A new look at wizards and sorcerers

87 posts / 0 new
Last post

           I believe in order to make magic in Dungeons & Dragons work, there are three fundamental questions that need to be answered. What is magic, how is it used, and what makes the sorcerer different from the wizard?


            Magic is a mysterious and powerful force in the D&D game. The gods wield it, the mortals seek to master it, and it is a natural part of the D&D multi-verse. If wielded carelessly, magic can destroy the world.


            Some mortals have the ability to tap into this arcane energy. The men and women who show this ability often attend a wizard college, shaman, or wise-man. They learn from their master how to manipulate this energy as safely as possible. These people become wizards.


            In the game, the mechanics boil down to a fairly simple rule: wizards can cast X spells per level per day. Currently, wizards have to study their spellbooks each morning and prepare spells. These spells are memorized until cast. Once cast, the formula is wiped from their memory until that spell is prepared again.


            I propose re-imagining the wizard to reflect what is more current in fantasy culture. The mechanics do not change much. The wizard still studies his or her spellbook every morning, not to prepare spells, but because the wizard is a student of magic. He or she can still only cast X spells per level per day, because that is all he or she can wield safely at any given level. Spell slots still work and meta-magic effects can still be applied by expending higher level slots. Because the wizard is a student of magic, he or she still gains new spells every level, can perform rituals, make scrolls, and enchant items.


            The sorcerer has the same ability to tap into arcane magic, but they do it naturally without tutelage; a direct result of draconic blood. This creates a powerful and dangerous magic-user. Sorcerers use flashy big bang spells more often than the wizard. In essence, the sorcerer is the evoker. They may not be restricted by armor, they use weapons, they provoke fewer opportunity attacks when casting, and they are tougher than wizards. Wielding this power without training has two effects: sorcerers are susceptible to backlash (an attack roll of less than 10 on the d20 results in every adjacent creature taking spell damage equal to the spell’s level) and on critical hits, sorcerer’s do not expend that spell slot.
            
             I would love feedback. Any questions? Did I miss anything?


 

To me, "type of mage" is separate from casting mechanics. A Wizard is a scholarly-type of wizard, who keeps tomes and scrolls and studies magic. A Sorcerer is an "intuitive" mage who imagines an effect, and puts innate power into making it happen. A Warlock is given power through a pact with an otherworldly entity.

The mage can prepare spells ahead of time (Vancian), cast on the fly (knows spells so well he can just cast them on the moment) or categorises his spells by power level (AEDU). I would leave it up to the player to decide what mechanics work for his mage best. I've seen a Wizard use spell points and a Sorcerer use pre-prepared (Vancian). Add in ritual casting, and you have a very, very flexible method of creating just about any mage one can think up.

In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.

5e should strongly stay away from "I don't like it, so you can't have it either."

Spell mechanics that are heavy on the risk/reward have gone the way of the dodo.  We won't see anything like "backlash" in the core.  Maybe in a module.

Also, a roll of less than 10 is a pretty sizable risk (45%).  And if I'm interpretting your wording right, the risk isn't even to the sorcerer but the sorcerer's allies (or enemies), so the sorcerer has nothing to lose from backlash, except for a lot of friends.

"I want 'punch magic in the face' to be a maneuver." -- wrecan

Spell mechanics that are heavy on the risk/reward have gone the way of the dodo.  We won't see anything like "backlash" in the core.  Maybe in a module.

Also, a roll of less than 10 is a pretty sizable risk (45%).  And if I'm interpretting your wording right, the risk isn't even to the sorcerer but the sorcerer's allies (or enemies), so the sorcerer has nothing to lose from backlash, except for a lot of friends.

Right.The threat would be to allies and enemies. The idea is that the sorcerer isn't worried about wading into combat like the wizard is. Then backlash becomes an asset. I wanted to create a feature that has a direct effect in game that embodied the wild nature of a sorcerer.

In 4e, the sorcerer got complicated with odd or even rolls and such. A simple high/ low rule seemed effective. 
I've always envisioned a sorceror as using innate magic but not neccessarily from draconic blood or even just using flashy big boom spells either. Because most of what I'm familiar with is Charmed I always compare what I think to it. In the series, The Charmed ones had innate abilities but they must be practiced, they had to study, and learn how to control their powers. They had guides and were constantly learning about their abilities and the moral problems associated with them. I don't believe that a sorceror needs to be restricted to just being some type of less studious type who has no training whatsoever. I think personally that kind of thing should be decided by the player. I think the fluff like that needs to be seperate from the mechanics. I do agree that there needs to be some difference such as their abilities come from their blood. A sorceror could be someone who was never taught and just discovered their powers. A sorceror could also be one born into a magical dynasty whose magic was encouraged from childhood. A sorceror could also be one born into a magical family whose powers might have been bound at a young age until their grandmother died which has broken the bound leaving her and her sisters to figure out where to go from there. I'm sure many more could be came up with.... but you get the point. Personally, I wouldn't want every sorceror I make to HAVE to have decended from a dragon. That sounds more like a race to me.....
IMAGE(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y152/RockNrollBabe20/Charmed-supernatural-and-charmed_zps8bd4125f.jpg)
I would make Wizards as the Vancian types.  A few spells at will that are well-rehearsed and not physically taxing but all others have a limited number.  I don't like the idea of memorizing a spell for the day.  I prefer limited castings due to exhaustion from the strains of casting.  Wizard spells require various phrases, material components, and hand movements.  Wizard spells should be fragile to perform and risk failure if disturbed.  The results however should give them significant power for a limited number of spells per day.

Sorcerers should be using innate magic that springs from their lineage, whether demonic, draconic, fey, or celestial.  Their spells need to deal with magic in a more raw form that is directly related to their background.  There are no words to memorize, material components, or gestures.  They simply control a power outside of themselves through practice, effort, and will.  No exotic spells.  Most powers should be at will.

Warlocks should be similar to sorcerers but they receive their powers from pacts rather than bloodlines.


Here is the playstyle I expect:


Wizard:




Sorcerer:



Warlock:


"Ha! Rock beats scissors!" "Darn it! Rock is overpowered! I'm not playing this again until the next edition is released!" "C'mon, just one more." "Oh, all right..." "Wait, what is that?" "Its 'Dynamite' from the expanded rules." "Just because you can afford to buy every supplement that comes out..." "Hey, it's completely balanced! You're just a bad DM for not accommodating it."
Show
RPGs are getting more popular, and whenever something gets more popular, it inevitably changes, usually becoming more palatable to the masses. Nintendo is the perfect example. In the old days their games coined the term "Nintendo hard" to extend play time, but they knew their fans were dedicated enough to play anyway. Now they mostly make stuff a five year old can master. That's not necessarily bad, though. Most of those old Nintendo games were infuriating. Likewise, a lot of old RPGs were too complex and irritating for the average person to really get into. Rules light systems are going to get more popular as more people enter the hobby, simply because the new people aren't bound by nostalgia, and would rather play something easy and fun than something that takes a huge amount of effort to learn.
I agree with most of these ideas on the sorcerer. However I'm always thinking about the different prerequisites for general spellcasting. Casting a standard spell requires at least one hand as well as the ability to speak mystic chants and phrases. However I feel that the mystic chants and phrases parts doesn't really fit with the sorcerer because he invokes the spell through the pure power of will. He'll still need 1 or 2 hands to channel the spell, but I don't see why he would be saying some mystic words. I'm actually playing a sorcerer that has almost no ideas about why he can use magic, although he has some kind of vague feeling about why. However I can completely understand the need for sorcerers to also need to use verbal components to cast spells purely for balance purposes. Otherwise the silence spells will be completely ineffective against sorcerers (though I like that idea).


Here is the playstyle I expect:


Wizard:




Sorcerer:



Warlock:





haha,

+1

Sorcerer with utility is the one that carries a backup sledge hammer.

Part of the issue with wizards and sorcerers in D&D is that D&D doesn't explain its magic system so there is no true description of the process of spellcsting. This is done so arcane magic can fill any fluff but this issue is raised s a result.

Anyway...

Wizard is a formally trained painter who studied art history and painting techniques.

Sorcerer is a natural painter who is mostly running on natural talent.

Warlock is a guitarist. Invocations is different from spells.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Part of the issue with wizards and sorcerers in D&D is that D&D doesn't explain its magic system so there is no true description of the process of spellcsting. This is done so arcane magic can fill any fluff but this issue is raised s a result.

Anyway...

Wizard is a formally trained painter who studied art history and painting techniques.

Sorcerer is a natural painter who is mostly running on natural talent.

Warlock is a guitarist. Invocations is different from spells.



They have described it somewhat though. Wizards study spells in a somewhat scientific way. They break the spells down, memorize them and go through a process to activate the spells. Sorcerers have innate magic within them. They bring out this magic through willpower.
I personally would make the mechanics for sorcerers and warlocks the same so that there is no need for both classes although there would need to be customization to give them separate flavors.  The only difference is that warlocks recieve their powers through pacts while sorcerers receive their powers through their bloodlines.  I would have both of them using powers virtually at will but have a much more limited array of options than wizards.

Options would need to be highly dependent on the source of the power.  A celestial bloodline or pact with a celestial would grant much different powers than one with a demonic power.  Both would be innate and virtually at will unless they were significant powers (which I would try to avoid since it would replicate the wizard's powers).

I am not sure what difference in mechanics should exist for powers granted by pacts versus those that come from bloodlines. 

I would include Binders and individuals who channel angels into this same group of magic-users.

This group would therefore include:
Sorcerers
Duskblades
Warlocks
Binders
Characters channeling celestial beings

The base class would be the same with customization options to allow all of the above to be created with significant originality.
And dont forget mind magic and Psions. The truly innate magic.
I've always seen Sorcerers as those with a natural knack for arcane talent, allowing them the ability to bypass years of training others need to cast arcane spells.  I see the Warlock as the one with natural blood given abilities casting invocations that are not spells.  Blood granted abilities are not going to manifest in the same way as a trained ability, so using arcane spells to me is a sign that Sorcerers do not have blood granted talent.  In DDN, the Sorcerer and the Warlock both sffer from their fluff and mechanics being contradictory.  Spells and Rituals might be easier for someone with blood granted abilities, but in no way should be standard for the group or their class.  This makes it problematic for the developers, because it indicates they need to make more distinct and separate powers for different casters.  It is still the logical result concerning such different origins of power.
I've always seen Sorcerers as those with a natural knack for arcane talent, allowing them the ability to bypass years of training others need to cast arcane spells.  I see the Warlock as the one with natural blood given abilities casting invocations that are not spells.  Blood granted abilities are not going to manifest in the same way as a trained ability, so using arcane spells to me is a sign that Sorcerers do not have blood granted talent.  In DDN, the Sorcerer and the Warlock both sffer from their fluff and mechanics being contradictory.  Spells and Rituals might be easier for someone with blood granted abilities, but in no way should be standard for the group or their class.  This makes it problematic for the developers, because it indicates they need to make more distinct and separate powers for different casters.  It is still the logical result concerning such different origins of power.



I haven't seen it this way and I don't think that's what they're planning for it with 5e. Warlocks get their powers through pacts, not from their blood. So they receive their power from an outside source. Sorcerers however do get their powers from their bloodline. That natural arcane talent is an innate ability. And I fail to see why you say that obtaining magic through heritage would not allow one to cast spells as a standard, since their ancestors (whatever the magical source of the blood is) were magical beings and that's why they are able to cast spells.
Here's my take...

A Wizard is Batman, or Tony Stark.

A Sorcerer is Superman.

That's the FEELING I want to get from the game. If I play a Wizard, I want to be successful because I figure things out, or at least build solutions and combinations that enable me to succeed.  Building up an arsenal of "tools" and "gadgets" in form of spells. 

If I play a Sorcerer, I want to... basically, be an arcane Fighter/Ranger/Rogue -  using mystical "muscle" and "athletics". Wit and Skill and Indy Plot use. Not knowledge, meditation, torture and knitting.

As a rule, I feel that magic should be able to do things that could be done with skills --- but, do them even if it's impossible.

Kill a man? Use a weapon. Kill a man with a word? Magic.

Hide in plain sight? Magic. 

Destroy a building? Explosives, or lots and lots of wrecking work. Without preparation on a moment's notice? Magic. 

Fly? Flying mount and animal handling. Or magic. 

Of course, the risk/reward/complication ratio needs to be appropriate, too. Or you end up with "knock makes rogues less useful" situation. (OTOH, why prepare knock if there's a Rogue in the party?) 

Another thing that magic does, is using a different skill/ability instead of the logical/realistic one. 

Beyond these things, Magic does need to be able to fill the scenery and do the necessary party tricks, such as providing comfort during travel, although I do feel Magnificient Mansion is, while not overpowered, definitely stretching the suspense of disbelief.
 
I've always seen Sorcerers as those with a natural knack for arcane talent, allowing them the ability to bypass years of training others need to cast arcane spells.  I see the Warlock as the one with natural blood given abilities casting invocations that are not spells.  Blood granted abilities are not going to manifest in the same way as a trained ability, so using arcane spells to me is a sign that Sorcerers do not have blood granted talent.  In DDN, the Sorcerer and the Warlock both sffer from their fluff and mechanics being contradictory.  Spells and Rituals might be easier for someone with blood granted abilities, but in no way should be standard for the group or their class.  This makes it problematic for the developers, because it indicates they need to make more distinct and separate powers for different casters.  It is still the logical result concerning such different origins of power.



I haven't seen it this way and I don't think that's what they're planning for it with 5e. Warlocks get their powers through pacts, not from their blood. So they receive their power from an outside source. Sorcerers however do get their powers from their bloodline. That natural arcane talent is an innate ability. And I fail to see why you say that obtaining magic through heritage would not allow one to cast spells as a standard, since their ancestors (whatever the magical source of the blood is) were magical beings and that's why they are able to cast spells.

Innate magical power would never logically manifest in a manner identical to trained spellcasting.  Verbal, somatic, and material copmonents would be unnecessary.  The manipulation of arcane energy that is needed with a spell isn't happening with an innate power.  Wielding magic through practiced effort is going to yield a different magic than innate use of a born power.

I am aware of what the previous playtests indicated in terms of Sorcerer and Warock.  I also know i October they mentioned completely revamping the Sorcerer, making the "Twin Souled" version into a completely different class in order to make it easier to convert 3rd and 4th Edition Sorcerers to DDN.  The Warlock, while it had Pacts in the playtest in 4th Edition and DDN, didn't in 3rd Edition.  I am hoping for a change back to the 3rd Edition version, or at least an option to let those of us who preferred it the ability to play the class we enjoyed.
I've always seen Sorcerers as those with a natural knack for arcane talent, allowing them the ability to bypass years of training others need to cast arcane spells.  I see the Warlock as the one with natural blood given abilities casting invocations that are not spells.  Blood granted abilities are not going to manifest in the same way as a trained ability, so using arcane spells to me is a sign that Sorcerers do not have blood granted talent.  In DDN, the Sorcerer and the Warlock both sffer from their fluff and mechanics being contradictory.  Spells and Rituals might be easier for someone with blood granted abilities, but in no way should be standard for the group or their class.  This makes it problematic for the developers, because it indicates they need to make more distinct and separate powers for different casters.  It is still the logical result concerning such different origins of power.



I haven't seen it this way and I don't think that's what they're planning for it with 5e. Warlocks get their powers through pacts, not from their blood. So they receive their power from an outside source. Sorcerers however do get their powers from their bloodline. That natural arcane talent is an innate ability. And I fail to see why you say that obtaining magic through heritage would not allow one to cast spells as a standard, since their ancestors (whatever the magical source of the blood is) were magical beings and that's why they are able to cast spells.

Innate magical power would never logically manifest in a manner identical to trained spellcasting.  Verbal, somatic, and material copmonents would be unnecessary.  The manipulation of arcane energy that is needed with a spell isn't happening with an innate power.  Wielding magic through practiced effort is going to yield a different magic than innate use of a born power.

I am aware of what the previous playtests indicated in terms of Sorcerer and Warock.  I also know i October they mentioned completely revamping the Sorcerer, making the "Twin Souled" version into a completely different class in order to make it easier to convert 3rd and 4th Edition Sorcerers to DDN.  The Warlock, while it had Pacts in the playtest in 4th Edition and DDN, didn't in 3rd Edition.  I am hoping for a change back to the 3rd Edition version, or at least an option to let those of us who preferred it the ability to play the class we enjoyed.




They still make verbal and somatic a requirement for balance purposes. And why are you saying that innate magic doesn't work? Then how do monsters use magic? They aren't trained in arcane magic. They don't chant incantations. They simply use their innate magical ability.

I've always seen Sorcerers as those with a natural knack for arcane talent, allowing them the ability to bypass years of training others need to cast arcane spells.  I see the Warlock as the one with natural blood given abilities casting invocations that are not spells.  Blood granted abilities are not going to manifest in the same way as a trained ability, so using arcane spells to me is a sign that Sorcerers do not have blood granted talent.  In DDN, the Sorcerer and the Warlock both sffer from their fluff and mechanics being contradictory.  Spells and Rituals might be easier for someone with blood granted abilities, but in no way should be standard for the group or their class.  This makes it problematic for the developers, because it indicates they need to make more distinct and separate powers for different casters.  It is still the logical result concerning such different origins of power.



I haven't seen it this way and I don't think that's what they're planning for it with 5e. Warlocks get their powers through pacts, not from their blood. So they receive their power from an outside source. Sorcerers however do get their powers from their bloodline. That natural arcane talent is an innate ability. And I fail to see why you say that obtaining magic through heritage would not allow one to cast spells as a standard, since their ancestors (whatever the magical source of the blood is) were magical beings and that's why they are able to cast spells.

Innate magical power would never logically manifest in a manner identical to trained spellcasting.  Verbal, somatic, and material copmonents would be unnecessary.  The manipulation of arcane energy that is needed with a spell isn't happening with an innate power.  Wielding magic through practiced effort is going to yield a different magic than innate use of a born power.

I am aware of what the previous playtests indicated in terms of Sorcerer and Warock.  I also know i October they mentioned completely revamping the Sorcerer, making the "Twin Souled" version into a completely different class in order to make it easier to convert 3rd and 4th Edition Sorcerers to DDN.  The Warlock, while it had Pacts in the playtest in 4th Edition and DDN, didn't in 3rd Edition.  I am hoping for a change back to the 3rd Edition version, or at least an option to let those of us who preferred it the ability to play the class we enjoyed.

They still make verbal and somatic a requirement for balance purposes. And why are you saying that innate magic doesn't work? Then how do monsters use magic? They aren't trained in arcane magic. They don't chant incantations. They simply use their innate magical ability.

Reducing the flavor of your game in the name of balance strikes me as poor game design.
Many monsters train in magic just like a Wizard does.  Those who don't shouldn't be casting Wizard spells any more than a Warlock or innate spellcaster should.  In 1st and 2nd Edition monsters did use innate spellcasting.  In 3rd Edition they kind of kept it but called them Spell-like Abilities (which had their own rules variations).  I feel it is time to admit that innate spellcasting needs its own independent rules and abilities, just like 3.5 Warlocks had with most of their Invocations.  It was a good precedent that needs not just to be continued but expanded.
If we're bringing up precedent, it should be noted that in 3.X, Sorcerers were explicitly mechanically not innate blood powered spellcasters unless one took a specific Feat or Prestige Class.  I'm not familiar enough with 4E Essentials Sorcerers to comment on them, but the popular concept of D&D Sorcerers in general is a curious misconception.
I see Wizards as rule mages. They study the exact nature of underlying reality, and like an engineer or mathematician piece their work together from many interlocking pieces. Their spellcasting is very rigorous and precise.

Clerics and Warlocks are theurges, they get their power from channeling from a petitioned force. It is actually some other being that has put the spells together.

Sorcerer magic is inherently mysterious and dangerous. It's as if there is sume untapped source of power that they tap and then let loose. Bloodline is just one of many possible way to tap different types of powers.

Druids and Paladins are somewhat theurges and somewhat something else.

Mechanically I think this translates to the following.
Wizards learn, memorize, and invent spells. These spells when cast under optimal conditions are pretty much the same for each instance of the spell. Spells are prepared as rituals which uses time and resources. Spells can be cast when prepared or the effect can be held until a later time.

Clerics and Warlocks get whatever powers their source decides to give them. Clerics have a set of 'spells' that their deity lets them use for the day. Warlocks are given supernatural abilities that are for the most part always active once given.

Sorcerers have a sense of how much power they currently have, and can decide on certain types of effects to pour that power into. A powerpoint system fits really well here.
so i was thinking about the wiz/sor/war thing and this is my conclusiong or how i would like it to be

keep the idea of wizards as they are. learning spells from written components, using rituals and what not to gather magic around them and to emulate a spell.(i like rituals on all spells) or they can temporarily use up some of their own energy in preparation of the spells to be able to cast them instantaneously (spells per day)


the sorcerer is one naturally imbued with magic. the ones whom the wizards have tried to emulate in the first place. because they dont study spells but naturally develop it instead, they only have a set number of spells they can cast (preset, no book preparation). They cast directly by burning their own energy into the spells (the WP system like it was before) they can make a small spell more powerful by putting more energy into it (higher slot casting equivalent) or they can forgo casting some smaller spells and wasting energy on meanial things and just put all their energy into casting a really big spell 2-3 times a day.


the warlock/witch is one who was not born with magic, nor has the time or perhaps just cannot be bothered to study it. instead he gains his powers from a source that is naturally magical. they make deals and bargains with this power source in exchange for the capability to do different things. effectively channeling the power of the entity, due to the cost of gaining these abilities, the warlock does not start to get higher powered abilties until much later in his career but because they do not use his energy, he can cast them as much as he pleases.





to sum up ADV/DIS

wizard; adv: spellbook can be added to, school benefits, ritual castings.
             dis: set spells per day of each level

sorcerer; adv: can cast any combination of spell levels using WP, perhaps ritual casting
               dis: set spells known, can only learn more by levelling

warlock; adv: at will spells and abilities other classes may not have access to
              dis: more limited spell selection, more powerful abilities come later, deals with entity (dm optional)




what do you think?
One problem I have with warlocks gaining power through pacts is: What do they do with their time if they're not studying? Do they have to kick 1d6 puppies per day to keep their abilities? If the master doesn't care what they do with their powers, that's okay, but what does the warlock DO with his time? Warrior-lock? Thief-lock? It seems like warlock could be a multiclass template (without a base class) in a hybrid system.
One problem I have with warlocks gaining power through pacts is: What do they do with their time if they're not studying? Do they have to kick 1d6 puppies per day to keep their abilities? If the master doesn't care what they do with their powers, that's okay, but what does the warlock DO with his time? Warrior-lock? Thief-lock? It seems like warlock could be a multiclass template (without a base class) in a hybrid system.



That's completely up to the player. And it will probably have at least a bit to do with the pact. I'm sure the source of the pact will make the Warlock need to complete some minor prerequisites on the side (nothing that would interfere with a campaign). As for what the warlock does with their time, that just completely depends on their goals. I mean, the sorcerer doesn't have to do anything more than the warlock really. What players who are playing a warlock should ask themselves is: Why does my character need a pact to become stronger? What's the goal? I mean, you can play it super simple and just say "I wanted to become stronger" despite having no real reason to be.
Well he can practice channeling the power, or practice blasting moving targets, he can seek magical items, haggle to get more power from his patron, a lot depends on whther the warlock has a single patron or just piecemeals his power together from various lesser contracts. 
Or Warlocks could not have Pacts at all and they can be given back to the Binder class where they came from.  It seems kind of odd that an edition inclusive version of D&D like DDN is supposed to be would have such a marginalization of a class built into it.
Or Warlocks could not have Pacts at all and they can be given back to the Binder class where they came from.  It seems kind of odd that an edition inclusive version of D&D like DDN is supposed to be would have such a marginalization of a class built into it.


as was previously stated in a previous thread. warlocks DID have pacts in complete arcane. their powers either came from making a pact, or an ancestor making a pact
Or Warlocks could not have Pacts at all and they can be given back to the Binder class where they came from.  It seems kind of odd that an edition inclusive version of D&D like DDN is supposed to be would have such a marginalization of a class built into it.


as was previously stated in a previous thread. warlocks DID have pacts in complete arcane. their powers either came from making a pact, or an ancestor making a pact

In contradictory and poorly written fluff.  There was no mechanic in 3.5 anywhere that granted them power from Pacts.
In short, you are incorrect.  That misconception was to your credit mentioned in other threads though.

Or Warlocks could not have Pacts at all and they can be given back to the Binder class where they came from.  It seems kind of odd that an edition inclusive version of D&D like DDN is supposed to be would have such a marginalization of a class built into it.


as was previously stated in a previous thread. warlocks DID have pacts in complete arcane. their powers either came from making a pact, or an ancestor making a pact

In contradictory and poorly written fluff.  There was no mechanic in 3.5 anywhere that granted them power from Pacts.
In short, you are incorrect.  That misconception was to your credit mentioned in other threads though.



ok fine. they dont make pacts. they still gain their powers from other magical beings though
Or Warlocks could not have Pacts at all and they can be given back to the Binder class where they came from.  It seems kind of odd that an edition inclusive version of D&D like DDN is supposed to be would have such a marginalization of a class built into it.


as was previously stated in a previous thread. warlocks DID have pacts in complete arcane. their powers either came from making a pact, or an ancestor making a pact

In contradictory and poorly written fluff.  There was no mechanic in 3.5 anywhere that granted them power from Pacts.
In short, you are incorrect.  That misconception was to your credit mentioned in other threads though.


ok fine. they dont make pacts. they still gain their powers from other magical beings though

"...a warlock invokes magic through nothing more than an effort of will."
"By harnessing his innate magical gift through fearsome determination and force of will, a warlock can..."
"Warlocks are born, not made."
Right and there are similar quotes indicating this 'innate' power stemmed from a compact made by a warlock's ancestors, furthermore every prc for the class generally involved some sort of alteration or specialization of the pact. LIke you said, poorly written and contradictory.

First thing wizard's needs to do with the warlock is decide what they're supposed to be this edition.
Right and there are similar quotes indicating this 'innate' power stemmed from a compact made by a warlock's ancestors, furthermore every prc for the class generally involved some sort of alteration or specialization of the pact. LIke you said, poorly written and contradictory.

First thing wizard's needs to do with the warlock is decide what they're supposed to be this edition.


which im pretty sure was established when the next iteration (4E) and the Next iteration used pacts
Right and there are similar quotes indicating this 'innate' power stemmed from a compact made by a warlock's ancestors, furthermore every prc for the class generally involved some sort of alteration or specialization of the pact. LIke you said, poorly written and contradictory.

First thing wizard's needs to do with the warlock is decide what they're supposed to be this edition.

which im pretty sure was established when the next iteration (4E) and the Next iteration used pacts

The DDN iteration was removed quickly enough that I don't think anything is written in stone.  In October, they announced they were likely giving the Sorcerer a complete overhaul.  We have no idea how either of these classes are going to turn out, which is why now is the time to discuss what we want in them.

I want the Sorcerer to have a unique niche, but I do not want them to take over the Warlock's niche (as I perceive it) of being the "spellcaster born".  I liked the more spontaneous caster, but feel like they need more than that.  A natural flair for magic lends itself well to enhanced metamagic, but DDN doesn't look like it will have many metamagic options with what we see right now.  While I'm not terribly comfortable with things like Dragon-blooded Feats and Prestige Classes, their popularity is undeniable and therefore they should be retained.

What I want for the Warlock is honestly off topic.  I admittedly bring them up a lot in Sorcerer threads, but it really is only in an attempt to prevent Sorcerers from coopting what I feel is a Warlock's place as a class.
Right and there are similar quotes indicating this 'innate' power stemmed from a compact made by a warlock's ancestors, furthermore every prc for the class generally involved some sort of alteration or specialization of the pact. LIke you said, poorly written and contradictory.

First thing wizard's needs to do with the warlock is decide what they're supposed to be this edition.

which im pretty sure was established when the next iteration (4E) and the Next iteration used pacts

The DDN iteration was removed quickly enough that I don't think anything is written in stone.  In October, they announced they were likely giving the Sorcerer a complete overhaul.  We have no idea how either of these classes are going to turn out, which is why now is the time to discuss what we want in them.

I want the Sorcerer to have a unique niche, but I do not want them to take over the Warlock's niche (as I perceive it) of being the "spellcaster born".  I liked the more spontaneous caster, but feel like they need more than that.  A natural flair for magic lends itself well to enhanced metamagic, but DDN doesn't look like it will have many metamagic options with what we see right now.  While I'm not terribly comfortable with things like Dragon-blooded Feats and Prestige Classes, their popularity is undeniable and therefore they should be retained.

What I want for the Warlock is honestly off topic.  I admittedly bring them up a lot in Sorcerer threads, but it really is only in an attempt to prevent Sorcerers from coopting what I feel is a Warlock's place as a class.


well what did you think of my sorcerer idea before?
Right and there are similar quotes indicating this 'innate' power stemmed from a compact made by a warlock's ancestors, furthermore every prc for the class generally involved some sort of alteration or specialization of the pact. LIke you said, poorly written and contradictory.

First thing wizard's needs to do with the warlock is decide what they're supposed to be this edition.

which im pretty sure was established when the next iteration (4E) and the Next iteration used pacts

The DDN iteration was removed quickly enough that I don't think anything is written in stone.  In October, they announced they were likely giving the Sorcerer a complete overhaul.  We have no idea how either of these classes are going to turn out, which is why now is the time to discuss what we want in them.

I want the Sorcerer to have a unique niche, but I do not want them to take over the Warlock's niche (as I perceive it) of being the "spellcaster born".  I liked the more spontaneous caster, but feel like they need more than that.  A natural flair for magic lends itself well to enhanced metamagic, but DDN doesn't look like it will have many metamagic options with what we see right now.  While I'm not terribly comfortable with things like Dragon-blooded Feats and Prestige Classes, their popularity is undeniable and therefore they should be retained.

What I want for the Warlock is honestly off topic.  I admittedly bring them up a lot in Sorcerer threads, but it really is only in an attempt to prevent Sorcerers from coopting what I feel is a Warlock's place as a class.


well what did you think of my sorcerer idea before?

I like the spontaneous casting style and ability to alter the power of their spells, but feel that the fluff still coopts the class role of the Warlock.  Making Sorcerers bloodline based in power is simply never going to sit well with me.  That is the place where the Warlock sits and belongs
I like the spontaneous casting style and ability to alter the power of their spells, but feel that the fluff still coopts the class role of the Warlock.  Making Sorcerers bloodline based in power is simply never going to sit well with me.  That is the place where the Warlock sits and belongs



"Warlock" and "Sorcerer" mean essentially the same thing in most dialects of modern English (as does wizard, for the record).  What does it matter what the name of each class is, as long as the mechanics and lore you like are there?
I'd prefer if the class designers were very clear on the concept and general aim of the class, whichever name is assigned is irrelevant as long as the class is done well. 
I like the spontaneous casting style and ability to alter the power of their spells, but feel that the fluff still coopts the class role of the Warlock.  Making Sorcerers bloodline based in power is simply never going to sit well with me.  That is the place where the Warlock sits and belongs

"Warlock" and "Sorcerer" mean essentially the same thing in most dialects of modern English (as does wizard, for the record).  What does it matter what the name of each class is, as long as the mechanics and lore you like are there?

To me, a bloodline based spellcaster wouldn't be using the same spells as a trained one.  Invocations and eldritch blast are a much better representation of this kind of power than spontaneous casting of the same rotes that someone without blood based power uses.  I'm honestly against Warlocks using Rituals for precisely this reason.  The mechanics of a Sorcerer do not match the fluff people want to attach to them.

I really don't care about the names at all, as long as the class with innate power gets the at will power blast and no Wizard spells.  You could call it Spam and I'd be happy.  To me, the issue is making the mechanics and the fluff match.
I expect wizards to have a wide repertoire of spells and rituals, ability to research spells and create magic items, access to all schools. Memorization and study is a must for wizards. After all, wizard is a scientist, in a sense.

Sorcerers discover the raw magical power in themselves. It comes from within and it comes naturally. No need to study and research because they are already gifted individuals. One must only learn how to control and shape that raw potential. Because of this, I prefer Sorcerers as shapers and users of elements through magic. They should have few spell variety and all of their spells should be invocations of the elements like fire, cold, electricity, air, earth... Their spell list should be totally different because they simply don't read spellbooks and learn those spells researched and documented previously by wizards. They don't cast verbally or use spell components. They only make gestures and use the elements found around them as raw material for their spells. For example, a sorcerer fighting the orc marauders that were burning down a village casts Blazing Stones on the orcs to give fire damage by channeling a small portion of those flames on the rooftop to her spell. She can also shape that spell's damage by dividing the damage result evenly to multiple foes, or simply strike a single opponent with full damage. This sorcerer does not cast water walking to cross a river, she parts water so she can walk across. She can't cast fly but can catch a gust of wind to safely blow her away to her destination, and such...

I don't have much opinion about warlocks but if a pact concept is to be stated in the design, then there should be a price for that pact. The designers should figure out what is the price for warlock's powers? 
To me the real difference between a sorcerer and a wizard is memorization, spells known, and spell per day.

The wizard can learn hundreds of spells but he must consult his books to memorize them.

A sorcerer is a natural and is either born magical or becomes one. They can always cast any spell they know but they only know a few of them. Learning new spells is an tough process as the method of their arcane casting is personal and not scientific.

A warlock is a different animal. They can't cast magic as spells. Warlocks use a different type of magic, invocations. They are either granted from a magical patron or through bloodline. The best a warlock can do at proper magic is rituals.

WIZARD
Magic: Spells and Rituals
Preparation: Yes
Spell Per Day: Moderate
Spells Known: High
Combat Proficiency: A few weapons, No Armor.

SORCERER
Magic: Spells and Rituals
Preparation: No
Spell Per Day: High
Spells Known: Moderate
Combat Proficiency: Simple weapons, No Armor.

WARLOCK
Magic: Invocations and Rituals.
Preparation: No
Invocation Frequency: At-Will and Encounter
Invocations Known: Low
Combat Proficiency: Simple weapons, Light Armor.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Somehow, this thread became about warlocks. 
I've never been a fan of the warlock class. One, the name "warlock" was invented by Hollywood to be used as a male witch. A male witch is a witch. However, Hollywood thought warlock sounded more masculine and thus the warlock was born.
Second, if a warlock is a witch, he should behave like a witch. Potions, elixirs, rituals, and curses. He should not be a pact making, eldritch blast casting, dog kicking, thief-lock/ fighter-lock.

But that is all my opinion.

The thread was about removing the wizard's need to prepare spells and to simply cast the spells he or she knows without memorising them every morning. This approach means that he or she looks just like a 3.5 sorcerer. So if that is true, then the sorcerer needs some unique rule or mechanic to set it apart form the wizard.

Magic is this overwhelming force of energy, like a nuclear reaction. The wizard has studdied this energy and can tap into its power and manipulate it through education, practise, and training. The sorcerer can also tap into this amazing world shaking energy, but does it naturally. As a result of this natural talent, the sorcerer has to wrestle control over arcane energy through force of will. The risk? If a sorcerer loses control of his or her grasp over magic, well, you basically have an exploding sorcerer.  

In game terms, I would hardly expect to see a character that ran the risk of exploding and levelling a city every session. A PC sorcerer wouldn't spontaneously go nuclear if he or she rolled a 1. That's why I suggested the backlash feature. An in game mechanic that illustrates the inherent danger of being an untrained magic-user. 

I could go on for hours. 
I don't like the wizard without preparation. I see them as the caster who goes to the spellbook as an equip screen every morning.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!