So, someone being new to the game means they can't read? Everything is laid out in the class descriptions. A new player can see that the Mage is the class to play of they want to try out a bunch of spells, and can see that they give up that possibility by choosing a sorcerer. Where's the problem?
Being able to read means being able to instantly realize the exact mechanics, save bonuses, immunities to certain effects etc that monsters you go up against have? Being able to read means you innately understand the whole AD&D combat system? The fact is that the game is very complex, especially so for a new player.
What you are advocating is punishing people because they don't want to spend hours pouring over class/spell/mechanics descriptions and rather just get on with actually playing the game.
No; you very clearly have a smaller restriction in place. So show me a proposal that has equally smaller advantages in place of the normal sorcerer advantages.
I think we have to agree to disagree here. I'm arguing that the balancing check on the Sorcerer is not knowing more than a small amount of spells, you're arguing that it's that plus having to metagame, and never the two shall meet..
However, upon consideration, I'd be open to the idea of reducing Sorcerer known spells. In 3rd Ed a 20th level Sorcerer gets 5/5/4/4/4/3/3/3/3 known spells. How does that sound? You'd still be quite powerful, but unable to cover *every* base.
I would happily take all of those spells with a vanilla sorcerer, and never think twice about it. By the time Sleep isn't very useful, I have tons of awesome new spells to play with. Again, where's the problem? I must say, reading things like "subpar by ToB" make me question whether this is really about newbies; this reads more like a complaint that the current system is inhibiting your powergaming. In which case, here is Shadowkeeper. Go have fun.
Honestly, I excaggerated on how long those spells remain useful. Horror turns pointless in early SoA, due to the +3 save bonus. Sleep is useless by the last third of BG1. You're saying that you'd be fine with a Sorcerer where essentially all spells below L5 are only used for defense?
It's a cost/benefit argument. This would be a fair amount of work (of course they could "just give spells a green outline" but that's very different from coding the effects of that new user interaction) and benefit only two kits of one class, when it hasn't even been conclusively shown that anything needs improving. (Read the threads in the main discussion forum; nobody is refusing to play sorcerers because they are too limited or underpowered. Whereas, you often see advice to play a sorcerer or wild mage or specialist rather than a mage. So I'd say mages need fixing more than sorcerers do.)
I'm sorry, but I feel that a case has been made that this needs improvement, including the fact that Sorcerers are *supposed* to be able to swap spells as per RAW. You can't just say "I don't think this needs improvement" and terminate the argument there.
Also, please explain exactly how you know that this would be too much work to be feasible? I already gave a rough suggestion on how to accomplish it with very little if any new UI work. I'm sure if someone at Overhaul gave it a little thought, they could figure out something even better.
Whereas a feature request I made, to allow saves or concentration checks to avoid spell disruption when hit, 1) has already been done in this engine, by someone who is working with the Dev team; and 2) would affect (improve!) every single encounter in the game that involves a spellcaster. Less effort, more reward. IMHO feasibility is highly important when crafting a feature request; saying "it's their job" seems le a great way to be ignored by the devs.
Great for you, go nuts with your own feature requests. But stop acting as if you are the sole judge on what is and isn't feasible or desirable to implement.
Comments
What you are advocating is punishing people because they don't want to spend hours pouring over class/spell/mechanics descriptions and rather just get on with actually playing the game. I think we have to agree to disagree here. I'm arguing that the balancing check on the Sorcerer is not knowing more than a small amount of spells, you're arguing that it's that plus having to metagame, and never the two shall meet..
However, upon consideration, I'd be open to the idea of reducing Sorcerer known spells. In 3rd Ed a 20th level Sorcerer gets 5/5/4/4/4/3/3/3/3 known spells. How does that sound? You'd still be quite powerful, but unable to cover *every* base. Honestly, I excaggerated on how long those spells remain useful. Horror turns pointless in early SoA, due to the +3 save bonus. Sleep is useless by the last third of BG1. You're saying that you'd be fine with a Sorcerer where essentially all spells below L5 are only used for defense? I'm sorry, but I feel that a case has been made that this needs improvement, including the fact that Sorcerers are *supposed* to be able to swap spells as per RAW. You can't just say "I don't think this needs improvement" and terminate the argument there.
Also, please explain exactly how you know that this would be too much work to be feasible? I already gave a rough suggestion on how to accomplish it with very little if any new UI work. I'm sure if someone at Overhaul gave it a little thought, they could figure out something even better. Great for you, go nuts with your own feature requests. But stop acting as if you are the sole judge on what is and isn't feasible or desirable to implement.
I didn't know if it was SC-specific, though.