Community

This doesn't feel like a Sorcerer to me. I started playing in 3E and the Sorcerer was my bread and butter. I've always hated vancian magic and elitist wizards. Wizards master magic through research and study. Warlocks take the easy road to magic by making a pact with some powerful being.

But Sorcerers are born magical. It is in their blood. They grow up using magic, becoming more powerful the more they use it. Magic is like a muscle to Sorcerers, an integral part of their body that they don't know how to live without it.

Alright enough without how I feel about Sorcerer's.

My main point is that magic is in a Sorcerer's blood, NOT in his second dragon soul or whatever it is. While the magic blood in a Sorcerer may come from a dragon ancestor, I don't think that that dragon lost part of its soul during procreation. While trying to control your inner demons and transforming when you no longer can may seem fun, it is not a Sorcerer. A Sorcerers magical ability is as a part of him as his arm and he has just as much control over it. Struggling to stay normal is what the Hulk does, not a Sorcerer.

And mechanically it doesn't feel like a Sorcerer. The idea of willpower is good, although a name change is in order, but a caster in heavy armor using a sword and shield is not a Sorcerer.  Even the warmage only had light armor in 3.X.

Get rid of the possessed soul thing and reduce the armor. If you want a melee Sorc give him light/medium armor and if he wants a shield make it a magical force shield like what the Swordmage had in 4E. And give him more magically buffs, either through spells or class features. And don't just give him Wizards spells you think work in melee, give him cool spells to use in melee. I want my melee Sorc to send a wave of force through a group of enemies and then slash the remainig bad guy with his flaming sword. Basically a melee sorc should be a jedi/elemenalist mix.

Hopefully the caster Sorc spec will be better.

Umm... I searched through the design document and Possessed soul never came up. Infact soul was only mentioned in cleric's bio. As far as the Armor proficiency they make mention that not all sorcerer heritages will have the same armor prof. 

So you just basically want to play an easier version of wizard.

The soul thing he is talking about comes from the Legends and Lore article on the two new classes. 

Whilst I must admit the L&L article description of sorcerer is kind of weird, the description in the playtest packet is much clearer, and overall much better.

Yes the sorcerer seems different from the 3.X sorcerer, but this is bad? 3.X sorcerer was a bland copy of wizard with a different spellcasting system. This allows sorcerer to maintain it's spellcasting abilities but gain needed features to differentiate it from other arcane casters. I say good riddance to the 3.X bland sorcerer :P 

Aug 22, 2012 -- 2:31PM, Xerxes13 wrote:

This doesn't feel like a Sorcerer to me. I started playing in 3E and the Sorcerer was my bread and butter. I've always hated vancian magic and elitist wizards. Wizards master magic through research and study. Warlocks take the easy road to magic by making a pact with some powerful being.

But Sorcerers are born magical. It is in their blood. They grow up using magic, becoming more powerful the more they use it. Magic is like a muscle to Sorcerers, an integral part of their body that they don't know how to live without it.

Alright enough without how I feel about Sorcerer's.

My main point is that magic is in a Sorcerer's blood, NOT in his second dragon soul or whatever it is. While the magic blood in a Sorcerer may come from a dragon ancestor, I don't think that that dragon lost part of its soul during procreation. While trying to control your inner demons and transforming when you no longer can may seem fun, it is not a Sorcerer. A Sorcerers magical ability is as a part of him as his arm and he has just as much control over it. Struggling to stay normal is what the Hulk does, not a Sorcerer.

And mechanically it doesn't feel like a Sorcerer. The idea of willpower is good, although a name change is in order, but a caster in heavy armor using a sword and shield is not a Sorcerer.  Even the warmage only had light armor in 3.X.

Get rid of the possessed soul thing and reduce the armor. If you want a melee Sorc give him light/medium armor and if he wants a shield make it a magical force shield like what the Swordmage had in 4E. And give him more magically buffs, either through spells or class features. And don't just give him Wizards spells you think work in melee, give him cool spells to use in melee. I want my melee Sorc to send a wave of force through a group of enemies and then slash the remainig bad guy with his flaming sword. Basically a melee sorc should be a jedi/elemenalist mix.

Hopefully the caster Sorc spec will be better.

Go back and watch the GenCon Keynote address... The dragon sorcerer is only one style, and they want a sorcerer's magic to stem from many things. It could be a curse from some powerful entity, a lineage of warlocks manifesting innate magical powers, the blood of an innately magical creature (like dragons), or just being born under an auspicious moment.

I see where they were going with the dragon sorcerer and even with it's weapon and armor proficiencies. It gives that paladin-ish hybrid style for arcane casters, which many will love and beg for otherwise, and highlights an interesting concept in a mana-based caster: What if depletion of their mana has an impact on them too? With the dragon sorcerer that makes them more and more of a warrior over time as they deplete their magic, but assuming they will still keep wild mages as sorcerers as in 4th ed, as it makes sense, What if the wild mage's spells get slightly more (or less) erratic as their willpower wanes?  What if the powers that match up with the 2 draconic powers that the dragon-blood sorc gets are spells that are designed to add that wild-magic to your enemy's spell in a negative way?

The potential with they way they are described still leaves a LOT of room for interpretation. They aren't saying that the sorcerer is possessed (although that is a distinct possibility). They are simply saying that the creature a side (soul if you will) that they have to fight against to harness their magic. They are saying that an aspect of them is truly uncontrollable for ANYONE but a sorcerer, and even they can be taken over by this side. They pulse with such strong magical energies in whatever lineage they have that it WANTS to break free and take them over.

That dragon-blooded sorcerer's 'second-soul'... his second half... is trying to escape and turn him in to a dragon, not just a strange mage. Learning to harness the magic that is innate to him is his only way to fight against or for this change intentionally. It's very poetic IMHO. 

Hey there,

I'll be moving this along to Playtest Packet Discussion which is a better home for it.

Please keep our topic guidelines in mind when you create threads: Welcome to the Player Playtest forum! (Please read before posting)

Thanks!

Monica

Aug 22, 2012 -- 2:31PM, Xerxes13 wrote:

This doesn't feel like a Sorcerer to me. I started playing in 3E and the Sorcerer was my bread and butter. I've always hated vancian magic and elitist wizards. Wizards master magic through research and study. Warlocks take the easy road to magic by making a pact with some powerful being.

But Sorcerers are born magical. It is in their blood. They grow up using magic, becoming more powerful the more they use it. Magic is like a muscle to Sorcerers, an integral part of their body that they don't know how to live without it.

Alright enough without how I feel about Sorcerer's.

My main point is that magic is in a Sorcerer's blood, NOT in his second dragon soul or whatever it is. While the magic blood in a Sorcerer may come from a dragon ancestor, I don't think that that dragon lost part of its soul during procreation. While trying to control your inner demons and transforming when you no longer can may seem fun, it is not a Sorcerer. A Sorcerers magical ability is as a part of him as his arm and he has just as much control over it. Struggling to stay normal is what the Hulk does, not a Sorcerer.

And mechanically it doesn't feel like a Sorcerer. The idea of willpower is good, although a name change is in order, but a caster in heavy armor using a sword and shield is not a Sorcerer.  Even the warmage only had light armor in 3.X.

Get rid of the possessed soul thing and reduce the armor. If you want a melee Sorc give him light/medium armor and if he wants a shield make it a magical force shield like what the Swordmage had in 4E. And give him more magically buffs, either through spells or class features. And don't just give him Wizards spells you think work in melee, give him cool spells to use in melee. I want my melee Sorc to send a wave of force through a group of enemies and then slash the remainig bad guy with his flaming sword. Basically a melee sorc should be a jedi/elemenalist mix.

Hopefully the caster Sorc spec will be better.

haha, sorry kinda funny.  You definitely didn't read the sorcerer right.  The sorcerer is no different than before, magic runs through his blood, it's a part of him.  Sorcerers' magic come from their bloodlines where they inherit their powers from various sources.  So they're basically part X, X being the creature's bloodline.  In the case of the playtest, all we have is draconic.  So whatever race you pic for a sorcerer, you will always be part dragon.  Which is why because of your wild, natural born magic you have draconic traits.  The whole point isn't some "dual soul" or "possessed soul", it's just the natural magic in your blood.  A sorcerer uses their will to channel the magic, to control it which is what they've already done the only difference in this version is that when the sorcerer can't bend their magic to their will anymore it shines through naturally.

Basically the sorcerer is naturally part X, or in this case part dragon and thus has some scales, maybe claws and slitted eyes or whatever.  But they use their will to contain their own natural magic so it does show so obviously.  Funny how you say you loved the 3x sorcerer, all they were were wizards, I mean there really was very little difference aside from them not being able to add spells to their list by studying scrolls.  As for the melee aspect, this is again ONE bloodline.  One type of sorcerer, do you serious think every sorcerer is going to get all armor and weapons training and such?  No, there'd be no point in separate bloodlines in that case.  It makes sense for a draconic sorcerer to be tough, to be able to fight aside from casting spells, so what?

The thing is the draconic sorcerer is meant to blast out spells and once their WP(will points) are depleted they can take up their sword and still actually contribute unlike the bloody wizard.  They aren't meant to wade into combat swinging a sword in one hand and blasting a spell in another.  Yes the draconic sorcerer can fend decently well in melee but they aren't melee casters, they are spell casters that can either cast spells or fight in melee, one or the other not both at the same time.

Doesnt Feel Lİke a Sorcerer to me either. And I might add these:

Aug 23, 2012 -- 7:25AM, Elywyn wrote:

There is a few major problems with Sorcerer for me.

1. Is Sorcerer a Player Character or a Player "Creature"? When spent Willpower growing claws, dragonscales is awesome as an Online Game but when I looked from RP perspective being a "monster" surely change Character's Personality. What is the difference being a Lycanthrop and being a Sorcerer? Don't misunderstand me I "LOVE" having heritage but there must be another way to do this on Draconic Heritage. For example Claws can be abstract spell or spell-like ability not physical claws. like magical claws when Sorcerer make a claw attack with his hands there can be magical illusion above hands like claws. And There can be more artistic ways for creating variety for example While casting a spell changing eye color and shape like a dragon is an awesome feature. I always do that to my characters. And there can be more adjustment on character's heritage selection like another +1 Str. +1 Cons. and +1 Fort. Save on 1. level +3 Fort Save on 3. level and etc. for Draconic Heritage.

2. Sorcerers magic must be more irresistible than other spellcasters'. Because of power of inner and raw magic. There was a sentence on 4th edition: "If wizards wield magic as fighters wield swords, a sorcerer's magic is the arcing greataxe of a raging barbarian." That explains my thought exactly. Other classes especially Wizard is figuring out how to do it how they can shape the spell. But Sorcerers are just doing it with raw power. And for that other classes DC must be lower and Sorcerer's must be higher and especially Attack Bonus must be higher for sorcerer, of course. Magic Attack +2 and 10 + Cha. mo. for DC on first 5 level is too low.

And I think, Weapon, shield, armor Proficiencies for Draconic Sorcerer is too much.

I hope I made myself clear with this catastrophic English Grammar. 

I think it is better to compare the Dragon Sorceror to a War Cleric, rather than compare it to a wizard, as I feel they fill the same slot of caster/melee hybrid.

I agree, the sorcerer we have been presented with doesn't feel much like a 3.x sorcerer. It also doesn't feel much like a 2e sorcerer...but let's not get into that.

But from my experience with the 3.5 sorcerer class, I'm okay with this! There wasn't really much of a "feel" to that class to begin with, they were just a Wizard that used the dump stat and had fewer spells they could cast more often (well, sort of). There was some vague allusion to maybe tracing their sorcery back to dragons, but the only flavor to a sorcerer was that they didn't work for their magic, it came to them.

And that's still there - a sorcerer is a spellcaster who has come into their power naturally. The difference is now the source that they draw power from is more fully explored. Now there's actually a price to their power, a constant battle to remain yourself. I find that significantly more interesting from a role-playing perspective than most portrayals of 3.x sorcerers I've seen - and the mechanics better reflect that "a sorcerer is not a wizard" now too.

Having a second Sorcerous Origin to see how different sorcerers might play would have really helped this playtest, though.

I will agree with the OP that we could use a more 3.x-ish sorcerous origin as an example.  I like the dragon sorc, but a blood mage/maho-tsukai type would be an extremely welcome counterpart.  The other sorc origins seen in 4e and Pathfinder are a distant 3rd place IMO (though I have a personal fondness for the wild mage/sorc).

My take on the blood line powers is that the devs were looking for a way to spice up an otherwise unremarkable alternate wizard class, much the same way the warlock is more colorful. I shugged at the effort as being unnecessary but there is a major piece of the wizard still on the drawing board and it might be as radical and seemingly over powered as these other two classes appear. 

I'm not saying I like this, just that it seems plausible. So many people here complain that the vanilla charactres are boring. I think this is the root cause of these over the top classes. as they said before it's easier to tone things down than to make increases later on. I believe that once this round of testing is done the sorcerer and warlock will be more reasonable in the eyes of those who care about these things.

 

I like the new sorc, claws and all. What I do not like is this "twin-soul" thing, magic coming to sorc from something that feels external. What was cool about sorc is that he did not learn magic, he *was* magic. I guess I could be appeased with as little as them not using term "second soul" (sounds like from some cheap horror flick) and went with "second/arcane nature". So sorcerers could still go about saying "I am the boomstick" not "My second soul is a boomstick". Minor thing, but I would like that.

Aug 23, 2012 -- 1:31PM, Rejnwyrd wrote:

I like the new sorc, claws and all. What I do not like is this "twin-soul" thing, magic coming to sorc from something that feels external. What was cool about sorc is that he did not learn magic, he *was* magic. I guess I could be appeased with as little as them not using term "second soul" (sounds like from some cheap horror flick) and went with "second/arcane nature". So sorcerers could still go about saying "I am the boomstick" not "My second soul is a boomstick". Minor thing, but I would like that.

It really depends on what sorcerer description you look at. Yes in the Key Note address they explain it as a "two souls" type thing. But in the playtest packet it merely remarks that you could just have dragon blood. Being part dragon, how can you "be" more magical than that?

Aug 23, 2012 -- 1:40PM, Jenks wrote:

Aug 23, 2012 -- 1:31PM, Rejnwyrd wrote:

I like the new sorc, claws and all. What I do not like is this "twin-soul" thing, magic coming to sorc from something that feels external. What was cool about sorc is that he did not learn magic, he *was* magic. I guess I could be appeased with as little as them not using term "second soul" (sounds like from some cheap horror flick) and went with "second/arcane nature". So sorcerers could still go about saying "I am the boomstick" not "My second soul is a boomstick". Minor thing, but I would like that.

It really depends on what sorcerer description you look at. Yes in the Key Note address they explain it as a "two souls" type thing. But in the playtest packet it merely remarks that you could just have dragon blood. Being part dragon, how can you "be" more magical than that?

I know, that is why I liked the class more before Key Note address. It kinda spoiled the sorc for me (I'm wierd and I think fluff matters, a little). Especially since the way they put it in Key Note seems like they are really pushing in that direction. I hope they will leave this part of fluff more vague, this two-souls just doesn't sit well with me.

You went Sorceror instead of Wizard in 3e?  You poor, poor sap, you got snookered into loving the worst caster class in 3.x...

My absolute and sincere sympathies. 

Aug 23, 2012 -- 2:21PM, CVB wrote:

You went Sorceror instead of Wizard in 3e?  You poor, poor sap, you got snookered into loving the worst caster class in 3.x...

My absolute and sincere sympathies. 

Most of the players in my group went Sorcerer. It's simple and easier to focus on something. If you want to throw fireballs around and not a whole lot else, sorcerer lets you do this with minimal complication and alot more often than a wizard

My two copper. 

I have to agree with the OP in this.
Okay, going to wikipedia here. There's actually an article just on the D&D sorcerer. Right here.

The sorcerer is a playable character class in the Dungeons & Dragons fantasy role-playing game. A sorcerer is weak in melee combat, but a master of arcane magic, the most generally powerful form of D&D magic. Sorcerers' magical ability is innate rather than studied. In the words of the 3.5 Player's Handbook: "Sorcerers create magic the way a poet creates poems, with inborn talent honed by practice."

The 5e sorcerer we have is not weak in melee combat, and is actually the equal of the war domain cleric. So that's not there.
No prior sorcerer has had a second soul. Or been transformed by using their magic. Both ideas are tacked on additions being forced into the sorcerer role. 

Okay, the ideas themselves are not bad. And D&D does always need a gish class. 3e had the duskblade. 4e had the swordmage. Pathfinder has the magus. That's good. But it's not the sorcerer and forcing the sorcerer into the melee magic user role just diminishes it and removes the potential for a good gish class, one that works with the fiction and history of the game. 

The base mechanic is solid. I love the idea of tying the trigger of sorcerer's powers to the amount of willpower expended. Which both makes it something else they can rely on when low in spells while also making their lower level powers more common.
But shapechanging. Growing claws.
That doesn't scream "sorcerer" to me. Okay, it's not not sorcerer. It's fine for the dragon blood sorcerer. But that's not the baseline. Otherer sorcerers should have other less polymorphy effects. 

Idealy their power would become harder to control.
Elemental sorcerers might have other elements bleed into their spells. Wild sorcerers would have bursts of chaos. They might leak bits of magic, being surrounded by auras or other effects. They might have a higher crit range or other effects on a crit to denote their swings in power. Or the fun 4e idea of different effects on a 1 or 20.  

For one thing, notice that it is the only option available right now. In the Armor section of their proficiencies it states "None, see your sorcerous origin.". I bring you the example of the cleric, and how their two different domains grant different proficiencies and domain spells, and in turn create two completely different playstyles. It's probably expected that a more traditional Light or no armor sorcererous origin will come out. But they already have that right now for testing, it's called the wizard. They don't really need to test the mechanics of another no armor caster. So they are testing the Gish, of which there was no prior example, at least with arcane spells.

TLDR: Just wait, and I bet you will see a more traditional sorcerer build come out.

Aug 23, 2012 -- 3:02PM, The_Jester wrote:

The base mechanic is solid. I love the idea of tying the trigger of sorcerer's powers to the amount of willpower expended. Which both makes it something else they can rely on when low in spells while also making their lower level powers more common.
But shapechanging. Growing claws.
That doesn't scream "sorcerer" to me. Okay, it's not not sorcerer. It's fine for the dragon blood sorcerer. But that's not the baseline. Otherer sorcerers should have other less polymorphy effects. 

"claw-like", your hands become claw-like not claws.  There's a definite difference.  It says in the playtest claw-like.  That can mean something as simple as your nails grow a little longer and harder, and maybe you unconsciously curl your fingers into a claw-like shape.  That isn't a drastic shapechanging, even the scales you get later can easily and most likely will be easily covered by your clothes.  People really are blowing the effects out of proportion with the sorcerer and warlock both.

And do you seriously think the other origins are going to be the exact same?  Some might have more noticable changes than others, but whatever. 

I am also one of those weird people who hates the "twin souls" terminology. That is really annoying when my main draw to the sorcerer is that it is your magic, from no external source.

However, complaining that the dragon sorcerer doesn't feel like a sorcerer is a bit silly to me just because it seems like it isn't supposed to feel like a normal sorcerer. Because a normal sorcerer feels like a wizard. Which they already have in the playtest. So, for now, we get the interesting gish sorcerer that many people, including myself, enjoy. The more traditional sorcerer (I'm really hoping for elemental and wild sorcerers for this) will certainly be an option eventually. And, seeing how well the dragon sorcerer was done, I have faith that even the caster-y sorcerers will be unique and interesting in their own ways. Getting different powers to use and other benefits as you run out of spells was a really good idea, no matter whether or not one likes the fluff of it. Mechanically, it's great.   

Aug 23, 2012 -- 6:56PM, Alitain wrote:

Aug 23, 2012 -- 3:02PM, The_Jester wrote:

The base mechanic is solid. I love the idea of tying the trigger of sorcerer's powers to the amount of willpower expended. Which both makes it something else they can rely on when low in spells while also making their lower level powers more common.
But shapechanging. Growing claws.
That doesn't scream "sorcerer" to me. Okay, it's not not sorcerer. It's fine for the dragon blood sorcerer. But that's not the baseline. Otherer sorcerers should have other less polymorphy effects. 

"claw-like", your hands become claw-like not claws.  There's a definite difference.  It says in the playtest claw-like.  That can mean something as simple as your nails grow a little longer and harder, and maybe you unconsciously curl your fingers into a claw-like shape.  That isn't a drastic shapechanging, even the scales you get later can easily and most likely will be easily covered by your clothes.  People really are blowing the effects out of proportion with the sorcerer and warlock both.

And do you seriously think the other origins are going to be the exact same?  Some might have more noticable changes than others, but whatever. 

The article suggests all sorcerers will have a physical change.
www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...

The catch is this is a playtest. Feedback is important. They need to know if what they're doing works, if they're on the right track. 

Does this feel like a sorcerer? Is this the archetype of the sorcerer for you? Does this work as the base of all future sorcerers?
I say "no". It's cool and fun but not a sorcerer. It doesn't feel like the foundation for the sorcerer. It's a start but it needs work.  

That article, in my opinion, kind of spits in the sorcerer's face.
"Hey, y'know how your magical abilities are a manisfestation of your innate power that you can use as you please? Lol jk it's a magic parasite living inside you that wants to kill you." 
I mean, both of the ideas can coincide and aren't inherently against eachother, but it's just so... degrading. 

Aug 23, 2012 -- 2:35PM, Jenks wrote:

Aug 23, 2012 -- 2:21PM, CVB wrote:

You went Sorceror instead of Wizard in 3e?  You poor, poor sap, you got snookered into loving the worst caster class in 3.x...

My absolute and sincere sympathies. 

Most of the players in my group went Sorcerer. It's simple and easier to focus on something. If you want to throw fireballs around and not a whole lot else, sorcerer lets you do this with minimal complication and alot more often than a wizard

My two copper. 

It is the best class to play a 'Blaster Wizard' in 3e.

Unfortunately, at higher levels, it's lack of spells that slow him down (the Wizard could in theory have the entire list, but it was dependant the DM.  However, just the way he levelled often he ended with more spells than the Sorceror ever could.)

Yeah I found the sorcerer flavor way off. I mean I could actually see the sorcerer mechanics as being perfect for a warlock, wher the more you tap into your dark powers, the more they warp your body. So the guy calling on Asmodeus starts to show some demonic features.

For a sorcerer, it doesn't make too much sense to me, because I would think his blood would get weaker the more he tapped his power. I don't see why it seems like he's controlling his dragon nature. It does feel more like the Hulk than what you think of in a conventional sorcerer.

I can see where they were going mechanically, I just don't know if the sorcerer is a good class to do that with. Personally I'd have the warlock work that way.

Aug 23, 2012 -- 7:29PM, The_Jester wrote:

The article suggests all sorcerers will have a physical change.
www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...

The catch is this is a playtest. Feedback is important. They need to know if what they're doing works, if they're on the right track. 

Does this feel like a sorcerer? Is this the archetype of the sorcerer for you? Does this work as the base of all future sorcerers?
I say "no". It's cool and fun but not a sorcerer. It doesn't feel like the foundation for the sorcerer. It's a start but it needs work.  

So how does it not "feel like a sorcerer"?  I mean they cast spells, that's basically all there is to a sorcerer aside from background fluff of their magic coming from them naturally instead of having to study it like the wizard.  You quote some text on wikipedia that basically describes the wizard as well as most of the cast classes in D&D games.  "They're weak in combat, but cast powerful magic".  And because one type of sorcerer can be decent in melee you feel it suddenly isn't a sorcerer just because the draconic origin does let it be weak in melee?  Sorry, just sounds bogus to me.  I mean I guess that's your opinion, just seems bogus because from your quote you just want another useless, bland, carbon copy wizard with the name sorcerer plastered over it like in 3x.  Because that's what you described in your post on the previous page especially if you're going by that wiki quote.

Don't really see how this can't work for a base for future origins.  The core of the sorcerer class is that you cast spells with WP, and once expended you gain new options from whatever your origin is which I think everyone can agree all the origins are not going to be exact duplicates of the dragonic origin.  But the core remains, they cast spells.  If you don't think that's archetype sorcerer then not sure what else can be done with just copy/pasting the wizard and changing the name to sorcerer. 

Aug 23, 2012 -- 11:56PM, Dwarfslayer wrote:

Yeah I found the sorcerer flavor way off. I mean I could actually see the sorcerer mechanics as being perfect for a warlock, wher the more you tap into your dark powers, the more they warp your body. So the guy calling on Asmodeus starts to show some demonic features.

For a sorcerer, it doesn't make too much sense to me, because I would think his blood would get weaker the more he tapped his power. I don't see why it seems like he's controlling his dragon nature. It does feel more like the Hulk than what you think of in a conventional sorcerer.

I can see where they were going mechanically, I just don't know if the sorcerer is a good class to do that with. Personally I'd have the warlock work that way.

I think the point is what would it mean to have that natural connection to magic. I read a cool description of Genasi for a 4e game (I'd never heard of them before that, but they were described as "half-elementals" and I couldn't resist). It said:

Imagine for a moment that every day, when you awaken, the first thing you feel is the heartbeat of the world around you. Imagine that each day, as you go about your tasks, you feel the ebb and flow of the very elements. Imagine that the elements are so strongly a part of you that your body feels bonded to the world around you. Imagine that the most common elements of the world are not just ingrained into your very being, but are also yours to command and to bend to your will (Ecology of the Genasi)


That is the vibe I feel they are going for with the sorcerer. You are tapped into primal sources of power, stuff most people can not touch without a fortress worth of mental defences almost literally lives inside of you. It may be a part of you, but controlling something like that is a titanic task. I see this as your "willpower" points being how much of that energy you can release before releasing any more would lead to you losing control. I would say it makes no sense for a sorcerer to get weaker as they use their power, because they are tapped directly into a power source. The "Elemental Chaos" isn't going to shrink from one guy using it's power... at least not as long as we want to rest of the planes existing afterwards. Instead that power becomes harder to keep a lid on, and it manifests physically as you have a harder time holding back your full potential.

I'm thinking less Hulk and more Nuclear Power Plant. You are never working at 100%, and for good reason.

Aug 24, 2012 -- 8:57AM, Alitain wrote:

Aug 23, 2012 -- 7:29PM, The_Jester wrote:

The article suggests all sorcerers will have a physical change.
www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...

The catch is this is a playtest. Feedback is important. They need to know if what they're doing works, if they're on the right track. 

Does this feel like a sorcerer? Is this the archetype of the sorcerer for you? Does this work as the base of all future sorcerers?
I say "no". It's cool and fun but not a sorcerer. It doesn't feel like the foundation for the sorcerer. It's a start but it needs work.  

So how does it not "feel like a sorcerer"?  I mean they cast spells, that's basically all there is to a sorcerer aside from background fluff of their magic coming from them naturally instead of having to study it like the wizard.  You quote some text on wikipedia that basically describes the wizard as well as most of the cast classes in D&D games.  "They're weak in combat, but cast powerful magic".  And because one type of sorcerer can be decent in melee you feel it suddenly isn't a sorcerer just because the draconic origin does let it be weak in melee?  Sorry, just sounds bogus to me.  I mean I guess that's your opinion, just seems bogus because from your quote you just want another useless, bland, carbon copy wizard with the name sorcerer plastered over it like in 3x.  Because that's what you described in your post on the previous page especially if you're going by that wiki quote.

Don't really see how this can't work for a base for future origins.  The core of the sorcerer class is that you cast spells with WP, and once expended you gain new options from whatever your origin is which I think everyone can agree all the origins are not going to be exact duplicates of the dragonic origin.  But the core remains, they cast spells.  If you don't think that's archetype sorcerer then not sure what else can be done with just copy/pasting the wizard and changing the name to sorcerer. 

It has the blood of dragons in its veins. It has the innate ability to wield potent magic. And because of that it can use chainmail and a longsword?
That's just weird.

And the transforming into a dragon thing, while cool, doesn't match prior sorcerers. It's not a generic class that can effortlessly fit into Dark Sun or the Realms or Dragonlance (where sorcerers have a big unique role). Because this is the base game.

Give me a sorcerer with swings in damage, range, and spell effects. A sorcerer that can empower spells or add effects and conditions onto existing spells. A sorcerer that can say "screw it, my fireball is dealing cold damage this round".

I posted this on ENWorld:

Here are the big five reasons the playtest sorcerer does not work.

It isn't a wizard clone.
As weird as it sounds, this is an issue. The sorcerer is the class for people who like wizards/casters but dislike the default Vancian magic system.
As such, the sorcerer should still feel similar to a wizard. There should absolutely be differences, but the two classes should have more in common than not.
The solution to sorcerers being too much like the wizard is not to remove similarities but to add differences. Paladins are very similar to fighters, and the fix isn't to reduce paladin's armour and weapon choices while reducing hitpoints. 

The mechanic is revisionist.
The new sorcerer hook (transforming as spells are used) is brand new. It comes out of nowhere, having no real relation to prior sorcerers in the game or in the fiction. It's not an evolution like the fighter's mechanic or clerics channeling divinity.
Even the flavour seems like a justification. The fluff in Legends & Lore doesn't mesh with the fluff in the playtest. It reads like they added the mechanic and started changing and tweaking the story to fit the mechanic.

The unique mechanic doesn't mesh with the unique flavour.
The hook for sorcerers is that they have inborn magic power. The class' unique mechanic is that they transform as resources are spent. There's no overlap.
The willpower system doesn't count, as there's likely to be an optional module that lets wizards use it. Sorcerers exist so there's a core option that uses it for players whose DM only wants to use the core; if you replaced the willpower system with memorized Vancian spells, the sorcerer mechanic would still work.
The sorcerer's unique mechanic should directly relate to their inborn magic, to spells being an instinctive natural talent, in addition to magic being their heritage. 

It shouldn't affect what it does
In the current iteration of the rules, bloodline determines hit dice, armour proficiency, weapon proficiency, all in addition to bonus powers.
So... granddaddy was a brass dragon so you know how to use a greatsword? That's just effed up. 
I'm okay with sorcerers having higher HD than wizards (they're not bookworms). Leather armour and expanded weapons are also good (I liked them having spears in 3e). But, at the same points, it shouldn't go as far as it does. d8, heavy armour, shields, and all melee weapons are a bit much. Especially the recomended gear being a two-handed sword when they need a free hand to cast spells.

It steals the swordmage thunder.
We'll eventually have a Gish class. We need one. Whether it's a bladesinger or swordmage or duskblade or magus is irrelevant. It's a solid niche to be filled.
Forcing the sorcerer into the melee caster role does a disservice to both. It means we get a less than ideal sorcerer and a less than ideal swordmage. 
It'd be like calling the war domain build of the cleric "the paladin". It does the job fine and is an adequate compromise, but no one is really happy.  

Aug 24, 2012 -- 11:52AM, The_Jester wrote:

I posted this on ENWorld:

Here are the big five reasons the playtest sorcerer does not work.

It isn't a wizard clone.
As weird as it sounds, this is an issue.

An issue that goes away if all they're testing is the casting systems themselves, and perhaps later implement all three of them for all three classes.  Hell, you go on to say that it's likely the wizards will get its casting system - that is your wizard clone, and the sorcerer doesn't have to be.

Assuming that this is representative of a finished product is about the worst possible thing one could do, on just about every subject contained within the playtest.

Aug 24, 2012 -- 11:52AM, The_Jester wrote:

I posted this on ENWorld:

Here are the big five reasons the playtest sorcerer does not work.

It isn't a wizard clone.
As weird as it sounds, this is an issue. The sorcerer is the class for people who like wizards/casters but dislike the default Vancian magic system.
As such, the sorcerer should still feel similar to a wizard. There should absolutely be differences, but the two classes should have more in common than not.
The solution to sorcerers being too much like the wizard is not to remove similarities but to add differences. Paladins are very similar to fighters, and the fix isn't to reduce paladin's armour and weapon choices while reducing hitpoints. 

The mechanic is revisionist.
The new sorcerer hook (transforming as spells are used) is brand new. It comes out of nowhere, having no real relation to prior sorcerers in the game or in the fiction. It's not an evolution like the fighter's mechanic or clerics channeling divinity.
Even the flavour seems like a justification. The fluff in Legends & Lore doesn't mesh with the fluff in the playtest. It reads like they added the mechanic and started changing and tweaking the story to fit the mechanic.

The unique mechanic doesn't mesh with the unique flavour.
The hook for sorcerers is that they have inborn magic power. The class' unique mechanic is that they transform as resources are spent. There's no overlap.
The willpower system doesn't count, as there's likely to be an optional module that lets wizards use it. Sorcerers exist so there's a core option that uses it for players whose DM only wants to use the core; if you replaced the willpower system with memorized Vancian spells, the sorcerer mechanic would still work.
The sorcerer's unique mechanic should directly relate to their inborn magic, to spells being an instinctive natural talent, in addition to magic being their heritage. 

It shouldn't affect what it does
In the current iteration of the rules, bloodline determines hit dice, armour proficiency, weapon proficiency, all in addition to bonus powers.
So... granddaddy was a brass dragon so you know how to use a greatsword? That's just effed up. 
I'm okay with sorcerers having higher HD than wizards (they're not bookworms). Leather armour and expanded weapons are also good (I liked them having spears in 3e). But, at the same points, it shouldn't go as far as it does. d8, heavy armour, shields, and all melee weapons are a bit much. Especially the recomended gear being a two-handed sword when they need a free hand to cast spells.

It steals the swordmage thunder.
We'll eventually have a Gish class. We need one. Whether it's a bladesinger or swordmage or duskblade or magus is irrelevant. It's a solid niche to be filled.
Forcing the sorcerer into the melee caster role does a disservice to both. It means we get a less than ideal sorcerer and a less than ideal swordmage. 
It'd be like calling the war domain build of the cleric "the paladin". It does the job fine and is an adequate compromise, but no one is really happy.  

I feel the need to disagree, or at least offer an alternate, to these points.

1) This is the arguement I feel is least effective. There is a rather large section of the fan-base that does not want the sorcerer to be a wizard clone. And for the people who want it to be a wizard clone so they can escape Vancian casting I point to your third point where you say "The willpower system doesn't count, as there's likely to be an optional module that lets wizards use it." If there will be a module that lets wizards use this system instead of Vancian System, then there is no need for the sorcerer to be a wizard clone, there will be a module for a wizard clone.

2) Another arguement I just can't find much meat to. Just because something has never been done before doesn't mean it is bad. Dungeons and Dragons started because Gary Gygax wanted to play individual heroes instead of platoons of soldiers in his war games. It'd never been done before, but I can't say it was a bad call. Also, the idea behind the transformations, as I point out in my above post, does have some connections to past ideas. Also, saying the fluff is being added afterwards again doesn't mean it is bad. I played a Savage Worlds game where I wanted a bookworm teacher, who also could fight and knew Bushido. Trying to explain this in his backstory led me to one of my best stories, how his mother died. Just because the mechanic came first doesn't mean much.

3) I covered this point in my above post. I actually feel it captures the feel of inborn magic extremely well. These aren't people who can turn on a light bulb with their mind. These are people born with lightning coursing through their veins. That stuff isn't easy to control.

4) This I can answer for the Draconic orgin only, since it is the only one we have. The Hit Dice makes sense. You've got dragonblood in your veins, you are tougher than most people because dragons are extremely tough creatures, newly born hatchlings can tear most humanoids apart. I feel the armor also goes into this, having draconic blood, I'd say'd feel more natural in armor as it is close to scales. But also as the transformation descriptions describe more violent and physical personalities, which I take to mean sorcerers of draconic origin are predisposed to similiar tools as fighters. They are physical, in-your-face people and as such have gravitated towards tools and defenses that reflect that. Just like the War Domain clerics. I'd assume other origins would also be "what is your preferred method of tackling a problem" since these traits are more nearly "in your blood" than they would be for a normal person.

5) By this arguement we shouldn't have war domain clerics, because they are steeping into the niche used by paladins. We don't know what other sorcerers will look like, but it is almost certain that a more traditional sorcerer would be found in a elemental or fey origin, since they would not have the same physical proclivities a dragon origin leads us to.

It steals the swordmage thunder.

It's pretty common logic that more than one Gish is going to be present throughout this itteration of D&D. We already have 2, War Cleric and Dragon Sorcerer. This is not even including Fighters that take Arcane Dabbler or Initiate of the Faith, which might lead to higher level spells later on. The swordmage has always felt tacked on, to me at least. It's never been a core class, and it always feels akward when compared to Paladins (Closest thing to Divine Gish). 

Either way, I have a feeling everyone is going to be stealing everyone's thunder, which is why they are trying to give each class unique mechanics. So that a gish sorcerer doesn't feel just like a gish warlock or wizard. As they are right now if I was playing a wizard with heavy armor and weapons, and my friend was playing a sorcerer with heavy armor and weapons, we would still play very differently. That is a GOOD thing.


Skipping to another post real quick.

 Give me a sorcerer with swings in damage, range, and spell effects. A sorcerer that can empower spells or add effects and conditions onto existing spells. A sorcerer that can say "screw it, my fireball is dealing cold damage this round".

To me this screams "Wizard". Experimenting with spells? Sounds more like wizard to me. 

Aug 24, 2012 -- 12:25PM, Chaosmancer wrote:

1) This is the arguement I feel is least effective. There is a rather large section of the fan-base that does not want the sorcerer to be a wizard clone. And for the people who want it to be a wizard clone so they can escape Vancian casting I point to your third point where you say "The willpower system doesn't count, as there's likely to be an optional module that lets wizards use it." If there will be a module that lets wizards use this system instead of Vancian System, then there is no need for the sorcerer to be a wizard clone, there will be a module for a wizard clone.

I admit it is the weakest of the five. Sorcerers shouldn't be identical no, but they should occupy some of the same design space in the same way psions, warlocks, and invokers might. 
2) Another argument I just can't find much meat to. Just because something has never been done before doesn't mean it is bad. Dungeons and Dragons started because Gary Gygax wanted to play individual heroes instead of platoons of soldiers in his war games. It'd never been done before, but I can't say it was a bad call. Also, the idea behind the transformations, as I point out in my above post, does have some connections to past ideas. Also, saying the fluff is being added afterwards again doesn't mean it is bad. I played a Savage Worlds game where I wanted a bookworm teacher, who also could fight and knew Bushido. Trying to explain this in his backstory led me to one of my best stories, how his mother died. Just because the mechanic came first doesn't mean much.

If this were any other edition I'd agree more. But Next is presenting itself as the best-of edition, taking the key elements of prior editions.
There's lots of ways to make a wizard different, such as having them cast spells directly from a magic book or fueling their power with blood or having to recite magic words. Lots of ideas from fiction. But that doesn't necessarily mesh with the D&D feel. 
So much of the new sorcerer relies on these brand new ideas. The second soul, the bloodline taking over as willpower is expended, the physical change. It's a heck of a lot of brand new ideas. Apart from spells and the hint of being related to dragons, there's not a lot of overlap with existing versions of the sorcerer. 

Aug 24, 2012 -- 12:25PM, Chaosmancer wrote:

3) I covered this point in my above post. I actually feel it captures the feel of inborn magic extremely well. These aren't people who can turn on a light bulb with their mind. These are people born with lightning coursing through their veins. That stuff isn't easy to control.

If it was control based it'd be different. Instead, as they spend resources they get more powerful and unlock new abilities. Nothing about that screams sorcerer. 
It's not like they couldn't think of anything else. There must be dozens of ways to suggest loss of control and raging natural magical power. Which is the frustrating bit. It's so needless. Instead of an undeniably awesome sorcerer class that screams "sorcerer" we get this. It's neat and not bad mechanically or flavourfully... but it's not what I think of as a sorcerer.

Aug 24, 2012 -- 12:25PM, Chaosmancer wrote:

4) This I can answer for the Draconic orgin only, since it is the only one we have. The Hit Dice makes sense. You've got dragonblood in your veins, you are tougher than most people because dragons are extremely tough creatures, newly born hatchlings can tear most humanoids apart. I feel the armor also goes into this, having draconic blood, I'd say'd feel more natural in armor as it is close to scales. But also as the transformation descriptions describe more violent and physical personalities, which I take to mean sorcerers of draconic origin are predisposed to similiar tools as fighters. They are physical, in-your-face people and as such have gravitated towards tools and defenses that reflect that. Just like the War Domain clerics. I'd assume other origins would also be "what is your preferred method of tackling a problem" since these traits are more nearly "in your blood" than they would be for a normal person.

I'll buy the increased hit dice. The weapon and armour bonus sit less well with me.

Aug 24, 2012 -- 12:25PM, Chaosmancer wrote:

5) By this argument we shouldn't have war domain clerics, because they are steeping into the niche used by paladins. We don't know what other sorcerers will look like, but it is almost certain that a more traditional sorcerer would be found in a elemental or fey origin, since they would not have the same physical proclivities a dragon origin leads us to.

This is a bit of a grey area. You're not wrong and in many ways the paladin is redundant. It survives because it's been grandfathered in. Ditto the ranger. It's a different story to add an overlap in now. 
I'm not sure other bloodlines will help. If the other builds are more traditional ranged sorcerers it makes this one stand out even more and seem like an oddball choice.

To answer whether the weapon/armor profs make sense, I ask you this:


Why do fighters get weapon/armor profs?

It steals the Psion thunder.

Psionic is innate magic, whose source is the brain.

Arcane magic is protoscience, studying and mastering the laws of the multiverse. The idea of “instinctively” knowing complex proto-astronomy, proto-chemistry, proto-physics, mathematics, and so on without learning it, is unlikely. “Innate Arcane” is an oxymoron. It would be like passing all the college exams for astronomy, chemistry, physics, and advanced mathematics, without ever having studied these topics - or even knowing the spoken language that these exams happen to be written in.

“Innate arcane” is an oxymoron. There is no such thing.

Innate magic is Psionic.

Aug 24, 2012 -- 5:36PM, Haldrik wrote:

It steals the Psion thunder.

Psionic is innate magic, whose source is the brain.

Arcane magic is protoscience, studying and mastering the laws of the multiverse. The idea of “instinctively” knowing complex proto-astronomy, proto-chemistry, proto-physics, mathematics, and so on without learning it, is unlikely. “Innate Arcane” is an oxymoron. It would be like passing all the college exams for astronomy, chemistry, physics, and advanced mathematics, without ever having studied these topics - or even knowing the spoken language that these exams happen to be written in.

“Innate arcane” is an oxymoron. There is no such thing.

Innate magic is Psionic.  

tell that to every other edition of DnD that features ar sorc (or a bard, or any other spontanious arcane caster). and yes, that is how it should be, not because it's how it always has been.

Aug 24, 2012 -- 5:39PM, Yuwain wrote:

Aug 24, 2012 -- 5:36PM, Haldrik wrote:

It steals the Psion thunder.

Psionic is innate magic, whose source is the brain.

Arcane magic is protoscience, studying and mastering the laws of the multiverse. The idea of “instinctively” knowing complex proto-astronomy, proto-chemistry, proto-physics, mathematics, and so on without learning it, is unlikely. “Innate Arcane” is an oxymoron. It would be like passing all the college exams for astronomy, chemistry, physics, and advanced mathematics, without ever having studied these topics - or even knowing the spoken language that these exams happen to be written in.

“Innate arcane” is an oxymoron. There is no such thing.

Innate magic is Psionic.  

tell that to every other edition of DnD that features ar sorc (or a bard, or any other spontanious arcane caster). and yes, that is how it should be, not because it's how it always has been.

What “every other”? 3e and 4e?

The innate Psionic power source has been around since even *before* D&D, at the very origins of D&D, by Gygax himself! 0e and 1e.



Psionic is the iconic innate. 

i'm still waiting for a point haldrik

i'm pretty sure we aren't here to show off our DnD hipster scarves

The point is, the Sorcerer has no reason to exist. Has no tradition. Has no identity. And does nothing except step on the toes of other classes that already exist before it.

Aug 24, 2012 -- 5:45PM, Haldrik wrote:

The point is, the Sorcerer has no reason to exist. Has no tradition. Has no identity. And does nothing except step on the toes of other classes that already exist before it.

and my point is, this isn't your game.

you are helping to create it (sadly) but the game and the intellectual property belongs to wizards of the coast. i'm pretty sure they are allowed to imagine their magic system however they want, and without your permission.

you have been making outragous demands for the last few days for reasons that boil down to "thats not how magic works in your mind"

excuse me if i remain unimpressed by your "point"

Aug 24, 2012 -- 5:51PM, Yuwain wrote:

Aug 24, 2012 -- 5:45PM, Haldrik wrote:

The point is, the Sorcerer has no reason to exist. Has no tradition. Has no identity. And does nothing except step on the toes of other classes that already exist before it.

and my point is, this isn't your game.

you are helping to create it (sadly) but the game and the intellectual property belongs to wizards of the coast. i'm pretty sure they are allowed to imagine their magic system however they want, and without your permission.

you have been making outragous demands for the last few days for reasons that boil down to "thats not how magic works in your mind"

excuse me if i remain unimpressed by your "point"

I know. It is Gary Gygaxs game. He already established Psionic as innate, whose source is the brain itself.

Aug 24, 2012 -- 5:52PM, Haldrik wrote:

Aug 24, 2012 -- 5:51PM, Yuwain wrote:

Aug 24, 2012 -- 5:45PM, Haldrik wrote:

The point is, the Sorcerer has no reason to exist. Has no tradition. Has no identity. And does nothing except step on the toes of other classes that already exist before it.

and my point is, this isn't your game.

you are helping to create it (sadly) but the game and the intellectual property belongs to wizards of the coast. i'm pretty sure they are allowed to imagine their magic system however they want, and without your permission.

you have been making outragous demands for the last few days for reasons that boil down to "thats not how magic works in your mind"

excuse me if i remain unimpressed by your "point"

I know. It is Gary Gygaxs game. He already established Psionic as innate, whose source is the brain itself.

no, it's not. legally it has nothing to do with Gygax. you may not have noticed, but he's a little too dead right now to have an opinion.

-edit-

also, it stopped being his game a long time before he failed his last saving throw.

Aug 24, 2012 -- 5:56PM, Yuwain wrote:

no, it's not. legally it has nothing to do with Gygax. you may not have noticed, but he's a little too dead right now to have an opinion.

-edit-

also, it stopped being his game a long time before he failed his last saving throw.

Indeed.  Gygax is dead, and he lost the rights to D&D a long time ago.  And frankly, after hearing the horror stories of the modules he wrote, I'm glad he has nothing to do with modern D&D.  I will always respect him as the co-creator of one of my favorite games, but if his modules are at all indicative of his DM style, I'm glad I was never in one of his games.

To me, Gygax is something like George Lucas.  Yes, he created this wonderful thing, but it's grown from that, and it's bigger and better now.  I have to think that, were Gygax with us and if he was given the chance to make more modules, they'd turn out like the prequel trilogy for Star Wars.  I will always respect Lucas for creating Star Wars, but the man needs to realize that the IP is bigger than he is now.  The day he announced his retirement from the IP, I celebrated.

Aug 24, 2012 -- 5:39PM, Yuwain wrote:

tell that to every other edition of DnD that features ar sorc (or a bard, or any other spontanious arcane caster). and yes, that is how it should be, not because it's how it always has been.

Bards were not "inherently magical" in any edition of the game, with the tenuous exception of 3.x, and that only because it was good enough to qualify them for Dragon Disciple.  Heck, in 1e they used druidic magic.  In later editions, they learned--not "were born with"--some minor arcane spellcasting.  Even 4e didn't change this.

The sorcerer is a New Thing.  It's not firmly placed in the D&D lore, so it has a little bit of wiggle room insofar as "finding a place."  The dragon tie-in makes perfect sense, because dragons are the archetypal monsters that just somehow happen to be able to cast arcane spells without actually having to learn anything.

Aug 24, 2012 -- 6:39PM, MindWandererB wrote:

Aug 24, 2012 -- 5:39PM, Yuwain wrote:

tell that to every other edition of DnD that features ar sorc (or a bard, or any other spontanious arcane caster). and yes, that is how it should be, not because it's how it always has been.

Bards were not "inherently magical" in any edition of the game, with the tenuous exception of 3.x, and that only because it was good enough to qualify them for Dragon Disciple.  Heck, in 1e they used druidic magic.  In later editions, they learned--not "were born with"--some minor arcane spellcasting.  Even 4e didn't change this.

The sorcerer is a New Thing.  It's not firmly placed in the D&D lore, so it has a little bit of wiggle room insofar as "finding a place."  The dragon tie-in makes perfect sense, because dragons are the archetypal monsters that just somehow happen to be able to cast arcane spells without actually having to learn anything.

IIRC, dragons study Arcane magic, like erudite Wizards do, and record their protoscientific findings in their Draconic language, using their clawish script.

Dragonborn have draconic heritage, yet there is no “innate” arcane magic for them either.

Aug 24, 2012 -- 6:50PM, Haldrik wrote:

Dragonborn have draconic heritage, yet there is no “innate” arcane magic for them either.

The dragonborn race is not descended from dragons.  Sorcerers with the draconic heritage are.

Aug 24, 2012 -- 6:56PM, thewok wrote:

Aug 24, 2012 -- 6:50PM, Haldrik wrote:

Dragonborn have draconic heritage, yet there is no “innate” arcane magic for them either.

The dragonborn race is not descended from dragons.  Sorcerers with the draconic heritage are.

Im rereading the 4e Monster Manual now. The Dragon entry says NOTHING about “innate” arcane magic. There is none.


In fact, except for Fear effects (which are arguably Psionic), even Ancient Dragons lack any magical attack beyond their breath weapon (which is quasi-biological). There is no “innate” Arcane magic.

Aug 24, 2012 -- 7:03PM, Haldrik wrote:

Aug 24, 2012 -- 6:56PM, thewok wrote:

Aug 24, 2012 -- 6:50PM, Haldrik wrote:

Dragonborn have draconic heritage, yet there is no “innate” arcane magic for them either.

The dragonborn race is not descended from dragons.  Sorcerers with the draconic heritage are.

Im rereading the 4e Monster Manual now. The Dragon entry says NOTHING about “innate” arcane magic. There is none.

and what does it say about your proposed dragon acadamy?

My first introduction to the Dragonborn was in the same 3.5 book that had the option to play a half-dragon. Their origin in both 3.5 and 4e essentialy was that they where created by Bahamut, because he is a god and he felt like it. (In 3.5 the race was called Dragonborn of Bahamut.) 

They weren't descende from dragons, but rather were created by a god, who happened to have been one at some point. 

As far as the Monster Manual goes, there is no connection between Dragon and Arcane magic whatsoever, much less the oxymoronic “innate” Arcane magic.

Aug 24, 2012 -- 7:03PM, Haldrik wrote:

Im rereading the 4e Monster Manual now. The Dragon entry says NOTHING about “innate” arcane magic. There is none.

That has what to do with Dragonborn exactly?  But, let's talk about dragons.

A dragon's heart is the source of its dragon's power.  This huge, four-chambered organ pumps strongly enough to send blood flowing throughout the enormous beast.  legend has it that if a dragon's heart could be filled with enough granite, the strength of the heart's constriction would crush the stone to powder.

The heart also generates the elemental energy that grants chromatic dragons their breath weapons and other powers.  It is a dragon's most magical aspect.  Without the mystical energy distributed by their hearts, dragons might be merely intelligent lizards.  This energy suffuses the entire body through the blood.  For parts of the body that require more focused power, the fundamentum is a more direct conduit.

A dragon's blood is somewhat thinner than human blood and is darker, appearing black in dim lighting.  The blood's temperature depends on the variety of dragon.  Red dragon blood gives off steam, white dragon blood is barely above freezing, and so forth.

Draconomicon: Chromatic Dragons, pp. 9-10

Metallics have the same basic anatomy and functionality as chromatics.

It should be noted that the breath weapon is not a spell.  It is magical, but not really a spell.  The blood is pumped through the fundamentum into the dragon's stomach, where it "vomits" the energy up.  So, yes, dragons are like flies.  They like to puke on their food before they eat it.

Anyway, raw elemental energy is infused throughout the dragon's body.  That fuels all its powers.  So, it has innate power.  It has to learn how to channel that power into usable effects.

The sorcerer is born with innate power, and he has to learn how to channel that power into usable effects.  That's where the "arcane" comes in.  Only instead of using precise formulae and movements like a wizard, the sorcerer plays it by ear, learning through unguided practice.

edit: fixed some spelling issues. 

Aug 24, 2012 -- 7:10PM, blesper wrote:

My first introduction to the Dragonborn was in the same 3.5 book that had the option to play a half-dragon. Their origin in both 3.5 and 4e essentialy was that they where created by Bahamut, because he is a god and he felt like it. (In 3.5 the race was called Dragonborn of Bahamut.) 

They weren't descende from dragons, but rather were created by a god, who happened to have been one at some point. 

Indeed.

Players Handbook Races: Dragonborn has three creation myths for the dragonborn, none of which have dragonborn as a descendant of dragons.  Only, in 4E, they were created by Io instead of Bahamut.

Did it say, Arcane magic? Or Divine magic from Io? Or even Psionic magic.


More and more, the Dragon seems Psionic. Fear. Mythologically, terror, seduction, deception, the wisdom of the serpent, and so on. These are mental effects.

Even magical breath weapon energy can be an aspect of Psionic pyrokinesis, and other telekinetic effects.

Aug 24, 2012 -- 7:28PM, Haldrik wrote:

Did it say, Arcane magic? Or Divine magic from Io? Or even Psionic magic.


More and more, the Dragon seems Psionic. Fear. Mythologically, terror, seduction, deception, the wisdom of the serpent, and so on. These are mental effects.

Even magical breath weapon energy can be an aspect of Psionic pyrokinesis, and other telekinetic effects.

oh give it up, even the source material is against you.

"It is a dragon's most magical aspect.  Without the mystical energy distributed by their hearts, dragons might be merely intelligent lizards."

Mystical, not psionic.

“Mystical” energy, proves it isnt Arcane.



There is no connection between Arcane and Dragon whatsoever.



At best, the dragon breath is a “spell-like ability”. And Psionic is a “spell-like ability” too.

Aug 24, 2012 -- 7:33PM, Haldrik wrote:

“Mystical” energy, proves it isnt Arcane.


There is no connection between Arcane and Dragon whatsoever.  

then why don't you go and write a letter to mike

i'm sure he will be very thankful that your wealth of specific knowledge of an imaginary power that doesn't exist saved him the embarrasment of being wrong about said non existant imaginary force.

Anybody can understand logic.

The Sorcerer has no reason to exist.

Its spells belong to the Wizard class.

Its innate magic belongs to the Psion class.

Its very name “sorcery” means to rely on external demons for magic effects, belonging to the Warlock class.

Its Dragon heritage has nothing to do with Arcane magic whatsoever.



The Sorcerer is a lie.

Aug 24, 2012 -- 7:38PM, Haldrik wrote:

Anybody can understand logic.

The Sorcerer has no reason to exist.

Its spells belong to the Wizard class.

Its innate magic belongs to the Psion class.

Its very name “sorcery” means to rely on external demons for magic effects, belonging to the Warlock class.

Its Dragon heritage has nothing to do with Arcane magic whatsoever.



The Sorcerer is a lie.

very good, you can have a cookie.

now, the rest of us are going to go and you know, have fun, while you sit in the corner and fret about the specific made up differences in imaginary systems of a non existant force. I'm sure it's very important work.

Aug 24, 2012 -- 7:38PM, Haldrik wrote:

Anybody can understand logic.

The Sorcerer has no reason to exist.

Its spells belong to the Wizard class.

Its innate magic belongs to the Psion class.

Its very name “sorcery” means to rely on external demons for magic effects, belonging to the Warlock class.

Its Dragon heritage has nothing to do with Arcane magic whatsoever.



The Sorcerer is a lie.

Yep and it is a lie that my entire group loves. So I'm cool with it, very impressed with the fluff attached and can't wait for more heritages to come out!

Aug 24, 2012 -- 7:41PM, ncksix wrote:

Aug 24, 2012 -- 7:38PM, Haldrik wrote:

Anybody can understand logic.

The Sorcerer has no reason to exist.

Its spells belong to the Wizard class.

Its innate magic belongs to the Psion class.

Its very name “sorcery” means to rely on external demons for magic effects, belonging to the Warlock class.

Its Dragon heritage has nothing to do with Arcane magic whatsoever.



The Sorcerer is a lie.

Yep and it is a lie that my entire group loves. So I'm cool with it, very impressed with the fluff attached and can't wait for more heritages to come out!

"b- b- but, you can't like it, it's wrong don't you know?!"

Aug 24, 2012 -- 7:33PM, Haldrik wrote:

“Mystical” energy, proves it isnt Arcane.

I do not understand your logic.

Just for clarification, let's nail down some definitions:

Mystical: 
1. mystic;  occult.
2. of or pertaining to mystics  or mysticism: mystical writings.
3. spiritually symbolic.
4. Rare. obscure in meaning; mysterious.

3rd edition wont help because it was wrong too, and not the gospel of gygax, and wrong, did i mention it's wrong? because i know everything about something that isn't real.

-edit-

sorry, i wanted to beat him to the counter argument.

@thewok Good to know. I suppose that explained why several of the feats had names like breath of Io

Though I find some of the benefits of the curent sorcerer bloodline to be a bit silly, I have no problem with a player wanting to play a character who gains special abilities due to some unique quality from his heritage.

If you can breathe fire because you great grandfather was some kind of weird dragon who just hapened to like humans a little too much, well that is already more information than I want to know about your character's situation.

Aug 24, 2012 -- 7:45PM, blesper wrote:

@thewok Good to know. I suppose that explained why several of the feats had names like breath of Io

Though I find some of the benefits of the curent sorcerer bloodline to be a bit silly, I have no problem with a player wanting to play a character who gains special abilities due to some unique quality from his heritage.

If you can breathe fire because you great grandfather was some kind of weird dragon who just hapened to like humans a little too much, well that is already more information than I want to know about your character's situation.

hey now, you don't know his situation. maybe it was a blood transfusion?

I suppose some sort of crazy alchemist (which needs to be a background) could have done so, and it would make for a unique character story.

Aug 24, 2012 -- 7:49PM, blesper wrote:

I suppose some sort of crazy alchemist (which needs to be a background) could have done so, and it would make for a unique character story.

can it be a prince that needs a peice of his heart?

maybe the dragon could be played by sean connery.

Aug 24, 2012 -- 7:52PM, Yuwain wrote:

maybe the dragon could be played by sean connery.

A dragon played by Sean Connery would explain the fact that so many people have dragon ancestors.

Aug 24, 2012 -- 7:43PM, thewok wrote:

Aug 24, 2012 -- 7:33PM, Haldrik wrote:

“Mystical” energy, proves it isnt Arcane.

I do not understand your logic.

Just for clarification, let's nail down some definitions:

Mystical: 
1. mystic;  occult.
2. of or pertaining to mystics  or mysticism: mystical writings.
3. spiritually symbolic.
4. Rare. obscure in meaning; mysterious.

Arcane:
known or understood by very few; mysterious; secret; obscure; esoteric:

You can see that "mystical" and "arcane" are somewhat synonyms.

Wizards, sorcerers and bards cast arcane spells.  Arcane spells involve the direct manipulation of mystic energies.  These manipulations require natural talent (in the case of sorcerers), long study (in the case of wizards) or both (in the case of bards).  Compared to divine spells, arcane spells are more likely to produce dramatic results, such as flight, explosions or transformations.  What arcane spells do poorly is heal wounds.

Player's Handbook, D&D 3rd edition.

Similar to the word “magic”, the word “mystic” can and does refer to Divine and Psionic as well. The failure to specify “Arcane” magic demonstrates the Dragon lacks a special affinity with Arcane magic.


      

Aug 24, 2012 -- 7:54PM, thewok wrote:

Aug 24, 2012 -- 7:52PM, Yuwain wrote:

maybe the dragon could be played by sean connery.

A dragon played by Sean Connery would explain the fact that so many people have dragon ancestors.

If that where the case I think the majority of sorcerers would have the dragon bloodline.

Edit: The dragonheart reference was well played my freind.

Maybe it is better if the Sorcerer class is absent from core.

Aug 24, 2012 -- 7:58PM, Haldrik wrote:

Similar to the word “magic”, the word “mystic” can and does refer to Divine and Psionic as well. The failure to specify “Arcane” magic demonstrates the Dragon lacks a special affinity with Arcane magic.

I have provided various evidence from multiple editions to refute your claims, which you have soundly ignored, much like plugging your ears with your fingers, closing your eyes, and loudly singing "La la la la la la!"

Allow me to retort in similar style:

You're wrong.

La la la la la la la ....

Aug 24, 2012 -- 8:06PM, thewok wrote:

Aug 24, 2012 -- 7:58PM, Haldrik wrote:

Similar to the word “magic”, the word “mystic” can and does refer to Divine and Psionic as well. The failure to specify “Arcane” magic demonstrates the Dragon lacks a special affinity with Arcane magic.

I have provided various evidence from multiple editions to refute your claims, which you have soundly ignored, much like plugging your ears with your fingers, closing your eyes, and loudly singing "La la la la la la!"

Allow me to retort in similar style:

You're wrong.

La la la la la la la ....

Did you fail to notice what you yourself wrote? None of your references even mention the word “Arcane”.

The Dragon lacks affinity with Arcane magic.

This argument just keeps degenerating.


Applying realistic, or real world meanings to game mechanics would do more harm than good. Some examples

Critical hits would always mean instant death for both players and monsters.

Heavy bludgeoning weapons such as the mace would also break bones on impact....of your shield. Effectively lowering your ac, as you can no longer use your shield arm, and you would likely be taking continual damage from internal hemorrhaging.

Not bathing within 2 weeks time would render you more susceptible to disease.

A fighter would be anyone who has entered in combat and would not be a class.



 

Aug 24, 2012 -- 8:07PM, Haldrik wrote:

Aug 24, 2012 -- 8:06PM, thewok wrote:

Aug 24, 2012 -- 7:58PM, Haldrik wrote:

Similar to the word “magic”, the word “mystic” can and does refer to Divine and Psionic as well. The failure to specify “Arcane” magic demonstrates the Dragon lacks a special affinity with Arcane magic.

I have provided various evidence from multiple editions to refute your claims, which you have soundly ignored, much like plugging your ears with your fingers, closing your eyes, and loudly singing "La la la la la la!"

Allow me to retort in similar style:

You're wrong.

La la la la la la la ....

Did you fail to notice what you yourself wrote? None of your references even mention the word “Arcane”.

The Dragon lacks affinity with Arcane magic.

lets try this aproach.


*ahem*

MAGIC ISN'T REAL.

you cannot be wrong about something that is made up, wizards can do whatever they want, they will not be wrong.

-edit-

if wizards say sorcs are arcane, than they are arcane, if they say that their power is derived from dressing sheep up in bikinis, then a sorcs power is derived from dressing a sheep up in a bikini. you can't refute that.

Dragons are Psionic.



(Prove they arent.)    

Aug 24, 2012 -- 8:14PM, Haldrik wrote:

Dragons are Psionic.



(Prove they arent.)    

neither dragons or psionics are real

you can't be something that isn't real

therefore dragons aren't psionic (or real)

-edited to make my post a fully formed argument.

Aug 24, 2012 -- 8:15PM, Yuwain wrote:

Aug 24, 2012 -- 8:14PM, Haldrik wrote:

Dragons are Psionic.



(Prove they arent.)    

neither dragons or psionics are real

you can't be something that isn't real

therefore dragons aren't psionic (or real)

-edited to make my post a fully formed argument.

By your own logic, Dragons aren't arcane.

Aug 24, 2012 -- 8:19PM, Haldrik wrote:

Aug 24, 2012 -- 8:15PM, Yuwain wrote:

Aug 24, 2012 -- 8:14PM, Haldrik wrote:

Dragons are Psionic.



(Prove they arent.)    

neither dragons or psionics are real

you can't be something that isn't real

therefore dragons aren't psionic (or real)

-edited to make my post a fully formed argument.

By your own logic, Dragons aren't arcane.

by god he GETS IT!

guess what, they are whatever wizards decides them to be in their game.

It seems Core D&D decided the Dragon lacks affinity with Arcane.

Aug 24, 2012 -- 8:28PM, Haldrik wrote:

It seems Core D&D decided the Dragon lacks affinity with Arcane.

it seems that it doesn't matter, they can change it however they want.

In d&d dragons are a naturaly occuring creature which tend to embody natural elements or forces of nature. This is particularly true with the catastrophic dragon (blizzard, earthquake, etc).

Wheter or not elements being manifested in a strange way, in this case probably a breath weapon, constitutes as arcane or psionic should be left up to the DM. Although I don't see how this any actual significance on the game other than causing arguments over fluff.

You're arguing about fluff, which is stupid.

i dissagree slightly

wizards should offer a core setting so that a DM doesn't need to skin their own universe if they don't want to. it's up to the DM if they want to use it or not.

Given that this is a playtest, I feel that asking for a core setting is a bit much at this point.

I  do agree  that DMs should always have the option to reflavor things, but not be required to.

Aug 24, 2012 -- 9:05PM, blesper wrote:

Given that this is a playtest, I feel that asking for a core setting is a bit much at this point.

I  do agree  that DMs should always have the option to reflavor things, but not be required to.

agreed

Dragons are arcane. Straight from the 3.5 MM1:

A Great Wyrm Blue Dragon can use a Spell-Like ability known as "Mirage Arcana." Additionally, a Mature Blue Dragon can cast spells as a 7th lvl (arcane) sorceror. Taken from the *Arcane* spell list. Not the Divine spell list or the Psionic spell list. Other chromatic dragons also cast spells as a sorceror and gain SLA's of Arcane spells.

Are you done yet, Haldick?

Aug 25, 2012 -- 2:10AM, channingman wrote:

Dragons are arcane. Straight from the 3.5 MM1:

A Great Wyrm Blue Dragon can use a Spell-Like ability known as "Mirage Arcana." Additionally, a Mature Blue Dragon can cast spells as a 7th lvl (arcane) sorceror. Taken from the *Arcane* spell list. Not the Divine spell list or the Psionic spell list. Other chromatic dragons also cast spells as a sorceror and gain SLA's of Arcane spells.

Are you done yet, Haldick?

As mentioned earlier, “spell-like abilities”, include Psionic. Compare the Mind Flayer Mind Blast, which is presumably Psionic in nature, but is called a “spell-like ability”.

Because the same spells can be on several lists, which list a spell happens to be on feels uncompelling. For example, a Cleric domain can cast just about any spell. Moreover the 3e Psion covers more-or-less the same spells as the Wizard covers. 

If the Dragon had *any* special relationship to Arcane magic, the tradition would mention the word “Arcane” and define that special relationship. But there is no *special* relationship. Therefore Dragon heritage means nothing in terms of Arcane magic, specifically.

Finally, the Sorcerer spells are actual “spells” - the same spells that the Wizard class casts, with the same kind of components and requirements. The Sorcerer lacks “spell-like abilities”. So what the Sorcerer is doing has nothing to do with the spell-like effects that the Dragon is doing.

By contrast, Psionic magic is a spell-like ability. Truly the innate magic. And it is the same “spell-like ability” that the Dragon is also doing.

sigh......

@Haldrik

I've been reading a lot of your posts and I am not sure as to the motives behind them. I can come up with three reasons/

1) You truly love the Psionic classes, and you are trying to argue away a class that you see as in the way of the Psion. Both because it is using a similiar system and because if it were not in the base rules your Psionic classes might make it in. I could understand this to a degree, but you seem more determined to destroy than to replace and I'd say that if this is your reason it would be better served being open and honest.

2) You just truly don't get it. You see magic only under the context of "proto-science" and therefore can't understand how we see it differently. I met a guy like that once, he tried to argue with a guest speaker over a poem the speaker had written. It was over the description of the fog having a "cat-like tread" and they guy was arguing that fog doesn't have feet so it can't have a cat-like tread. If this is the case I'm not sure f there is a way to bridge the gaps in our understanding. Perhaps it would help to picture sorcerers as a "magical savant" after all autistic savants can pass that advanced testing thing you mentioned earlier in the thread if that is their gift.

3) You are a troll and just trying to get a rise out of people. If this is the case nothing we say will end this debate because for you the debate is the entire purpose. I truly hope this is not the case

Why is it people think that sorcerer and psion cannot co exist? Paladin and Cleric have been doing it for several editions.

My guess is it's one with a smattering of three.

He desperately wants the psion to be core, but since he knows it won't happen he's constructed a scenario where a class that is being made core: the sorcerer, into something that doesn't make sense, so that players who like that kind of thing should support him in getting the version of the class that "makes sense" into the core of the game.

Deep down though, he knows it won't work so instead of accepting it, he resorts to trolling.

So basically, don't feed him.

Benglimer and Chaosmancer: Haldrik isn't a troll.  He's got his own predispositions and wealth of knowledge and interests in this game as anyone else.  I've seen the wealth of interesting posts he's made here over the years; besides, Haldrik has as much a right as any one of us to contribute to the development of the DDN game. 

Now, personally, Haldrik, I disagree with you.  That passage from Chromatic Dragons distinctly talks about elemental power – but it's framed by the Dragon.  The reason it doesn't mention Arcane or Divine or whatnot specifically is because at that time, (A) Arcane hadn't been defined clearly in 4e, and (B) Dragons occupy an odd space in the D&D mythos.   These are creatures that often can cast arcane spells, use elemental breath weapons coming from a heart of elemental power, and yet were created by the Divine Io/Tiamat/Bahamut.  In earlier editions, where there wasn't so much a split between Divine and Elemental (the war between the Gods and the Primordials being a distinctly 4e flavor that is awesome, but brings about some of its own issues), Tiamat was able to be both a Demon Prince and and a God.  So was Lolth, for that matter - the Demon Queen of Spiders.  But come 4e, magic is suddenly categorised into whether it comes from Primal Spirits, Elemental and Demon Princes, Dark Lords of the Shadowfell, Divine Beings, from a supreme balancing of mind, body, and spirit, or from Archfey and knowing how to manipulate the cosmic forces in their entirety. 

That last part was Arcane.   And that was the flavor they decided on and that was evident in both Heroes of Shadow and Heroes of the Elemental Chaos.  Arcane is necessary as a framing device to hold together the slipping away Shadow Power or the raw, unbridled chaos of Elemental Power.  Unless you are an Elemental entity yourself, you need to frame that Elemental energy through Divine, Primal, Psionic, or most likely Arcane magic.  Dragons are the framing device themselves; their bodies beating and working to control the elemental furnaces that are their hearts.


Now lets go back to the Sorcerer.  Sorcerers as defined in D&D (and I know it doesn't fit your definition of Sorcerer, but bear with me, since that's something you can't really change now that they've branded the Sorcerer).  They are defined as innate casters, drawing their power from either bloodlines (a la 3.5e) or chaos in some form (a la 4e).  In the Keynote address, it was suggested that the chaos events – born under an auspicious sign, faerie ancestry, draconic ancestry, someone meddled with you during your birth, and created what you are – these are all elements that evoke an interesting story.  They also fit the idea of Arcane magic as manipulation of the cosmic mystical forces of the world.  It's just that the Sorcerer him or herself wasn't the manipulator (much like the Warlock isn't the manipulator, his or her Patron is) – the bloodline creator is. 

Now I am going to say it straight out:  You will not be happy, Haldrik, with Sorcerers being innate, unless you can learn to be okay with overlapping flavor.  OR, unless we see the entirety of Psionic subsumed by Arcane (something I see as possible, but improbable because of important flavor differences between the two in Dark Sun). 

However, you can and SHOULD reflavor the Sorcerer as a psionic character.  I would argue that Psionic, Arcane, Divine, Primal, you name it – Magic is all Magic, and this it's all the same power source.  YES, dividing power sources allowed for flavoring different classes (getting at more animistic/shamanic flavor rather than having to "make do" with Nature Clerics or Wizards for Shamans), but at the same time, has brought up the very awkward situations you have complained about – since essentially, telling someone their gods are really primal spirits or elemental entities is silly; they still worship them.  Arcane magic is really derivative of worship mysteries from Persian Zoroastrianism (Magus referred to their equivalent of Druids and Brahmins.  Psionic shares huge overlaps with Arcane and Divine schools, as well as with Martial as of 4e – in fact, I would argue that the arbitrary split between Psionic and Martial in 4e was extremely stupid; Psionic represented "martial artists" as Monks, Battleminds, and Ardents, and their sage-like masters as Psions.  Other people see Psionic though as more pseudoscientific detectives and intrigue stuff a la Eberron, or in Psionic magic schools a la Dark Sun, where it really acts more like Arcane or Divine power.  Others see it as if spirits have overtaken the mind, and in fact, Goliaths are said in 4e to believe someone with Psionic powers are possessed by the primal spirits.  I would argue that Power Sources in 4e thus only served as a categorisation by the classes' flavor in the world, and the Power was really all the same thing, just understood in different ways.  Heroes of the Elemental Chaos would suggest that that is the case – that at the root of things, all magic is Elemental and is just shape in different ways.

If that is the case, then let's look as a possible character you can build with the Sorcerer.  I'm going to choose something that is clearly difficult to define in Power Source terms, and yet should be iconic – the protagonist of YuYu Hakusho.  Beware of spoilers, which are necessary to discuss the character arc and how it is distinctly DDN Sorcerer, and yet has odd overlaps between Psionic and Arcane.

Urameshi Yuusuke who is a street fighter, but after dying and coming back to life, is made a spirit detective and gains his spirit gun (with limited usages – while another class might give a magical bolt like Magic Missle or Eldritch Blast as an at-will, Sorcerers need to spend willpower to cast it).  He then hunts down escape spirits, ghosts, ogres/oni, and demons using tools, psychic powers, and his spirit gun.  He eventually is able to create Spirit Wave and Spirit Wave Bomb for powerful effects.  But by the end of season three, he has died a second time, and this time came back, discovering he has demonic atavism.  He is a human, but with a demon prince in his bloodline.  His spirit gun becomes really a "demon gun" at this point, but during his titanic final confrontation with Season 3 big baddie Sensui, his demonic ancestor "takes control" of his body and destroys Sensui instead.  Yuusuke later seeks out his ancestral father, and joins demon world politics as that Demon King's heir apparent.  He sets up a Demon World tournament to decide who rules the Demon World, and while he doesn't win the tournament, he prevent both of the other two power-hungry expansionistic demon princes from winning by wearing them out in the earlier rounds, acting as a spoiler, and leaving a neutral, pretty decent demon guy to be President of Hell.  During the semifinals when he loses, he is able to weaken Yomi, one of those expansionistic demons, by mixing his spirit gun back in with his demon gun.  He also is able to use the pure energy gun that Sensui had used in Season 3. 
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Where am I going with all this?  Yuusuke clearly has what you'd call Psionic powers, but the features are quite close to the Dragon Sorcerer here, and his real root of power is not psionic magic, but his demonic heritage.  The reason he actually was able to be a candidate for Spirit Detective in the first place is brought up exactly because he was actually demon-blooded, but it was inactive until he could become more powerful.  He's a melee combatant, and his ancestor and he struggle for control of his body later on.  We see three guns – the Reigun or Spirit Gun, the Seigun or Pure Gun, and the Akagun or Demon Gun.  These would be the three power sources in this series, but Yuusuke doesn't really fit into any of them.  The Psionic Spirit Gun is closely tied with psychic masters like Genkai, but also with the Spirit World, which is a Divine agency that controls the world like the Heavenly entities of Chinese and Japanese mythology.  Then the Pure Gun is created from a sanctity of inner self and perfection.  This takes another half of both Psionic and Divine – the inner perfection element of Psionic, but also devotion to ideals and ethics like Paladins.  Sensui shouldn't have been able to be a villain and use it, but he had splintered his personality and was sure he was in the right, to the point that he would be a token example of a Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil character played with the LG logo on top because they "believe" they are Good. 



My point is that your definitions of Psionic aren't exactly mine, nor are your Arcane ones.  While you, Haldrik, have as much a right as anyone to contribute to the development of flavor in DDN through your feedback to the playtest, you also need to be prepared for a game that doesn't necessarily fit your exact flavor designs, and yet can be used in a way that you see fit.  I can EASILY see you taking the Sorcerer, and house-ruling it as a Psionic character.  And that would be and SHOULD be completely viable, if not outright said by the makers of the game what you should be doing.  My world flavor is never going to match the core accepted flavor, but a more limited understanding of Sorcerer and Arcane in general will hurt applicability to my world.  You on the otherhand can easily flavor away the differences.  If it doesn't exist mechanically, then I can't use it without developing it myself.  But that's what I'm paying WotC to develop.  Homebrewing balanced and fun mechanics is difficult; homebrewing flavor is VERY simple. 

So rather than arguing whether Sorcerer, Witch, or Warlock is used for alternate classes, or why Katanas and Spiked Chains are appearing alongside Glaive/Guisarmes and Guisarme/Lances and whatnot, I'd rather they include it all, whatever the name and flavor, and let me adapt it.  But give it strong flavor that new players will enjoy.  The point will roleplaying flavor feedback in this playtest is not to decide if I think new players need a history or linguistics lesson.  The point is to make a game that new players and old players alike can play and be attracted to.  As others have said, this is a natural evolution of the 4e Sorcerer, which was a natural evolution of the 3.5e Sorcerer, which was a natural evolution of the 3.0e sorcerer.  But boy, have I not had more ideas with this Sorcerer mechanic than ever before. 

I have a character in 4e, she's a dagger-fighting, sheriff-office arcane detective investigating vampiric murders, but actually has a twin-soul – an ancient vampire/owl being inside of her, which is commiting the atrocities without the knowledge of the surface personality.  She was raised by a Dead One Vistani witch who had been keeping her darker side sealed up for decades.  Eventually, she becomes aware of it, leaves her post in the local sheriff's office, and goes off on a journey to find a way to control the evil entity within her.  I built her by giving her the melee dagger Cosmic Sorcerer class and build, the Vryloka race, and the Halastar's Clone Theme to capture the various elements of the character.  Theme was the hardest choice, though Race was also difficult.  I originally had her as a Human, then a Half-elf, then made a homebrew race that is like a Raptoran, then back to Half-elf, then when Heroes of Shadow was released, she became a Vryloka, complete with a red owl transformation power.  For theme, I loved her as a Guttersnipe, because it gave her a street-fighter feature to compliment her dagger fighting she got through class feats.  I also tried out giving her the Windlord theme from Heroes of the Elemental Chaos to reflect her flying stuff.   But I didn't really have powers to reflect the twinned personality until the Halastar's Clone theme was released with the Cormyrian Heroes article in Dragon.  When that happened, I knew I could meet the "Hyde" like personality element, but because of that, I sacrificed other elements from Theme. 

The thing is, if there was a Vampire Soul Bloodline for the DDN Sorcerer, that would allow me to do EVERY SINGLE PART of this just in the class section.  That would allow me to give her the Spy background and either the Lurker to reflect her roguish-like fighting or the Dual Wielder to meet her dual dagger fighting style. 

This is a character I can create best with the Sorcerer class, and I've always understood her power as Arcane, because she was raised by Vistanic witch (albeit, a sedentary Dead One), she saw her magic as witches' magic.  I have always seen a close connection between the Witch, the Sorcerer, and the Warlock.  That's fine.  Refluffing is a good friend.  But her melee capabilities line her up PERFECTLY with the DDN Sorcerer.

Holy wall of text Batman!

Words change definition intrinsicly over time anyway. The words witch, warlock, sorcerer, and the like have been poisoned and altered over time to be completely synonomous, even though they each had different meanings initially.

I'm wiccan, but just because I'm male and wiccan does not mean it is appropriate to call me a warlock. I am a male witch, and that is what we prefer to be called. Yet if you look up a modern definition of warlocks on dictionary.com or similar sources they are just labeled " a male witch" for one of the definitions. Warlocks are, and have always been, those who consort with powerful entities to get power for themselves. Whether YOU believe in the existance of this power or not is irrelevent, that is the title that they were given for THAT purpose when it was believed in. Just as a witch is someone who uses the power of nature as their source of power through herbalism and similar sources of magic.  The real study of mysticism throughout the ages has had differing views on whether you need precise formulae or insight and intuition.

A sorcerer by origin is someone who casts lots. An augur of sorts. Nothing in there about magical power either way outside of diviniation, basically, and no real ties to religion or form of practice.  That said, this is not how they are presented in D&D, and that's a good thing. Let them stay this way.


All of this aside, I see the power sources as follows:
Divine: Channels power directly from an almost omnipotent being.
Psionic: Channels power only from within their mind and body.
Arcane: Channels power from the world around them.

This is still much more versatile than it appears. Did they learn to channel those worldly powers by studying it like a science?  Were they just born with the ability to draw power from the world around them and turn it in to a mystical form? Did they make bargains with powerful and almost god-like entities to get a short-cut to drawing this power out of the world?  These are all three viable options for arcane magic.

Psionics can be looked at under a similar microscope. Did they meditate religiously until they reached an epiphany? Did they just manifest the first signs of internal power as a wild talent in adolescence? Did some powerful entity that is likely psionic itself unlock their potential? Did a near death experience open their mind to the possibilities?

And of course, this leads to divine. Do they pray religiously? Are they granted the power by a God that they may not even worship because they are chosen? Do they actually have the ability to meet and speak with their god on any more real level? Does their god have a specific plan for them?


These are just concepts that determine a background. WOTC and TSR before it were simply giving a broad concept a name and making a class out of it. They have refined it over time and will continue to. It's not worth a war over this. You can house rule it out if you like. I understand not all will agree with my views on those three categories of powers, but I see it as a good baseline.

Aug 24, 2012 -- 7:03PM, Haldrik wrote:

Aug 24, 2012 -- 6:56PM, thewok wrote:

Aug 24, 2012 -- 6:50PM, Haldrik wrote:

Dragonborn have draconic heritage, yet there is no “innate” arcane magic for them either.

The dragonborn race is not descended from dragons.  Sorcerers with the draconic heritage are.

Im rereading the 4e Monster Manual now. The Dragon entry says NOTHING about “innate” arcane magic. There is none.

Yeah, I wasn't talking about 4e, where their spellcasting ability was nuked to make them simpler.  In 2e-3.5 (and IIRC 1e, though I'm not 100% sure about that one), dragons cast spells as classed PCs.  In 2e they cast as wizards, in 3e as sorcerers.

Also: Why has no one mentioned the gem dragons?  In 2e, they were deliberately invented to be the psionic counterparts to the arcane chromatic and metallic dragons.  They had powers as classed psions and had psi-like abilities out of the psionics supplements.  3e retained that tradition.

Coming at this virtually cold, having missed all the edition wars (I stopped shortly after AD&D was introduced, as a more more advanced version of D&D, my original game), most of this discussion means nothing to me.  I have no idea what sorcerors used to be like, and I confess, I'm wondering - does it really matter?  I guess if there was something about sorcerors that was really superb and elegant in game playing terms, and which has now been dropped, that would be sad - but I'm not getting what that is from this discussion.  I'm just hearing a lot of arguments that sound to me, the untutored, like a bunch of historical linguists having an argument about whether "ain't" is acceptable, or whether it's ungrammatical to say "he hasn't got any spells left".  Who cares about the history?  If it works and is understood and used, then it works, and it's in the language.

We've only just started trying out sorcerors so I don't know for sure how well they're going to work, but my initial feeling is that they work pretty well in the party, they provide interesting fodder for characterisation, and they are fun as something new to try.  Personally, I find the specialisms a far more exciting development, but the Sorceror is a positive addition for our group. 

I think this is fundamentally about background - if you've come up through 3e/4e you'll feel differently from someone (like me) who never knew that way of playing.  I guess it's a shame if you can't enjoy the Sorceror as we can, but then maybe WotC will introduce something that gives you the option (e.g. through specialism) of making them the way you're used to them being.

I also see the sources of magic as follows:

Divine: power from a divine presence or being
Psionic: power from the mind and body
Arcane: power from the elements
 
The arcane power source drawing from the elements was a method to explain the vancian system in my mind, never reading the books. It demonstrated the efforts a wizard takes to harness the power outside themselves, and how difficult it is to recover. In my opinion, the sorcerer is an alternate choice to the wizard, and therefore should use an alternate variation of the vancian system.
 
Maybe they should avoid iconic names for test classes, beyond the core classes, to place the focus on the mechanic versus getting into arguments of our favorite version of the sorcerer. 

With that stated I would prefer the psionics classes continue to use the power point mechanic, because trading mechanics that are traditional for other iconic classes just adds fuel to the fire. At least for those that like psionics. But if they did a similar thing like adding favorered enemy to the figher, all the ranger supporters would cry foul.
        

Aug 25, 2012 -- 11:09PM, Aviose wrote:

All of this aside, I see the power sources as follows:
Divine: Channels power directly from an almost omnipotent being.
Psionic: Channels power only from within their mind and body.
Arcane: Channels power from the world around them.

First off Dragons are Magical, (read Arcane) creatures.

Secondly, I almost completely agree with your power source points here.  I would change "Channels" to "Manipulates". Especially with the Arcane and to a lesser extent Psionic. Actually keep "Channels" for Divine, now that I write this.
So:
Divine: Channels power directly from an almost omnipotent being.
Psionic: Manipulates power only from within their mind and body.
Arcane: Manipulates power from the worlds around them.

I, (personal opinion only), find that to be a better defined viewpoint.