|
Like most gamers, I love the idea of Bloodlines for a Sorcerer, absolutely the best concept change in the new edition.
But, just like one can play a Wizard without choosing to Specialize in a School, a Sorcerer should be able to go without a Bloodline.
.... If one of my PCs comes up with a character concept where his inherent magic manifests not through lineage at all, or the "Arcane" or "Destined" bloodline -- that this Character was the first of his lineage with any Sorcerer powers ever -- I should be prepared to allow it.
It's not that hard, afterall, to imagine someone wanting to play a Sorcerer without having to say, "Well, my great-grandpappy made a deal with Mammon." Or, "Ayup, momma luved someone with dragon-blood." Or even, "A long time ago in a galaxy far far away, the gods determined that a person of MY FAMILY would be DESTINED with Sorcerous abilities."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
So this begs the question, what boon could I grant a Sorcerer that is equal to a Bloodline instead of a Bloodline?
I was thinking a +1 on Spells Known. So, if the table says 3 1st levels and 1 2nd level, the non-blooded Sorcerer would get 4 1st levels and 2 2nd levels.
Does this seem equitable to what one gets in the Bloodlines?
The Arcane bloodline is the non-bloodline. It's based on the standard 3.5 sorcerer without specialization the same way the Universalist wizard powers are based on baseline 3.5.
The Arcane bloodline is the non-bloodline. It's based on the standard 3.5 sorcerer without specialization the same way the Universalist wizard powers are based on baseline 3.5.
Yep. "Arcane bloodline" just means "I can use sorcerer magic". No history or background is required; it's the non-specific default.
Sure, "Arcane" and "Destined" both seem like that and "Arcane," I see, IS that.
But still, I can see someone saying "I don't want any Bloodline for my character concept.
Let's put it another way: say you changed the term "Arcane Bloodline" to "No Bloodline At All". What part of that would you (or your hypothetical player) find unsatisfactory?
I'm just trying to wrap my mind around exactly what the issue is.
Do you think +1 Spells Known is equal to what you get in a Bloodline?
No, I think it's too good. Part of making a sorcerer work is choosing your limited spells known wisely. One additional spell known per spell level is a lot.
I think someone saying they don't want a bloodline at all is like saying "I want to be a ranger but I want a bonus feat every other level." The bard is a spontaneous arcane caster without a bloodline built into their class balance.
Sure, "Arcane" and "Destined" both seem like that and "Arcane," I see, IS that.
But still, I can see someone saying "I don't want any Bloodline for my character concept.
If what that means is "I don't want any history of magic use in my family for my character concept", sure. Give him the Arcane Bloodline abilities but let him call it something else without the word "Bloodline" in it.
If what that means is "I don't want any of the existing granted abilities that go along with this particular sorcerer class feature" -- that doesn't seem reasonable. Why not use the one that is affirmatively given as the default, and accept that that's the default?Do you think +1 Spells Known is equal to what you get in a Bloodline?
Definitely not. The Arcane Bloodline gives a benefit similar to this, but only at the higher levels. Increasing the sorcerer's repertoire by that amount is more powerful than other Bloodline abilities, in my opinion.
|
If you want a "Deity-Chosen" bloodline, you should check out the Oracle class from the Advanced Player's Guide. That's basically a divine sorcerer.
Extra Spells Known would be too powerful and break the class.
Actually, I think that it would be perfectly fine to give sorcerers an extra spell known per level; I especially dislike having only one spell known of a given level. But I think that applies to sorcerers even with a bloodline.
|
|
Yeah, "Favored Soul" is what I was thinking of, which is the root for the Oracle.
Still, if a player wants to play a Sorcerer but none of the Bloodlines fit -- but the Sun Domain does because the Player likes Pelor -- do you think What a Cleric gets with the Sun Domain is relatively equal to one of the Sorcerer Bloodlines?
|
|
it would be perfectly fine to give sorcerers an extra spell known per level.
I think I'm gonna try to playtest this at the earliest opportunity. I'm sure I can find a Player to run a Sorcerer and get another Player to play a Sorcerer w/ no Bloodline but with an extra Spell Known per spell on the list.
I think granting a Domain power would be fine in place of a bloodline, if not a bit underpowered.
I think also granting Domain spells as spells known would be overpowered, though.
|
|
The logic is faulting.
Well, of course it is.
Even moreso knowing that there is a Bloodline that isn't really a Bloodline.
... This is D&D, though, and Players and DMs alike will always find appealing examples of playing outside-the-box of the published text.
I can see someone wanting to play Sorcerer who justs likes the 3E Sorcerer and isn't so interested in playing a Bloodline. It's not a stretch at all. As a DM I want to find a way to let my Players play what they want. That's a big part of a DM's job.
There is a sorcerer without a bloodline in the books. It's called commoner.
People don't just get inherent magical powers. They either inherit it or have it bestowed upon them by special circumstance - you make a pact with a supernatural power or get born or live in auspicious circumstances.
That stuff is represented by a bloodline. The arcane bloodline is the "I'm just a cool guy who does magic" thing you can use if you don't want to be joe everysorcerer. But without it, you have no origin for your power and thus no power.
It's the same as the wizard, who cannot have no specialised school. The closest thing you get is generalist, which is the "no specialist" option. A generalist still has school-based powers.
Sure, "Arcane" and "Destined" both seem like that and "Arcane," I see, IS that.
But still, I can see someone saying "I don't want any Bloodline for my character concept.
What an odd thing to say. What he's really saying is "I can wield great earthshaking magic that normal people cannot do, but I have no reason or explanation for this power; I just can. Don't ask me why, I just can. I'm awesome like that."
Me, if I were DMing such a guy, I would ask him to roleplay a little more and munchkin a little less. Give me a character background. Explain his existence and his motives for becoming an adventurer. Tell my why he can wield earthshaking magic. And if the character doesn't know why, fine, I still expect the player to know why and to tell me why, and then if he wants to, he can make it his character's goals to find out.
Once I have the background from the player, I bet his reason for having arcane magic will match one of those bloodlines, or come close to one of them. Even if his reason is "I was born with a weird gift that nobody understands. I don't know how or why, but I can just make stuff happen." - well, that sounds like the Arcane bloodline with the execption that we drop the bit about his family always being good at magic. Done.
One way or another, I could find a bloodline that is close enough to use, or close enough to modify a bit and then use.
And then I would try to bring this player to reason, help him see that his background actually selected a bloodline for him.
Even if we don't call it a blodline, we could call it something else. A "gift". A "magical aptitude". A "curse". "Touched". Whatever.
And, since the rules say "A sorcerer must pick a bloodline at level 1" it's not really an option to NOT pick one. OK, so we're talking about a houserule to give him the option then?
Do you think +1 Spells Known is equal to what you get in a Bloodline?
If he is dead set on not having a background, or not using that background to lead him to the perfect bloodline, and insists on having no bloodline and nothing that looks like a bloodline, then I would say your suggestion is weak.
Your suggestion gives him 9 extra spells known over the course of 20 levels. The big benefit is that he can chose those spells. Every bloodline gives him 8 extra spells and a bunch of extra stuff.
Comparing the Arcane bloodline:
8 bonus spells
+1 CL with most Metamagic
A familiar
Faster Metamagic
3 MORE bonus spells at mid to high levels
+2 DC with your favorite school of spells
Capstone: all Metamagic is faster and you can use charged items without consuming charges
Look at all that stuff in the Arcane bloodline. Your player will give all that up, including getting two fewer bonus spells, just for the privilege of choosing his smaller number of bonus spells?
That is not a good trade, not even close.
If he wants to do it for RP reasons, and doesn't care that he's underpowering his character, that's ultimately up to you and him to decide if you're both OK with that. But (in-game) if I were one of the other advernturers in the group, I would feel like our gimped sorcerer wasn't pulling his fair share of the load. Much like a barbarian who won't rage, or a rogue who can't sneak attack. I would consider firing this gimped sorcerer and hiring some NPC sorcerer who wasn't gimped.
So, if I were this player's DM, I would insist on a bloodline. We could tweak it, adjust it, rewrite it to fit his background, rename it to something other than "bloodline", even retro-fit the entire concept if we need to - but when all was said and done, he would end up with a full-on set of bloodline abilities.
|
|
That's similar to what Lazar was saying, Chaos-boy, and sure, that's true.
It doesn't change the fact that we're playing a game of fantasy and when someone has a character concept a DM needs to try to allow it -- find a way to include it in the game.
Sure, not every concept is going to be balanced, so it can't be used (you know, like most Gish), and not every concept will fit with a particular campaign or the rest of the PCs, but you still try.
Except for pointing out that every bloodline gives 9 bonus spells known, not 8, I agree with DM_Blake. Getting to choose his "bloodline" spells (and perhaps getting them a level or two early) is not more powerful than any bloodline.
I'd leave it there though. Weaker, but more versatile.
|
|
You can say that you want to play a Paladin who isn't lawful good and is a strict noncombatant. But that wouldn't be a Paladin by any stretch of the means.
Hmmm, have you seen Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved -- his 3E Player's Handbook...?
Because the Champion Class in that well-respected, variant PHB by the guy who helped invent the d20 system has that possibility.
Basically, a Champion chooses one of a handfull of "Beliefs" to take as a Cause. Maybe it's as a Champion of "Light" or "Darkness" -- maybe it's a Champion of "Nature" or "Freedom" -- but it doesn't always have to be LG. And why not make one who is a non-combatant. There are a couple of PrCs in the Complete Divine that are like this.
|
|
if I were DMing such a guy, I would ask him to roleplay a little more and munchkin a little less.
Well, sure, in a real situation.
Keep in mind this is all theory.
What I would decide if a character ever wanted to do this.
I do not have a Player that has asked for this and when I get a chance to run a PC I never go Sorerer. I'm a hard-core believer that Wizards are so superior to Sorcerers that to play one would be foolish.
if I were DMing such a guy, I would ask him to roleplay a little more and munchkin a little less.Well, sure, in a real situation.
Keep in mind this is all theory.
What I would decide if a character ever wanted to do this.
I do not have a Player that has asked for this and when I get a chance to run a PC I never go Sorerer. I'm a hard-core believer that Wizards are so superior to Sorcerers that to play one would be foolish.
I would disagree. I like Sorcerors and usually almost always have picked them over a Wizard. :)
I feel it is more preference than which is powerful. Although I would say Sorceror's do get unjustifiably knocked on spell level. Why do they get their 2nd level spell at 4th level instead of the standard 3rd?
But, this discussion is for another thread.
What the heck is going on? Every few days there's a thread about people asking to run a version of a class that cuts out one of the main class features. "I want a light-armored fighter", "I want a lawful, non-raging barbarian", "I want a non-performing bard", "I want a chaotic monk".
The concept of a most of the core classes is based around certain assumption, abilities, and backgrounds. Sorcerors have innate magical power born-in. Even if they don't have a heritage, per say, it's still a Bloodline. That is where a sorceror gets their power, and without it, they can't do magic. They don't put in years of study like wizards. They don't find power through song and performance like bards. They don't serve a higher power like divine casters. But you can't just say "Well, I'm just a regular person who can cast magic" - magic doesn't work that way in Pathfinder. It comes from somewhere.
Except for pointing out that every bloodline gives 9 bonus spells known, not 8, I agree with DM_Blake. Getting to choose his "bloodline" spells (and perhaps getting them a level or two early) is not more powerful than any bloodline.
I'd leave it there though. Weaker, but more versatile.
Hmmm, good catch. I should have counted them. For some reason, I thought there was a level in the middle somewhere that they didn't get a bonus. Maybe I'm remembering something from Beta.
But you're right, it is 9 bonus spells.
That's similar to what Lazar was saying, Chaos-boy, and sure, that's true.
Are you talking to me, or to my sidekick? Better speak to me, because I don't have a sidekick.
It doesn't change the fact that we're playing a game of fantasy and when someone has a character concept a DM needs to try to allow it -- find a way to include it in the game.
That's quite the blanket statement. You need to qualify it. At the very least, make it "if someone has a decent, sensible, fitting character concept."
And "a sorcerer who doesn't use the bloodline mechanic" is not a concept. It's a build. If he just wanted a sorcerer whose powers don't have a specific origin, he'd go with the arcane "bloodline", just like a wizard who doesn't want a school specialisation goes with the "universal" school. That's the concept. A "generalist sorcerer" You get that by going with the generic, default bloodline, which is arcane.
Saying "I don't want to use the bloodlines mechanic" has nothing to do with concept.
What (a non-boodlined Sorcerer is) really saying is "I can wield great earthshaking magic that normal people cannot do, but I have no reason or explanation for this power; I just can.Ayup.
And that's what EVERY 3E Sorcerer was like. For ten years of gaming, that's how it was done.
And it sucked. It didn't make sense. The rules didn't fit the concept, and before Paizo did it right, there have been several attempts to fix this problem with feats and so on.
What the heck is going on? Every few days there's a thread about people asking to run a version of a class that cuts out one of the main class features. "I want a light-armored fighter", "I want a lawful, non-raging barbarian", "I want a non-performing bard", "I want a chaotic monk".
Let's get this powerless sorcerer thing done with quickly, for I have found some more glaring omissions in the core class roster we need to fix.
Where is the pacifist fighter? The dumbmage? And why hasn't anyone finished their "littering druid" variant? We can't keep playing the game without those! ;-)
|
|
Are you talking to me, or to my sidekick? Better speak to me, because I don't have a sidekick.
Heh, dude you are a sidekick.
That's quite the blanket statement. You need to qualify it.
Agreed. I thought I did qualify it, though. Perhaps my post was not clear or maybe just too long to read.
A DM should always work with a Player with an out-of-the-box character concept and try to get it in the game. Sure, it won't always work, either it's unbalanced or just doesn't fit with the rest of the party or the Campgaign, but a DM should always try.
And "a sorcerer who doesn't use the bloodline mechanic" is not a concept. It's a build.
This could just be a result of the way I wrote the OP.
Because this isn't actually coming from a Player with a proposal, I dunno how it would be proposed -- as a concept or as a munchkining attempt.
When I thought of the idea it was more like, Well, Sorcerers were fine in 3E, what if someone wanted to run a 3E Sorcerer, without the flavor of a particular Bloodline? And I wondered what would be fair to give such a Player.
A few years ago I was in a Thread talking about adding Spells Known to a Sorcerer list and how it could easily break the game.
What (a non-boodlined Sorcerer is) really saying is "I can wield great earthshaking magic that normal people cannot do, but I have no reason or explanation for this power; I just can.Ayup.
And that's what EVERY 3E Sorcerer was like. For ten years of gaming, that's how it was done.
Let's not be too hasty. The 3.5 book gave sorcerers a reason for their power. They didn't call it a "Bloodline" and they didn't give options or bonus powers for it, but they did give us an explanation better than "Just because":
Some sorcerers claim that the blood of dragons courses through their veins. That claim may even be true in some cases
So, yeah, you could say "Well, I am NOT one of those cases." And in 3.5, it didn't matter if you did because nothing in the class was tied to your presumed dragon ancestry.
But nevertheless, the explanation was there - at least since January, 2003 when my book was printed. I don't have a 3.0 copy to see if that said the same thing.
I'd like to play a Cleric without Heavy Armor Proficiency ! Oh ... wait.
Bah. Who'd want to play that?
You have a player that doesn't want to choose and use a bloodline? Sure, why not? Go for it, completely up to you... it's your character, after all. To me, that's akin to a Fighter choosing not to wear armor, or choosing to only use simple weapons. True, they do get the Heavy Armor proficiency and are proficient with all Martial Weapons as a class feature. But if they don't want to use martial weapons or don't want to wear armor, that's completely up to them. It's their character concept, let 'em run with it. But I wouldn't give them anything new to compensate them. If they want to run a character without all the benefits and advantages they are qualified to have, they need to use the options available to them. If they want to shun or ignore a given class ability, there's really no reason to reward such behavior with an extra non-RAW class ability. If you want to do so, fine, go ahead, but you're essentially creating a class variant, which isn't really necessary.
By the way, just as an aside, I have a house rule in my campaigns that adds 1 to all spell lists... if you can cast 3 spells per day of a given level, you instead get 4. If you know X amount of spells of a given spell level, you instead know X+1, etc. This benefit applies to sorcerers, wizards, rangers, druids, etc. Any spellcasting class at all, and it applies to PCs and NPCs alike. I initially implemented the houserule to make sorcerers and bards more attractive to play, and to create a higher tendency to select or memorize more utility spells in my campaign. Since the bonus is applied fairly to all spellcasters in the game, it doesn't affect game balance one bit, and has never caused any problems. Just putting that out there...
A lot of people are saying arcane bloodline, and I can see why. It is the "old" version of the sorcerer. However, the destined bloodline seems more in line with the concept. There isn't even a reason to change the description, as a destined sorcerer probably is the first one of his family to become a sorcerer.
But, if you/he/she doesn't like the destined bloodline, then sure, I say go with a domain's powers, but only 1 domain. In fact, I might steal this idea for my next campaign, as it would fit well with one of the dieties I have in mind.
I might add that the "Divine Champion" sorcerer could choose a known spell from one of the diety's other domains (instead of a Wiz/Sor spell) when they level. For instance, the sorcerer could learn "Cure Light Wounds" instead of a level 1 Sor/Wiz spell, if they chose a healing diety. In other words it gives them 18 more spells on their list of possible spells to learn.
Yes, that fits my story idea very well, or at least one specific diety. Thanks.
DM BLAKE:
I played a 3.0 sorcerer. I'm pretty sure it said the same thing. It also said that many sorcerers were "off" slightly in their appearance.
When I thought of the idea it was more like, Well, Sorcerers were fine in 3E, what if someone wanted to run a 3E Sorcerer, without the flavor of a particular Bloodline? And I wondered what would be fair to give such a Player.
It just seems odd to me that one bloodline (or two, if you count Destined) without any particular flavor is not enough and that you need to have two "vanilla" sorcerer options in your game. My understanding was that the Arcane "bloodline" was designed to correspond with the 3.5 sorcerer in the first place. But to each his own, I suppose.
By the way, just as an aside, I have a house rule in my campaigns that adds 1 to all spell lists... if you can cast 3 spells per day of a given level, you instead get 4. If you know X amount of spells of a given spell level, you instead know X+1, etc. This benefit applies to sorcerers, wizards, rangers, druids, etc. Any spellcasting class at all, and it applies to PCs and NPCs alike. I initially implemented the houserule to make sorcerers and bards more attractive to play, and to create a higher tendency to select or memorize more utility spells in my campaign. Since the bonus is applied fairly to all spellcasters in the game, it doesn't affect game balance one bit, and has never caused any problems. Just putting that out there...
How does this effect the game balance between the already-more-powerful spellcasters and the already-less-powerful melee characters? Or do you give non-spellcasters other houseruled benefits?
How does this effect the game balance between the already-more-powerful spellcasters and the already-less-powerful melee characters? Or do you give non-spellcasters other houseruled benefits?
PUT THAT CAN OF WORMS DOWN!!!
I've seen a non-spellcasting LEGAL build with some amazing damage potential that spellcasters couldn't match. Just sayin.
What sucks and doesn't make sense is the bloodline concept.
...
And if you are going to come up with some crazy story, why not make it a big one? How about you spread a rumor that you descended from dragons?
For what it's worth, I completely agree :) I've made peace with it though.
amazing damage potentialJust sayin. :)
*rolls eyes*
OK, but be aware that once you start down the melee-spellcaster comparison, forever will it dominate this thread. (or something like that)
-Yoda
Yes, potential. Is it really any different than choosing a Greataxe over a greatsword? the Greatsword will do more damage in the long run, but the spectacular damage will come from the Greataxe.
Or putting your 18 in Dex instead of Con? you are going to get hit less often, but it will hurt a lot more when you do get hit.
Or is it different than choosing a Sorcerer over a Wizard? The sorcerer will do more damage in the long run, but the Wizard has a potential that the sorcerer can't touch.
Or a Fighter vs. a Rogue. The fighter is going to dish out more damage on average, but that sneak attack gets really nasty, allowing the Rogue to have more POTENTIAL damage.
The game is all about choices and trade-offs. Even the choice in class.
By the way, just as an aside, I have a house rule in my campaigns that adds 1 to all spell lists... if you can cast 3 spells per day of a given level, you instead get 4. If you know X amount of spells of a given spell level, you instead know X+1, etc. This benefit applies to sorcerers, wizards, rangers, druids, etc. Any spellcasting class at all, and it applies to PCs and NPCs alike. I initially implemented the houserule to make sorcerers and bards more attractive to play, and to create a higher tendency to select or memorize more utility spells in my campaign. Since the bonus is applied fairly to all spellcasters in the game, it doesn't affect game balance one bit, and has never caused any problems. Just putting that out there...How does this effect the game balance between the already-more-powerful spellcasters and the already-less-powerful melee characters? Or do you give non-spellcasters other houseruled benefits?
It's really not an issue... people love to play spellcasters because it allows you to do amazing things that you can't accomplish without magic, whether it's healing wounds, flying through the air, or blasting fire n' lightning from your fingertips. But no matter who they are, what spellcasting class they select, they can only do it so many times a day before they run dry -- like a lighter that periodically runs out of fluid. But a Fighter can put his feats to work, and swing his sword and do mighty damage in combat every single round. Without fail. One of the campaigns we're running right now has two players, a sorcerer and a fighter, both 11th level. The sorcerer loves to cast lightning bolts and cones of cold, and can do about 30-50 damage to a number of foes several times a day before she is out of juice and has to sit back for a while or call for an 8-hour rest break. The Fighter doesn't really have that issue... if he can reach the foes in combat, he can consistently dish out about 70-110 damage per round to anyone within his deadly reach... and he can do this all day, every day, for as many rounds of combat as he chooses. Extra spells don't even come close to leveling the playing field, in my experience, but they do add a few other options to the casters.
Sorry about the thread-jack, wasn't intentional.