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

[Greg K]

That's one interpretation. Really, it's a justification of the weapon proficiencies.
The other is that the wizard had to work to learn their magic while the sorcerer is born with it. The sorcerer doesn't need to learn how to fight as they have the inborn power to blast their foes with magic.

Just to add to the above,
1)In many stories that D&D players might use for inspiration, inborn powered casters are often not trained in weapons and have to learn to control and develop their powers over time (either through experience or formal study); and
2) As for the spear, it makes sense for a sorcerer not because they are a gish, but because it would be a fairly common weapon among rural commoners so they would have some basic familiarity with it whereas the bookish wizard would be locked away in his or her studies with their masters and have an even smaller selection of weapon familiarity.

 

[bogmad]

That is the big problem, I'm not against non-standard wizards, but I don't want them at the cost of butchering standard sorcerers and warlocks



No, not buying it. If he is born with the power, then he has time to learn other stuff. Proficiencies are just the tip of the iceberg here. And notice this is an element that is repeated on PF and 4e. A sorcerer is always proficient with more weapons than the wizard.

Sure he's born with it, but does that mean he can cast spells perfectly without trying and learning to do it better? Then why have a level progression at all? Casting spontaneously shouldn't mean effortlessly I don't think. You could argue the sorcerer spends some of that extra time harnessing his arcane power and learning to channel it into spells.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the sorcerer shouldn't have different proficiencies than the wizard, but there's room for more flexibiltity even he gets stuffed within the mage class.

Ok, the if sorcerer dind't have to learn his power, but also couldn't learn any usable combat ability neither any useful skill, what the heck is he supposed to learn with all of that free time?

I don't think the life of a sorcerer is totally bereft of time learning to use his magic. Less than your typical academic wizard sure. Enough that he should be getting an expertise die? I don't know if he needs that kind of "expert" mechanic.

 

[MoonSong]

Sure he's born with it, but does that mean he can cast spells perfectly without trying and learning to do it better? Then why have a level progression at all? Casting spontaneously shouldn't mean effortlessly I don't think. You could argue the sorcerer spends some of that extra time harnessing his arcane power and learning to channel it into spells.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the sorcerer shouldn't have different proficiencies than the wizard, but there's room for more flexibiltity even he gets stuffed within the mage class.

Or course it was hyperbole, even sorcerers need practice, but that doesn't compare to the years locked in the tower surrounded by dusty tomes

I don't think the life of a sorcerer is totally bereft of time learning to use his magic. Less than your typical academic wizard sure. Enough that he should be getting an expertise die? I don't know if he needs that kind of "expert" mechanic.

It makes sense for a sorcerer to have that dice, it is just a charisma dice, like I said it replaces the loss of social skills as class skills in PF and 4e, and it fits the class better than Esoteric Knowledge

 

[LightPhoenix]

Personally, I'm rather ambivalent on this point.

I do think they should be different classes if they're going to use completely different mechanics (Wizard vs. Psion) or cover completely different archetypes/roles (Wizard vs. Cleric). Otherwise, they probably should be the same class. I also think that if this is going to be applied to the spellcasting classes, it should also be applied to the melee classes. For example, I think the Barbarian should be reduced to feats - there's not enough there to really differentiate it, and let anyone rage if they want to.

On the other hand, I really don't like the current implementation of sub-classes. I feel that they make the classes overly complicated, despite their existence being an answer of how to provide simple and complex classes together. So in that light, I'd want the spellcasting classes to be their own thing over being sub-classes, even if that means the mechanics overlap.

 

[Mistwell]

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

Naw, you mean the current iteration of the beta playtest rules have 10. Earlier versions had fewer, and the latest version appears to be playtesting the very concept of collapsing down the classes back to four, with the renaming of "wizard" to be "mage", combined with the Tweets about fitting five sub-classes under "mage". I suspect the current plan is to publish with four classes, many sub-classes under each of those four classes, and then variants on those sub-classes, to sort of create a tree-diagram of how classes work in 5e.

 

[Li Shenron]

I do think they should be different classes if they're going to use completely different mechanics (Wizard vs. Psion) or cover completely different archetypes/roles (Wizard vs. Cleric). Otherwise, they probably should be the same class.

@GX_Sigma asked about this on Twitter and Mearls just responded yesterday in a way that might actually suggest arcane classes may have the same spellcasting mechanics:

Q: "Will different types of mage use different casting styles? Will it be an option at the system level (for, e.g., divine casters)?"
A: "we're most likely to present blanket changes to spell casting in the DMG (converting all casters to points, powers, etc)"

But then the answer could refer to the 2nd question only, because in another tweet:

Q: "are mages pure spellcasters or are they designed to use invocations, mysteries, soulmends, and other not-spells in the future?"
A: "those things - if they show up - will likely be accessible via a mechanic that replaces wizardry."

So it's still quite nebulous to me.

 

[Minigiant]

@GX_Sigma asked about this on Twitter and Mearls just responded yesterday in a way that might actually suggest arcane classes may have the same spellcasting mechanics:

Q: "Will different types of mage use different casting styles? Will it be an option at the system level (for, e.g., divine casters)?"
A: "we're most likely to present blanket changes to spell casting in the DMG (converting all casters to points, powers, etc)"

But then the answer could refer to the 2nd question only, because in another tweet:

Q: "are mages pure spellcasters or are they designed to use invocations, mysteries, soulmends, and other not-spells in the future?"
A: "those things - if they show up - will likely be accessible via a mechanic that replaces wizardry."

So it's still quite nebulous to me.

It sounds like you can swap out wizardy for sorcery or psionics or witchcraft or meldshaping or whatever.
But they all will cast spells in the vancian method.
Then the DMG has conversion tables for slots to points or slots to AED.

So the sorcerer would get Sorcery and Esoteric Knowledge first level and get Dragon Bloodline at level 2.
And the psion would get Psionic and Esoteric Knowledge first level and get Nomad Discpline at level 2.
And your 3 1st level spell slot convert to 3 spellpoints.

 

[Remathilis]

Naw, you mean the current iteration of the beta playtest rules have 10. Earlier versions had fewer, and the latest version appears to be playtesting the very concept of collapsing down the classes back to four, with the renaming of "wizard" to be "mage", combined with the Tweets about fitting five sub-classes under "mage". I suspect the current plan is to publish with four classes, many sub-classes under each of those four classes, and then variants on those sub-classes, to sort of create a tree-diagram of how classes work in 5e.

I don't think so.

Maybe they'll cram the myriad of spellcaster's under "Mage" and be done. And it does look like Assassin and Warlord will be sub-classes. However, I strongly suspect Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin are NOT being rolled into Fighter (due to the unique mechanics of rage and spellcasting), nor do I see Druid ending up a Cleric sub-class (weapons, armor, wild-shape, and spell selection so different they have little in common but Cure Wounds and HD). I REALLY don't see Bard ending up a Rogue (granted, we've not seen 5e's bard, but I'm wagering spellcasting is a key-element, sneak attack not so much). I don't EVEN know what you shuttle Monk under!

And nor should they; since clearly (as of this iteration) they are assuming Barbarian, Druid, Monk, Ranger, Paladin, and Bard should be separate with unique mechanics, spells, and their own sub-classes. The "Four Classes Only" idea sounds good on paper, but unless you're really willing to sacrifice things that make these classes unique in exchange for homogeneity, it won't work. (And there was an edition of D&D that already tried to cram classes into four pre-cut positions, and it didn't work out so well).

 

[ki11erDM]

My guess is they are going to make two versions of D&D. "basic" and "advanced". Basic is going to have 4 classes, Fighter, Mage, Cleric, & Rogue. Each of those will have a few progressions trees that go up to 10th level with a clean and simple DM manual. Those trees might point towards other advanced classes like Knight under Fighter pointing towards a Paladin. Or a Nature focused Cleric pointing towards a Druid.

Advanced will have Fighter, Mage, Cleric, Rogue, Druid, Bard, Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, and Monk. Each with lots of progression trees and with lots of ways to tweak that progression trees as you see fit. The DMG will cover how to convert Mage into a 3.5 sorcerer with spell points and maybe some new progression trees. Hopefully Artificers/Warlocks will be "unearthed arcana'ed" were they are ether their own class or a complete re-imagining of the Mage class in campaign books. I personally dont see any reason to include Artificers/Warlocks in any of the first set of rule books, and certainly not psions.

 

[Warbringer]

Naw, you mean the current iteration of the beta playtest rules have 10. Earlier versions had fewer, and the latest version appears to be playtesting the very concept of collapsing down the classes back to four, with the renaming of "wizard" to be "mage", combined with the Tweets about fitting five sub-classes under "mage". I suspect the current plan is to publish with four classes, many sub-classes under each of those four classes, and then variants on those sub-classes, to sort of create a tree-diagram of how classes work in 5e.

To me it would make far more sense to have 4-core -> subclass -> tradition (etc), with a basic version of each of the 4-core as a generic "subclass", so in effect the class is just a "header", not a choice in itself.

Then, allow muti- classes to the subclass in standard (so ranger/barbarians, rogue/ bards, sorcerer/ wizard are all allowed) ... While in advanced multiclassing all the way down the tree is ok, so blackguard/assassin/shadow sorcerer/artificer is completely playable and is essentially a non-class system at this level.