Something has always bugged me about the spellcsters

[Hazelnut]

This is a comment on the design of the Sorcerer in Dungeons and Dragons, not specifically the DDO sorcerer because DDO just based their design on the D&D books. I'm being more philosophical than anything.

I don't understand why the Sorcerer has such a crappy hit-die. The sorcerer is described (in the actual source material for both D&D 2.0 and 3.5) as an arcane spell-caster that travels and explores the world. This is even reflected in the original artwork in those books. Shouldn't someone who is out in the world adventuring have a higher hit-die?

To quote the 3.5 PHB:

The typical sorcerer adventures in order to improve his abilities. Only by testing his limits can he expand them.

On the other hand a Wizard (previously magic-user) is an acadmeic who prefers digging through books, studying, and experimenting with magic. This nicely explains why the wizard gets more feats and spells and prepares spells. it also explains why the wizard has a d4 hit-die. The wizard is a professor who only goes out into the world to chase down some academic curiosity while the sorcerer explores and travels.

Another quote from 3.5 PHB:

Wizards depend on intensive study to create their magic. They examine musty old tomes, debate magical theory with their peers, and practice minor magics whenever they can.

Even more so, the cleric has just as many spell points and spells as the wizard but gets a better hit-die, is able to wear armor, and knows how to use more weapons. Yet the cleric is really a religious type. Arguably a sort of traveling missionary bringing faith and healing to those who are not yet blessed by the faith. I don't understand why they get heavy armor (they are not knights of the church, the knights would be the paladins, but that's another argument). The point being, there is prescience with this spell-caster type to have a higher hit-die and more weapon proficiencies.

Even the favored soul (which I don't have in my books) has more weapon proficiencies and a better hit-die but is basically the religious version of the sorcerer (more spell points, less feats, less flexibility in spells).

So, other than tradition, why doesn't the Sorcerer have a higher hit-die and more weapon proficiencies. Even light-armor proficiency would make a lot of sense from the point of view of the intend flavor of the class.

I'm not suggesting Turbine change the sorcerer because it might unbalance the game and this isn't about game mechanics. It's about the flavor of the game.

[SirValentine]

The difference between "going out adventuring" and "academic study" is the difference between level 1 and level 20, i.e., getting MORE hit dice, not getting BIGGER hit dice.

The difference between d4s and higher hit dice is about how much your training is focused on absorbing physical damage. For casters, not as much. For Barbs, a whole lot.

[Hazelnut]

The difference between "going out adventuring" and "academic study" is the difference between level 1 and level 20, i.e., getting MORE hit dice, not getting BIGGER hit dice.

The difference between d4s and higher hit dice is about how much your training is focused on absorbing physical damage. For casters, not as much. For Barbs, a whole lot.

Your argument would make sense if Favoured Souls and Clerics also had a D4. Both of those are dedicated to "religious study" and yet both get more than a d4. Clearly they both spend as much time studying their respective spells since they follow the same formula for spell points and learned spells as Sorcerers and Wizards respectively.

[Uska]

Wizards and Sorcerers have more combat magic available and traditionally ignore or at least only pay secondary attention to direct physical combat, Clerics and Favored Souls emphasize physical combat as well as using spells. Pretty much the tradition for dnd for 40 years now

[Nodoze]

Your argument would make sense if Favoured Souls and Clerics also had a D4. Both of those are dedicated to "religious study" and yet both get more than a d4. Clearly they both spend as much time studying their respective spells since they follow the same formula for spell points and learned spells as Sorcerers and Wizards respectively.

Wizardly study and Divine Prayer are not the same thing. Maybe one drains and the other charges.

[Shaude]

i believe a lot of the difference is due to the (wizard) study and testing his hp is low D4, a sorcerer has lower hp D4 due to the inate ability to control magic(ie. blood magic, blood of the dragons) therefore the magic eats or wears his body down thus the lower hp.

i dont get the pally/cleric/fvs either

pally the melee protector and warrior of the church and yet no really melee prowess but higher hp/weapon/armor
cleric the magic is grated by his/her god thus no drop in hp, but as they are in battle healing and such high hp, and armor
fvs i dont know how or when but is cool for ddo.

[Lonnbeimnech]

Clerics are based on the Knights Templar, which were an order of monks, that happened to be armored warriors that would escort pilgrims and even merchants to and from the 'holy land'.

Your average priest/pastor/rabbi would be a level 0 commoner.


Paladins are not your run of the mill warrior of the church, they are supposed to be quite rare, highly charismatic and thus natural leaders. So you would be looking at the likes of El Cid, Ivanhoe or Joan of Arc.

Common foot soldiers and knights, even 'of the church' would be fighters.

[Hazelnut]

Wizards and Sorcerers have more combat magic available and traditionally ignore or at least only pay secondary attention to direct physical combat, Clerics and Favored Souls emphasize physical combat as well as using spells. Pretty much the tradition for dnd for 40 years now

Ya, that is what bothers me. It doesn't make sense to me.

[Hazelnut]

Clerics are based on the Knights Templar, which were an order of monks, that happened to be armored warriors that would escort pilgrims and even merchants to and from the 'holy land'.

Your average priest/pastor/rabbi would be a level 0 commoner.


Paladins are not your run of the mill warrior of the church, they are supposed to be quite rare, highly charismatic and thus natural leaders. So you would be looking at the likes of El Cid, Ivanhoe or Joan of Arc.

Common foot soldiers and knights, even 'of the church' would be fighters.

Then clerics wouldn't be the healers and the paladin should be a type of prestige class of cleric or some such. I do like your explanation. It gives some justification to the cleric.

[Uska]

Ya, that is what bothers me. It doesn't make sense to me.

Well it does to me and I have been playing dnd for almost 40 years

[Hazelnut]

i believe a lot of the difference is due to the (wizard) study and testing his hp is low D4, a sorcerer has lower hp D4 due to the inate ability to control magic(ie. blood magic, blood of the dragons) therefore the magic eats or wears his body down thus the lower hp.

i dont get the pally/cleric/fvs either

pally the melee protector and warrior of the church and yet no really melee prowess but higher hp/weapon/armor
cleric the magic is grated by his/her god thus no drop in hp, but as they are in battle healing and such high hp, and armor
fvs i dont know how or when but is cool for ddo.

Is there anything in the source material to support that use of magic drains the spell casters?

I would think that blood of the dragons would make the sorcerers stronger instead of weaker. There is direct reference to sorcerers having dragon blood as the explanation for their innate ability with magic. Although that speaks to me of them being physically stronger, not weaker. Since the sorcerer can feel magic and is naturally gifted with it, I would expect a sorcerer would need less study to use it than a wizard of the same ability. Thus letting the sorcerer practice more with other skills. That also ties in nicely with the tendency for the sorcerer being more adventurous.

I really don't buy your argue,net about the cleric. It doesn't fit game mechanics or logic. If we take actual historic religious categories, the cleric would fit best with the hospitallers, who pretty much started formal medical study in western history. They focused on healing, which required a lot of study.

If you take the paladin as a fighting sect, that explains their lower spell power. They spend time learning to fight. They strike me as similar to the knights templar.

Someone else claimed that the cleric was based on knights Templar. I would like to know the source before I accept that. I don't recall seeing that in official books. But then it has been a long time since I played pen and paper.

[mobrien316]

I can remember playing PnP in the early 1980's and getting 1d4 for my magic user's hit points. Low levels were quite a challenge when you had 2 hit points and could get killed by a rat; not a giant rat, or a wererat - just a regular old rat...

[Uska]

Is there anything in the source material to support that use of magic drains the spell casters?

I would think that blood of the dragons would make the sorcerers stronger instead of weaker. There is direct reference to sorcerers having dragon blood as the explanation for their innate ability with magic. Although that speaks to me of them being physically stronger, not weaker. Since the sorcerer can feel magic and is naturally gifted with it, I would expect a sorcerer would need less study to use it than a wizard of the same ability. Thus letting the sorcerer practice more with other skills. That also ties in nicely with the tendency for the sorcerer being more adventurous.

I really don't buy your argue,net about the cleric. It doesn't fit game mechanics or logic. If we take actual historic religious categories, the cleric would fit best with the hospitallers, who pretty much started formal medical study in western history. They focused on healing, which required a lot of study.

If you take the paladin as a fighting sect, that explains their lower spell power. They spend time learning to fight. They strike me as similar to the knights templar.

Someone else claimed that the cleric was based on knights Templar. I would like to know the source before I accept that. I don't recall seeing that in official books. But then it has been a long time since I played pen and paper.

You might be happier on NWO they follow closer to what you want generic classes. Sorcerers I can't really speak on since they weren't a part of original dnd but wizards were based mainly on those from the stories of Jack Vance it's why original dnd's magic system is called Vancian the referral to clerics as knights Templar comes from AD&D and the minds of the original creators they stated it several times.

If you can't take the word of people who have probably been playing dnd longer than you have been alive then I am done with you as I think you might be baiting people.

[BigErkyKid]

I think the final decision of of 1d4 is based on balance, not necessarily on lore. I do agree 1d6 would make more sense to me. In DDO that would be particularly bad, since a lot of the utility spells from DnD don-t exist or are useless, so this would even tip more the balance to sorc. In a DnD session, I found that our DM rewarded a lot having those little utility spells.

As for people claiming to know better, be careful because the world is full of older people than you who have been playing DnD longer...which means absolutely nothing, since this is not a discussion on whether this or this other writer, dev or what not from wizzards of the coast had something or something else in mind.

[Lonnbeimnech]

Is there anything in the source material to support that use of magic drains the spell casters?

I would think that blood of the dragons would make the sorcerers stronger instead of weaker. There is direct reference to sorcerers having dragon blood as the explanation for their innate ability with magic. Although that speaks to me of them being physically stronger, not weaker. Since the sorcerer can feel magic and is naturally gifted with it, I would expect a sorcerer would need less study to use it than a wizard of the same ability. Thus letting the sorcerer practice more with other skills. That also ties in nicely with the tendency for the sorcerer being more adventurous.

Your average human is level 0, and has 1d8 hit dice. Most people have 4 or 5 hp, with 8 being a tough guy, and 1 being an invalid. A level 20 sorc would have 20d4, 50 on average <-- that is amazingly tough.

As far as them spending less time studying compared to a wizard and thus having more time for other skills; in pnp sorcs get proficiency in a few weapons that wizards do not get, such as spear, mace and javelin.

I really don't buy your argue,net about the cleric. It doesn't fit game mechanics or logic. If we take actual historic religious categories, the cleric would fit best with the hospitallers, who pretty much started formal medical study in western history. They focused on healing, which required a lot of study.

If you take the paladin as a fighting sect, that explains their lower spell power. They spend time learning to fight. They strike me as similar to the knights templar.

Someone else claimed that the cleric was based on knights Templar. I would like to know the source before I accept that. I don't recall seeing that in official books. But then it has been a long time since I played pen and paper.

If you want to think of them as hospitallers that's a fine comparison as well. Dispite being healers, this is how they dressed.
They were a military order, just as much as the templars were.

[Missing_Minds]

Ya, that is what bothers me. It doesn't make sense to me.

Magic doesn't make sense... imagine that.

I always took it like this. Academia, unless you spend your time researching you don't get more spells, you just earn your living. So how do you earn your keep? If I stayed in school I'd learn more spells for sure, but I'd have less funds. By leaving school I learn spells now a heck of a lot slower, but I've got funds to do what else I want to do. But still what are you doing for the most part? Sitting around watching things, sitting around reading books, sitting around writing notes, sitting around...

Divines? think of the setting. After going through "basic training" which is dependent upon the detity (after all there are many gods/goddess of travel, war, etc.) that would have you get phyiscal, *not* just sit around and listen to people confess. They would go out and *do* work to get people interested in their faith. And in doing so, learn more what it means, for themselves, of how to become closer to their chosen deity. Stronger faith through work, so because the work is going on they get the larger hit dice.

Does this apply to all dieties? Most likely not, but then look at the game. Dice. It is a game of averages really.

My take on it at least.

[Hazelnut]

Magic doesn't make sense... imagine that.

I always took it like this. Academia, unless you spend your time researching you don't get more spells, you just earn your living. So how do you earn your keep? If I stayed in school I'd learn more spells for sure, but I'd have less funds. By leaving school I learn spells now a heck of a lot slower, but I've got funds to do what else I want to do. But still what are you doing for the most part? Sitting around watching things, sitting around reading books, sitting around writing notes, sitting around...

Divines? think of the setting. After going through "basic training" which is dependent upon the detity (after all there are many gods/goddess of travel, war, etc.) that would have you get phyiscal, *not* just sit around and listen to people confess. They would go out and *do* work to get people interested in their faith. And in doing so, learn more what it means, for themselves, of how to become closer to their chosen deity. Stronger faith through work, so because the work is going on they get the larger hit dice.

Does this apply to all dieties? Most likely not, but then look at the game. Dice. It is a game of averages really.

My take on it at least.

Best argument I've read so far. I still think the sorcerer should be tougher than the wizard. The wizard is the academic, the sorcerer is out in the field. Which is why the sorcerer has less spells and should be a bit tougher than a wizard.

[Cardoor]

If a 10y.o. sorc was being chased by wolves, I would think the sorc child would turn to magic before picking up a club or stone.

My point is that in a combat situation, the magic user (sorc or wiz) will be apt to rely on what is effective for them. Once you go from a generalization to something more specific, multi-classing makes more sense when the original class doesn't encompass everything you envision your character is.

[Missing_Minds]

Best argument I've read so far. I still think the sorcerer should be tougher than the wizard. The wizard is the academic, the sorcerer is out in the field. Which is why the sorcerer has less spells and should be a bit tougher than a wizard.

They modified toughness for weapon proficiencies. Given their "one trick" spell list (due to it being smaller), instead of only being proficient with : club, dagger, heavy crossbow, light crossbow, and quarterstaff.

They are proficient with all simple weapons. That was the design made for them in the essence of balance when you consider low level vs high level.

However, I grant you that I think sorcs got bit shafted in the 3.5 rules compared to wizards. They should have been given 4 skill points a level as well. Given Cha and not Int is their stat.

[Ayseifn]

I don't understand why the Sorcerer has such a crappy hit-die. The sorcerer is described (in the actual source material for both D&D 2.0 and 3.5) as an arcane spell-caster that travels and explores the world. This is even reflected in the original artwork in those books. Shouldn't someone who is out in the world adventuring have a higher hit-die?

I don't remember sorcs being in 2nd edition at all, what I do remember from that edition though was that different classes gained XP for doing different, class specific things. So fighters got more XP from killing things, thieves from obtaining treasure and the like, wizards got theirs from casting/learning spells or creating magic items. If sorcs existed there they'd probably follow the wizard XP philosophy but get more XP for casting as they wouldn't be able to research spells, so D4 makes sense to me.

Baldurs Gate was based on 2nd Ed though and did have sorcs, they had no stat minimum reqs so you could theoretically pump that con higher than a wizard.