D&D 5E Psion, Sorcerer, and Warlock

Long time ago, psionic was an net addition to your current class. 1% chance or maybe less.
Obviously it was not good for balance, but this word was not in the glossary of old DnD.

Bloodline (draconic, fiend, fey, etc.)
Psionic
Dark pact
They all can be presented as net addition to any classes. Adding spell like, invocation, etc.
But today you can't give a player, without giving equivalent to all others. So we are screw.
sometime I miss old time.

I think we're also trained at how we look at these differences because of the class structure of D&D.

For instance, in a different context, an oracle would be a completely different thing then a necromancer. Someone who mastered all sorts of magics would be very different then someone who had a single theme. Can you point out three strong iconic characters that you think represent the "Abjurer" archetype - what, the abjurer isn't an archetype anywhere outside D&D you say?

I agree with the distinctions given above and in the classes as some valid paths to power. But if that's how to divine the classes is a different question. For example, an alchemist (lots of study and hard work) should not play the same as a "traditional" wizard even though they have the same path of master of arcane power. And we've seen Wizards try a Wizard (Artificer) and just recently replace it with a separate Artificer class even though both are the same path to power.

What that brings me to is that it's more the expression of power that needs seperate mechanics. Having two sets of mechanics that produce near-enough results (like wizard and sorcerer) are questionable - either make them much more distinct, or make them subclasses.

I like as little rules clutter as we need - but no less. I like the idea that different arcanists play differently, just like the rogue and the fighter play differently.

So what type of arcane archetypes do you see in fitting into a D&D-type world? From there we could come up with some classifications and figure out what we need from there.

[MENTION=20564]Blue[/MENTION] The basic reason we have what we have is because the supposedly generic-universal wizard isn't, instead it is quite specific and at the same time quite iconic and traditional inside D&D. Yes the sorcerer and wizard get to more or less similar results through different paths but that is because the paths themselves are important and distinct -I would argue that they are more distinct than what designers even acknowledge-. Could we get rid of the sorcerer? Yes maybe. But that would mean either the wizard would lose its iconicity and become more generic and less specific -which basically means the traditional wizard is lost- or the path of the sorcerer would be lost entirely. And it would be a shame to lose that path IMO.

Now if we weren't tied to D&D roots and tropes, of course we don't need both.

For me, Warlocks and Sorcerers could certainly cross train, but are far from the same.

Of course, I also feel free to portray warlocks more like John Constantine than the standard flavor, or more like a mentor relationship in some cases, or even just "I do deals with Fey more than anything else because I've some passing familiarity, but it's just deals, love. I'm not a complete pillock, am I? Who has the drinks, then? As I was saying, before I so rudely interrupted meself, it's a literal mountain of bees and honey, mate, I you not. "