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

[Jester David]

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.

You're including UA but not the accessories from 3e and 4e?

Everything was core in 4e. They might have abandoned the SRD but that does not mean the classes in the PHB 3 or side books were not core. 4e had at least 26 classes. And that's including all the disparate versions of classes like the fighter as one. But I'm sure I'm forgetting some.

You say adding two classes only brings it to 10. True. But if we're pulling the sorcerer and warlock out what about the artificer? And the psion has much more of a legacy.
And if they can do that for the arcane classes, why not the warlord? Or the assassin, which has been in three editions or so.

 

[Jester David]

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.

It's one thing to have a party of subclass variants of classic familiar classes. While subclasses grant differences there are also familiarities.
It's another thing to have an entire party of new classes. Where none of the characters are recognizable or doing familiar things. An entire party of strangers.

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.

The slippery slope logical fallacy is not automatic. It is dependent on the subject. Wild mages and the like are just as valid. Why only make an exception for the most recent of classes?

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.

They've introduced eight classes in four years. We saw eight new classes in the first year of 3.5e.

Paizo had to the sorcerer: Pathfinder was designed to be backwards compatible with 3.5e. But it's worth noting how much of an identity Paizo gave sorcerers. Much more than the class saw in 4e. It's a pity WotC can't use those ideas.

 

[Jester David]

So the difference between the sorcerer and wizard is:

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.
Arcane eyes

So the difference, the one worth creating an entire new class, is the ability to see magic and weapon proficiencies.
Weapon proficiencies and higher attack bonuses are almost a trap, as the sorcerer is super squishy and has no business being in melee.

And the 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 .
Curse and Improved curse.

Curses could easily be a pact bonus or a part of their spellcasting. Oh, and unique spells.
So, really, difference is weapon proficiencies. Plus armour and an extra hp every level. Of course, if warlocks cast using Con then they should have even more hp with a d6 than if they had a d8

 

[Remathilis]

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).

Eh, that's stretching it to almost hyperbolic levels (but not quite there yet).

First, are you going by "core rules only" or with supplements? That changes a lot.

OD&D started with three classes, and quickly added most of the classic lineup (thief, ranger, druid, etc) via Dragon/Strategic Review and supplementals.

Basic began with seven, but via the RC, Master books and Gazetteers quickly ballooned with mystics, foresters, druids, shamen, and dozens of race-as-class classes.

AD&D compiled all the OD&D classes at the time (11, counting bard) and again grew quickly via Dragon with Ranger-archers, cavaliers, barbarians, anti-paladins, witches, samurai, sohei, etc.

2nd Edition initially tried to clamp down to reduce the number to 9 (counting specialist wizards as 1 class) and use kits to do what you're talking about (so you could have paladin-samurai for example) but that also didn't last long. Specialty priests number in the hundreds. Nearly every setting brought its own unique classes (Ravenloft gypies, Dark Sun gladiators, Dragonlance knights, Greyhawk assassins, etc) and additional "core" classes (such as barbarian, ninja, and psionicist) came out in the PHBR.

3.0 actually had the least; not counting prestige classes (which still required a base entry) there were only 13; the 11 PHBR and 2 psionic ones since PrCs were used to do heavy lifting. [EDIT: OA was 3.0 so add five more to that list]. In 3.5 is when we threw open the base-class floodgate.

4e of course ran with very specialized core classes, requiring grid-fillers (such as seeker, warden, and invoker).

Pathfinder began with 11 (as 3e) but added Cavalier, Summoner, Witch, Inquisitor, Alchemist, Oracle, Gunslinger, Magus, Anti-Paladin, Samurai and Ninja.

Next has 10. It can stand a few more in supplements.

 

[MoonSong]

You're including UA but not the accessories from 3e and 4e?

Everything was core in 4e. They might have abandoned the SRD but that does not mean the classes in the PHB 3 or side books were not core. 4e had at least 26 classes. And that's including all the disparate versions of classes like the fighter as one. But I'm sure I'm forgetting some.

You say adding two classes only brings it to 10. True. But if we're pulling the sorcerer and warlock out what about the artificer? And the psion has much more of a legacy.
And if they can do that for the arcane classes, why not the warlord? Or the assassin, which has been in three editions or so.

I was trying to be charitable with 2e, because if we add accessories the number jumps to nearly fifty, and UA is a different case, because as far as I can it and the phb were used pretty closely to each other. And I have nothing against the Warlord, but at this point the designers have already given up on it and given it's stuff to the bard and fighter, and nobody seems interested on causing an uproar over it (don't get me wrong if somebody still thinks they are a worthy cause I will gladly contribute with my two coppers). The assassin on the other hand has been pretty controversial for a long long time and lacks a distinctive identity, from the mundane class on 1e, the kit on 2e, the arcane PrC on 3.x and the shadow class on 4e. Artificer and Psion are splat material and always have been, Psionics fans coincide that waiting for a supplement is better than having them rushed and half baked at launch. Both sorcerer and warlock have been on core, have many fans and are important enough to qualify for the gnome effect.

So the difference between the sorcerer and wizard is:

So the difference, the one worth creating an entire new class, is the ability to see magic and weapon proficiencies.
Weapon proficiencies and higher attack bonuses are almost a trap, as the sorcerer is super squishy and has no business being in melee.

Selectively ignoring stuff aren't we?, you also failed to see the skill dice, the two attacks and the additional feat/ability score increase?. Fairly trivial. Also did you notice I also put Heavy crossbow in there?. Don't underestimate the power of proficiencies on a game where they'll be hard to come by. Also it is evident you haven't played many sorcerers, with the right spells known and the proper score choices a sorcerer finds herself at home in melee on a way no wizard could ever be, and this was back on 3.x where hit dice was a d4, and 4e sorcerers where light gishes too when built properly

And the warlock:
Curses could easily be a pact bonus or a part of their spellcasting. Oh, and unique spells.
So, really, difference is weapon proficiencies. Plus armour and an extra hp every level. Of course, if warlocks cast using Con then they should have even more hp with a d6 than if they had a d8

Again you are ignoring key points, both classes are better at attacking than wizards, and they receive more Score increases to support their inherent MAD issues, something that will get ignored when forced under the wizard umbrella.and moreover this way both classes don't have unwanted scholarly flavor forced upon them. That is what backgrounds are for. Also you forget this is something I put together on five minutes, if anything they might be underpowered and could use some further enhancements

 

[Jester David]

Selectively ignoring stuff aren't we?, you also failed to see the skill dice, the two attacks and the additional feat/ability score increase?. Fairly trivial.

It is because so many other classes get that stuff. It's recycled and thus not a huge part of the class' identity. It's saying "sorcerer deserve to be a class because they can do things other classes do as well."

Also did you notice I also put Heavy crossbow in there?

Which was neat in 3e for a few levels but less impressive with at-will cantrips. It's really only useful when fighting a cold creeature that will ignore ray of frost.

Don't underestimate the power of proficiencies on a game where they'll be hard to come by.

Except they're not since most feats give them away as a perk. If you're going to be using feats and trying to use a weapon, might as well grab the related feat which gives you proficiency as well.

Also it is evident you haven't played many sorcerers, with the right spells known and the proper score choices a sorcerer finds herself at home in melee on a way no wizard could ever be, and this was back on 3.x where hit dice was a d4, and 4e sorcerers where light gishes too when built properly

Seen quite a few sorcerers in play, but never saw one as a gish, so that might be all you.
A sorcerer gish is a neat idea for a character but not for the entire class. Melee sorcerers are not so common that they need to become the default.

Again you are ignoring key points, both classes are better at attacking than wizards, and they receive more Score increases to support their inherent MAD issues, something that will get ignored when forced under the wizard umbrella.and moreover this way both classes don't have unwanted scholarly flavor forced upon them. That is what backgrounds are for. Also you forget this is something I put together on five minutes, if anything they might be underpowered and could use some further enhancements

Warlocks were only minorly melee characters, because they all had an awesome ranged attack.

This isn't making evocative sorcerers and warlocks that capture the feel of those classes; this is taking something they were slightly less bad at than the wizard and doubling down to make that their entire focus.

A gish class is a good idea, and one of the additional classes I'm in favour of. But I was also against forcing the sorcerer into that role last summer. There is room in the game for a duskbade/ sword mage/ spellsword /eldrichtch knight. Cramming another class into that role does a disservice to both.

 

[Falling Icicle]

It's one thing to have a party of subclass variants of classic familiar classes. While subclasses grant differences there are also familiarities.
It's another thing to have an entire party of new classes. Where none of the characters are recognizable or doing familiar things. An entire party of strangers.

Sorcerers, Warlocks, Psions and even Artificers are all familiar classes from previous editions. Allowing those to be their own classes doesn't mean you have to allow anything else after that. But even if they do, so what? Every class is based on a concept from the fantasy genre. When I decided to play an Oracle in Pathfinder, my friend asked me what that was, and I told him "it's kind of like a sorcerer that uses divine magic." That was about all the explanation that was needed. Any lack of familiarity lasts only as long as it takes to describe that class in a nutshell, so about 30 seconds. Besides, some people are, after 10, 20, 30 or more years of playing DnD, tired of the same old classes, and want to try out new things.

The slippery slope logical fallacy is not automatic. It is dependent on the subject. Wild mages and the like are just as valid. Why only make an exception for the most recent of classes?

Wild Mages were always just mages that just had some unpredictable spells. Wizards of High Sorcery from Dragonlance, Defilers from Dark Sun, etc. were all just different traditions of wizardry. Sorcerers and warlocks are quite a different story.

Paizo had to the sorcerer: Pathfinder was designed to be backwards compatible with 3.5e. But it's worth noting how much of an identity Paizo gave sorcerers. Much more than the class saw in 4e. It's a pity WotC can't use those ideas.

Paizo has shown what a great class sorcerers can be. They're not just wizards with spontaneous casting. Now that the genie is out of the bottle, it would be a shame for WotC to turn sorcerers back into nothing more than wizards that cast spells a little differently.

 

[Dausuul]

I agree that 4E and late 3E suffered from severe class bloat, but come on--keeping the number of classes under control doesn't require packing everything down into the Big Four and refusing to let them ever expand. In fact, I think that's apt to cause more problems than it solves, because it means that the Big Four will end up encompassing so many variants and alternative mechanics that they will be unified classes only in name. Then we end up right back where we were, except that instead of a million classes, we have four classes and a million subclasses.

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

That would be a good design challenge... differentiate them mechanically but still making them all vancian.

One example for that would be to have something similar to the Sorcerer in the 5e playtest a year ago, i.e. some sort of gradual physical transformation as spell slots are depleted. That Sorcerer used spell point IIRC, but the transformation itself could be there also if spellcasting was vancian.

Another idea could be to have the Sorcerer pick a theme and create a series of special abilities related to get side benefits that go beyond straight casting the spell e.g. an Enchanter-themed sorcerer being able to do more Cha-based tricks that are not spells, an energy-themed sorcerer having additional immunities or absorbing certain spells/effects directed at him to refuel lost slots (then changeable to regaining spell points etc) or manipulating mundane forms of that energy in quasi-magical way.

Either Sorcerer or Warlock could have additional mechanics based on sacrificing/expending something on the fly to regain slots or empower spells in a variety of ways, e.g. like 3e metamagic but paying a price like losing HP/HD, having penalties for the rest of the encounter, or a chance at losing spellcasting for the rest of the day and such...

 

[Weather Report]

It''s sort of a cross between 2nd and 3rd Edition, in 2nd Ed you had 4 Groupings (classes within each group):

-Priest: Cleric, Druid, Specialist.

-Rogue: Bard, Thief, Ninja (added later).

-Warrior: Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian (added later).

-Wizard: Mage, Specialist.


Now we have 10 groupings (classes), classes (subclasses) within each group.

I believe they mentioned settings containing subclasses, so a Dark Sun book might have new subclasses for each class, same with Ravenloft (Rogue: gypsy, etc), etc.