Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5808691" data-attributes="member: 996">Well, in 3e, a sorcerer had a small set of known spells that expanded but didn't change much over his career.&nbsp; If those spells were chosen around a theme, you ended up with something akin to a super-hero power suite.&nbsp; It could make the character very distinctive.&nbsp; The wizard, OTOH, could always learn new spells and could change spells to suit the expected situation, which made any well-played wizard a rather pragmatic sort who, given enough time, would bring about the same (nearly perfect) solution to any given problem.&nbsp; Sorcerers were potentially fun, distinctive, and underpowered, and wizards were potentially, bland, pragmatic, and game-breaking.&nbsp; Two /very/ different classes, IMHO.&nbsp; In 4e, while they're both arcanist and not overy given to wearing armor they have different spell lists, different roles, and some sorcerers are bizarrely strong (physically).&nbsp; :shrug:&nbsp; Still pretty different.The archetype of Sorcerer, BTW, is nothing to do with the inborn-talent sorcerer dreamed up for 3e - nor with a 9th level magic-user, for those who remember level titles.&nbsp; A sorcerer is someone who deals with spirits for purposes of divination or gaining suprenatural aid or power.&nbsp; In other words, pretty much a D&amp;D warlock or witch.Sub-classses are a 2e thing.&nbsp; Mearls loves 2e.&nbsp; He already brought sub-classes back in Essentials.&nbsp; He has a clear mandate to include the 'best of all editions.'I think there'll be sub-classes.The way themes work now wouldn't give you nearly as much differentiation between wizard and sorcerer as you had in 3e.&nbsp; Of course, themes might be quite different.&nbsp; Some sort of heirarchy would make the game better-organized and allow the designers to leverage some material (such as common spell or exploit lists).&nbsp; Whether that's Wizard on top with Sorcerer, Mage, and whatnot below it, or Arcanist on top, with Wizard, Sorcerer, etc below it, doesn't really matter.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 5808691, member: 996"] Well, in 3e, a sorcerer had a small set of known spells that expanded but didn't change much over his career. If those spells were chosen around a theme, you ended up with something akin to a super-hero power suite. It could make the character very distinctive. The wizard, OTOH, could always learn new spells and could change spells to suit the expected situation, which made any well-played wizard a rather pragmatic sort who, given enough time, would bring about the same (nearly perfect) solution to any given problem. Sorcerers were potentially fun, distinctive, and underpowered, and wizards were potentially, bland, pragmatic, and game-breaking. Two /very/ different classes, IMHO. In 4e, while they're both arcanist and not overy given to wearing armor they have different spell lists, different roles, and some sorcerers are bizarrely strong (physically). :shrug: Still pretty different. The archetype of Sorcerer, BTW, is nothing to do with the inborn-talent sorcerer dreamed up for 3e - nor with a 9th level magic-user, for those who remember level titles. A sorcerer is someone who deals with spirits for purposes of divination or gaining suprenatural aid or power. In other words, pretty much a D&D warlock or witch. Sub-classses are a 2e thing. Mearls loves 2e. He already brought sub-classes back in Essentials. He has a clear mandate to include the 'best of all editions.' I think there'll be sub-classes. The way themes work now wouldn't give you nearly as much differentiation between wizard and sorcerer as you had in 3e. Of course, themes might be quite different. Some sort of heirarchy would make the game better-organized and allow the designers to leverage some material (such as common spell or exploit lists). Whether that's Wizard on top with Sorcerer, Mage, and whatnot below it, or Arcanist on top, with Wizard, Sorcerer, etc below it, doesn't really matter. [/QUOTE]

Verification