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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Blue" data-source="post: 9016248" data-attributes="member: 20564">The very first paragraph of the description introduces where they are different from a narrative perspective.  They are the raw talents, the ones who control magic innately instead of through study.  And it even brings in that some claim draconic bloodlines.  We have a story description.(If you are conflating "story elements" and "specific setting lore elements" then that shouldn't be in the core books.)And really, a native talent arcanist is a common archetype in novels, shows and movies.  It is fulfilling the primary duty of a class - allow players to create characters to fulfill archetypes and genre tropes.  Mechanics are just how, and never by themselves justify a class.  This is the "why", and it's a good one considering how common those archetypes are.Not wrong, but incomplete.  Less than half the subclasses focus on an ancestry, with the majority mentioning an ancestry or "growing up near a source of X" or just "born with them" as one possible source while also listing other sources that are not ancestry themed.  I was surprised when I first realized this myself.The flavor that sorcerers are the masters of their magic, so they know fewer spells but can do more things with them than a wizard?Sorry, that's been well established, this is also wrong.Yes, classes get subclasses with features.  This is a truism.No, I won't.  Because you are putting restrictions on the feyblood in order to have it match a particular wizard subclass.  And you're not even doing with an official subclass, so I have no idea or care how much an official subclass is to a wizard subclass.Um, no, they don't both prepare spells.  The sorcerer has spells known.  Quite a different mechanic.Yes, they use spell slots, just like clerics and rangers and everything that uses spells, just like we use a d20+modifiers >= to a target - it's a universal mechanic for ease of understanding.And saying that because they use a universal mechanic of spellcasting they are similar is saying that the druid and the wizard are similar.  It's too far to even be a stretch, it's irrelevant.First, what you said could equally be that the wizard has outlived it's usefulness as a base class.Second, every point you've brought up has been factually incorrect, incomplete, or irrelevant.Come back with a solid foundation and we can talk about your ideas.  But your understanding of the sorcerer is profoundly flawed.  I'm not even a fan of the current implementation of the sorcerer but I feel compelled to set right the facts instead of this narrative.</blockquote>

Verification