D&D 5E What about warlocks and sorcerers?

[variant]

Late getting back, sorry.

True, but the "spells per day" and "cantrips" are structural features of the class table; deviations from that is essentially a new class, or should be. To design around that is IMO convoluted for a class base system.

No where does it say that the class table is everything everyone in the class gets. You are also looking at a playtest packet, not a book with every Mage option available. We know for a fact that the Artificer is going to be a subclass of the Mage class and its spellcasting system doesn't resemble the Wizard's.

 

[Warbringer]

No where does it say that the class table is everything everyone in the class gets.

Point is, if you are going to significant differences, like spell tables, then just have different classes. There s supposed to be mechanical as well as thematic connections in the class.

 

[Manbearcat]

I actually think the opposite is true. The Warlock powers in 4E are all themed after stars or starlight. Dire Radiance as an example which causes star light to lance down and hit the target. I really like this Pact, I just didn't like its connection the to Far Realms. The Far Realms is something that not every DM wants and I think having something connected to it in the PHB is a bad idea.

You're basically protesting over what amounts to a mutable source of a power. Don't want the Far Realm in your game? Ok. The Cthulu-esque source of the power is the appropriate analog inherent to the setting of your choice; just propose or negotiate something fitting - a mad demon whispering to the prime world from the Abyss through some conduit...or the pervasive psionic echos of a dawn titan still trapped deep in the earth since the beginning of time. Done.

Its the same thing as Icons in 13th age. Don't like the name Bob the Far Realm Abbominator and whatever setting baggage he brings? Ok, the Icon is his analog in your setting.

That is a far stretch easier than dealing with outright different mechanics (such as bloodlines + spontaneous casting + manifestations + inherently more hardiness vs erudite, arcane lore-master who studies equations and incantations + prepared spells in spellbook + squishy).

 

[Warbringer]

[MENTION=41293]variant[/MENTION]

Do me a favor,stop making changes to your post after you've been responded to, just continue in a separate post, thanks.

To answer the additions to your post, I've no idea what the artificer subclass will look like, so I can't answer. My point is, if there are going to be multiple mechanics in a class, make them different classes: just like the paladin, ranger, fighter, monk, barbarian. If we can live with 5 martial classes, a couple of arcane classes won't kill us.

 

[variant]

@variant

Do me a favor,stop making changes to your post after you've been responded to, just continue in a separate post, thanks.

To answer the additions to your post, I've no idea what the artificer subclass will look like, so I can't answer. My point is, if there are going to be multiple mechanics in a class, make them different classes: just like the paladin, ranger, fighter, monk, barbarian. If we can live with 5 martial classes, a couple of arcane classes won't kill us.

I was in the midst of editing when you replied. Sorry to inconvenience you.

You're basically protesting over what amounts to a mutable source of a power. Don't want the Far Realm in your game? Ok. The Cthulu-esque source of the power is the appropriate analog inherent to the setting of your choice; just propose or negotiate something fitting - a mad demon whispering to the prime world from the Abyss through some conduit...or the pervasive psionic echos of a dawn titan still trapped deep in the earth since the beginning of time. Done.

Its the same thing as Icons in 13th age. Don't like the name Bob the Far Realm Abbominator and whatever setting baggage he brings? Ok, the Icon is his analog in your setting.

That is a far stretch easier than dealing with outright different mechanics (such as bloodlines + spontaneous casting + manifestations + inherently more hardiness vs erudite, arcane lore-master who studies equations and incantations + prepared spells in spellbook + squishy).

I am actually protesting the fact that Far Realms carries a lot of baggage that isn't just a mysterious source of power. If there is a Pact that accesses Far Realm powers, it should include a whole host of options such as corruption and mutations that go far beyond any PHB1 book should or could even hope to cover.

Simply throwing in a PHB1 Pact that says the Warlock makes a Pact with a Far Realms entity and then not have anything else to show the effects that would have on the Warlock and anything the spells touch, does a disservice to both people who don't want to deal with the Far Realms and to the Far Realms as a plot device itself.

What I like about the Star Pact is the flavor of powers involving astrology, stars, and starlight.

 

[Warbringer]

I was in the midst of editing when you replied. Sorry to inconvenience you.

I wasn't being snarky, I literally have 7 "you have been quoted" emails and I can't actually follow what the reply is

Re pacts. I'm with you on this. I think flavor should not be explicit, let the DM decide what the "power of the stars" means

 

[Manbearcat]

Simply throwing in a PHB1 Pact that says the Warlock makes a Pact with a Far Realms entity and then not have anything else to show the effects that would have, not on just the Warlock, but to anything the spells touch, does a disservice to both people who don't want to deal with the Far Realms, but to the Far Realms as a plot device itself.

To say that I don't understand this line of thinking does a disservice to not understanding lines of thinking.

There are tons of game systems with mutable context provided for players' powers/sources or features but are inherently (weakly 1st order) associated with some default setting/premise yet rendered sufficiently open-ended such that players and GMs can fill in the blanks and make them their own. The RPG industry is rife with this. Along the same lines, there are modules, splatbooks and setting books with generic plot hooks or robust thematic material, that is by default tethered to the stock setting therein, of which you are encouraged to poach for your own campaign (which may or may not have anything at all to do with that stock setting or the fluff inherent to it). That is standard fair D&D culture as I understand it. Unless I've missed my mark, presumably there is a "disservice" to people and to n setting/module/dungeon/plane et al within those frameworks as well?

 

[variant]

To say that I don't understand this line of thinking does a disservice to not understanding lines of thinking.

There are tons of game systems with mutable context provided for players' powers/sources or features but are inherently (weakly 1st order) associated with some default setting/premise yet rendered sufficiently open-ended such that players and GMs can fill in the blanks and make them their own. The RPG industry is rife with this. Along the same lines, there are modules, splatbooks and setting books with generic plot hooks or robust thematic material, that is by default tethered to the stock setting therein, of which you are encouraged to poach for your own campaign (which may or may not have anything at all to do with that stock setting or the fluff inherent to it). That is standard fair D&D culture as I understand it. Unless I've missed my mark, presumably there is a "disservice" to people and to n setting/module/dungeon/plane et al within those frameworks as well?

Far Realms is something very specific in D&D with very specific and obvious side effects of what happens when people try to access it or it enters the Material Plane. The effects on the Warlock would be far too strange to include in the PHB.

 

[gyor]

The title should be amended to Sorcerors, Warlocks, and Psions are all mages now.

Yes according to Mike Psions will be under the Mage purview, Pyschwarriors and I think Battleminds will be under the purview of fighters.

I asked if 4e ardents might be a subclass of Bard and Mike said it was a good example.

Lots more was said by mike on topics like the Warlock and Sorceror. Like both stuff like binders, hexblades, as well as individual pact types would fall under the domain of warlocks like wizards schools, and sorceror bloodlines.

As I said before I need to see this in practice before I judge.


Classes just got more inclusive. Not sure what's driving the hard cap on classes.

 

[variant]

The title should be amended to Sorcerors, Warlocks, and Psions are all mages now.

Yes according to Mike Psions will be under the Mage purview, Pyschwarriors and I think Battleminds will be under the purview of fighters.

I asked if 4e ardents might be a subclass of Bard and Mike said it was a good example.

Lots more was said by mike on topics like the Warlock and Sorceror. Like both stuff like binders, hexblades, as well as individual pact types would fall under the domain of warlocks like wizards schools, and sorceror bloodlines.

As I said before I need to see this in practice before I judge.


Classes just got more inclusive. Not sure what's driving the hard cap on classes.

Where did he tell you this information? I wish he would tell all of us.

So I assume the psion will cover the spell point system? Is it going to be psionics or will it be flavored differently?

Can you recall what Pacts will be available?