Search results

Obviously I can only speak for myself, but I consider the core archetype to be a guy (or gal) whose magic is innate, derived from their own essence rather than an external force or formula. As such, that magic should be more flexible but less complex than a wizard's spells. Moreover, the...

I've seen this kind of counterargument pop up multiple times and I really think it missed the point. The complaint isn't that sorcerers are mechanically weak; it's that their strengths don't do a great job matching the archetype. For starters, I don't understand why they don't get...

As DM i would certainly allow a player to just use a wizard with cha instead of int (and maybe even spell points from the dmg) if they wanted sorcerer flavor without the current mechanics. (Maybe stick them with the spells known limit if there was another wizard in the party.)

This argument would hold more weight if they hadn't playtested a mechanically and flavor-wise much more interesting sorcerer and then completely ditched it because too many people were complaining that they couldn't duplicate their 3e or 4e sorcerer characters.

Well, a lot of single-target spells don't make the cut probably because they'd be overpowered with twin spell (haste is crazy enough).

I don't really buy this logic. Evocation is still a wizard spell school - are evokers supposed to be okay sucking compared to sorcerers? (Not that they do.) Honestly I think they just screwed the pooch on sorcerers. Meh, 12/13 (I think?) core classes being awesome is a decent record.

It worries me that you could end up stacking a bunch of potions to fly around while Invisible and stoneskinned. Obviously the DM can prevent that, if they keep a close tally of what the pcs have stashed away in their bags for 10 levels.

They stack. And if you want to get crazy, look at the high-end poisons you can put on your blade (6d6 from purple worm poison), and consider that poison damage gets doubled on crits too.

I think the real question is, why would a high-level wizard in possession of a powerful artifact NOT use this spell to keep it from getting stolen?

I think as DM I'd require a long rest, and then also do a time jump (anywhere from a week to ten years) between tiers to reflect a change in tempo.

The thing is, many high-level spells can be equally crazy in the right situation. A few of them, like True Polymorph and Foresight, can be very effective in MOST situations, and last for quite a while (or forever).

No, the accuracy will remain the same for 2/3 of the party on average, because no class gets proficiency to more than one of the three major saves (dex, con, wis) before very high levels. A level 20 fighter will be just as likely to pass that dc10 dexterity save as a level 1 fighter, unless he...

While multiclassing can make some characters more front-loaded, over the course of a standard adventuring day they generally don't do more damage than a single-classed character. Sorcerer/warlock is the only real exception that comes to mind, and you can nip that in the bud with a quick...

"Abuse," you keep saying that. I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Yeah, when 9th level spells do stuff like nuke a village from a mile away, turn you into a gold dragon forever, or give you advantage on all attacks and saves for eight hours (and your opponents disadvantage on attacks against you) or friggin WISH, once a day is plenty.

I tend to think of it in narrative terms: 1. The outcome is obvious, and an unexpected success or failure will just be annoying and detrimental to the flow of the game. 2. The outcome is in question. You roll only in the second case. An arm-wrestling contest between unequal opponents would...

I think this actually happened to Tasslehoff (the kender thief) in one of the Dragonlance books. Climactic battle, high stakes, and he blows the pick locks check. I remember thinking, "Come on, kender, you have ONE JOB!" But it did feel dramatic and appropriate.

A high-level wizard can already cast shield at will. It doesn't seem to destroy the game.

To clarify, because I realize this sounds a bit terse, I think it's worth examining whether the final system succeeds or fails, but trying to justify it in terms of how well we think it fits what the designers originally intended years ago early in the design process seems counterproductive...

Maybe it's time we start arguing about whether we got what was "promised in abstract terms like "bounded accuracy" and "wealth by level" and instead look at the actual system in front of us and judge whether we like it.