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: 8625390" data-attributes="member: 6877472">Sorcerers?  Yes, I mean, compared to the other casters (and even their closest relative, the Wizard), Sorcerers are in a weird place in this edition.  Their big trick, not having to prepare spells, is nearly useless given how many spells other casters can prepare at once, and how few spells Sorcerers get.  Then with Wizards having unlimited access to spells (with the only limiting factor being money, which most games have little use for after about level 5), the Wizard can have a Swiss Army Spellbook, and is no weaker than the Sorcerer.The Sorcerer may have some cool nova rounds, but for all day performance, the Wizard has them beat.  I have no evidence but I would not be surprised if a Wizard without a subclass is still better than a PHB or SCAG Sorcerer.  Sorcerers got a little better in later books though.  It's weird to say that a full caster is behind the curve, but compared to his fellows, he is.As for the non-casters, even without taking power into consideration, they have a lot less versatility, which I think hurts them as well.  I mean, if you're a Fighter you swing your melee weapon.  Maybe you add a cool move to that and a bonus die of damage every so often.  Maybe you take -5 to hit for more damage.  Or make a bonus action attack.  Or Action Surge for...more attacks.  You might get an opportunity attack, or a reaction attack.Now one can suppose this is what Fighters do, so what's the problem?  And for a decent chunk of Fighter fans, nothing.  But it feels like a few cool stunts they could do, like things the Melee Hunter Ranger gets, would make Fighter a lot more fun, I think.Spellcasters, on the other hand, well yeah, they spend a lot of time firing off cantrips.  But they have several to choose from, and each has their own unique effect (well, other than Firebolt).  Then they have this vast and deep well of magic to draw on, to do many different things.  Maybe I need an AoE damage burst.  Or a single target attack.  Or maybe I need to debuff one guy or lock down many guys.  Maybe I need to buff my party with haste.  Maybe I need to give the Rogue some flight or invisibility to scout around.  Maybe I need to offload 600 lbs. of fine silk, so I cast Fabricate and make a killing in the kimono market.  Maybe I need to bamf the whole party to a major city, or change the weather.The sheer amount of options is insane, and that just makes casters more fun for me, and anyone else who likes to play them. The fact that the Fighter really doesn't pull ahead of "gish" subclasses until the back half of the game, and that the Eldritch Knight, the "gish" Fighter, feels pretty lame compared to a Valor Bard or Bladesinger (especially when you can't even cast spells until 3rd level) feels bizarre to me.  And yeah, nothing we say here will change the game one iota- WotC seems to know what they want to do, and they're gonna do it.  This is the game we have to work with.And it's not a bad game.  It certainly does what 4e Essentials wanted to do, bring players into the hobby, quite well.  But it could be better.  It's just frustrating when you run into a guy who is like "this is the best and greatest D&D ever, sales don't lie, and you are wrong for wanting anything other than what it is, Fighters are fine, caster dominance is a lie, and nothing needs to change, and I'm offended that you dared even think such blasphemy.  Also, 5e is super easy, so in my game we use gritty realism and nerf half the spells in the PHB, and ban Tasha's outright just to make the game playable!"</blockquote>

Verification