Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Quickleaf" data-source="post: 7296820" data-attributes="member: 20323">[MENTION=22103]GlassJaw[/MENTION] Pretty much any spell list you come up with for sorcerers is going to be better than the list they provide in the PHB. For instance, it's easy to imagine sorcerers as elementalists because they get lots of &quot;fire&quot;, &quot;water&quot;, &quot;thunder&quot;, &quot;lightning&quot;, and so on themed spells. But if you look deeper, there are many of nonsensical exceptions.Why can a sorcerer invoke a wall of fire but not a fire shield?Why can a sorcerer cast storm sphere or vitrolic sphere or even a watery sphere, but not a flaming sphere, and certainly not Otiluke's freezing sphere?Why is it that a sorcerer can shape water and create a wall of water, but casting control water is beyond them?Personally, I think the UA Mystic serves as a better &quot;sorcerer concept&quot; than the PHB Sorcerer class; there's little raison d'etre for a sorcerer in 5e (as prepped spells are no longer bound to spell slots like in 3e and earlier). Moreover, the mechanics don't fulfill the promise of the fluff. There's a mismatch there. From the PHB: One can’t study sorcery as one learns a language, any more than one can learn to live a legendary life. No one chooses sorcery; the power chooses the sorcerer... Magic is a part of every sorcerer, suffusing body, mind, and spirit with a latent power that waits to be tapped. I'd much rather see the sorcerer re-designed than the ranger. A simpler caster class forgoing spells for special effects OR building its own &quot;spells&quot; from limited effects, and having some kind of built-in non-silly wild magic or potential for magical backlash if they push too hard? That would feel like a sorcerer!If you want to go the route of using restricted spell lists to enforce theme, you first need to establish what a sorcerer is. The PHB sorcerer spell list is at least a useful starting place of &quot;spells that aren't rituals&quot;, but as I've illustrated above there's lots of nonsensical omissions. Be prepared to do a bit of digging.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Quickleaf, post: 7296820, member: 20323"] [MENTION=22103]GlassJaw[/MENTION] Pretty much any spell list you come up with for sorcerers is going to be better than the list they provide in the PHB. For instance, it's easy to imagine sorcerers as elementalists because they get lots of "fire", "water", "thunder", "lightning", and so on themed spells. But if you look deeper, there are many of nonsensical exceptions. Why can a sorcerer invoke a [I]wall of fire[/I] but not a [I]fire shield[/I]? Why can a sorcerer cast [I]storm sphere[/I] or [I]vitrolic sphere[/I] or even a [I]watery sphere[/I], but not a [I]flaming sphere[/I], and certainly not [I]Otiluke's freezing sphere[/I]? Why is it that a sorcerer can [I]shape water[/I] and create a [I]wall of water[/I], but casting [I]control water[/I] is beyond them? Personally, I think the UA Mystic serves as a better "sorcerer concept" than the PHB Sorcerer class; there's little raison d'etre for a sorcerer in 5e (as prepped spells are no longer bound to spell slots like in 3e and earlier). Moreover, the mechanics don't fulfill the promise of the fluff. There's a mismatch there. From the PHB: [I]One can’t study sorcery as one learns a language, any more than one can learn to live a legendary life. No one chooses sorcery; the power chooses the sorcerer... Magic is a part of every sorcerer, suffusing body, mind, and spirit with a latent power that waits to be tapped.[/I] I'd much rather see the sorcerer re-designed than the ranger. A simpler caster class forgoing spells for special effects OR building its own "spells" from limited effects, and having some kind of built-in non-silly wild magic or potential for magical backlash if they push too hard? That would [I]feel[/I] like a sorcerer! If you want to go the route of using restricted spell lists to enforce theme, you first need to establish what a sorcerer [I]is[/I]. The PHB sorcerer spell list is at least a useful starting place of "spells that aren't rituals", but as I've illustrated above there's lots of nonsensical omissions. Be prepared to do a bit of digging. [/QUOTE]

Verification