D&D 5E What about warlocks and sorcerers?

[MoonSong]

Again, take a look at the wizard class. Compare it to the other full casters.
The cleric and the druid have their sprellcasting detailed under a class feature called "spellcasting". But the mage doesn't. It has it under "wizardry" which includes casting using Int and the spellbook.

So it would be super easy to replace "wizardry" with "sorcerery" and keep the same class but cast with Cha and not have a spellbook.

Oh, and look what the subclasses are called. It's not "School of Enchantment", it's "Wizardry: School of Enchantment". Suggesting there could be subclasses called Sorcerery: Wild Magic or Sorcerery: Elementalism.

This seems to be going in circles, my example was meant to show that the d&d wizard has never been a generic wizard, but rather it's particular brand of wizard that doesn't lends itself to be other things. Second, I've already detailed on this same thread that it isn't just the thing placed uinder "Wizardry" that is wrong for the sorcerer and warlock, EVERYTHING (ok probably overstating, a lot of things ) on the class write up is a poor fit, from Esoteric lore (shouldn't be enforced into sorcerers), to scrolls(not very befitting of warlocks nor sorcerers), and potions (maybe could fit if we see warlocks as witches), even the narrative assumes a scholarly caster. In other words the Mage is a D&D wizard and fails to cover sorcerers and warlocks propperly. (Not to mention Light armor and all simple weapons don't quite make up for the loss of ritual caster, and that spell mastery doesn't work outside a slot based preppared caster)

And one more thing, more than the spellbook, Spell Prepparation runs counter to what a sorcerer is, sorcerers are about being reactive and adapt on the run, not about the careful planning that results from prepparing spells.

It was on the WotC during the run of 4e, so it likely largely favoured 4e players.

Still my point remains, the data, even if considered good, doesn't says they can be safely removed, actually the oposite, if someone cared to analyze the numbers we'd find most classes but rogue and wizard are nearly the same within what is statistically significant, a 1-2 percent difference is small taking into account the error margin is very likely 5% or something. Now since this is also skewed towards 4e players it proves nothing of OSR, 2e and 3.x players.

 

[Li Shenron]

Actually, according to the designers the 3e sorcerer was created to add another class that used the wizard's spell list, so multiple classes could use that content. Adding slighting different Vancian casting was a perk.

Err... that's not at all what I remembered. Do you remember who said this? It sounds a tautology to me "to create another class so multiple classes could use the same content", I would expect they create another class because they think the game needs (or benefits from) another class.

I'd really like to know which designers declared that, and make sure I double-check before buying stuff written by them, because whoever thinks that the spellcasting different between a 3e Wizard and a 3e Sorcerer was "a perk", clearly has never played both (or has played them in a game so soft they had to cast spells only rarely), since they were very different in tactical and strategic terms, even if they had the exact same spells (except that normally they didn't, since their different spellcasting methods naturally lead to different spells selections).

I'd rather say that their different skill list was a perk, that Wizard's bonus feats were a perk, maybe even the Int/Cha difference was a perk (a huge one this one, since in practice it made Wizards also sages and Sorcerers also frontmen), but the different spellcasting was definitely not a perk.

They're talking about adding two different spellcasting mechanics to 5e as options: spell points and a power system ala 4e. So you can make any caster into a spell point user or a power user.
Assuming that's reasonably balanced, there'll be two ways to make a mage that's completely different from a Vancian mage. Which does mute the need for the sorcerer.

This is an approach that I would understand, and generally approve, even tho I still prefer the opposite (i.e. each class, own spellcasting method). After all, I have used the spontaneous divine casters from 3ed Unearthed Arcana and thought they were totally fine. It should be possible to make the alternative systems balanced enough.

However I don't think this is what they are doing... they are giving all classes the same spellcasting mechanic, except for Mage which will have 3 alternate mechanics with flavor attached.

Subclasses will work differently for the Mage, because Wizardry subclasses will work only for Wizards, Sorcery subclasses only for Sorcerer and Witchcraft subclasses only for Warlock. Nothing wrong with this, except that this would be exactly the same that would happen anyway with 3 separate classes, only now the designers must design all these subclasses following the same scheme (number of features, exact levels) instead of being more free if necessary. Furthermore, non-subclass features will be identical for all 3 types of Mages, like it or not.

 

[Jester David]

Err... that's not at all what I remembered. Do you remember who said this? It sounds a tautology to me "to create another class so multiple classes could use the same content", I would expect they create another class because they think the game needs (or benefits from) another class.

I'd really like to know which designers declared that, and make sure I double-check before buying stuff written by them, because whoever thinks that the spellcasting different between a 3e Wizard and a 3e Sorcerer was "a perk", clearly has never played both (or has played them in a game so soft they had to cast spells only rarely), since they were very different in tactical and strategic terms, even if they had the exact same spells (except that normally they didn't, since their different spellcasting methods naturally lead to different spells selections).

I'd rather say that their different skill list was a perk, that Wizard's bonus feats were a perk, maybe even the Int/Cha difference was a perk (a huge one this one, since in practice it made Wizards also sages and Sorcerers also frontmen), but the different spellcasting was definitely not a perk.

I believe it was Rich Baker but darned if I can find it. I remember it coming up in a couple places. Maybe one of the official Podcasts.
While creating 3e, they were being encouraged to add a second arcane class so the wizard spells would be used by more than just the wizard, which was the primary reason for the sorcerer. They were also considering a third class that got cut and curiously has never been seen.

 

[pemerton]

spell mastery doesn't work outside a slot based preppared caster

I don't see why. It gives you two spells at-will: that doesn't seem dependant upon slots, nor upon preparation. The bit where you change your two spells with 8 hours study is closer to preparation, but maybe the warlock is communing with his/her pact overlord, and the sorcerer drawing in new powers from the universe.

 

[Sadrik]

Something to consider with this is the idea that we will see a gish type warrior/arcane caster. We have a ranger warrior/druid caster and a paladin warrior/divine caster and we have not seen the bard yet but I am guessing it will be a warrior/arcane caster. So, I think making the background of sorcery or wizardry or pacts tacked onto the bard based on your own back story would be pretty neat. If the spell point and at-will are only limited to certain classes then this makes the bard weaker, not to mention the other classes all round.

There are three things going on here:
Mechanics (vancian, spell point, at-will)
Fluff (knowledge, innate, granted) (INT, WIS, CHA?)
Class (package of abilities and options)

I think you simply build your caster. Pick your class, pick your fluff and mechanic. I don't think every wizard has to use vancian for instance. I think granted at-will for cleric would be fantastic. I also think the psionic caster when it arrives should have these same options.

 

[MoonSong]

I don't see why. It gives you two spells at-will: that doesn't seem dependant upon slots, nor upon preparation. The bit where you change your two spells with 8 hours study is closer to preparation, but maybe the warlock is communing with his/her pact overlord, and the sorcerer drawing in new powers from the universe.

For warlocks:
A warlock's power isn't even measured by the day, they are already tireless -or should be- be it all of their powers are at-will already, or a considerable bunch of them are anyway while the others can be used constantly, an ability designed to give daily slot casters two at wills is of little use to them.

For sorcerers:
An important part of the sorcerer is that their spells aren't commodities, but rather an intimate facet of themselves, the stable and unchanging nature of their spells is what allows them to feel inherently magical -yes even for the archaic 3.0 sorcerer-, they cannot toss them and change them at the drop of a hat more than one cannot spontaneusly drop an arm and have a differetn one grow on it's place. Given that Rituals are most likely out, and they are going to use the same number of slots as the uber flexible wizard, this ability comes a little too late and benefits the already more powerfull wizards more. Also sorcerers don't draw their magic form the universe -ok cosmic sorcerers do, but the rest don't-.

 

[Dausuul]

The stated goal- and I think it's a good one- is to have everything from a PH1 in the game at release.

Thus- warlord, in; dragonfire adept, out. Assassin, in; invoker out. Druid, monk, warlock in; runepriest, spellthief, sohei out.

Nitpicking here, but invoker did in fact exist in the 2E Player's Handbook. Of course, it was totally different from the 4E invoker; it was a wizard specializing in Invocation/Evocation.

 

[the Jester]

For sorcerers:
An important part of the sorcerer is that their spells aren't commodities, but rather an intimate facet of themselves, the stable and unchanging nature of their spells is what allows them to feel inherently magical -yes even for the archaic 3.0 sorcerer-, they cannot toss them and change them at the drop of a hat more than one cannot spontaneusly drop an arm and have a differetn one grow on it's place.

That's partially true, but 3e had optional retraining rules for everyone, 3.5 let sorcerers retrain some spells at level up (IIRC) and they're fully part of the core system in 4e, so only partially. Yeah, they can't change them "at the drop of a hat", but they can when they put on a new outfit, if you will.

Given that Rituals are most likely out...

Where's this come from? I think rituals are awesome and I hope they stay in the game.

...and they are going to use the same number of slots as the uber flexible wizard...

Again- where do you get this? I haven't heard this one either, and I've tried to follow the designer discussions pretty closely. Is this speculation or do you have something to back it up?

Also sorcerers don't draw their magic form the universe -ok cosmic sorcerers do, but the rest don't-.

That's flavor. If sorcerers in your campaign don't, that's fine, but if in my campaign sorcerers do draw their magic from the universe, please don't tell me I'm doing it wrong.

 

[the Jester]

Nitpicking here, but invoker did in fact exist in the 2E Player's Handbook. Of course, it was totally different from the 4E invoker; it was a wizard specializing in Invocation/Evocation.

Oh, true, I forgot about that! ...I think we'll see an evoker in place of it, just as we did in 3e, once "invocation" was removed from the school.

 

[RangerWickett]

I spoke with one of the designers at Gen Con, and he implied that the gonzo stuff will probably come out later. The PHB will have the same old classes it had for 3 editions.