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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Barolo" data-source="post: 7708913" data-attributes="member: 61932">If you were playing a wizard and, instead of being given arcane recovery you were given an arcane pool the same size as the sorcerer, that you can only use to create spell slots, would you feel it was a nerf or an upgrade to the wizard? Now, if you add to this pool the possibility to do something else, such as to enable metamagic, would it again be a nerf, because now you will need to share this resource between different functionalities? If you could use your arcane recovery to do something else, anything else that you could find useful, would that be worse for you because now you may be compromising your ability to recover spell slots?Anyhow, the minority of sorcery origin features cost sorcery points. And my main point was that to equate 1 sorcery point to 1 level of spell is not fair. A sorcerer may need to sacrifice a level 1 spell slot to use a 1 sorcery point metamagic, but they also may not need to do it because they already have the sorcery pool which is more abundant for this purpose. The proposed lore master wizard will have to sacrifice the slot, which is more expensive. I know this comparison gets blurred more often than not, because the sorcery spell pool is asymmetrical in the way it works. But it also reveal something that is aligned to my opinion: extra flexibility should have a cost. This is the main reason (maybe even the only reason) I do not adopt the optional spell points rule from the DMG.In the end, what I am really trying to say is that one sorcery point coming directly from the sorcery pool is cheaper than one sorcery point coming from a first level spell slot. It is self-evident, as the spell slots only return sorcery points on a one-by-one ratio, but to create slots from the sorcery points the cost is higher, isn't it?</blockquote>

Verification