D&D (2024) The sorcerer shouldn't exist

[Micah Sweet]

Nope. Just seems pretty obvious.

Whatever you say then.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Inspiration then rules then lore.

Inspiration and lore isn't the same.

They can be and often are different varieties of lore, but they're both lore.

 

[Minigiant]

They can be and often are different varieties of lore, but they're both lore.

Lore is in-universe
Inspiration is not

Inspiration is Iron Man
Lore is Battlesmith Artificers

There's no Tony Stark in D&D.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Lore is in-universe
Inspiration is not

Inspiration is Iron Man
Lore is Battlesmith Artificers

There's no Tony Stark in D&D.

Unless you're trying to recreate Iron Man as a game-able rules widget. Then lore is Iron Man. Lore doesn't have to be as specific as you say, and re-defining the word doesn't suddenly make you right.

 

[Mecheon]

Unless you're trying to recreate Iron Man as a game-able rules widget. Then lore is Iron Man. Lore doesn't have to be as specific as you say, and re-defining the word doesn't suddenly make you right.

You're not going too be able to 100% shove in all of the Iron Man lore that exists out there into your D&D game. Its ging to be adjusted, changed, modified. Heck, even adjusted, changed and modified based on what sources you find the most relevant

Its inspiration from lore, but you're not slamming down the entirity of your chosen Iron Man media of choice into the game

 

[Micah Sweet]

You're not going too be able to 100% shove in all of the Iron Man lore that exists out there into your D&D game. Its ging to be adjusted, changed, modified. Heck, even adjusted, changed and modified based on what sources you find the most relevant

Its inspiration from lore, but you're not slamming down the entirity of your chosen Iron Man media of choice into the game

Not with that attitude.

And a simulation is still a simulation even if it doesn't cover 100% of the material it is based on. Really wish folks would accept that idea.

 

[M.L. Martin]

I think that's backwards. They came up with the idea for moon magic, or defiling/preserving, because they were trying to attach a new idea to existing rules (the wizard class).

They didn't say "I have a cool idea about a world with 3 magic gods, and they test people in towers" and then decide to put that in D&D instead of writing a book about it.

In this case, the fiction did come first--the moons as the source of/influence on magic shows up in the Dragonlance fiction (novels and game source material) from the beginning in 1984, but doesn't get reflected in mechanics until DRAGONLANCE Adventures in 1987.

 

[Krachek]

I see three concepts:
the hard worker scholar. wizard.
The gifted free spirit, sorcerer
The opportunist (if not cheater) that rely on external help. Warlock.

One class, three classes, or a set of subclass, I don’t really mind.
Just allow the three concepts.

 

[Remathilis]

Unless you're trying to recreate Iron Man as a game-able rules widget. Then lore is Iron Man. Lore doesn't have to be as specific as you say, and re-defining the word doesn't suddenly make you right.

No. The AD&D lore for the ranger is not Aragorn. The cleric lore is not Van Helsing. The barbarian lore is not Conan. Those characters don't exist in the universe in AD&D. Aragorn did not found the Order of Rangers on every D&D world. He is only the inspiration for the designer.

You have made the word lore so vague and overarching that it is meaningless.

 

[TwoSix]

In this case, the fiction did come first--the moons as the source of/influence on magic shows up in the Dragonlance fiction (novels and game source material) from the beginning in 1984, but doesn't get reflected in mechanics until DRAGONLANCE Adventures in 1987.

But it was always intended to be for D&D. The first module, DL1, Dragons of Despair, was published in March of '84, the novel Dragons of Autumn Twilight wasn't until November.

And this argument isn't really about release date minutiae. It's about the fairly obvious idea that people create game ideas as backdrop for the game, they aren't creating the world purely for its own sake.

It's not anti-simulationism to point out that game settings are generally built to be played in games. Especially elements that are just variations or new takes on already existing game elements.