easy fix could involve some combination of additional Tides of Chaos uses, Metamagic, or Sorcery Points, and not be too far off the mark.

That said, having a proper alternative would have been appreciated; I just think this is easier to resolve than it seems at first glance (obligatory DMG reference here).

Hmm I kinda want to adapt wild magic sorcerer bloodline to be a wizard archetype (not school) that replaces their school choice.

The wizard is a genius bit didn't really pay attention in school, dropped out, and now their spells mess up from time to time.

He isn't naturally gifted in magic or he would be a sorcerer but he is naturally gifted in brain power... This could be fun.

[da_chicken]

There really should have been an "Arcane Font" sourcerer subclass to serve as the 'default', for those who don't want their sorcerers to mutate into ugly scaly things.

I have two questions: 1) What level is Helvetica? 2) Does a sourcerer get a bonus to damage rolls for spells that deal acid damage?

:smallwink:

[Lord Raziere]

hello, speaking as the guy who is an actual Sorcerer fan rather than just considering it a superfluous wizard- I actually LIKE having dragon and wild mage as my default options. Thank you very much. Arcane Font would be too wizardy. The Sorcerer isn't about that kind of bland bull. The Sorcerer is all about getting a piece of the primal elemental forces in the world getting stuck inside of you, then working it to make it grow so that you become something strange and different from what "normal" magic does and basically flipping the bird at the wizard and his attempts to try and make magic a thing of study and orderly use of power, defying what they normally categorize things into in the process. its the fact that the Sorcerer IS either Wild Mage or Dragon Mage that I want to play it, because then it isn't a general guy who blandly is just good at magic just because. these subclasses give the sorcerer flavor.

and too much like Warlock? nope. The Warlock Made A Deal. As a Sorcerer fan, I can respect that, they didn't want all that boring study of being wizard and having to deal with those snooty ivory tower academics. I like them, but they are not Sorcerers. their magic is an mutual thing, something they worked out with another being, and often they are far more subtle. Sorcerers? their cosmic piece just got thrown into them, they found they had powers and decided that suddenly having magical power was awesome. The Sorcerer didn't make a deal, they got their power punched into them, and now they get to punch the cosmos back them in response. your complaining about the Sorcerer actually succeeding at being different and providing its own way to do magic.

[HorridElemental]

hello, speaking as the guy who is an actual Sorcerer fan rather than just considering it a superfluous wizard- I actually LIKE having dragon and wild mage as my default options. Thank you very much. Arcane Font would be too wizardy. The Sorcerer isn't about that kind of bland bull. The Sorcerer is all about getting a piece of the primal elemental forces in the world getting stuck inside of you, then working it to make it grow so that you become something strange and different from what "normal" magic does and basically flipping the bird at the wizard and his attempts to try and make magic a thing of study and orderly use of power, defying what they normally categorize things into in the process. its the fact that the Sorcerer IS either Wild Mage or Dragon Mage that I want to play it, because then it isn't a general guy who blandly is just good at magic just because. these subclasses give the sorcerer flavor.

and too much like Warlock? nope. The Warlock Made A Deal. As a Sorcerer fan, I can respect that, they didn't want all that boring study of being wizard and having to deal with those snooty ivory tower academics. I like them, but they are not Sorcerers. their magic is an mutual thing, something they worked out with another being, and often they are far more subtle. Sorcerers? their cosmic piece just got thrown into them, they found they had powers and decided that suddenly having magical power was awesome. The Sorcerer didn't make a deal, they got their power punched into them, and now they get to punch the cosmos back them in response. your complaining about the Sorcerer actually succeeding at being different and providing its own way to do magic.

A friend of mine told this to me recently.

The only difference between the warlock and sorcerer is that for one someone got figuratively screwed and somehow got literally screwed.

:p

Sorcerer: Dragon or Magical being had sex with a great grand parent or someone.

Warlock: Made a pact that makes that warlock enslaved to that patron.

They could have been one class, easily.

I like sorcerers but with what 5e made, they could have been more distinct of a class.

[Lord Raziere]

No. no they couldn't. completely different mechanics for one. Warlock works too differently.

[hawklost]

A friend of mine told this to me recently.

The only difference between the warlock and sorcerer is that for one someone got figuratively screwed and somehow got literally screwed.

:p

Sorcerer: Dragon or Magical being had sex with a great grand parent or someone.

Warlock: Made a pact that makes that warlock enslaved to that patron.

They could have been one class, easily.

I like sorcerers but with what 5e made, they could have been more distinct of a class.

One, pretty sure Wild Magic does not require any grandparent to have been involved. It is after all, wild magic, it does weird ****.

Second, the Warlock is Not Enslaved to a Patron, they make a deal for power, whether they honor their end is another matter.

Third, The mechanics for Sorcerer and Warlock are very different, even from the Previews we saw, they were very different. Warlocks weren't just different sorcerers when 3e came out with them and they aren't just different sorcerers now.

[HorridElemental]

No. no they couldn't. completely different mechanics for one. Warlock works too differently.

Not really.

Make the sorcerer and warlock power source determine what mechanic you use and then have further blood/pact options. Would have been a really cool way to make the sorcerer and warlock.

However people would have freaked. So what we get now is Wizard, Warlock, Bards (another class that could have been a type of another class), and Little Brother Sorcerer.

Which is sad really. It is like they put all the good stuff into the warlock and put the leftovers into the sorcerer.

Edit.

Yeah break a pact with an elder almost deity thing... Sounds like you will screw yourself over even more.

Wild Magic:, it could easily be that two creature's DNA, or whatever you want to call it, mixed up wrong. It could be what happens when you make love under a full moon, it could be what happens when you are conceived in a wild magic zone... Who knows. It is mostly a joke that actually can work just as easy as any other fluff for the sorcerer.

[CyberThread]

Honestly, warlocks have a very interesting mechanics. They do the casting things, but they get to recharge.

[Lord Raziere]

Not really.

Make the sorcerer and warlock power source determine what mechanic you use and then have further blood/pact options. Would have been a really cool way to make the sorcerer and warlock.

However people would have freaked. So what we get now is Wizard, Warlock, Bards (another class that could have been a type of another class), and Little Brother Sorcerer.

Which is sad really. It is like they put all the good stuff into the warlock and put the leftovers into the sorcerer.


you mean all the stuff that was in 4e? Those were the options for Sorcerers in PHB2 when it first came out dude, while Warlock got the Fae/Infernal/Cthulhu options. its tradition by now. and a new tradition that I like for once. the forces they're dealing with are fundamentally different- Warlock deals with intelligent, subtle things. Sorcerer deals with loud, primal explosive kinds of forces. even the Celestial kind of Sorcerer is draw upon the raw might of the HEAVENS THEMSELVES, they're not calling down the subtle glamour of the fey, or the trickery of the devil. They are the Storm and the Fury. If the Warlock is playing a violin, your playing a freaking electric guitar, don't lump those in.

where a warlock treads people whisper conspiracies in fear, where the sorcerer treads, the earth itself trembles at his arrival. where the warlock is the rogue with the dagger, the sorcerer is the barbarian with the big axe. (the wizard is the classically trained master of the blade by some noble or other, but thats why barbarians exist: to show those swordmaster dudes that not everything is refined and perfect in combat)

[HorridElemental]

you mean all the stuff that was in 4e? Those were the options for Sorcerers in PHB2 when it first came out dude, while Warlock got the Fae/Infernal/Cthulhu options. its tradition by now. and a new tradition that I like for once. the forces they're dealing with are fundamentally different- Warlock deals with intelligent, subtle things. Sorcerer deals with loud, primal explosive kinds of forces. even the Celestial kind of Sorcerer is draw upon the raw might of the HEAVENS THEMSELVES, they're not calling down the subtle glamour of the fey, or the trickery of the devil. They are the Storm and the Fury. If the Warlock is playing a violin, your playing a freaking electric guitar, don't lump those in.

where a warlock treads people whisper conspiracies in fear, where the sorcerer treads, the earth itself trembles at his arrival. where the warlock is the rogue with the dagger, the sorcerer is the barbarian with the big axe. (the wizard is the classically trained master of the blade by some noble or other, but thats why barbarians exist: to show those swordmaster dudes that not everything is refined and perfect in combat)

Meh, even in 4e the sorcerer was the little brother to the wizard (who could become a striker in their own right).

Just because you have a crush on the sorcerer doesn't change the fact that ever since WotC has controlled D&D, the Sorcerer has always been second fiddle.

Make all the fluff you want, but the sorcerer in 5e just isn't that impressive, yet. There is always time to bring out an original idea for the sorcerer that makes them less of the little brother but till they do that.... The sorcerer is meh, and this is coming from someone who loves the idea of the sorcerer.

Really the Warlock could be easily fluffed as one of the patrons causing them (through being related or messing with them at birth) to be a "sorcerer" and they will actually be quite awesome.

The old one? Yeah you didn't make a pact, that is your granddaddy.

The warlock so far is a pretty well put together and diverse class, maybe a little over powered but they have substance.

[Lord Raziere]

look, its better if you think of the classes like this:

Martial:
fighter (classically trained master) barbarian (raging wild guy), rogue (subtle sneaky guy), monk (hybrid)
Arcane:
wizard (classically trained master), sorcerer (raging wild guy), warlock (subtle sneaky guy), bard (hybrid)
Divine:
Cleric (classically trained master), druid (raging wild guy), ranger (subtle sneaky guy), paladin (hybrid)

they're just following a good set up in my view. you have a classic master example, a weirder offbeat example that is more about brute force and wildness, and then you get a subtler, sneaky type that has finesse to them, and then you get the hybrids. there is a method to the madness. its all about style.

[Kurald Galain]

look, its better if you think of the classes like this:

That's a nice idea, but it doesn't match the rule books at all, and I could just as easily claim this:

Martial:
monk (classically trained master) barbarian (raging wild guy), rogue (subtle sneaky guy), fighter (hybrid)
Arcane:
bard (classically trained master), warlock (raging wild guy), wizard (subtle sneaky guy), sorcerer (hybrid)
Divine:
Paladin (classically trained master), ranger (raging wild guy), druid (subtle sneaky guy), cleric (hybrid)

[Lord Raziere]

That's a nice idea, but it doesn't match the rule books at all, and I could just as easily claim this:

Martial:
monk (classically trained master) barbarian (raging wild guy), rogue (subtle sneaky guy), fighter (hybrid)
Arcane:
bard (classically trained master), warlock (raging wild guy), wizard (subtle sneaky guy), sorcerer (hybrid)
Divine:
Paladin (classically trained master), ranger (raging wild guy), druid (subtle sneaky guy), cleric (hybrid)

not really. no.

fighter is the classically trained master because is taught both discipline and force, and doesn't use magic, while monk inherently uses magic by default, and thus the monk is the hybrid of magic and fighting.

bard is not a classically trained master, because he is the jack of all trades hybrid, sorcerer isn't a hybrid at all because they can't do fighting or divine magic at all and can only do arcane casting, wizard has too many spells that can be used for force and showy effects, while the warlock is based around making pacts with Fey and Devils (who are known for lies, trickery and contracts) and outer eldritch horror beings (who aren't known for being in your face, the protagonists have to investigate clues before they can even confront them)

while the paladin is a hybrid of fighting and divine magic, cleric is way too much the equal of the wizard, druids have too many spells that can be far more destructive than the ranger, while the ranger is too based on sneaking, archery and hunting to be a raging force of nature that destroys everything in their path.

so.....no, I can't agree with you on that.

[HorridElemental]

not really. no.

fighter is the classically trained master because is taught both discipline and force, and doesn't use magic, while monk inherently uses magic by default, and thus the monk is the hybrid of magic and fighting.

bard is not a classically trained master, because he is the jack of all trades hybrid, sorcerer isn't a hybrid at all because they can't do fighting or divine magic at all and can only do arcane casting, wizard has too many spells that can be used for force and showy effects, while the warlock is based around making pacts with Fey and Devils (who are known for lies, trickery and contracts) and outer eldritch horror beings (who aren't known for being in your face, the protagonists have to investigate clues before they can even confront them)

while the paladin is a hybrid of fighting and divine magic, cleric is way too much the equal of the wizard, druids have too many spells that can be far more destructive than the ranger, while the ranger is too based on sneaking, archery and hunting to be a raging force of nature that destroys everything in their path.

so.....no, I can't agree with you on that.

I don't think the point was to get you to agree, mostly that just because you have an opinion on the class doesn't mean you are right.

I think either of you could be right and both of you could be wrong.

My main point from before is that the Sorcerer has always been the little brother. It also seems like the Warlock had a lot of effort put into their abilities while the sorcerer got very basic and thrown together. The sorcerer could easily be put into the warlock or vice versa. But they chose, from what we have seen so far, to make the sorcerer the little brother to the Wizard and Warlock and thus making this the third WotC edition to do so.

[Joe the Rat]

Just because you have a crush on the sorcerer doesn't change the fact that ever since WotC has controlled D&D, the Sorcerer has always been second fiddle.In other words, the Sorcerer has always been second fiddle.

I like Wild Mage as a Sorcerer (inborn wtf? magic) than Wizard. I remember the original Wild Mage. Genius wizard with wild surges, "cast anything, I hope" as a 1st level spell, & dungeon bypass via Schrodinger's Wall (but only half the time, determined separately for all observers)? Too much misapplied quantum mechanics, not enough raw magic. I think it works better with Sorcerer: Raw innate power, not always with perfect control.

Thing is, I think Dragon is supposed to be the "default" subclass. They've been using that blood of dragons thing for a while now, and always seem to return to it. They opened up a lot of other "in the blood" ideas, and seeing some of them would be a nice third option. Sadly, this is where you get the Warlock overlap: "Something Fey" and "Something Fiendish" are good fits (Fey Sorcerer? Isn't that a trope?), but are used by Warlock - and I think they really tried to avoid having too many overlapping subclass themes between related classes. That leaves Celestial and Elemental as go-tos... So why didn't they do something with Elemental? Because the monk was using it? Because they'd need to write up four different themed subclass effects, which is so hard to do after doing that for monk, and barbarian, and how many cleric & wizard options?!

They damn well better be churning out setting-specific sorcerer subclasses.

[zorb25]

snip
Frankly, wizard is nothing to write home about. Yes, he gets lot of subclasses, but they seem to be mechanical cookie cutter boosts to chosen spell school full of low hanging fruit attempts, which make school better to cast, rather than be that cool in their own right. I find that unsatisfying. Rather have two or three wizard archetypes(blaster, enchanter, X) and boost numbers of subclasses of different classes.

[hawklost]

Frankly, wizard is nothing to write home about. Yes, he gets lot of subclasses, but they seem to be mechanical cookie cutter boosts to chosen spell school full of low hanging fruit attempts, which make school better to cast, rather than be that cool in their own right. I find that unsatisfying. Rather have two or three wizard archetypes(blaster, enchanter, X) and boost numbers of subclasses of different classes.

The wizard has pretty much always had those 'subclasses' since at least 3e. Sure, they were just called schools and the Wizard could choose to take generalist instead of specializing (since you lost access to other school when specialized early on) but it was pretty much always the same thing. Now they just added in more effects to the schools than just 'choose this school to get bonus to X and choose 1/2 other schools you cannot cast'.

[zorb25]

snip

What is the point of your argument please? Yes, they were "always" there. so were other things, how does what I said less true, or how it defies my point? It could have been implemented differently example: fighter styles and not as subclass.

[HorridElemental]

What is the point of your argument please? Yes, they were "always" there. so were other things, how does what I said less true, or how it defies my point? It could have been implemented differently example: fighter styles and not as subclass.

Actually they were there in 2e also. Random note ad all that jazz.

[zorb25]

Actually they were there in 2e also. Random note ad all that jazz.

Okay, thanks for explanation.

[hawklost]

What is the point of your argument please? Yes, they were "always" there. so were other things, how does what I said less true, or how it defies my point? It could have been implemented differently example: fighter styles and not as subclass.

Well, for one, you might notice there are quite a few Legacy items in DnD that could be reworked. Something that is iconic to the Wizards (For the last 25 or more years) is the Schools of Magic. You might not like Wizards having them but they are just as Iconic as having a Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue as class choices. Yes, they could have changed it to having some very specialized version of Blaster, Enchanter, X (pick third type) but then people would be asking why there wasn't an Illusionist or a person who specializes in Transmutation, which your groupings do not have.

You could also ask the same kind of question for Clerics, why not just have a Healer, Blaster and Buffer sub class and throw out all those Deity specific Sub classes, but this would make people feel it is less DnD.

[zorb25]

Well, for one, you might notice there are quite a few Legacy items in DnD that could be reworked. Something that is iconic to the Wizards (For the last 25 or more years) is the Schools of Magic. You might not like Wizards having them but they are just as Iconic as having a Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue as class choices. Yes, they could have changed it to having some very specialized version of Blaster, Enchanter, X (pick third type) but then people would be asking why there wasn't an Illusionist or a person who specializes in Transmutation, which your groupings do not have.

You could also ask the same kind of question for Clerics, why not just have a Healer, Blaster and Buffer sub class and throw out all those Deity specific Sub classes, but this would make people feel it is less DnD.

What are you arguing about? I am saying, that there was no reason for them to be subclass, they could be anything else in wizard class features and that making them all subclass makes them pretty boring. I did not extend argument for cleric, because I did not check his subclass.

[hawklost]

What are you arguing about? I am saying, that there was no reason for them to be subclass, they could be anything else in wizard class features and that making them all subclass makes them pretty boring. I did not extend argument for cleric, because I did not check his subclass.

You appear to be advocating making a Wizard a generalist with sub-classes that partially take up what the Schools of Magic take up. You advocate making these same features instead something the Wizard would pick up at each of his class features (since there are many different schools that make him very different). You want to make the Wizard more versatile (where people already see him as having more options than any other class) and then giving him specialization in controlling (enchanter) or damaging over and above the schools of magic that give those abilities.

[zorb25]

You appear to be advocating making a Wizard a generalist with sub-classes that partially take up what the Schools of Magic take up. You advocate making these same features instead something the Wizard would pick up at each of his class features (since there are many different schools that make him very different). You want to make the Wizard more versatile (where people already see him as having more options than any other class) and then giving him specialization in controlling (enchanter) or damaging over and above the schools of magic that give those abilities.
Neither of these things is true. Stop putting things in my mouth I am saying that currently subclasses of wizards seem to me as cookie cutter builds, that are void of true coolness and work by mechanically enhancing abilities of given school of magic, instead of something actually cool. I advocate limiting amount of subclasses he gets, so they could focus on the remaining and go with something cooler and distributing created space to classes that need it. Of course It has already been done so I am now just critiquing created product.

[hawklost]

Neither of these things is true. Stop putting things in my mouth I am saying that currently subclasses of wizards seem to me as cookie cutter builds, that are void of true coolness and work by mechanically enhancing abilities of given school of magic, instead of something actually cool. I advocate limiting amount of subclasses he gets, so they could focus on the remaining and go with something cooler and distributing created space to classes that need it. Of course It has already been done so I am now just critiquing created product.


Rather have two or three wizard archetypes(blaster, enchanter, X) and boost numbers of subclasses of different classes.
Is requesting limiting the subclasses to enhance certain aspects that you find important and not that different than a school of magic sub-classes but with only 3 choices instead of 7.


I am saying, that there was no reason for them to be subclass, they could be anything else in wizard class features and that making them all subclass makes them pretty boring.
Is promoting making the Schools of Magic options into choose able options during each class features, which would require class feature options to have a pick and choose effect (Which is pretty much what Sub Classes Are.) (Unless you are advocating removing the 7 schools of magic instead, which means the Wizard loses its Iconic characteristics)


I advocate limiting amount of subclasses he gets, so they could focus on the remaining and go with something cooler
And here, you seem to be promoting removing the Wizard specializations all together and making every Wizard a Generalist because otherwise you are taking up More space to give the wizard these class features from schools And sub-classes

[Sartharina]

Just because you have a crush on the sorcerer doesn't change the fact that ever since WotC has controlled D&D, the Sorcerer has always been second fiddle.WotC created the sorcerer.

I hope we get a Storm Sorcerer!

[zorb25]

Is requesting limiting the subclasses to enhance certain aspects that you find important and not that different than a school of magic sub-classes but with only 3 choices instead of 7.

or maybe have 3 most archetypical subclasses in core, so you can make them actually cool and then add the others later, which is what I am saying.


Is promoting making the Schools of Magic options into choose able options during each class features, which would require class feature options to have a pick and choose effect (Which is pretty much what Sub Classes Are.) (Unless you are advocating removing the 7 schools of magic instead, which means the Wizard loses its Iconic characteristics)

or maybe change them into one feature, which is what I said, instead of your tangents, which I never mentioned



And here, you seem to be promoting removing the Wizard specializations all together and making every Wizard a Generalist because otherwise you are taking up More space to give the wizard these class features from schools And sub-classes
No I am saying they as presented are not cool and offering solution. You are going on these pointless tangents.

[hawklost]

or maybe have 3 most archetypical subclasses in core, so you can make them actually cool and then add the others later, which is what I am saying.

or maybe change them into one feature, which is what I said, instead of your tangents, which I never mentioned


No I am saying they as presented are not cool and offering solution. You are going on these pointless tangents.

So you have read through the PHB, seen all 7 sub-classes for the Wizard and decided they add no flavor (sorry, 'not cool', don't want to add statements to your mouth) to the Wizard?

The Wizards Sub-classes as written are cool to many people (just not you in this case). You are trying to limit them into something much less because to you, their effects are not what you want. 3 archtypes does not fit the style of Wizards from WotC (Unless we are talking about Dragonlance wizards, where 3 archtypes work perfectly fine). Your solution fits your personal style of play much more than a large number of people who have played DnD since at least 2nd edition.

Also, if you make them into ONE feature, you kinda ruin a lot of different effects that seem to exist for each grouping. Does that mean you remove the Necromancers ability to control undead better? The Evokers ability to shape a damage spell around his allies? I am sure the other groups (which I don't have the phb yet so cannot say what they do) have unique effects at different levels that make them special. Instead you are advocating putting that into a single Class Feature, which would be level specific (since that is the way class features work it seems). So better hope the Necromancer ability and the Evoker ability are the same exact level.

Finally, you are making a statement of Opinion. "Something is 'Not Cool'" is purely subjective. Just because you do not like someone saying they disagree with your Opinion and saying things like, that goes against the Iconic feel of Wizards, you get huffy about 'your point' which was purely an opinion statement. Since your statement was in response to Joe the Rat's statement about how many Cleric AND Wizard sub-classes, and my original response to your statement (which infers I am also responding to Joe the Rat's statement from your statement) was about the Iconic reasons WHY a Wizard has the sub-classes they do (and a Cleric), I was not going off on a tangent.

[Person_Man]

I agree that 5e does seem to be focused on giving the DM more tools to use, which may put an additional burden on the DM, but is it really any greater than 3e? Character power levels varied wildly in 3e, and deciding what play options to allow and disallow could be a pain.

3.5 and Pathfinder used tabletop miniatures as the default. 5E uses theater of the mind. But 5E still includes equivalents of most of the tactical combat rules from 3.5 which were designed for tabletop combat. In 3.5 or Pathfinder, a DM just set up a map, placed monsters, and then most of the decisions were made by referencing the rules. But in 5E, a DM needs to decide on a round by round basis:

Where everyone is standing.
Are you within range of X creature for Y spell/attack.
Does this movement provoke an Opportunity Attack from anyone?
Whether or not creature A can reach each particular enemy with their movement (which can be broken up before/after/between attacks, Action, and Bonus Action.
When cover and concealment apply, where difficult terrain is located.
If you use an area of effect spell/attack, how many people are effected.
Are you positioned in such a way that you can use Stealth.
Do you need to move through difficult terrain.


And probably a dozen other things Most other Narrativist games that use the theater of the mind don't bother with tactical combat rules like D&D, because they get in the way of the Narrative, and are difficult for a DM to honestly adjudicate.

Having said that, 5E in its current state is definitely more balanced then 3.5 or Pathfinder. I'm just annoyed that they didn't implement the 5E balance fixes consistently. Examples:


Some Ability Scores (Dex, Con) are vastly more useful then others. They could have kept 4E couplets, and/or spread out what each Ability Score effects more evenly. (More evenly balance Saves between all 6 Ability Scores, move Initiative to Wisdom, link Inspiration points to Cha, grant bonus Skills from Int, etc).
Concentration effects some but not all spells and effects with a duration. For example, Mage Armor, Animate Dead, Foresight, etc. Plus lots of class abilities that provide passive granular benefits. Once enough splat comes out, spellcasters will be able to recreate CoDzilla by just avoiding Concentration spells.
You need to Attune some but not all magic items. For example, Gauntlets of Ogre Strength don't need to be Attuned, +1 weapon/armor/shields don't need to be attuned, you can buy potions and scrolls which don't need to be attuned, etc. And magic items do not have any suggested gp or +X value. So if you start a game with characters above 1st level, a DM has to approve all your magic items on a case by case basis. He can't just say "pick three X value items." And forget about random treasure drops (which is the default play style for old school gamers) because it can wildly throw off balance.
Healing Surges (or some similar mechanic) don't exist. So Hit Points are basically an unlimited resource.
It's really really easy to take Long Rests, since they can be interrupted by up to an hour of combats or other strenuous activities, and things like Arcane Renewal and 4 hour meditation for Elves and Rope Trick exist. So the "daily" limit on spells isn't a real limitation.


So instead of making a truly new and better edition, they basically remade 2E + 3.5 with a bunch of halfhearted fixes.
I just love D&D, and wanted to be more then that.

[Sartharina]

Healing Surges (or some similar mechanic) don't exist. So Hit Points are basically an unlimited resource.

Hit dice and spell slots are highly limited.

[obryn]

So instead of making a truly new and better edition, they basically remade 2E + 3.5 with a bunch of halfhearted fixes.
I just love D&D, and wanted to be more then that.
That's pretty well my read on it, too, but I see a lot more of 3.5 in it than 2e. The whole structure of classes - one of the biggest contributors to the feel of the game - is lifted almost wholesale from 3e, with the sole exception of skill points.

[Sartharina]

They're trying to make "D&D". But 3e was the D&D they made, and 4e was the one everyone told them wasn't D&D.

[Lord Raziere]

They're trying to make "D&D". But 3e was the D&D they made, and 4e was the one everyone told them wasn't D&D.

I disagree, in my opinion 3e was the DnD that was horribly messed up but everyone grew attached to for reasons I cannot understand, but 4e was the fix that DnD needed, but everyone rejected because they didn't like their god-wizard being taken away and fighters actually mattering. 5e is them slightly learning from past mistakes and only take minimal steps to fix the actual problems of DnD classwise, while taking a full step back race-wise by going "nope! monsters are monsters! they should all die!"

[HorridElemental]

They're trying to make "D&D". But 3e was the D&D they made, and 4e was the one everyone told them wasn't D&D.

4e: The D&D that people deserved but not the D&D people wanted.

[hawklost]

I disagree, in my opinion 3e was the DnD that was horribly messed up but everyone grew attached to for reasons I cannot understand, but 4e was the fix that DnD needed, but everyone rejected because they didn't like their god-wizard being taken away and fighters actually mattering.

I on average play one of those mundane classes that never have spells or anything. Although I did love my Favored Soul in 3.5 until he blew up. As such, I didn't like 4e because I felt it tried to make my Mundane Fighter and Rogue into some kind of semi-caster as well as taking the casters and make them into less than they were. I went to PF because to me 4e was a terrible game(purely subjective opinion, nothing more), I stopped playing PF because it did the same issue of 3.5 which was way too much power bloat for things. I truely hope 5e will limit this, but at least even if they do not it will probably be some time before it occurs.

That said, I know I am biased against 4e for many reasons other than due to playing it with bad groups.

[HorridElemental]

I on average play one of those mundane classes that never have spells or anything. Although I did love my Favored Soul in 3.5 until he blew up. As such, I didn't like 4e because I felt it tried to make my Mundane Fighter and Rogue into some kind of semi-caster as well as taking the casters and make them into less than they were. I went to PF because to me 4e was a terrible game(purely subjective opinion, nothing more), I stopped playing PF because it did the same issue of 3.5 which was way too much power bloat for things. I truely hope 5e will limit this, but at least even if they do not it will probably be some time before it occurs.

That said, I know I am biased against 4e for many reasons other than due to playing it with bad groups.

I think the base line problem is that you grew accustomed to non-casters being "mundane" or extraORDINARY when in a fantasy setting there is no reason what so ever that they couldn't be EXTRAordinary.

Most non-casters don't gain anything that can be considered a spell in 4e. Everything the fighter can do in 4e is easily explained under "he is just that damn good".

The problem I hear with ToB/4e is that the abilities are laid out like spells and thus must be spells. Well a book and a USB flashdrive both have information in them, but that doesn't mean they are the same thing.

Edit: forgot to add..

This problem seems to have seeped its way into 5e, non-casters aren't casters and so they must be extraORDINARY and not EXTRAordinary.

It is quite sad really, half of d&d isn't living up to its potential.

[Icewraith]

Agree on the ability score imbalance. I rolled up a dwarf sword-and-board fighter while hurrying through the basic rules, and now that I spent a bit more time with them last night I went "hey, wait a minute..."

Unless STR features heavily into combat maneuvers, there's only one skill based on STR and you can get proficiency in it easily enough, and you already get proficiency on STR-based saves (we'll see how saving throws work out).

Dex factors into initiative, when maxed you can have an AC one below full plate while wearing light armor (doesn't that top out at 12 AC?+full dex bonus = 17), there's a 1d8 finesse one-handed weapon and a 1d4 reach finesse weapon (we'll see if reach is as big a deal in 5e). All the other 1d8 one-handed weapons are either versatile (which sword and board doesn't care about) or has no special ability (if piercing/slashing/bludgeoning damage is important then this is a bit more of a downer) . AOE burst spells still presumably target the dex save. Ranged attacks are Dex-based so a nice bow isn't out of the question.

Unless you absolutely must use a great weapon and wear heavy armor, STR is a terrible stat.

Oh yes, if you're wearing light armor and have a good dex you can probably hide a lot better, so you're going to open up more exploration options for the party since you'll be able to bypass more monsters if you so desire (and if there's not another party member that dumped dex and wears heavier armor). You're better at more skills you probably don't have proficiency in.

If you're not a wizard and don't care about the bonus on knowledge skills you're probably not proficient in, INT is pretty dumpable nowadays. No bonus skills or languages that I see. With the reduced ability to get languages it seems like PCs will have more issues interacting (i.e. roleplaying) with exotic creatures.

Now- if combat maneuvers are actually good and based off STR and STR only, things look a lot better for STR. If you have to actually make STR saves, its value is higher. If your DM appreciates stunting the Athletics skill probably is more valuable and you might want more than just your proficiency bonus (however, what about Acrobatics?). If it turns out that full plate is the only way to get that base 18 AC, and things at high level notice the difference between a base 17 and a base 18 AC, a high STR is much more handy.

There's just not a whole lot of room for great weapon fighting to not completely outclass other weapon options and yet make up for all the other bneefits you can get just as easily from DEX. Not saying it can't be done, just it's a very small target.

[hawklost]

I think the base line problem is that you grew accustomed to non-casters being "mundane" or extraORDINARY when in a fantasy setting there is no reason what so ever that they couldn't be EXTRAordinary.

Most non-casters don't gain anything that can be considered a spell in 4e. Everything the fighter can do in 4e is easily explained under "he is just that damn good".

The problem I hear with ToB/4e is that the abilities are laid out like spells and thus must be spells. Well a book and a USB flashdrive both have information in them, but that doesn't mean they are the same thing.

Edit: forgot to add..

This problem seems to have seeped its way into 5e, non-casters aren't casters and so they must be extraORDINARY and not EXTRAordinary.

It is quite sad really, half of d&d isn't living up to its potential.

Actually, it was more that a 'mundane' and a Caster type could have the exact same effect under 2 different ability names. Both used as Encounter or Daily and all that was different was the Fluff around them.

[Sartharina]

Actually, it was more that a 'mundane' and a Caster type could have the exact same effect under 2 different ability names. Both used as Encounter or Daily and all that was different was the Fluff around them.And the range, and the damage types, and the tools used, and the possible effect, and the area type (Martial characters almost never got Blast or Burst, nor any control effects other than Stun, Daze, or Knockdown).

By your logic, there's no difference between a Wizard casting Firebolt and an Archer using a bow.

[AuraTwilight]

I disagree, in my opinion 3e was the DnD that was horribly messed up but everyone grew attached to for reasons I cannot understand, but 4e was the fix that DnD needed, but everyone rejected because they didn't like their god-wizard being taken away and fighters actually mattering. 5e is them slightly learning from past mistakes and only take minimal steps to fix the actual problems of DnD classwise, while taking a full step back race-wise by going "nope! monsters are monsters! they should all die!"

"Monstrous PCs" are a thing.

[HorridElemental]

And the range, and the damage types, and the tools used, and the possible effect, and the area type (Martial characters almost never got Blast or Burst, nor any control effects other than Stun, Daze, or Knockdown).

By your logic, there's no difference between a Wizard casting Firebolt and an Archer using a bow.

Pretty much as the bolded says.

There are problems with 4e, but just because it is presented in a uniform way doesn't magically make casters and non-casters he same thing.

[Kurald Galain]

And the range, and the damage types, and the tools used, and the possible effect, and the area type (Martial characters almost never got Blast or Burst, nor any control effects other than Stun, Daze, or Knockdown).

But they do, they totally do. Right from the PHB1, the fighter has numerous burst attacks, the rogue has blasts right from level one, and both have access to immobilizing, slowing, and blinding attacks just fine. For example, Blinding Barrage and Rain of Steel. I can't think of any status condition that is not easily available to martial characters.

[Lord Raziere]

I think the base line problem is that you grew accustomed to non-casters being "mundane" or extraORDINARY when in a fantasy setting there is no reason what so ever that they couldn't be EXTRAordinary.

Most non-casters don't gain anything that can be considered a spell in 4e. Everything the fighter can do in 4e is easily explained under "he is just that damn good".

The problem I hear with ToB/4e is that the abilities are laid out like spells and thus must be spells. Well a book and a USB flashdrive both have information in them, but that doesn't mean they are the same thing.

Edit: forgot to add..

This problem seems to have seeped its way into 5e, non-casters aren't casters and so they must be extraORDINARY and not EXTRAordinary.

It is quite sad really, half of d&d isn't living up to its potential.

Now that I can agree with you.

this is fantasy, why are we confining to the out-of-reality stuff to the MAGIC? fantasy is more than just the magic, its also being so good at fighting you do feats that no real swordsman ever will. the most fun I ever had with a warrior is like, Kingdoms of Amalur, just taking on foe after foe and being an unstoppable juggernaut of fighting prowess. and even if you argue that fighters pulling cool stunts like that is just another form of magic, people talk about how magic should remain mysterious, but then they keep it defined as a wizard thing akin to a scientist specialized field of study, which actually makes it feel more like science than not, because its something if you study long enough, it makes sense, like how mathematics or physics seems mysterious and strange to the layman but if you study THOSE long enough, they make perfect sense.

where if you really want magic less defined and full of boundaries, you need to mix it up a little to make it ambiguous how much of the world really is magical. like the warlord's inspiring word healing people- that isn't normal or mundane, how can you explain that? it isn't magic as you know it, but it certainly isn't mundanity. it seems perfect for that "magic works in mysterious ways" thing they keep talking about, but nope. apparently not good at all. but then again, the people who like mysterious ways and the people who like fighters not being EXTRAordinary are probably not the same people.....so what to do?

[Tholomyes]

The problem I hear with ToB/4e is that the abilities are laid out like spells and thus must be spells. Well a book and a USB flashdrive both have information in them, but that doesn't mean they are the same thing.I think this was a big part of the problem as well. If something like:

Maneuver: Tide of Iron.
Make a melee basic attack against an adjacent enemy. If you hit and the target is no larger than one Size above you, you may push the target 5-feet, and take a free 5-foot step into the area the target vacated. You must be wielding a shield to use this maneuver.

This is basically the same as the power (unless you want to really technical about things), but it has the benefit of not being structured the same way as Spells or other classes' abilities (personally I don't mind 4e's structure, but for a lot of people, it started the system off on a bad foot). Add, on top of this, a better skill system, a better mechanism of mixing and matching maneuvers and class features, and giving all classes more non-combat utility, and I think 4e could have been a lot better received.

[Morty]

Of all the perfectly legitimate problems people, including myself, have with 4e, martial abilities "looking too much like spells" is one I will never, ever, understand. I just can't grasp this fixation on names, trappings and form over how things actually work. And honestly, I've always had the exact opposite problem with 4e powers - that magical abilities feel too much like weapon attacks, in that you roll for damage and add some secondary effect. But it has nothing to do with how they're described - it's how they work.

The fact of the matter is that for the majority of D&D's history, spells were the only discrete, unique abilities anyone had. Those who didn't have spells only added numbers to the same d20 and damage rolls everyone rolled. So any effort to provide such abilities to character categories that didn't have them before is going to look at least a little bit like spells. Because there's nothing else it can look like. Insisting that the classes need to look like they always have is a spiral of circular reasoning that leads straight into the gaping chasm of mediocrity by way of purposefully repeating past mistakes.

[Leon]

Looks fun. Although I think the wild surge should be rolled with each spell cast by default instead of on whim.