For core PHB classes --> sorcerer and warlock

[Sadrik]

Out of the six classes that have been shown. Two of them are too specific for my tastes. They feel like they should be in a campaign that is specifically tailored to them. I want generic classes, the sorcerer and warlock do not fit this bill as of now. I honestly don't need both of them in the game. Pick one and go with it. Two innate casters with whatever backstory however they acquire their magic don't need to exist. I think the caster that utilizes books i.e. the wizard and one that does not utilize any books whatsoever as all we need.

I am not saying that what they created is not flavorful, it is, however it needs to be generic and fit into many campaign worlds. I don't want to have to account for all the different types of magic in my games. You have divine you have nature, bard, wizard, sorcerer, warlock, and psionics. Mechanically speaking the sorcerer, warlock and psion are all fairly similar concepts that could be housed under one roof. They're all innate casters. Refluff them with pacts or inner mental energy for any genetically infused magic. Bottom line is they have one way of using their magic, make it spell points, make it willpower, make it whatever... but they're all mechanically under one roof. No need to account for many different systems and all their nuances.

One other thing specifically about the sorcerer is that it is a gish and A gish should not be a base class. Why not simply have a robust multi-classing system, that is well-thought-out and implemented.

 

[slobster]

They seem to be committed to putting all of the classes that have ever been included in a PHB in the 5E PHB. Maybe committed is the wrong word. They seem to be trying the idea on for size.

I would love if they did that. I love having a bunch of classes to choose from, and I think the classes on their list are distinct enough, especially once you factor in the D&D history that has grown up around each one, to merit inclusion.

Yes, the warlock and the sorcerer are close enough conceptually that I could see modeling one class with the other in a pinch. But I would say the same thing about fighters and rangers, clerics and paladins, clerics and druids, and so on. But judging from the playtest so far and editions previously, there is also enough room mechanically and fictionally to fit in that whole crazy diverse list of classes. And people want it. I certainly do, and so do my players.


Some of those classes definitely have a niche, while the big 4 are widely considered to be broad enough that they can cover just about any niche between them. That doesn't need to be bad, as other people have discussed in other threads. Including a bit of D&D fluff (assassins and their guilds, druids and their circles) in class descriptions gives them a sense of place, and establishes "example fluff" that the GM can use, modify, or replace in his own game. A class doesn't need to be completely generic to fit into a campaign. That's what the GM's omnipotent editorial powers are for.

 

[Salamandyr]

I agree with you that the sorcerer and the warlock feel a bit more specific than the other classes presented so far...

However, 2 things

1) When you get down to it, they really aren't all that much more specific than the wizard or the cleric, or in past editions the druid. All three revolve around a specific definition of how magic could work in your campaign world...magic like alchemy, magic by internal force of will, and magic a gift from other worldly beings. Neither the sorcerer or the warlock is really any more arbitrary than the wizard, we're just used to the way the wizard works. Only the warlock really feels setting specific, because they seem to be going with creating specific personalities for the warlock to make a pact with (and I don't think this is too bad an idea). That's really not any different than when the designers provide a generic pantheon for clerics to pray to.

2) The sorcerer is not a gish. The draconic sorcerer is a gish; we have no idea what the other bloodlines will look like.


I wouldn't mind either, or both classes, being made a bit more generic, as in, rather than providing a list of, say, 6 patrons, they instead provide an array of "spheres' that a warlock could for instance pick from, or a DM could design patrons from.

 

[Remathilis]

Sorry, to disagree, but no.

Generic classes are boring. First off, they're a misnomer: there is nothing generic about the wizard, cleric, or rogue classes (and increasingly, the fighter). While the wizard class might not have a detailed an origin beyond "someone taught me magic", the trappings of wizardry (spells, spellbooks, components, implements, schools, specialization, and cantrips) are hardly generic.

So if we're going to introduce additional systems of magic, I want them explained. Why does a sorcerer use willpower? How does a warlock differ from a wizard? How did they get such power? Why do they get it and not other people? When the three meet in a tavern, how do they feel about one another? Give me some flexibility, but give me some details. 4e spent a good part of the time building a wall between fluff and crunch; I dare say I don't want to see that ever again.

Don't like them? Ban them. But don't strip every last ounce of interest out of them in some bizarre quest for the most generic classes evar. God, I will pitch the PHB across the room if ranger is nothing but "lightly armored fighter with tracking and dual wielding", sorcerer is "wizard with spell points" or paladin is "cleric with less spells and longsword".

 

[Remathilis]

I wouldn't mind either, or both classes, being made a bit more generic, as in, rather than providing a list of, say, 6 patrons, they instead provide an array of "spheres' that a warlock could for instance pick from, or a DM could design patrons from.

I have a feeling that things like Warlock Patrons and Deities will be used as examples, but they'll be tailorable. Change the name of the fey patron to whatever you like, but the fey warlock isn't going to differ much.

 

[filthgrinder]

At the "Future of D&D" panel at PAX over the weekend, they mentioned this, and it is specific and intended.

They said that the "core four", cleric, fighter, wizard, rogue, will be the most generic and the most customizable. These four will be the "assumed" classes. Everything else will be optional. This means that every other class will be flavor driven. However, it is intended that you reskin these classes to taste.
wotc_dnd - PAX Seminar: The Future of D&D
(you'll need to skip ahead a bunch as the start of the video is padded out a bit)

We already saw what "let's make classes generic and assume players/DMs will add the flavor when they reskin them". Thats what 4E did, and people had a crap attack about it.

I'd rather see them add lots of flavor and have my players change it to taste as opposed to no flavor and have players not add it.

 

[B.T.]

4e spent a good part of the time building a wall between fluff and crunch; I dare say I don't want to see that ever again.

Can't XP, but this times a hundred.

I will pitch the PHB across the room if ranger is nothing but "lightly armored fighter with tracking and dual wielding", sorcerer is "wizard with spell points" or paladin is "cleric with less spells and longsword".

Also this.

 

[VinylTap]

The only reason the lock and sorc are in the play-test package is because they want to play-test different spell systems. Its a contentious issue with a lot of community so they're jumping on it early to (hopefully) get it right. I'd be a lot happier if they just called it a "spell-caster" class and let you choose your method of spell casting, but I doubt we'll end up seeing that. At least you'll be able to play an 'arcane-sorcerer' in a typically "wizard" way, but I think that's what we're going to have to get used to (its how its always been done).

 

[Teataine]

I feel your criticism is perhaps a bit contradictory.

You say that they feel like they should be in a campaign tailored to them.
Then you say "pick one".

Well, that's the point. It's assumed that Wizards, Clerics, Rogues and Fighters will be in most campaigns. The rest you pick and choose what fits. Heck, you can pick and choose the "core" four, too.

If you want a spellpoint wizard, limit the Sorcerer to the Arcane bloodline that they mentioned and throw the Wizard out.



Second of all, they're not both innate casters. Warlocks get their magic through pacts. They have a significantly different flavor and a significantly different mechanical framework, which makes them both worthy of inclusion.


Third of all, putting them all under one roof would deprive people of the options that they might like. Making all casters work one way will make people who don't like casters working that way unhappy. Some people will be much happier playing a Warlock with their encounter powers and rituals than they would be playing a Sorcerer with their spell points and bloodline manifestations. They're very different classes. Culling them would be depriving players of playstyles.


At the end of the day it will always be your group's decision which classes exist in your campaign and which ones don't.

 

[Sadrik]

God, I will pitch the PHB across the room if ranger is nothing but "lightly armored fighter with tracking and dual wielding", sorcerer is "wizard with spell points" or paladin is "cleric with less spells and longsword".

Rem, you seem to be making my point here. Ultimately there has to be some mechanical interest. But there doesn't have to be a scripted backstory to each of these classes. I as the DM want to write that scripted backstory myself. Or I want the designers of a setting to write that backstory. I would not mind if the backstory was presented as an option next to the class. This way everyone would be happy. It would also allow the classes to be fundamentally modified by a different setting. So my argument is not that I do not want there to be a scripted backstory. I don't want it to be nailed to only one scripted backstory.

Ultimately it comes down to tastes. If you only use D&D for greyhawk or forgotten realms, Having an easily accessible backstory written directly into the character class is good for you but not for everyone. For instance, if you do Ravenloft or dark sun or the myriads of other settings that people play that are not encapsulated in the scripted backstory being so far presented in the players handbook it can be frustrating.

Really this seems like a nonissue almost, because they have provided a huge bonus to all of us in the form of backgrounds and specialties. This is an area where everyone can be happy. This is an area where they can draw upon strong scripted back stories. I would not have a problem with this. As the quintessential D&D setting is Greyhawk. Make most of the backgrounds and themes applicable to that setting. Have these presented in the PHB, along with all the Greyhawk gods and any other setting considerations.