Is the Warlock going to kill the sorcerer and take his stuff?

[Gloombunny]

I think his point was that the Wizard and Sorcerer cast from the same spell list, not that the sorcerer has the same number of spells as the wizard.

I.e. the only difference is the number of spells they cast, not what spells they cast. Thus they are not different enough to matter.

And Felon's point is that there was a reason for sorcerers using the same spell list, namely, that it let all the design-effort and page-space spent on those spells be usable for two classes instead of just one.

Personally I'm surprised that the warlock appears to be taking the spot over sorcerer, but on reflection it makes sense. I think they want to make the classes thematically different as well as mechanically. Sorcerers didn't have much of a theme. I mean, they talked about a bit about dragons, and then even a little bit about outsiders and fey, but really the class was just wizard with a modified casting mechanic. It could've been a UA variant on the wizard. Warlock has much more flavor, with the spooky-themed spells, the vulnerability to cold iron, and all that.

 

[Presto2112]

Heck, the Sorcerer-as-Core announcement is the first thing that piqued my interest in 4e at all!

 

[Felon]

I think his point was that the Wizard and Sorcerer cast from the same spell list, not that the sorcerer has the same number of spells as the wizard.

I know what his point was. What part of "the explanation stated for the sorcerer's existence was so that there wouldn't be a huge block of spells being used by only one class" doesn't convey that?

i.e they very point of the sorcerer was to use the same spell list as the wizard.

I.e. the only difference is the number of spells they cast, not what spells they cast. Thus they are not different enough to matter.

There is more difference than the number of spells . There is also the method of learning and casting spells. Players a sorcerer is very differnet from playing a wizard. I don't know how anyone could play both classes and not catch on to that very quickly.

And Felon's point is that there was a reason for sorcerers using the same spell list, namely, that it let all the design-effort and page-space spent on those spells be usable for two classes instead of just one.

Precisely.

Now, your discussion of giving the warlock the nod because it has a stronger them is interesting, because there is something to be said for letting a class be bare-bones enough that the player comes up with the theme. And that's something I've seen folks do both very creatively and effectively with sorcerers. One guy does an insect/arachnid theme, and another does a force-spell theme.

 

[Rechan]

I know what his point was. What part of "the explanation stated for the sorcerer's existence was so that there wouldn't be a huge block of spells being used by only one class" doesn't convey that?

The part where I misconstrued what you meant by that?

There is more difference than the number of spells . There is also the method of learning and casting spells. Players a sorcerer is very differnet from playing a wizard. I don't know how anyone could play both classes and not catch on to that very quickly.

If difference = crippled, okay.

Now, your discussion of giving the warlock the nod because it has a stronger them is interesting, because there is something to be said for letting a class be bare-bones enough that the player comes up with the theme. And that's something I've seen folks do both very creatively and effectively with sorcerers. One guy does an insect/arachnid theme, and another does a force-spell theme.

You really like using the word "Interesting" to signify "I don't like that but it's so cute you say that", don't you?

The warlock's flavor can easily be changed. Even the description of the class offers Fey or Planar sources for their powers. And Dragon Magic presents Dragon-themed evocations the Warlock can use.

The Warlock even has several invocations that can accomidate a spider theme or other themes to supplement.

 

[Li Shenron]

Yet the reason why most people liked the Warlock was the new mechanics with spells at will, and not the flavor. You can give just the same flavor to a 3e sorcerer or wizard with a little imagination.

But guess what... in 4e everyone is going to have spells at will. The 4e wizard himself will become mechanically closer to a 3e warlock. The 4e wizard and 4e warlock will probably have almost the same mechanic, since everyone will have at will, per encounter and per day abilities.

In my opinion, 4e eliminates the reasons to really distinguish between wizard, sorcerer, and warlock.

You can always change the flavor without mechanical adjustment, in order to create a demon-tainted wizard, a dragon-blooded warlock, or a scholarly sorcerer.

So the next question is: what is going to differentiate between a wizard and a warlock really? Obviously, it will be which spells and abilities are available to each. And of course, you can at least direct the flavor by designing the spell lists (but again, a gamer with a minimum imagination is not going to have flavor restricted by the RAW).
There's a downside tho: to make them different, you actually have to create a restriction, because what will be on one's list might not be on the other's list. So for example if you start a trend of moving all "evil-looking" spells to the warlock's list, you may run out of spells for a normal evil wizard. Eventually the problem is that "wizard" has always been quite generic and all-encompassing, while "warlock" is really a very specific type of wizard...

 

[Rechan]

I have a large suspicion that we're going to see the Necromancer or Summoner become the Warlock. Among other things, spells of Necromancy wasn't mentioned in the wizard article.

I'm hoping the Sorcerer/warlock class becomes something like the Dread Necromancer/Beguiler/etc - the very focused spellcaster who has sundry abilities that reinforce what he is.

 

[Cadfan]

Felon- I know that was the reason for the 3e sorceror, but I believe its been stated that they're trying to shrink down the percentage of space in the PHB dedicated to just one class, with specific reference to the spell section. If spellcasters have smaller spell lists (very possible given the mechanics developed for the Warlock, with Essence and Shape Invocations combining in multiple ways), then there will be less need for extra classes to justify the space. Further, if wizard is evolving to have both per day and at will abilities, the type of spellcasting a sorceror does will be unnecessary. I believe that a sorceror in 4e is going to have to be significantly different, because its old schtick was being a way to get around the wizard's casting mechanics, and now that the wizard's casting mechanics have changed, the sorceror in its old form is unneeded.

 

[jester47]

Will the Warlock kill the sorcerer and take his stuff?

If the Sorcerer does not make it into the 1st PHB, it will be most decidedly so In My Campaigns should I decide to pick up 4e.

I don't dig the PHB1,2,3, concept

THATS ON THE LAME LIST WOTC!!!!

LAME!!!

 

[GreatLemur]

THATS ON THE LAME LIST WOTC!!!!

Whoa, was that an Almost Live! reference?

 

[Felon]

The part where I misconstrued what you meant by that?

You really like using the word "Interesting" to signify "I don't like that but it's so cute you say that", don't you?

It's interesting that after misconstruing something that I said plainly, you go straight to attempting to construe the subtext of something else I said.

I've played a few sorcerers and wizards, and they were alll pretty effective. I certainly never felt crippled.