Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MoonSong" data-source="post: 6425303" data-attributes="member: 6689464">Is it balanced that a wizard can simply decide to make the sorcerer in the party irrelevant by doing exactly the same things and still have room to do things the sorcerer cannot do? Sorcerers deserve to have their niches too, and this is for fairness alone. If I'm running only being able to do two things I rather do them better than the guy who can casually do everything. This is currently not true for the sorcerer. And it is not true that the wizard is this all-encompassing generic spellcaster. Thematically you cannot really duplicate a sorcerer with a wizard, can you truly do a wizard who doesn't want to be a wizard, who hates doing magic, but has no control over it? (You can't, such a wizard would have burned her spellbook and forgotten all about magic long ago), can you do a wizard who is completely illiterate and actually very unsmart if not criminally retarded?, can you do a reckless enchanter who truly doesn't understand the difference between magic and not magic (and is still illiterate)?. On the other hand you just give the sage background to a sorcerer and bump a wizard.&nbsp; &nbsp; Wizard= guy who studied magic, Sorcerer= random kid who happens to have magic. I don't really see how the former is more generic than the later. (More to it, in 4e the only way to do lasting magic was through rituals, which fit perfectly under wizard, but not for sorcerers. you cannot give a spellbook to a sorcerer and require her to also spend money in order to do magic, that is no longer a sorcerer)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MoonSong, post: 6425303, member: 6689464"] Is it balanced that a wizard can simply decide to make the sorcerer in the party irrelevant by doing exactly the same things and still have room to do things the sorcerer cannot do? Sorcerers deserve to have their niches too, and this is for fairness alone. If I'm running only being able to do two things I rather do them better than the guy who can casually do everything. This is currently not true for the sorcerer. And it is not true that the wizard is this all-encompassing generic spellcaster. Thematically you cannot really duplicate a sorcerer with a wizard, can you truly do a wizard who doesn't want to be a wizard, who hates doing magic, but has no control over it? (You can't, such a wizard would have burned her spellbook and forgotten all about magic long ago), can you do a wizard who is completely illiterate and actually very unsmart if not criminally retarded?, can you do a reckless enchanter who truly doesn't understand the difference between magic and not magic (and is still illiterate)?. On the other hand you just give the sage background to a sorcerer and bump a wizard. Wizard= guy who studied magic, Sorcerer= random kid who happens to have magic. I don't really see how the former is more generic than the later. (More to it, in 4e the only way to do lasting magic was through rituals, which fit perfectly under wizard, but not for sorcerers. you cannot give a spellbook to a sorcerer and require her to also spend money in order to do magic, that is no longer a sorcerer) [/QUOTE]

Verification