Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JoeBlank" data-source="post: 1519678" data-attributes="member: 1806">My votes went to monk and druid. I don't mind monks too much from a setting perspective, most campaigns I have played in are not Euro-centric, but are more of a mish mash of influences, so the monk fits fine. I just don't like the idea of running around smacking dragons and traditional D&amp;D monsters with bare hands. Also, I have a hard time playing the lawful alignment. Same reason I have not played a paladin in 3.x, but if I could convince a group to go lawful I would be willing to try paladin.&nbsp;With druids, my only problem is the shape changing. For some reason, I just don't go for being able to change into all kinds of animals, one to fit every situation. I especially don't go for shape changing before every fight. I don't mind others doing it, but don't think I would enjoy it.&nbsp;&nbsp;(emphasis added)&nbsp;No sense in opening up a wizard v. sorcerer debate here, but I found the sorcerer I played to require far more forethought and imagination than any other character. If you just search message boards and pick the &quot;ideal&quot; spell list, then I guess no planning is required. But if you have a character with a personality and a theme to his magic then you can spend a great deal of time picking the right spells and feats to fit the theme and still be useful and versatile. &nbsp;To me, playing&nbsp; a sorcerer is like building a car (note: I am not mechanic, the analogy just seems to fit). You spend countless hours getting the right parts and fitting them together perfectly, and when it is time to race then you stop worrying about all that, run it wide open and have fun. If you notice kinks or something that does not work quite right, then after the race (game day) you get back in the shop and tinker some more (level up, pick new spells, maybe swap a spell). So lots of work for to occupy your down time, but when it comes time to play the work is done and you can just have fun.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JoeBlank, post: 1519678, member: 1806"] My votes went to monk and druid. I don't mind monks too much from a setting perspective, most campaigns I have played in are not Euro-centric, but are more of a mish mash of influences, so the monk fits fine. I just don't like the idea of running around smacking dragons and traditional D&D monsters with bare hands. Also, I have a hard time playing the lawful alignment. Same reason I have not played a paladin in 3.x, but if I could convince a group to go lawful I would be willing to try paladin. With druids, my only problem is the shape changing. For some reason, I just don't go for being able to change into all kinds of animals, one to fit every situation. I especially don't go for shape changing before every fight. I don't mind others doing it, but don't think I would enjoy it. (emphasis added) No sense in opening up a wizard v. sorcerer debate here, but I found the sorcerer I played to require far more forethought and imagination than any other character. If you just search message boards and pick the "ideal" spell list, then I guess no planning is required. But if you have a character with a personality and a theme to his magic then you can spend a great deal of time picking the right spells and feats to fit the theme and still be useful and versatile. To me, playing a sorcerer is like building a car (note: I am not mechanic, the analogy just seems to fit). You spend countless hours getting the right parts and fitting them together perfectly, and when it is time to race then you stop worrying about all that, run it wide open and have fun. If you notice kinks or something that does not work quite right, then after the race (game day) you get back in the shop and tinker some more (level up, pick new spells, maybe swap a spell). So lots of work for to occupy your down time, but when it comes time to play the work is done and you can just have fun. [/QUOTE]

Verification