D&D 5E What about warlocks and sorcerers?

[Sadrik]

Even if they are under Mage, I think it could work. The Mage can support alternative spellcasting systems including a spell point system and I think I remember Mearls mentioned a at-will casting system which did sound like the Warlock system. We just haven't seen what form these systems will turn out.

I am of the opinion less is more. And making them subclasses in my mind is a good avenue. If all the class features can be replaced to give a feel for the warlock and the sorcerer I am all for it. The only consideration in my mind is multi-classing, do you want to be a mage/warlock? Idk. On the flip side also, should the druid and cleric have two other versions of themselves? Sorcery is clearly a different tradition in my mind. You could make a slight argument for warlocks being their own class because traditionally they have had such different casting mechanic. I think that is just it though, it is a different casting mechanic for an arcane spell user... another tradition (sub-class).

In my book this bodes well, for my interpretation of what the game should look like. Shades of grey classes with alternate casting methodologies says sub-class. The fluff can be accommodated the mechanics are what matter.

 

[Sadrik]

Among other things, what if someone wants alternative spellcasting mechanics but wants to play a Cleric or Druid?

We were on the same page here. LOL, nice.

 

[DEFCON 1]

On the flip side also, should the druid and cleric have two other versions of themselves?

I would say 'no'... for the simple fact (as Li Shenron pointed out) that there is no alternative narratives connected to these alternative casting methods for cleric or druids.

With bloodlines and pacts, the stories of the sorcerer and the warlock are more definitive and (I think) have much more traction and interest with the D&D gaming public than any "spell-point cleric" or "at-will druid" do. Does anyone really see as much of a character concept and narrative distinction between a cleric and an invoker versus the difference between a wizard and a warlock? I'd say no (at least on a large enough level across the entirety of D&D fans). Just based on stuff we read on boards here and elsewhere... Invokers or Favored Souls have always just seemed like clerics who cast funny, as opposed to an entirely different narrative.

So having the Sorcerer and Warlock as actual sub-classes means that their narrative story can be different, plus it allows WotC to introduce the alternative casting methods into the story... without just listing the generic mechanical explanation in the DMG with no narrative connection whatsoever. But by presenting those two alternative casting methods under the Mage... the mechanics are now readily available that *if* a particular player or DM preferred one of those methods to use for their cleric or druid (instead of the current form), they could go ahead and probably jerry-rig and adapt the Warlock or Sorcerer's mechanics into the cleric or druid class. Yeah... the player and DM would have to adjust the narrative and story of this alternative cleric/druid casting method themselves... but then again odds are also good that many people won't even care about the "story" about why a cleric in his/her particular game or campaign casts at-will or with spell-points, rather than the pseudo-Vancian method they currently have.

Players don't need the alternative casting methods to appear in the DMG with a tag that says "feel free to make your cleric or druid this way!" to actually make them do it. Those who want it will go ahead and adapt it themselves regardless. That's been the hallmark of the game since the beginning-- adapting the game to suit your needs regardless of what the game itself gives you.

 

[Dausuul]

"Mage with alternate casting method X" is exactly what the sorceror was created to be, so I don't see a problem with that. Warlocks, I'd agree with you, but I notice that the Mage class description mentions sorcerors and witches but carefully leaves warlocks off the list.

 

[1of3]

I notice that the Mage class description mentions sorcerors and witches but carefully leaves warlocks off the list.

Of course, warlock is sometimes considered the male word for witch. Although I prefer your interpretation.

 

[Dausuul]

Of course, warlock is sometimes considered the male word for witch. Although I prefer your interpretation.

D&D has kept them fairly distinct, though. I can recall two incarnations of the witch (the 2E kit and the 4E wizard build), and two of the warlock (the 3E and 4E classes). Both witches were variant wizards using essentially the same core mechanic, and both warlocks were distinct classes with their own unique core mechanics and power sets.

I have a feeling there was a witch in 3E, too, but darned if I can remember where.

 

[VinylTap]

I feel like people are still looking at these playtests as a continually building evolution, they're not. They're snap shots of select mechanics, the final game is likely to be a mix of mechanics that garnered the most positive feedback across all of the packets. There's no reason that Warlock and Sorc can't make an appearance in this packet as well-- and I think it would be a great idea for them too.

While they haven't said much about the September packet, I wouldn't be surprised if its the most comprehensive one we've seen. By adding all of the classes, they could have a "play test" that people could tinker with for the year it'll take for the published game to come out.

 

[DEFCON 1]

...but I notice that the Mage class description mentions sorcerors and witches but carefully leaves warlocks off the list.

Actually, they mention the traditions of 'sorcery' and 'witchcraft', not the actual class names themselves. So in this regard... since as far as I'm aware there is no "job" name for warlocks per se-- IE they don't practice "warlockism" or "warlockery"-- "witchcraft" is the closest capable word to use that warlocks and/or witches would fall under.

So maybe the class will be witch, maybe it'll be warlock, who knows yet? But in either case... the tradition will probably remain "witchcraft".

 

[Dausuul]

Given that D&D has historically had witch and warlock as distinct concepts within the game, I would be very surprised if 5E was so careless as to use "witchcraft" to denote warlock magic. "Warlockry" or "warlock pact" is what I would expect to see.

 

[Jester David]

It make sense that they'll be under the mage.

The sorcerer was always just a wizard with different spellcasting and a different fluff origin in 3e. And in 4e it was just the striker wizard. If you can add Willpower/ mana to every wizard or choose memorize boom spells, there's no real reason to have a separate sorcerer class. You can just use the mage and pick an archetype that let's you use Charisma to cast.

The warlock is also a wizard with different spellcasting, but with the added fluff of having a pact and patron. But, really, having spellcasters get their spells from an outside source is Worldbuilding or an origin story, not a class. You can easily imagine a campaign setting where all wizards must make a bargain for power.