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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Plane Sailing" data-source="post: 1382353" data-attributes="member: 114">On the contrary, quite a few of us (who are actually playing sorcerers) think that they are fine as they are thanks very much <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />My sorcerer started in 3.0e with a conscious effort to avoid the "must have" sorcerer spells and feats... her initial spells were "resist elements", "Burning hands" and "charm person" at 3rd. At 4th level her first 2nd level spell was "pyrotechnics". At 3rd level she took the Enlarge metamagic feat.No shield, no mage armour, no magic missile, no invisibility... and I had a ball. She was (is) full of character and has plenty of fun. On more than one occasion her pyrotechnics turned the tables in the partys favour (it is a much overlooked spell).Unfortunately a change to 3.5e was really bad news for her - resist elements became useless, enlarge spell could no longer be used to make a huge burning hands spray... the DM kindly allowed me to retcon certain elements.Any player who tries to seek out the "one optimum list of spells" for his sorcerer is denying themselves the chance for a lot of fun in the game. I've gone for a fire and charm themed sorcerer. I'd have equal fun playing a conjuring sorcerer (look ma, instant armies!) or an illusion and necromancy sorcerer or a transmuter sorcerer.(I'm sure that nobody would say that the only fighter worth playing is a plate armoured two handed sword wielder, even though that gives a great AC and great damage giving potential - certainly more so than a leather armoured rapier wielding fighter. Does that mean that the rapier fighter shouldn't be played? By no means!Cheers</blockquote>

Verification