I would have liked a poll that broke it out by class; I think the artificer really does make sense as a variant mage, and I could see sorcerors going either way. However, if the choice is all or nothing, then I choose to make them all separate classes. Warlock and psion have no business being folded into wizards.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 5E Do you want the Sorcerer, Warlock, Psion, and Artificer separate from the Mage class?
- Thread starter variant
- Start date
S
Sunseeker
Guest
Sorcerer/Wizard: a person with natural magical ability who simply didn't dedicate themselves to studying the arcane arts as a wizard did. Or perhaps, a person with raw natural talent who uses arcane study to expand their repertoire.
Paladin/Fighter: same concept, a more "rough and tumble" type paladin, one who focuses on the more martial aspects of paladinhood with only minimal godly aid. Perhaps a repentant soul who has joined the Order later in life and is thusly lagging behind the paladinly arts than the paladin who has been raised in the Order since a child.
I really wouldn't recommend either from a "useful build" perspective, but conceptually, they're sound.
They have gone for a sort of a cross between 2nd and 3rd Edition, in 2nd Ed you had 4 Groupings (classes within each group):
-Priest: Cleric, Druid, Specialist.
-Rogue: Bard, Thief, Ninja (added later).
-Warrior: Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian (added later).
-Wizard: Mage, Specialist.
Now we have 10 groupings (classes), classes (subclasses) within each group.
I believe they mentioned settings containing subclasses, so a Dark Sun book might have new subclasses for each class, same with Ravenloft (Rogue: gypsy, etc), etc.
-Priest: Cleric, Druid, Specialist.
-Rogue: Bard, Thief, Ninja (added later).
-Warrior: Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian (added later).
-Wizard: Mage, Specialist.
Now we have 10 groupings (classes), classes (subclasses) within each group.
I believe they mentioned settings containing subclasses, so a Dark Sun book might have new subclasses for each class, same with Ravenloft (Rogue: gypsy, etc), etc.
Last edited:
lutecius
Explorer
No. or rather, I don't want cool spells and variant casting systems to be monopolized by these classes at the expense of the regular mage. For example I really dislike Vancian and prefer spell-points but I don't particularly care for psionics. the new approach lets me pick and chose the theme and main mechanic for every type of mage.
I imagine variant systems don't need to be exclusive and all casters could have access to them but without this kind of niche protection or a really different spell list to set them apart from the Mage, the other classes would have to be very different in other aspects. A lot more than they were in 3e.
This is especially true for the Sorcerer. I don't think being just a bit less squishy and having a couple of variant minor class features is enough to justify a whole separate class. The bloodline fluff can easily added to a Mage tradition and things like potions and scrolls can be replaced without changing the base class dynamic (do we know that every subclass is meant to have them?)
The others may be trickier but the Warlock's "scary" stuff shouldn't be too hard to implement as spells (it would make sense too) and, I admit this is a bold change but, to me a "mind mage" Psion will better fit in default D&D than the whole "arbitrary combination of 19th century pseudoscience + Asian mysticism + New Age crystals that looks very much like magic but really isn't".
The obvious advantage of combining them all is that it avoids a lot of redundancies. Do we need, for example, an elementalist school, an elemental bloodline and an elemental pact? If not, which class is going to get the elemental theme?
As for multiclassing, these subclasses already use the same spells and it shouldn't be too hard to give access to other features at some point... or do people really want to mix different spell progressions and casting methods?
Now I don't mind these classes being separate if they become truly different, something along the lines of the first Sorcerer and Warlock previews or better, an actual gish but again, I don't want spontaneous spellcasting primarily associated to them while the Mage is stuck with Vancian and some obscure, barely supported variant thrown in the DMG. At least if the Mage is supposed to cover all these classes, there's hope the non-Vancian options will get proper treatment.
But as always, the devil is in the details.
I imagine variant systems don't need to be exclusive and all casters could have access to them but without this kind of niche protection or a really different spell list to set them apart from the Mage, the other classes would have to be very different in other aspects. A lot more than they were in 3e.
This is especially true for the Sorcerer. I don't think being just a bit less squishy and having a couple of variant minor class features is enough to justify a whole separate class. The bloodline fluff can easily added to a Mage tradition and things like potions and scrolls can be replaced without changing the base class dynamic (do we know that every subclass is meant to have them?)
The others may be trickier but the Warlock's "scary" stuff shouldn't be too hard to implement as spells (it would make sense too) and, I admit this is a bold change but, to me a "mind mage" Psion will better fit in default D&D than the whole "arbitrary combination of 19th century pseudoscience + Asian mysticism + New Age crystals that looks very much like magic but really isn't".
The obvious advantage of combining them all is that it avoids a lot of redundancies. Do we need, for example, an elementalist school, an elemental bloodline and an elemental pact? If not, which class is going to get the elemental theme?
As for multiclassing, these subclasses already use the same spells and it shouldn't be too hard to give access to other features at some point... or do people really want to mix different spell progressions and casting methods?
Now I don't mind these classes being separate if they become truly different, something along the lines of the first Sorcerer and Warlock previews or better, an actual gish but again, I don't want spontaneous spellcasting primarily associated to them while the Mage is stuck with Vancian and some obscure, barely supported variant thrown in the DMG. At least if the Mage is supposed to cover all these classes, there's hope the non-Vancian options will get proper treatment.
But as always, the devil is in the details.
Last edited:
Olgar Shiverstone
Legend
Lots and none at all.
The Sorcerer, Wizard, and Artificer I can see as Mage subclasses.
The Warlock I'm undecided on, but would lean toward separate class.
The Psion definitely needs todie in a fire be a separate class.
The Sorcerer, Wizard, and Artificer I can see as Mage subclasses.
The Warlock I'm undecided on, but would lean toward separate class.
The Psion definitely needs to
No, primary caster types can all fit in the same tent, but then I think the only reason the Paladin is a separate class is historical, political reasons.
(The ranger feels enough like its own class to me -- it's the modern B/X Elf!)
This feels like a back-door into limiting the wizard's flexibility, which seems to me like a great idea.
I don't love the axes they've chosen -- Illusionist AND Enchanter?! I'd rather just have Beguiler and cover both -- but bundling the casters together implies limits on each's genericity.
But seriously, I have no idea what to do with the paladin and barbarian.
(The ranger feels enough like its own class to me -- it's the modern B/X Elf!)
This feels like a back-door into limiting the wizard's flexibility, which seems to me like a great idea.
I don't love the axes they've chosen -- Illusionist AND Enchanter?! I'd rather just have Beguiler and cover both -- but bundling the casters together implies limits on each's genericity.
But seriously, I have no idea what to do with the paladin and barbarian.
They are mostly synonymous with one another, Merlin has been referred to as many, your average person will not differentiate the difference between an arcanist, mage, necromancer, wizard, sorcerer, warlock, enchanter, witch, etc, etc.
