D&D 5E Wanting more content doesn't always equate to wanting tons of splat options so please stop.

[hawkeyefan]

Are you labeling my character concept as "an overpowered monstrosity"? Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man. There are plenty of systems that could handle it just fine. And the comparison wasn't about "powerfulness", or "monstrositiness," but one of "specificity." MoonSong's character was hyper specific. Like mine.

The sorcerer is not the issue, dude.

 

[Parmandur]

The sorcerer is not the issue, dude.

I mean, giving the Sorcerer a metric ton of subclasses is something they have openly mulled doing, for one thing; one of their top conclusions after the initial release surveys, right after rebuilding the Ranger, was that they needed to diversify sorcerer options.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I mean, giving the Sorcerer a metric ton of subclasses is something they have openly mulled doing, for one thing; one of their top conclusions after the initial release surveys, right after rebuilding the Ranger, was that they needed to diversify sorcerer options.

Oh I was just kidding... [MENTION=1560]Corwin[/MENTION] used a line from The Big Lebowski, so I replied with a line from that movie too, except I used the word sorcerer.

I have a weird compulsion to acknowledge any Big Lebowski quote and reply in kind. So yeah...my comment was meaningless to this conversation.

I can say that the more specific a character concept may be, the more likely you won't be able to play it using the rules as written.

If it were me, I'd create the character as closely to what I envisioned as possible, and I'd try to see if I could come up with alternatives to whatever is missing from my concept. Maybe a magic item or a feat or something would help. Maybe a DM would allow me to homebrew a couple things.

But whatever happened, I'd create the character as best I could, and then I would try to have fun.

 

[Corwin]

Oh I was just kidding... @Corwin used a line from The Big Lebowski, so I replied with a line from that movie too, except I used the word sorcerer.

I have a weird compulsion to acknowledge any Big Lebowski quote and reply in kind. So yeah...my comment was meaningless to this conversation.

Well, *I* gave you the laugh it deserved.

I can say that the more specific a character concept may be, the more likely you won't be able to play it using the rules as written.

If it were me, I'd create the character as closely to what I envisioned as possible, and I'd try to see if I could come up with alternatives to whatever is missing from my concept. Maybe a magic item or a feat or something would help. Maybe a DM would allow me to homebrew a couple things.

But whatever happened, I'd create the character as best I could, and then I would try to have fun.

This. When has there ever been a converted character from one edition to another that emulated its previous play/ability exactly? Exactly.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well, *I* gave you the laugh it deserved.

Thank you, sir.

This. When has there ever been a converted character from one edition to another that emulated its previous play/ability exactly? Exactly.

My campaign utilizes several longstanding characters as part of the story. Some of them date back to the 1E and 2E days. One of the characters began his life as a Cavalier from Unearthed Arcanna. He's been updates for each edition of the game, and has never been an exact match as his original iteration (which is good, really, since the IA Cavalier was very overpowered).

The 5E version has proven to be a lot of fun. Same for the other characters...they're all fun to play, and they feel faithful to the original character concepts even if not every ability or feat is duplicated.

I think that's the thing when converting from prior editions...faithfulness to a concept. So to use an example from earlier in the thread, a sorcerer being pulled around by an unseen servant...okay, for whatever reason that combo isn't possible in 5E. So then maybe examine why the character wanted to be carried around by the unseen servant...was it due to a sense of self-importance? The desire to impress or unnerve others? Laziness?

I think the the best thing to do is answer that kind of question, and then find an available option that fits the concept. This means your character is largely the same in spirit, with only a few cosmetic differences.

 

[Corwin]

We, likewise, have had a few longstanding PCs cross multiple editions. Heck, my favorite PC of all time was from 1e. I've made him for every edition as well. Never exactly the same. But the essence is close enough. And that's good enough for me.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Corwin]

There's also one suggestion for how to play the exact sorcerer, as originally designed and built. It's a simple suggestion. And the only one that will give [MENTION=6689464]MoonSong[/MENTION] precisely what (s)he is looking for. Play the character in the edition to which it was created. Why is that not the obvious call?

 

[hawkeyefan]

There's also one suggestion for how to play the exact sorcerer, as originally designed and built. It's a simple suggestion. And the only one that will give @MoonSong precisely what (s)he is looking for. Play the character in the edition to which it was created. Why is that not the obvious call?

It may be. Depends on the availability of games and what editions those games utilize.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*