D&D 5E What about warlocks and sorcerers?

[variant]

I think my position is being misinterpreted as well. I don't mind the Sorcerer and Warlock getting placed under the Mage as long as neither of them are gimped or changed thematically because of it. The only difference that should exist between the two classes being treated as their separate classes or as apart of the Mage meta-class is that there are two less charts in the book.

My biggest issue right now with the Mage class encompassing the Warlock and Sorcerer is that it has Brew Potion and Scribe Scroll as default abilities. As long as this gets changed, the Warlock and Sorcerer maintain their unique spellcasting systems, and there are lots of Pacts and Bloodlines, I would be content.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Another problem with putting the sorcerer or warlock under Mage: it would mean you can never multiclass those classes with each other. I enjoyed playing an Eldritch Theurge (warlock/wizard) in 3.5, and it would bug me if I couldn't do so again in Next.

 

[Li Shenron]

Probably from some point of view sorcerers are only "a wizard with a different casting system", but let me tell you that is simply not the case, they are a different archetype with a distinct story which enables a whole lot of characters that are impossible with the MU's story.

...

This was never about casting mechanics, but about the character background and life experiences and how are they supported or impeded by the mechanics.

IMHO this is just untrue. The original 3e Sorcerer was ALL about introducing an alternate casting mechanics for players who hated vancian magic. Then while at it, they added the narrative about draconic blood and changed from Int to Cha, and elaborate a little around it.

This proved to be cool enough so that eventually the narrative became possibly more important than the mechanics, e.g. in 4e AFAIK the mechanic of Wizards and Sorcerers is AEDU for both, is that right? But originally the introduction of Sorcerer into D&D was definitely the mechanic, not the background.

The barbarian and druid also have unique mechanics: rage and wild shaping. The sorcerer does not, just variant spellcasting.

Heh, variant spellcasting is a much bigger difference than rage or wildshape.

If and only if they can design the Sorcerer's variant spellcasting to be equal to the Wizard's, then it will become easy enough for them to be swappable without changing anything else in the class, otherwise it may be easier to make it a separate class.

But Rage could have been a feat, or a Fighter's subclass feature, and Wildshape could have been a spell, a domain unique power, or something else... there's many ways to implement each concept.

What I do not understand is, with a game that is undoubtedly class-based, with already plenty of wizard's subclasses needed, with plenty of narrative differences between wiz/sorcs/warlocks that go beyond casting spells in different ways... why even considering lumping all of them into the same class?

The only reason I can think of, is to save space by having only one spell list. And yet, half of the Wizard's spells are IMHO not so appropriate for Sorcerers and Warlocks. Some space could be saved anyway, by having a list of Sorcerer/Warlock spells, and then a list of additional Wizard's only spells (or alternatively, use asterisks to mark which Wizards spells are also for Sorcerers and Warlocks).

It also totally makes sense for a character to be multiclassed in 2 of these arcane casters at the same time, e.g. a Wizard who after years of using magic starts to become magical herself, or a Sorcerer who also starts studying books to learn additional spells, or a Wiz or Sorc who feels she's not getting better and turns to shady pacts, etc...

yes we don't need wo identical classes, but I'm not asking for sorcerers to be identical to wizards, rather the opossite, I wouldn't be asking for them to be a class if I wanted them to be identical to each other. You see two classes that are identical except for casting stat and lore, I see two classes that have nothing to do with each other except that they can cast more or less the same spells, but the way they do it doens't have to be the same.

...

List of things with the current mage that don't fit with the general flavor of a sorcerer
-Int stat
-Arcane Lore
-The spellbook
-Prepparing spells
-Ritual Casting
-Write scrolls
-Perppare potions (but this is borderline)
-Limited weapons available
-Sublcasses built around schools

That's a very good list, and I even think several Wizard's spells (the most "meta" spells, and some trickeries) probably don't fit the Sorcerer fully. I agree that there are very good narrative reasons for a Sorcerer not to have any of those above, with the exception probably of weapon profs which I don't think are really needed to a sorc either.

This is why separate classes are better IMO. With 2 classes, there is full freedom to design all features more appropriately.

Arcane Lore is really a filler power, likely replaced with Skills. But Arcane Lore works just as well with sorcerers.
Weapons are largely redundant to the sorcerer's niche. You likely won't be relying on them and gaining proficiency isn't hard. But it's easy to add this via tradition.

Please notice that the spellbook, casting using Int, ritual casting, spells per day, and arcane recovery are all part of the "Wizardry" class feature. It'd be easy to replace that with "Sorcery" altering all those features. Pair this with a couple subclasses based around bloodline and you're good.

True, but that's only because apparently they have decided it to be so, not because it has to be.

I agree about weapons, but not about arcane lore. I think it fits better with Sorcerers that they don't know (at least by default) the reasons for their powers.

Overall, I really don't see any good reason for lumping 3 classes into one at this point. It can be done, but then it will have drawbacks, and I see no visible benefit to the game.

 

[thewok]

Yeah. I dislike the idea of metaclasses because it removes the possibility of multiclassing. Besides, if you're going to make proficiencies, hit points, spellcasting mechanic, lore, and whatever else dependent on a "subclass," then you're better off just making multiple classes. Because then, the only thing that binds those subclasses together is theme.

On the subject of the Sorcerer specifically, I don't want to play the 3.x Sorcerer again (though I feel it should be an option for those that do). I want to play the Sorcerer that fully embraces the idea of sorcerous origin. I thought the dragon sorcerer and the warlock were two of the best things to show up in the entire playtest. I may not play that dragon sorcerer (I want a more caster-feeling sorcerer, but without feeling like just a wizard with different spellcasting), but the idea behind it was solid. Besides, it's not as if there's not a precedent for a melee Sorcerer. Fourth Edition had that as an option.

And, like the Sorcerer, I want the warlock to fully embrace the pact as the core of the class--not just flavor. The pact (and sorcerous origin) should drive how the class feels in play.

 

[gyor]

Actually if alot of multiclassing is done viacsubclass in many cases multiclassing in a way may still be possible. After all one could have a subclass that offers elements of Sorcery to wizards and vis versa.

 

[Dausuul]

I just hope they manage to come up with a warlock class that doesn't (mechanically) suck for a change. The 3E warlock was great in concept but terrible in implementation. The 4E warlock was mediocre.

 

[MoonSong]

WARNING: LONG POST AHEAD

I disagree. It's easier to have one flexible baseline built for maximum modularity and variability and multiple provided options on how to vary that class than three less flexible variants.

Yes of course, a very flexible baseline is good to get as many different mechanic/flavor combos as possible, I'm not opossed to one of those in principle. BUT THE CURRENT MAGE CLASS IS NEITHER FLEXIBLE NOR BUILT FOR MAXIMUM VARIABILITY. Check Microlite20, that magic user is truly flexible on a way no D&D MU has ever been.

There is alway going to be some elements of a character's mechanics that do not perfectly match the character's story. That's where imagination comes in. Or house rules with a DM.

For example, right now there's not a lot of mechanics for mounted combat. But if I want to play the archetypal knight, the master of the Lists and expert jouster. But I don't want magic. Then I'm just going to have to accept the fighter and handwave away the fact that anyone can mount up and ride just as good as me.
However, this does not mean the game needs a cavalier class. Even though it's an established class that's been been in one edition. Two if you count the fighter kit. Three if you count the 3.5e knight. Four if you count the 4e Essentials paladin.

Second edition, I want to play a spellcaster, but I don't want to have to carry a spellbook, or being smart, In fact I want my character to actively fight the arcane power stored within himself. Or I want to play a character who sold her soul for power, but she still has to be smart and do a lot of hard work just like the guy who didn't sold his soul.

Cool, so everything that was ever added now has to be added?
Sweet, I get my archivist again. And the jester class from Dragon.


Oh, so it's a popularity contest.
Well, this poll doesn't show the warlock particularly high. And the sorcerer isn't doing particularly well either. Not really the breakout stars one might think from all the fuss.


I acknowledge the classes have fans. Every class is someone's favourite. But you can't update everything. And classes take up a lot of space and are a lot of work to playtest and balance. Classes in the playtest take up an average of four pages. But I imagine in the final draft this will balloon to eight as they add subclasses and flavour text.
I'd much rather have twelve pages of new backgrounds, feats, or rules modules and four pages of a warlock & sorcerer subclass than sixteen pages of two additional classes and fewer other options.

Even assuming the poll has no self-selection bias, said poll is a strong argument for keeping both warlock and sorcerer as their own thing not the other way around, because yes they on their own are just 4 and 3 percent of the poll, but put together they represent more than half the amount of people who prefer wizards (quite the acomplishment given that wizard players are the biggest minority and them being quite recent in comparison). Not having them is going to hurt one third of the game tables!!. Even then I'm myself a warlock and sorcerer advocate who would have voted bard or rogue, so the poll itself just says how many people like them the best, not how many people like them at all.

I think my position is being misinterpreted as well. I don't mind the Sorcerer and Warlock getting placed under the Mage as long as neither of them are gimped or changed thematically because of it. The only difference that should exist between the two classes being treated as their separate classes or as apart of the Mage meta-class is that there are two less charts in the book.

My biggest issue right now with the Mage class encompassing the Warlock and Sorcerer is that it has Brew Potion and Scribe Scroll as default abilities. As long as this gets changed, the Warlock and Sorcerer maintain their unique spellcasting systems, and there are lots of Pacts and Bloodlines, I would be content.

Yes I'm not on principle against the conflating either, it is elegant on itself and has a lot of untapped potential (like the possibility of warlock ore sorcerer amking it into the basic game instead of the wizard, you cannot get simpler and more flexible than them), yet I'm a little cynic on the matter and I know the designers are just going to design the class to suit the wizard, then just forcibly tack on the sorcerer and warlock, all of it at the cost of their availability, playability, identity, and inherent simplicity.

If you don't believe me, just see how things currently are, the class name is MAGE, an historical name for the WIZARD class, a more generic name like SPELLCASTER would be better suited for a class that is intended to cover so much ground. Morevover when a new player who wants to play a caster is faced with the WIZARD variant as the DEFAULT that could prove intimidating and may never take the time to even consider the more simple sorcerer and warlock; because if they are hidden behind a wall of esoteric modules they must be even more complex than this already complex thing right?

Another problem with putting the sorcerer or warlock under Mage: it would mean you can never multiclass those classes with each other. I enjoyed playing an Eldritch Theurge (warlock/wizard) in 3.5, and it would bug me if I couldn't do so again in Next.

Yes, this too. And my biggest grip with "oh but you can still do that, there are going to be subclasses that do the did", is exactly the same I have with similar aprroaches to multiclassing: You have a very short opportunity window to do so, did you discovered you wanted to go this route after second level? though luck, you are stuck out of it, you should have know it better and plan every single minutia of your character's future career from day one.

I just hope they manage to come up with a warlock class that doesn't (mechanically) suck for a change. The 3E warlock was great in concept but terrible in implementation. The 4E warlock was mediocre.

The problem with the Warlock wasn't in the warlock itself, ok not all of it, for better or worse it was among the first round of strikers, and even when some corrections were done to the class later in the system life, it simply couldn't compare with the endless flow of splat love for the wizard, apparently no arcane caster can get nice things whithout the wizard taking them away. Heck, we are talking about the edition where the wizard could outstrike the arcane strikers and even outbard the bard! (A wizard with Bardic Ritualist was not only better at bard rituals than the bard, but also got the chance to be insanely better at lore). In order for warlocks and sorcerers not to be second rate again we need for the designers to understand they are fundamentally different form the wizard and thus shouldn't share all of the wizard's nerfs, but rather be developed on their own, their versatility ceiling isn't just as high, otherwise we are faced witht the possibility of they becoming useless and unable to contribute.

 

[Jester David]

IMHO this is just untrue. The original 3e Sorcerer was ALL about introducing an alternate casting mechanics for players who hated vancian magic. Then while at it, they added the narrative about draconic blood and changed from Int to Cha, and elaborate a little around it.

This proved to be cool enough so that eventually the narrative became possibly more important than the mechanics, e.g. in 4e AFAIK the mechanic of Wizards and Sorcerers is AEDU for both, is that right? But originally the introduction of Sorcerer into D&D was definitely the mechanic, not the background.

Actually, according to the designers the 3e sorcerer was created to add another class that used the wizard's spell list, so multiple classes could use that content. Adding slighting different Vancian casting was a perk.


They're talking about adding two different spellcasting mechanics to 5e as options: spell points and a power system ala 4e. So you can make any caster into a spell point user or a power user.
Assuming that's reasonably balanced, there'll be two ways to make a mage that's completely different from a Vancian mage. Which does mute the need for the sorcerer.

 

[the Jester]

So the big rhetorical question: should everything that's ever been a class continue to be a class in 5th Edition?
The answer has to be a "no". Or we'd have the:
cleric, fighting man, magic-user, thief, paladin, bard, druid, monk, assassin, illusionist, dwarf, elf, halfling, mystic, dervish, elf wizard, treekeeper, dwarf-cleric, Wise Woman , Master , Merchant-Prince, Kobold (GAZ10), Goblin, Orc, Hobgoblin, Gnoll, Bugbear, Ogre, Troll, Merchant), Shaman, Shadow Elf, Shadow Elf Shaman, Shamani, jester, ninja, psionicist, avenger, gypsy, arcanist, archivist, beguiler, binder, crusader, dragon shama, dragonfire adept, dread necromancer, duskblade, factorum, favoured soul, healer, hexblade, incarnate, knight, marshal, samurai, scout, shadowcaster, shugenja, sohei, soulborn, spellthief, spirit shaman, swashbuckler, swordsage, totemist, truenamer, warblade, warlock, warmage, wu jen, adept, divine mind, erudit, lurk, psion, psychic rogue, psychic warrior, soulknife, wilder, artificer, 4veger, invoker, runepriest, seeker, sorcerer, swordmage, warden, vampire, and blackguard.

So we cannot have every possible class, so we need to cut it down to the essentials. Of course, everyone has their favourites. There are warlord champions, warlock fans, sorcerer supporters, and artificer aficionados. But, really, every single class has its supporters. I really liked the 3e archivist.

So that leaves the big names. Things that have been in every edition are a must. Anything that's been in four or more (of the six versions of D&D) should likely also make the cut unless there's a really, really good reason not to. Anything that's been in three editions should probably make the cut but should have to justify itself, and should have both unique flavour and distinct mechanics that have been consistent through the editions. Things that have only been in two editon had better be really special to be included. Anything that's been in only one edition... thanks for playing.

The stated goal- and I think it's a good one- is to have everything from a PH1 in the game at release.

Thus- warlord, in; dragonfire adept, out. Assassin, in; invoker out. Druid, monk, warlock in; runepriest, spellthief, sohei out.

It's important that 5e be inclusive. Relegating the warlord to a bard build is already somewhat alienating to the 4e crowd; leaving it out entirely would just be needlessly antagonistic.

 

[Jester David]

Second edition, I want to play a spellcaster, but I don't want to have to carry a spellbook, or being smart, In fact I want my character to actively fight the arcane power stored within himself. Or I want to play a character who sold her soul for power, but she still has to be smart and do a lot of hard work just like the guy who didn't sold his soul.

Again, take a look at the wizard class. Compare it to the other full casters.
The cleric and the druid have their sprellcasting detailed under a class feature called "spellcasting". But the mage doesn't. It has it under "wizardry" which includes casting using Int and the spellbook.

So it would be super easy to replace "wizardry" with "sorcerery" and keep the same class but cast with Cha and not have a spellbook.

Oh, and look what the subclasses are called. It's not "School of Enchantment", it's "Wizardry: School of Enchantment". Suggesting there could be subclasses called Sorcerery: Wild Magic or Sorcerery: Elementalism.

Even assuming the poll has no self-selection bias

It was on the WotC during the run of 4e, so it likely largely favoured 4e players.