Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 7912452" data-attributes="member: 1465">I agree with the sentiment: &quot;enough is enough&quot;.They've done it before, and they started IIRC with the very first non-core Sorcerer archetype: Storm Sorcery. They gave it bonus known spells, only to withdraw them before publication with the reason that it would have diminished the value of the core Sorcerer archetypes who don't get bonus known spells.Then they did it again with new Sorcerers archetypes in UA. Either they should stick with their &quot;no bonus known spells for Sorcerers&quot; principle for good and stop sneaking it into new UA articles, or they should admit the core Sorcerer has a problem and grant it bonus known spells in the form of a real errata corrige.And yes I know that an errata corrige almost 6 years after publishing the game smells like a revision. But they've already done it one year ago by adding magic weapon properties to the Beastmaster's companion attacks so the dam is broken already.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 7912452, member: 1465"] I agree with the sentiment: "enough is enough". They've done it before, and they started IIRC with the very first non-core Sorcerer archetype: Storm Sorcery. They gave it bonus known spells, only to withdraw them before publication with the reason that it would have diminished the value of the core Sorcerer archetypes who don't get bonus known spells. Then they did it again with new Sorcerers archetypes in UA. Either they should stick with their "no bonus known spells for Sorcerers" principle for good and stop sneaking it into new UA articles, or they should admit the [B]core[/B] Sorcerer has a problem and grant it bonus known spells in the form of a real [B]errata corrige[/B]. And yes I know that an errata corrige almost 6 years after publishing the game smells like a revision. But they've already done it one year ago by adding magic weapon properties to the Beastmaster's companion attacks so the dam is broken already. [/QUOTE]

Verification