D&D 5E What about warlocks and sorcerers?

[Warbringer]

You don't need two mechanically identical classes whose only distinction is spellcasting stat and lore. We don't need both a rogue and a ninja, or a fighter and a cavalier, and we don't really need a sorcerer and a wizard. You can just have a mage as a mega class that works as a wizard, and warlock, and sorcerer, and artificer. With subclasses modifying the class to fit, just like you can have a fighter that's a fencer, two-weapon user, archer, or great weapon wielder.

The sorcerer and mage are as distinct as the fighter and barbarian, and the cleric and druid. If these are distinct classes so too should be the sorcerer from the mage

 

[Dausuul]

The sorcerer and mage are as distinct as the fighter and barbarian, and the cleric and druid. If these are distinct classes so too should be the sorcerer from the mage

That's a fair point, but then again, I've never seen much justification for fighter and barbarian as distinct classes. Cleric and druid are only just barely justified by the druid having a different spell list.

 

[Jester David]

The sorcerer and mage are as distinct as the fighter and barbarian, and the cleric and druid. If these are distinct classes so too should be the sorcerer from the mage

The barbarian has been a seperate class in three editions of the game and the druid in four. They survive due to nostalgia and precedence.
The barbarian and druid also have unique mechanics: rage and wild shaping. The sorcerer does not, just variant spellcasting.

The sorcerer also doesn't have fiction or legend (or video games) to back it up. It exists solely because the designer of 3e wanted a second class to use the wizard spells.

 

[Warbringer]

That's a fair point, but then again, I've never seen much justification for fighter and barbarian as distinct classes. Cleric and druid are only just barely justified by the druid having a different spell list.

Goose and Gander

 

[Warbringer]

The barbarian has been a seperate class in three editions of the game and the druid in four. They survive due to nostalgia and precedence.
The barbarian and druid also have unique mechanics: rage and wild shaping. The sorcerer does not, just variant spellcasting.

The sorcerer also doesn't have fiction or legend (or video games) to back it up. It exists solely because the designer of 3e wanted a second class to use the wizard spells.

Regarding "its always been that way" - that's just legacy design, not a sound reason for what should be in the game, IMO.

Regarding "doesn't have fiction": you're kidding, right?

 

[Jester David]

Regarding "its always been that way" - that's just legacy design, not a sound reason for what should be in the game, IMO.

It is in an edition explicitly designed to be a "Best Of" edition. Barbarians and Druids being classes is D&D.

Regarding "doesn't have fiction": you're kidding, right?

There are sorcerer type spellcaster and wizardly type spellcaster but not both in the same fiction (excluding D&D). It's be fair for the DM to only have sorcerers or only have wizards.

 

[Warbringer]

It is in an edition explicitly designed to be a "Best Of" edition. Barbarians and Druids being classes is D&D.

IMO the 5e strategy is inclusive of editions, not "best of", but as I know longer think that is either, doesn't really matter.

There are sorcerer type spellcaster and wizardly type spellcaster but not both in the same fiction (excluding D&D). It's be fair for the DM to only have sorcerers or only have wizards.

That's fair enough, and usually that also includes divine magic as a demarcation as well. As this is a class system, those decision points should be around classes, not sub-classes, and I'd personally prefer if there are very different mechanics between classes.

Now, in support of your position, if they aren't very different then don't make it a class in name only (Sorcerer failed this test in 3e, though Warlock didn't)

 

[Manbearcat]

There are sorcerer type spellcaster and wizardly type spellcaster but not both in the same fiction (excluding D&D). It's be fair for the DM to only have sorcerers or only have wizards.

Marvel Comics circa 60s and 70s:

Storm as (Storm or Elementalist) Sorcerer via her (mutant) bloodline.
Loki as Chaos Sorcerer via his (Asgardian) bloodline.

Dr Strange and Victor Von Doom as your classic super-genius, obsessive students of forgotten/arcane lore, magical artifacts etc...ultra-learned spellcasters or Wizards.

 

[Jester David]

That's fair enough, and usually that also includes divine magic as a demarcation as well. As this is a class system, those decision points should be around classes, not sub-classes, and I'd personally prefer if there are very different mechanics between classes.

It's easy enough to just swap spellcasting ability score from Int to Cha and flavour and the mage as a sorcerer and you have a sorcerer.
That handles most of the difference. Anything else would just be tacked on.

It's easy to make new mechanics, seperate classes with unique crunch. You can make endless new classes that way. But they might all be redundant.

Now, in support of your position, if they aren't very different then don't make it a class in name only (Sorcerer failed this test in 3e, though Warlock didn't)

The warlock has two big differences: the pact flavour and the alternate spellcasting.
The pact flavour is awkward and makes assumptions regarding the world: there are patrons, people can make deals with them, and there are other ways of accessing magic apart from pacts.

In a world where all magic is the result of bargins with otherworldly beings, what is the difference between a warlock and a mage?
Warlocks, like the inherited magic of sorcerers, are an origin story for how a character received their power.

 

[Warbringer]

The warlock has two big differences: the pact flavour and the alternate spellcasting.

The pact flavour is awkward and makes assumptions regarding the world: there are patrons, people can make deals with them, and there are other ways of accessing magic apart from pacts.

In a world where all magic is the result of bargins with otherworldly beings, what is the difference between a warlock and a mage?
Warlocks, like the inherited magic of sorcerers, are an origin story for how a character received their power.

But, Mages are soaked in D&D flavor that becomes part of any campaign, so I don't see any difference. However, my point is not about "its pact, therefore not different", but rather the structure is different; warlocks were at will casters of raw magic/hate before atwill casting existed for PCs (though reserve feats were around). That's the difference, the "mechanic", not the flavor.

That's the only saving grace for fighters vs barbarians vs monks, the distinct mechanical differences. If we don't have that, no point .. IMHO