D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

[Camelot]

I made a character concept that works with the sorcerer as is, but doesn't mention anything about draconic heritage, and is fit into a completely different campaign world than vanilla D&D:

In the distant future, the number of demons swells exponentially, and eventually demons burst out into the mortal world. They brought ruin and chaos to the world, but worse were the people who joined them. With the right magic, you could be protected from the demons by making them think that you were one of them. You received magical powers with no need to study, no need to make deals with intelligent beings. The demons didn't care, as long as they had more beings helping them to destroy things.

One of these sorcerers was Karonis. The demonic powers that he obtained caused his body to enter a constant state of fluctuation. He can normally control it, but using his magic requires him to divert his attention to the spells, so the more magic he uses, the more his body transforms. His skin turns hard and crusty, his muscles bulge and swell, and fire barely harms him. Protrusions grow from him, and when they appear on his arms, he can use them as weapons. Karonis is slowly learning how to control this fluctuation.

When they make other sorcerous origins, it will be just as easy to fit them to different campaigns and character concepts. Most of them will probably have some effect on the sorcerer when he is out of spells, a mechanic that shows how sorcerers' magic is different from wizards' magic; it is something within you that you were born with, not something you had to learn, thus it has an effect on your body. Whether this is a heritage, a curse, or just because is up to the player and the DM of each particular campaign.

[1337 b4k4]

The sorcerer's fluff dictates only that you were born with strange powers.

Actually, it doesn't even say that. I really have to wonder if I'm reading the same playtest documents that everyone else is, because the Sorcerer class explicitly in the second paragraph calls out that the origin of the Sorcerer's power is completely variable. The only key defining part of fluff is that it is something the sorcerer must struggle to keep in check, and as they lose that struggle, the magic makes itself known on the sorcerer all the more.

Now, yes, the Sorcerer with the Draconic Heritage Origin does indeed have his powers by blood and from birth, but clearly in just reading the opening paragraphs, you could have a sorcerer who was but a poor scribe for a great druid who happened to be in the way when his master tried to take on a god, and was somehow fused with a lightning elemental. His hair sticks out in all directions as if he were just recently zapped, and as his will wears down over the time, you might catch glimpses of electrical discharge as he walks past.

Too me, the sorcerer fluff makes them about as generic as they can be without being just "Wizard with Spell Points Instead".

[TheOOB]

What does a ninja do that is different from a rogue?

In real life, a ninja was just an assassin with an unusually powerful air of mystique around them.

In fantasy, ninja usually have supernatural powers, quick movement, teleportation, invisibility. I would like to see a magical rogue sometime(I loved the beguiler, but I would have like a version that still focused on weapon attacks as their primary version of killing people).

How 'bout no. Yes, there was a line in reference to supernatural heritage, but unlike the rest of the body of that text, it was written as myth-making than a statement of fact (and yes, there is a difference). The sorcerer fluff in 3e did not officially support any specific factor for why he could cast, making it the player's job to come up with all that background, if he felt it necessary.

Or to put it in a way that people will understand, the fighter. What did his class' fluff endorse for archetype? Anything you wanted it to. What if all fighters were in 5e mechanically forced to be mercenaries? How do you think people would take it?

Actually, a fighters fluff implies the character is well trained and very experienced with weapon combat. They are not a thug with a sword, or some random militia men, those are warriors, they are fighters, which is something more.

Well the fluff for sorcerers in 3.x was clear their magic was inborn, likely a result of a supernatural bloodline, but in effect all they were mechanically was slightly different(and significantly worse) wizards. When you played a sorcerer, all you ended up with was a bad wizard. That's it. A 5e sorc will give you options as to where your powers come from, and abilities that help flavor and flesh out your characters, abilities which a wizard cannot replicate. It'll make the character unique from the wizard both in flavor and mechanically. And I reiterate, if you can't make an interesting character with a particular set of mechanics, that's your problem, not the games.

[Anderlith]

How 'bout no. Yes, there was a line in reference to supernatural heritage, but unlike the rest of the body of that text, it was written as myth-making than a statement of fact (and yes, there is a difference). The sorcerer fluff in 3e did not officially support any specific factor for why he could cast, making it the player's job to come up with all that background, if he felt it necessary.

Or to put it in a way that people will understand, the fighter. What did his class' fluff endorse for archetype? Anything you wanted it to. What if all fighters were in 5e mechanically forced to be mercenaries? How do you think people would take it?

There is the wonderful thing about fluff. Fluff is a wonderful thing.

Because it doesn't make a difference

If all fighters were mercenaries then I can just say "Nah, they are just people that kill stuff"

Personally I love the new sorcerer, I'd love to see what's next for them, but if I guy comes up to me wanting to play a sorcerer that doesn't like the fluff about bloodlines I'll tell them to either play a wizard/warlock or maybe play a distinctive bloodline that doesn't change them so much.

The fluff & mechanics that people need to focus on about the sorcerer isn't that they become melee combatants, it's that casting their spells gives them new abilities. The more they use their power the more they change.

A sorcerer is going to play drastically different from a wizard because a wizard knows that every spell will leave them weaker power-wise. While a sorcerer doesn't really get weaker power-wise... they just lose themselves to the magic, & that may not be a good thing.

If you look at the sorcerer as only a spontaneous wizard then just wait a little bit for the rules for them come out because I can promise you that they will.

[1337 b4k4]

I would like to see a magical rogue sometime(I loved the beguiler, but I would have like a version that still focused on weapon attacks as their primary version of killing people).

Rogue with the Charlatan background and Magic User specialty, maybe take ghost sound and get your DM to agree to a minor prestidigitation spell as your second minor spell.

Should work for most things no?

[Zeful]

{{Scrubbed}}

[AgentPaper]

{{Scrubbed}}

The point of my contention are that they are not the same thing. The fluff of the sorcerer dictates the source of their power, not their background. You can say it's the same thing as much as you like, but unless you have arguments to back that assertion up, it doesn't change the facts.

{{Scrubbed}}

Don't act like I'm not listening to you. It is in fact possible for people to disagree with you even after reading your arguments. If all fighters were forced to be mercenaries, that would indeed be a bad thing, to put it lightly. However, this is irrelevant, because sorcerers are not being forced into anything other than where their powers originally came from. This is true of all classes, even the fighter, who's power source is their personal skill and training in combat.

[Anderlith]

Now, move the the next damn line in my post. What if all fighters were in 5e mechanically forced to be mercenaries? As in, the class abilities made being a mercenary the only possible option.
A variant of the Oberoni Fallacy.

Strawman. That's NOT what I said. Try again.

Not subject to the Oberoni Fallacy. It is fluff not mechanics. You cannot "break" imagination or fiction.

Also not a strawman.

[Zeful]

{{Scrubbed}}

[Zeful]

Not subject to the Oberoni Fallacy. It is fluff not mechanics. You cannot "break" imagination or fiction.

Also not a strawman.

"Variant" look it up. Claiming that fluff doesn't matter because you can rewrite it is pretty much the same statement that mechanics don't matter because the DM can rewrite it. So if the latter is a fallacy, the former is as well.

And yes, because: "What if all fighters were in 5e mechanically forced to be mercenaries?" was the point, which you have failed to address. Still strawman.

[noparlpf]

Not subject to the Oberoni Fallacy. It is fluff not mechanics. You cannot "break" imagination or fiction.

Mechanics are supposed to work without you changing them. Fluff is a recommendation only. Thus the Oberoni Fallacy does not apply to fluff.

Also not a strawman.

It kind of was though. He said "if the mechanics said blah" and you said "then I could ignore the fluff".


There, now I've sided with both people in an argument. Word.

Edit:

I'm not acting like you're not listening. But conversly, expecting me to read your mind: pretty stupid.

Please don't let this devolve into flinging insults. We're all mature adults here.

And what am I supposed to do when people make arguments that barely address half my point? Just let them be?

Sometimes, yes. No point getting into a tizzy over something that you could just agree to disagree on.

And for a fighter: Where and when is just as important. So again: When was power source separate from background, like ever?

Examples of background:
1. Trained in the military
2. Trained with a master
3. Learned to fight by experience...
3.a. ...on the streets
3.b. ...in a war...
3.b.i. ...defending one's hometown
3.b.ii. ...after conscription
&c., I'm too lazy to come up with more than half a dozen examples
Examples of power source:
1. Strength and skill
2. Strength and skill

[AgentPaper]

And Power Source was not part of background... when exactly?

Part of background, sure. You can't make a fighter and then have their background be that they grew up secluded in an ancient monastery reading books all of his life. If you want to be a fighter, you need to have combat experience and/or combat training. This is part of your background. That doesn't mean it's your entire background.

Claiming that fluff doesn't matter because you can rewrite it is pretty much the same statement that mechanics don't matter because the DM can rewrite it. So if the latter is a fallacy, the former is as well.

It's similar, but not the same thing. Whether fluff is good or bad is 100% a matter of opinion. You can say you don't like the fluff, and that you'd rather see something else, but that doesn't make it wrong. It's valuable feedback, and if a large number of the audience also don't like the fluff, then WotC should probably change the fluff, but it's impossible to please everyone, and you have to accept that sometimes, you're not the one who's pleased.

Fortunately, fluff is very easy and painless to change to fit your whim, so even if you're in the minority who dislike something, you can modify it however you like.

The Oberoni Fallacy applies to the situation where someone says "It's bad, but it's not bad because you can fix it." For fluff, what we're saying is "We like it. You don't like it, but that's ok because you can change it." The first contradicts itself, the second does not. Thus, no fallacy.

And yes, because: "What if all fighters were in 5e mechanically forced to be mercenaries?" was the point, which you have failed to address. Still strawman.

I addressed that point, and also I don't think strawman means what you think it means. If I were treating you as a strawman, I would be arguing against some fictional person who hated 5E because it was new, rather than any stated reasons. You have stated reasons (even if I disagree with them), so you're not a strawman, and I haven't treated you as such.

[Zeful]

Part of background, sure. You can't make a fighter and then have their background be that they grew up secluded in an ancient monastery reading books all of his life. If you want to be a fighter, you need to have combat experience and/or combat training. This is part of your background. That doesn't mean it's your entire background.

Actually, I'm pretty sure I could. The "inappropriate talent for lifestyle, unlocked during adversity" isn't common, but it happens in fiction. It's still essentially the same power source though.

But my point (since I am apparently really bad at making these things as clear as they need to be) is that it is part of their background, and can be their entire background, and now it's being mechanically defined for... what reason exactly? 'Cause I can't think of a compelling reason that doesn't outright sit down and demand I play only one setting.

[Anderlith]

Zeful, I am sorry let me elaborate, you ask "What if fighters were mechanically enforced to be mercenaries?" Well think about it. Every adventurer is basically a mercenary. Some do good, some do bad, but in the end they adventure, & get loot.

Now I'm not saying that the adventurer has to keep the loot, just that they receive it.

That is why I would say "Nah they just kill stuff", because all adventurers are mercenaries whether they know it or not

[noparlpf]

Zeful, I am sorry let me elaborate, you ask "What if fighters were mechanically enforced to be mercenaries?" Well think about it. Every adventurer is basically a mercenary. Some do good, some do bad, but in the end they adventure, & get loot.

Now I'm not saying that the adventurer has to keep the loot, just that they receive it.

That is why I would say "Nah they just kill stuff", because all adventurers are mercenaries whether they know it or not

Ehh...but some adventurers adventure for the adventure of it, some adventure for various other reasons (my favourite character is a mage (specifically Sorcerer/Stormcaster for your meta-stuff) whose current main goal in life is to become powerful enough to bring his mother back to life because he blames himself for her death), and some adventure because a rich dude is paying them. Even if they're all meta-mercenaries, only the latter is an in-game mercenary.

[AgentPaper]

But my point (since I am apparently really bad at making these things as clear as they need to be) is that it is part of their background, and can be their entire background, and now it's being mechanically defined for... what reason exactly? 'Cause I can't think of a compelling reason that doesn't outright sit down and demand I play only one setting.

It's being defined because it allows the sorcerer to be distinct and interesting as a class, with actual class features.

And I still can't figure out what you're looking at that says the sorcerer has a defined background. They need to have had some event (either in their life or their parents) that granted them the powers that they have, just like a fighter needs to have had some event in their life that granted them their power.

What background can you imagine for a sorcerer, that doesn't work with the current version? And I don't mean "Can you imagine one", I mean, give me an actual example of a background you want to have, and why it doesn't work.

[navar100]

What does a ninja do that is different from a rogue?

Some players get a thrill saying "I'm playing a ninja!". The literal word "ninja" needs to be the name of the class to qualify as playing ninja.

[noparlpf]

What background can you imagine for a sorcerer, that doesn't work with the current version? And I don't mean "Can you imagine one", I mean, give me an actual example of a background you want to have, and why it doesn't work.

I wanna play a Sorcerer whose power comes from Fey ancestry. Obviously the one heritage they've outlined in the playtest is the only one they'll ever write.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Some players get a thrill saying "I'm playing a ninja!". The literal word "ninja" needs to be the name of the class to qualify as playing ninja.

You're being sarcastic, but this is a real thing. The thing about classes, especially in D&D, is they don't just define a character's abilities, but also carry all sorts of baggage that attaches itself to the character. They imply a lot about a character's background, motivation, and even mannerisms.

This is the fundamental reason behind the Rogue == Thief stereotype (and also the reason why WotC saw it fit to make Thieves Cant a class feature rather than a background trait).

Ehh...but some adventurers adventure for the adventure of it, some adventure for various other reasons (my favourite character is a mage (specifically Sorcerer/Stormcaster for your meta-stuff) whose current main goal in life is to become powerful enough to bring his mother back to life because he blames himself for her death), and some adventure because a rich dude is paying them. Even if they're all meta-mercenaries, only the latter is an in-game mercenary.

Wait, wait, who says all D&D characters have to be adventurers? Who says all D&D campaigns have to be about killing things and taking their stuff?

[noparlpf]

Wait, wait, who says all D&D characters have to be adventurers? Who says all D&D campaigns have to be about killing things and taking their stuff?

Yeah, exactly. I was just saying that even among adventurers there are all sorts.

[TheOOB]

Wait, wait, who says all D&D characters have to be adventurers? Who says all D&D campaigns have to be about killing things and taking their stuff?

To be fair, that's like saying all Shadowrun characters are not always shadowrunners. While it is true D&D can handle many different things, the assumed base line is that the characters are adventurers.

What if all fighters were in 5e mechanically forced to be mercenaries?

Are you trying to say all sorcerers are mercenaries? You really are not making a coherent point. Also naming logical fallacies does not win you a debate, you need to explain while their logical is faulty, and refute them. I can state logical fallacies to:

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, strawman, slippery slope, begging the question, gambler's fallacy.

You see how stating those didn't make my argument stronger.

And to make things interesting, here are 5 sorcerer concepts with the dragon bloodline who all would be different, both mechanically and in flavor.

1) Brodak, Dwarven defender of the Black Dragon Guard. He fights along side the warriors of his clan in pitched combat, channeling his dwarven rage and using his magic to enhance his abilities and protect himself.

2) Elrick, champion of Bahamut. Taking an oath at a young age to never use the powers of the dark red dragon to harm another, he uses his magic to inspire and enhance others, going into melee with his fellows when the need arises.

3) Nidear, warrior of the Blue Wind. Along with his fellows, Nidear uses the powers of the blue dragon to become the most feared bandits in the desert. Using spells to weave illusions and enchantments they lead their targets into ambushes and traps, overcoming them with superior force of arms.

4) Ragnar of the Northern Tribes. The lead warmage of his tribe, Ragnar rains fire and ice down upon his enemies from great range in battle, but unlike warmages before him, foes who engage him in melee thinking he is weak find him as skilled as any warrior in arms.

5) Tharlious Silver Eyes. Blind from birth, tharlious uses the gifts of the silver dragon to gain sight behind sight and is the best diviner in his village, and it more than capable of definding his village when the need arises, fighting with knowledge and forsight beyond that of his sighted kin.

Even in a fairly specific archtype, there is wiggle room. If you can't make an interesting character using a certain bloodline, that's your problem.

Edit: Changed the first fallacy because the forum doesn't like latin.

[Zeful]

Are you trying to say all sorcerers are mercenaries?

No. And part of me wonders if I should bother trying to explain what I meant to you.

You really are not making a coherent point. Also naming logical fallacies does not win you a debate, you need to explain while their logical is faulty, and refute them.

And I've said, I'VE BEEN INFRACTED FOR DOING SO BEFORE I don't have the luxury of actually explaining why WITHOUT GETTING BANNED. And stuff like that, doesn't help any.

[Knaight]

Even in a fairly specific archtype, there is wiggle room. If you can't make an interesting character using a certain bloodline, that's your problem.

The capacity to work with inferior tools doesn't justify sabotaging their design, and classes are tools for character representation. I can make a shed with a hand drill, screws, and a hand saw, that doesn't mean that taking an operable power drill, table saw and miter saw away is a good idea. It certainly doesn't mean that you can respond to complaints of taking those tools away with "If you can't do this with a hand drill and hand saw, that's your problem" and still look remotely credible. It doesn't work any better when discussing RPGs.

[TheOOB]

The capacity to work with inferior tools doesn't justify sabotaging their design, and classes are tools for character representation. I can make a shed with a hand drill, screws, and a hand saw, that doesn't mean that taking an operable power drill, table saw and miter saw away is a good idea. It certainly doesn't mean that you can respond to complaints of taking those tools away with "If you can't do this with a hand drill and hand saw, that's your problem" and still look remotely credible. It doesn't work any better when discussing RPGs.

To keep this analogy going. Some classes are like pliers or a crescent wrench. Universally useful and adaptable to many tasks. Some classes are a 5/8th inch E-torx screw driver. They are not as adaptable, but when that's the tool you want, it's the best tool for the job. Your metaphorical RPG toolbox has room for many tools, as long as the ones you want are in there, it's okay if some you don't like as much are there.

[lesser_minion]

To keep this analogy going. Some classes are like pliers or a crescent wrench. Universally useful and adaptable to many tasks.

This is absolutely fine, but then you run into the question of why it should be the the sorcerer who has to be the Phillips screwdriver as opposed to a flat-head one. And you have precisely nothing. There is nothing about the name and nothing about the original concept. If they want a new concept, they should present it as a genuinely new class.

There's nothing wrong with sorcerers being unique compared with wizards, but whether you're willing to admit it or not, there are a billion other ways to do that without going into uninspired drivel.

There's also nothing wrong with having an explicit hybrid class in core, but again, why use the sorcerer?

[Camelot]

The capacity to work with inferior tools doesn't justify sabotaging their design, and classes are tools for character representation. I can make a shed with a hand drill, screws, and a hand saw, that doesn't mean that taking an operable power drill, table saw and miter saw away is a good idea. It certainly doesn't mean that you can respond to complaints of taking those tools away with "If you can't do this with a hand drill and hand saw, that's your problem" and still look remotely credible. It doesn't work any better when discussing RPGs.

To keep this analogy going. Some classes are like pliers or a crescent wrench. Universally useful and adaptable to many tasks. Some classes are a 5/8th inch E-torx screw driver. They are not as adaptable, but when that's the tool you want, it's the best tool for the job. Your metaphorical RPG toolbox has room for many tools, as long as the ones you want are in there, it's okay if some you don't like as much are there.

Tools and roleplaying games are way too different for this analogy to work for either side of the discussion.

I think that rules do hinder players' creativity when creating characters, but it's also true that a creative player can find ways to make characters that the rules don't directly describe. Many times in 4e has a power been re-flavored to be very different from the italic text, but it still made sense. At the same time, I've had players come up with concepts that I just couldn't make work.

One example was a character who had the power to take the souls of creatures he killed and transform into them. So if he killed a white dragon, he'd gain the ability to transform into a white dragon. He also wanted the character to fight with his fists like a monk. At the time, I could think of nothing beyond creating a new class, after fiddling with the druid and coming to a dead end.

Spoiler

Show

Looking back, I would use monk stats, but when he absorbed a soul, he would get an appropriate daily power from a class that made sense (the white dragon would give him a cold damage wizard power, a powerful orc would give him a fighter power, etc.). Using the daily power would include "transforming," but it would be only for the duration of the power.

[1337 b4k4]

So can someone explain exactly how the playtest sorcerer is "limited" or "uninspired" compared to the other classes? Note, I'm not asking how the particular Draconic Heritage Origin Sorcerer is limited, I'm talking about the sorcerer class in general, because I'm just not seeing it. As was asked earlier up thread, what sorcerer concept do you have in mind that you can not reasonably see created with what we've been presented?

[Camelot]

Coming from 4th edition, the sorcerer seems to have reached a logical point in its development. In 4e, you chose a "Spell Source," which the flavor text said was "an instinctive or inborn connection to an ancient arcane source." This sounds like it could just as well describe the "Sorcerous Origin" feature. For your spell source, you could choose Dragon Magic, Wild Magic, Storm Magic, or Cosmic Magic (there might have been others in Dragon Magazine, I don't know). They would even give you certain powers such as dragon scales when you were bloodied or more power when you rolled a critical hit. The new sorcerer simply gives you those powers when you run out of spells.

The only reason that Draconic Heritage "requires" you to have dragon ancestors is because of the word Heritage in the title. If it had said Dragon Magic, it could mean anything to do with dragons, not just ancestry. Of course, it still can, if you're willing to look past the title. Other Sorcerous Origins could be from curses that were put on you, or from when you stumbled into a magical cave that infused you with power. There's nothing inherently limited about it except for the fact that they so far only have one Origin because it's just the first playtest in which there has been a sorcerer.

[Leeham]

Coming from 4th edition, the sorcerer seems to have reached a logical point in its development. In 4e, you chose a "Spell Source," which the flavor text said was "an instinctive or inborn connection to an ancient arcane source." This sounds like it could just as well describe the "Sorcerous Origin" feature. For your spell source, you could choose Dragon Magic, Wild Magic, Storm Magic, or Cosmic Magic (there might have been others in Dragon Magazine, I don't know). They would even give you certain powers such as dragon scales when you were bloodied or more power when you rolled a critical hit. The new sorcerer simply gives you those powers when you run out of spells.

The only reason that Draconic Heritage "requires" you to have dragon ancestors is because of the word Heritage in the title. If it had said Dragon Magic, it could mean anything to do with dragons, not just ancestry. Of course, it still can, if you're willing to look past the title. Other Sorcerous Origins could be from curses that were put on you, or from when you stumbled into a magical cave that infused you with power. There's nothing inherently limited about it except for the fact that they so far only have one Origin because it's just the first playtest in which there has been a sorcerer.

Kindly give this man a round of applause By Jove, I think he's got it.

[noparlpf]

Coming from 4th edition, the sorcerer seems to have reached a logical point in its development. In 4e, you chose a "Spell Source," which the flavor text said was "an instinctive or inborn connection to an ancient arcane source." This sounds like it could just as well describe the "Sorcerous Origin" feature. For your spell source, you could choose Dragon Magic, Wild Magic, Storm Magic, or Cosmic Magic (there might have been others in Dragon Magazine, I don't know). They would even give you certain powers such as dragon scales when you were bloodied or more power when you rolled a critical hit. The new sorcerer simply gives you those powers when you run out of spells.

The only reason that Draconic Heritage "requires" you to have dragon ancestors is because of the word Heritage in the title. If it had said Dragon Magic, it could mean anything to do with dragons, not just ancestry. Of course, it still can, if you're willing to look past the title. Other Sorcerous Origins could be from curses that were put on you, or from when you stumbled into a magical cave that infused you with power. There's nothing inherently limited about it except for the fact that they so far only have one Origin because it's just the first playtest in which there has been a sorcerer.

Seriously, they could just change it to "Magic" or "Origin" or something.

But, what if I want to play a mana points caster without having the added "has some weird power source that manifests itself through physical changes to the body"?