Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6066136" data-attributes="member: 1465">Uhh... I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I've played many Wizards and many Sorcerers in 3e and to me the playstyle is totally different.It's true that the spell list was the same, and this was uncool flavor-wise. But we have to keep in mind that the real reason for this was that &quot;Wizard&quot; in D&amp;D traditionally covers an enormous ground, from the magician who blasts with fire and lightning, to the subtle trickster, to the charming manipulator, to the illusionist, to the necromancer, to the summoner of fiends and so on... This is why the Wizard spell list should not be restricted (the only traditional restriction is for healing and resurrection spells), unless you want a game where the Wizard class is split up in multiple classes (which would be fine, but also keep in mind that many players still want to mix-n-match different types of spells).If anything, it should have been the Sorcerer spell list to be a subset of the Wizard spell list. Probably they decided against it because at the time of 3.0 the Sorcerer was just an experimental spin-off of the Wizard to allow easier gameplay, so my guess was that instead of trimming down the list by removing spells that seemed out of flavor for a Sorcerer, they just went with it as it was and let the players figure out what they wanted to do with the class.That said, Wizard and Sorcerer in 3ed were totally different to play even when you focused on mostly the same spells.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 6066136, member: 1465"] Uhh... I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I've played many Wizards and many Sorcerers in 3e and to me the playstyle is totally different. It's true that the spell list was the same, and this was uncool flavor-wise. But we have to keep in mind that the real reason for this was that "Wizard" in D&D traditionally covers an enormous ground, from the magician who blasts with fire and lightning, to the subtle trickster, to the charming manipulator, to the illusionist, to the necromancer, to the summoner of fiends and so on... This is why the Wizard spell list should not be restricted (the only traditional restriction is for healing and resurrection spells), unless you want a game where the Wizard class is split up in multiple classes (which would be fine, but also keep in mind that many players still want to mix-n-match different types of spells). If anything, it should have been the Sorcerer spell list to be a subset of the Wizard spell list. Probably they decided against it because at the time of 3.0 the Sorcerer was just an experimental spin-off of the Wizard to allow easier gameplay, so my guess was that instead of trimming down the list by removing spells that seemed out of flavor for a Sorcerer, they just went with it as it was and let the players figure out what they wanted to do with the class. That said, Wizard and Sorcerer in 3ed were totally different to play even when you focused on mostly the same spells. [/QUOTE]

Verification