Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pseudopsyche" data-source="post: 6177344" data-attributes="member: 54600">I agree that the "mage" umbrella seems way too large. The problem is that different varieties of arcane magic are not clearly enough defined. If a player new to D&D wants to raise the dead and repel vampires with her holy symbol, we can set her on the path of the cleric. Someone who wants to control the weather and transform into a dire wolf should look at the druid. If I want to throw fireballs and force enemies to fall asleep, should I play a wizard, a warlock, or a sorcerer? Sure, we can say that wizards study spell books, warlocks enter into pacts, and sorcerers unleash inborn arcane energy, but at the game table all three approach obstacles with arcane spells.I think WotC is unwilling to say that wizards and sorcerers should be different classes just because they had separate game mechanics in the past (e.g. Vancian spellcasting versus spontaneous spellcasting in 3E). Especially since they will evidently offer alternate spellcasting systems that DMs can install across the board. What we're seeing now is that WotC is also unwilling to say that wizards and sorcerers should be different classes just because they have different narratives for how they obtain their spells (from the same list of possible spells). What WotC would need to do to make warlocks and wizards separate classes is give them spell lists with as little overlap as the druid and cleric spell lists, but I suspect they are simply unwilling to define across the board (across all campaign settings) how "warlock magic" differs so fundamentally in capability than "wizard magic". For better or for worse.We already know that WotC wants each class to have a coherent narrative. What this mage superclass implies is that they care more about the narrative of the character in action ("I cast Burning Hands, and sheets of flame erupt from my outstretched fingers") than about the "background" of the character ("my magic comes from years of study / my infernal patron / my draconic bloodline"), at least when it comes to delineating base classes.So class by "power source" isn't quite right, if you interpret "power source" as "how I obtained my power". It's more "what kind of power do I wield".</blockquote>

Verification