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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="77IM" data-source="post: 6739346" data-attributes="member: 12377">Sorcerer, to me, is generic magic-user, much like Fighter is generic warrior. Barbarian, Paladin and Ranger are non-generic warriors; they have interesting and flavorful trappings that give them a specific place in the world or role in the story. The Fighter is defined almost by the absence of such, and consequently the breadth of concepts it can support.Similarly, I see Wizard, Warlock, Bard, Cleric, and Druid as the non-generic magic-users. Those classes all have interesting and flavorful trappings that give them a specific place in the world or role in the story. The Sorcerer has always had magic "just because." So it should be more generic in its mechanics and support a breadth of concepts.For example, many fantasy settings have only one type of spellcaster (e.g. Wheel of Time). I think when designing such a setting for D&D, that the Sorcerer should be the go-to class for that. If you want only 3 core classes, you would go with Fighter, Rogue, Sorcerer -- I think Sorcerer should be able to replace Cleric and Druid. This would mean giving them access to some healing magic and some nature magic. Sure, why not? The more specific classes are always going to do those things better, just like a Fighter with a greatsword and anger-management issues can act like a Barbarian but the real Barbarian is going to do it better.EDIT: I voted "thematic blaster" although I feel the term "blaster" is unnecessary and misapplied. However organizing magic around themes is the best way to give such a class a lot of breadth without a lot of complexity.EDIT2: Thinking more about my comparison of the Sorcerer to the Fighter, both of these classes have been difficult to design in 5e precisely because of their generic/flavorless nature.</blockquote>

Verification