Showing posts with label sorcerer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sorcerer. Show all posts

Thursday, July 2, 2009

Arcane Power: A welcome boost or necessary evil?

By now it should come as no surprise that I'm not exactly a fan of 4E. I'm sure I've beaten the no-multiclassing-spellcasters-suck-now horse well past the point of death. However, there are some signs that 4E might someday mature into a good all around game.

The hybrid rules are a step in the right direction. The whole emphasis on a character's "Role" in the party is still overly invasive, restrictive, and utterly annoying but at least there's some room for creative class mixing.

The new monk not only solidifies a class that always felt "tacked on" but also validates psionics, which were just shit from the get go. While the final product of the monk and psionics is yet to be seen, it sure looks promising.

Really, the only remaining disappointment I have is with the spellcasters. Namely the Arcane ones. The ones that were my favorites in 3rd edition but now feel and play exactly like any other class.

I'm sure that the Wizards, Sorcerers, Warlocks et al get access to some pretty sweet powers eventually. I've seen a few that I'm actually looking forward to having but it all rings hollow when I look at the powers the fighter side of my hybrid will get. They have the same level of niftiness with the added bonus of being right up in the thick of the action. Martial characters get to have their cake and eat it too.

Which brings me to the new "Arcane Powers" supplement. It's name alone gives me hope. After all, I really liked the majority of the content in the "Martial Powers" book, so I'm hoping the Arcane version will be filled with similar yumminess.

I read somewhere (sorry for the lack of linkage, I wanna say that it was somewhere on dungeonmastering.com but I'm not sure and I'm too lazy to go searching) that the Familiar is finally joining the party, and that they have a passive and active mode. That's all well and good. I've never been a big fan of the familiar, simply because I don't like the extra bookkeeping and logistics of having one. If they've dumbed the familiar down to the point of being a magic item that perches on one's shoulder, that's fine by me.

I also saw something on a storm theme which is enticing. Not only is the sorcerer my favorite 3rd edition class, the addition of the storm theme would make it a good fit for my current hybrid fighter/wizard. I might need to do yet another character re-build. Or, perhaps not, since class is almost meaningless in 4E (but that's another post entirely).

I'm sure the wizard, warlock, and bard all gain some new tricks as well. The wizard section(s) will be of particular interest to me, and the warlock might be a good or interesting read, but I still say that the warlock and sorcerer are redundant. While one uses pacts and the other has a chaotic slant, in the end both are arcane strikers. Do we really need two of those? As for the bard, well, who really cares about bards?

While I'm loathe to drop any more cash on an edition that I'm not entirely sold on (yet) when we have a very fun edition to fall back upon, I'll probably break down and buy Arcane Power when I get the chance. I just hope that it finally gives the spellcasters a reason to be.

Monday, March 30, 2009

With this class, I thee wed...

Our group finally got the chance to play after a two month hiatus.

It was good to get back as it reminded me that the ruleset (ie. 4e or 3.5) isn't the most important thing. It's an important foundation for the fun, but the rules are not the be all, end all of the fun.

During play I also got to read through my brother's copy of the PHB2. As I did I even had an epiphany of sorts.

The classes in 4E feel so restrictive because they're meant to be. You're supposed to pick a single class and go with it for all 30 levels!

I know. That sounds like a total "well duh dipshit wake the fuck up" thing to write, but like I said... epiphany.

In my mind, the class has always been just a tool to help with the realization of my character concept. If I want a melee fighter who uses touch spells I start with a monk and then add in either sorceror or cleric levels. If I want a stealthy warrior who uses twin short swords I go ranger and rogue. And so on.

I can't do that in 4E because once you pick a class, that's it. You're locked in for better or for worse. Til death or TPK do you part. You might look wistfully at that other class and wonder what it would be like to be that for just a weekend, but at best you can flirt by using a multi-class feat.

Upon realizing that it became clear that to fully enjoy 4E I need to change the way I make my characters. I can still start with a concept (ie. storm themed caster) but I have to pour over the potential class and find the one that'll be the best fit.

I did exactly that with the PHB2 as I considered switching my current character from a wizard to a sorcerer.

On the one hand, the sorcerer dragon magic path is a nice fit for my Dragonborn. On the other, the sorcerer powers (for the heroic tier anyways) don't really fit the storm theme I want. There are some lightning and cold powers but nothing that really screamed "this is the character I want".

So, although the wizard class isn't perfect it is comfortable. So I settled.

Of course, when one settles for less than perfect it's only a matter of time before you start thinking of divorce.

Monday, January 26, 2009

What manner of sorcery is this?

Thanks to Crwth I got a look at the Sorcerer class coming in the PHB2. It’s a class that’s been near and dear to me since the early days of 3rd Edition for a variety of reasons.

For starters I’ve always liked the Charismatic hero. More importantly I love the open ended spell selection that allowed (encouraged) a customized theme and spared me the tedious book keeping of the Wizard. Plus there was the challenge of picking those spells knowing that they’d be locked in (at least until WotC introduced the swap rule). Whether it was my Graz’zt worshipping thrall or my greatsword wielding dwarf I loved mixing the sorcerer class in new and weird ways.

So it was that when the 4E PHB was released my biggest initial disappointment was in the omission of the sorcerer class. The fact that the Warlock was there taking up the pages that rightfully belonged to my Sorcerer was just a kick in the junk. But I more or less shrugged it off and settled for a Wizard.

In the early days I was pleasantly surprised by the Wizard. The powers reduced the book keeping so it wasn’t all that bad. In fact I was starting to think that the 4E Wizard was just a Sorcerer by another name. Of course it didn’t take me long to realize that thanks to the powers every class is another class by another name.

Anyways, the preview of the 4E Sorcerer looks promising. But, that said, I'm not sure why they plugged the Sorcerer into the Arcane Striker role. First the Warlock steals the Sorcerer's pages in the PHB, and now the Sorcerer has to share a role with the upstart? Especially when the Elemental source seemed like such a natural fit. So, WTF?

As an aside, am I the only one feeling like WotC has us on a cycle of “hey, this is new and cool” to “blah blah blah” to “yay another power source book” to “blah”?

The “Spell Source” is interesting. The Dragon Magic source is reminiscent of the 3.5 version of the Sorcerer, with it’s Draconic blood in the veins thing. The details are more of the usual bonus to this, gain this when bloodied, schlock that I’ve seen everywhere before.

However the Wild Magic is refreshingly novel. The Chaos Burst is fun in that it gives you a round to round benefit depending on what you roll to attack. Then again, I thought we weren’t going to have to keep track of that sort of thing anymore. And what happens in a round where I don’t roll an attack?

The Unfettered Power is another perk to Wild Magic and this one is without flaw. The natural 20 result is all well and good, but I’m practically giddy with the result of a natural 1. Pushing every creature (enemy or ally) within twenty five feet is hilarious. I can foresee times where I’ll actually want to roll a 1.

The rest of the article is the usual drivel of powers ad nauseum. Some interesting stuff but nothing that stands out as truly unique or class defining.

All in all, I’ve actually got a little something to look forward to.

Monday, October 20, 2008

Show me something Warlord. Anything.

I've had the chance to see our party's Warlord in action over a handful of sessions now, and so far nothing has changed my original opinion of this new class.

In fact, it seems to have the same "flaws" that the 3.5 version of the Cleric had. In that the majority of the Warlord's rounds are spent bestowing things upon his fellow adventurers. The Cleric used to "waste" actions on healing (a "problem" fixed by healing surges) and now the Warlord "wastes" actions either moving other players, or giving them an extra attack.

Granted, an extra attack or move is always appreciated. But, do we really need a new class for this purpose? Just give powers to the individual classes to do it themselves, just like with Healing Surges.

Personally, I've never cared for playing a Cleric because of the burden of healing party members. I'll certainly never play a Warlord.

The thing that probably miffs me about this "class" is that I can't shake the feeling that they bumped the Sorcerer to make room for it in the PHB.

Bastards.

Wednesday, November 7, 2007

Teh warlock is teh suxx!

When the warlock first appeared as a class I barely noticed. As a dedicated player of spellcasters it caught my eye but only as a novel new twist. I didn't even give it much of a read as I was much more interested in Pact Magic and Dragon Magic which Crwth had also added to the library around that time.

So for a long time the Warlock simply flew below my radar.

Recently however, I returned to gaming at the play-by-post boards over at WotC (Real_Adventures if you're curious). As such I'm seeing a lot of warlocks being put forth as player characters. That and the fact that every playtest party seems to have at least one warlock (usually a tielfing I might add). So, okay, the class has my grudging attention now.

If for not other reason than the possibility that the warlock is as preview of the magic system we might see in 4e. The invocations thing, the uses per day thing, the whole 90 degree departure from the spellcasting system used for sorcerors and wizards.

All in all, I think that the warlock is a viable and interesting class, for 3.5 edition.

I say again... for 3.5.

What I don't see is how it'll fit in 4th edition. If the 4e magic system is more or less like the current warlock, then the one thing that seperates it from the sorcerer is suddenly gone. The warlock becomes a sorcerer with a darker background. A Goth version and nothing more.

It seems to me that the warlock could be better used if rolled into the sorcerer. Give sorcerers the option of the traditional draconic heritage, or a warlocky devilish background.

Better yet, make it a middle ground between the sorcerer and druid. The DMG has the witch (aka warlock) as an example of how to make your own prestige class (can't recall the page but it's at the start of the PrC chapter). That's the warlock I think of. That's the kind of class I can picture in 4e. Save the heavy eyeliner, black lipstick, and white face paint for some other game.

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Wishlist, part 2

In continuation of my ongoing wishlist for 4e, I bring you...

2. Keep saving throws on par with spell DCs

It's no secret. I love to play arcane spellcasters. The chapter on spells in the PHB and the Spell Compendium have replaced the Sears catalog of my youth. I can spend hours pouring over those pages, dreaming up which spells my caster will take and when. I'll soak in every detail from the school to the components required. For the higher level spells (4th and up) I'm particularly interested in two things. Is it affected by SR and what kind of save the target gets?

Anything that ignores SR (the bane of every high level caster) always grabs my attention. Also as my casters are almost exclusively sorcerers, my characters don't have a Swiss Army Knife (aka, spellbook) and they don't get mulligans when it comes to spell selection. So I also strive to pick a good balance of spells based upon what kind of save the target gets.

In other words, I try to make sure that I'll always have a decent spell regardless of what the target's best save is. If it's a big brute with tons of Fort Save bonuses, I'll hit it with spells that require Reflex or Will saves. If it's fast and agile, I use Fort save spells. Cerebral monsters are notoriously feeble so skip the Will save spells and use Fort or Reflex based ones. It's not a perfect system but my high level casters are rarely left without anything to throw at an enemy.

However, no matter how high I think the DC on my spell is, chances are still good that Crwth will roll a d20 and poof. He doesn't even need to say the words. The smug grin says it all. My spell had no effect.

Obviously I don't expect every spell I cast to get through the target's defenses every time. It's a game of chance and that randomness is what makes it great. For every time that a critical spell failed to get through due to a saving throw, there's one-shot-in-the-dark, hail Mary, final prayer spell that unbelievably succeeded. I'm talking about that Finger of Death that somehow struck down a Red Dragon Wyrm with one shot (thanks to a series of 1s on the d20). It's that kind of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat that I love.

However, I do feel that the saving throws for monsters advance at a faster pace than the DCs of my caster's spells. Crwth has a much greater head for the mathematics behind it than I do, so I'm admittedly low on statistical proof and long on subjective observation. Still, it seems to me that higher the CR of the monster, the more "spell proof" they are.

Take, as an example, a look at Graz'zt's saves from this article. "Fort +36, Ref +31, Will +27". Granted, he's a demon lord but I don't think his saves are all that unusual for a CR 32 encounter.

Now take a 32nd level Sorcerer with maxed out Charisma. Start with 18, put every point into it, buy the best +8 item, and read a +5 Tome. Cha 39 by my math. That's a very respectable +14 bonus. This means his 9th level spells (his biggest guns) have a DC of 33 (10+9+14). Throw in some specialization/focus and you can get that up to 35. I'm sure some min/maxer out there could bump that up another point or two.

Still, that gives the sorcerer a 50/50 chance of getting a Will based spell to affect Graz'zt. And that's picking on his weakest save. And that's only if he gets past that SR 45. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see how this battle would go.

That's an extreme example to be sure, but my base argument is that high level casters shouldn't feel useless against foes that are their equals.

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

With this 4th Edition, I thee wed?

Rumor has it that certain classes will be merged in an attempt to whittle down the number of core classes.

Okay. I guess I'm all right with that. In some cases.

One such merger I saw (http://d20.jonnydigital.com/) suggests the Ranger and the Scout. Fine. I always thought the Scout as a class was just a multiclassed rogue/ranger. As a Prestige Class, sure it would work. But as a separate class?

The other merger (same site) has the sorcerer and the wizard.

Gasp! Say it ain't so!

Yes, I'll agree that the two classes are somewhat redundant. They certainly overlap. I can even understand the argument against having two types of arcane casters in the core classes. I never embraced the Warlock for that same reason. But come on!

Going back to having just the wizard as the only arcane caster available is like going from a sexy sports car to a minivan (there's a better analogy out there but I'm currently car shopping).

Personally, the sorcerer made spell casting fun for me. I love it's minimal book keeping and the challenge of picking just the right combination of spells without any safety net or mulligans. It even made the Charisma score relevant.

From a roleplaying point of view (and last time I checked 4e is still being touted as a RPG) the sorcerer and wizard are night and day. One is a bookish nerd rarely seen outside his tower. The other is a pompous loudmouth jerk really seen outside a tavern. One wants to study odd phenomena. The other just blasts it with a couple of scorching rays and moves on.

In short, the sorcerer is the swashbuckler of spell casting. I think the game will be sadly lacking without it as a core class.