D&D 5E Mage: Wizards, Sorcerers, Warlocks, Artificers, Psions, oh my.

[variant]

I have been mulling over the revelation that all these various types of classes are going to be rolled into a single overarching meta-class.

I think I understand why they are doing it. They want an easily modular way to allow swapping of spellcasting systems while maintaining the flavor of the (sub)class. So if you wanted a Wizard Illusionist with spellpoints in your campaign, you would take the Wizard subclass and bring over the Psion's point system.

I understand for them to do that, they need a bedrock of basics they need to build each class on and to have them each as separate classes could be seen as pointless redundancy. The Psion will have to have identical hit points, armor, and other starting factors to allow this type of modification.

However, with that all said, I have some issues with how it is currently be planned. My main worry is that this system is going to get bloated and confusing really quickly. This will be the only class formatted in such a way and between the new subclasses and their traditions (bloodlines, pacts, etc) being added, the class is going to be extremely complicated.

Another major worry is that they are going to force certain classes under the Mage label despite that the class really may not fit. Classes like the Sorcerer, Warlock, Psion, and Artificer, are different from what a Mage is. The Sorcerer and Warlock does not obtain their magic from extensive study and the Psion may be considered to not have any magic at all. The Artificer's system is radically different with its access to lower level spells, but the ability to apply them to items.

Even if they are designed with modularized spellcasting systems, I think overall it is worth some redundancy between classes to keep all these as distinct classes. If they want to keep the Mage itself modular, they should use it for later introduced spellcasters like Defiler and Preserver magic of Dark Sun, High Sorcery of Dragonlance, and other types of setting specific magic users. These are all just different takes on wizards.

 

[Falling Icicle]

If it was just a matter of organization I wouldn't be so upset. Making warlocks and psions subclasses of mage means that they're probably going to use the mage spell list and be differentiated by only a few class features. As someone who loved the 3.5 warlock, with its unique approach to spellcasting, at-will spells, and unique list of invocations, this is simply not acceptable to me. I don't want to play warlock that's a mage who just happened to get his spells from a pact. That's not what a warlock is to me. And Psions have never, ever been mages.

But let's say that they do make psions and warlocks totally distinct from other mages, with their own invocation/power lists, unique class features, etc. But if they did that, why not just make them their own classes in the first place? All they'd have accomplished by packaging them all under the mage is making that one class extremely bloated and overly complicated and preventing any of those things from multiclassing with each other. If I can play a cleric/druid or barbarian/fighter, why the hell is a warlock/wizard or psion/sorcerer off limits? So even in the best cast scenario, it's still a terrible idea and makes no sense whatsoever. If barbarians, paladins and rangers aren't going to be subclasses of fighter and druids aren't going to be a subclass of cleric, it makes no sense whatsoever to make sorcerers, warlocks and psions all subclasses of the "mage."

 

[n00bdragon]

What's this? Me defending 5e? Start buying lottery tickets the world is ending.

But seriously, they've actually gone about this right. What they have built is a "squishy man with strange abilities" class and a large adapter for various "strange abilities". Try to take a step back from the fluff and realize that while these classes may be thematically different mechanically they share the same things over and over again and that can be reused.

 

[variant]

What's this? Me defending 5e? Start buying lottery tickets the world is ending.

But seriously, they've actually gone about this right. What they have built is a "squishy man with strange abilities" class and a large adapter for various "strange abilities". Try to take a step back from the fluff and realize that while these classes may be thematically different mechanically they share the same things over and over again and that can be reused.

Mechanically, they are different. Otherwise they wouldn't need to silo them into spellcasting systems. Part of how they are different thematically is how they are different mechanically.

 

[Falling Icicle]

What's this? Me defending 5e? Start buying lottery tickets the world is ending.

But seriously, they've actually gone about this right. What they have built is a "squishy man with strange abilities" class and a large adapter for various "strange abilities". Try to take a step back from the fluff and realize that while these classes may be thematically different mechanically they share the same things over and over again and that can be reused.

Druids and Clerics share quite a few spells. Should druids just be a subclass of cleric?

 

[Kinak]

Sorcerers and warlocks have never been played in my games because people loved their concepts (although they usually embraced them), they were played because they allow people to play the wizard concept without the wizard class's mechanics.

Similarly, one of my friends going back through twenty years of gaming loves psionics. And it's not because he likes disintegrating stuff with his mind. It's because of the flexibility and verisimilitude using a pool rather than spells lots gave him.

Now, it's possible we'll get awesome rules for these things. But folding them all into one class, particularly the warlock, doesn't inspire a lot of confidence. I certainly can't blame people for being on edge.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Mistwell]

Druids and Clerics share quite a few spells. Should druids just be a subclass of cleric?

Yes. And I strongly suspect that's what will happen. I think I recall that being how it was done in some TSR editions.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Druids and Clerics share quite a few spells. Should druids just be a subclass of cleric?

Yes, for simplicity there should be only a few base classes and with no mods they can be created just like basic characters, simple and fast.

Then add the levels of complexity. I ahve no problems with all the "Mage" classes sharing the same spell list but being different in how they cast.

4E did a good job on some of the roles, particularly strikers and leaders. They were the same in some ways (damage and healing) but the tweaks on how they did it were interesting. This is even without going into the particular powers of the class.

I could see something similar working in 5E.

 

[variant]

Yes, for simplicity there should be only a few base classes and with no mods they can be created just like basic characters, simple and fast.

Then add the levels of complexity. I ahve no problems with all the "Mage" classes sharing the same spell list but being different in how they cast.

4E did a good job on some of the roles, particularly strikers and leaders. They were the same in some ways (damage and healing) but the tweaks on how they did it were interesting. This is even without going into the particular powers of the class.

I could see something similar working in 5E.

That's not Dungeons and Dragons.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I ahve no problems with all the "Mage" classes sharing the same spell list but being different in how they cast.

You may not have a problem with warlocks and psions using the mage spell list, but I do. I want my warlock to use eldritch blasts, fly with wings of shadow, and turn into a swarm of shadowy bats, not cast the same old spells that wizards have!