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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9840656" data-attributes="member: 6790260">100% fully agreed. I think the Sorcerer (far more so than the Warlock) makes an excellent platform for being the "Simple Mage", if you can build it to do that. That's one of the reasons why I liked the "Next" playtest version. With some careful attention, I think even in the 5e model it could be made to work with the four classical elements, possibly with additional options later on. E.g. you could add Metal as an alternative, allowing you to express Wuxing aka the Five Phases; possibly also Wood, since although Wood is associated with air/wind, it's more about growth. Other classics include Lightning (if "Wind" is flavored mostly as literal wind), Ice, "Void", "Aether", etc.--the ancients had plenty of ideas about what "elements" could exist.In general, I find that "simple" classes are better served with bespoke class features, with clear and straightforward uses (but still open to some degree of creativity), while "complex" classes are better served with the laundry list of spells that they have to carefully navigate. Hence why I dislike it so much when people float Warlock as the "simple" caster--it is anything but. It is only "simple" in the very limited sense that you have fewer spells to memorize the behavior of. In every other way, it is a complex beast; you have to build the class yourself, think really carefully about resource management, and project not just turns or combats ahead, but days or even levels ahead of where you're currently at. It is not a low-complexity class; it is simply less rote memorization, but much more cognitive overhead in basically all other areas.The Warlock is for people who like advanced classes but want to tinker with their internals. A simple caster needs to have a very simple baseline, which might be augmented, if and only if the player opts in for such a thing. E.g. I could see perhaps "Magic" as an Elementalist variant (or subclass, if it's a distinct class), where you have only the basic Elementalist class features, BUT you get limited spellcasting keyed off your Constitution modifier.Beacon? I'm not familiar with the term. But yes, I agree--the 4e Elementalist Sorcerer should either be its own distinct class, or it should be a robust Sorcerer subclass, at least when translated into 5e.</blockquote>

Verification