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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 6608493" data-attributes="member: 12731">No, I think each ability needs its own class. Casting magic via INT, WIS or CHA has implications that make it needlessly muddied to mix them together in a single class. But we already have a CHA-based arcane caster class.The problem with the 5E sorcerer is how little you gain compared to all the things you need to give up. In 3E you had to give up pretty much the same. But what you got was so sweet it was worth it.5E needed to invent a whole new reason for choosing a sorcerer. Just "you get to play a caster that isn't INT-based" doesn't cut it. Just relying on "the sorcerer was there in 3E, we need to include it here too" doesn't cut it. In fact, I consider the sorcerer the least essential class in 5E. In fact, it is somewhat of a trap option, especially for small parties. In a party of four, there's only one job opening for "arcane caster". That caster better be ready do all the stuff we expect arcane casters to do. And if you think Fireball is it, you're wrong. The game-changing spells are those the Fighters can't reproduce. Fighters can already do damage. What the only arcane caster in a small party needs to do is not Fireball.Apart from that, the warlock already offers the "sturdy, not puny, spellcaster" schtick also associated with sorcerers.Finally, locking away metamagic into one particular class is boring. Not only is the sorcerer the least well equipped class to truly use metamagic (because of his restricted spell options), but also a bad "it is the sorcerer's fault wizards don't get these fun toys" vibe...</blockquote>

Verification