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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 8307828" data-attributes="member: 6795602">You keep asserting that but never really explain why.  I just don't see how one justifies pact boons/invocations making sense for a sorcerer.  Those make about as much sense for a Sorcerer as a Wizard's spellbook IMO.To me the purpose of the sorcerer was to let me play a full caster like a wizard that achieved his power innately.  The 3e differentiation of this was to do away with the spell book which also did away with needing to memorize spells at the start of the day.  Essentially - a non-prepared caster.That piece of identity is still present in 5e - it's just the wizard doesn't need to prepare his spells individually by slot anymore so it seems like a less drastic difference in play.  However, the sorcerer's innate magic concept is strengthened in other ways.  Primarily via subclass features - but also via sorcery points and metamagic (though metamagic could have been implemented better IMO).I think warlock is a bit overbroad of a class concept.  It probably could have used some separation.  Pact to make you a strong martial character vs a pact to make you a strong spell caster.  Those are related by different enough concepts IMO.He could be!  Anything can happen with NPC's.He can be!  There's nothing in that concept that precludes that concept from working as a wizard (or even lore bard, or even sorcerer).They exist as the pact caster.  That can be creepy as pacts have a bit of a connation of being with evil entities.  But it's not necessarily so.I think this ends up being the true reason.  You dislike sorcerer mechanics as not being different enough and dislike warlock fluff.  I disagree, but now I get why you want these classes combined.</blockquote>

Verification