Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8010713" data-attributes="member: 18">The biggest barrier to this will always be full casters, more than anything else. Just being a full caster in the 2E, 3E or 5E style means your character is incredibly powerful as a baseline, and if literally all you had was full caster spells and a reasonable (not even amazing) spell list, and say the 5E Druid/Cleric* way of casting, you'd be solidly strong (if somewhat boring). This really limits what you can do with subclasses with casters, just like it really limited what PrCs could do with full casters.Whereas everyone else has a lot of lesser stuff that could potentially be more modular. In a more daring world, the solution would be to get rid of full casters, as 4E did. That way your design space is absolutely massive, as 4E very clearly and repeatedly demonstrated. But even ignoring that option, it's problematic, because it means you can't really have &quot;less powerful base classes&quot; for those classes, only for non-full-casters.The only other way around it I can see is to perhaps further weaken spells (perfectly reasonable IMHO, and I say that as someone who plays full casters most of the time in 5E), even beyond what 5E has done, or just really fill up the subclasses of all classes with tons and tons of stuff, beyond what 5E does.* = This made me realize that the real issue with the 5E Sorcerer, can't believe I never quite got this before, despite having touched on it, is that because everyone is a spontaneous caster in 5E, even Wizards, having a class who has the deal of &quot;spontaneous caster&quot;, and worse access to spells as a result makes zero sense. The Sorcerer no longer has a niche, and metamagic ain't cutting it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 8010713, member: 18"] The biggest barrier to this will always be full casters, more than anything else. Just being a full caster in the 2E, 3E or 5E style means your character is incredibly powerful as a baseline, and if literally all you had was full caster spells and a reasonable (not even amazing) spell list, and say the 5E Druid/Cleric* way of casting, you'd be solidly strong (if somewhat boring). This really limits what you can do with subclasses with casters, just like it really limited what PrCs could do with full casters. Whereas everyone else has a lot of lesser stuff that could potentially be more modular. In a more daring world, the solution would be to get rid of full casters, as 4E did. That way your design space is absolutely massive, as 4E very clearly and repeatedly demonstrated. But even ignoring that option, it's problematic, because it means you can't really have "less powerful base classes" for those classes, only for non-full-casters. The only other way around it I can see is to perhaps further weaken spells (perfectly reasonable IMHO, and I say that as someone who plays full casters most of the time in 5E), even beyond what 5E has done, or just really fill up the subclasses of all classes with tons and tons of stuff, beyond what 5E does. * = This made me realize that the real issue with the 5E Sorcerer, can't believe I never quite got this before, despite having touched on it, is that because everyone is a spontaneous caster in 5E, even Wizards, having a class who has the deal of "spontaneous caster", and worse access to spells as a result makes zero sense. The Sorcerer no longer has a niche, and metamagic ain't cutting it. [/QUOTE]

Verification