Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Azzy" data-source="post: 8097096" data-attributes="member: 6563">Up thread, Vael listed some of the spells that wizards have that sorcerers don't. Sorcerers have far less utility spells on their list as well, and that doesn't consider that many of the sorcerers spells are redundant—doing much the same thing in slightly different ways.Well, I am refuting a claim that has zero factual support for it. So, until said claim is somehow substantiated, there is no reason to accept said claim as valid—especially when said claim is reliant on an extreme theoretical example.Quite the contrary, I'm refuting arguments that are based on emotion rather than being thoughtful, rational, or convincing. Physician, heal thyself.It is when the sorcerer player literally cannot do what's being claimed without spending weeks (instead of one long rest) even with fewer spells than the wizard.<img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤦‍♂️" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f926-2642.png" title="Man facepalming    :man_facepalming:" data-shortname=":man_facepalming:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /> "This rule is simply BS. It will simply make wizards obselete. ""It just makes the wizards look like total chumps. They spend their time collecting a catalogue of spells, undertaking dangerous quests to raid the ruins of ancient libraries, meticulously researching old shattered spell tablets to reconstruct obscure magic formulas... while every other caster can just access any spell by taking a nap. ""Because apparently sorcerers were born with all spells changeable on a night's rest, all of a sudden? ""So how would you feel about giving fighters the sneak attack? Would you also think that it would be weird that if people though that it would make rogues feel less special and muddy the differentiation between these two classes? Because this is kinda like that. ""Wizards lost a lot. They lost their niche.They lost because everyone gained something save the wizards.1) I am not a player. I am a DM through and through.2) This rule is totally unbalanced. Because some DM were not sympathetic enough to allow a player to change a spell once in a while because he made a mistake, we are now stuck with a rule that destroy the very reason why wizards were fun to play. Versatility. ""HEY! I found a really balanced buff to the wizards to cope with the new features!!!!!!!!Lets' double their spell slots and allow them their intel bonus on all damage dice. That should do the trick. /sarcasm off... (well kind of.)" "It means after a nap sorcerer can has access to any spell they could theoretically have. This makes them significantly better magic-based problem solver than the wizard, whose thing this used to be. To me this seems like a colossal shift. Going from having access to handful of spells to, what, over a hundred? I have super hard time understanding how people can't see what a massive change that is.""The wizard has been nerfed to the ground without even getting an official nerf. He still can do his versatility and ritual casting, but the sorcerer does it way better now.""I know many of you feel this isn't a big deal. Sure, its "optional" and such, but it pisses all over the Wizard for no reason other than people who agreed to play a class with a restriction (you only have a limited number of spells you know, and can still swap them out when you level... but you get other cool features to compensate) and whined about it afterwards.""And a lack of long term vision. In a few years, some of them will go like: "Hey, how come we don't see people playing wizards anymore?"Players' answer: "We don't want to gimp ourselves man. Wizards are a joke.""So, yeah, when the claim that a sorcerer being able to change out one of their potentially 15 spells known (from a spell list that has less utility, thus versatility, spells) on a long rest is obsolescing a wizard that still has more spells prepared, more utility spells available (which, given the amount of spells wizards add to their spellbook—with no consideration of spells found, purchased, researched—allows for the ability to choose both combat and non-combat spells without gimping one or the other), Arcane Recovery, ritual spells (that don't even need to be prepared), then, yes, it's a similar level of silly hyperbole.I especiially love the complaint that sorcerers are stepping on wizards' toes thematically with this increased variability when wizards stepped on sorcerers' toes when they became semi-spontaneous casters along with other prepared casters in this edition when that was pretty much the 3e sorcerer's raison d'être. It's almost like 3e's "mechanical themes" of the spellcasters were purposefully minimized in 5e (to a lesser extant than in 4e, but I digress) and that 5e puts more emphasis on the classes' "fluff" themes instead to make the classes distinct (though there are still enough mechanical differences even with this).So, no, I take issue with the idea that this change now make the wizards the sick man of D&D.Not comparable because the issue of human death is not a part of the sorcerer complaints? Considering that was never the point of the comparison, anyway, but rather the depth of exaggeration, I find your protestations misplaced.You should have before this change—they are nicely thematic subclasses that have fun toys. They still suffer from the sorcerer's inherent drawbacks and, at least for the shadow sorcerer, lack an array of thematic-appropriate spells. If you think you're going to run roughshod on a campaign or make wizard players cry because of these changes, then go, be my guess, and try and see how that plays out.Likewise, I still plan to play abjurers, evokers, bladesingers, and maybe illusionists whenever I get the chance."Optimizers" swapping out a known spell on a long rest—even to the extreme of spending weeks to change out their entire spell list (which is neither practical nor actually useful)—isn't actually going to affect game balance because they will still have only 15 (at 20th level) spells to choose from at any given time, still have limited Sorcery Points, and so on.Don't make claims of insincerity when you purposely truncate my sentence to alter its meaning. That's rather hypocritical.</blockquote>

Verification