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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cap'n Kobold" data-source="post: 6860245" data-attributes="member: 6802951">I can't speak for what other people have said to you. Sorcerors don't have to be blasters any more than Fighters have to use two-handed weapons though.People can guess at the optimal strategy, or design concepts behind any class. They don't get to determine what the class is "meant" to be without proof from the 5e design team stating that however.They also don't get to tell you what sort of character to get to play, unless your DM is on these boards and tells you.  The same holds for among the classes and sub-classes that don't cast offensive spells: they should have no trouble creating a unique character either. Because spells are inherently rules-heavy, there is more division between spellcaster variants into separate classes than for example martial variants. How many dozens? Eminently possible. There aren't any classes where the only way to play them is as an offensive caster. Just because there is a Wizard and a Sorceror in the group for example, doesn't require that either of them must be an offensive caster. In addition, the greater concept-space among some of the non-caster classes allows multiple different options of the same to happily coexist in the same party, allowing a party to be made up of non-casters without two people playing the same character.In one of my current groups, there is a Fighter, Paladin, Bard, Ranger, Warlock and Rogue. Only one offensive spell has even been cast so far.</blockquote>

Verification