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

[Li Shenron]

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.

Not a benefit.

For some people this limitation is a drawback. Furthermore, you will still have the same balancing problem when someone multiclasses between Cleric (or Druid, or Bard) and Sorcerer or another Mage subclass that doesn't use the same casting mechanic.

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.

Not a benefit either.

Feats never directly require to be a specific class, by design, because they want feats to be used for customizing as many characters as possible. Sometimes of course this cannot happen, when a feat is instead designed to provide an improvement to a specific feature that might be available to one class only or a few, but in that case at least the feat is always worded so that if you have another (in a future product, or even your own homebrew) class with the same feature, the feat would automatically work.

There will be feats that apply to all spellcasters, so it doesn't matter if "Sorcerer" is a class of its own or a Mage subclass, those feats will apply. There will be also feats that apply only to spell-point casters, but once again it doesn't matter where is the Sorcerer located.

Ergo, if it doesn't matter, then there is no benefit to have it under Mage.

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.

Again not a benefit either.

If they really want to have one spell list for all of them, that can happen also if they are separate classes, in fact that's what it was in 3e.

If they want to have different spell lists, they'll have different spell lists period, whether they are separate classes or the same.

Ergo, once again it doesn't matter, so lumping them under the same class has no benefit.

---

Just think of this in the following terms: designing the class Mage as an empty shell where you can "swap" its whole content, is identical to having separate classes and generically say "they are all Mages", except for multiclassing restrictions and for the fact that (with the current Mage class) the designers are forced to designing all those alternatives to Wizard to conform to the same level-by-level structure (when they get a new level of spells, when they get a tradition benefit, when they get a feat).

In the best case it won't matter, maybe that structure is exactly the best for psions, sorcerers, artificers, warlocks... maybe getting spell levels/tradition benefits/feats at exactly those levels is right for all those classes. But this would be possible also if they were separate classes. OTOH it's possible that it won't be the best for some of them, but then the Mage class structure is effectively a design restriction.

 

[Minigiant]

My main opposition is that to do justice to Psions, Warlocks, Artificers, Binders, (Incarnates, Shadowcasters), etc, you have to recreate some of the traditional not-spell history of those classes. But doing this will likely delay their creation and restrain them within the mage design. This could push back the warlock or psion.

Or they could ignore the past and make them all the same structure with different spell lists. Something about that feels wrong.

 

[Jester David]

Question:
How would you mechanically differentiate the the warlock and sorcerer from the wizard without making them seem like brand new classes unrelated to prior versions?

Of course, this would be excluding alternate spellcasting systems. As alternate spellcasting will be its own thing, so all spellcasting classes can equally opt into spell points or 4e powers.

 

[dd.stevenson]

The only benefit to this kind of classification that I can think of would be if the multi classing rules need it for some reason.

 

[Falling Icicle]

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.

That hasn't been the case since 1st edition.

Having more classes doesn't bloat the game or overcomplicate it. People can and will just ignore the classes they don't like or don't want to play. You know what does bloat or overcomplicate the game? A mage class that's like 50 pages because it has 8 specialty schools, a sorcerer with several bloodlines, a warlock with several pacts, an artificer and a psion with who knows how many disciplines, and multiple different casting systems all crammed into it, just because. There are already going to be 10 classes in the game. Having a few more isn't going to make the universe explode.

 

[Jester David]

That hasn't been the case since 1st edition.

Having more classes doesn't bloat the game or overcomplicate it. People can and will just ignore the classes they don't like or don't want to play. You know what does bloat or overcomplicate the game? A mage class that's like 50 pages because it has 8 specialty schools, a sorcerer with several bloodlines, a warlock with several pacts, an artificer and a psion with who knows how many disciplines, and multiple different casting systems all crammed into it, just because. There are already going to be 10 classes in the game. Having a few more isn't going to make the universe explode

1st and 2nd Editon were both mercifully lite on classes. And 2e had entire hundred page books devoted to what were essentially subclasses. But it was fine because you were still playing the same class.
3e went class crazy to ridiculous levels and while 4e tried to be restrained the single role limitation also led to needless classes. And Pathfinder's being doing very well and keeping classes down (although this sounds like it's going to change and I don't much like that either).

More classes are bad. Once you start saying "hey, the difference between these classes that are 95% identical save one learns magic and one is born with it" then you start doing the same for other classes.
It sets a precedence I don't like. Because once you allow in sorcerers and warlocks then you start wondering about other ways spellcasters could get magic and allow the shi'ar and wild mage. Then you start looking at classes like the warlord or maybe the cavalier.

The only way is to come down hard from the start and not allow classes to balloon out of control.

 

[MoonSong]

Question:
How would you mechanically differentiate the the warlock and sorcerer from the wizard without making them seem like brand new classes unrelated to prior versions?

Of course, this would be excluding alternate spellcasting systems. As alternate spellcasting will be its own thing, so all spellcasting classes can equally opt into spell points or 4e powers.

Challenge Accepted

For example

Sorcerer

Hit dice: 1d6 (like mage)
Proficiencies: all simple weapons, heavy crossbows

Attack Bonus/spellcasting bonus: Advances at the same rate as the cleric. No need for external items of power.

1st level:
Arcane eyes.- a sorcerer becomes aware of the presence of magic items and lingering magic effects within a 15' radius. Can use an action to try to pinpoint the strongest magical aura within sight
Sorcery.- to be exchanged with all other kind of spellcasting options, but one thing remains: a sorcerer cannot add spells to his/her repertory and never prepares spells, the full repertory remains available at all times
2nd level
Bloodline

3rd level:
Expertise Dice: based on charisma, but a weaker version, it starts in 1d4 and tops at 1d10
4th level;
Ability Score increase (ASI, for a total of 5)
5th level
bloodline benefit
6th level
ASI
7th
empty
8th
two attacks
9th
empty
10th
Bloodline benefit
11th
empty
and so on ....


Warlock
Hit dice: 1d8
Proficiencies: all simple weapons, light armor
Attack/Spellcasting bonus: Advances at the same rate as the cleric or possibly even the Barbarian's attack .

1st level:
Warlock Patron
Forbidden knowledge. a choice between three lores determined by patron
Spellcasting method. But it involves the Eldritch Blast and Eldritch strike cantrips that are unavailable to any other class

2nd level
Pact benefit
3rd level:

4th level;
Ability Score increase (ASI, for total of 6)
5th level

6th level
Curse. Once per short rest can pick the closest enemy as an action, that enemy gets disadvantage on the next saving throw made versus warlock's spells/the warlock gains advantage on his/her next magical attacks versus the enemy
7th

8th
ASI, Pact benefit
9th

10th
Improved curse. Now it lasts until end of next turn and can be used twice per short rest (the capstone version can be used at will)

and so on

well what do you think?

 

[Cadence]

It sets a precedence I don't like. Because once you allow in sorcerers and warlocks then you start wondering about other ways spellcasters could get magic and allow the shi'ar and wild mage. Then you start looking at classes like the warlord or maybe the cavalier.

The only way is to come down hard from the start and not allow classes to balloon out of control.

Should how common the classes are in the stereotypical campaign be part of it?

Clearly, not every interesting idea for a character of unique circumstances can be written down, let alone get a spot in the rules. If the story behind the Sorlockificerions is that there are only a handful on any given world, then is it silly to devote space to them, instead of giving some pages on general guidance for customizing classes? If it turns out that a sizable part of armies on any fantasy world were Warlords or Cavaliers, that the people on those worlds treat them very distinctly from fighters, and that they have many variations within them, then why not give them their own class?

 

[MoonSong]

1st and 2nd Editon were both mercifully lite on classes. And 2e had entire hundred page books devoted to what were essentially subclasses. But it was fine because you were still playing the same class.
3e went class crazy to ridiculous levels and while 4e tried to be restrained the single role limitation also led to needless classes. And Pathfinder's being doing very well and keeping classes down (although this sounds like it's going to change and I don't much like that either).

More classes are bad. Once you start saying "hey, the difference between these classes that are 95% identical save one learns magic and one is born with it" then you start doing the same for other classes.
It sets a precedence I don't like. Because once you allow in sorcerers and warlocks then you start wondering about other ways spellcasters could get magic and allow the shi'ar and wild mage. Then you start looking at classes like the warlord or maybe the cavalier.

The only way is to come down hard from the start and not allow classes to balloon out of control.

This is an exageration, 1st edition had (between the PHB and UA) 13 classes
2nd edition, on core books alone 9, but the seeds to extrapolate dozens of specialty priests and other 4 specialists (they weren't fleshed out), further supplements added Barbarian, the so called dozens of specialists and even runecasters, but let's be caritative and consider only 13 in the core book. 3.x sinthetized all to 11 classes, 4e had 16 classes considered "core" (the ones that made it to the srd). The current playtest? 9, ten if we count the upcoming bard, adding two more classes (sorcerer and warlock) isn't going to bloat anything.

 

[Falling Icicle]

1st and 2nd Editon were both mercifully lite on classes. And 2e had entire hundred page books devoted to what were essentially subclasses. But it was fine because you were still playing the same class.
3e went class crazy to ridiculous levels and while 4e tried to be restrained the single role limitation also led to needless classes. And Pathfinder's being doing very well and keeping classes down (although this sounds like it's going to change and I don't much like that either).

More classes are bad. Once you start saying "hey, the difference between these classes that are 95% identical save one learns magic and one is born with it" then you start doing the same for other classes.
It sets a precedence I don't like. Because once you allow in sorcerers and warlocks then you start wondering about other ways spellcasters could get magic and allow the shi'ar and wild mage. Then you start looking at classes like the warlord or maybe the cavalier.

The only way is to come down hard from the start and not allow classes to balloon out of control.

Why are classes bad, but subclasses/kits okay? Why does the former bother you so much? In either case, it's just one more option for your character to play.

[Edit] Besides, you're making a slippery slope argument. Just because warlocks and sorcerers are classes doesn't mean things like wild mage need to be. That could very easily be covered by subclasses or even feats.

And you mention Pathfinder, but that's funny, because they not only had the sorcerer to begin with, but they've added a ton of classes since then. Just in one book, the APG, they added the alchemist, cavalier, inquisitor, oracle, summoner, and witch classes.