Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9300107" data-attributes="member: 18">I'd be interested to see it, because searching on Skip Williams and Sorcerers, there is a frequently quoted article where he discussed their design (available only via Wayback these days - <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20020606120801/http://www.wizards.com/dnd/3E_intvw_SkipW2.asp" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20020606120801/http://www.wizards.com/dnd/3E_intvw_SkipW2.asp</a> ) but it doesn't say anything like that.I find a lot of vague comments claiming Williams &quot;hated&quot; Sorcerers and said so, but absolutely none of them can link or even quote what he supposedly said - the closest anyone gets is Williams suggesting CHA is a raw deal as a primary attribute compared to INT (hilarious in a 5E context, but largely true in 3E).But nothing supporting &quot;They exist to justify the number of arcane spells in the rulebook&quot; or similar.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 9300107, member: 18"] I'd be interested to see it, because searching on Skip Williams and Sorcerers, there is a frequently quoted article where he discussed their design (available only via Wayback these days - [URL]https://web.archive.org/web/20020606120801/http://www.wizards.com/dnd/3E_intvw_SkipW2.asp[/URL] ) but it doesn't say anything like that. I find a lot of vague comments claiming Williams "hated" Sorcerers and said so, but absolutely none of them can link or even quote what he supposedly said - the closest anyone gets is Williams suggesting CHA is a raw deal as a primary attribute compared to INT (hilarious in a 5E context, but largely true in 3E). But nothing supporting "They exist to justify the number of arcane spells in the rulebook" or similar. [/QUOTE]

Verification