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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wraith-Hunter" data-source="post: 3302167" data-attributes="member: 48298">So is the consensus that the sorcerer was originally intended as a monster class? I'm just curious as to why it was included in the game at all. I do like the class, and an intelligent player with some of the suppliment books can make the class better. Add in some UA type flaws and PrC's become more manageable, though high skill rank ones still hurt. I just found the Monte Cook version from one of the Malhavok Press books and I like it better, IMHO it is what WotC should have done. I can understand however how the original play testers and poeple steeped in 1e and 2e would view the new spontaneous casting. If coming from that kind of background this class feaure would seem HUGE. But in actual play in normal campaigns, and more time to get used to the game play of d20 the advantage though good is not all powerfull. Certainly not enough to justify all the goodies wizards get over and above what sorcerers get. Frankly I think Monte's version both from a flavor and mechanics perspective is better. If I were running a game however I would probably drop the d6 to a d4 and keep the standard spell list (monte's ups the level on a couple spells, haste, web shield etc). But the flavor of his version shows the differant approach to magic better than the standard one IMO. I was also very surprised to see the new base classes that spont cast with access to the entire spell list not just known spells, though the effects of the spells are so limited in variety that it balances out.But the conclusion remains. Spont casting is a big benifit but not a game breaking one. Certainly not enough justify the sorc. not having the goodies that the wizard does.In regards to PrC's most DON'T need to be 10 level many have no decent abilities past 3rd level or at least not good enough to bother taking 8-10 levels of them. Most builds I see take multiple PrC's.If a 10 level PrC had good abilities every level it would encourage a player to take the whole thing. If not a 3-5 level would be fine. And if you have to give up a very limited number of your feats or spend your very limited number of skill points on skills or feats you would not use then you BETTER get something else on your return. What I have seen in class and PrC design is more game mechanic reasons to stay in the primary class till 20th (duskblade is a good example) or shorter PrC's with easy or at least USEFULL feat/skill requirements to get into and they may be short 3-5 levels. From just getting into d20 maybe my perspective is different, I can see the changes in design philosphy. Besides DM fiat there is NO reason to saty in many core classes (fighter cough, sorcerer) and the same even in some older prestige classes. The newer base classes and the newer PrC's have different deisgn criteria, and I think noticable.I am seeing less useless feats and skills required to get into PrC's and less skill ranks or useless skills required and the legth of many of them is shorter. The new base classes offer something every level and in many cases there is enough of a good theme going that you don't want to multi-class. In contrast the sorcerer looks like a 486 compared to a new Mac.</blockquote>

Verification