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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7474685" data-attributes="member: 6919838">"It seems to me like you like the sorcerer from the PHB as it is, and that's fine!"I can see why you get that when i specifically describe that as meh and even point to the PHB only itself. After all, we all know the definition of me is "like it as it is."But in actuality, *as i stated* i do not want the approach to an "improvement" to remove what it does, which is really to be a main level caster and replace it with a more limited arcane-warrior type of niche. Instead, i wanted (as shown) to add to the by emphasizing their unique feature "origins of their magic" even more and expanding on it in ways that *add to* their primary core - being a full arcane caster.So thats where the approach i cited as primary adds to the sub-classes the usual bank of 10 additional themed known spells. Why don't i like tacking the cantrip-archer onto this class? Because the net result to me seems to dilute and remove the core heart of the class "origin of my magic". Your rewrites of the various origins to me seem to leave them mostly lackluster, since the major "what i do" for this character will now be "hit with my cantrip" again and again the other stuff just seems more like garnihs than part of the meal.As for other "cantrip-striker" type classes, characters and builds - i have nothing against the, i have seen them played, played them, read quite a few write-ups. While some folks post about them being boring or whatever, i see that as a flavor-taste-preference thing - and see them very much as an arcane-shooter type of options, no more boring than say a fighter, rogue or archer might be. Each of them may be doing "the same thing" round after round when it comes to output. however, to me part of the charm of those classes comes from "what else they do" - if their combat is rather repetitive, one would hope they have other areas of strong suits to help them spotlight themselves. (Rogues excel at this with their skills and versatility etc and even fighters bring to the table higher than typical survivability and often strength.) This class seems to lack that mostly, pouring everything it seem into "arcane-striker-stronger" etc.perhaps it having CHA as a prime stat is enough to carry it, if it spends one or two of its skills on social stuff and there isn't a bard around to carry that load.So, why do i think some folks like the cantrip-striker class (warlock)? because it hits a decent balance between caster and fighter type play-styles and offers a lot of variety with its numerous choices - inside and outside of combat. i do not see them as "not realizing" or not meeting "their goal" or whatever you took from my sentence. However, i find this particular class to be so much more like "take a warlock, call it sorcerer for some reason (oh yeah, to get meta-magic in play) and remove the variety/options in favor of bigger cantrip-striker fu" and at the same time remove all that "obligation to patron" stuff that might get in the way.So, as i said, in an effort to make the sorcerer more interesting, more appealing or even flat-out better - this is not a direction i would go. this is a combat-lasered Warlock, not a sorc, that removes the patron ties and crams meta-magic into it.To me at least, YMMV.</blockquote>

Verification