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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Xetheral" data-source="post: 6910533" data-attributes="member: 6802765">Two points:First, while I agree that too many options can turn off newbies, too few is also a problem because it makes it harder for newbies to take the image in their head and find the right mechanics to express it. Skilled players familiar with the system can find good mechanical approximations for most concepts, particularly by being aware of refluffing possibilities, but an inexperienced player only has the options in front of them at the moment. For example, a new, inexperienced player displeased with their spell options as a sorcerer may not even know that wizards get access to all the same spells, plus more. Even if they did know, they might reject switching to Wizard on fluff (or primary stat) grounds, not thinking to ask the DM to refluff the wizard as a sorcerer. The sorcerer/wizard divide is particularly hard for new players because you're almost always picking your class by comparing a rough-hewn concept to the class descriptions, long before you've read through the spell lists. But those descriptions don't tell you which concepts the sorcerer class has the spells to mechanically support and which concepts are much better represented as wizards. (Unlike say, Cleric vs Druid where the thematic difference between their spell lists is readily apparent.) So in this case the relative lack of options on the sorcerer spell list is more of a problem for newbies, simply because they don't that the limitations they're facing when expressing their sorcerer concept may be surmountable.Second, increasing the size of the Sorcerer spell list to make more concepts realizable can't qualify as too many options until it surpasses the wizard list, unless you're arguing that 5e wizards themselves are newbie poison.Personally I feel the character-building minigame is an important part of what drives experienced players to keep playing D&D, because it can be done solo. When in-between campaigns and/or gaming groups, the ability to build characters as a creative exercise keeps interest in the game high. Once of the prices of having deliberately limited options is reducing the appeal/longevity of the minigame to your veteran fanbase.I don't understand how, for example, not giving the sorcerer access to the entire wizard list significantly improves the class for you personally. You'd have no more options than a wizard would, so there shouldn't be too many, and it leaves the fluff divide between the classes entirely intact, so they remain distinct. (If both classes had unique spells, I could see an argument that merging the spell lists would reduce the distinction between the classes, at least so long as the assignment of particular spells had a thematic divide. But when one class's spell list is a strict subset of the other's and lacks any rhyme or reason, I don't find that convincing.)I'm also unconvinced that the "marginal gain" of improving the game for whatever-size swath of the gaming audience feels as I do is necessarily any less valuable than improving it for whatever-size swath shares your opinions. Without some sort of concrete data on the prevalence of certain preferences, what basis can there be for claiming your opinion is more important than mine? It does indeed sound like you're saying that my preference is wrong on the (unknowable) basis that it is less popular than yours.There is a difference between tossing out the "sworn & beholden" fluff for the warlock and changing the mechanics of the wizard class to no longer have a spellbook or be based on charisma. I've never yet encountered a DM who wasn't fine with rewriting fluff, but I've met several who were very hesitant to make even small mechanical changes. And for those who do organized play, the former is legal, but the latter is not.I'm glad! Your experience shows that the class has enough options for you to be content. But I don't see how your experience is sufficient to reduce my perspective to "white-room speculation". I am indeed frustrated with the sorcerer builds that the truncated spell list precludes--there's nothing hypothetical about it.</blockquote>

Verification