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: 6910367" data-attributes="member: 2067">...but you'll always be outclassed by the kid with System Mastery who can do all that better by choosing better options.I'm not sure that most warlord fans are satisfied with the BM's archetype emulation, and I'm also not sure that many 4e fighter fans are satisfied with the BM's Defender-role emulation, so I think we've got a pretty clear example of more options not necessarily solving the issue (the only BM's I've seen in play have all been dipped multiclasses done by old hands, so it's not boding well for newbie-friendliness or archetype-building potential). I think Mearls is onto something when he mentions that a flaw of the Fighter is that its subclasses "don't mean anything." I do think you could hypothetically weave a more complex, option-based pool of abilities on top of the sorcerer, but I think you'd get much the same reaction the BM has gotten: "It doesn't do what I want it to" on one hand and "It's meaningless" on the other. Maybe not, but there's a high risk. "A lot of people might enjoy a more focused class more" doesn't mean that a broad, flexible class is wrong any more than the preference of most people for The Avengers means preferring Deadpool is wrong. It ain't really about right and wrong, it's about what you gain and what you lose (and I would suggest that your gains in using a broad, flexible class are probably not worth what you'd lose, but that's certainly a debatable opinion). The point I was responding to was that the warlock is "more flexible" than the sorcerer. My counterpoint is that they're about equally as flexible - a DM can ignore whatever. And if your DM is open to ignoring whatever and is fine with not enforcing the fluff of warlock pacts, that opens up playing a Wizard who uses CHA instead of INT or a Sorcerer who has spears if you want.</blockquote>

Verification