NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6172219" data-attributes="member: 1465">IMHO this is just untrue. The original 3e Sorcerer was ALL about introducing an alternate casting mechanics for players who hated vancian magic. Then while at it, they added the narrative about draconic blood and changed from Int to Cha, and elaborate a little around it.This proved to be cool enough so that eventually the narrative became possibly more important than the mechanics, e.g. in 4e AFAIK the mechanic of Wizards and Sorcerers is AEDU for both, is that right? But originally the introduction of Sorcerer into D&D was definitely the mechanic, not the background.Heh, variant spellcasting is a much bigger difference than rage or wildshape.If and only if they can design the Sorcerer's variant spellcasting to be equal to the Wizard's, then it will become easy enough for them to be swappable without changing anything else in the class, otherwise it may be easier to make it a separate class.But Rage could have been a feat, or a Fighter's subclass feature, and Wildshape could have been a spell, a domain unique power, or something else... there's many ways to implement each concept.What I do not understand is, with a game that is undoubtedly class-based, with already plenty of wizard's subclasses needed, with plenty of narrative differences between wiz/sorcs/warlocks that go beyond casting spells in different ways... why even considering lumping all of them into the same class? The only reason I can think of, is to save space by having only one spell list. And yet, half of the Wizard's spells are IMHO not so appropriate for Sorcerers and Warlocks. Some space could be saved anyway, by having a list of Sorcerer/Warlock spells, and then a list of additional Wizard's only spells (or alternatively, use asterisks to mark which Wizards spells are also for Sorcerers and Warlocks).It also totally makes sense for a character to be multiclassed in 2 of these arcane casters at the same time, e.g. a Wizard who after years of using magic starts to become magical herself, or a Sorcerer who also starts studying books to learn additional spells, or a Wiz or Sorc who feels she's not getting better and turns to shady pacts, etc...That's a very good list, and I even think several Wizard's spells (the most "meta" spells, and some trickeries) probably don't fit the Sorcerer fully. I agree that there are very good narrative reasons for a Sorcerer not to have any of those above, with the exception probably of weapon profs which I don't think are really needed to a sorc either.This is why separate classes are better IMO. With 2 classes, there is full freedom to design all features more appropriately.True, but that's only because apparently they have decided it to be so, not because it has to be.I agree about weapons, but not about arcane lore. I think it fits better with Sorcerers that they don't know (at least by default) the reasons for their powers.Overall, I really don't see any good reason for lumping 3 classes into one at this point. It can be done, but then it will have drawbacks, and I see no visible benefit to the game.</blockquote>

Verification