NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6610474" data-attributes="member: 2067">I can sympathize with the idea that it's not a persuasive argument, but theorycraft is hollow for a reason - unless you're DOING it, you've only got a vague idea of what it's like to DO it. That idea may be farther from or closer to reality, but it can't be reality - any anecdote of actual experience immediately trumps all theorycraft. If it disagrees at all with your impressions, you must accept your impressions as flawed (which is part of why I admit my perspective on 4e classes isn't The Truth, it's just the way I feel - I understand not everyone feels that way). I'd basically agree with this. Though I think a prime stat can have a distinct effect on how something plays in practice, "having a different prime stat" isn't really sufficient to make a class different from another class IMO.It's not hard for both of these to be true. They can be on a continuum. Warlock < Wizard < Sorcerer. It's not a binary state.It basically boils down to "how many rounds are you relying on cantrips vs. how many rounds are you relying on spell slots."In a session that has, I dunno, 20 rounds, the sorcerer is spending most of those rounds using spell slots. A wizard is using less. A warlock, less still. Additionally, during exploration, a wizard is using rituals, and a sorcerer isn't.This creates real differences in play. There are parts of the game that wizards can access thanks to rituals that sorcerers pay a higher price to enter. There are approaches open to sorcerers that are less viable for wizards. Problem-solving takes different considerations. Your approach is different. By way of analogy, if in a shooting game that requires 4 shots to win, I have a gun that holds 6 bullets, and I have 8 bullets on me, that is going to be a different approach to the problems I have than if I have a gun that holds 6 bullets, but I only have four bullets on me. I will take more risks with the former. I will more carefully plan the latter. That's a play difference so huge that entire genres can be made out of it. It's a tremendous change in the psychology. (and the warlock is a game where I have two bullets on me, but I can get at least one of them back every time I shoot). In practice, it has a huge impact on the risks you'll take and the frequency with which you'll burn spells, because you don't need to be conservative - if a wizard is one spell short at the end of a fight, they're boned. If a sorcerer is one spell short at the end of a fight, they win. The short rest being an hour is a significant consideration for pacing in 5e, and one of the major ways that classes in 5e achieve distinction - and one of the ways that 4e classes looked all the same - is in having different paces, different daily beats, different ways of thinking about resource management. I mean, I'm not the make sense police, I just think it's a strong area of distinction in how they play. It'd still be a strong area of distinction if wizard could do it and sorcerers couldn't. Sorcerers can't get just the best spells - their pool of known spells is too limited for them to get all the best spells. They have to carefully choose which of the best spells they get and they're always leaving some on the wayside. You're forgetting about spellbooks, but anyway...It'd erode the in-play distinctions rather significantly. A variant human sorcerer at 1st level with the Ritual Caster feat already east most of the wizard's cake, and that's just with 1st-level rituals. A wizard still has more flexibility, but that might not even show itself at level 1.</blockquote>

Verification