Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ashrym" data-source="post: 7920148" data-attributes="member: 6750235">[USER=6920677]@Todd Roybark[/USER] Wizards are in the same boat as bards, IME.&nbsp; They already do what they are designed to do extremely well.&nbsp; I see bards often get the short end or ignored in UA articles and releases when it comes to additional spells and options.&nbsp; I don't complain about it evev though that's one of my favorite classes because of how well implemented the class is.Wizards are like that.&nbsp; The are meant to be versatile and they are, with many options, many traditions, and spell casting mechanics that focus on that versatility.&nbsp; That's in contrast to the warlock's intended sustainable damage / short rest arcanist and the sorcerer's nova potential arcanist.&nbsp; All three aporoach arcanist differently.&nbsp; &quot;The wizard stole my stuff&quot; is inaccurate and looks like a case of greener grass on the other side of the fence.&nbsp; The funny part of that is players of both classes see greener grass on the other side.&nbsp; That demonstrates both classes have desirable mechanics, which I would consider a good sign.The difference is sorcerers do struggle building themes.&nbsp; One class has an area worth revisiting and the other does not.&nbsp; That's why wizards don't need something just because sorcerers might have that concern addressed.&nbsp; Wizards are in a good spot relative to 5e classes.&nbsp; What a person thinks they should have or should not have because of (insert x edition here) does not change that.&nbsp; They are versatile and reminiscent of the controller concept, and cover that well.Keeping on topic, sorcerers are less versatlie and nova based while wizards are based on that broad capability and versatility.&nbsp; That's a legitimate reason not to merge them.&nbsp; The represent different aspects of arcane spell casting that if we keep comparing to 3.x needed to be separated.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ashrym, post: 7920148, member: 6750235"] [USER=6920677]@Todd Roybark[/USER] Wizards are in the same boat as bards, IME. They already do what they are designed to do extremely well. I see bards often get the short end or ignored in UA articles and releases when it comes to additional spells and options. I don't complain about it evev though that's one of my favorite classes because of how well implemented the class is. Wizards are like that. The are meant to be versatile and they are, with many options, many traditions, and spell casting mechanics that focus on that versatility. That's in contrast to the warlock's intended sustainable damage / short rest arcanist and the sorcerer's nova potential arcanist. All three aporoach arcanist differently. "The wizard stole my stuff" is inaccurate and looks like a case of greener grass on the other side of the fence. The funny part of that is players of both classes see greener grass on the other side. That demonstrates both classes have desirable mechanics, which I would consider a good sign. The difference is sorcerers do struggle building themes. One class has an area worth revisiting and the other does not. That's why wizards don't need something just because sorcerers might have that concern addressed. Wizards are in a good spot relative to 5e classes. What a person thinks they should have or should not have because of (insert x edition here) does not change that. They are versatile and reminiscent of the controller concept, and cover that well. Keeping on topic, sorcerers are less versatlie and nova based while wizards are based on that broad capability and versatility. That's a legitimate reason not to merge them. The represent different aspects of arcane spell casting that if we keep comparing to 3.x needed to be separated. [/QUOTE]

Verification