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

[lesser_minion]

Originally Posted by navar100

Maybe some people actually like the idea of a dragon-blooded magic user who can turn into a dragon or otherwise have draconic qualities.

That is not unreasonable, but why the hell should that class be the sorcerer or even in core? Why can't I have a dragon-blooded fighter or a dragon-blooded rogue?

Look at how 3e did it. There were two 'dragon' base classes, neither of which was sorcerer. There were also feats that let you adapt several other classes to be more draconic.

The whole draconic bloodline thing is actually a complete and utter betrayal of the original concept. It's not 'iconic' in the slightest.

[Dienekes]

Honestly, I would be ok with bloodlines if they essentially acted like specializations. Undead born or whatever would be tied to necromancy, that way it could be easily refluffed if you prefer spellpoint systems over vancian as just being the new wizard. However I haven't gotten a chance to look at it yet to see how they're going about doing it.

[Zeful]

Originally Posted by Dienekes

Honestly, I would be ok with bloodlines if they essentially acted like specializations. Undead born or whatever would be tied to necromancy, that way it could be easily refluffed if you prefer spellpoint systems over vancian as just being the new wizard. However I haven't gotten a chance to look at it yet to see how they're going about doing it.

I'd rather the system be one that addresses differing manifestations of a sorcerer's power that could be easily be refluffed into bloodlines rather than what we currently get any time anyone and their dog tries to fix the sorcerer.

[Camelot]

Originally Posted by Knaight

3.5 did it first, with the Dragon Disciple prestige class. It was completely worthless on just about every account, but they did beat Pathfinder to it. That said - it's trite and cliche, and this whole "bloodline" thing is getting obnoxious.

D&D can't afford to leave out the iconic stuff. D&D itself is the iconic roleplaying game. If they decided that they're going to go in a whole new direction with the sorcerer, then everybody who likes the traditional sorcerer (which is probably most of the developers) will be upset and complain. They chose to go the route of sticking with a classic concept and having the other half of the fans complain instead.

To lesser_minion, the very fact that you have (hypothetically) chosen to play a fighter or a rogue means that you have very few, if any, magical powers. Thus, if you want your character to have draconic blood, it either has no mechanical effect and is just for the story, or you choose an appropriate background or specialty to give you some of that magic. If you want your entire character to be based on the fact that you have draconic blood, that's what the sorcerer is there for.

[noparlpf]

I'm currently all kinds of confused because I can't find a sorcerer in the playtest packet I downloaded.

[Dienekes]

Originally Posted by Zeful

I'd rather the system be one that addresses differing manifestations of a sorcerer's power that could be easily be refluffed into bloodlines rather than what we currently get any time anyone and their dog tries to fix the sorcerer.

Out of curiosity, what differing manifestations? And how would they be different if we called them bloodlines or not.

Originally Posted by noparlpf

I'm currently all kinds of confused because I can't find a sorcerer in the playtest packet I downloaded.

Sorc and Warlock were a late release, you can find them on the site if you look, I believe

[Camelot]

Originally Posted by noparlpf

I'm currently all kinds of confused because I can't find a sorcerer in the playtest packet I downloaded.

If you downloaded it before they added the two new classes, then you have to go back and download it again. Do the exact same thing you did before.

[noparlpf]

Originally Posted by Camelot

If you downloaded it before they added the two new classes, then you have to go back and download it again. Do the exact same thing you did before.

Oh, okay. Thanks.

Edit: I just said something, reread the thing I misread, and never mind that.

[Yora]

Originally Posted by noparlpf

I'm currently all kinds of confused because I can't find a sorcerer in the playtest packet I downloaded.

Download it again, it was added a few days later.

[Kurald Galain]

It strikes me that in the current layout, a bloodline should obviously be a background, not a class feature. Obviously members of another class could also have a dragon in their ancestry somewhere.

[Zombimode]

Originally Posted by Kurald Galain

It strikes me that in the current layout, a bloodline should obviously be a background, not a class feature. Obviously members of another class could also have a dragon in their ancestry somewhere.

I disagree. Backgrounds are currently social, while the Sorcerers Bloodline is a heritage. It does not make sense to me to have to choose between "Bounty Hunter" and "Dragonblooded".

[Stubbazubba]

Originally Posted by Zombimode

I disagree. Backgrounds are currently social, while the Sorcerers Bloodline is a heritage. It does not make sense to me to have to choose between "Bounty Hunter" and "Dragonblooded".

Nor does it make sense to have to choose between "Fighter" and "Dragonblooded." If its a heritage, it's a racial option, and should replace some or all of your Racial features.

[Zombimode]

Originally Posted by Stubbazubba

Nor does it make sense to have to choose between "Fighter" and "Dragonblooded."

I do not deny that. But two wrongs don't make a right.

Still, there is a difference between "having some dragonblood/feyblood/whatever-heritage" and "using this heritage to draw immense magical power at the expense of other abilities". The former is something I would like to see but is currently not implemented in 5e. It could be in the form of templates or feats. The later is the Sorcerer class.

[lesser_minion]

Originally Posted by Camelot

To lesser_minion, the very fact that you have (hypothetically) chosen to play a fighter or a rogue means that you have very few, if any, magical powers.

No, it doesn't, this is a fantasy game. This is the exact same illogic as complaining that it's a violation of the fighter's concept to use a bow.

Thus, if you want your character to have draconic blood, it either has no mechanical effect and is just for the story, or you choose an appropriate background or specialty to give you some of that magic.

Yet the sorcerer, a class that inherently has nothing to do with dragons besides a rumour that 3e explicitly called out as being probably untrue, is not subject to the same principles? Really?

If you want your entire character to be based on the fact that you have draconic blood, that's what the sorcerer is there for.

No, it very much isn't. In 3rd edition, that was what the dragonfire adept and the dragon shaman were there for. Again, in the case of the sorcerer, confirming any theory about the origin of their powers is a genuine, outright betrayal of their concept.

[Kurald Galain]

Originally Posted by Zombimode

I disagree. Backgrounds are currently social, while the Sorcerers Bloodline is a heritage. It does not make sense to me to have to choose between "Bounty Hunter" and "Dragonblooded".

That's a good point now, but I'm willing to bet that (just as in 4E) they'll eventually throw in lycanthrope backgrounds, and so forth. But perhaps "specialties" are better for this.

Note that this is similar to bloodline feats that already exist in 3E and 4E; specialties are just groupings of feats, after all.

[Stubbazubba]

@Zombimode: Yes, that was my point. It should not be competing with Backgrounds or Classes. It should be competing with Races, or more specifically it should be replacing some or all of your Racial Features, which would make sense and allow for the widest variety of interesting character options, without adding any new layers of power.

[Grac]

Originally Posted by lesser_minion

Again, in the case of the sorcerer, confirming any theory about the origin of their powers is a genuine, outright betrayal of their concept.

While I'm annoyed at how people assumed that the dragon rumour was correct in 3.5.... this isn't 3e or 3.5. I would be really happy if they just cleaned up and re-released the Rules Cyclopedia as the next edition, but they aren't. Also, the sorcerer isn't iconic to D&D, so it's not something that can be seriously betrayed. The Wizard, Fighter, Cleric, and Thief, they are iconic. The Paladin and Bard, and Ranger, and Druid, they are iconic. Something splashed into 3rd edition isn't and cannot be iconic. It cannot be betrayed in that sense because there's nothing to betray!

[Yora]

What makes 2nd edition more iconic than 3rd edition?

[Kerrin]

I was hoping the sorcerer would turn out to be the spell-point based arcane spellcaster (aka an arcane spellcaster using a psion-like point system).

This would make them mechanically different than the wizard in a nifty way. Also, such a mechanic would fluff well with the "you can cast spells ... just because" explanation. They could provide some fluff examples to give people some ideas on how they might want to expand the "just because" part if the players are so inclined to add such detail to their characters or campaign.

[obryn]

Originally Posted by Yora

What makes 2nd edition more iconic than 3rd edition?

Anything that's appeared in at least two editions is considered "iconic" at this point.

-O

[Kurald Galain]

I agree that the sorcerer isn't iconic, but not because it wasn't in second edition.

Rather, the sorcerer isn't iconic (1) because fiction in general does not distinguish between sorcerers and wizards, so there aren't any major fictional characters that can be archetypically thought of as "sorcerer but really not wizard"; and (2) because it hasn't had a consistent role so far along D&D editions.

In 3.0, the sorcerer is the same as the wizard, only spontaneous. In 4.0, the sorcerer is a blaster wizard, except that regular wizards can also be blasters, and drawing its power from dragons, storms, chaos, or the cosmos (just like wizards, really). In 4.4, the sorcerer instead is an elementalist, except that wizards also have elemental spells, as well as a pyromancer specialty.

The bottom line is that WOTC has failed, so far, to create a meaningful and consistent difference between sorcerers and wizards. And this is why they're not iconic.

[DrBurr]

Wait Dragonblood and Sorcerer were a rumor in 3rd and Dragonblood was one of the original Sorcerer builds in 4th. So technically doesn't that make a Dragon oriented Sorcerer build in 5th logical if we use the 2 edition iconic rule.

Keep in mind also people that this is 1 build for the sorcerer there will be others like how there are 2 Clerics (Sun & War), 4 Fighters (Duelist, Protector, Slayer, Sharpshooter) and 2 Rogues (Thief and Thug), Likely at least one of these Sorcerers will please, but for now they've shown us the most iconic

Personally I like the Dragonblood Sorcerer idea, I'm just worried it might be a bit OP but haven't actually tested it yet

[Yora]

Oh, it certainly is a good idea. But it's a refluffed version of the psychic warrior and doesn't resemble sorcerers at all.

Originally Posted by Kurald Galain

The bottom line is that WOTC has failed, so far, to create a meaningful and consistent difference between sorcerers and wizards. And this is why they're not iconic.

Like wizard, but non vancian. I think that is all that almost all of us sorcerer fans want.

[Kurald Galain]

Originally Posted by Yora

Oh, it certainly is a good idea. But it's a refluffed version of the psychic warrior and doesn't resemble sorcerers at all.

Like wizard, but non vancian. I think that is all that almost all of us sorcerer fans want.

It's what the 3E fans expect, but not what the 2E or 4E fans expect (or PF fans, who are assumedly also the target audience). Yes, 3E's difference between sorc and wiz is meaningful, but it's not consistent, in that this difference doesn't appear in other editions.

[noparlpf]

Originally Posted by lesser_minion

No, it doesn't, this is a fantasy game. This is the exact same illogic as complaining that it's a violation of the fighter's concept to use a bow.

But it is. Rangers use bows. Hence the name "range-r". They're not called Rangers because they range about the wilderness.
I'm not sure whether or not I'm being sarcastic. I'll get back to you. But I do know that WotC has not done well with bow-users in general thus far.

Originally Posted by Kurald Galain

I agree that the sorcerer isn't iconic, but not because it wasn't in second edition.

Rather, the sorcerer isn't iconic (1) because fiction in general does not distinguish between sorcerers and wizards, so there aren't any major fictional characters that can be archetypically thought of as "sorcerer but really not wizard"; and (2) because it hasn't had a consistent role so far along D&D editions.

In 3.0, the sorcerer is the same as the wizard, only spontaneous. In 4.0, the sorcerer is a blaster wizard, except that regular wizards can also be blasters, and drawing its power from dragons, storms, chaos, or the cosmos (just like wizards, really). In 4.4, the sorcerer instead is an elementalist, except that wizards also have elemental spells, as well as a pyromancer specialty.

The bottom line is that WOTC has failed, so far, to create a meaningful and consistent difference between sorcerers and wizards. And this is why they're not iconic.

I agree completely.

Originally Posted by Yora

Like wizard, but non vancian. I think that is all that almost all of us sorcerer fans want.

Yes yes. I don't like Vancian magic much, and the other easy option for RPG magic is mana points. Which 5e looks to be moving towards with the Sorcerer. Now there's just the question of whether they'll do it well.

[Water_Bear]

Originally Posted by noparlpf

But it is. Rangers use bows. Hence the name "range-r". They're not called Rangers because they range about the wilderness.

Uh... what?

Rangers are called rangers for the same reason Aragorn (the iconic ranger on whom D&D based the class) was called Strider. They are wardens and guardians of the wilderness, who, as you put it "range about" to defend their charges against threats out of the wilds.

With Sorcerers; Sorcerers are at least as iconic as Warlocks, if not more so. Warlocks were a minor class in 3.5 which was released fairly late, and was only a core base class in 4e. Whether that means they are or aren't iconic is up to you, but it doesn't mean that they shouldn't be represented.

At the same time, Sorcerers are fun. I love Sorcerers, I love the way they cast spells, I love the idea of bloodlines. I'm sure there are a lot of other people who agree with me. I don't see why, as long as WotC gives an option for people who don't like Bloodlines, they should be restricted for the rest of us.

[noparlpf]

Originally Posted by Water_Bear

Uh... what?

Rangers are called rangers for the same reason Aragorn (the iconic ranger on whom D&D based the class) was called Strider. They are wardens and guardians of the wilderness, who, as you put it "range about" to defend their charges against threats out of the wilds.

You're selectively quoting. You missed the bit where I wasn't sure how sarcastic I was being. I think I was being fairly sarcastic.
But the fact that their name has "range" in it has often led people to think they're bow-users and fighters have to be melee weapon-users.

[Yora]

Bruce Cordell created 3rd Edition psionics and after the difficulties of the 3.0 version, he revised it with the 3.5e version, which is by far the best magic system ever used in D&D. Not only does he know what works with spell points, he also knows what doesn't work and why it doesn't work, because he already did these mistakes.
And he's on the 5th Ed design team.

And the Dragon Sorcerer seems to be very close to the Psychic Warrior.

[Starbuck_II]

Originally Posted by Water_Bear

Uh... what?

Rangers are called rangers for the same reason Aragorn (the iconic ranger on whom D&D based the class) was called Strider. They are wardens and guardians of the wilderness, who, as you put it "range about" to defend their charges against threats out of the wilds.

What no. Aragorn the 1/2 elf (he had elves on his background, if your uncle was an elf, you are a 1/2 elf not a human) was a Paladin (remember he used lay on hands to heal Frodo).
Legolas the elf was the Ranger (bow type). And Gimli the dwarf was the Fighter.

[Stubbazubba]

Originally Posted by Starbuck_II

(he had elves on his background, if your uncle was an elf, you are a 1/2 elf not a human)

I could be wrong, but I don't think Aragorn had any Elven uncles. His father-in-law, and thus his wife, are both Elves, but Aragorn's Elvish ancestry goes way, way back to the first King of Numenor, Elros Tar-Minyatur, who is Elrond's brother, yes, but that means his great-great-great-great-great-great-great-throw-in-a-few-dozen-more-greats uncle is an elf, not an uncle. Elros became mortal, though, his progeny are all 100% human, regardless of what that super-great uncle Elrond is.