Sorcerer warlock heritage and maybe even psion heritage

[Sadrik]

Could we make the warlock a heritage of the sorcerer? please...

I mean do we really have to have both of them? Wouldn't it just make more sense to have both under one roof? I mean heck if necromancer is a theme or specialty can't we just have the warlock be a heritage? I think you could even make the Psion a heritage under the sorcerer. Each one of them could have vastly different feels. If the sorcerer represents characters inate magic or at will magic, then clearly the warlock and Psion fit.

Mistyped the first poll option: it should be:
Sorcerer heritage could include warlock and many others

 

[Evenglare]

no , we cant do that because apparently we need a different way of expressing magic when it comes from different sources, even though clerics get their magic from a different source (Gods) other than wizards but cast them the same way (vancian).

edit: if you couldnt tell...this was sarcasming.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I am wondering why it matters whether a warlock is its own class or a sorcerer heritage? Are you afraid the warlock will be taking real estate in the Player's Handbook away from some other concept?

 

[Sadrik]

no , we cant do that because apparently we need a different way of expressing magic when it comes from different sources, even though clerics get their magic from a different source (Gods) other than wizards but cast them the same way (vancian).

edit: if you couldnt tell...this was sarcasming.

Sarcasm or not, you actually make a pretty good point without even realizing it. It is like the domains, should each cleric domain be a separate class? Each cleric could be a different class, the "Healing domain cleric" should be completely different than the "War domain cleric". Why not separate them out into different classes? Should not each domain be separate and distinct? Why lump them all together into this big pot and call it a cleric?

This line of thinking is a very similar for how I view the innate magic class and its potential heritage. Sorcerer can have several different heritages: infernal, draconic, psionic, fey, elemental to name a few. These would be synonymous with the domains and how they are a specialty that makes the cleric class feel different in play.

To pull it back further, I really enjoyed 2e and how their was a basal understanding of the classes and different campaign worlds put spins on a the core set of classes. 3e and certainly 4e turned the corner on this concept. Point being what campaign assumptions have to be in play with the various different heritages and classes. If it is in the PHB, generally it is in the game (of course hard nosed DMs can say no). This gets into the idea of fewer classes with more options on them or more classes but more specific.

 

[Sadrik]

I am wondering why it matters whether a warlock is its own class or a sorcerer heritage? Are you afraid the warlock will be taking real estate in the Player's Handbook away from some other concept?

Good point, and yes, this is exactly why I think the warlock could be a sorcerer heritage. From a design perspective if you only have to account for 10 things its easier than if you have to account for 11. Overlap, is not good. I mean a Fey Sorcerer vs. a Fey Warlock... Really?

 

[Ahnehnois]

The point of having a warlock in D&D is pretty well established: it gives you a different casting mechanic and a different background. Wizards study a quasiscientific magic, sorcerers are born with access to it, and warlocks are given it by some interested entity or entities. Wizards memorize spells, sorcerers cast spontaneously, and warlocks cast at will.

Incidentally, clerics should not memorize spells or have any remotely wizardlike mechanics.

 

[Ellington]

I'd rather have warlocks as standalone classes for a number of reasons:

- The warlock has vastly different fluff than the sorcerer. The warlock is a character that has willingly made a pact with a powerful entity to gain his powers. The sorcerer is a character that is born with his powers due to an exotic heritage. I don't really think the two are similar enough to throw them under the same roof.

- If the warlock was a sorcerer heritage, the variety of both classes would decrease. The patron of the warlock wouldn't matter at all mechanically, unless we had heritage for every single patron, which would probably mean fewer overall heritages for the sorcerer. Plus, it just seems messy to me, having to choose a heritage and then a patron.

- The warlock and the sorcerer are different mechanically. The warlock has to manage his resources in the short term (he can regain them with a short rest) while the sorcerer has to manage them throughout the day (he regains his power with a long rest). I think this is mechanically different enough to warrant two classes.

- I don't want fewer classes for the sake of having fewer classes.

 

[MoonSong]

Good point, and yes, this is exactly why I think the warlock could be a sorcerer heritage. From a design perspective if you only have to account for 10 things its easier than if you have to account for 11. Overlap, is not good. I mean a Fey Sorcerer vs. a Fey Warlock... Really?

And why not? saying you don't want both a fey warlock and a fey sorcerer is like saying you don't need italian pasta because you have italian pizza already (at least on my country Italian food courts don't serve pizza and pizzerias don't serve pasta because they catter to very different customers), the basic flavor of both doesn't necesarily imply anything else. Warlock fans and sorcerer fans expect different kinds of support for the classes, even en 4e where both of them were "Arcane Strikers" they behaved and played in very different ways as in 3.5. They don't share anything beyond both of them being arcane, the same way the 3.x wizard and 3.x sorcerer played very differently and demanded different support. Just because to you they aren't different, doesn't mean the fans of both clases find them equal.

 

[Remathilis]

Warlocks are not sorcerers.

A warlock makes a pact with some otherworldly being. Its a two-way contractual obligation to one another, and is entered into willing by both parties.

A sorcerer has something extra, some second ancient echo that seeks to come forth. A sorcerer uses his will to keep it in check and can leech onto its power, but the deal is NOT two way; the second echo wants control, and the sorcerer wants to keep his own body, so he is careful to not use too much and give in.

The warlock seeks out the Queen of the Shadow Fey to bind himself to her service, and she rewards him with a sliver of her majesty. The sorcerer realizes there is a strange fey aspect to himself that is bursting at the seems to escape and take over and he must make sure it never does. Along the way, he siphons from its power, but never so much as to give it total control.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I would rather see the two classes' sources of power divorced from each other. I think the heritage of the sorcerer is too similar to the pact of the warlock. Warlocks make pacts with otherworldly beings, sorcerers need to have innate magical power from something other than otherworldly beings.