D&D 5E On whether sorcerers and wizards should be merged or not, (they shouldn't)

[Minigiant]

"Reducing the classes to their basic cores (Warrior, Mage, Cleric, Rogue,...)," particularly the Fab Four, is not quite what I had in mind. It's a difference of em-phah-sis so to speak. The core of the spellcaster would be based on their casting style rather than whether they are a Mage or Cleric.

So you mean a learned caster (wizard), an innate caster (sorcerer), a patron caster (warlock), and a deity granted caster (cleric). Then have base class features and casting stat based on the method. Then finally have your bloodlines or domains or whatever choose your power source and associated spell list.

So a draconic sorcerer, spellschool wizard, GOO warlock, and knowledge cleric uses an arcane list.
The divine sorcerer, celestial warlock, and light cleric uses the divine list.
The storm sorcerer, fey warlock, tempest cleric, and the shaman wizard uses the primal spell list.
etc etc

 

[Aldarc]

So you mean a learned caster (wizard), an innate caster (sorcerer), a patron caster (warlock), and a deity granted caster (cleric). Then have base class features and casting stat based on the method. Then finally have your bloodlines or domains or whatever choose your power source and associated spell list.

I mean that you would pick a Learned Caster class and then pick your spell list: divine, arcane, primal, etc. If you were the Arcane Bookworm, then you would be a wizard. If you were the Divine Bookworm, you would be a Cloistered Priest (pick the name you want). If you were the Primal Bookworm, you would be a Natural Wizard (however you wanna call it). If you were the Arcane Patron class, you may be a Warlock. If you were the Divine Patron class, you may be an Oracle. And so on...

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Even then it was too late. If anything the kits clearly show the thematic limits of the wizards. There are variants of course, but none of them could really break from the "book holding scholar of difficult to use arcane knowledge" mold, they all are just another coat of paint that does nothing to change the core. The designers really trusted in the wizard genericness and blatantly avoided any evidence to the contrary. 30 years ago was still 20 years of inertia. I'd argue that we haven't really broken from the "wizards are generic" mindset yet.
(Though it might be surprising to learn Warlocks actually originated as a wizard kit).

As a design exercise, I don't think it'd be that hard to design a wizard kit that said "You don't have a spellbook, you do something else instead." Heck, I've done it. And from a certain point of view, this is exactly what the 3E sorcerer was -- it certainly didn't have much in the way of distinctive features beyond the modification to to spellcasting rules. But we've had the class for three editions now, and it's developed its own mechanical identity. Which brings me to the larger point: who exactly are you arguing against here? "Wizards are generic"? Who's saying that? What implies it? We've got four distinct arcane casters in the PHB now; that's a far more granular breakdown of the theme than any other.

 

[Minigiant]

I mean that you would pick a Learned Caster class and then pick your spell list: divine, arcane, primal, etc. If you were the Arcane Bookworm, then you would be a wizard. If you were the Divine Bookworm, you would be a Cloistered Priest (pick the name you want). If you were the Primal Bookworm, you would be a Natural Wizard (however you wanna call it). If you were the Arcane Patron class, you may be a Warlock. If you were the Divine Patron class, you may be an Oracle. And so on...

Oh. So you mean instead of 4e's Source Role, classes would be Source Method. I could see that in 6e.

I think D&D's Divine Bookworm is the Archivist. Primal/Natural Wizard, I don't know.

 

[cbwjm]

I have mused about what it would look like if spellcasters in D&D were fundamentally divided into three to four classes based upon how they approach magic (e.g., patron, learned, innate, gish, etc.) and then have separate spell lists they could choose based on their power source (e.g., divine, arcane, primal, etc.).

You should check out pathfinder 2e, they've done this. If I recall correctly the spell lists are divided into arcane, divine, primal, and occult. Depending on your class you gain access to one of those spell lists. In the case of the sorcerer their spell list is decided by their bloodline. Draconic might be arcane but an elemental bloodline would be primal. I think it is an interesting way of doing it.

 

[MoonSong]

As a design exercise, I don't think it'd be that hard to design a wizard kit that said "You don't have a spellbook, you do something else instead." Heck, I've done it. And from a certain point of view, this is exactly what the 3E sorcerer was -- it certainly didn't have much in the way of distinctive features beyond the modification to to spellcasting rules. But we've had the class for three editions now, and it's developed its own mechanical identity.

I would like to see you try something like that, within the confines of 2e design that is. No kit ever modified a base class on such a fundamental level -at most the minstrel that opened the bard class to all elves -

Which brings me to the larger point: who exactly are you arguing against here? "Wizards are generic"? Who's saying that? What implies it? We've got four distinct arcane casters in the PHB now; that's a far more granular breakdown of the theme than any other.

Just a sample of opinions from this one forum:

Warlock and Sorcerer I think could just be a subclass of wizard

Bard/Sorcerer/Warlock could be rolled into Wizard.

Sorcerer is a solution in search of a problem

Sorceror is a little too close to Wizard: Remove the spellbook, and you have the sorceror.

Sorcerer and warlocks are just no class wizards.

Sorcerer and Warlock could just be special wizard types

Wizard (subsumes sorcerer: subclasses would grant either additional spells or metamagic, which becomes INT-based)

Sorcerer. This class only exists because 3e didn't go all in on spontaneous casting (granted, partially because the magic system was way better than the martial system). At this point the only thing it really does uniquely is flavor. That could be rolled into a Wizard subclass, including the difference in magic source (learned vs inherent)

Sorcerer is basically Wizard 2.0

I hate that Warlock and Sorcerer are even part of the game. Not only would I remove them, I would remove them with a vengeance.

Sorcerer and Warlocks could both fall under Wizard

I wouldn't necessarily agree that we're at the bloat point already, or that the 5e PHB has entire classes that could be cut. Well, maybe the Sorcerer.

I would never add sorcerer to the game, since wizard already exists.

Every time a "we don't need a sorcerer" comes up, "the wizard is generic enough to cover for it" is implied...

 

[Sacrosanct]

I would like to see you try something like that, within the confines of 2e design that is. No kit ever modified a base class on such a fundamental level -at most the minstrel that opened the bard class to all elves -



Just a sample of opinions from this one forum:
















Every time a "we don't need a sorcerer" comes up, "the wizard is generic enough to cover for it" is implied...

I can't speak for anyone else you quoted, but if you're gonna quote me, id appreciate if it was in the right context. I wasn't implying wizards are generic enough. I was saying I prefer fewer classes in general, like the core four. Not just wizards. You quoted only a portion of my post as if it supports your argument when it really doesnt. Not kosher

* Edit. Also, 2e did have a sorcerer option for wizards. It was a spell point option. Which pretty much does what sorcerers do. So it's already been done in 2e

 

[FrogReaver]

I can't speak for anyone else you quoted, but if you're gonna quote me, id appreciate if it was in the right context. I wasn't implying wizards are generic enough. I was saying I prefer fewer classes in general, like the core four. Not just wizards. You quoted only a portion of my post as if it supports your argument when it really doesnt. Not kosher

Maybe I'm dense but I'm not seeing the nuanced difference in the 2 presentations.

 

[MoonSong]

I can't speak for anyone else you quoted, but if you're gonna quote me, id appreciate if it was in the right context. I wasn't implying wizards are generic enough. I was saying I prefer fewer classes in general, like the core four. Not just wizards. You quoted only a portion of my post as if it supports your argument when it really doesnt. Not kosher

That's fair, sorry. Do you want me to remove your quote?

Still what is your stance on this? Do we need a sorcerer or we don't?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Maybe I'm dense but I'm not seeing the nuanced difference in the 2 presentations.

It means I prefer only the core classes, not that wizards are generic enough to cover what anyone else wants. Just a personal preference. I prefer only the basic ice cream flavors like vanilla and chocolate. That doesn't mean I'm saying chocolate is generic enough that replaces Rocky road.