D&D 5E Mage: Wizards, Sorcerers, Warlocks, Artificers, Psions, oh my.

[hayek]

My guess is they are going to make two versions of D&D. "basic" and "advanced". Basic is going to have 4 classes, Fighter, Mage, Cleric, & Rogue. Each of those will have a few progressions trees that go up to 10th level with a clean and simple DM manual. Those trees might point towards other advanced classes like Knight under Fighter pointing towards a Paladin. Or a Nature focused Cleric pointing towards a Druid.

Advanced will have Fighter, Mage, Cleric, Rogue, Druid, Bard, Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, and Monk. Each with lots of progression trees and with lots of ways to tweak that progression trees as you see fit. The DMG will cover how to convert Mage into a 3.5 sorcerer with spell points and maybe some new progression trees. Hopefully Artificers/Warlocks will be "unearthed arcana'ed" were they are ether their own class or a complete re-imagining of the Mage class in campaign books. I personally dont see any reason to include Artificers/Warlocks in any of the first set of rule books, and certainly not psions.

Wow... it took 5 pages of wild theories and strange conspiracy theories, but someone finally summarized a rational, reasonable view of what WOTC is thinking...

I must say, I'm entertained with the debate, but does anybody really, seriously care whether the sorcerer/warlock are technically subclasses or stand alone classes. well, obviously some people care, thus this thread exists. But do most people, like 99% really care whether the description and rules for playing a sorcerer are under the 'Mage' section of the book or the 'Sorcerer' section of the book? It's still gonna have its own rules and description and everything.

This thread is like a vociferous debate about whether to order a meat lover's pizza or a supreme pizza... i don't care, just order some food so we can get back to playing the game.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Wow... it took 5 pages of wild theories and strange conspiracy theories, but someone finally summarized a rational, reasonable view of what WOTC is thinking...

I must say, I'm entertained with the debate, but does anybody really, seriously care whether the sorcerer/warlock are technically subclasses or stand alone classes. well, obviously some people care, thus this thread exists. But do most people, like 99% really care whether the description and rules for playing a sorcerer are under the 'Mage' section of the book or the 'Sorcerer' section of the book? It's still gonna have its own rules and description and everything.

This thread is like a vociferous debate about whether to order a meat lover's pizza or a supreme pizza... i don't care, just order some food so we can get back to playing the game.

Yes. I really, seriously care. It's not just a matter of organization. If the decision to group wizards, sorcerers, warlocks, psions, etc. under a label called mage didn't mean those classes would have to share the same structure, same spells, similar class abilities (like psions having to have scribe scroll), and didn't prevent them from multiclassing with each other, nobody would care.

 

[Mistwell]

Yes. I really, seriously care. It's not just a matter of organization. If the decision to group wizards, sorcerers, warlocks, psions, etc. under a label called mage didn't mean those classes would have to share the same structure, same spells, similar class abilities (like psions having to have scribe scroll), and didn't prevent them from multiclassing with each other, nobody would care.

Provided they just have "class ability" on the main mage chart as opposed to a specific ability such as scribe scroll, I think they can get tremendous variation between mage sub-classes while still using a single base progression chart.

For example, I threw together this for Psion. It's just the standard mage chart, but with the class abilities filled in for the Psion:

You're getting pretty much everything you had with prior versions of the Psion, but still using the mage chart. All I did was change some names (which, for D&D Next, would be simply listing what the class abilities is that were generically mentioned on the base chart).

 

[TwoSix]

This thread is like a vociferous debate about whether to order a meat lover's pizza or a supreme pizza... i don't care, just order some food so we can get back to playing the game.

Well, I won't eat a supreme pizza because I hate mushrooms and olives. So, I guess it's a pretty apt metaphor!

 

[hayek]

Well, I won't eat a supreme pizza because I hate mushrooms and olives. So, I guess it's a pretty apt metaphor!

Touche.

 

[gyor]

The warlock maybe have spells of its own as well as Warlock Invocations. Eldrich Blast is pretty much a safe bet. Some spells maybe shared I don't know.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Provided they just have "class ability" on the main mage chart as opposed to a specific ability such as scribe scroll, I think they can get tremendous variation between mage sub-classes while still using a single base progression chart.

For example, I threw together this for Psion. It's just the standard mage chart, but with the class abilities filled in for the Psion:

You're getting pretty much everything you had with prior versions of the Psion, but still using the mage chart. All I did was change some names (which, for D&D Next, would be simply listing what the class abilities is that were generically mentioned on the base chart).

That isn't just using the mage chart. You're swapping spells per day with powers known, but keeping the same numbers. That's only bound to create confusion. And there's going to be a whole lot more information needed to explain psionics than just what you posted. Just giving all of the basic information is going to take a couple pages, at least, and then you have all of the disciplines, which is several pages more. Do that for the sorcerer and warlock as well, on top of the 8 mage specialty schools, and you now have a mage class that's going to take up as much pages as all of the other classes in the game combined. And even if they do what you're suggesting, they're going to have to post that chart again and again anyway, so at that point, what does having these as subclasses even accomplish? There's no reason not to just make them their own classes. None.

 

[Mistwell]

That isn't just using the mage chart. You're swapping spells per day with powers known, but keeping the same numbers.That's only bound to create confusion.

Why? Were you confused? What was unclear about it?

And there's going to be a whole lot more information needed to explain psionics than just what you posted.

Sure, but the need to put that information in there regardless of whether the class is a sub-class or its own thing. So, what's your objection to doing it this way?

Just giving all of the basic information is going to take a couple pages, at least, and then you have all of the disciplines, which is several pages more. Do that for the sorcerer and warlock as well, on top of the 8 mage specialty schools, and you now have a mage class that's going to take up as much pages as all of the other classes in the game combined.

Naw, obviously these sub-classes come in a supplement of their own, and the other classes will eventually get a lot of sub-classes in supplement books too. Psion is not going to be in the Player's Handbook.

And even if they do what you're suggesting, they're going to have to post that chart again and again anyway, so at that point, what does having these as subclasses even accomplish? There's no reason not to just make them their own classes. None.

Naw you don't post the chart over and over. I am saying the main mage chart is labelled much more generically than it is now, and the sub-classes simply fill in the generic labels for each sub-class. So no chart, just a list of which class abilities they get (labelled #1, #2, #3, etc..). I am sure there would be a standardized format created to quickly indicate what goes where.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Why? Were you confused? What was unclear about it?

I understood it, but it might confuse other people since it's normally used for spells per day and you're using it for spells known.

Sure, but the need to put that information in there regardless of whether the class is a sub-class or its own thing. So, what's your objection to doing it this way?

Because that's an awful lot of information to put under one class.

Naw, obviously these sub-classes come in a supplement of their own, and the other classes will eventually get a lot of sub-classes in supplement books too. Psion is not going to be in the Player's Handbook.

How can you be so sure?

 

[Mistwell]

I understood it, but it might confuse other people since it's normally used for spells per day and you're using it for spells known.



Because that's an awful lot of information to put under one class.



How can you be so sure?

They've never had psionics in a first PHB before, they're striving for a sense of continuity with prior editions, they're not even looking to playtest psionics, and it's such a different concept from what is generally considered core. I'd put almost zero odds on them being in the first PHB.