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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ForceUser" data-source="post: 2658016" data-attributes="member: 2785">Oh, is that all? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />Sorcerers are powerful--I've seen mid- and high-level sorcerers in play, and they rock. I don't find any class to be weak if the DM makes it a point to sculpt his game to play to the strengths of his PCs. Novel concept, really--letting the players have fun 'n all.Along those lines, it must be pointed out that I disagree with everything Drowbane stated, on general principle. From what I can tell through personal conversations, he's just had some lame DMs that don't allow their PCs moments to shine. Any class will "suck" in that case. For example, he loves rogues, and he's currently playing one IMC. Well, let's see--rogues have 2 bad saves, low AC, low hps, subpar damage output next to fighters, and worse, their sneak attack is easily thwarted by contructs, elementals, plant creatures, oozes, and undead, not to mention concealment and other environmental conditions, plus magic armors with foritification! If I were a lame DM, I could easily dick with him by altering the foes he faces. Bam!--just like that, his awesome rogue would be "weak." "Weak," therefore, is a concept entirely at the mercy of each DM, which means that the idea upon which this thread is predicated is seriously flawed, because there is no true consensus.</blockquote>

Verification