Sorcerer - Class or Theme?

[Dice4Hire]

I think we will definitely have the core four and then themes or the like, or subclasses, that change things up into different classes.

 

[Ratinyourwalls]

I think we will definitely have the core four and then themes or the like, or subclasses, that change things up into different classes.

This is really what I hope they do. Four generic classes that you can plug into any style of play, and books of themes/subclasses/kits that you can use to emulate each edition's style.

 

[LordArchaon]

I think we will definitely have the core four and then themes or the like, or subclasses, that change things up into different classes.

This is really what I hope they do. Four generic classes that you can plug into any style of play, and books of themes/subclasses/kits that you can use to emulate each edition's style.

Are you aware they already stated they're going to make all the classes from all the first PHBs of every edition and make them available from the start? At least all those (many) core classes will be... Core. Then you can still add others through subclasses and such, and have others be themes (like Avenger, already stated to be more of a Theme).

 

[Ratinyourwalls]

Are you aware they already stated they're going to make all the classes from all the first PHBs of every edition and make them available from the start? At least all those (many) core classes will be... Core. Then you can still add others through subclasses and such, and have others be themes (like Avenger, already stated to be more of a Theme).

Have they specifically said they would be classes or just available from the start?

 

[Dausuul]

Sub-classses are a 2e thing. Mearls loves 2e. He already brought sub-classes back in Essentials. He has a clear mandate to include the 'best of all editions.'

Actually, Mearls is on record as hating 2E. He felt TSR was telling him his approach to gaming was badwrongfun. He's all about 1E and BD&D.

That said, 1E had sub-classes too, more or less. The paladin was listed as "Paladin (Fighter)," the assassin was "Assassin (Thief)," et cetera. And as you say, we've seen them in Essentials. So I wouldn't be surprised to see them show up in 5E.

As for sorceror as a sub-class of wizard... hmm. Could work. I don't really care how they organize it, as long as I have the option to play a non-Vancian caster who isn't just Blasty McBlasterson. If sorceror is a sub-class of wizard, I expect it will look like 3E, where they're more or less identical except one is spontaneous and the other Vancian. If sorc is its own class, it may be more distinct.

 

[LordArchaon]

Have they specifically said they would be classes or just available from the start?

From EnWorld's "D&D 5e Info" page:

Class list: "The goal at the moment is to include all the classes that were in the first PH style book for each edition."
​

With the Question being:

Q: Will some of the non-traditional classes like the Ninja appear early in the next edition?
​

(Taken from the Class Design seminar transcript.)

 

[Serendipity]

I think if there is a class to use as a non-vancian caster (which it seems a lot of people are clamouring for) then I'd be happy with it being the sorcerer. (As an aside, the way I'd like to see sorcerers done would be a wierd compromise between the power system from 4e laid over the bloodline way that sorcery works in Pathfinder. That, I think, would be the bees knees, but it's not a very modular approach I'll admit.)

I think you could easily do sorcery as a theme for the wizard (or whatever the magic-user class will be called) but I think that's almost too easy, from a designers standpoint.

 

[Starfox]

For me, the core of the sorcerer is that it is a magic-user that did not have to study to gain spells. This keys naturally to a more limited selection of powers/spells (like in 3.5), but I always felt the sorcerer failed to deliver on 2 important points:

#1 The sorcerer need not focus on his magic as much as a wizard does - and can be more physically active/resilient as a consequence.

#2 The sorcerer should be very much encouraged to have a theme - like fire magic.

Basically, the Warmage and Beguiler were closer to my idea of a sorcerer per #1 above, and the 4E Sorcerer to #2. If Sorceror is a theme in 5E, I don't think it should be a theme for Wizards only.

 

[mkill]

Gathering from what little info was released, it's pretty clear that if something was a class in 1/2/3/4E, it will still be a class in 5E. Not really totally extremely surprising. I know their is a small proportion of "4 class core all else optional" proponents, 20% in my rpg.net poll, but it looks like this won't happen.

As for the Sorcerer, PF pretty much has the flavor of the class nailed down for me. Bloodlines rule. I just don't like that the class suffers from the usual linear fighters quadratic spellcasters. Fix that and I'm happy.

I actually like that Sorcs and Wizards use the same spell list. Same magic, different approach. (Also cuts down system bloat)

If I could change anything, I would make Sorcerers better at metamagic. It seems natural to me that someone who relies less on formulas and more on instincts would easily be able to make bigger or smaller fireballs as he pleases. We'll see.

 

[kitsune9]

This is kind of a hard choice for me, but I think if I had to choose, I would stick with class.