PDA

View Full Version : 4e- And the Sorcerer is....



Asbestos
2009-01-26, 12:07 AM
A striker! Yep, can see it here (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20090126) (well, more if you have DDI)

Sorcerer's with the Dragon Magic spell source apparently went to the Atlas school of casting...

RTGoodman
2009-01-26, 12:08 AM
Man, you beat me to it! :smallfurious: :smallwink:

More later when I've reviewed it.


Here's some more info for you non-Insiders:

-As you can see, the Sorcerer is an Arcane Striker whose primary abilities are Charisma, Dexterity, and Strength (surprisingly). Secondary aspect is Controller, which makes sense considering the amount of forced movement they use and the status effects they can cause.

-Sorcerer's can choose to draw their power from either Dragon Magic or Wild Magic.

-Dragon Magic is Strength-secondary and lets you add Str to damage with spells, Str to AC instead of Dex/Int, gives you resistance to a chosen type. Your powers of that type ALSO ignore resistances of up to your resistance. Seems great for Dragonborn, of course.

Wild Magic is Dex-secondary adds Dex to damage, and adds Dex to damage. You also get a random resistance and ability to ignore resistance after each rest (very cool), and these gems:


Chaos Burst: Your first attack roll during each of your turns determines a benefit you gain in that round. If you roll an even number, you gain a +1 bonus to AC until the start of your next turn. If you roll an odd number, you make a saving throw.

Unfettered Power: When you roll a natural 20 on an attack roll for an arcane power, you slide the target 1 square and knock it prone after applying the attack's other effects. When you roll a natural 1 on an attack roll for an arcane power, you must push each creature within 5 squares of you 1 square.

-Sorcerers use daggers and staffs as implements.

-Their powers have a lot of elemental stuff and are pretty controller-ish, and from a quick look-see seem to do a bit of damage while ALSO targeting non-AC defenses.

-Most of the powers are very elemental and dragony, of course, and they seem to be about as cool as a lot of other Wizard or Warlock spells. They have a REALLY neat Utility spell called stretch spell that increases the range of ranged spells, so I'm guess we'll see Sorcerers with quite a few "metamagic" style powers because their chaotic nature lets them mold magic to their will. Seems very cool.

-We also get to see the return of a "prismatic"-type spell, with the sorcerer's chromatic orb dealing damage and having an effect based on a d6 roll (1 is Yellow and is radiant and dazes the target, etc.).


All in all, I'm excited about the Sorcerer. I never really cared for the "draconic bloodline" aspect in 3.x, but I'd DEFINITELY like to play a 4E Dragonborn Sorcerer tapping into his draconic ancestry.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-01-26, 12:08 AM
That doesn't make any sense! The warlock's already an arcane striker! They don't need two arcane strikers!

Aron Times
2009-01-26, 12:11 AM
I so want to subscribe now!

Oh great subscribers, can you tell us more about the sorcerer? What is its secondary role? Does it focus on dealing lots of damage to a single target or to multiple targets?

Asbestos
2009-01-26, 12:13 AM
That doesn't make any sense! The warlock's already an arcane striker! They don't need two arcane strikers!

Well, they have two leaders too... and martial has two strikers as well...

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-01-26, 12:15 AM
B-but everyone wants to play strikers. And then I'm stuck being a discount healer because no one wants to play the paladin but me.:smallfrown:

Mando Knight
2009-01-26, 12:20 AM
B-but everyone wants to play strikers. And then I'm stuck being a discount healer because no one wants to play the paladin but me.:smallfrown:

That should change with Divine Power...

I like the concept of the 4E Sorcerer... I can just picture a cackling Dragonborn, hurling fireballs, ice breath, and lightning willy-nilly like a deranged maniac...

Or, y'know, a human lich sorcerer in control of the goblinoid hordes...

Asbestos
2009-01-26, 12:23 AM
B-but everyone wants to play strikers. And then I'm stuck being a discount healer because no one wants to play the paladin but me.:smallfrown:

:smallfrown: Yeah but... paladins rock! and warlords rock even more!

Anyway... some nifty facts about the sorcerer.

Dragonborn are (so far) the best Dragon Magic Sorcerers
Halflings and Drow are the best Wild Magic Sorcerers

Dragon Magic: Grr! I'm so jacked that your attacks are meaningless.
Wild Magic: Get ready to roll some dice! Your party might find you annoying if you get any ones... seriously, the amount of dice based effects are crazy.

The interesting part about Str and Dex being secondary stats is that more melee focused races can make pretty decent sorcerers. All fear my Bugbear Sorcerer! He'll shank you with his arcane implement if you get too close.

Edit: Just realized... since a dagger can be a sorcerer's implement... and cha is primary and dex is secondary... I can have a sorcerer/rogue... and its totally viable! woo!

RTGoodman
2009-01-26, 12:23 AM
That doesn't make any sense! The warlock's already an arcane striker! They don't need two arcane strikers!

Like Asbestos said, we've got a lot of overlap already (Arcane Leaders, Martial Strikers, etc.). I think people like damage-dealing anyway, so their going to publish more strikers to keep people happy.


Anyway, see my post above for more info on the Sorcerer.

Archpaladin Zousha
2009-01-26, 12:26 AM
More options for paladins isn't going to change the fact that the strikers outnumber them five to one, and EVERYONE wants to play strikers. You could have an ENTIRE FREAKIN' PARTY of just strikers, one from each power source! It's not fair!:smallmad:

Aron Times
2009-01-26, 12:35 AM
Hm... Inspiring/Bravura Warlords and Dragon Sorcerers have overlapping stats. Interesting.

thegurullamen
2009-01-26, 12:37 AM
Is it just me, or are sorcerer backstories getting really....weird? In 3e, they were just pure magic/descended from dragons (which I'll admit was pretty lame), but here, well, just look:


perhaps you survived implantation of a slaad embryo

So, yeah. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Narm)

Asbestos
2009-01-26, 12:38 AM
More options for paladins isn't going to change the fact that the strikers outnumber them five to one, and EVERYONE wants to play strikers. You could have an ENTIRE FREAKIN' PARTY of just strikers, one from each power source! It's not fair!:smallmad:

You can do that with anything except for controllers (and no divine striker... yet)

Inyssius Tor
2009-01-26, 12:38 AM
More options for paladins isn't going to change the fact that the strikers outnumber them five to one, and EVERYONE wants to play strikers. You could have an ENTIRE FREAKIN' PARTY of just strikers, one from each power source! It's not fair!:smallmad:

THIS, damnit. What the hell, Wizards? We need controllers!

More to the point, he just seems... dull. *sigh*

That said, I appreciate the synergies. Rogues of all sizes and warlords--that's neat, because I've been wanting to make a rogue/something blastery for a while now.

Inyssius Tor
2009-01-26, 12:40 AM
Is it just me, or are sorcerer backstories getting really....weird? In 3e, they were just pure magic/descended from dragons (which I'll admit was pretty lame), but here, well, just look:

<slaad embryo>

So, yeah. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Narm)

Hey, I like it. That's definitely the sort of thing that'll infuse you with wild magic, and with a nice creepy little Atropal Scion undertone to it.

Asbestos
2009-01-26, 12:51 AM
Oh, something maybe worth noting... all of the spells that get an extra benefit from Dragon Magic are close blasts.

Tengu_temp
2009-01-26, 01:09 AM
More options for paladins isn't going to change the fact that the strikers outnumber them five to one, and EVERYONE wants to play strikers. You could have an ENTIRE FREAKIN' PARTY of just strikers, one from each power source! It's not fair!:smallmad:

Everyone wants to be a damage dealer - just like in WoW! And no matter what will get released, someone will complain about it - also just like in WoW!
Actually, I think this is just the issue with your group, probably because, from what you've told us, most of them are rather immature - just the type that sees the appeal in dealing a buttload of damage and nothing else.

I'll also add myself that while strikers are the most common role, none of the coolest classes so far (Swordmage, Warlord, possibly Druid) has this role.

Saying that there's a lot of strikers and no other roles is deep exaggeration. Current number of classes for each role:
Defender 4: Fighter, Paladin, Swordmage, Warden
Striker 6: Rogue, Ranger, Warlock, Avenger, Barbarian, Sorcerer
Leader 4: Cleric, Warlord, Bard, Artificer
Controller 3: Wizard, Druid, Invoker

As for the actual Sorcerer, I like what I've seen so far. PHB2 will be a lot of fun. I can't remember at the moment, but was it confirmed that there will/won't be Monk in it?

EDIT: Forgot about Avenger.

RTGoodman
2009-01-26, 01:18 AM
As for the actual Sorcerer, I like what I've seen so far. PHB2 will be a lot of fun. I can't remember at the moment, but was it confirmed that there will/won't be Monk in it?

Nope, no Monk in PHB2. I think PHB2 is just Primal, Arcane, and Divine classes, while the Monk is (from what people guess/assume) going to be in the "Ki" power source, which could be in PHB3. (My guess is PHB3 will have Ki, Shadow, and Psionic classes.)

Gimme a minute and I think I can list most or all of the PHB2 classes.

I think the list is something like:

-Druid (Primal Controller)
-Barbarian (Primal Striker)
-Warden (Primal Defender)
-Invoker (Divine Controller)
-Avenger (Divine Striker)
-Sorcerer (Arcane Striker)
-Bard (Arcane Leader)

And I think one or two others that I can't remember off hand (or they haven't let slip yet).

Asbestos
2009-01-26, 01:37 AM
-Druid (Primal Controller)
-Barbarian (Primal Striker)
-Warden (Primal Defender)
-Invoker (Divine Controller)
-Avenger (Divine Striker)
-Sorcerer (Arcane Striker)
-Bard (Arcane Leader)

And I think one or two others that I can't remember off hand (or they haven't let slip yet).

Shaman (Primal) -- I think Leader.

Artanis
2009-01-26, 02:31 AM
More options for paladins isn't going to change the fact that the strikers outnumber them five to one, and EVERYONE wants to play strikers. You could have an ENTIRE FREAKIN' PARTY of just strikers, one from each power source! It's not fair!:smallmad:
Wha? In my group, we have two Defenders, two Strikers, a Leader, and a Controller.

potatocubed
2009-01-26, 02:37 AM
You know, I actually like the sound of that there wild magic. Random die rolls and sliding for all!

RTGoodman
2009-01-26, 02:45 AM
You know, I actually like the sound of that there wild magic. Random die rolls and sliding for all!

It does seem neat, but it's probably not something I'd want to bother with as a player. As of now (and that's without any feats, most of the powers, and other sorts of support), I like the Dragon Magic Sorcerer even though I've never like the "magic bloodline" reasoning behind Sorcerers. For a Dragonborn, though, it makes sense and is pretty cool, and I'm actually rolling up a Dragonborn Sorcerer now just as a sample character. I've got to go to bed soon though in case I get called into work in, oh, 4-5 hours, but I'll get around to finishing it tomorrow so folks can see some of the other powers and stuff "in action."

Kurald Galain
2009-01-26, 08:33 AM
Looks nice, except for the strength bit, which is just as silly as bards using con for attacks.

Let's face it, they probably thought "hey, Stat#1 is underused for PowerSource#3, so let's create some PowerSource#3 classes that need Stat#1 now!" There isn't much of a relationship any more between what the six stats are called in-game, and what those names mean in real life.

Anyway, nice to have another striker. Yep, people like strikers.

KillianHawkeye
2009-01-26, 08:52 AM
Wow, the new Sorcerer actually sounds pretty interesting! I'm glad the Sorc and the Wizard now have some significant thematic differences. (They were just too similar in 3.X due to sharing a single spell list.)

And whatever happened to the 'Elemental' power source? I thought the Sorcerer was going to be an Elemental class. Did they just drop it completely since it didn't make a lot of sense? Or is it still coming, and they just decided to make the Sorcerer Arcane?

Burley
2009-01-26, 09:00 AM
Looks nice, except for the strength bit, which is just as silly as bards using con for attacks.

Let's face it, they probably thought "hey, Stat#1 is underused for PowerSource#3, so let's create some PowerSource#3 classes that need Stat#1 now!" There isn't much of a relationship any more between what the six stats are called in-game, and what those names mean in real life.

Anyway, nice to have another striker. Yep, people like strikers.

Well, it's strength to AC and damage is fine in my book. I just imagine a Juggernaut Sorcerer stomping his way forward, palming away any oncoming attacks, creating near-solid masses of energy, and pitching them at opponents. Still gonna be playing a controller, probably...

Core
2009-01-26, 09:02 AM
Sorcerer, who would have thought that.
Despite it will be another striker I'll surely give it a try. :smallsmile:

Kurald Galain
2009-01-26, 09:04 AM
And whatever happened to the 'Elemental' power source? I thought the Sorcerer was going to be an Elemental class. Did they just drop it completely since it didn't make a lot of sense?

The Elemental power source is still coming, and the Sorcerer was never intended to have the Elemental power source. Originally the Sorc was suggested to be an Arcane Controller.

And no, nobody has been able to adequately explain so far (to my best knowledge) how "elemental" can, in practice, be considered different from "primal" or "arcane". The few explanations I've seen so far merely rely on circular definitions.

Kurald Galain
2009-01-26, 09:07 AM
Juggernaut Sorcerer
That's a paradox,


palming away any oncoming attacks,
that's not strength,


creating near-solid masses of energy
that's a contradiction in terms,


and pitching them at opponents.
and that's not strength either. But yeah, these are typical of the kind of non-explanations given for mechanics recently, and probably more of an explanation than WOTC would be giving. But hey, it's just mechanics, it doesn't need to have a meaningful in-world equivalent.

Charity
2009-01-26, 09:36 AM
that's a contradiction in terms,
E=mc2...


But hey, it's just mechanics, it doesn't need to have a meaningful in-world equivalent.
Glad to see you're comming around Kur :smallwink:

I like Dragonborn, if poor long suffering Mennet dies I might ask to play one of these I quite like the luck element that they've thrown into this class.

Burley
2009-01-26, 10:31 AM
[General Dissecting] and that's not strength either. But yeah, these are typical of the kind of non-explanations given for mechanics recently, and probably more of an explanation than WOTC would be giving. But hey, it's just mechanics, it doesn't need to have a meaningful in-world equivalent.

Um... Yeah. That's WotC for you. Why should the Rogue get Charisma to AC? Some sort of Bluffing/Feinting ability? Or, why should the Rogue get Strength to Sneak Attack, even at range, and get Charisma to damage because they used Sly Flourish...from the shadows?

Tengu_temp
2009-01-26, 10:32 AM
I think charisma-based and strength-supplemented casting makes perfect sense.

http://image.comicvine.com/uploads/item/52000/51577/110927-armstrong_400.jpg
"These sorcerous techniques have been passed down the Armstrong family for generations!"

Llama231
2009-01-26, 10:38 AM
Is the Wizard STILL the only controller?

Burley
2009-01-26, 10:58 AM
The only printed controller, yes. But, the PH2 has the Druid (Primal Controller) and the Invoker (Divine Controller). So... Yeah.

Awesomologist
2009-01-26, 11:08 AM
Is the Wizard STILL the only controller?

The Invoker and Druid are controllers, which we'll have full access to in March.

I got a funny feeling come March there are going to be a lot of party reboots. I'm sure my game group isn't the only one.

Sorcerers look really nice. Nice enough that feel sorry for the Warlock. I don't think warlocks are "weaker", Warlock's Curse and Pact Boon still make them interesting and add some versatility, but some real nice upfront damage (you're not relying on curse damage), better at-wills (at least they seem so at the moment), and a better range (Wild, not so much for Dragon) Sorcerers appear to have gotten the jump on the lowly Warlock.

While I think comparing Wizards and Sorcerers is like comparing apples and oranges, comparing Warlocks and Sorcerers is more like tangerines and oranges. Tangerines might be a bit sweeter, but they have seeds and are smaller. Oranges are just bigger and more citrusy goodness, who cares about those few extra seeds... nom nom nom.
Okay I think I just got carried away with my example... My point is, yes there's a bit of power creep, but if you do the math it's not that much (Rangers and Rogues still seem to do more damage overall). I hope Arcane Power will level the playing field for Warlocks and Wizards.

Tyrmatt
2009-01-26, 11:10 AM
I haven't actually given the Warlock much thought in my salivations over the Cleric pages and the new Open Grave which has given me the zombie tools needed for the eventual transition of my friends into gamer nerds but I kinda assumed with all the curses and general mythology of the 'Lock, there would be a fair amount of controlling potential there...
Not to mention the bard also coming in the PHB2 (I think anyway) should be a controller as well.
Also pleased to see the return of the "Wild Mage" subtype. It was always more what I saw the sorcerer as, an individual who was just naturally sensitive to the ebb and flow of mystical energies around them and could pluck on them like harp strings.

Asbestos
2009-01-26, 11:52 AM
It does seem neat, but it's probably not something I'd want to bother with as a player. As of now (and that's without any feats, most of the powers, and other sorts of support), I like the Dragon Magic Sorcerer even though I've never like the "magic bloodline" reasoning behind Sorcerers. For a Dragonborn, though, it makes sense and is pretty cool, and I'm actually rolling up a Dragonborn Sorcerer now just as a sample character. I've got to go to bed soon though in case I get called into work in, oh, 4-5 hours, but I'll get around to finishing it tomorrow so folks can see some of the other powers and stuff "in action."

Suggestion: Arena fight between 3 PHB2 characters and 3 PHB characters. Wizard + Warlock + Defender vs Warden + Druid/Invoker + Sorc. Thoughts?

KnightDisciple
2009-01-26, 12:01 PM
I think charisma-based and strength-supplemented casting makes perfect sense.

http://image.comicvine.com/uploads/item/52000/51577/110927-armstrong_400.jpg
"These sorcerous techniques have been passed down the Armstrong family for generations!"

....That's AWESOME.
Now I want to see a whole party of 4e characters based on FMA...

Draz74
2009-01-26, 12:08 PM
Oh, something maybe worth noting... all of the spells that get an extra benefit from Dragon Magic are close blasts.

Ah, so the Dragonfire Adept is back. :smallsmile:

As far as Strength affecting arcane spells ... it doesn't seem very different from Strength being a possible attack stat for Dragonborn breath, to me, given this hint of a connection between Dragon Magic Sorcerers and breath weapons. So if the Str -> breath weapon thing bothered you too, sure. But otherwise, I don't think WotC is making things any more screwy than they already were.

Kurald Galain
2009-01-26, 12:18 PM
So if the Str -> breath weapon thing bothered you too, sure. But otherwise, I don't think WotC is making things any more screwy than they already were.
Oh, I agree that things were already screwy :smallbiggrin: There are quite a number of "attribute-to-whatever" options both in late 3E and in 4E that mean that an attribute is just a number on a piece of paper, that has no relation to what its name means. That's quite okay: it allows you to play an intelligent fighter (or conversely, a dumb wizard), since the attribute "intelligence" has no relation at all to the character's smarts or comprehension.


By the way, while Armstrong is an awesome character, you are aware that he's using magic to boost his strength, rather than vice versa, right?

Awesomologist
2009-01-26, 12:35 PM
Suggestion: Arena fight between 3 PHB2 characters and 3 PHB characters. Wizard + Warlock + Defender vs Warden + Druid/Invoker + Sorc. Thoughts?

1) PvP in 4e is all about luck, so just about any combination has a chance of winning. It all depends on initiative and your first round dice rolls.

2) Fighter is still the best defender in the game. Martial Power only made the class better.

3) Druid/Invoker/Wizard really aren't too different from each other. Closer examination of all three classes once PHB2 book is out will be needed.

BTW for all of you going gaga over a 6d6 Level 1 Daily, my dwarf fighter would like to add the words Reliable and Brutal and then laugh in your face.

1of3
2009-01-26, 12:37 PM
Strength for Dragon Magic is very agreeable, indeed. At least, Dragonborn and Draconic Sorcerey make for a fine combination. - Unlike Tieflings and the Infernal Pact.

Asbestos
2009-01-26, 01:02 PM
Oh, I agree that things were already screwy :smallbiggrin: There are quite a number of "attribute-to-whatever" options both in late 3E and in 4E that mean that an attribute is just a number on a piece of paper, that has no relation to what its name means. That's quite okay: it allows you to play an intelligent fighter (or conversely, a dumb wizard), since the attribute "intelligence" has no relation at all to the character's smarts or comprehension.


That seems like some backwards reasoning.
"It makes no sense that X stat works with Y, therefor X is meaningless in regards to Z even though it makes perfect sense for X to be determinate for Z"

Kurald Galain
2009-01-26, 01:16 PM
That seems like some backwards reasoning.
"It makes no sense that X stat works with Y, therefor X is meaningless in regards to Z even though it makes perfect sense for X to be determinate for Z"

Nope.

"Y and Z are unrelated"
"The rules clearly indicate that stat X works with Y"
"Therefore X doesn't relate to Z", per classical logic. And note that this is not contradicted by the rules anywhere.

KnightDisciple
2009-01-26, 01:25 PM
.....
By the way, while Armstrong is an awesome character, you are aware that he's using magic to boost his strength, rather than vice versa, right?

Hm. I dunno. I mean, his sister, who didn't use a drop of alchemy, showed similar levels of strength. I think it's both ways, rather than an either/or. But smashing rocks up and throwing them at people? Totally strength based casting.
...Oh, I just had a fun visual. The Strength Sorc conjures up handfulls of fire, ice, whatever, smashes them together, and tosses it at the enemy. The chromatic spells and such? They reach out, "rip" the elements from the nether, and continually mash the spell together. Albeit really fast, since it's a standard action. :smallamused:
Seriously, I'm liking this idea the more I play with it in my head.

Artanis
2009-01-26, 01:48 PM
Nope.

"Y and Z are unrelated"
"The rules clearly indicate that stat X works with Y"
"Therefore X doesn't relate to Z", per classical logic. And note that this is not contradicted by the rules anywhere.
OK, can you give a more concrete definition of "unrelated"? Because that becomes very, VERY important for a statement like that. I can think of several examples where your logic holds for some definitions of unrelated but does not hold for others.

Tengu_temp
2009-01-26, 01:57 PM
By the way, while Armstrong is an awesome character, you are aware that he's using magic to boost his strength, rather than vice versa, right?

That's not true. FMA alchemy (which isn't really magic) doesn't let you cast buffs. It can only transmute and destroy unliving matter - living in some very specific cases, but that's creating chimeras. Armstrong just is that strong.

KnightDisciple
2009-01-26, 02:09 PM
That's not true. FMA alchemy (which isn't really magic) doesn't let you cast buffs. It can only transmute and destroy unliving matter - living in some very specific cases, but that's creating chimeras. Armstrong just is that strong.

And his strength has, you guessed it, been passed down through the Armstrong line for generations!

Edea
2009-01-26, 02:11 PM
Not happy about this. Oh well, at least now I know for certain that I need to write my own version, and I no longer need to wait for the official one to come out. I really, REALLY hope we aren't stuck with these two build options. *Goes off to homebrew*.

RTGoodman
2009-01-26, 02:31 PM
I really, REALLY hope we aren't stuck with these two build options.

I'd be MORE than willing to be that there'll be more Sorcerer build options out there eventually. Probably at least one in Dragon Magazine, maybe one in a setting book, and almost DEFINITELY one (at least) in Arcane Power when it inevitably comes out. And that's not to mention 3rd-party material.


More specifically, why aren't you happy with? What did they not include that you think they should, or what DID they include that you think doesn't belong?

Asbestos
2009-01-26, 03:20 PM
Nope.

"Y and Z are unrelated"
"The rules clearly indicate that stat X works with Y"
"Therefore X doesn't relate to Z", per classical logic. And note that this is not contradicted by the rules anywhere.

So..
"Armor Class and Book Smarts are unrelated"
"The rules clearly indicate that Intelligence works with Armor Class"
"Therefor Intelligence and Book Smarts are unrelated"
...

Does your simplistic logic run into problems when the rules also indicate that stat X works with Z? In this case in the sense of certain Knowledge skills (arcana, religion, history). In the case of Str (which somehow makes spells hurt more), it directly effects carrying capacity and Athletics checks. Dex (also somehow making spells hurt more) is still firmly attached to Initiative and all Dex-based skills as well.

Yakk
2009-01-26, 03:26 PM
Neat.

The other 2 controllers will also be nice. I'm hoping that Arcane Power retrofits the Wizard with a controller feature -- as it stands, the Controller is the only role that lacks a pattern in the class features (and none of the Wizard features really screams out "controller feature").

Flickerdart
2009-01-26, 04:13 PM
So...the sorcerer beats up the laws of physics and takes their lunch money?

Kurald Galain
2009-01-26, 04:16 PM
So...the sorcerer beats up the laws of physics and takes their lunch money?

Just like every other class in the game? :smalltongue:

Flickerdart
2009-01-26, 04:35 PM
Just like every other class in the game? :smalltongue:
No, not metaphorically. Literally.

Draz74
2009-01-26, 04:43 PM
The laws of physics literally have lunch money? :smallconfused:

Why didn't my physics professors ever tell me this? Like, when I was hungry staying up late on campus doing Quantum homework?

KnightDisciple
2009-01-26, 04:44 PM
No, not metaphorically. Literally.

Well, some of that, and some of this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sa5rW_AJw-U&feature=related).

@above: Yes. In their pockets. Next to the cosmic string lint.

Mando Knight
2009-01-26, 05:22 PM
Why didn't my physics professors ever tell me this? Like, when I was hungry staying up late on campus doing Quantum homework?

Because he knew that if your didn't have exotic blood in your veins, you didn't stand a chance at beating physics up. :smalltongue:

MammonAzrael
2009-01-26, 06:08 PM
I'm not terribly surprised by this, but I do wish that WotC would focus less on the strikers. I look forward to seeing other bloodlines they put out. I like the fact that dragonborn are good at the Dragon Magic option (if only the same could be said of tiefling warlocks :smallsigh:). And I'm very happy Wild magic is back (my favorite character from 2ed was a Wild Mage). :smallbiggrin:

PHB2 is shaping up to be very interesting, and I look forward to reading through it.

Question for those of you with DDI: Do Sorcerers have a class feature that adds damage, as other strikers do? Or so they have some other feature that makes them stand up and say "I'm a striker!"?

Asbestos
2009-01-26, 06:53 PM
Question for those of you with DDI: Do Sorcerers have a class feature that adds damage, as other strikers do? Or so they have some other feature that makes them stand up and say "I'm a striker!"?

They do, but it's a passive feature rather than something they have to declare. They either add their dex or str modifiers to their spell damage in addition to their cha modifier. This increases to str/dex + 2 at paragon tier and str/dex + 4 in epic tier.


Oh, and while 1 daily has the "Wild Magic" bonus on it and another has the "Dragon Magic" bonus on it, the other two are de facto dailies for one or the other build. Chromatic Orb is a de facto Wild Magic power because of its flavor and Dex dependent effects and Dragonfang Bolt is Dragon Magic for obvious flavor reasons. This seems to occur for a number of other powers where even though they don't say "Wild Magic" or "Dragon Magic" anywhere in the power... those powers are built in such a way as to go "Hey! Look at me if you chose this class feature!". Which... strikes me as different because I don't think we've seen that for other classes, have we (I could be forgetting stuff)?

Mando Knight
2009-01-26, 07:06 PM
They do, but it's a passive feature rather than something they have to declare. They either add their dex or str modifiers to their spell damage in addition to their cha modifier. This increases to str/dex + 2 at paragon tier and str/dex + 4 in epic tier.

Is that to all spell damage rolls? :smalleek: (does not have DDI)
Lessee... if you're a Demigod Dragonborn Dragon Sorcerer, and you start with a 16 in STR... you end up with a 26 in STR for a +8, so the bonus damage = +12, vs a Ranger's 3d8 or 3d6 (3-24, avg 18.5, or 3-18 avg 10.5)... so they're a little weaker than Rangers with the Lethal Hunter feat on a single attack, and it's much weaker than Rogues with Backstabber... but with "secondary controller" status, they're probably going to sling around blast, burst, and area spells like crazy, right? That makes them even more dangerous.

MammonAzrael
2009-01-26, 07:14 PM
Hmm...I would assuming they wouldn't have the blast/burst effects a true controller would, but that extra damage could really add up quickly on the ones the (presumably) will get. i guess we can't really judge until we see the powers.

I hope they don't get any at-wills that let them out-perform Wizards as minion killers, though. That would be bad.

I'm wondering in Arcane Power and Divine Power (April and July respectively) will contain the PHB 2 classes...does anyone know anything on this? Personally, I would assume so, since otherwise both books would be rather smaller than Martial Power (and because we're getting Primal Power in October, so they can certainly get the books out quickly).

NecroRebel
2009-01-26, 07:22 PM
I could see the whole article briefly last night, though for some reason I can't now... :smallconfused:

I remember seeing a large number of Dragon-style close blasts, but most of the Wild-style attacks were simply ranged attacks. So, it seems that a Dragon sorceror could get more benefit from the +damage feature than Wild sorcerors could.

Still, it's usually impractical to get 16 in a secondary stat, even with races with +2 to both primary and secondary, if you need a tertiary as well. I strongly suspect that sorcerors of both types will need more than just the 2 attributes, if only for +damage feats

Inyssius Tor
2009-01-26, 07:24 PM
i guess we can't really judge until we see the powers.

We... have the powers.

One at-will is a Close Burst 3 (1d8+C, and the next guy that attacks you is autodamaged); another at-will has a 50% chance of inflicting a secondary (/tertiary/quaternary/quinary/..., if that one hits) attack on another target within 5 squares.

On the other hand, you only get the conditional autodamage and secondary attacks if you're Dragon or Chaos, respectively.

The encounter powers: one first-level is Close Blast 3; one third-level is Burst 1 within 10, one is "up to three enemies" (and gives you an autodamage aura of fire), and one is a Close Blast 3.

Asbestos
2009-01-26, 07:29 PM
Is that to all spell damage rolls? :smalleek: (does not have DDI)
Lessee... if you're a Demigod Dragonborn Dragon Sorcerer, and you start with a 16 in STR... you end up with a 26 in STR for a +8, so the bonus damage = +12, vs a Ranger's 3d8 or 3d6 (3-24, avg 18.5, or 3-18 avg 10.5)... so they're a little weaker than Rangers with the Lethal Hunter feat on a single attack, and it's much weaker than Rogues with Backstabber... but with "secondary controller" status, they're probably going to sling around blast, burst, and area spells like crazy, right? That makes them even more dangerous.

Yep, its to all damage rolls. But, it doesn't make them that dangerous since they are the definition of 'glass cannon', you've got crap for AC, crap for HP, and either your Fort or your Ref is going to suck depending on what feature you pick. Also, for those blasts, haven't seen a single one that said "targets enemies", so... dangerous to your party too potentially.


@Inyssius: That at-will is Close Blast 3 not burst, huge difference.
@Mammon: Divine and Arcane Power will include the PHB 2 classes.

MammonAzrael
2009-01-26, 07:30 PM
Well, I meant all the powers. :smalltongue:

But from what you're saying, the Sorcerer sounds like he'll be a pretty potent controller if he wants to be.

Asbestos
2009-01-26, 08:11 PM
Just thought of something...

Is a Sorcerer/Spell Scarred a particularly viable multiclass option? Note that it would actually give the Sorcerer arcane melee attacks (if they wanted them) and that since all the powers are 'arcane' the Sorcerer would still add their STR or DEX modifiers to the damage. In the case of the Melee powers you'd effectively be doing X damage + 2x Str/Dex modifier. If only there was a way to use a more damaging weapon than a dagger or staff as an implement... come on feats (or items!)


Edit: Totally possible to have 18 CHA and 18 STR/DEX at character creation. So, I have designed a Dragonborn Sorcerer/Spellscar with 18 Str, 12 Con, 12 Dex, 10 Int, 8 Wis, 18 Cha. Take nothing but close blast powers from the Sorc list and occasionally swap out for melee spellscar powers. Grab armor proficiencies like crazy (when CON allows, and then start grabbing shield proficiencies)... you are now an arcane melee striker. Another possibility is using a powerful 1-handed weapon in one hand (for the spellscar melee powers) and your dagger implement in the off-hand. Take the TWF feats for more damage/defense. Because of the lack of access to shields (low Str) the TWF option is probably best for Wild Magic Sorcerers. The two classes, Sorcerer and Spellscarred, also mesh very well in terms of fluff, especially so for the Wild Magic Sorcerers.

Kurald Galain
2009-01-27, 04:39 AM
Edit: Totally possible to have 18 CHA and 18 STR/DEX at character creation. So, I have designed a Dragonborn Sorcerer/Spellscar with 18 Str, 12 Con, 12 Dex, 10 Int, 8 Wis, 18 Cha. Take nothing but close blast powers from the Sorc list and occasionally swap out for melee spellscar powers. Grab armor proficiencies like crazy (when CON allows, and then start grabbing shield proficiencies)... you are now an arcane melee striker.
Sure, you're an arcane melee striker now, but at the cost of pretty much all your feats. It'd be easier to play a dwarven staff wizard (perhaps going for spiral tower), or an infernalock. Spellscarred nets you, at best, two melee powers.


I'm not too fond of the wild magic path as described in the article, but I do think the game needs one. I prefer my characters to be less unreliable than that.

Asbestos
2009-01-27, 01:53 PM
Sure, you're an arcane melee striker now, but at the cost of pretty much all your feats. It'd be easier to play a dwarven staff wizard (perhaps going for spiral tower), or an infernalock. Spellscarred nets you, at best, two melee powers.


I'm not too fond of the wild magic path as described in the article, but I do think the game needs one. I prefer my characters to be less unreliable than that.

Well, if you multiclass in it... but yeah, it is most definitely costly. Its a more theoretical build than a practical one A dwarven infernalock build is probably better for this, gets better armor too.

RTGoodman
2009-01-27, 03:12 PM
I've got a 3rd-level Dragonborn Dragon Magic Sorcerer (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheets/view.php?id=105009)built, and I have to say I like it quite a bit. He does respectable damage (1d8 + 8 fire or cold damage as an at-will power, with an effect on each), and in general there are quite a few powers that I wanted from the list that I couldn't. It might not be the most optimized Sorcerer build, but it's definitely a cool character idea (a Dragonborn worshiper of Tiamat who channels the powers of all the elements, just like the goddess herself).

Sebastian
2009-01-27, 03:42 PM
and that's not strength either. But yeah, these are typical of the kind of non-explanations given for mechanics recently, and probably more of an explanation than WOTC would be giving. But hey, it's just mechanics, it doesn't need to have a meaningful in-world equivalent.

It is 4e. It is meant to be balanced, not to make sense.

Asbestos
2009-01-27, 05:21 PM
It is 4e. It is meant to be balanced, not to make sense.

Unlike 3.x which was unbalanced and didn't make sense... Ba-zing!


^Rtg: Looks cool, I'm amazed you didn't go with Hurl Breath from that Dragon Article, adding in ranged bursts is always fun.

Sebastian
2009-01-27, 06:24 PM
Unlike 3.x which was unbalanced and didn't make sense... Ba-zing!



3.x at least tried to make sense (even if not too hard). It is painfully obvious that 4.0 don't give a damn about it. If you want sense must put it into the game yourself, which is not impossible but personally I think is not worth the (considerable) effort

IMHO, YMMV, etc, etc

LurkerInPlayground
2009-01-27, 06:35 PM
That's not true. FMA alchemy (which isn't really magic) doesn't let you cast buffs. It can only transmute and destroy unliving matter - living in some very specific cases, but that's creating chimeras. Armstrong just is that strong.
Yeah, it's not magic!

It's a rigorous art backed up by rigorously documented scientific research that just so happens to draw upon inexplicable supernatural forces . . .

Damn.

MammonAzrael
2009-01-27, 07:05 PM
Yeah, it's not magic!

It's a rigorous art backed up by rigorously documented scientific research that just so happens to draw upon inexplicable supernatural forces . . .

Damn.

It's not inexplicable, it just eats souls from our universe! Whooo!

Colmarr
2009-01-27, 07:57 PM
those powers are built in such a way as to go "Hey! Look at me if you chose this class feature!". Which... strikes me as different because I don't think we've seen that for other classes, have we (I could be forgetting stuff)?

Yep. Pretty much all of the warlock powers have this sort of fluff and/or mechanic prodding built into them.

It's one of the reasons I can't bring myself to play a Warlock. It just feels like you are forced to (1) ignore fluff and be completely mercenary when picking powers, (2) make up your own fluff ("yeah, that does exactly the same thing as Flames of Phlegethos but it was actually granted to me by an ancient entity in the stars"), or (3) pick your powers from an extremely limited selection each level.

Tengu_temp
2009-01-27, 09:22 PM
Yeah, it's not magic!

It's a rigorous art backed up by rigorously documented scientific research that just so happens to draw upon inexplicable supernatural forces . . .

Damn.

It's science. It would be magic in our setting, but in FMA's world it is not.

Also, manga alchemy is different from anime alchemy. It lacks the
using up souls from our world as fuelelement, for example, which I didn't like as I thought it was thrown in just to show that "alchemy is evil, omg!".

Asbestos
2009-01-27, 10:01 PM
It's one of the reasons I can't bring myself to play a Warlock. It just feels like you are forced to (1) ignore fluff and be completely mercenary when picking powers, (2) make up your own fluff ("yeah, that does exactly the same thing as Flames of Phlegethos but it was actually granted to me by an ancient entity in the stars"), or (3) pick your powers from an extremely limited selection each level.
That is true, forgot about that... has that been explained anywhere at all anywhere?

Inyssius Tor
2009-01-27, 10:03 PM
That is true, forgot about that... has that been explained anywhere at all anywhere?

What are you asking?

Asbestos
2009-01-27, 10:29 PM
I'm asking if its ever been explained how warlocks are getting powers that aren't specific to their pact. How is the Infernal Warlock yanking power from the Far Realms monstrosities of the Stars?

Knaight
2009-01-27, 10:33 PM
I figured it would be through a multi tiered system.
Bob the Warlock draws power from Kirveenirk, Demon Savant
Kirveenirk is granted power from Aghestial, an intelligent star.
Aghestial draws power from the black abyss of space.

Mando Knight
2009-01-27, 10:40 PM
I figured it would be through a multi tiered system.
Bob the Warlock draws power from Kirveenirk, Demon Savant
Kirveenirk is granted power from Aghestial, an intelligent star.
Aghestial draws power from the black abyss of space.

One problem: Infernal warlocks derive their powers from devils, not demons. :smalltongue:

They get the power because Orcus, Pazuzu, and Cthulhu decide to hijack the warlock's pact. :smalltongue:

NecroRebel
2009-01-27, 10:48 PM
I just assumed that the all powers are among the sorts of abilities that all pacts can grant, but each pact is simply better at doing some things. For instance, whatever things are responsible for empowering infernal, fey, and dark warlocks are entirely capable of imbuing the warlock with the power to attack an opponent with utter terror and leave their mind wracked in fear (Dreadful Word), but the eldritch monstrosities that grant star warlocks their strength have a much more effective means of delivery that causes the terror residue to be that much thicker.

So basically, you do have to do some reflavoring of some powers if you are from the "wrong" pact - the aforementioned Dreadful Word power might be a vision of Avernus for an Infernalock rather than a terrible utterance from beyond - but flavor is, as always, infinitely mutable.

Really, if you're not using the right kinds of weapon, other classes' powers need reflavoring too. Sly Flourish (Rogue at-will), for instance, has very odd flavor text if you're attacking from a range, and completely nonsensical flavor text if you're not attacking with a blade at all.

Borogove
2009-01-28, 05:00 AM
That is true, forgot about that... has that been explained anywhere at all anywhere?it's explained in the section on reading powers, where it mentions you can change the flavour text on powers as you like. So, feel free to refluff powers so they're part of your pact.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-01-28, 01:31 PM
It's science. It would be magic in our setting, but in FMA's world it is not.

Also, manga alchemy is different from anime alchemy. It lacks the
using up souls from our world as fuelelement, for example, which I didn't like as I thought it was thrown in just to show that "alchemy is evil, omg!".
Call it what you want, but it's still magic.

The fact that elements of its practice or art contains science is entirely irrelevant to the fact that it is still magic. D&D wizards are essentially "arcane scientists."

Alchemists of that setting hit up all the usual magician and wizard tropes. FMA has ritual circles of incantation, your Faustian bargains, texts riddled with madness, arcane secrets and so forth. And even then, I'm sure the manga is driving towards those same themes of inexplicable metaphysicality -- the supernatural if you would.

Come on, the kids even raise their mommy from the dead as an evil changeling. When that backfires, Ed makes a golem by welding his brother's personality and mind to a suit of armor.

Artanis
2009-01-28, 01:56 PM
Magic or not, it doesn't change how strong Armstrong is. It's explicitly mentioned that he uses his physical prowress as part of his attacks, making them so deadly that
it scares the hell out of a master alchemist who's even more powerful than Ed.

Asbestos
2009-01-28, 04:55 PM
So... the Wild Magic At-Will is worded a little wonky... looks to me that if you roll just right... you'll be smacking your allies with it. Took a snippet, bolded the important parts.

Wild Magic: If you rolled an even number for the primary attack roll, make a secondary attack.
Secondary Target: One creature within 5 squares of the target last hit by this power
Secondary Attack: Charisma vs. Will
Hit: 1d6 psychic damage. If you rolled an even number for the secondary attack roll, repeat the secondary attack. You can attack a creature only once with a single use of this power.


Say there are two enemies engaging the party. The Sorcerer smacks one with a Chaos Bolt and it hits, in addition, he rolled an 18. The Bolt bounces and he has it hit the other baddie, it hits again and he gets a 12 this time. Now, there are no more enemies within 5 squares and he can't re-attack the bad guys. Does this mean that the Sorcerer must choose a party member within 5 squares to be the target of the next attack?

MammonAzrael
2009-01-28, 05:39 PM
Does this mean that the Sorcerer must choose a party member within 5 squares to be the target of the next attack?

Congratulations, have have discovered the joy/frustration of Wild Magic. It's like Frenzied Berserker for mages! :smallbiggrin:

LurkerInPlayground
2009-01-28, 10:56 PM
Magic or not, it doesn't change how strong Armstrong is. It's explicitly mentioned that he uses his physical prowress as part of his attacks, making them so deadly that
it scares the hell out of a master alchemist who's even more powerful than Ed.
I don't ever remember caring one way or another how strong Armstrong is or isn't.

It should, however, be granted that Ed wasn't really all that scary as a combatant.

He's a prodigy alchemist who had, when it came down to it, no standardized method of attack. He just makes a sword and runs in, then plays the rest by ear. It's more like he was a super Kung-Fu master who just happened to be an alchemist on the side.

People stand agape in amazement that he can make swords and spears and whatnot with little effort, but then again, most sane people bring their weapons to start with.

Contrast this with people who casually throws fiery bursts around or can make people explode upon contact and it's a little hard to be impressed by Ed.

Artanis
2009-01-28, 11:14 PM
By powerful I meant more raw potential, not the wits to use it. His ability to transmute without a circle is shown to be incredibly impressive, even to seasoned alchemists, so I figured that that meant he had power, but not necessarily effectiveness.

Grommen
2009-01-28, 11:26 PM
Every time I read something about 4th ed. I just don't get it. I know I said I would never play 3ed, or for that matter fully convert to 2nd but damm man. I got half way down page one and realized that you were all bearly speaking D&D. We should ask Wizards to give 4th ed a new name. Sounds like a really good game (I think) but....Arcane Strikers? Sounds like something from a Saturday Morning Ninja Turtle vs. the Power Rangers cartoon or something.

It's like Metallica. That crap they play now ain't Metallica. Someone should ask them to change their name to anything else and give their name to someone still playing metal and is pissed off.

O well, proceed to poo poo me and my opinion :smallbiggrin:

By the way they should always have two or three classes of the same thing in a game. Keeps things less boring when you play new characters. Just a little tweek here and their to keep things interesting.

Burley
2009-01-29, 08:38 AM
It's still D&D. It's just not the same D&D that you know. Comparing the two is pointless, because it is like watching two different action cartoons. However, they're still Action Cartoons.
3.5 and 4e are different in many, many ways. But, 4e is still D&D.

Also, Metallica can play whatever kind of music they like. They're the ones doing it.

The Glyphstone
2009-01-29, 12:41 PM
They Changed It Now It Sucks? (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheyChangedItNowItSucks).

:smallcool::smallsmile::smallbiggrin:

In seriousness, you're not along in what you're saying - it becomes a lot easier to swallow if you treat it as a totally different game with the D&D brand name, instead of an "upgrade" to 3.X.