D&D 5E What about warlocks and sorcerers?

[variant]

Just because something was added does not mean it always has to be added from now on. There have been many, many additions to worlds that have been forgotten or handwaved away.

That's your opinion, one that I guarantee is in the minority.

 

[MoonSong]

That's the default yes, and it works fine if I play the Forgotten Realms.

But if I want to use D&D to play, say a game in the Harry Potter universe but during the Dark Ages then magic users are both sorcerers (as magic is apparently genetic) and wizards (as you need to study how to use it for half a decade). And the D&D distinction between "sorcerer" and "wizard" is redundant.
Or if I want to play in a homebrew where gaining arcane magic involves making a pact with an elemental spirit that inhabits the body of the mage then wizards overlap with warlocks and the distinction there is redundant.

Having a wizard, and sorcerer, and warlock makes assumptions that there are different ways to gain arcane power. Having just a mage suggests there might be one or there might be many, but leaves the specifics up to the DM and the setting.

You know, having a not-so generic yet all purpose, all-encompassing Mage class like the current one doesn't help either, because the odds are it will have unwanted bagage anyway, the only way to approach that kind of flexibility is by going classless on a point buy scale, or by homebrewing if you don't care about the balance. On any case having three different classes as models for reference make this easier than having one monolitic with some modualrity but still heavily hardcodded on one direction.

The only thing that matters is if the content is in the core rules to play in a typical D&D world. Anything else can be put in the respective campaign setting. If you want to use D&D for your own setting that isn't similar to a typical D&D setting, it is your responsibility to come up with any rule and fluff changes that fit it.

I wish I could give more xp

 

[MoonSong]

And they somehow managed to do that without distinct classes for twenty years.
It was always possible for someone to say "I just naturally know magic" or "I made a deal in exchange for magical talent". There just wasn't a class for it and it was a flavourful background.
We don't need a separate class for barbarian raised by a tribe and a barbarian raised by wolves.

But no matter what you still were stuck with a spellbook and needed to be a bookworm, because the mechanics get in the way of anything else, simply because despite claims of the opossite the old MU or Mage wasn't generic at all. Want to see what a genric mage looks like? check microlite, that mage is truly a generic mage that can be flavored anyway you fancy. An oldschool mage? I don't think so, there is too much academic bagage on it

Just because something was added does not mean it always has to be added from now on. There have been many, many additions to worlds that have been forgotten or handwaved away.

Not the best of the attitudes for an edition that is supossed to be about unity. But yes you are right no need to cling on to recent additions, it isn't as if it was impossible to go back to older editions. But yet sorcerers, walrocks and warlords are one of the few reasons I have to want to play the newest editions, without them I see no need to play anything other than 2e.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If WotC wants alternative casting methods in the game that people can choose to use (which it appears they do)... their choices are either just a strict mechanical explanation in the DMG of those alternate methods... or illustrate them by overlaying a narrative and story on top of the mechanics, just like is done with every other class in the game.

Thus the warlock and sorcerer serve a purpose. They give story to bland mechanics, which seems to be something WotC always wants to do. They don't want mechanics without reason. If there's a mechanic they're putting in... there has to be a narrative reason for its existence.

Thus the question is... what is gained (if anything) by putting them into the 5E's version of the "Arcane Power Source", known as the Mage class? Is there a reason? There's the one I think Rodney Thompson mentioned, which was being able to assign magic items to all three classes in one fell swoop (and that's probably true with other rules/stuff that they'd want to apply to all three classes that they just haven't mentioned yet.) Then there's another reason... which I think is more psychological than anything:

Players seem to have a harder time taking stuff away from something in existence and replacing it with something else... than they do creating something out of several parts. For some reason, that seems to sit weird with a lot of people. So if the wizard, sorcerer, and warlock were all three separate classes... in order for someone to decide they wanted to play a wizard but not want to use the pseudo-Vancian casting... they'd have to select the wizard class, strip out the casting method, and then replace it with the casting method of either the warlock or sorcerer.

This is opposed to the other way... which would be that a person would decide they want to play an arcane caster, so they decide to play a mage... and they create their mage by taking the narrative of the wizard and the casting method of the warlock or the sorcerer. They are building up, not tearing down.

It is a very subtle difference there... but I think its a psychological one that does seem to have credence. It seems a much more positive experience. If you come into the game knowing that if you want to be an arcane spellcaster, you're going to play a Mage... creating that mage out of a couple parts that work for you (if that's what you choose to do) is more satisfying than having to deconstruct a class first, before then adding in other parts.

Personally? I think that psychological difference is so miniscule that I have no way of even considering that as a real problem... but I know I ain't most people. They get hung up on all sorts of things. And wanting to play a Wizard but having to break it apart first seems less satisfying that wanting to play a Mage and taking the best parts available to create it.

 

[Jester David]

You know, having a not-so generic yet all purpose, all-encompassing Mage class like the current one doesn't help either, because the odds are it will have unwanted baggage anyway, the only way to approach that kind of flexibility is by going classless on a point buy scale, or by homebrewing if you don't care about the balance. On any case having three different classes as models for reference make this easier than having one monolitic with some modualrity but still heavily hardcodded on one direction.

I disagree. It's easier to have one flexible baseline built for maximum modularity and variability and multiple provided options on how to vary that class than three less flexible variants.

But if more options is what you want there are other candidates than just the sorcerer and the warlock.
Why not the elemental sha'ir? It combines the two into a single alternate class.
Or the more flavourful and distinct Dragonlance sorcerer? It can only work with the elements and not abstract forces, which differentiates the two in terms of spell selection instead of just casting.
What about the wu jen? It was in 1e and 3e (both 3.0 and 3.5) as a class and 2e as a kit so it's been around far longer than the sorcerer or warlock.

The warlock and sorcerer are distinct only because of their newness. A class should offer something else to the game other than being conveniently recent.

 

[Jester David]

But no matter what you still were stuck with a spellbook and needed to be a bookworm, because the mechanics get in the way of anything else, simply because despite claims of the opossite the old MU or Mage wasn't generic at all. Want to see what a genric mage looks like? check microlite, that mage is truly a generic mage that can be flavored anyway you fancy. An oldschool mage? I don't think so, there is too much academic bagage on it

There is alway going to be some elements of a character's mechanics that do not perfectly match the character's story. That's where imagination comes in. Or house rules with a DM.

For example, right now there's not a lot of mechanics for mounted combat. But if I want to play the archetypal knight, the master of the Lists and expert jouster. But I don't want magic. Then I'm just going to have to accept the fighter and handwave away the fact that anyone can mount up and ride just as good as me.
However, this does not mean the game needs a cavalier class. Even though it's an established class that's been been in one edition. Two if you count the fighter kit. Three if you count the 3.5e knight. Four if you count the 4e Essentials paladin.

 

[variant]

The warlock and sorcerer are distinct only because of their newness. A class should offer something else to the game other than being conveniently recent.

How well it is liked is the major determining factor. Both the Sorcerer and Warlock are popular classes that were introduced in the most popular version of D&D. Both offer spellcasting systems that are different than the Vancian system found in the Wizard and it adds them without turning over the apple cart that is the Wizard. The sacrosanctness of the Sorcerer was apparent when they went back to the drawing board after presenting the new Sorcerer class to us. The Warlock was popular enough to make it in the 4e PHB1 over the Bard.

 

[Jester David]

Just because something was added does not mean it always has to be added from now on. There have been many, many additions to worlds that have been forgotten or handwaved away.

That's your opinion, one that I guarantee is in the minority.

Cool, so everything that was ever added now has to be added?
Sweet, I get my archivist again. And the jester class from Dragon.

How well it is liked is the major determining factor. Both the Sorcerer and Warlock are popular classes that were introduced in the most popular version of D&D. Both offer spellcasting systems that are different than the Vancian system found in the Wizard and it adds them without turning over the apple cart that is the Wizard. The sacrosanctness of the Sorcerer was apparent when they went back to the drawing board after presenting the new Sorcerer class to us. The Warlock was popular enough to make it in the 4e PHB1 over the Bard.

Oh, so it's a popularity contest.
Well, this poll doesn't show the warlock particularly high. And the sorcerer isn't doing particularly well either. Not really the breakout stars one might think from all the fuss.


I acknowledge the classes have fans. Every class is someone's favourite. But you can't update everything. And classes take up a lot of space and are a lot of work to playtest and balance. Classes in the playtest take up an average of four pages. But I imagine in the final draft this will balloon to eight as they add subclasses and flavour text.
I'd much rather have twelve pages of new backgrounds, feats, or rules modules and four pages of a warlock & sorcerer subclass than sixteen pages of two additional classes and fewer other options.

 

[Jester David]

How well it is liked is the major determining factor. Both the Sorcerer and Warlock are popular classes that were introduced in the most popular version of D&D. Both offer spellcasting systems that are different than the Vancian system found in the Wizard and it adds them without turning over the apple cart that is the Wizard. The sacrosanctness of the Sorcerer was apparent when they went back to the drawing board after presenting the new Sorcerer class to us. The Warlock was popular enough to make it in the 4e PHB1 over the Bard.

Oh and...
1) the most popular edition of D&D remains 1st edition. It's sales were much higher than anything we've seen since.
2) Offering different spellcasting systems means squat when the game is designed for you to be able to swap in and out a couple different types of spellcasting.

 

[variant]

Oh, so it's a popularity contest.
Well, this poll doesn't show the warlock particularly high. And the sorcerer isn't doing particularly well either. Not really the breakout stars one might think from all the fuss.

That isn't exactly a poll of every class that has ever existed. It's also not a scientific poll. It's especially dubious since the poll took place in early 2012, before the D&D Next playtest, on a website that many of us quit frequenting after 4e was released. Despite that it shows that the Barbarian should get cut long before the Warlock or Sorcerer does and the Monk and Druid should have equal chance of being removed as the Sorcerer.

I acknowledge the classes have fans. Every class is someone's favourite. But you can't update everything. And classes take up a lot of space and are a lot of work to playtest and balance. Classes in the playtest take up an average of four pages. But I imagine in the final draft this will balloon to eight as they add subclasses and flavour text.
I'd much rather have twelve pages of new backgrounds, feats, or rules modules and four pages of a warlock & sorcerer subclass than sixteen pages of two additional classes and fewer other options.

You may, I wouldn't. Bringing my characters over to 5e is a priority if I plan on playing it.