Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6059199" data-attributes="member: 22779">I'm going by the default flavour of sorcerers in 3.5 Edition:So, yeah, the flavour of sorcerers right in the books is that they are loners who don't go to schools to train.&nbsp; That's the primary flavor difference between sorcerers and wizards.&nbsp; They don't need to study.&nbsp; After all, what would they study?&nbsp; Their talent is entirely innate.&nbsp; This is how I roll as well.&nbsp; And, yeah, there are things I will not bend on, depending on the campaign.&nbsp; The issue here though, is that WOTC, by setting specific defaults, is pushing a very specific vision of how the game should be played.&nbsp; All wizards are vancian.&nbsp; All sorcerers are this.&nbsp; All warlocks are that.&nbsp; Which is fine and dandy if you happen to agree with the defaults.&nbsp; But, considering how badly people reacted to the idea of simply refluffing classes in 4e, I cannot see how this will be any better.&nbsp; Sure, in my game, it would be a simple matter of swapping things out.&nbsp; But, again, looking at the reaction in 4e, people are absolutely wedded to the name of classes.&nbsp; &quot;I want to be a fighter that uses a bow and wears leather armor!!!!!&quot;&nbsp; Telling people that they can simply switch things out, unless WOTC is absolutely crystal clear on this intent, will result in the exact same complaints.&nbsp; &quot;I want to do X but the rules won't let me!!!&nbsp; This game is teh suxxors!!!&quot;&nbsp; Once upon a time, players and DM's molded games.&nbsp; Now, I don't think so.&nbsp; I think that there is a significant group of players and DM's for whom the rules have become sacrosanct and must never be changed.&nbsp; By adding in defaults, unless those defaults line up exactly with what this group of players expects, is going to result in endless kvetching about how the game has changed and lost its soul and a whole list of other complaints.&nbsp; I'd much, much rather they simply give the options and tell DM's very clearly, &quot;You and your players pick from the cart&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6059199, member: 22779"] I'm going by the default flavour of sorcerers in 3.5 Edition: So, yeah, the flavour of sorcerers right in the books is that they are loners who don't go to schools to train. That's the primary flavor difference between sorcerers and wizards. They don't need to study. After all, what would they study? Their talent is entirely innate. This is how I roll as well. And, yeah, there are things I will not bend on, depending on the campaign. The issue here though, is that WOTC, by setting specific defaults, is pushing a very specific vision of how the game should be played. All wizards are vancian. All sorcerers are this. All warlocks are that. Which is fine and dandy if you happen to agree with the defaults. But, considering how badly people reacted to the idea of simply refluffing classes in 4e, I cannot see how this will be any better. Sure, in my game, it would be a simple matter of swapping things out. But, again, looking at the reaction in 4e, people are absolutely wedded to the name of classes. "I want to be a fighter that uses a bow and wears leather armor!!!!!" Telling people that they can simply switch things out, unless WOTC is absolutely crystal clear on this intent, will result in the exact same complaints. "I want to do X but the rules won't let me!!! This game is teh suxxors!!!" Once upon a time, players and DM's molded games. Now, I don't think so. I think that there is a significant group of players and DM's for whom the rules have become sacrosanct and must never be changed. By adding in defaults, unless those defaults line up exactly with what this group of players expects, is going to result in endless kvetching about how the game has changed and lost its soul and a whole list of other complaints. I'd much, much rather they simply give the options and tell DM's very clearly, "You and your players pick from the cart". [/QUOTE]

Verification