Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MoonSong" data-source="post: 6843177" data-attributes="member: 6689464">Don't look at me, I started working on my Warlord substitute one year before the release and finished it one year after launch, and it has shown up in En5ider so it is not good for DMsG ever.  I could possibly rush into a quick straight port changing the names, but that way is not that ethical. -And yes, porting the warlord is quite hard and time consuming, I wouldn't expect a good class to showup until at least one year of DMsG, and well I missed the mark with mine.I said Wizard as is in this edition. Can you produce a wizard subclass that covers the sorcerer that does justice to the concept? (Non-voluntary and possibly ignorant approach to magic, magic as part of you instead of as a tool)  Can it cover everything the sorcerer class in 5e covers?  The Mage could have been but it isn't. Just like the playtest fighter could have been but isn't. So it isn't relevant to what we can do with subclasses in 5e. (And the playtest mage was basically still the wizard we got, down to spell mastery and arcane recovery. It would have only produced second rate warlocks and sorcerers for no benefit beyond giving wizards more toys) And yes I say that no wizard/mu/mage ever on any D&D edition and D20 can cover the sorcerer. Except the M20 mage, but that is truly generic and open ended.</blockquote>