NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 9408799" data-attributes="member: 87792">I think you meant to write that evokers were a bit better at blasting than sorcerers before, as well as being better at literally everything else than pre-Tasha's sorcerers. The ability to fireball your party and not have them take damage was huge and something no sorcerer could match.Meanwhile if there are going to be separate classes of wizard and sorcerer (and the wizard doesn't go where it belongs as the book-sorcerer) then the bookish character shouldn't be the blast mage. The evoker is the best wizard at blasting, but the wizard class is a scholar.I too can see a player getting frustrated when they take a powerful class and play them badly. In a random high level one shot the wizard has the best spell selection, not even having to spend low level spells on combat spells that are no longer useful.Tell me you've never regularly carried a swiss army knife without telling me you've never regularly carried a swiss army knife.My swiss army knife is good even though I don't think I have ever used two of the functions. And I can't remember using more than three functions on the same day. The goal is to always have a good tool not to, for some bizarre reason, set yourself the challenge of using every single tool in the swiss army knife in a day.I guess we should just discard all rules in that case and just have all outcomes as random. Except that randomness handicaps people. So does DM fiat. Are we playing a bidding game here?A casual player can play a wizard and not feel handicapped. On the other hand a casual player who plays a wizard foolishly and against the class identity is going to find it doesn't work well. But they will be better off than the melee rogue who goes squish - or, worse yet, the 2014Indeed it's absurd. Because the sorcerer isn't "simply better" than the wizard even under 2024 rules. If you play a 2024 wizard as a bookish wizard, looking up things and casting rituals they are more than fine. If on the other hand you play them as a sorcerer-wannabe, just blasting things they are going to be a sorcerer-wannabe. The wizard fantasy, as you yourself admit, involves being studious rather than directly blasting. Unlike the sorcerer. The problem is that the 2014 wizard was better than the 2014 sorcerer in just about every way. The sorcerer wasn't an unpopular class. But the wizard was just better. Better at wizard things and better at sorcerer things other than very niche cases involving twin and subtle spell. 2014 was absurd design.Only very slightly.Bloodlines being the sorcerer thing are a Pathfinder thing. The Sorcerer's thing in D&D is that it's the "everything else" caster. Someone who was born on the night of the grand conjunction. Someone who was hit by lightning by the century storm. In many cases the sorcerer has taken absurd risks for their power.Under 2014 rules the wizard could outgun the sorcerer literally everywhere. And people used to joke that "The company is called Wizards of the Coast, not Sorcerers of the Coast".Now the sorcerer that has magic burning in their veins can actually do what is in line with its power fantasy better than the wizard can you are complaining that the class that is explicitly the studious and bookish spellcaster doesn't get to crush the sorcerer where the sorcerer is supposed to be good. But is more studious than the sorcerer and more flexible. In short you want the wizard to be the best at everything rather than just better at what the wizard power fantasy covers while the sorcerer is at what the sorcerer power fantasy covers.How would I change it? Demote the wizard to a sorcerer subclass (with spellbooks books and rituals) and strengthen the sorcerer subclasses.</blockquote>

Verification