Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MoonSong" data-source="post: 6345610" data-attributes="member: 6689464">This is the first edition sorcerers are limited to wizard weapons, they used to have the full suit of simple weapons -spears, sickles, axes, hammers, darts- that feat is a tax to feel like a sorcerer, not to mention it cannot be taken until very late in the game and doesn't cover them all. I don't know if the wild subclass plays a role in this, but I wouldn't be surprised if the designers paid more attention to make that tome of magic homage than on actually making sure actual sorcerers from other editions could be better converted. And that is my gripe with it, it feels more like a 2e wizard subclass homage than a sorcerer, people calling it wild mage only reinforce that notion. If this edition needed a wild mage that bad, the designers should have made it a wizard subclass and use that energy and space for more sorcerous subclasses. I'm sure that in the space of the surge table alone there was space for two or three subclasses. Again I'm not sure, but until word of the contrary comes up I can't help but feel everything wrong with the sorcerer class could have been avoided had the designers forgotten about the wild subclass alone. Calling it Wild mage is just sprinkling salt in the wound, it makes it look as if they just gave us half a sorcerer this edtion.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MoonSong, post: 6345610, member: 6689464"] This is the first edition sorcerers are limited to wizard weapons, they used to have the full suit of simple weapons -spears, sickles, axes, hammers, darts- that feat is a tax to feel like a sorcerer, not to mention it cannot be taken until very late in the game and doesn't cover them all. I don't know if the wild subclass plays a role in this, but I wouldn't be surprised if the designers paid more attention to make that tome of magic homage than on actually making sure actual sorcerers from other editions could be better converted. And that is my gripe with it, it feels more like a 2e wizard subclass homage than a sorcerer, people calling it wild mage only reinforce that notion. If this edition needed a wild mage that bad, the designers should have made it a wizard subclass and use that energy and space for more sorcerous subclasses. I'm sure that in the space of the surge table alone there was space for two or three subclasses. Again I'm not sure, but until word of the contrary comes up I can't help but feel everything wrong with the sorcerer class could have been avoided had the designers forgotten about the wild subclass alone. Calling it Wild mage is just sprinkling salt in the wound, it makes it look as if they just gave us half a sorcerer this edtion. [/QUOTE]

Verification