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: 6911167" data-attributes="member: 2067">We can stand on whatever requirements we want for our own thresholds of what's acceptable to us, but we can become the architects of our own unhappiness sometimes when those requirements are not simply personal, but also are highly specific and rigidly inflexible. "I want the game fiction to match my own personal preferred fiction" is not a reasonable expectation out of any game other than one you write yourself. If that's an expectation, you set yourself up for disappointment. Sorcerers have *always* had a narrative of being dangerous, challenging, otherworldly, exotic, and a little inhuman (the "X-men" comparison is not a bad one). It's fine if that doesn't work for you, but it's not fine if you presume that all 5e sorcerers played according to strict RAW must be "monstrous" just because they speak to that - because that's not the reality of playing a 5e sorcerer. Similarly, sorcerers have *always* been narrow spellcasters (the roles mentioned for the sorcerer in the 3.5e PHB can all be filled by the 5e sorcerer, forex). It's fine if that doesn't work for you, but it's not fine if you presume that all 5e sorcerers played according to strict RAW must be "blasters" just because they speak to that - because that's not the reality of playing a 5e sorcerer. It's like those townsfolk in Footloose discovering that the power of dance doesn't actually cause abrupt and irreversible moral decay. The thing you fear happening doesn't actually happen.Compare "I prefer elves" to "Without elves, this game is just a dungeon-crawling hack-and-slash without anything beautiful!"After discovering that the thing you fear doesn't come to pass, you can decide then if you were interested in those prohibitions in and of themselves for some reason or another ("I still prefer elves, I just like 'em, personal reasons, I'm not interested in playing a game without 'em."), or if you were actually concerned about the results and care if those results don't happen ("Well, I guess this game without elves has a lot of beautiful things after all, maybe I don't need elves!").If you're interested in the prohibition itself, you can at least hold that other people might be able to enjoy these things very much for what they are, and that there's no inherent flaw in the thing itself ("The game might be fun, even beautiful, but if it ain't got elves, I ain't interested."). It's not that the thing is bad, it's that it's not for you. If you're interested in the result, you can then hold that the prohibition doesn't have the most direct bearing on the result you're looking for - your world has just expanded! The thing is fine, and maybe you don't need to stand on your personal point in the future. Either way, the fear that the sorcerer must be a horrofic fire-blasting monster in 5e can be surrendered.</blockquote>

Verification