Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MoonSong" data-source="post: 8086568" data-attributes="member: 6689464">Mechanically? It has basically all of the toys -sans stuff like metamagic or invocations-. But thematically, and archetypically, it can only depict a very narrow archetype. Why do sorcerer and warlock exist? because wizard is an extremely narrow archetype.&nbsp; Why are wizard archetypes so dry and lacking in flavor? because wizard is too specific and there's little room to explore more variations of it. Warlock? warlock can have as many archetypes as entries in the monster manual, Sorcerer? sorcerer can have as many themes as words in the dictionary....It would be basically the same? How is this different from the current setup except with more steps? if you can differentiate a wizard from a sorcerer with a subclass choice at first level (going as far as spellcasting ability), then you have essentially two separate classes, if you don't then you have one at the expense of the other. What is gained from this?Oh right, wizards getting all of the toys...Edit; Don't get me wrong, it is certainly possible to have&nbsp; a big tent generic spellcaster class, but only if we let go of the D&amp;Disms that have fostered the differences. If you want a huge Mage class that emcopasses everything, you need to denounce of the iconic wizard as it is. A truly generic spellcaster won't look anything like it. (And in turn anyhting like warlock or sorcerer)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MoonSong, post: 8086568, member: 6689464"] Mechanically? It has basically all of the toys -sans stuff like metamagic or invocations-. But thematically, and archetypically, it can only depict a very narrow archetype. Why do sorcerer and warlock exist? because wizard is an extremely narrow archetype. Why are wizard archetypes so dry and lacking in flavor? because wizard is too specific and there's little room to explore more variations of it. Warlock? warlock can have as many archetypes as entries in the monster manual, Sorcerer? sorcerer can have as many themes as words in the dictionary.... It would be basically the same? How is this different from the current setup except with more steps? if you can differentiate a wizard from a sorcerer with a subclass choice at first level (going as far as spellcasting ability), then you have essentially two separate classes, if you don't then you have one at the expense of the other. What is gained from this? Oh right, wizards getting all of the toys... Edit; Don't get me wrong, it is certainly possible to have a big tent generic spellcaster class, but only if we let go of the D&Disms that have fostered the differences. If you want a huge Mage class that emcopasses everything, you need to denounce of the iconic wizard as it is. A truly generic spellcaster won't look anything like it. (And in turn anyhting like warlock or sorcerer) [/QUOTE]

Verification