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

[Raunalyn]

I think that many people may be misinterpreting what is being done here.

What it looks like to me is that they've broken down the concept of "Fighter type classes" (or, in 4e, the defender), or "Mage-type classes" (what in 4e was the controller) and just defined them slightly different.

So, rename "Mage" as controller. How does that change the core concept? I know, not all of the classes being put under the Mage core class are controllers, but they are all very similar mechanically (Warlocks and Sorcs were both strikers with lots of controller-y abilities).

The way I see it, the core classes are just their way of renaming Defender, Controller, Leader, Striker.

 

[variant]

Really? So, Basic D&D didn't have only 3 or 4 core classes that were relatively bland (Hello, I'm a fighter...I hit things). 1st edition didn't have a small core of classes? Were those D&D?

I said distilling. As in taking all the options we have obtained in four edition of D&D and condensing that into a tiny few classes.

 

[Raunalyn]

I said distilling. As in taking all the options we have obtained in four edition of D&D and condensing that into a tiny few classes.

I disagree. Older editions did fine with a small core of classes with fewer options. It wasn't until 3rd edition that we started seeing the extreme end of the option bloat. Sure, 2e had kits, but still it had less feature creep than later editions.

So, going back more toward what the core D&D system was, to me, is D&D

 

[variant]

I disagree. Older editions did fine with a small core of classes with fewer options. It wasn't until 3rd edition that we started seeing the extreme end of the option bloat. Sure, 2e had kits, but still it had less feature creep than later editions.

So, going back more toward what the core D&D system was, to me, is D&D

No features are being removed or reduced, if anything they are being expanded. Only with the Mage, at least five classes and their 5 or so subclasses each are being put into a single class.

 

[Raunalyn]

No features are being removed or reduced, if anything they are expanding. Only with the Mage, at least five classes and their 5 or so subclasses each is being put into a single class.

So, like controllers then, which had the wizard, psion, seeker, and the druid. Or the defenders, which had fighters, wardens, paladins, etc.

That's really all they are doing; just moving the options into categories.

It's still D&D. Just like 1st edition was still D&D. Just like 2nd edition was D&D.

 

[Plaguescarred]

While i can get behind sorcerer and warlock being mage subclass if they have alternate spellcasting method and unique features, spells and invocations to them, i feel the psionic is out of place and should be its own class IMHO.

 

[variant]

So, like controllers then, which had the wizard, psion, seeker, and the druid. Or the defenders, which had fighters, wardens, paladins, etc.

That's really all they are doing; just moving the options into categories.

It's still D&D. Just like 1st edition was still D&D. Just like 2nd edition was D&D.

No. Mage is not a category. It is a class with it's own hit points, armor, abilities, and progression tables. It then will have sub-classes that will have sub-sub-classes. None of the sub-classes or sub-sub-classes will have their own hit points, armor, or progression tables.

 

[Raunalyn]

No. Mage is not a category. It is a class with it's own hit points, armor, abilities, and progression chart. It then will have sub-classes that will have sub-sub-classes.

Mage is the core class. In older editions, 2e I believe, there were the warrior style classes, the cleric style classes, the mage style classes, and the rogue style classes. You could choose to play the core classes (fighter, cleric, mage, rogue), or you could play subclasses, like the paladin, the druid, the specialist, or the bard.

So, what's different here? Nothing.

 

[variant]

Mage is the core class. In older editions, 2e I believe, there were the warrior style classes, the cleric style classes, the mage style classes, and the rogue style classes. You could choose to play the core classes (fighter, cleric, mage, rogue), or you could play subclasses, like the paladin, the druid, the specialist, or the bard.

So, what's different here? Nothing.

It was 1e that had sub-classes. There is nothing wrong with sub-classes. There is something wrong with sub-classes that have sub-classes because they want to shove five unrelated classes under a single class. The Mage is also the only one to get this treatment. No other class does.

 

[Raunalyn]

It was 1e that had sub-classes. There is nothing wrong with sub-classes. There is something wrong with sub-classes that have sub-classes because they want to shove five unrelated classes under a single class. The Mage is also the only one to get this treatment. No other class does.

My point remains. Mage is the core class, not the sub class. Sorcerer is a sub-class of mage, and there are 3 options to choose from within there. These are not sub-sub-classes, they are just options. The Warlock, Sorcerer, and Psion (which, I will agree is arguable) are thematically similar to Mages, which is why those 3 subclasses are put together.

The Cleric has the same thing; Cleric is the core, druid is the sub, and three options beneath. Fighter? Yup, same thing. Rogue? Uh huh, same thing.

But it's still D&D...