Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="lutecius" data-source="post: 4223572" data-attributes="member: 60332">I’m of two minds about this one. On the one hand I find the concept of wild magic interesting and the sorcerer might as well be the new wild mage. I just hope it won't be just an elemental blaster like what was described in R&C.On the other hand, some class should take on the 3e sorcerer’s “role”. That is an intuitive, non-vancian, non-bookish (or wandish, or any silly implement and school) spellcaster who can be a blaster but doesn’t have to.I didn't care much for the dragon bloodline thing but it never bothered me because it was just an unobtrusive hint and could be decided by players on an individual basis without affecting the game world.When the designers would go on and on about how the sorcerer would be redundant once we have both the warlock and a non-vancian wizard, I thought it made sense...…and then I saw the ddx characters.The wizard is still Vancian. Actually, even martial classes are kind of Vancian in 4e, but the wizard is worse because he still has to prepare his dailies in advance.And I hate the warlock’s “otherworldly patrons” thing, that would better fit divine casters. But that’s just fluff.Mechanically, the warlock seems all about wargamey movements and the fey pact is one of the most nonsensical powers I’ve seen: “you off someone so bamf, you teleport!” wtf?So neither the new wizard nor the warlock compares to the old sorcerer as far as I’m concerned.</blockquote>

Verification