Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TheCosmicKid" data-source="post: 7914322" data-attributes="member: 6683613">I don't know how you quantify whether a modification is &quot;fundamental&quot; or not. IIRC, there were fighter kits that didn't use armor (kensei) and thief kits without backstab (swashbuckler). So why not a wizard without a spellbook? It could have been done in about three sentences and a table:Instead of memorizing spells from a spellbook, a sorcerous wizard always knows a number of spells determined by Table X. He or she can cast any spell he knows at any time with a spell slot of that spell's level or higher. He or she uses Charisma for all purposes in spellcasting where another wizard would use Intelligence.(I'm not saying it necessarily would have been done in three sentences, of course. 2E hadn't quite exorcised the game of Gygax's arbitrary verbosity yet.)Okay. I'm sorry, I thought you were speaking more of the state of affairs as presented in the books, not in the online community. On that note though, it's worth observing that the people who actually write the game are clearly on your side on this one.On another note -- I don't want to speak for everyone you've quoted, of course, but to me, &quot;making the sorcerer a wizard subclass&quot; implies a modification like above. You seem to believe that such a modification is too &quot;fundamental&quot;, whereas an advocate for it presumably doesn't. I'm not sure how to resolve that disagreement because I'm not sure there's a real disagreement there to resolve.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TheCosmicKid, post: 7914322, member: 6683613"] I don't know how you quantify whether a modification is "fundamental" or not. IIRC, there were fighter kits that didn't use armor (kensei) and thief kits without backstab (swashbuckler). So why not a wizard without a spellbook? It could have been done in about three sentences and a table: [I]Instead of memorizing spells from a spellbook, a sorcerous wizard always knows a number of spells determined by Table X. He or she can cast any spell he knows at any time with a spell slot of that spell's level or higher. He or she uses Charisma for all purposes in spellcasting where another wizard would use Intelligence.[/I] (I'm not saying it necessarily [I]would[/I] have been done in three sentences, of course. 2E hadn't quite exorcised the game of Gygax's arbitrary verbosity yet.) Okay. I'm sorry, I thought you were speaking more of the state of affairs as presented in the books, not in the online community. On that note though, it's worth observing that the people who actually write the game are clearly on your side on this one. On another note -- I don't want to speak for everyone you've quoted, of course, but to me, "making the sorcerer a wizard subclass" implies a modification like above. You seem to believe that such a modification is too "fundamental", whereas an advocate for it presumably doesn't. I'm not sure how to resolve that disagreement because I'm not sure there's a real disagreement there to resolve. [/QUOTE]

Verification