Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MoonSong" data-source="post: 7913509" data-attributes="member: 6689464">The right time to merge them was 0th edition. Sorcerer wasn't a class back then, but the concepts that eventually became sorcerer were explicitly separated from the Magic User at that point. The wizard/mage/mu was defined by them not having those things -easy and inherent non-scholarly magic-. And then went on to become iconic. It is impossible to change it this late in the game without it losing&nbsp; its identity. (Heck see the post by [USER=93670]@tetrasodium[/USER] up there)The wizard was born non-generic. The wizard was never separated from sorcery and pacts, these were never taken away from him. They were never his to begin with. It was all a self-delusion. -Now metamagic, it was taken away, but even there not completely-.&nbsp; It was claimed that you could do all and any spellcasters in any genre with a DnD mage (The infamous &quot;What is a witch but a female wizard?&quot; from the 2e DMG), but it was never true to begin with. The dnd wizard has always been a scholar that casts magic he purposely learned from a book. There's never been a young, dumb, illiterate, poor, non-resourceful wizard afraid of his activated powers he never asked for and he wants to get rid of, but can't in D&amp;D and never will (because if you don't want magic as a wizard, the simple solution is to burn the spellbook and dump the focus). 5e let's you kind of fake it by ignoring features and roleplaying counter to your scores, but it is still faking it. You still keep making int checks and skills you should realisticaly fail, and there's nothing stopping you from eventually using the features you are ignoring -which by the way, is a way to passively hurt your party-.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MoonSong, post: 7913509, member: 6689464"] The right time to merge them was 0th edition. Sorcerer wasn't a class back then, but the concepts that eventually became sorcerer were explicitly separated from the Magic User at that point. The wizard/mage/mu was defined by them not having those things -easy and inherent non-scholarly magic-. And then went on to become iconic. It is impossible to change it this late in the game without it losing its identity. (Heck see the post by [USER=93670]@tetrasodium[/USER] up there) The wizard was born non-generic. The wizard was never separated from sorcery and pacts, these were never taken away from him. They were never his to begin with. It was all a self-delusion. -Now metamagic, it was taken away, but even there not completely-. It was claimed that you could do all and any spellcasters in any genre with a DnD mage (The infamous "What is a witch but a female wizard?" from the 2e DMG), but it was never true to begin with. The dnd wizard has always been a scholar that casts magic he purposely learned from a book. There's never been a young, dumb, illiterate, poor, non-resourceful wizard afraid of his activated powers he never asked for and he wants to get rid of, but can't in D&D and never will (because if you don't want magic as a wizard, the simple solution is to burn the spellbook and dump the focus). 5e let's you kind of fake it by ignoring features and roleplaying counter to your scores, but it is still faking it. You still keep making int checks and skills you should realisticaly fail, and there's nothing stopping you from eventually using the features you are ignoring -which by the way, is a way to passively hurt your party-. [/QUOTE]

Verification