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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6909408" data-attributes="member: 2067">If what you want is a "generic spellcaster" who is maybe at least as generic as a 5e fighter, the sorcerer certainly won't do that for you. No class really will. The Wizard is probably the closest, and they've got "bookish academic" flavor. But that's kind of a whitebox problem. In practice, each player plays one character at a time, in a given campaign, and all the other character options that they might've/could've/hypothetically had are completely irrelevant. Rather than generic, broad, flavorless classes, all that anyone is going to care about at one point in time is the particular archetype that they are particularly playing. There's room for more sorcerer archetypes, sure. That's not the same thing as "the current sorcerer is disappointing," though. I don't think the cleric is disappointing because there's no official 4e-style Invoker option. I don't think the paladin is disappointing because there's no official Cavalier option. I don't think the Wizard is disappointing because there's no Shadow Mage option. That's just room to grow. The 5e sorcerer includes within it the story of the 3e sorcerer, well-realized. If that's not the story you want to tell with your sorcerer, sure, but that doesn't mean the 5e sorcerer isn't delivering what it set out to deliver. Personally, I find generic stuff boring as friiiiiiiig. I don't need an elegantly smooth wall I can paint whatever I want onto, I need a thorny, stony, inspiration-machine, with weird kinks and struts designed to tell a unique story. One thing  [MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION] has said was that he wished the fighter archetypes were less generic - I'm with him. A more generic sorcerer wouldn't appeal to me at all. Pretty sure I wouldn't be playing and enjoying this wild mage if the sorcerer was more generic.</blockquote>

Verification