Forgotten Kingdoms Forums

There was a thread, from Jan 2009, in which the staff had stated that they did not intend to introduce this class to the game then. I wonder if it is time to reconsider this proposition.

Biggest Pros:
1. Base implementation should be almost trivially simple (for Mask). Spell set same as wizards, casting mechanism same as bards, with an additional limit to how many spells per spell-level per character-level that you can train.
2. Big bang for the buck. Certainly I would be encouraged to invest a lot of time into playing a sorcerer character, and I am sure I am not alone in this.

Possible Dissents:
1. No support for the class (in the form of clans, class-specific quests, schools, etc). But imo none of these are, strictly speaking, necessary, and can be developed slowly over time.
2. Rarity. Sorcerers are supposed to be descendants of draconic or even more exotic ancestry, and a sudden influx of them might be hard to justify. I would not be against some sort of kismet requirement/cost for the class.
3. Balance. In DnD sorcerers were balanced with wizards in that they were versatile in casting their spells but limited in total repertoire. I believe the same should hold for FK.

Thoughts?

Isolrem wrote:There was a thread, from Jan 2009, in which the staff had stated that they did not intend to introduce this class to the game then. I wonder if it is time to reconsider this proposition.

I can totally agree. Reconsideration on it would be nice, regardless of whether it changes any minds or not.

Isolrem wrote:Biggest Pros:
1. Base implementation should be almost trivially simple (for Mask). Spell set same as wizards, casting mechanism same as bards, with an additional limit to how many spells per spell-level per character-level that you can train.
2. Big bang for the buck. Certainly I would be encouraged to invest a lot of time into playing a sorcerer character, and I am sure I am not alone in this.

You're right. It would be very simple, and it would probably be a very favorable change. There's just a few little changes to make, such as sorcerers getting new spell levels later than wizards, and a few rare spell differences, such as sorcerers casting Dragonskin with a bonus to caster level.

Isolrem wrote:Possible Dissents:
1. No support for the class (in the form of clans, class-specific quests, schools, etc). But imo none of these are, strictly speaking, necessary, and can be developed slowly over time.
2. Rarity. Sorcerers are supposed to be descendants of draconic or even more exotic ancestry, and a sudden influx of them might be hard to justify. I would not be against some sort of kismet requirement/cost for the class.
3. Balance. In DnD sorcerers were balanced with wizards in that they were versatile in casting their spells but limited in total repertoire. I believe the same should hold for FK.

I agree some more. Guilds and whatnot aren't really a necessity for sorcerers since they don't specialize like wizards do. Maybe adding some of the bloodline feats would be nice, though.

Speaking of bloodlines, sorcerers typically do have some kind of anomaly in their heritage (for a list of great ideas for this, check Pathfinder's core rulebook), but, much like planetouched, it doesn't have to be a very recent occurance. They don't need to be super rare, certainly no moreso than wizards. I've had a sorcerer or two show up in some of by characters' backstories.

Still, I see your point. The minute they go live, the game will be flooded with them. While it's not a bad thing for there to be a lot of them, it'll be strange to see nothing but sorcerers when they're new. I could see applying a small kismet cost to them temporarily in hopes of bringing them into the game a little more gradually, perhaps for the first three months?

I'm also of the mind that sorcerers should have a permenant kismet requirement. Having a limited number of spells known requires careful decision-making, which is why I think sorcerers, like rogues, shouldn't be the first class a new player tries out. It's too easy to ruin your character by training the first few spells you see then being stuck with them.

If implemented, sorcerers will definitely need some way to forget spells they know to make room for other, better spells or even new spells introduced to the game. If it's simply a command, it should require you to confirm your choice since you'll be losing all the training you had previously put into the spell. You would not want to do so by accident! Another option would be to create a few mobs that could help you forget spells with the TRAIN command.

I agree that it would be a high amount of value for relatively little work. I also agree that we should have more of our base classes like Monks and Barbarians. I would love to see more classes like this.

If they are brought in, however, a consideration may need to be thought out as to how high they are able to train their spells. It could be relatively unbalancing if they can GM all their spells, but current wizards cannot.

Aside from that, I think everything else has been mentioned (such as guilds and a way to forget spells).

I would be soooo in favor of having Monks in game, though I would definitely play a Sorcerer, too!

If it counts for anything I'll throw in being in favor of some new classes being thrown in. Especially sorcerer, I always liked them better than wizards.

I know a lot of banter about implementing barbarians was once tossed about, even to the point that it was "Make a guild and we'll consider doing it." I think Serte and I got the assignment, but due to some problematic circumstances, the idea never came to fruition and the subject dropped. I know this is a big task to take on, but I feel that it's a change that brings immense flavor to the game--and in a game that holds flavor in the same regard as an all-you-can-eat-buffet (the more the better, get it? :B), I think it would be a highly rewarding undertaking to see barbarians, monks, and sorcerers implemented. Considerations to balance and strict adherence to RP comes in with these classes though, as they have abilities with no equal at the moment (a barbarian is a fighter with less armor and bull's strength on tap, and unarmed combat is still a little odd iirc) and similar alignment strictness guidelines as paladins (chaotic for barbs, lawful for monks). I think it'd take more consideration than just "take that fighter, remove two feats, slap some berserk on him" or "PUT HIM IN ROBES LOL!" but I also firmly believe in the Man Behind the Curtain's abilities to work out these issues.

I'd like to see them if:

- They only got spells and abilities that a 3.5 ed sorcerer would be able to have.
- Material, somatic, and verbal components for casting were on par with 3.5 ed rules for sorcerers.

Also, unlike other casters, sorcerers don't have to prepare spells beforehand. They simply have "uses per day" and are able to cast any spell they know as long as they have a "use" left, giving them the ability to generally have a great versatility versus a wizard, but they have less spells overall. While a wizard might know around a hundred spells, a sorcerer would only have around twenty five or so.

If it was coded like that, it'd be an awesome addition.

I'd also like to see Warlocks.

Rhangalas wrote:- They only got spells and abilities that a 3.5 ed sorcerer would be able to have.

Too lazy to look it up to make sure, but on the "spells" note, I believe that's the same as Wizards would be able to have.

Rhangalas wrote:- Material, somatic, and verbal components for casting were on par with 3.5 ed rules for sorcerers.

Also too lazy to look it up, but aren't we already there? Spells already have proper components. The rules are no different from Wizards.

Selveem wrote:Too lazy to look it up to make sure, but on the "spells" note, I believe that's the same as Wizards would be able to have.

There's just a few very rare exceptions out there, such as Mordenkainen's Lucubration (which wouldn't make sense as a sorcerer's spell), but I don't think there's any in FK that qualify. Dragonskin, however, is in FK and should work slightly differently in the hands of a sorcerer.

Rhangalas wrote:They simply have "uses per day" and are able to cast any spell they know as long as they have a "use" left, giving them the ability to generally have a great versatility versus a wizard, but they have less spells overall.

Having less spells usually equates to being less versatile, not the other way around. The general consensus is that wizards are vastly more flexible over sorcerers since they can learn every spell in the game if they've got the time and the money to do so. The trick is to make plenty of scrolls and wands using those bonus feats you get as a wizard. Those items will let you pop out more spells per day than any sorcerer could hope to manage while still having your massive spell selection. Unless you're playing at very low level (before wizards can reasonably acquire their needed items), wizards absolutely rock sorcerers in versatility.

Oh, and let's not forget that sorcerers have to wait longer than wizards to reach a new spell level. Their power comes at a price.

By versatility, I meant on-the-spot spells. As far as total spells, yeah, wizards are vastly superior. A wizard has to prepare spells beforehand (memorize). Sorcerers can cast any spell they know on the fly as long as they have a use left for that spell level.

Also, there are some spells sorcerers get at different levels/don't get at all. Not sure if FK wizards get any spells a sorcerer wouldn't have, but, if so, I'm just saying I wouldn't want to see sorcerers getting them anyways for "playability" like FK priests currently get to teleport around and such.

There's also the issue of sacrifice. I think it's around... level 8? Anyways, once a sorcerer reaches their limit spell-wise, they can "forget" one spell to learn another in it's place. It's kind of like FK wizards purging spells from memory, except once done, the spell is completely gone and replaced with the other spell.

Also, there are some spells a sorcerer can cast without components whereas a wizard using the same spell would need components and some of the components are different. It's a rare case, but it's there, all I'm saying is if they were going to go through all the work and trouble of coding and making sorcerers playable, I'd want them to be an actual sorcerer per the rules.

I'm all for more classes, don't get me wrong. I'm just a tabletop guy and generally just have a peeve about rules. If I had my way with it, all the wizards would be getting scribe and brew at level 1.


And, again, WARLOCKS!