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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Shardstone" data-source="post: 9314725" data-attributes="member: 6807784">I think people on this forum argue ad populum too much. A lot of people are dissatisfied with a lot of different classes. A lot of people have completely antiethical perceptions of what a class should be. Yet at the end of the day, WotC still has to put out something good. It doesn't have to fit your vision, but it does have to be good. Its just so trite, hearing people say "Well, you can't please everyone, so might as well accept dogsh*t." The sorcerer can be made good. There's lots of ways to make it good. There's plenty of alternative sorcerers, not just the one I linked, that are great. WotC just has to make a decision on a direction and follow through on it.Don't hit me with that 70% UA nonsense in response to this. That's completely unrelated to my point. People love to use that as a shield to argue that we shouldn't improve the game. But what ultimately matters is that the sorcerer ends up being a quality class -- one you can look at and say "It may not be my taste, but I think it is well designed," or "I might have preferred this idea, but this direction isn't bad."Seriously, if your argument about the Sorcerer is "Why not just delete it?" then you're basically saying you think your vision means more then my vision, which is the opposite of how you improve things. You improve things by polishing vision, and the sorcerer needs polish. And if you want "fewer classes" in your games, all you have to do is not offer the sorcerer at your table.</blockquote>

Verification