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

[Mistwell]

It's the most important comment. Distilling all classes down to three or even a single really bland core class is not D&D.

OD&D was three classes.

AD&D and BECMI was four. 2e was, mostly, as well.

4e was four "types" instead of four classes.

I'd say a majority of D&D versions used this concept of distilling all classes down to three or four classifications, and then spread out variants from there.

Why would a Psion need a different hit point, ability/feat, number of spell/psionic per level, and attack bonus than a mage or a sorcerer (I think armor will be listed for each sub-class btw, just like it was done for Cleric/Druid in earlier editions)? Similarly, why would a Paladin need a different progression on those factors from a fighter? Sub-classes worked just fine in older editions of D&D in this same manner.

I really think you're getting too caught up in titles, and assuming way to much about how things will function, all from a short tweet. You can have massive variation in how each sub-class operates, despite the primary class title. It's mostly a "how do we organize the book, balance things, and use a bit of short-hand to save space" type thing.

 

[Hussar]

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.

That's not entirely accurate. 2e also had sub-classes. Ranger and Paladin were sub-classes of Fighter. Druid was a sub-class of Cleric and Specialist Wizard's were sub-classes of Magic Users.

It was 3e that did away with the notion of sub-classes.

Mechanically, what is different between a 3e Wizard and a Sorcerer? They are virtually identical. The only real difference is in the memorization rules. They use identical spell lists and cast exactly the same way. Psionics have been done both as Vancian casting and spell points at various points in time in the game. These classes really aren't that different IMO.

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

Fortunately, I believe this is not really the case.

If I am wrong, and they are really trying once again to tell me that if I want to play a Wizard I must be a controller, if I play a Cleric I must be a leader etc., instead of letting me pick a class and then decide how I want to play it (meaning they should design classes that at least have an array of options, tho it doesn't have to be every possible option conceivable), then they'll never have me as a 5e customers, just like they didn't get a single penny from me for 4e products.

 

[Raunalyn]

Fortunately, I believe this is not really the case.

If I am wrong, and they are really trying once again to tell me that if I want to play a Wizard I must be a controller, if I play a Cleric I must be a leader etc., instead of letting me pick a class and then decide how I want to play it (meaning they should design classes that at least have an array of options, tho it doesn't have to be every possible option conceivable), then they'll never have me as a 5e customers, just like they didn't get a single penny from me for 4e products.

Oh, I agree! I was just using those as a reference to prove a point. I, too, believe that 5e will allow a bit more flexibility.

 

[Mistwell]

Fortunately, I believe this is not really the case.

If I am wrong, and they are really trying once again to tell me that if I want to play a Wizard I must be a controller, if I play a Cleric I must be a leader etc., instead of letting me pick a class and then decide how I want to play it (meaning they should design classes that at least have an array of options, tho it doesn't have to be every possible option conceivable), then they'll never have me as a 5e customers, just like they didn't get a single penny from me for 4e products.

No I don't see anything like those types of classifications being used for 5e, I think his point was just that 4e distilled things down to four essential "things". In 4e those things were the sorts of role-playing roles you mention. But I think it 5e it's purely a mechanical title denoting which chart you progress on for: hit points, ability/feats, and attack bonus.

This is, at it's heart, most similar to 1e (and therefore likely 2e) I think. I recall referring back to the fighter progression tables for the Ranger, for example. It's the same sort of thing. It's not like a 1e ranger "felt" like a fighter, just that they both fell under the same progression chart for ease of reference.

 

[variant]

That's not entirely accurate. 2e also had sub-classes. Ranger and Paladin were sub-classes of Fighter. Druid was a sub-class of Cleric and Specialist Wizard's were sub-classes of Magic Users.

It was 3e that did away with the notion of sub-classes.

Mechanically, what is different between a 3e Wizard and a Sorcerer? They are virtually identical. The only real difference is in the memorization rules. They use identical spell lists and cast exactly the same way. Psionics have been done both as Vancian casting and spell points at various points in time in the game. These classes really aren't that different IMO.

Technically they could be considered subclasses, but the four categories weren't really considered classes. They didn't have their own abilities that progressed. Everything but the THAC0, hit points, and saving throws was obtained in the classes.

This isn't even remotely the same thing as creating a meta-class for a couple of 3e classes. This is at minimum five classes with each having a number of full fledge sub-classes underneath them.

 

[Raunalyn]

Technically they could be considered subclasses, but the four categories weren't really considered classes. They didn't have their own abilities that progressed. Everything but the THAC0, hit points, and saving throws was obtained in the classes.

This isn't even remotely the same thing as creating a meta-class for a couple of 3e classes. This is at minimum five classes with each having a number of full fledge sub-classes underneath them.

But they did. Each subclass even had it's own XP chart.

It really is no different that it was in previous editions, though. They thematically looped each class together.

I guess I'm really just trying to understand why there is so much resistance to this. I don't see that much of a difference to how it was in previous incarnations of D&D. But the argument I'm seeing is that "This is not how I see a mage, therefore this isn't D&D."

 

[variant]

But they did. Each subclass even had it's own XP chart.

They did what exactly?

It really is no different that it was in previous editions, though. They thematically looped each class together.

I guess I'm really just trying to understand why there is so much resistance to this. I don't see that much of a difference to how it was in previous incarnations of D&D. But the argument I'm seeing is that "This is not how I see a mage, therefore this isn't D&D."

You are just being obtuse.

 

[Raunalyn]

They did what exactly?



You are just being obtuse.

They had their own class progression. Rogues received certain abilities at certain levels. Their abilities progressed and were gained differently for each class and sub class.

How am I being obtuse? I've presented well reasoned arguments that show that the changes being presented are really not that much different than they were in previous editions. I even boiled down your essential argument to the core of what you were arguing; that you didn't like what they were doing with the mage, therefore you didn't think it was D&D.

That was pretty much what you said, correct?

 

[variant]

They had their own class progression. Paladins got a war-horse at X-level, they could cure diseases at y-level. Their abilities progressed and were gained differently for each sub-class.

Duh?

How am I being obtuse? I've presented well reasoned arguments that show that the changes being presented are really not that much different than they were in previous editions. I even boiled down your essential argument to the core of what you were arguing; that you didn't like what they were doing with the mage, therefore you didn't think it was D&D.

That was pretty much what you said, correct?

See? You are being obtuse. If you read my post, you would know my main concern is the fact that five sub-classes with each having a number of additional sub-classes under them, all under a single class, will be bloated and complicated. The fact that a lot of these classes do not thematically fit is only an additional concern.