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="MoonSong" data-source="post: 6172917" data-attributes="member: 6689464">Still not a triviality (3.5 and PF sorcerers can only retrain spells at a rate of 1 each 4 levels, the 3e retraining rules are more drastic than that and aren't limited to spell selection they can even be a full rewrite of the character, 4e retraining is still limited to 1 power/feat/skill/feature by level) it takes considerable time and an oportunity cost to do changes to spells known, one at a time, far removed from being able to rewrite the whole reportorie after a good night's rest.(Compare a 4e wizard that still rewrites all dailies and utilities every day or the mage that rewrites encoutners too, even then a wizard retraining expanded spellbook/remmebered wizardry could easily retrain 4 or 5 spells at a time)I meant  "Given that Rituals are most likely out [for sorcerers]". rituals by themselves don't go with the sorcerer flavor and this is backed by history (PHB2 sorcerer dind't have it, elementalist sorcerer didn't have it, the draconic sorcerer they showed early in the playtest didn't have it) . Rituals serve a function, to allow primary casters to have less spell slots, but they don't work with sorcerer flavor, without rituals sorcerers will need something else to keep up.  It is more common sense than anything else, there's been an unsettling silence in the matter since they removed sorcerers and warlocks from the playtest. But it boils down to this: If sorcerer is going to be a Mage subclass with sorcerry subclasses, and the slots per day table is at class level, then all subclasses will use the same numbers regardless of their casting mechanics, otherwise they'd be full classes in all but name, and nothing is gained from this arrangement, no difference in page count, in fact the opossite, we just get three classes that cannot freely multiclass between them -even special subsubclasses are limited and constrained- with two of them losing on flavor and identity in benefit of the other one while also suffering from artificial complexity they wouldn't have if they received a clean and straight class write up, not the cross referencing madness that comes from having to selectively ignore portions on the main table to replace them with tables on the appendix/other book, a process prone to confussion, oimisions and mistakes. Sorry, didn't meant it to be that way, my argument was  @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=42582" target="_blank">pemerton</a>  gave a satisfactory explanation for how spell mastery might fit with the sorcerer, but it only works when sorcerers are tied to the cosmos -cosmic sorcerers- but they are way more diverse than that. Care to be more speciffic on this regard?</blockquote>

Verification