[Warning - 4e Conjecture!] Is Sorcerer Needed?

[SamTheCleric]

So, after thinking about the Wizard character sheet... does sorcerer bring anything to the table that would make it fundamentally from a Wizard? The 3rd edition distinguishing characteristic was less spells, but more casts per day. You can't get more casting than "at will"... so what could the sorcerer possibly bring that is different?

A familiar? A Arcane Striker type?

What do you guys think?

[Starbuck_II]

So, after thinking about the Wizard character sheet... does sorcerer bring anything to the table that would make it fundamentally from a Wizard? The 3rd edition distinguishing characteristic was less spells, but more casts per day. You can't get more casting than "at will"... so what could the sorcerer possibly bring that is different?

A familiar? A Arcane Striker type?

What do you guys think?

The Sorceror is a theoretical difference of control.

Wizards have full control of magic; while sorcerors have latent energy after using magic that manifests (they don't output 100% similar to human energy systems like converting glucose in Glycolysis, but not heat instead magic) itself. The exampole given was using a ice attack puts a ice aura around his area damaging (slowing?) enemies that enter.

Fire aura would do likewise burn area around him. So Sorcerors contrast to Wizard is secondary effects.

[SamTheCleric]

Interesting.

I apologize as I havent read the preview books (I just can't fathom spending money on a preview... :P).

[Dan_Hemmens]

The Sorceror is a theoretical difference of control.

Wizards have full control of magic; while sorcerors have latent energy after using magic that manifests (they don't output 100% similar to human energy systems like converting glucose in Glycolysis, but not heat instead magic) itself. The exampole given was using a ice attack puts a ice aura around his area damaging (slowing?) enemies that enter.

Fire aura would do likewise burn area around him. So Sorcerors contrast to Wizard is secondary effects.

Do you actually need different mechanics for that, though? Can't one spellcaster have learned their power from books, while another's was inborn?

[Zincorium]

IF they include the sorcerer at a later point, it would be doing it a serious disservice to not distinguish it mechanically far more than in 3.x.

Seriously, two practitioners of magic, with completely and totally different methods of learning, casting, and altering magic and with dramatically different sources, but...

Cast off the same list
With the same gestures and components for any given spell
have a familiar that works exactly the same
and have a failure chance when casting in armor


Sorry, but that's always screamed lazy to me, there's no reason for them to be so much alike when there's so many different courses sorcerers could have taken. Changing it up is neccessary, IMO, to make the sorcerer worth including.

[Artanis]

So, after thinking about the Wizard character sheet... does sorcerer bring anything to the table that would make it fundamentally from a Wizard? The 3rd edition distinguishing characteristic was less spells, but more casts per day. You can't get more casting than "at will"... so what could the sorcerer possibly bring that is different?

A familiar? A Arcane Striker type?

What do you guys think?

If translated directly from 3e...no, a Sorcerer would bring literally nothing (or close enough to it) to the table that the 4e Wizard doesn't, since the 4e Wizard basically beat up the 3e Sorcerer and took all his stuff anyways...namely the advantage of spontaneous casting. However, in terms of having something called a "Sorcerer", I'd say that yes, they need to add something that's at least vaguely reminiscent of it at some point, even if it's just in a splat book. This in fact seems to be their plan, as they've mentioned adding the Sorcerer in elsewhere with features like what Starbuck_II mentioned.

[Tengu]

From what I've heard (on these very forums), there's a fair chance that sorcerers will have different powers in fourth edition - either a completely different spell list, or different effects accompanying the spells.

[Cuddly]

The sorcerer-wizard differentiation is useless. I'm sick of having fluff and crunch wound so tightly. It leads to retarded contradictions and people saying "yeah, but you know, that would be unrealistic."

You know what? If my 10th level fighter wants to flip out and kill people, he shouldn't be held back just because he's not a full caster.

[SamTheCleric]

The sorcerer-wizard differentiation is useless. I'm sick of having fluff and crunch wound so tightly. It leads to retarded contradictions and people saying "yeah, but you know, that would be unrealistic."

You know what? If my 10th level fighter wants to flip out and kill people, he shouldn't be held back just because he's not a full caster.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Are you saying that they should both be one class? Or that there doesn't need to be a difference to have two different classes?

[Rutee]

Do you actually need different mechanics for that, though? Can't one spellcaster have learned their power from books, while another's was inborn?

Sure. The part I dig for Sorcerors (in 4e) was the wild effects of their magic though, so I wouldn't be using it as a difference in /how/ they learned, but a difference in /what/ they learned.

[Orzel]

no and yes
No, the 4E wizard and warlock do what the 3E sorcerer did. Blast foes to pieces and hold them still.

Yes, the sorcerer's strengths were the ability to cast more spells and cast the spell type that was need, whenever asked for. If a foe had a certain weakness, a sorcerer; if she could exploit it with a spell, could spam it. No I'm outta cold spells. The problem is that this wasn't needed 3E. Damage spells was less important and a high caster had enough spells.

The 4E sorcerer should be the master of abusin' the lowest defense. They should be able to attack your Fort, Ref, or Will whichever is lowest anytime they want. They can drop any condition on a foe when needed. Need fire. Need slowed. Need knocked prone. She's got ya covered, baby.

[Zincorium]

More freeform magic, with weaker overall effects but an easy time altering the parameters.

Add in the psionics style displays and magical crackling energy instead of components and I think that'd be enough to make an interesting class. Possibly kill the wilder and steal all of it's stuff, I can definitely see a class based on using inherent magic having a hard time keeping it under control and occasionally freaking out a bit.

[Indon]

There is plenty of room for an arcane class with a new powerset called a Sorceror.

There doesn't seem to be any room for a class like Wizard that casts differently - the game just isn't built like that anymore.

[Kurald Galain]

So, after thinking about the Wizard character sheet... does sorcerer bring anything to the table that would make it fundamentally from a Wizard?

In a word, no. The Warlock already is everything the sorcerer was supposed to be.

[Roderick_BR]

Yeah, crunch wise, the warlock is already doing what the sorcerer should do: More blasting, better HD(or whatever) than the wizard, and a smaller but useful list of spells.
If the first PHB dosn't bring the sorcerer, I'll just call the warlock it, say that the pacts are blood heritage, and call it a day

[Zeful]

No. The warlock is not everything the Sorcerer was supposed to be. The current version makes a very good stopgap measure, but the concept behind the Sorcerer, roughly "I am magic incarnate and you have angered me. Make amends with your god, you'll be meeting him shortly." Isn't well done with the Warlock, either the 4e or 3e version.

[ShadowSiege]

Sure. The part I dig for Sorcerors (in 4e) was the wild effects of their magic though, so I wouldn't be using it as a difference in /how/ they learned, but a difference in /what/ they learned.

Funny, it struck me as more the wizard is a practiced and disciplined caster with a grounding in theory; directing and using magic with controlled efficiency. In comparison, the sorcerer is tampering with powers he doesn't understand on an intellectual level but intuits his way through it, drawing directly from the magic source and the wild effects manifest as a result of the less rigid way that the sorcerer directs the arcane energies.

Either way, the warlock wouldn't work well as a sorcerer substitute. I do like that they're taking sorcerers in a different direction to help distinguish them from their educated brethren.

[EvilElitest]

The sorcerer-wizard differentiation is useless. I'm sick of having fluff and crunch wound so tightly. It leads to retarded contradictions and people saying "yeah, but you know, that would be unrealistic."

You know what? If my 10th level fighter wants to flip out and kill people, he shouldn't be held back just because he's not a full caster.

yes, how dare people think that a game should follow the rules. Oh the audacity.
from
EE

[Aquillion]

No. The warlock is not everything the Sorcerer was supposed to be. The current version makes a very good stopgap measure, but the concept behind the Sorcerer, roughly "I am magic incarnate and you have angered me. Make amends with your god, you'll be meeting him shortly." Isn't well done with the Warlock, either the 4e or 3e version.

I think the best exemplar of what the sorcerer was supposed to be would be something like the Warmage -- which also doesn't work, but that's more of a problem with blasting as a whole than with the Warmage. If HP totals were lower or there was a better mechanic to scale blasting, it would be fine.

What I'd do is create something like the Warmage, but also have lots of 'alternate' spell lists. Essentially, the idea is that Sorcerers, whose magic lacks a larger formal structure, would tend to be very good at doing one sort of thing via magic, but be unable to do anything else. They would also tend to be better at things besides magic that complement their abilities (Beguilers would make a good proto-sorcerer, too -- say, a typical background could be a street-kid with innate magical talents that they only partially understand, but have put to use to help with their stealing and so on.)

Also, I would like a mechanic that lets wizard and sorcerer levels stack better; it should be a logical build to start out with some levels of sorcerer, then start training as a wizard. Instead, it's totally useless without a PRC, and your 'innate magical background' actually makes you a weaker wizard. That's stupid.

[Zeful]

I think the best exemplar of what the sorcerer was supposed to be would be something like the Warmage -- which also doesn't work, but that's more of a problem with blasting as a whole than with the Warmage. If HP totals were lower or there was a better mechanic to scale blasting, it would be fine.

I haven't read the warmage class so I wouldn't know on that front.

What I'd do is create something like the Warmage, but also have lots of 'alternate' spell lists. Essentially, the idea is that Sorcerers, whose magic lacks a larger formal structure, would tend to be very good at doing one sort of thing via magic, but be unable to do anything else. They would also tend to be better at things besides magic that complement their abilities (Beguilers would make a good proto-sorcerer, too -- say, a typical background could be a street-kid with innate magical talents that they only partially understand, but have put to use to help with their stealing and so on.)

I don't see it that way. I see Sorcerers as the more Jack-of-all-trades caster, they don't specialize, because they don't know what their next spell might be. They might learn a bit about how their favorite spells work but that's about it.

Also, I would like a mechanic that lets wizard and sorcerer levels stack better; it should be a logical build to start out with some levels of sorcerer, then start training as a wizard. Instead, it's totally useless without a PRC, and your 'innate magical background' actually makes you a weaker wizard. That's stupid.

Yes it's silly that people with the raw talent and power are weaker when they try to understand their powers.

[Dhavaer]

I don't think it's needed, but I'd like it anyway. What I've heard about it sounds good.

[Titanium Dragon]

Personally, I think if you wanted to make a sorcerer (a guy with inborn magical capabilities) into a class, you'd need to tie into the "inborn magical abilities" thing and make them have a very different list of spells, possibly thematically tied to dragons (because they obviously have dragonic heritage, given that dragons are clearly the coolest race. And I'm not kidding there, that's pretty much the logic behind it. Rule of Cool.)

I think you could certainly do it other ways as well, making them more wild, but I don't know that it would be all that enjoyable to play a character whose powers were largely uncontrollable. It also leads to more possibility of breakage (the powers are too good vs their lack of controllability) or sucky (the powers are too weak for their level of controllability), or simply making a too-swingy character class (even if you do hit the right balance, really, the balance is most likely to be not so powerful/not so random, which kind of defeats the purpose).

Personally I think going with more heritage/bloodline based type stuff would be cool, but it is possible from the (fey) subtype on some of the warlock stuff that it may already have been done that way, so it may not really have a place at all.

Ultimately, though, it couldn't be at all like the 3e sorcerer.

[MorkaisChosen]

I think with the inborn-magic idea, it makes a lot more sense for the Sorcerer to have a very focused spell list- for example, one sorcerer has a Red Dragon in his ancestry so he has loads of fire spells, while another is distantly related to a Silver so he uses Cold magic almost exclusively.