D&D General The Crab Bucket Fallacy

[Minigiant]

They indeed have boring subclasses, and at least one reason for that is that more interesting concepts get siloed into separate classes. But conceptually wizard (learns magical formulas) is quite distinct from sorcerer (empowered with innate magic at birth by a magical ancestor) and warlock (empowered with innate magic at some point by a magical patron,) which are basically the same thing. But the wizard could get some leftover from this merger, hopefully making it more interesting.

Sorcerer and warlock aren't similar.

The problem is they both are usually designed by wizard fans.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes, the Pathfinder sorcerer is conceptually bland. But Pathfinder is a different game from D&D 5e. The only 5e sorcerer subclass that is explicitly to do with ancestry is the Draconic Bloodline. Meanwhile the Aberrant Mind (as I have that tab open) is "An alien influence has wrapped its tendrils around your mind, giving you psionic power. You can now touch other minds with that power and alter the world around you by using it to control the magical energy of the multiverse."

How is that not a warlock? This is basically the same fluff than GOO warlock!

No they aren't. Warlock is closer to cleric.

Then why aren't they clerics?

The issue with warlock is this, either they:
1) Just channel the magic of a powerful magical being... which is a cleric.
2) Are taught magic by a powerful magical being... which makes them a wizard with an unconventional teacher.
3) Are imbued with innate magical energy by a powerful magical being... which makes them a sorcerer.

But unlike the sorcerer, warlock has unique and interesting mechanics. But why do they have much more rapidly recharging magic than any other class, and always-on magical features? Those to me sound like features of an innately magical being... such as sorcerer.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Then why aren't they clerics?

1) Because a lot of people want to avoid the implications of that.

2) because clerics are forced into the ball of being a holy and devout servant rather than the employee or even unwilling servitor the warlock is. If we were allowed to acknowledge the classes are just toolboxen (who remembers Kingdom of Loathing?) to build your character instead of a thing that actually exists as a line on a job application in the world, we could dump the cleric class and just have Pelorlocks and Llothlocks.

and it would fix the weirdness of D&D polytheism too.

 

[Neonchameleon]

How is that not a warlock? This is basically the same fluff than GOO warlock!

An Aberrant Mind doesn't draw its power from a relationship or funneling Great Cthulhu (which is an explicit GOO option). They instead have merging with a probably non-sentient parasite.

Then why aren't they clerics?

Why should they be? They are mechanically very different. And thematically clerics are part of their church and have cookie cutter spells and abilities with two war clerics of different deities gaining interchangeable spells and abilities while warlocks are all individual. One learns from lectures and classrooms, the other is tutored.

The issue with warlock is this, either they:
1) Just channel the magic of a powerful magical being... which is a cleric.
2) Are taught magic by a powerful magical being... which makes them a wizard with an unconventional teacher.
3) Are imbued with innate magical energy by a powerful magical being... which makes them a sorcerer.

Or a mix of all of the above (without the word "just").

If you want to leave warlocks as the only caster be my guest.

But unlike the sorcerer, warlock has unique and interesting mechanics. But why do they have much more rapidly recharging magic than any other class, and always-on magical features? Those to me sound like features of an innately magical being... such as sorcerer.

Meanwhile a wizard sounds like a being that gets their power from somewhere and doesn't have a direct personal relationship with it... like a sorcerer.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'll clarify. To be redundant a class must be both:

• Conceptually similar enough to another to fit under their wings
• Mechanically similar enough to another that you could write one as a subclass of the other.
• Bland enough in its subclasses either that you only need two or three at most or that they aren't worth including.

The warlock is not mechanically similar to the rest. You need to more or less completely work whichever class you are merging with the other.

Meanwhile is the wizard conceptually a subclass of sorcerer? Yes. That qualifies. Is it mechanically similar to a sorcerer? Yes to the point that you make the subclass's big thing the spellbook, the ability to retrain spells, and to pick from the wider wizard list. (This is, of course another reason that you can't make the sorcerer a subclass of wizard - subclasses are never more restrictive than the base class).

And to clarify I'm not advocating the removal of any class. But if one has to go then the wizard should be first on the chopping block.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Thing is, at introduction, the Sorcerer and Warlock were dramatically differentiated by their respecitive magic systems. Sorcerers were spontaneous, Warlocks were at-will. Both huge things in a game that had been using "but only 1 time a day" as a fig-leaf to cover how crazy spells were, it's whole existence.

So, 4e gave everyone at wills, and 5e kept them for full casters, and 5e also made all full casters cast spontaneously. So, Sorcerer, Warlock, why are you here again? For that matter, no-longer-Vancian wizard....

 

[Crimson Longinus]

An Aberrant Mind doesn't draw its power from a relationship or funneling Great Cthulhu (which is an explicit GOO option). They instead have merging with a probably non-sentient parasite.

So your interpretation that patron funnels magic to the warlock, instead of just gifting them with the innate power source? Because fluff doesn't make it clear. In any case, this would make them clerics. What in your opinion is the metaphysical difference between a cleric of Cthulhu and a warlock of Cthulhu?

Why should they be? They are mechanically very different.

Yes, but why?

And thematically clerics are part of their church and have cookie cutter spells and abilities with two war clerics of different deities gaining interchangeable spells and abilities while warlocks are all individual. One learns from lectures and classrooms, the other is tutored.

Why would any of this make any metaphysical difference? We (thankfully) do not have different wizard classes for whether they were tutored or went to school.

Or a mix of all of the above (without the word "just").

Then why do all these different methods that are similar to those of other classes produce mechanics that are most divergent from them all?

If you want to leave warlocks as the only caster be my guest.

I don't. I just want to have coherent fluff attached to them that explains what they metaphysically are. And if that is same or very similar than some other class', then they should be merged, as there is no justification for the difference.

Meanwhile a wizard sounds like a being that gets their power from somewhere and doesn't have a direct personal relationship with it... like a sorcerer.

No, they explicitly learn their magic. That's why they use int. Sorcerer's are innately magical beings, their magic is intuitive. I think this is clear enough distinction. Granted, I wouldn't mind all three, sorcerer, warlock and wizard being merged into one mage class, and having the subclasses handle the differentiation.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Thing is, at introduction, the Sorcerer and Warlock were dramatically differentiated by their respecitive magic systems. Sorcerers were spontaneous, Warlocks were at-will. Both huge things in a game that had been using "but only 1 time a day" as a fig-leaf to cover how crazy spells were, it's whole existence.

So, 4e gave everyone at wills, and 5e kept them for full casters, and 5e also made all full casters cast spontaneously. So, Sorcerer, Warlock, why are you here again? For that matter, no-longer-Vancian wizard....

Invocations and Pact Magic vs full casting. You might as well ask why melee cleric and paladin have spent so much time together (and remember that pre-4e all clerics were weapon users).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Mechanically similar enough to another that you could write one as a subclass of the other.

I disagree. It just matters which sort of mechanics best reflect the concept, and warlock mechanics better reflect the fluff of the sorcerer than the actual sorcerer mechanics do.

 

[tetrasodium]

They indeed have boring subclasses, and at least one reason for that is that more interesting concepts get siloed into separate classes. But conceptually wizard (learns magical formulas) is quite distinct from sorcerer (empowered with innate magic at birth by a magical ancestor) and warlock (empowered with innate magic at some point by a magical patron,) which are basically the same thing. But the wizard could get some leftover from this merger, hopefully making it more interesting.

It probably doesn't help that it took almost a decade before wotc stopped talking about the theme and feel of those other classes long enough to express that they consider the wizard's to be their spell list either. I imagine that we would have had quite a few more discussions about the glaringly few spell list the class exclusive spells long ago had that been put out sooner