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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 7115027" data-attributes="member: 12731">It depends. What makes a definition "too narrow"?The definition is useful to argue the Sorcerer needs more support. That doesn't have to mean "moar and bettor" - it can mean the class being given a mechanism that allows it to bypass Fireball in order to pick a more thematic spell, but without going uncompensated for that.It all boils down to whether you agree when I say that the definition of "full caster" really isn't compromisable. Lowering the standards just to be able to include the Sorcerer, or the Bard, or the Warlock does little to change the fact that, no, they can't provide the full services of the Wizard.But sure - all this is saying is: "play a Wizard if you want to play a Wizard". There is nothing wrong with Bards or Sorcerers or Warlocks. Just don't expect the full repertoire. In the case of Bard, that class gets surprisingly many utility spells, so if you just make clear you can't be the area blaster, you can pull a lot of "full caster" weight otherwise. In the case of Sorcerer, unless you play a Fire Draconic sorcerer, you will need to choose between your personal (characterization) needs and the needs of the party. As long as everybody are aware of this limit on the class, you're good to go.In the case of Warlock, you will never be able to do everything a "full caster" is expected to. Name any single thing a full caster can do, and chances are, you can do it too. But once you make a list of five such things, you can no longer pull it off. So everybody needs to appreciate your other abilities, which much simplified can be summarized as "look at me as an alternative fighter".</blockquote>

Verification