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

[Mistwell]

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.

That does not address my question. It addresses that you object, but it does not address what you object to, and really why. I mean, it's an overall "why", but it's not a specific why as to why they cannot share some of those things. For example, why can't they all share the same hit die? I was asking you to drill down on the areas of controversy, and you grouped and dismissed it all with the same sentence. I'm trying to reduce this down to figure out where we disagree, specifically.

 

[Raunalyn]

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.

That's precisely what I said. Sorcerers, warlocks, etc. are all subclasses, which each has a different option for spellcasting. It's really semantics to say that they are sub-classes of the sub-classes, but essentially, it's their style of spellcasting that is the optional feature here.

Just like being a 2 weapon fighter is an optional style of fighting for fighters.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

Naw he is right, and you misread that I think. He is not saying Wizards and Sorcerers are not sub-classes (they are). He's saying the variants on those things are not sub-classes, but are instead options. For example, an illusionist is an option for wizard, not it's own sub-class. Warlocks had options for different kinds as well.

 

[variant]

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.

If they want to keep the Mage as a modular class as it is, they need to rethink what they want the group under it. I could see things that are very similar like Dragonlance's High Sorcery, Dark Sun's Preserver and Defiler, and Birthright's Magician class. There are even other things that could apply under that such as Wild Mage and the Witch (see either 3e Dread Witch PrC or 4e Witch). The Sorcerer, Warlock, Artificier, and Psion just don't fit.

 

[variant]

Naw he is right, and you misread that I think. He is not saying Wizards and Sorcerers are not sub-classes (they are). He's saying the variants on those things are not sub-classes, but are instead options. For example, an illusionist is an option for wizard, not it's own sub-class.

They are as much options as the Gladiator is an option for the Fighter. The Warlock won't have access to the Wizardry Schools, so those particular 'options' aren't options for the whole Mage class, just the Wizard subclass.

 

[n00bdragon]

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.

I typed "Wizard", "Warlock", and "Sorcerer" into Wikipedia and was invariably directed to very nebulous pages about spellcasters in fantasy. Where are you getting this "archetypical Warlock" nonsense from? From 3.x D&D? Because that makes it sound more like you just want what 3.x said and anything else is somehow by definition wrong.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Artificer is something I feel could be grouped under Bard instead, certainly the 4e one could. Some Artificers could possibly be grouped under Rogue too. But the way I see it there's a few varieties of Artificer, and some could be Mages, but others might be Bards or Rogues.

 

[Li Shenron]

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."

I can only speak for myself, and tell you about my own resistance What I feel is certainly not like this sentence you are quoting.

I am resistant to this change, because I still have to hear a single convincing argument in favor of this change. I do not see any reasonable benefits, while I see a bunch of drawbacks. None of the drawbacks are dealbreakers for me, but they are real drawbacks nonetheless, the 2 biggest drawbacks are (1) conforming all these classes to the same class structure reduces the freedom of design and (2) lumping all into one class prevents multiclassing or requires additional ad-hoc rules to allow multiclassing. If they do separate classes for each arcane caster, they have more design freedom, and there is no ad-hoc rule needed for multiclassing, they will work just like all other classes.

"Streamlining" is not a convincing benefit for me, because if they want to streamline then they should streamline all classes, not just the Mage. Streamlining arcane casters but not divine casters, roguish types, and martial classes sound to me even worse than not streamlining any. It feels a bit lit ironing only one sleeve of your shirt... it probably looks better if you don't iron any of it!

It feels quite irritating to me to have a game when a type of character gets a different treatment from the others.

 

[MoonSong]

I typed "Wizard", "Warlock", and "Sorcerer" into Wikipedia and was invariably directed to very nebulous pages about spellcasters in fantasy. Where are you getting this "archetypical Warlock" nonsense from? From 3.x D&D? Because that makes it sound more like you just want what 3.x said and anything else is somehow by definition wrong.

We aren't talking about general world lore here, but d&d lore. And in case you didn't notice Warlock is a core class in 4e, what were his proficiencies? leather armor. Check these links

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...0.0....0...1ac.1.25.img..3.8.1675.IOitcBRkD3o

when a palyer thinks warlock, leather armor is included in the package, this isn't about real world technicalities, but rather about character continuity, if the 5e warlock doesn't accurately depict a good chunk of the existing warlock characters, that is the same as having no warlock but a complex subclass of wizard that claims to be a warlock but isn't one in anything but name (or not even that). Teh same is true for sorcerers. Heck I wouldn't care for names as long as I can get the "book dumb guy but world savvy with inherent magic, that could even be a complete idiot yet can go toe to toe witht the guy who spent years carefully study to be magical" and that it is as accessible and easy to use and play as it has been on previous editions. But what we are getting is something different

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

The core concept that the mage is the full arcane spell caster, and you get to choose the source of your magic works for me. Plus it means other classes could possibly get alternative casting methods to match.

But this only works so far. Wizardry and Sorcery? I cool with that. Wichcraft? Sure, I could see it work if it uses the same spell list. I'm sure there are plenty of other spellcasting systems that could be dropped in.

It always bothered me, and I mean really bothered me, that the warlock used a different spell list in 3.5, because his magic was basically arcane magic granted by other beings.

The psion, on the other hand, is not an arcane caster. Psionics are different. I want them to be even more different then they have been.