Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MoonSong" data-source="post: 6320697" data-attributes="member: 6689464">It was a petty reason. But to answer you, if the new edition is named Next, the one after that is named something completely different, all of your titles (Nexter, Next +1) fall prey to the same reason I don't find 5e as catchy, they are acknowledging the edition treadmill. I think I've only ever played one aasimar sorcerer ever, maybe two, but certainly no more than three. You see I really like to play as many different possible characters, bards, clerics, rogues, paladins, sorcerers, some swashbucklers, and some characters so unique they defy reductionism to a single word.  And it isn't as if 4e included Aasimar. If it had I wouldn't be worried.I don't have a set view of what a sorcerer looks like, the problem is the designers do, and the only two options they have talked about are the monstruous over the top one and the 2e tome of magic homage, and that is ok, but when there are just two flavors and none of them is an appropriate fit for 80% of my sorcerer characters. Both are tampered by overpowering strong flavor, almost as if the designers where set on punishing you for not playing a wizard. And this is bad because they where making a lot of right decisions early on, but then wizard players began to complain that they wanted all of the good toys too and the design shifted towards pleasing them, while they eventually sidetracked and came up with an awesome framework, the whole deal was a wasted opportunity, instead of they asking the right questions "Which flavors/bloodlines you consider key to the sorcerer identity?" they kept on asking over and over "Are you sure you don't want to play a wizard with draconic flavor?". After 4e it seemed as if dragon and chaos are the only flavors needed for sorcerer players (hint they aren't), but even in 4e it was possible to play a neutral flavored sorcerer (via hybrids) but that is something the designers don't know because they never bothered to ask. In short I won't be disappointed by their sorcerer; I completely lack faith on the designers providing a good one. I'm only hard on the DMs that deserve it. I have played with awesome DMs and some terrific ones even, but I also have some horror stories to tell. I have found different rulesets and standards foster the development of certain types of DMs. Rulesets that overly empower DMs tend to attract a lot of bigoted and opinionated DMs who go control freak down to the last skillpoint of every player. Others that "entitle" players tend to bring out very open minded and sweet natured DMs that work to make room for players in their world, or short of that, allow for a good dialog when you are "entitled" to something and that something is taken away by the DM, that DM has to provide something in return out of principle, when that same DM has full control by default, it becomes "bow down with resignation or the door is that way". The so Maligned "everything is core" from 4e has actually allowed me to game with some of the best DMs out there, while other systems without a standard feature some of the most intolerant and tyranical ones.</blockquote>

Verification