Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MoonSong" data-source="post: 6169924" data-attributes="member: 6689464">That is the best we are hoping for, for sorcerer and warlock to be their own classes with subclasses of their own, balanced to account for the fact they usually have different ability score dependencies and their flavour being more diverse. Warning, the following is highly speculatory and not meant as derogatory to any person, fictitious or real. I cannot help but thinking on hindsight that someone on the design team really, really has set out to impose his/her extremely narrow vision on magic upon the edition. I don't have anything against naming the class mage (that was the name on 2e), while I'm on principle agaisnt the &quot;one class to rule them all&quot; approach there is some good potential (like the sorcerer making it into the basic game or beign allowed to keep the whole repertory -up to 40 spells at 20th level- available all times, but being realistic that will never happen), could ignore the &quot;necromancy is Evil and bad-wrong-fun&quot; and while I loathed the monstrous approach for the first versions of sorcerer and warlock, they felt like sorcerers and warlocks -just uglier and meaner-. But all of those things add up together. Is there someone among the developpers -let's say &quot;designer x&quot;- behind all of this? someone who thought &quot;sorcerer and warlock will be in this package, let's make them as monstrous, unsettling and controverisal as possible (arcane casting on heavy armor while using martial weapons, the infamous &quot;two souls you turn into a monster&quot; fiasco, the &quot;your patron steals your beauty&quot;, or your warlock is now Int primary)&quot; then upon complains from wizard players who wanted a non-vancian option proppossed an umbrella &quot;lets' make casting system optional, because if wizards need it those other two poorsaps need it too, let's remove them meanwhile&quot;, who also set out to remove the cool specialties and feats because they were 'wrong' (&quot;necromancer? that is evil&quot;, &quot;Arcanne dabbler how they dare being able to learn any two cantrips? they should only get the two I consider appropriate and nothing more&quot;) and now just wants to lump them together into being wizard subclasses at the cost of their own identity &quot;because they are just wizard light anyway&quot;.I know this one borders on conspiracy paranoia, but again it wouldn't be the first time a designer for an edition hated the sorcerer's guts. So is Designer X real?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MoonSong, post: 6169924, member: 6689464"] That is the best we are hoping for, for sorcerer and warlock to be their own classes with subclasses of their own, balanced to account for the fact they usually have different ability score dependencies and their flavour being more diverse. Warning, the following is highly speculatory and not meant as derogatory to any person, fictitious or real. I cannot help but thinking on hindsight that someone on the design team really, really has set out to impose his/her extremely narrow vision on magic upon the edition. I don't have anything against naming the class mage (that was the name on 2e), while I'm on principle agaisnt the "one class to rule them all" approach there is some good potential (like the sorcerer making it into the basic game or beign allowed to keep the whole repertory -up to 40 spells at 20th level- available all times, but being realistic that will never happen), could ignore the "necromancy is Evil and bad-wrong-fun" and while I loathed the monstrous approach for the first versions of sorcerer and warlock, they felt like sorcerers and warlocks -just uglier and meaner-. But all of those things add up together. Is there someone among the developpers -let's say "designer x"- behind all of this? someone who thought "sorcerer and warlock will be in this package, let's make them as monstrous, unsettling and controverisal as possible (arcane casting on heavy armor while using martial weapons, the infamous "two souls you turn into a monster" fiasco, the "your patron steals your beauty", or your warlock is now Int primary)" then upon complains from wizard players who wanted a non-vancian option proppossed an umbrella "lets' make casting system optional, because if wizards need it those other two poorsaps need it too, let's remove them meanwhile", who also set out to remove the cool specialties and feats because they were 'wrong' ("necromancer? that is evil", "Arcanne dabbler how they dare being able to learn any two cantrips? they should only get the two I consider appropriate and nothing more") and now just wants to lump them together into being wizard subclasses at the cost of their own identity "because they are just wizard light anyway". I know this one borders on conspiracy paranoia, but again it wouldn't be the first time a designer for an edition hated the sorcerer's guts. So is Designer X real? [/QUOTE]

Verification