Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ZombieRoboNinja" data-source="post: 6343611" data-attributes="member: 54843">Thanks for the snark. I'm aware of the differences. The sorcerer gets fewer spells known than the wizard (like 3e), fewer prepared at a time than the wizard (unlike 3e), the same spell slot progression (unlike 3e, where sorcerers got more slots but of a slightly lower level), and it makes up for those deficits with sorcery points that, at least from the latest we've heard (and in accordance with the leaked alpha), let you apply metamagic effects to your spells or gain some extra spell slots.So basically, the 3e sorcerer took an overly complex Vancian casting system and made it slightly easier to deal with by getting rid of the preparation aspect. The 5e sorcerer takes a slightly less complex neo-Vancian casting system, and makes it MORE complex by tacking on metamagic as a core class feature.Now, I know a lot of people like the neo-Vancian magic. To them I say, God bless. Have the wizard, whose whole schtick is an intellectual understanding of the forces of magic, and he can worry about spell slot efficiency. But if you're going to include a whole class defined as a guy who uses his force of will to cast magic from within, a guy who is just as effective with a Forrest Gump-level IQ, how does that complexity help define the character? If this is as far as they're going to go in differentiating the sorcerer, it might as well just be a wizard subclass.</blockquote>