Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Leatherhead" data-source="post: 6911097" data-attributes="member: 53176">Yeah, that bugged me about past renditions about the Sorcerer too. Maybe it was because Wizards were always (and still are) maligned up and down for everything: Their players, their mechanics, their flavor. And the Sorcerer was not only their alternative but "looked cool/sexy" while doing it, as if to rub salt in the wound. The Bard seemed like a better fit for that character type anyway, mostly because it did a bit of everything competently, but not to the point where it was obvious that it was intended to replace anything (except maybe the Rogue, but Rogues have that edgy or sassy lithe-warrioresque character feel that nobody will ever get rid of.) Right now I think Sorcerers are slotted up for a much better design space as living flesh-and-blood magic.However, the Warlock is bugging me right now. It mechanically limits the Sorcerer, and thematically limits the Cleric. I really would have liked to see it as a Sorcerer subclass from the get-go. Because any kind of planetouched-blooded or fey-kissed subclass for the Sorcerer is going to be decried as too similar, despite being logical extensions of the Sorcerer theme.</blockquote>