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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Asisreo" data-source="post: 8002485" data-attributes="member: 7019027">Some people are incompatible with a class. Alot of people playing sorcerer and not feeling great really just want to play wizard or a different type of spellcaster. I, personally, have some problems with the wizard class that makes it incompatible for me. Wizards require alot more system mastery because their margin if error is way too high since if things go wrong, they have to use important resources just to survive. The subclasses are boring and some are just bad. The lack of good combat options besides cantrips when spells are gone make them underwhelming at best when you've run out of spell slots. Trap options can be easy to fall into as a wizard and you always feel like you could've been better but you can't change spells known. A DM can take away the majority of your spellcasting, no other class has their spellcasting dependent on DMs. They don't get any big class features anyways. Look, people have problems with base Warlock, base Barbarian, base Fighter, base Ranger, base Monk, base Druid. These are just the ones that I've seen very vocal minorities call out. Some of you may agree with some but most of you will not agree with all. That's because some classes are more compatible with certain people's playstyles than others. People feel underwhelmed because they always force themselves into a "role" in a team when most teams can do well without a defined roll in any of them."Oh, we need a martial, I guess I'll go Barbarian if I have to." "Sigh, guess I'll be a monk since we already have a rogue.""I wanted to play Paladin but the DM insisted on me playing champion fighter." Sometimes, people don't carefully read their class's abilities and forget or think they're less powerful than they are. I guarantee you the majority of people complaining about sorcerers haven't used Font of Magic as appropriately as they could've. I guarantee people that complain about Ranger didn't talk to the DM and discuss the setting in-depth, rangers have been having fun in ToA. I guarantee that people complaining about monks stay in melee with very big enemies and blow Ki points like they're unlimited and use stunning strike repeatedly against a high con enemy when they could've stayed alive longer by weaving in-and-out. And it's fine for you to personally feel underwhelmed by a class, but that doesn't mean the class needs to be fixed. I feel there's a quiet majority of people that enjoy the sorcerer for what they are and not because of what the internet wanted to look up. And whiteroom analysis is only helpful when quantitative numbers exist in the first place. How many monsters are we facing? What are their stats? What's the battlefield configuration? Is it the boss? How many rounds does it take? Who's our teammate? What're their tendencies? Who's the DM? What're their tendencies? Are we outside? Do we have magic items? Which ones? Is their homebrew rules? These can all be relevant when trying to discuss whether a spell is better than metamagic. Or vice-versa. We can't just declare that a sorcerer that doesn't have access to metamagic is bad because they might not have needed it. We can't say a sorcerer that has subtle and twin is worse than one that has quicken and twin, it depends on the campaign and how it played out. There's also a bit of resourcefulness needed to play as a sorcerer. You can always work with what you have.</blockquote>

Verification