D&D 5E (2014) Mage: Wizards, Sorcerers, Warlocks, Artificers, Psions, oh my.

[Raunalyn]

Ok, I think I see what you're saying. My apologies (I'm giving up caffeine, so my brain is a bit slower than usual).

You're saying that you don't think that classes like the psion, warlock, and sorcerer should fit under the Mage role, correct? Ok, I think I follow now.

Let me ask you a question now. Don't these classes all share similarities in that they use unusual or arcane powers to perform their abilities? Wizards and Sorcerers cast arcane spells. Warlocks make pacts with infernal, fey, or unearthly entities to provide them with arcane powers. Psions use their inner strength of mind to perform actions that would appear arcane and strange.

I can see how they would fit together thematically

 

[Raunalyn]

Class is not interchangeable with role. I've seen clerics made that have been completely centered around using his spells to buff his melee skills. Just as I've played a dual wielding fighter that was completely centered around getting weapon specialization, weapon mastery, etc to output as much damage as any other class.

In this case, it is. Most of your traditional four core classes fit certain roles. They also had the capability to step outside those roles. 4e tried to pigeon-hole them into specific roles to accommodate game balance.

5e is keeping the traditional concepts established in 1st and 2nd edition, though. I don't see how it is really changing anything toward what 4e was trying to do.

 

[variant]

Ok, I think I see what you're saying. My apologies (I'm giving up caffeine, so my brain is a bit slower than usual).

You're saying that you don't think that classes like the psion, warlock, and sorcerer should fit under the Mage role, correct? Ok, I think I follow now.

Let me ask you a question now. Don't these classes all share similarities in that they use unusual or arcane powers to perform their abilities? Wizards and Sorcerers cast arcane spells. Warlocks make pacts with infernal, fey, or unearthly entities to provide them with arcane powers. Psions use their inner strength of mind to perform actions that would appear arcane and strange.

I can see how they would fit together thematically

A fighter, ranger, paladin, rogue, cleric, and even a druid can stab things with a sword. That doesn't mean they should all be under the same class. Every class shares similarities. If you take it back far enough you could have one class.

 

[Raunalyn]

A fighter, ranger, paladin, rogue, cleric, and even a druid can stab things with a sword. That doesn't mean they should all be under the same class. Every class shares similarities. If you take it back far enough you could have one class.

Very true, but that's never really been what D&D is about. Each of the classes you described have certain themes they follow; Fighters (and their sub-classes) like to swing weapons and kill things in the face; clerics (and their sub-classes) are keyed toward divinity and furthering the goals of their church/paradigm. Rogues (and their sub-classes) tend to hide, or are scouts.

Each class has a tendency to gravitate toward certain action types or roles. This has always been a key part of D&D. It's up to the players to distinguish their characters to bring them out of those roles, and not the game system. I don't see 5e doing this, though.

 

[MoonSong]

Why don't we do a bit of a reset here and see if we can drill down on where the real controversy is at.

Do we agree that it's OK if, under a broad "Mage" chart, all of Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Psion, and Artificer share the following level progression chart for these elements:

1. Initial armor proficiency
2. Initial weapon proficiency
3. Hit Die Used
4. Starting hit points
5. The level you get a new attack bonus
6. The levels you get a new ability score boost or feat
7. The levels you get a new class ability
8. The level when you learn a new spell, spell-like ability, or psionic ability
9. The quantity of spells, spell-like abilities, or psionic abilities you can "cast/use" at each level

Is that initial base progression chart something people object to in itself, provided that sub-classes and options/sub-sub-classes tweak what goes into each of those (like, for example, tweak what a class ability will be, what spell/psy/spell-like ability list you have access to, etc..)?

If not, which one(s) are bothersome, and why?

1. Initial armor proficiency
No, first mistake here. Wizards and psions don't get it , but the archetypal warlock uses leather armor.
2. Initial weapon proficiency
Wizards get too little proficiencies in comparison witht the rest (heck artificers even get to use bows). Dragging them down to wizard power level isn't good
3. Hit Die Used
4. Starting hit points
3.x warlock was better than wizards in the health department, in 4e warlocks and sorcerers hade better hit points than wizards. Again they get the short end of the straw, being brought down to wizard level

5. The level you get a new attack bonus
This part is up to debate, at this rate all classes will share the same combat bonus, we cannot discuss it propperly
6. The levels you get a new ability score boost or feat
Wizards and psions are SAD, warlocks and sorcerers are MAD, so far 5e has done little to change that.

7. The levels you get a new class ability
This all depends on what class abilities we are talking about.

8. The level when you learn a new spell, spell-like ability, or psionic ability
In order to keep balance they must be, but the same is true of druids and clerics, and they are their own classes
9. The quantity of spells, spell-like abilities, or psionic abilities you can "cast/use" at each level
This is bogus full vancian, full spontaneous, Prepared spontaneous, spell points and at will are very different in terms of flexibility. Prepared spontaneous is so strong that a class that is only spontaneous will need either an insane amount of spells known or a bigger amount of slots or any other kind of parallel ability in order to keep up.

 

[Minigiant]

Why don't we do a bit of a reset here and see if we can drill down on where the real controversy is at.

Do we agree that it's OK if, under a broad "Mage" chart, all of Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Psion, and Artificer share the following level progression chart for these elements:

1. Initial armor proficiency
2. Initial weapon proficiency
3. Hit Die Used
4. Starting hit points
5. The level you get a new attack bonus
6. The levels you get a new ability score boost or feat
7. The levels you get a new class ability
8. The level when you learn a new spell, spell-like ability, or psionic ability
9. The quantity of spells, spell-like abilities, or psionic abilities you can "cast/use" at each level

Is that initial base progression chart something people object to in itself, provided that sub-classes and options/sub-sub-classes tweak what goes into each of those (like, for example, tweak what a class ability will be, what spell/psy/spell-like ability list you have access to, etc..)?

If not, which one(s) are bothersome, and why?

1, 2, 8 & 9 are the problems.

The psion only used the 1st-9th progression system in 3rd edition and they used power points then. In 2nd, they used some science/discipline thing and AEDU in 4th.

The warlock never used 1st-9th progression. They used AEDU in 4th and least/lesser/greater/dark and all at will in 4rd. And it had simple weapons and light armor.

The artificer used 1st-9th spells in 2e. But in 3,5 it used infusions and was slightly roguish. Then 4t's AEDU/

The 3rd edition sorcerer was very different from the wizard in playstyle. Same in 4th. The 3rd sorcerer was all about having more spells per day but having a limited amount of spells always memorized. And it had simple weapons.

 

[variant]

Why don't we do a bit of a reset here and see if we can drill down on where the real controversy is at.

Do we agree that it's OK if, under a broad "Mage" chart, all of Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Psion, and Artificer share the following level progression chart for these elements:

1. Initial armor proficiency
2. Initial weapon proficiency
3. Hit Die Used
4. Starting hit points
5. The level you get a new attack bonus
6. The levels you get a new ability score boost or feat
7. The levels you get a new class ability
8. The level when you learn a new spell, spell-like ability, or psionic ability
9. The quantity of spells, spell-like abilities, or psionic abilities you can "cast/use" at each level

Is that initial base progression chart something people object to in itself, provided that sub-classes and options/sub-sub-classes tweak what goes into each of those (like, for example, tweak what a class ability will be, what spell/psy/spell-like ability list you have access to, etc..)?

If not, which one(s) are bothersome, and why?

No... I don't think it is okay. The Warlock, Sorcerer, Psion, Wizard, and Artificer are all fundamentally different classes that fill completely different archetypes and use completely different spell mechanics.

 

[Raunalyn]

No... I don't think it is okay. The Warlock, Sorcerer, Psion, Wizard, and Artificer are all fundamentally different classes that fill completely different archetypes and use completely different spell mechanics.

Ok, this is actually something that we can agree on

As I said before, I can see how they would fit together thematically, but I will agree that mechanically, they are much different.

Really, the only thing I can say here is that we need to wait for the final packet/final product.

 

[variant]

Ok, this is actually something that we can agree on

As I said before, I can see how they would fit together thematically, but I will agree that mechanically, they are much different.

Really, the only thing I can say here is that we need to wait for the final packet/final product.

The problem is that thematically, everyone can be grouped under Adventurer. Thematically a Wizard is someone that studies magic like a science, while a Sorcerer is someone that has it running in his veins. A Warlock found a way to make a pact with some higher being, but doesn't necessarily know how the powers he obtains works, and an Artificer is an item enchanter, not a spell slinger. The Psion doesn't even use arcane magic.

 

[Atomo]

Those aren't sub-classes; those are options.

Wrong. Wizards, sorceres, et al. are subclasses as stated, not options. But each subclass gain a particular spellcasting method (wizards gain spellbook, arcane recovery, school specialization, etc...). As stand, mage is the only class until now that has "subsubclasses", but it is exactly that, not modular options.