Quote Originally Posted by lesser_minion View Post
No, it doesn't, this is a fantasy game. This is the exact same illogic as complaining that it's a violation of the fighter's concept to use a bow.
But it is. Rangers use bows. Hence the name "range-r". They're not called Rangers because they range about the wilderness.
I'm not sure whether or not I'm being sarcastic. I'll get back to you. But I do know that WotC has not done well with bow-users in general thus far.

Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
I agree that the sorcerer isn't iconic, but not because it wasn't in second edition.

Rather, the sorcerer isn't iconic (1) because fiction in general does not distinguish between sorcerers and wizards, so there aren't any major fictional characters that can be archetypically thought of as "sorcerer but really not wizard"; and (2) because it hasn't had a consistent role so far along D&D editions.

In 3.0, the sorcerer is the same as the wizard, only spontaneous. In 4.0, the sorcerer is a blaster wizard, except that regular wizards can also be blasters, and drawing its power from dragons, storms, chaos, or the cosmos (just like wizards, really). In 4.4, the sorcerer instead is an elementalist, except that wizards also have elemental spells, as well as a pyromancer specialty.

The bottom line is that WOTC has failed, so far, to create a meaningful and consistent difference between sorcerers and wizards. And this is why they're not iconic.
I agree completely.

Quote Originally Posted by Yora View Post
Like wizard, but non vancian. I think that is all that almost all of us sorcerer fans want.
Yes yes. I don't like Vancian magic much, and the other easy option for RPG magic is mana points. Which 5e looks to be moving towards with the Sorcerer. Now there's just the question of whether they'll do it well.