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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 8798490" data-attributes="member: 93670">I agree that full caster with basically all of the go to wizard spells is not a chassis that can support it but don't think that all of the mage group classes need the same full casting any more than we expect Fighter Barbarian & Monk (or Paladin) to have the same number of attacks"Wizard but X" is not a wide enough niche for the same reason you say gish but X is too small.  Look at the spells for sorcerer: fireball?:<a href="https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/fireball" target="_blank">yup</a> Web?:<a href="https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/web" target="_blank">Yup</a> slow?:<a href="https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/slow" target="_blank">Yup</a> So on & so forth right down the list of top shelf spells.  The sorcerer is limited in spell choices on theoretical level, but if you were to watch a sorc & wizard player at the table they are likely to have a very similar spell selection  & offer no real differentiation unless a social situation breaks out. With the bolded bit.  At least one of the  bard or ranger levels now has a subclass feature when it didn't before. Gish but x as a theme could make good use of that without needing to lean so hard on a theoretically limited selection of the wizard spell list by giving very different distribution of power budget.  Fighter gets extra attack at 5 11 & 20 while Paladin gets smite aura or lay on hands features at 1 2 6 10 11 & 18 thanks to being a half caster.  There's no reason a "gish but x" class would need to get all of their abilities in 4 early levels because a fractional caster sorc would have the power budget to do similar with meaty arcane gish features not laden with ribbons.</blockquote>

Verification