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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6751726" data-attributes="member: 996">Ironically, your post makes me think WotC did an excellent job of evoking the feel of the original Sorcerer.  ;P  That just sounds so much like the criticisms of the 3.x Sorcerer.  As in 3.5, though, I think the problem isn't with the Sorcerer.  Magic-wielding characters in genre rarely have a 'do anything' shtick like that of the Wizard (or other prepped casters), even when they do, the actual abilities they display are rarely all that varied or inconsistent (well, maybe inconsistent, in the sense they seem to 'forget' to use a spell they've displayed before that'll trivialize a plot point, because author fiat).  It'd make a lot more sense to toss the Vancian wizard out on his ear and add a Hermetic Tradition sub-class to the Sorcerer (well, or Warlock, your perilous pact is just with the master-wizard/Arch-Mage you apprenticed to, Sith-style) that uses book learn'n as their shtick, without all the crazy versatility of the Wizard - if the only objective were to make a better, more genre-representative FRPG, rather than an FRPG that feels like D&D, that is.  So not anything it'd be reasonable to expect from a 5e module, UA article, or anything from WotC, but the kind of thing a DM could do if he wanted to.Another alternative would be to ban the Sorcerer in your game and have anyone wanting to play re-skin a Wizard 'for their own good.'  Not a good alternative, IMHO, but if a DM were that jacked up about it, but didn't want to engage in a lot of re-design work...</blockquote>

Verification