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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jago" data-source="post: 6908821" data-attributes="member: 6855130">They do not need to be able to handle all concepts, but there is clearly more diversity in design from the By The Book spellcasters than from the "Apparently my Great, Great, Great Grandfather was a Marid." spellcasters. That just does not jive with me when "Wild Mage" is supposed to cover everything from a Fey Ancestry to magical experimentaction gone wrong, when the Wizard has an Archetype for every single style of magic.It's not just the Magical Thief, it's the idea that with a limited amount of spells known and a limited Spell List, there literally is only so much you can do with the Class. Even the Fighter can at least use all arms and armor equally to create both a dashing Musketeer or a heavily-armored Knight. The fact that Cleric, Warlock, and Wizard have far more diversity of design and capability than the "My blood is magic" class is poor design. And to bring up the idea that using components means there's no difference...So then Bard is Druid is Warlock? I mean, they're all Spellcasters, they all use components, right?But we know they are different. They feel entirely different and can cover a wide variety of themes. I think I've yet to play a bard who is a legit minstrel, there's so much you can do with the class and spell list, and they even wind up getting more spell selection than the Sorcerer.Again. The class whose very Origins are magical and fantastic in nature. Who share a connection to magic stronger than any other Class, thematically.But to address that, no: a Sorcerer should not need components. They shouldn't need to wave a wand or chant over a crystal ball to make the magic happen, and that alone would start to distinguish them from just playing a reflavored Cleric or Warlock.</blockquote>

Verification