Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MoonSong" data-source="post: 9685651" data-attributes="member: 6689464">At least with fighter it's fully justified.  The class truly succeeds at portraying a generic "can be anything" warrior, or mostly at the beginning. Then we had the thief who started to erode at that identity early on. Magic user was always a lousy fit for the "any caster" theme; it has always been its own idiosyncratic thing. I know we call it Vancian, but it doesn't work like Vance's Dying Earth. It is very much ultra-specific, but a sizeable part of the community -including a disproportionate part of the design teams over the years- refuses to see that the emperor has no clothes and as long as that doesn't change, other casters that more properly reflect folklore and pop culture will be hindered. Particularly the Sorcerer which has been from the beginning the elephant in the Room because of how vast it truly is and how the wizard existing forces us to disproportionately cover only one part of the class potential -I'd wager the class could see some split into heritage form monster magic and broader personality/concept magic-.  A properly designed Wizard class has problems fostering more than a handful of subclasses. A well designed warlock has the potential for a subclass for each entry in the monster manual. A well rendered sorcerer -something I don't think we'll ever get- would support one subclass for each word in the dictionary.</blockquote>