D&D 5E (2014) Do you want the Sorcerer, Warlock, Psion, and Artificer separate from the Mage class?

[Cadence]

I don't really care about or like Warlock, Psion, or Artificer, don't think grouping them in one class would necessarily mean the flavor was wiped out, and am almost willing to make the role-players suffer a tiny bit by making multi-classing harder if it really ticks off the uber-optimizer-roll-players. So the "do I want" answer is leaning to the no side. (Grouping Druid/Cleric, and Fighter/Paladin/Ranger/Barbarian wouldn't particularly bother me either.)

On the other hand I want the game to appeal to as many people while still feeling like D&D, so if the question was "do you think WotC should" or "for the good of the game and not just your selfish interests" I'd be willing to go yes based on the strong opinions of those who love those classes and feel there is a profound distinction.

 

[thundershot]

I think they should go back to having 4 (or 5) core groups of classes (or power sources) like 2E had:

Warrior
Magic User
Rogue
Priest
Psion (optional)

And then under each one, have the subclasses. Each base class gives you some basic stuff to work with. Each subclass is distinct from one another (Mage, Sorcerer, Warlock, etc.) and each one would have it's own spell progression, core ability score, etc. However, you can't multi-class within a group you're already in. So no Mage/Sorcerer or Cleric/Druid or Thief/Swashbuckler.

Just an idea.. I like having a lot of classes to choose from.

 

[variant]

I think they should go back to having 4 (or 5) core groups of classes (or power sources) like 2E had:

Warrior
Magic User
Rogue
Priest
Psion (optional)

And then under each one, have the subclasses. Each base class gives you some basic stuff to work with. Each subclass is distinct from one another (Mage, Sorcerer, Warlock, etc.) and each one would have it's own spell progression, core ability score, etc. However, you can't multi-class within a group you're already in. So no Mage/Sorcerer or Cleric/Druid or Thief/Swashbuckler.

Just an idea.. I like having a lot of classes to choose from.

The more you narrow down the classes, the more complicated it becomes to add options and the more homogeneous those options become.

 

[steeldragons]

Can't really answer since the poll is "all or nothing." Do I care if Sorcerer and Warlock are a subclass of Mage, not at all. They're all arcane magic users. Differrent fluff. Different casting mechanic. Different primary ability? Fine. But all arcane magic users. Where else should they go?

Psions...meh, but as I've said elsewhere, organizationally, if they're trying to design from the "Big 4" top-down, then there's really no other option that makes sense. So, yeah, make sure its flavored as "Yeah, these guys can do amazing weird things other people can't...here's their mechanic for using those powers, that's different than these other casters...but they're not actually casting spells/using magic" and I can get by it.

Artificer, gets my hackles up as it is, purely, a setting specific class. Artificers go into whatever they put Eberron's stuff in. That's it. It doesn't go in the PHB. If, in the Eberron book, you say "Here's an Eberron-based addition to the Mage classes"...if they are arcane magic users, then I guess I have no problem. But if you are listing setting specific classes in a setting specific book, I see no reason that would be necessary.

So...can't really answer the poll without contributing to some false positive.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Yes.

 

[bogmad]

Can't add xp, but I'd agree with what steeldragons said whole heartedly.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I think I finally have what I want to see. The Wizard, Sorcerer, and Warlock should be three different classes, with schools, bloodlines, and pacts respectively. But, they should all use the same pseudo-Vancian spellcasting mechanic as the current Mage, Cleric, and everybody else.

Alternative spellcasting mechanics should be presented in the DMG, and be adaptable to every spellcasting class in the game. If they want to call these wizadry, sorcery, witchcraft, or what have you, I'm cool with that.

 

[RangerWickett]

In 2003 E.N. Publishing released Elements of Magic - Revised, where multiple magic-using classes used the same basic system. You have magic points, and there are different elements (noun + verb) that you use to create spells.

Normal mages just spend MP and cast spells they design. Alchemists could put spells into objects now for use later. Wizards could prepare spells from spellbooks, basically using those spells instead of the elements they know. Psionic characters have to maintain mental focus, but they could cast spells without verbal or somatic components. I don't know if we ever came up with a way to cast spells at-will over and over again.

But what I'm saying is, you can have a core magic system, and you can do a ton of things. You just have to design the core flexibly enough. You can then have that flexible system and include classes saying, "If you don't want to play around with all the Legos, and you just want a toy that works, here's how your character works." We even did that in our second Elements of Magic book, Lyceian Arcana.

 

[Aldeon]

I don't like the mage class having all of the different arcane magic-users under it because it would cause class bloat. The thing I like about DnD Next is how simple it is; we made our characters quickly and got into play with little problems. If the mage class was for all arcane casters and psionicists, a player wanting to play a magicky guy would be like, "I choose to play mage... oh, what casting system do I want to use? Uh... Let's go with wizardry. Wait, schools of magic? This one, I guess. Oh, more choices? When can I play?"

If the classes were separated, it would make it much simpler. I want to play a studious magicky guy? Wizard. I want to play a cursed antihero magicky guy? Warlock. Et cetera. You could choose the class and have one or two options inside that class. You wouldn't have to drudge through a ridiculous amount of options and sub-options in order to make a simple wizard; it would just be as simple as choosing wizard.

While I say this, I don't think that all the classes should be there. Wizard, sorcerer, yes. That's cool. Maybe even warlock. However, I consider classes such as artificer and psionicist to be too not-generic enough to be a core class. In a campaign setting book or various other splatbooks would be fine, in my opinion. But throwing artificer in as a main class would really throw off Dark Sun games and make the DM have to create restrictions on choices. It's more of a psychological problem, in my opinion-- if it's a core class and it gets canned for a DM's game due to setting, it's seen as a restriction. If it's a non-basic class allowed into a game, it's seen as an expanded list of choices.

So yeah, split up the mage class. But let's keep down the numbers for now.

 

[Argyle King]

My original thought is no. I liked some of the ideas early in the playtest in which there were fewer classes, but backgrounds and themes and similar concepts were a bigger part of character creation; parts which helped make the difference between someone being just a fighter and someone else being a fighter who dabbled in some holy or arcane powers via some sort of background.

With seeing the direction the game seems to be going at this point, I'm inclined to vote yes. My preference is actually no, but that preference was attached to a direction I thought the game would evolve in that it currently does not appear to be moving toward (or at least not as much as I had originally hoped.)