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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 8558676" data-attributes="member: 6877472">Look, I like the Sorcerer.  I liked them from the very beginning in 3e, despite the fact they were demonstrably weaker than Wizards- they ooze cool flavor.  But rather than admit that the Sorcerer was shafted for no reason, they turned the class into a pure blaster (and having played one, not really even a particularly stellar one) in 4e (as much as I'm loath to admit it, the 'simplified' Elementalist was actually better than it's older brother).  Then 5e's playtest promised a lot of cool ideas, but the end product was stripped of part of it's old special feature (spell versatility), it's spell list is stripped down in many regards for no good reason, it's really hard to play as you have to be very careful about spell choice, only a few subclasses stand out, sorcery points are great but too limited a resource, and...oh well that's it.  I'll be straight to the point, you can disagree, that's fine, this is my opinion- the Bard got hugely stronger in 5e.  The Cleric got stronger.  The Wizard got stronger.  The Warlock got stranger.  The Sorcerer got new toys too, but the base class got a lot less than the other casters did.  Now some subclasses are nice, sure.  But all of the other spellcasting classes have good subclasses, so that's a  wash in my book.  After my first and last experience of playing a Sorcerer for 8 levels, I got to say, next time?  I'll play a Wizard and write "Sorcerer" on my character sheet.</blockquote>

Verification