D&D 5E What about warlocks and sorcerers?

[Manbearcat]

I think it would be a pretty terrible idea to put Sorcerer and Warlock under the rubric and portfolio of a Mage Tradition or subclass. They're entirely different beasts (from each other and from the Wizard) thematically, mechanically, and physically from the Wizard/Mage. The extent of their overlap consists of arcane spellcasting, exposure to arcana, and Warlocks being entrenched in occult/forbidden lore. Either as "a collection of player assets to deploy" or "a career story", they are further from the Wizard than the Ranger and Barbarian are from the Fighter and there are separate classes to differentiate those two archetypes.

 

[gyor]

I think Mage is more of a metaclass, with Classes you can choose from each of which will have subclasses you can choose from. I mean I doubt you'll be able to choose Warlock and the Wizard Subclass or the Wizard and the Sorcery Dragonblood line.

 

[gyor]

I think Mage is more of a metaclass, with Classes you can choose from each of which will have subclasses you can choose from. I mean I doubt you'll be able to choose Warlock and the Wizard Subclass or the Wizard and the Sorcery Dragonblood line.

 

[Dausuul]

I think it would be a pretty terrible idea to put Sorcerer and Warlock under the rubric and portfolio of a Mage Tradition or subclass. They're entirely different beasts (from each other and from the Wizard) thematically, mechanically, and physically from the Wizard/Mage.

Mechanically? In 3E, the mechanical differences between sorceror and wizard consisted mainly of "wizards prepare spells, sorcerors don't" and "sorcerors do it with Charisma." The general theme was that sorcerors were "natural wizards," people who had magic in their blood and could therefore do instinctively what wizards studied to learn.

Now, warlocks, I agree--those have always been mechanically quite distinct from wizards.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Why should every conceivable type of arcane magic user be under one class? That's like making barbarians, paladins and rangers subclasses of fighter, and making druids a subclass of cleric. It's completely inconsistent to treat arcane magic users differently. If a class is broad enough of a concept that it itself can have subclasses, it deserves to be its own class. Since sorcerers can have bloodlines and warlocks can have pacts, they deserve to be their own classes. If you put those classes under the mage, they either need to not have subclasses of their own (making them boring and shallow), or you give them subclasses of their own, and then you end up with this bizarre 3-level deep subclass hierarchy within the mage class that's not found in any other class.

 

[Falling Icicle]

We have this problem, that alternate spellcasting mechanics apparently need to be tied in to some narrative description to create I suppose some consistency between rules and the fantasy world, but on the other hand there are people who want the mechanics but not the narrative baggage, or want the narrative baggage of Warlocks and Sorcerer but are fine with the standard spellcasting rules.

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

Overall I would have preferred either that (1) each single class had its own spellcasting mechanic, like it was 1 year ago with vancian Wizard, semi-vancian Cleric (as spellcasters are all today), spell-points Sorcerer, encounter-based Warlock, or (2) that everyone has the same spellcasting mechanic (like now) but with a generalized option in the DMG to replace it with alternative mechanics.

As someone who cares about the warlock very much (it was one of my favorite classes in 3.5), the very last thing I want to see is for the class to be made into some vancian-by-default mage variant. I can think of few things that could turn me off from 5e more. So I really hope it's (1).

 

[MoonSong]

"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.

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.

Probably from some point of view sorcerers are only "a wizard with a different casting system", but let me tell you that is simply not the case, they are a different archetype with a distinct story which enables a whole lot of characters that are impossible with the MU's story. Characters that could equally come from any place, poor, rich, idiotic, supergenius, slave, freemen, foundlings; instead of just a variation on "supergenius who went to wizard school/studied with master one". Characters for whom arcane power isn't an externality, but an exension of the self. Characters who can honestly doubt if their magic is a boon or a curse. This was never about casting mechanics, but about the character background and life experiences and how are they supported or impeded by the mechanics. -and let me tell you that mechanics designed for the learned spellcaster are not only bad at supporting it; they actively get in the way-, the 3e sorcerer is still a poor fit, but doesn't get in the way and has the basics, the 3.5 one gets better at it (and IMO its the one who gets the best balance between support and not getting in the way), the PF sorcerer and the 4e ones are even better at supporting this kind of character, their problem being they hardcoded too much, taking some of the flexibility away (just like the dragon sorcerer we saw last year on the test)

This isn't about mechanics, I played 2e bards and clerics who cast exactly the same way as mages, yet I have so far only played one mage and it was because I had no other choice at the time; and in 3.x I played clerics and healers (who don't get the benefit of spontaneously converting to cures), yet I have no interest on playing a wizard (unless shooting for being a very incompetent one). Because it is all about the archetype not the mechanics.

And that is the whole point, we've already had four "ok" but not great instances of the sorcerer when the designers were trying, what can we hope if the aren't even trying?

 

[Manbearcat]

Mechanically? In 3E, the mechanical differences between sorceror and wizard consisted mainly of "wizards prepare spells, sorcerors don't" and "sorcerors do it with Charisma." The general theme was that sorcerors were "natural wizards," people who had magic in their blood and could therefore do instinctively what wizards studied to learn.

Now, warlocks, I agree--those have always been mechanically quite distinct from wizards.

1) Every class-based "D&D" iteration (that is included on these forums) post 3.x (4e, Pathfinder, 13th Age) have a Sorcerer that is robustly differentiated from the Wizard thematically, mechanically, and physically via natural bloodlines or "soul-based" sources of their arcane power...replete with different spell-casting mechanics, class features (Draconic, Elemental or Wild Magic manifestations; eg breath weapons, flying, summoning wind/lightning/thunder, hardened scales and claws, leveraging chaos itself or gambling on entropic forces, etc), armor/weapon/implement proficiencies and general hardiness.

2) I look to the 3.x Prestige Classes for the robustness in the differentiation of the archetypes...and it is deep. Unfortunately, the original 3e iteration of the classes were just the most generic of chassis (much like the Fighter) so there isn't much there. However, the Prestige Classes twixt the two classes (where the depth of career progress, and thus thematic material, rounds out the archetype) represent very different design space and themes.

 

[Warbringer]

I hope that Mearls and Co are listening (and we will find out soon enough) that the Sorcerer needs to be a distinct class/archetype. If we can maintain the distinct nature of the druid separate from the cleric, I'm sure we can find a way to have 2 distinct arcane casters - and I consider a bard to be a rouge-gish...

 

[Jester David]

Characters that could equally come from any place, poor, rich, idiotic, supergenius, slave, freemen, foundlings; instead of just a variation on "supergenius who went to wizard school/studied with master one".

True, and that should be a reflection of the character's Background not their class.

Characters for whom arcane power isn't an externality, but an exension of the self. Characters who can honestly doubt if their magic is a boon or a curse.

That's up to world lore. I can imagine worlds were magic is both inborn and taught, ala Harry Potter where not everyone can learn magic. This should be independant of class and dependent on the campaign.

This isn't about mechanics, I played 2e bards and clerics who cast exactly the same way as mages, yet I have so far only played one mage and it was because I had no other choice at the time; and in 3.x I played clerics and healers (who don't get the benefit of spontaneously converting to cures), yet I have no interest on playing a wizard (unless shooting for being a very incompetent one). Because it is all about the archetype not the mechanics.

You don't need two mechanically identical classes whose only distinction is spellcasting stat and lore. We don't need both a rogue and a ninja, or a fighter and a cavalier, and we don't really need a sorcerer and a wizard. You can just have a mage as a mega class that works as a wizard, and warlock, and sorcerer, and artificer. With subclasses modifying the class to fit, just like you can have a fighter that's a fencer, two-weapon user, archer, or great weapon wielder.