Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Stalker0" data-source="post: 9016234" data-attributes="member: 5889">A good summary.Now is this worthy of a class versus a subclass vs a feat, etc.... that is always more of a preference. Should a paladin be its own class or a fighter/cleric? Should a warlord be a thing or just a subclass of fighter, etc. Its always a preference and the answer is you could do it any of those ways.But since the sorc has gotten elevated to base class status, its likely not to go away. And so the goal is to ensure the sorc's mechanics properly reflect the flavor and give a distinctive niche all of its own. In this regard, I think the 5e sorc has been mostly a failure. I really don't get any sense of innate magic from them, metamagics feels like an add-on more than a core feature. And worse, I think the warlock just does the motiff better, the warlock with its at-will invocations feels a lot more &quot;innate magic&quot; to me than the sorc does.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Stalker0, post: 9016234, member: 5889"] A good summary. Now is this worthy of a class versus a subclass vs a feat, etc.... that is always more of a preference. Should a paladin be its own class or a fighter/cleric? Should a warlord be a thing or just a subclass of fighter, etc. Its always a preference and the answer is you could do it any of those ways. But since the sorc has gotten elevated to base class status, its likely not to go away. And so the goal is to ensure the sorc's mechanics properly reflect the flavor and give a distinctive niche all of its own. In this regard, I think the 5e sorc has been mostly a failure. I really don't get any sense of innate magic from them, metamagics feels like an add-on more than a core feature. And worse, I think the warlock just does the motiff better, the warlock with its at-will invocations feels a lot more "innate magic" to me than the sorc does. [/QUOTE]

Verification