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

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

Just FYI, your post is virtually invisible to anyone using the "Legacy" black bsckground...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Personally, I've usually broken it down this way:

The Wizards and Artificers are both like scientists and engineers: they study the arcane world and use their knowledge to break the ordinary rules of physics.

The Sorcerers do the same kind of rule-breaking naturally as breathing, but will have gaps in their abilities.

A Warlock's power comes to him via some kind of pact, blessing or curse.

The Psion, like the Wizard, studies the source of his power...but like the Sorcerer, that power is innate. Unlike any of the others, though, his power is not arcane in origin, but rather, an unleashing of the full power of the sentient mind.

So I voted for "separate classes."

 

[Ratskinner]

I voted no. I generally think having a "squishy" class to wrap most of them up is fine. On the other hand, I think Warlock, as D&D has had it, doesn't really fit that mold and should perhaps be a better fit under....I dunno, Bard? Ranger? Cleric?!? Maybe its own class, or a class to wrap some of the other "gishy" things together would be a better fit? Now that I'm considering it, if it weren't for historical objections, Cleric might be the best fit.

Now to read what other people think....

 

[Salamandyr]

I'm all for this, and if it were up to me, all martial characters-the ranger, the barbarian, the cavalier, etc. would be rolled into the Fighter class.

 

[Raunalyn]

I voted no, because it doesn't really bother me all that much. I guess we need to wait and see how multiclassing affects this, though, to really get a proper judgement.

 

[Ratskinner]

If you're going to have classes, then yes. A wizard and a sorcerer are at least as different as a druid and a cleric or a fighter and a barbarian. It doesn't make any sense to consolidate psions and warlocks unless you're also going to make the paladin a fighter variant. And if you only have a couple of generic core classes and innumerably complex variants to patch the system to reduplicate the character archetypes associated with D&D, why even have classes at all?

I think there are inherent conflicts here (design-wise):
1) While they wish to cover all the character concepts that they possibly can, they don't want to have a zillion classes to do it with. In part, I think that's due to the influence of classless games. While they aren't necessarily as popular as D&D and its family, they seem to have given people the notion that "you should be able to play whatever you want."
2) While you can easily do that if you make class\mechanics abstract enough, people seem to like more specificity than is amenable to that purpose (at least in D&D).
3) While there is no particular functional reason why its necessary, people (a lot of them, anyway) seem to feel like binding flavor/fluff to mechanics is a very good thing. That is, folks prefer Scribe Scroll and Brew Potion to Create Single-use Item. Having the flavor/fluff written into the classes makes things like the sorcerer/wizard/psion divide harder to fold together.
4) Of course, you can fix all of that by getting rid of classes, but D&D is a game with classes.

So, to some extent, the designers of a D&D edition are stuck looking for some kind of "happy middle". That is unless some lead designer decides to start slaying sacred cows at some point.

I do not envy their position.

 

[sheadunne]

Personally the Sorcerer is a class that has always bothered me. If someone is born with a power, I think it's better reflected in race (or background), not class. The same holds true with Psion. I've always viewed the warlock as a subset of sorcerer and the artificer as a subset of Wizard. I feel much the same way about Druid being a subset of Cleric.

I'd rather they created racial templates that players can choose (everyone gets one), that allows customization of races. All elves are like A, but then players get to choose B to further develop their character. B could be an representation of an inborn ability that may or may not be associated with a particular race, such as a psionic elf.

I certainly understand the desire to have more classes, but after a while, they all start looking the same with one or two minor tricks, or they get overshadowed later in the edition. Sure sorcerers had more spells per a day than a wizard in the PHB, but by the end of 3.5 they were pretty much neck n neck but the wizard still got higher level spells quicker. There just wasn't enough difference between the two class. Even in PF there's not enough difference. At least the warlock felt different enough to merit its own class, even if it didn't have enough support to really flush it out in 3.5.

If they're going to include the sorcerer, at least blend it with the warlock, use the warlock fluff and mechanic, spell-like abilities, which at least makes a bit more sense than the sorcerer (for class purposes), and call it a sorcerer.

Psionics has a long tradition in D&D but has never felt like it was "part" of D&D. If they're going to include it, do it right and make it part of the system from day 1 and not a tack on or partial system.

Artificer just feels too much like a Specialist Wizard. I like the fluff and would hate to see it disappear.

Whether they're included on day one or not, really doesn't have any impact on whether or not I'll buy/play the game.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think there are inherent conflicts here (design-wise):

Agreed.

1) While they wish to cover all the character concepts that they possibly can, they don't want to have a zillion classes to do it with. In part, I think that's due to the influence of classless games. While they aren't necessarily as popular as D&D and its family, they seem to have given people the notion that "you should be able to play whatever you want."
2) While you can easily do that if you make class\mechanics abstract enough, people seem to like more specificity than is amenable to that purpose (at least in D&D).
3) While there is no particular functional reason why its necessary, people (a lot of them, anyway) seem to feel like binding flavor/fluff to mechanics is a very good thing. That is, folks prefer Scribe Scroll and Brew Potion to Create Single-use Item. Having the flavor/fluff written into the classes makes things like the sorcerer/wizard/psion divide harder to fold together.
4) Of course, you can fix all of that by getting rid of classes, but D&D is a game with classes.

I tend to agree with this, except the last part. I think classes are one of the most sacred of cows, but that does not make them sine qua non. Late 3e-style characters with level-by-level multiclassing, mounds of base and prestige classes, tradeable class features, and customizable skills and feats really just about broke the notion of a class system. It's only one more step (albeit one really tough step) to just take the class names away entirely.

I do think that specific, flavored classes serve a role in clarifying the mechanics to people who do not think in rpg terms the way us ENWorlders do. I think an experienced player can play the mage character with memorization magic as a stodgy, bookish type and the spontaneous caster as the freewheeling prodigy type, but that a beginner is better served by seeing the difference between sorcerers and wizards explicated. And those are pretty distinct archetypes in the mind of the modern D&D player.

So, to some extent, the designers of a D&D edition are stuck looking for some kind of "happy middle". That is unless some lead designer decides to start slaying sacred cows at some point.

I do not envy their position.

I don't either. The conflict between doing things that we're used to and doing things that actually make sense has always been an issue and is not going anywhere.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I voted no. I generally think having a "squishy" class to wrap most of them up is fine.

"What character are you playing?"

"An Elven Squishy, specializing in Necromancy!"

WIN!

 

[Steven Carroll]

I voted yes. But that is because I don't want to see those others in the game at all.