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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Todd Roybark" data-source="post: 7915245" data-attributes="member: 6920677">I can actually, it was 1e and INT was still used as the spellcasting attribute, but the character was based off a relative of mine with cerebral palsy, (so not ‘dumb’ as you put it), but not formally trained, and a ‘magical savant’.Can you show a Sorcerer, (not a multi class dip character but a straight Sorc) that has a low Charisma score?  I think we can concede that for any spell caster to be effective a ‘decent’ ability score in their spellcasting ability is required.Also I often times as a DM, even in the hoary days of 1e and 2e have Wizards learn spells by observing magical creatures; fight a fire breathing Dragon, and you might learn Burning Hands for example.  So my experience does provide a counter to your assertion that I quoted.Moonsong, you seem, to me at least, to have a very defined aesthetic on what makes a sorcerer and what makes a wizard.  Your statements, honestly have not resonated with me, (no hostility intended in this statement), which is not unusual, aesthetics being a very subjective  topic.  Your opinion seems set, however, (no worries in that), are you actually seeking opinions that differ from your own?I’m curious at how ‘team sorcerer’ feels about the fact that in 5e, the Sorcerer class by design, is appropriating options and themes that were in the Wizard class’ bailiwick.If the 5e Fighter had ranged weapons usage striped from them, as well as the Archery Fighting style, and bows and crossbows were only usable by Rangers, many players would, legitimately cry foul and call it out as bad design.Moonsong, seems to be fine with this reduction of scope of theme and magical options for the Wizard.   I’m not.  Opinions will vary, but the existing design is a disservice to both classes.</blockquote>

Verification