Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="swrushing" data-source="post: 1346655" data-attributes="member: 14140">A brief comment or two on the blandness or boring nature of the sorcerer.I like that. i consider it to be an important class feature. it is integral to the role of the sorcerer class in the game.he is bland just like the fighter is bland.Specifically, the class serves its role as the GENERIC arcane caster, just as the fighter serves the role as the generic combat machine They both serve to provide you a customizable character fitting the general role.The wizard, like the paladin and the ranger, serves a single specific character archtype... the academic mage luggin spellbooks and spending his days hunched over musky tome. in play the wizard spends a lot of his free time feeding the spellbooks. how many of the mages from fantasy lit and films does this archtype match? Some? sure! Most? not hardly.On the other hand, using the sor (having seen it played by those in my games, played by me in other games, and played by others in still other games) i have never seen two sorcerers who were very similar as a character.Now at this point many are typing furiously "thats nonsense, look at their spells..." and while i agree that there are significant overlaps in the spell selections of sor's due to pragmantic concerns, those overlaps are not dominating and as rigid and IMX if you look at the spellbooks of the wizards, there are a lot of overlaps there too.I ran an elven spellsinger (not the class) who spent lots on perform skill and whopse spell list included mount (he got tired of having to worry about stabling his horse), magic mouth, gaseous form and a number of other spells not as typical on the "spells a sor has gotta have." This "character" was radically different in play and performance to the gnomish jokester sorcerer who ran in my own game. Even more both were different from the combat mage sorcerer in that other game. Each spent their "time off" doing very different things and in many ways those things played larger roles than the 1-2 spells per level they overlapped.My experience is that playing the sor you can build your own mage without a ton of baggage that limits your concept. EVERY wizard i saw in play did the same things 90% of the time which means they spend almost all their time huddled over books or making items. The role their character played was almost identical, because there are so many demands on time and resources built in and hardwired into their class abilities.The sor, without those strings, can be whatever you want.After spending 1-2 spells per level on the "pragmatic" side of things, you have 2-3 spells per level to define yourself magically. Your feat choices, skill choices and personality will then do what they are supposed to do... make you have a "character" who is not boring or bland.Thats why the sor is a good fit for the role of "generic mage where you fill in the personality and style" and the wizard fails in that role.</blockquote>

Verification