How are sorcs underpowered?

570 posts / 0 new
Last post
Hey guys,
I've read a few threads here that suggest Sorcs are an underpowered class after heroic tier. Personally i don't see it. In our epic campagin i play a level 22 storm Sorc with Lightning Fury and Demigod. I fly around the battlefield doing huge damage with aoes and single target attacks.
My crit dice are maximized and i consistently do over a hundred total damage/per round even without a crit...
My other party-mates are a defender swordmage, rogue, and cleric...

Am i missing something?
Am i missing something?

You're missing a mindset in which "underpowered" doesn't mean "lacking enough power to do what you need to do" but instead means "does at least 1 point of damage less than another build".

Forget about it and enjoy your character!
...and that's the news from Lake 4th Edition, where the Gnomes are strong, the Half-Orcs are good-looking, and all the PCs are above average.
Am i missing something?

You're missing a mindset in which "underpowered" doesn't mean "lacking enough power to do what you need to do" but instead means "does at least 1 point of damage less than another build".

Forget about it and enjoy your character!

qft
I love the sorcerer as a class, but their PP's are pretty bleh. That's my only issue with the, since Daggermaster is no longer a valid option.
Am i missing something?

You're missing a mindset in which "underpowered" doesn't mean "lacking enough power to do what you need to do" but instead means "does at least 1 point of damage less than another build".

Forget about it and enjoy your character!

qft



Ah. got it! Personally i care about RP but of course i enjoy being effective as well...

As for the PPs...whats wrong with Lightning Fury? Seems perfect for storm magic. How do people live without unstoppable lightning??
I dunno, I always though sorcs got kinda hosed in the AC department.  Its no good having high damage potential if you're dead.
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool.
Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
The big problem-in my mind-is that strength sorcerers are really powerful while dex sorcerers, while nifty, are relatively crap. I mean, Adamantine Echo 1/day + Platinum Scales 1/day, at epic you're basically going from "Easy to hit" to "Next to impossible to hit" in two out of X encounters per day, and don't get me started on just how ridiculous Ancient Soul is if you know what the (expletive deleted) you're doing.

Sorcs and Monks aren't underpowered-it's just that Rangers and Rogues are overpowered.
Alexandra hit this one on the nose, as demonstrated by Samrin.  If you read these forums too much (especially the Char Op), you might start thinking that all D&D players think that way.  Don't be fooled.  According to the Optimizers, the only PP worth taking for the Sorcerer was (and still is) Daggermaster (a Rogue PP).  Now that you can't benefit from the extra crit range (the only reason they took it), suddenly Sorcerers are "underpowered".

I have found the same thing as you.  My friends and I played a short adventure at level 15, and the Sorcerer was fantastic in terms of damage.  Sure the AC is low, but I found it didn't really matter.  Unless your DM is a jerk and specifically has all the monsters target you just because he knows you have a low AC, you won't die more than other characters. 
As for the PPs...whats wrong with Lightning Fury? Seems perfect for storm magic. How do people live without unstoppable lightning??



That's great ... for Storm Sorcs.  What do the rest of us take?
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
I think they're underpowered in the same way other static-damage classes are underpowered. They just can't compete with the weapon classes that can take a single feat and gain a +1 or +2 per [W] to damage. 

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

Actually, my Storm Sorc has a serious problem getting the attacks to hit. Very poor accuracy, despite extraordinary resource investments for the attack bonus. Being non-martial and non-melee, the Sorc build just doesnt have the same resources that other classes do. Its quite frustrating.

The problem gets worse while leveling, as the advantage of the frontloading starts to pale.

Not to mention, at Paragon, my Storm Sorc doesnt have a single power with the lightning damage type because they are strictly inferior to the other powers, like radiant. And most the storm flavor powers target Fort! Cmon. Accuracy is already a serious issue.

The poor accuracy bothers me. I could live with the subpar damage - if - the character could at least hit more reliably what he is aiming at.
I think they're underpowered in the same way other static-damage classes are underpowered. They just can't compete with the weapon classes that can take a single feat and gain a +1 or +2 per [W] to damage. 



What Jester said here. They just dont compare to the nearly a dozen d10's or d12's that Rogues, Barbs or Avengers can throw around at mid-paragon.
On top of that, they are on the losing side of the comparison to the "Everything you can do, I can do better" Wizard.
Sorcerer doing d4's? Wizard does d6's.
Sorcerer at range 10? Wizard hits at 20.
Sorc doing Area Burst 1? Wizards got Burst 2, and friendly!
And thats just after PHB2 and AP....since then there are countless examples of Wizards getting the support that should have gone to Sorcerers, and Sorcerers getting 1[W] MELEE DAGGER ATTACKS!
It seems AoE damage is a little under-valued on these boards.

Sure, there's some issues with the sorcerer: they need for 2 high stats and have no amazing paragon paths, but I've still seen Sorcerers devestate encounters.
Sorcerers are not terrible, but they have a couple of problems: no great paragon paths and only a couple of good ones.  Not much support in general.  You can build a wizard that is very competetive with them for multitarget damage while having better control and paragon paths.  They fall behind most other optimzed strikers for damage in paragon, especially single target damage. 

They are fine if you are not obsessed with dpr and I want to actually play one at some point because they look fun.  They do not have nearly as much problem doing their job as say an ensnaring swordmage or pre essentials assassin and its not like they will be a drag on a typical party.  One or two good dragon articles could bring the class to where it should be.
Hey guys,
I've read a few threads here that suggest Sorcs are an underpowered class after heroic tier. Personally i don't see it. In our epic campagin i play a level 22 storm Sorc with Lightning Fury and Demigod. I fly around the battlefield doing huge damage with aoes and single target attacks.
My crit dice are maximized and i consistently do over a hundred total damage/per round even without a crit...
My other party-mates are a defender swordmage, rogue, and cleric...

Am i missing something?



You may be confusing underpowered with unplayable, or weak.

All the classes are playable and can do there role good.  Some need some help and in this case the sorcerer needs some help.  Is it unplayable. No.  Can it still deal it some good damage. Yes.  When compared to other strikers his damage output maybe a little behind.
It's just that monks and wizards do what they do better, and have added control features and much better defenses (at least in the case of the monk).

But seriously, the difference is pretty negligible and really just boils down to the fact that WotC has been neglecting sorcerers, especially in way of paragon paths.
Currently Playing: lvl 6 Pixie Skald in Home Campaign lvl 2 Human Bard in Forgotten Realms ---
The "can't compete"/"not competitive" line of thinking always makes me wonder if I'm one of a small minority of people who plays D&D as a cooperative adventuring game rather than a vicious cut-throat tournament one. Or are we afraid that if we show up with a Sorcerer, our Striker role will be outsourced to an overseas player who's willing to optimize and pick up one of those classes that can throw another die of damage on?

Compete, shmompete. If they introduced a new class tomorrow called The Betterer (Cosmic Defenstriktrollder) that was just slightly better at everything than the current best class, the argument for or against playing Sorcerer would still be the same: do you want to play a Sorcerer?

Yes, I'd like to see more options for the Sorcerer (and the Shadow Assassin, even moreso!), but I don't think the language of "These classes aren't competitive." is going to be seen as a compelling argument... Wizards of the Coast considered all the classes to be viable out of the box or they wouldn't have published them.
...and that's the news from Lake 4th Edition, where the Gnomes are strong, the Half-Orcs are good-looking, and all the PCs are above average.
Well, stop if you think its underpowered, do something about it.

Since most people seem to think the underpoweredness comes at paragon level and comes from a lack of "strikeryness" in there PP features, how about a now paragon level feat?

Improved spell power:

Add X to the damage bonus from your spell power class feature.  At level 21, add X+2 to the damage bonus from your spell power class feature.

Pick a value for X based on how underpowered you think the sorcerer is.

Your welcome.
Heavy Rocks
The "can't compete"/"not competitive" line of thinking always makes me wonder if I'm one of a small minority of people who plays D&D as a cooperative adventuring game rather than a vicious cut-throat tournament one. Or are we afraid that if we show up with a Sorcerer, our Striker role will be outsourced to an overseas player who's willing to optimize and pick up one of those classes that can throw another die of damage on?

Compete, shmompete. If they introduced a new class tomorrow called The Betterer (Cosmic Defenstriktrollder) that was just slightly better at everything than the current best class, the argument for or against playing Sorcerer would still be the same: do you want to play a Sorcerer?

Yes, I'd like to see more options for the Sorcerer (and the Shadow Assassin, even moreso!), but I don't think the language of "These classes aren't competitive." is going to be seen as a compelling argument... Wizards of the Coast considered all the classes to be viable out of the box or they wouldn't have published them.

There are two types of game balance. There's balancing options against one another (which is how Sorcs are underpowered) and there's balancing options around what derails the game. The latter are usually easy to spot-people say "Hey, the Wizard can autostun any enemy until the end of an encounter" and then everyone's like "Well that defeats the purpose." The former is where people complain, because everyone wants good options, but by virtue of the fact that there are good options, there are also bad options.

It's okay if a power or two are bad. What becomes a problem is when major options-that is, serious niches-are essentially bad options, because they just can't compete with the good options.

But that's also a bit misleading because in some of those cases, it's not that the "bad" options aren't good enough, so much that the Good options are too good-they're game breaking, but not everyone really agreed on it, so people just shrugged and said "Let it pass." But you get into these scenarios where the things we let pass arbitrarily raise the bar for "acceptable."

You can play a game of DnD with the striker as a storm sorcerer, and you can play a game of DnD with the striker as a ranger. But you'll have two different experiences doing so. That doesn't make one better or worse-but it's certainly true that the ranger can "contribute" more in terms of effectiveness than the sorcerer, and when everyone picks classes that don't contribute as much as the higher tier classes, you have just a completely different difficulty level. Which can be fun-I tend to prefer Sorcerers and Monks to Rangers, but it's important to pay attention to what you're missing.

Of course, Dragonborn Sorcerers are top tier. Ancient Soul is ridiculous.
 It pains me to see WOTC to come full circle like most of us adults and learn that it's easier to specialize a basic build than to create 50 subclasses. Oh well, it's still a satisfying game. 
 I play other games so my venture into first the warlock and now the sorcerer was just me working the obscure for a change.
The warlock is poorly designed in that half the available powers are useless for each build and further lessened by INT riders by pact. Yes, you can build a striker with effective offense hit-or-miss with rich meaty flavor as it were. You already lose prime stat alignment, so your build ends up very specific. I played a dwarf warlock, and the proximity with what I had to do versus other players was very frustrating. 
  I will not endorse the sorcerer over the warlock. I will say that blast effect offense is deceptively effective,and that I feel rather secure in mixed combat- even being overrun by the enemy. We all get hit all the time, so I don't worry about AC. The sorcerer gets some effective escape, move and damage spells that allow you to survive up front longer than your HP indicate. 
 I get to compare myself to a ranged ranger every week, and I think we compliment each other well. We require less healing support for our range and our jobs are clear: He unloads on the big boss and I support against the rest. If we need heroics I can pull it off since STR sorcerers have access to Fates Chaos making AP a money play. I don't have to choose my moments because as I climb up in level I also get to keep more balls in the air: By 19th I'll have Blackfire Serpent(minor sustain), Lightning Daggers(free action), and Avatars of Chaos. Thus, I can keep 3 attacks going if need be with little risk of being knocked out in conventional battle. 
 The ranger is just a better character for splitting skulls,no doubt,but I'm having fun. I just got a Bloodiron dagger and we have 2 Divine Oracles in party( hell, one is our wizard!) so I have no complaints. With my at-will burst I get to roll more dice than most. I urge dragon sorcerers to look at Demonskin Adept. Blind aint that bad considering what your opponent looks like. You can stack hard hitting attacks like no one else in AP with likelyhood of hits even higher than my Cosmic/Essence sorcerer. In real play world D&D Dragon Sorc/Demonskin Adept AP round Poisonous Exhalation/Thunder Breath is an offensive staple like no other. It's just sitting there...no scewy feat, hybrid, dragon mag, builds to fiddle with. Follow with Demon-soul Bolts mix and allow it to cool for 1 minute.Laughing            
Wow. This makes me curious to see what these "top tier" strikers look like in play because i have no trouble at all keeping up with our party's rogue. In a boss fight im running with three attacks a round. It is not uncommon for me to attack every single creature in play in a single turn. Mix that with Fury of the storm, and sorcerous flux and i have done hundreds of damage to single targets as well with crits! I must admit though that i have never tried a non-storm sorcerer.
How does lightning fury measure up? How many strikers don't have to deal with any resistance or immunity?
The former is where people complain, because everyone wants good options, but by virtue of the fact that there are good options, there are also bad options

Bollocks, and pictures of also-bollocks.

This is the same mindset which claims taking anything less than the highest bonus possible is the same as taking a "penalty". If you're playing a Sorcerer... or a "gimped" Shadow Assassin... you're exactly as good as yourself, which is the only rational basis for comparison since your performance isn't being ranked against the Earth-2 version of you that's a twin striking Ranger.

Outside of actually broken (in one direction or the other) things, there aren't good options and bad options. There are options that appeal to you and options that don't appeal to you. 
...and that's the news from Lake 4th Edition, where the Gnomes are strong, the Half-Orcs are good-looking, and all the PCs are above average.
Can someone explain why ancient soul is so ridiculous?  It gives you a little extra static damage on Dragon Breath, and lets you recharge it if some same-type damage actually makes it through your resistance, but AFAICT it doesn't make Dragon Breath much more likely to hit, and feat-starved as most characters are, there are better things, overall, to do with the feat, usually IMO.  I don't see the huge benefit.
Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.
The "can't compete"/"not competitive" line of thinking always makes me wonder if I'm one of a small minority of people who plays D&D as a cooperative adventuring game rather than a vicious cut-throat tournament one. Or are we afraid that if we show up with a Sorcerer, our Striker role will be outsourced to an overseas player who's willing to optimize and pick up one of those classes that can throw another die of damage on?

  On the contrary, when I've seen players with underperforming characters, their anxiety seemed not to be about being "1337" but rather about making a meaningful contribution to the party.  They have a job to do, and other people are relying on them to do it.  For many people, the pressure they may feel to perform is greater because the game is cooperative, not in spite of it.

Of course, there is real D&D and there is CharOp theorycraft.  They are not one and the same and almost anyone over at CO will readily tell you this.  They don't say RP feats like Liguist are useless, they say they are outside the scope of their considerations.  Optimization is a whole game in and of itself, and the majority of people commenting are hardly e-peen jerks or elitist snobs, they just enjoy finding ways connect feats, features, and the like to do crazy things.  I've heard at least one mention that they don't ever play their CO builds, choosing instead to play something more eclectic or fun.

I certainly enjoy reading CO and trying to make some optimized builds myself, but my last character was a wind-based Monk|Druid themed off Aang the Last Airbender (cartoon not the movie...) that was by necessity unoptimized.  He was a blast to play though, and that's all that really matters.

You just need to take what you read at CO with a grain of salt.  Their comments are valid, based on hard numbers, but certainly don't encompass all that makes up a good D&D character.
Sorcerers are not terrible, but they have a couple of problems: no great paragon paths and only a couple of good ones.  Not much support in general.  You can build a wizard that is very competetive with them for multitarget damage while having better control and paragon paths.  They fall behind most other optimzed strikers for damage in paragon, especially single target damage. 

They are fine if you are not obsessed with dpr and I want to actually play one at some point because they look fun.  They do not have nearly as much problem doing their job as say an ensnaring swordmage or pre essentials assassin and its not like they will be a drag on a typical party.  One or two good dragon articles could bring the class to where it should be.



Ensnaring swordmages have troubles?  How and where?
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
The "can't compete"/"not competitive" line of thinking always makes me wonder if I'm one of a small minority of people who plays D&D as a cooperative adventuring game rather than a vicious cut-throat tournament one. Or are we afraid that if we show up with a Sorcerer, our Striker role will be outsourced to an overseas player who's willing to optimize and pick up one of those classes that can throw another die of damage on?

  On the contrary, when I've seen players with underperforming characters, their anxiety seemed not to be about being "1337" but rather about making a meaningful contribution to the party.  They have a job to do, and other people are relying on them to do it.  For many people, the pressure they may feel to perform is greater because the game is cooperative, not in spite of it.


To expand upon this, I think it's valid to look at "spotlight"time.

Some of the major issues with 3.X revolved around a group of classed being completely undermined by another group of classes (casters vs non-casters), and within the strong group there were classes that "outperformed" others by virtue of better spell lists and features.  The Cleric and Druid come to mind.

Now, these "overpowered" classes were not only better in a "math-sense", doing more damage/killing/dealing with monsters (usually through save or die/suck spells and metamagic), but in "spotlight".  Even when the group was playing together, the casters overshadowed the non-casters, and the CoDzilla (and its ilk) was overshadowing everybody.

Flash to 4e...

While the situation has improved immensely, and the difference between "average" character and CharOp Monstrosities as dropped by an order of magnitude, there is still a marked difference in the classes.  The classes aren't 100% perfectly balanced, nor should we ever really expect them to be.

The Sorcerer, from a CharOp/higher numbers/most DPR is indeed lower than other strikers, I feel it's "underpowered" from a team perspective.  While the Sorcerer is a competent Striker, it doesn't feel like an effective one, regardless of what other strikers can do.

Just looking at the Sorcerer, in a vacuum, makes me feel that I'd have trouble "holding the spotlight" for an appreciable amount of time.  I feel like my fellow teammates would overshadow me.  Not as bad as the casters overshadowed the 3.X fighter, but I'd certainly feel lesser than them.

The fact that the Sorcerer doesn't hold a candle to other strikers is really irrelevant.  The real question is "Can you have fun and feel valid playing your Sorcerer?"  From my take, the flavor of the Sorcerer (which is pretty damn cool) doesn't outweigh the feeling of inadequecy from not being as "impactful" to party success as, for example, the Fighter, Bard, and Invoker who share the table with me.
Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging. Roll dice, not cars.
The "can't compete"/"not competitive" line of thinking always makes me wonder if I'm one of a small minority of people who plays D&D as a cooperative adventuring game rather than a vicious cut-throat tournament one. Or are we afraid that if we show up with a Sorcerer, our Striker role will be outsourced to an overseas player who's willing to optimize and pick up one of those classes that can throw another die of damage on?

  On the contrary, when I've seen players with underperforming characters, their anxiety seemed not to be about being "1337" but rather about making a meaningful contribution to the party.  They have a job to do, and other people are relying on them to do it.  For many people, the pressure they may feel to perform is greater because the game is cooperative, not in spite of it.


To expand upon this, I think it's valid to look at "spotlight"time.

Some of the major issues with 3.X revolved around a group of classed being completely undermined by another group of classes (casters vs non-casters), and within the strong group there were classes that "outperformed" others by virtue of better spell lists and features.  The Cleric and Druid come to mind.

Now, these "overpowered" classes were not only better in a "math-sense", doing more damage/killing/dealing with monsters (usually through save or die/suck spells and metamagic), but in "spotlight".  Even when the group was playing together, the casters overshadowed the non-casters, and the CoDzilla (and its ilk) was overshadowing everybody.

Flash to 4e...

While the situation has improved immensely, and the difference between "average" character and CharOp Monstrosities as dropped by an order of magnitude, there is still a marked difference in the classes.  The classes aren't 100% perfectly balanced, nor should we ever really expect them to be.

The Sorcerer, from a CharOp/higher numbers/most DPR is indeed lower than other strikers, I feel it's "underpowered" from a team perspective.  While the Sorcerer is a competent Striker, it doesn't feel like an effective one, regardless of what other strikers can do.

Just looking at the Sorcerer, in a vacuum, makes me feel that I'd have trouble "holding the spotlight" for an appreciable amount of time.  I feel like my fellow teammates would overshadow me.  Not as bad as the casters overshadowed the 3.X fighter, but I'd certainly feel lesser than them.

The fact that the Sorcerer doesn't hold a candle to other strikers is really irrelevant.  The real question is "Can you have fun and feel valid playing your Sorcerer?"  From my take, the flavor of the Sorcerer (which is pretty damn cool) doesn't outweigh the feeling of inadequecy from not being as "impactful" to party success as, for example, the Fighter, Bard, and Invoker who share the table with me.

I just want to say thank you.

If you weren't already on my friends list, you'd be getting a request right about now.

Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool.
Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
It's not the math that screws over the Sorcerer, it's the metagame. Their concept looks good on paper, but in practice, "multi-target striker" isn't a role that NEEDS filled. If you have a bunch of enemies, they're likely to be minions, in which case high damage is useless because any damage at all will work, and the exact places in the game where a good striker is really impactful and necessary (vs. Elites and Solos) are exactly the places where a Sorcerer's gimmick doesn't work. Perhaps if the multi-target striker had been divine, and therefore had more smart-targeted powers, it would have worked out because it could just cast onto its allies, but as is, it occupies a non-niche in the game. (To add insult to injury, a Wrathvoker can have equal or higher multi-target damage than a Sorcerer, via class features at heroic and radiant cheesiness later, and has less issues with nuking its allies as well.)

The standard Assassin has a similar problem, with its damage feature that looks awesome but doesn't work right in group combat --which is to say, all the combat situations you are likely to ever face in your adventuring career.

I very much agree that multi-target striking is not easy.

Sorcerers are very much depending on the adventures to throw multiple standard or tougher enemies at the party. Sorcerers also work a lot better in big parties for that reason, since the total amount of enemies is going to be higher. I would not play a sorcerer in a 3 PC party, maybe not even 4.

Still, at paragon levels, I don't see a big issue at the moment. I am playing a cosmic sorc and we have 5 PC's total. There is plenty of targets in most fights. The only real problem is tha burst 1 powers are pitifully small in paragon level environments where large monsters start to be the staple. There is some issues in being able to target more than one enemy, especially if the party is surrounded.

I try to solve it by using resounding thunder and picking my area spells to be thunder typed. I also admixtured thunder to my blazing starfall. So far it is working pretty well.
The sorcerers are fine.

Don't listen to optimizers.

Although "damage dealing" is a the striker's niche, its not the only thing. I played in a campaign where i did great damage and used many spells that kept me from taking damage or made me more undesirable to hit. Did I do as much "single target" damage as the Avenger? No. But I did good multi-target damage and he was the one that ended up unconscious in many combats and I would generally end up going unscathed.

Saying the sorcerer is underpowered because he doesn't hit these so-called "damage benchmarks" is ridiculous . In the OP's campaign, he seems to be raining damage and flying around and all that.... he is having fun and that is what is most important.

I swear, putting the "roles" onto the character classes really messes with people's heads. It is really a pet peeve when people say "the characters have a job to do...."  Blah blah blah. How about you play your character as you envisioned him? Not as a bunch of statistics. Don't define your character concept by labels.
The sorcerers are fine.

Don't listen to optimizers.

Although "damage dealing" is a the striker's niche, its not the only thing. I played in a campaign where i did great damage and used many spells that kept me from taking damage or made me more undesirable to hit. Did I do as much "single target" damage as the Avenger? No. But I did good multi-target damage and he was the one that ended up unconscious in many combats and I would generally end up going unscathed.

Saying the sorcerer is underpowered because he doesn't hit these so-called "damage benchmarks" is ridiculous . In the OP's campaign, he seems to be raining damage and flying around and all that.... he is having fun and that is what is most important.

I swear, putting the "roles" onto the character classes really messes with people's heads. It is really a pet peeve when people say "the characters have a job to do...."  Blah blah blah. How about you play your character as you envisioned him? Not as a bunch of statistics. Don't define your character concept by labels.



I love the concept of Roles, but the problem is that people have redefined the Striker as a single target damage dealer because most of the Striker classes are that kind of Striker.  Just because the majority does one thing does not mean that the definintion shifts to only that one thing.

"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
Monks are by and large a multi-target striker as well (their single target damage just is not very strong). But I don't know too many people who would consider them underpowered... hell, I've heard overpowered more than anything.
Currently Playing: lvl 6 Pixie Skald in Home Campaign lvl 2 Human Bard in Forgotten Realms ---
Can someone explain why ancient soul is so ridiculous?  It gives you a little extra static damage on Dragon Breath, and lets you recharge it if some same-type damage actually makes it through your resistance, but AFAICT it doesn't make Dragon Breath much more likely to hit, and feat-starved as most characters are, there are better things, overall, to do with the feat, usually IMO.  I don't see the huge benefit.

Eh, it's only a problem if you find one of the many ways to automatically recharge your breath weapon on a round per round basis. Dragon Breath is balanced (ha) as an encounter power. With feat support, you can have a minor action that leaves a damaging fire zone, that pushes (Draconic Arrogance for +Damage), and that dazes. Once you start using the fact that it's a damaging fire zone to recharge your breath (remember: as an arcane power, it bypasses your own resistance to fire), and you basically have a single character who's able to dominate an entire epic encounter.

But yeah-it's only seriously borked at epic. Though, I've had a hybrid Warlock/Sorcerer Ninefold whatever it's called (Dragon Breath counts as both Warlock/Sorcerer power!) use Gift of Avernus to recharge their breath. That one was way less efficient, but it was doable at paragon instead of at epic. Dealt nasty damage though.

This could be a compelling argument... except that the Sorcerer doesn't do anything other than deal damage. It's not a skill-junkie class. It's not a ritualist class. It's not a support class. It's an immolation-based class. And even if it did have an out-of-combat focus, that would still be no excuse for it being shoddy in-combat.



QFT.
If you want a well rounded SOR you have to MC with Bard, or better yet HYBRID with Bard.


If you are playing a Sorcerer, you are throwing lightning at people. If you're playing the class that's meant to throw lightning, and it can't throw lightning effectively, complaining that it doesn't do its job right isn't a sign that you're a bad roleplayer, it's simply a sign that you have some clue what you're doing.



Close. Its not that they cant throw lightning effectively, its that they cant throw at "people" effectively. When your schtick is multi-target striker and your powers are single target, small area and unfriendly you dont look effective.
Ironically, Paragon makes this worse with the overabundance of large/huge creatures crowding out your areas while making available the tools to improve the situtation with resounding thunder and AA. The problem there is that it takes feats to improve your powers where most classes just get better powers.


Again, it's not the damage math that's the problem here. The idea that you can balance a class that deals .6*X damage to Y targets against one that deals X damage to 1 target is theoretically sound. The problem isn't the number X, it's the number Y: if you have the the right conditions, the sorcerer's gimmick works, but that's a big IF. The sorcerer's gimmick isn't strategically flexible, and that is its primary failing as a class.



This is dead on. By paragon, Area Burst 1 is a single target attack and Range 10 is within charge distance. Most of what gave you an advantage in heroic tier is meaningless at paragon.


The Monk is a whole different ball game, for two primary reasons. Firstly, the Monk is by design a "fifth-man" striker/controller class, while the Sorcerer doesn't have a strong secondary role it can fall back on. Secondly, the Monk shapes any battlefield it's in, while the Sorcerer is neutered by inconvenient encounter designs, not to mention the enemy getting into melee with the party. (It's that second point that leads some people to whine about the Monk being overpowered, but those people have obviously never played with a competent full controller, so let's ignore them.)



Actually, the difference here is that starting at 1st level the monk can "make his own shot." He doesnt rely on the monsters moving or being moved into convenient burst patterns, he has the ability to do it himself or hit em where they are.

People whine about my Wizard/Psion not being party friendly-

-in that when a solo monster is wailing on three PCs a round because it has a power that lets it make three melee attacks against three different targets on its turn, and I move it the hell away for one round, the party whines despite that I basically just saved their butts.

If only people understood how to use initiative properly...
Just to make matters weirder, the flexibly targetable at-will power that Sorcerers so desperately need, and which a good number of their other spells should be based on, HAS been written.

It's Hand of Radiance, the power that lets you attack three enemies per turn as long as there are three enemies on the field to attack.

So, basically, to play a successful sorcerer-

-play an Invoker.

In all seriousness, a half-elven Storm Sorcerer could take Divine Bolts as their dilettante power (Adept Dilettante is necessary) and then take Power of Arcana so that it's an arcane power. SEE?! ITS NOT HARD AT ALL!
Eh, it's only a problem if you find one of the many ways to automatically recharge your breath weapon on a round per round basis. Dragon Breath is balanced (ha) as an encounter power. With feat support, you can have a minor action that leaves a damaging fire zone, that pushes (Draconic Arrogance for +Damage), and that dazes. Once you start using the fact that it's a damaging fire zone to recharge your breath (remember: as an arcane power, it bypasses your own resistance to fire), and you basically have a single character who's able to dominate an entire epic encounter.

But yeah-it's only seriously borked at epic. Though, I've had a hybrid Warlock/Sorcerer Ninefold whatever it's called (Dragon Breath counts as both Warlock/Sorcerer power!) use Gift of Avernus to recharge their breath. That one was way less efficient, but it was doable at paragon instead of at epic. Dealt nasty damage though.



Uh...No. Its truly nasty even in low Heroic. First off, you easily get three attacks/2 rounds from Minor-Breathe, Standard-self attack, Minor-Breathe, next turn Standard-self attack, Minor-Breathe. Add in Hurl Breath, Enlarge Breath, Bolstering Breath makes it friendly...some implements work with it. Arcane admix and resounding thunder. Area Burst 3 Ranged 10 Friendly Implement Sorcerous Power Bonuses Minor action attack, it gets really nasty, really quick.
Eh, it's only a problem if you find one of the many ways to automatically recharge your breath weapon on a round per round basis. Dragon Breath is balanced (ha) as an encounter power. With feat support, you can have a minor action that leaves a damaging fire zone, that pushes (Draconic Arrogance for +Damage), and that dazes. Once you start using the fact that it's a damaging fire zone to recharge your breath (remember: as an arcane power, it bypasses your own resistance to fire), and you basically have a single character who's able to dominate an entire epic encounter.

But yeah-it's only seriously borked at epic. Though, I've had a hybrid Warlock/Sorcerer Ninefold whatever it's called (Dragon Breath counts as both Warlock/Sorcerer power!) use Gift of Avernus to recharge their breath. That one was way less efficient, but it was doable at paragon instead of at epic. Dealt nasty damage though.



Uh...No. Its truly nasty even in low Heroic. First off, you easily get three attacks/2 rounds from Minor-Breathe, Standard-self attack, Minor-Breathe, next turn Standard-self attack, Minor-Breathe. Add in Hurl Breath, Enlarge Breath, Bolstering Breath makes it friendly...some implements work with it. Arcane admix and resounding thunder. Area Burst 3 Ranged 10 Friendly Implement Sorcerous Power Bonuses Minor action attack, it gets really nasty, really quick.

The problem is that, you can't use the Gift of Avernus trick I mentioned until paragon due to the paragon path requirements-Dragon Breath won't benefit from your striker features.. Sure there are other ways, but unless you have a party wizard cast Scorching Burst on you every round (Good idea!), you're bypassing your own fire resistance with most methods of attacking and that damage can stack up pretty quickly.
Just to make matters weirder, the flexibly targetable at-will power that Sorcerers so desperately need, and which a good number of their other spells should be based on, HAS been written.

It's Hand of Radiance, the power that lets you attack three enemies per turn as long as there are three enemies on the field to attack.

So, basically, to play a successful sorcerer-

-play an Invoker.

In all seriousness, a half-elven Storm Sorcerer could take Divine Bolts as their dilettante power (Adept Dilettante is necessary) and then take Power of Arcana so that it's an arcane power. SEE?! ITS NOT HARD AT ALL!



Yeah, HoR, Divine Bolts and/or Arc Lightning all fit the bill.
I love the concept of Roles, but the problem is that people have redefined the Striker as a single target damage dealer because most of the Striker classes are that kind of Striker.  Just because the majority does one thing does not mean that the definintion shifts to only that one thing.

The problem is that there's another role that is (vaguely) defined by having multi-target powers: the controller.  This is probably a role the sorcerer could fill better than striker, except that wizard already does it much more effectively. 

'Multi-target strikers' are basically the same thing as 'high damage controllers.'  The issue is that its generally easier to power up the damage of a wizard or invoker than a sorcerer.
I love the concept of Roles, but the problem is that people have redefined the Striker as a single target damage dealer because most of the Striker classes are that kind of Striker.  Just because the majority does one thing does not mean that the definintion shifts to only that one thing.

The problem is that there's another role that is (vaguely) defined by having multi-target powers: the controller.  This is probably a role the sorcerer could fill better than striker, except that wizard already does it much more effectively. 

'Multi-target strikers' are basically the same thing as 'high damage controllers.'  The issue is that its generally easier to power up the damage of a wizard or invoker than a sorcerer.

Partially by paragon multiclassing sorcerer!
The problem is that people have redefined the Striker as a single target damage dealer because most of the Striker classes are that kind of Striker.  Just because the majority does one thing does not mean that the definintion shifts to only that one thing.

Actually, that is the definition of a Striker.

The WotC designers, themselves, officially, define a Striker as ...

HFL 35: 'Strikers specialize in dealing high amounts of damage to a single target at a time. They have the most concentrated offense of any character in the game.'



The Striker role requires the class to deal extraordinary damage to a 'single target', and to 'concentrate' offense on a single target.

In this sense, the Sorcerer officially fails to fulflill their primary role.