Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Buttercup" data-source="post: 1354697" data-attributes="member: 990">I must admit that when I offer this sorcerer to my players, I will eliminate some of the options.&nbsp; Some of the bloodlines don't fit in my campaign, and thus some of the special ability options won't work either.&nbsp; Still, I'd rather have a class with too many options than too few.&nbsp; It's a relatively simple thing to take out the Devine Recepticle option, say, than it would be to invent it if I needed it.&nbsp;The thing is, this is a way of thinking about what a sorcerer is, and does, that hasn't been followed to its logical end before (that I'm aware of). I suppose it would be worth play testing it at several levels and in several different builds to see if it is too powerful.&nbsp; IMO it will be fine, since it really just takes the class from being a one trick pony to actually being useful outside of combat.&nbsp; But play testing is never a bad idea.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Buttercup, post: 1354697, member: 990"] I must admit that when I offer this sorcerer to my players, I will eliminate some of the options. Some of the bloodlines don't fit in my campaign, and thus some of the special ability options won't work either. Still, I'd rather have a class with too many options than too few. It's a relatively simple thing to take out the Devine Recepticle option, say, than it would be to invent it if I needed it. The thing is, this is a way of thinking about what a sorcerer is, and does, that hasn't been followed to its logical end before (that I'm aware of). I suppose it would be worth play testing it at several levels and in several different builds to see if it is too powerful. IMO it will be fine, since it really just takes the class from being a one trick pony to actually being useful outside of combat. But play testing is never a bad idea. [/QUOTE]

Verification