Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6909452" data-attributes="member: 22779">But, if your focus is out of combat, why would you choose a sorcerer?&nbsp; Isn't that like playing a fighter or a barbarian and then complaining about a lack of stuff to do out of combat?&nbsp; Aren't sorcerers pretty heavily focused on combat, just like fighters and barbarians?&nbsp; If you want lots of stuff to do out of combat, why wouldn't you play a wizard?&nbsp; Isn't that what a wizard is for?----Edit to add after reading a few more responses:At some point, complaining that your square peg won't go into that round hole has to be on you, rather than the peg.&nbsp; Sorcerers were never really generic.&nbsp; They just never got that many spells known to be a &quot;generalist&quot; class.&nbsp; The &quot;blaster&quot; sorcerer was more or less the baseline for the class that I think most people played.&nbsp; ((OTOH, I so rarely ever saw a sorcerer in play that I could be way off base here.&nbsp; In all the years I played 3e, I think I maybe saw one sorcerer, and that's maybe))Again, I have to go back to the idea that you're working backwards here.&nbsp; You're insisting on playing a sorcerer and then trying to force that square peg into the round hole of &quot;magical thief&quot; or &quot;I'm made of magic&quot; concept that you want to play.Since the concept is the important part, why wouldn't you simply pick a class that best fits the concept, rather than sitting back and complaining that your concept doesn't fit with a specific class?&nbsp; &quot;I'm made of magic&quot; fits rather well with a Cleric of Magic.&nbsp; With the bonus spells known and whatnot, you're certainly more of an arcane caster than a divine one.&nbsp; And, it's a pretty minor thing to quibble about spell components.&nbsp; Good grief, is it really that big of a deal to have &quot;holy symbol&quot; written on your character sheet?&nbsp; And it's not like it's completely out of line with the concept.&nbsp; Casting magic requires a focus of some sort.&nbsp; Heck, make the holy symbol some sort of birthmark and you're gold.Now you have a character that is &quot;made of magic&quot; and has all sorts of out of combat goodies.&nbsp; What's the problem here?&nbsp; Is it simply that it doesn't have &quot;sorcerer&quot; on the character sheet?&nbsp; Are we really that hung up on class names that every class must be able to fit every concept?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6909452, member: 22779"] But, if your focus is out of combat, why would you choose a sorcerer? Isn't that like playing a fighter or a barbarian and then complaining about a lack of stuff to do out of combat? Aren't sorcerers pretty heavily focused on combat, just like fighters and barbarians? If you want lots of stuff to do out of combat, why wouldn't you play a wizard? Isn't that what a wizard is for? ---- Edit to add after reading a few more responses: At some point, complaining that your square peg won't go into that round hole has to be on you, rather than the peg. Sorcerers were never really generic. They just never got that many spells known to be a "generalist" class. The "blaster" sorcerer was more or less the baseline for the class that I think most people played. ((OTOH, I so rarely ever saw a sorcerer in play that I could be way off base here. In all the years I played 3e, I think I maybe saw one sorcerer, and that's maybe)) Again, I have to go back to the idea that you're working backwards here. You're insisting on playing a sorcerer and then trying to force that square peg into the round hole of "magical thief" or "I'm made of magic" concept that you want to play. Since the concept is the important part, why wouldn't you simply pick a class that best fits the concept, rather than sitting back and complaining that your concept doesn't fit with a specific class? "I'm made of magic" fits rather well with a Cleric of Magic. With the bonus spells known and whatnot, you're certainly more of an arcane caster than a divine one. And, it's a pretty minor thing to quibble about spell components. Good grief, is it really that big of a deal to have "holy symbol" written on your character sheet? And it's not like it's completely out of line with the concept. Casting magic requires a focus of some sort. Heck, make the holy symbol some sort of birthmark and you're gold. Now you have a character that is "made of magic" and has all sorts of out of combat goodies. What's the problem here? Is it simply that it doesn't have "sorcerer" on the character sheet? Are we really that hung up on class names that every class must be able to fit every concept? [/QUOTE]

Verification