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

[Jester David]

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.

The other spellcasting classes have the "spellcasting" class feature while the mage currently has "wizardry" with it's subclasses listed as "wizardry: illusion school". Most of the extensive study flavour (save one line) and all of the spellbook & casting via Int crunch is in the wizardry feature.

Mage really seems to be the "magic user" class. It's the class that just casts spells (apart from the cleric and druid). So in theory all the variants just have shared mechanics.
And realistically, the big differences between wizards, sorcerers, warlocks, and psions is one of flavour and spell selection. The difference is the source of the spellcaster's power, which is almost a background.

This has a few benefits.
First, people won't be ale to multiclass sorcerer and wizards, which would be tricky to balance, and makes tracking spells awkward.
Second, it's easier to offer support. Feats and new spells can apply equally to the psion as the wizard, making it easier to offer new content. Likewise, if they need to make a new mage variant that subclass isn't starting from scratch.
Third, all classes can use the same iconic spells. Rather than having to hold back the telekinesis spell to make the psion different, or make its version different for the wizard's version, they can both use the same spell. And the pyrokinetic can gain access to fireball.
Fourth, by tying all the dedicated spellcasters together it makes it easier to reflavour magic in general without having to make room for three or four different classes. Customizing magic for your setting is easier.

 

[variant]

The other spellcasting classes have the "spellcasting" class feature while the mage currently has "wizardry" with it's subclasses listed as "wizardry: illusion school". Most of the extensive study flavour (save one line) and all of the spellbook & casting via Int crunch is in the wizardry feature.

Mage really seems to be the "magic user" class. It's the class that just casts spells (apart from the cleric and druid). So in theory all the variants just have shared mechanics.
And realistically, the big differences between wizards, sorcerers, warlocks, and psions is one of flavour and spell selection. The difference is the source of the spellcaster's power, which is almost a background.

Realistically, a big difference between every class is flavor.

It is far deeper than flavor or spell selection that separates those classes. The Wizard is a Vancian system, the Sorcerer is a spell known system. Those are the two closest and they still play radically different. The Warlock is a pure at-will caster that doesn't have spells in the traditional sense. The Artificer is an item enchanter that channels his spells through the enchantments he puts on items. The Psion is a power point system and isn't even suppose to cast spells.

This has a few benefits.
First, people won't be ale to multiclass sorcerer and wizards, which would be tricky to balance, and makes tracking spells awkward.
Second, it's easier to offer support. Feats and new spells can apply equally to the psion as the wizard, making it easier to offer new content. Likewise, if they need to make a new mage variant that subclass isn't starting from scratch.
Third, all classes can use the same iconic spells. Rather than having to hold back the telekinesis spell to make the psion different, or make its version different for the wizard's version, they can both use the same spell. And the pyrokinetic can gain access to fireball.
Fourth, by tying all the dedicated spellcasters together it makes it easier to reflavour magic in general without having to make room for three or four different classes. Customizing magic for your setting is easier.

What about people that multiclass Druid/Cleric? What about the people that want to multiclass Wizard/Warlock or Wizard/Artificer which doesn't have any of the issues that you propose a Wizard/Sorcerer has?

Feats can just as easily support the different classes, even if they were separate.

No, not all classes use the same iconic spells. The Psion doesn't use the same spells, nor does the Warlock. The Artificer uses them completely differently and has access to much lower level spells because of how he utilizes them. The Sorcerer is the only one that should have the access to the same spells.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I suppose the divide is this: If you want how magic works to be primarily a campaign decision, then having the Mage with different spellcasting systems makes sense. If you want it to be a player decision, then it doesn't.

If Sorcery, Witchcraft, and Psionics are described in the DMG as alternative spellcasting systems for a world, then this might be the right design decision.

If they are presented in the Player's Handbook with the class, then this is the wrong decision.

 

[Jester David]

It is far deeper than flavor or spell selection that separates those classes. The Wizard is a Vancian system, the Sorcerer is a spell known system. Those are the two closest and they still play radically different. The Warlock is a pure at-will caster that doesn't have spells in the traditional sense. The Artificer is an item enchanter that channels his spells through the enchantments he puts on items. The Psion is a power point system and isn't even suppose to cast spells.

That was the different between then in 3e, but all three had identical casting in 4e and different mostly by role. So they've had different spellcasting half the time.

In an edition where you can give the mage/ magic user three different types of spellcasting and can choose to build a character that's DPR, crowd control, or a buffer then there's no difference between types of mage beyond backstory. The big difference comes down to casting stat.

Why have four different classes when you can have one?
We don't differentiate fighters based on where they learned to wield a sword, clerics from how they found god. There's not seperate "guttersnipe" and "guide thief" versions of the rogue.
Why seperate the mage who learned magic from a book from those with natural talent?

 

[MoonSong]

That was the different between then in 3e, but all three had identical casting in 4e and different mostly by role. So they've had different spellcasting half the time.

In an edition where you can give the mage/ magic user three different types of spellcasting and can choose to build a character that's DPR, crowd control, or a buffer then there's no difference between types of mage beyond backstory. The big difference comes down to casting stat.

Why have four different classes when you can have one?
We don't differentiate fighters based on where they learned to wield a sword, clerics from how they found god. There's not seperate "guttersnipe" and "guide thief" versions of the rogue.
Why seperate the mage who learned magic from a book from those with natural talent?

Why have Autocad and Illustrator? Both are vector processing software...

 

[variant]

That was the different between then in 3e, but all three had identical casting in 4e and different mostly by role. So they've had different spellcasting half the time.

In an edition where you can give the mage/ magic user three different types of spellcasting and can choose to build a character that's DPR, crowd control, or a buffer then there's no difference between types of mage beyond backstory. The big difference comes down to casting stat.

In 4e, every class is AEDU. D&D Next is about once again differentiating the class mechanics again.

Why have four different classes when you can have one?
We don't differentiate fighters based on where they learned to wield a sword, clerics from how they found god. There's not seperate "guttersnipe" and "guide thief" versions of the rogue.
Why seperate the mage who learned magic from a book from those with natural talent?

Why have any classes at all with that logic? Each class is separated based on mechanics and lore. The Sorcerer being separated from the Wizard is no different than the Barbarian being separated from the Fighter or the Druid being separated from the Cleric. Pairing the Warlock and Artificer with the Wizard would be like pairing up the Bard and the Rogue. Throwing in Psion in the mix would be like combining the Cleric and Wizard into the same meta-class.

Why have Autocad and Illustrator? Both are vector processing software...

I think a better question would be, why have both Abobe Photoshop and Microsoft Office? They both allow you to input stuff into your computer.

 

[Mistwell]

They are as much options as the Gladiator is an option for the Fighter.

Gladiator IS an option of the fighter, which itself is a sub-class of the fighter-types (this hasn't been named yet, assuming they go that route).

The Warlock won't have access to the Wizardry Schools, so those particular 'options' aren't options for the whole Mage class, just the Wizard subclass.

The wizardry schools are options of the Wizard sub-class. Warlock will, presumably, have it's own options - exactly like the warlock variants from 3e.

 

[Jester David]

Why have any classes at all with that logic? Each class is separated based on mechanics and lore. The Sorcerer being separated from the Wizard is no different than the Barbarian being separated from the Fighter or the Druid being separated from the Cleric. Pairing the Warlock and Artificer with the Wizard would be like pairing up the Bard and the Rogue. Throwing in Psion in the mix would be like combining the Cleric and Wizard into the same meta-class.

It's a balancing act.
Classes are an essential part of the D&D experience. But too any redundant classes make the game bloated, harder to learn, and take the spotlight away from classic characters.
The wizard, fighter, rogue, and cleric should be the rock stars of the game. We don't need to dilute the rogue by making an assassin, ninja, spell thief, beguiler, scout, thief-acrobat, spy, and cutpurse.

We just don't need a book mage, bloodline mage, fiendish pact mage, elemental mage, wild mage, sacrifice mage, ritualistic mage, truenamer mage, and binder mage.
You need to draw the line somewhere.

 

[Li Shenron]

Let me ask you a question now. Don't these classes all share similarities in that they use unusual or arcane powers to perform their abilities? Wizards and Sorcerers cast arcane spells. Warlocks make pacts with infernal, fey, or unearthly entities to provide them with arcane powers. Psions use their inner strength of mind to perform actions that would appear arcane and strange.

It's not so black-and-white for me...

Especially, the Warlock still sound to me like a Witch, someone who made a bargain with a powerful supernatural entity who is able to grant spells. That feels quite a lot to me as a divine/arcane hybrid. A Cleric devotes herself to a deity and is granted spells, a wizard does not owe anything to anyone and just learns spells by herself, a warlock is in an intermediate situation... there is still her side of the bargain, but it's maybe not as binding as that of a cleric, so the warlock/witch is more free in his/her moral behaviour. I could totally see the warlock spell list be a mix of cleric and wizard spells, and I could even imagine it to have wildshape, but maybe that's only one type of witch. A Good warlock/white witch might easily have healing powers, while an evil warlock might be limited to self-healing powers. Because of these, the "arcane" label is appropriate as the "divine" label really, it's just a typical case of people picking a label and then not realize they have brought it on themselves.

Mechanically speaking, I just don't care. The first warlock I've seen was the 3e version and it was IIRC an at-will caster, while AFAIK the 4e warlock was AEDU like everybody else, and then the 5e draft version was encounter-based. I don't think it necessarily needs to be one or the other, and I believe it will be chosen for meta-design reasons, e.g. "what kind of mechanics haven't we got covered?".

I've never been a huge fan of psionics because it always smelled like too modern fantasy for my tastes, but in any case there is at least 2/3 of the wizard's typical spell list that feels inappropriate to me as psionics. I do see some overlaps with sorcerers when intended as "magic in the blood", since the difference with "magic in the mind" can actually be quite feeble.

Artificers don't even sound very magical to me.

I don't think that WotC has a very clear idea on what to do with these actually. Do they want to enforce their similarity or their individual identities? Do they want to identify each "name" with a mechanic or with a story or both?

 

[variant]

It's not so black-and-white for me...

Especially, the Warlock still sound to me like a Witch, someone who made a bargain with a powerful supernatural entity who is able to grant spells. That feels quite a lot to me as a divine/arcane hybrid. A Cleric devotes herself to a deity and is granted spells, a wizard does not owe anything to anyone and just learns spells by herself, a warlock is in an intermediate situation... there is still her side of the bargain, but it's maybe not as binding as that of a cleric, so the warlock/witch is more free in his/her moral behaviour. I could totally see the warlock spell list be a mix of cleric and wizard spells, and I could even imagine it to have wildshape, but maybe that's only one type of witch. A Good warlock/white witch might easily have healing powers, while an evil warlock might be limited to self-healing powers. Because of these, the "arcane" label is appropriate as the "divine" label really, it's just a typical case of people picking a label and then not realize they have brought it on themselves.

Mechanically speaking, I just don't care. The first warlock I've seen was the 3e version and it was IIRC an at-will caster, while AFAIK the 4e warlock was AEDU like everybody else, and then the 5e draft version was encounter-based. I don't think it necessarily needs to be one or the other, and I believe it will be chosen for meta-design reasons, e.g. "what kind of mechanics haven't we got covered?".

The Warlock is not what is generally considered a witch. While there is a cliche of witches making pacts, it isn't the only cliche for them nor is it exclusively for them as there are a number of myths of people making pacts that don't have anything to do with witchcraft. Witches are generally thought of basically hedge wizards out in the wild making potions and doing rituals. The Warlock is thematically about making a pact and having magic at his finger tips despite not really knowing any of the details about how magic functions. They aren't suppose to have a spell list. They are suppose to have an Invocation list which is very short and is at-will. They don't heal, it is purely arcane, and it is themed based on who they make the pact with.