Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="doctorbadwolf" data-source="post: 7914868" data-attributes="member: 6704184">I mean, that’s fine, it’s just kind of an oversimplified analysis. It’s basically, “they’re both spells, as such, so it doesn’t matter how different they actually are in practical gameplay terms.”And if that’s how you see it or feel about, that’s fine, its just...they objectively aren’t casting the same spell. There are spells that are very similar, sure, but if we don’t cherry pick such examples...I don’t understand how one can see Firebolt and Word of Radiance and Chill Touch as “the same”. Especially as a thing that makes all the full casters (except warlock?) all somehow play the same, when their actual abilities literally do very different things.I’m genuinely trying to understand what your (and others) POV even is, here, not call it wrong or put it down or anything. It just confuses me.Best I can figure, from your posts ITT, it’s something along the lines of...How the class is organized matters more than what the specific abilities do in determining how different two classes are.is that right?because IMO a sorcerer with long range blaster cantrips and some utility spells, using meta magic mostly to boost damage, is vastly more similar to a warlock than to a wizard. The idea that the warlock stands apart is just...wild, to me. It’s a full caster, with scaling damage cantrips and ninth level spells and some quirky add on features. That stands apart from the bard and sorcerer because it rations it’s spells slots differently? Like, I agree there is a meaningful difference there, but it isn’t any greater than prepared vs known spells, and is a much less impactful difference than having spell lists with fairly small overlap.</blockquote>

Verification