I see no reason to separate the divine mages from the arcane mages: both "mages" or "magical" classes in my ideal structure; they would just be different branches of the same tree.
So much like how a warrior and rogue could be separate from a fluff and mechanical perspective?
As I mentioned in another post in this very thread, I am fine with that too (mundane and magic). I personally like the idea of having separate arcane and divine casting mechanics and fluff that could be separate classes, but I don't see it as a requirement.
I don't really either, I'm fine with that approach. I have a personally reason for keeping them separate, but it may not necessitate a different class.I see no reason to separate the divine mages from the arcane mages: both "mages" or "magical" classes in my ideal structure; they would just be different branches of the same tree.
Yes and no. Fighters and rogues are both doing mundane things. I can make an argument that makes arcane and divine casting significantly different (one is not "casting" at all actually). Not sure they would require a different class or not. I have never carried the thought process all the way through.So much like how a warrior and rogue could be separate from a fluff and mechanical perspective?
I'm not sure your account is accurate. Development during the Beyond era did focus on the "Core Four", and they did adopt a "we'll get to them eventually" attitude towards the other classes (which seems to have been to the detriment of the ranger in particular). But if I'm recalling correctly, a version of the sorcerer was one of the first if not the first playtest class we saw outside the Four, long before we saw a paladin or druid or monk, and it had very distinctive mechanics and identity. Negative feedback on that version resulted in them dialing the class back to the more 3E-ish look in the final product.
It's exactly the change they did when they wrote the original sorcerer in 3E. Like I said, that sorcerer is essentially the wizard kit we're talking about.
Fantasy literature is full of commoners becoming apprentices to local wizards and rising from there to mastery of the craft. A Wizard of Earthsea would be my personal favorite: Sparrowhawk learns magic in a hut on a hillside overlooking flocks of sheep. Wizardry doesn't have to mean Harvard. I could just as easily say that sorcerers reflect an inherent position of privilege because they're literally born into power and hence obviously constitute an arcane aristocracy, whereas wizards can be anybody with a sharp mind and a willingness to apply themselves regardless of the accident of their birth. The truth is that both archetypes are broad enough to play either the hero or the villain in whatever contemporary class sensibilities we choose to project onto our fantasy.
all tongue-in-cheek of course. Though I wouldn't mind....
TLDR: I think the sorcerer sucks in 5E, so if you're looking for experiences more recent than 3.0, ignore this post.
Sorcerer was my very first character when 3.0 came out in 2000. I didn't care that the implementation sucked in comparison to the wizard (like bonus feats), I was just happy they finally included an option for those of us who hate Vancian casting. I was excited I didn't have to memorize spells anymore, to not be stuck with sleep when I really needed magic missile. It bothered me that I had to invest in Charisma instead of Intelligence since I'm a roll-player that tends to tune out during the talky parts of play, but it was easy to get away with underplaying my character's scores in a 12-person group that contained people who would equally overplay theirs.
That party had a Conjurer who played more as an Evoker because with that many players, managing summons was annoying and combat already took forever. I enjoyed being able to sling the lightning bolts and fireballs and not feel pressure to have identify and knock memorized.
I liked the dichotomy of the wizard's broad, but shallow pool, and the sorcerer's narrow, but deep pool. Then comes 5E and they not only gave the sorcerer's raison d'être (spontaneous casting) to all casters, but they took away his volume of power too. The wizard can prepare more spells than the sorcerer can know, and they have the same number of slots.
I don't think the sorcerer has a reason for being its own class anymore, mechanically speaking. When I had an opportunity to create a spellcaster recently, I thought about giving sorcerer a try, but couldn't justify why I wouldn't make an evoker instead. I don't need to make a sorcerer to be a spontaneous caster, and making a wizard for the versatility no longer means sacrificing volume.
As part of the official game? I tried to restrict it to official game material but if you go outside that, people have been unhappy with the magic system since it was introduced and have howebrewed a variety of systems to replace it.
