Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What about warlocks and sorcerers?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 6173364" data-attributes="member: 58197"><p>Has Mike said anything on whether they're going to consolidate non-arcane classes as well?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, there are certainly benefits to consolidating classes. For one, it reduces the amount of space you have to devote to redundant abilities. For another, it makes it easier to provide useful content for large swaths of PCs. Say you're releasing the Complete Necromancer's Handbook and you want to give arcane casters the ability to create weird flying heads with bat wings for ears and tentacles for hair; you only need to create a mage spell called "Create Vargouille," instead of a wizard spell <em>and </em>a sorceror spell <em>and </em>a warlock invocation <em>and </em>a psionic talent. It also simplifies balance to have a common framework to build on, and makes it easier for players to learn.</p><p></p><p>Against that, however, you have to put the chief drawback of consolidation: Loss of mechanical and conceptual diversity. For some folks this isn't an issue, but for a lot of us, the mechanics of a class have a big effect on how it feels to play that class, and if everything is using the same mechanics, playing a warlock feels much like playing a wizard. That contributes mightily to player burnout. Likewise, to whatever extent you feel the mechanics describe the game world, using the same mechanics implies a sameness within the game as well. This is why people are having such visceral reactions to the news that psions will be mages. The mage might provide a decent mechanical framework for the psion, but to put them under the same class heading implies that psions use the same kind of magic wizards do, which is completely counter to the concept of psionics in D&D.</p><p></p><p>I think some of the reasoning might be a desire to avoid class bloat, which was a significant problem in late 3E and 4E. But I don't really see this as a solution. Instead of class bloat, we just get subclass bloat.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dausuul, post: 6173364, member: 58197"] Has Mike said anything on whether they're going to consolidate non-arcane classes as well? Well, there are certainly benefits to consolidating classes. For one, it reduces the amount of space you have to devote to redundant abilities. For another, it makes it easier to provide useful content for large swaths of PCs. Say you're releasing the Complete Necromancer's Handbook and you want to give arcane casters the ability to create weird flying heads with bat wings for ears and tentacles for hair; you only need to create a mage spell called "Create Vargouille," instead of a wizard spell [I]and [/I]a sorceror spell [I]and [/I]a warlock invocation [I]and [/I]a psionic talent. It also simplifies balance to have a common framework to build on, and makes it easier for players to learn. Against that, however, you have to put the chief drawback of consolidation: Loss of mechanical and conceptual diversity. For some folks this isn't an issue, but for a lot of us, the mechanics of a class have a big effect on how it feels to play that class, and if everything is using the same mechanics, playing a warlock feels much like playing a wizard. That contributes mightily to player burnout. Likewise, to whatever extent you feel the mechanics describe the game world, using the same mechanics implies a sameness within the game as well. This is why people are having such visceral reactions to the news that psions will be mages. The mage might provide a decent mechanical framework for the psion, but to put them under the same class heading implies that psions use the same kind of magic wizards do, which is completely counter to the concept of psionics in D&D. I think some of the reasoning might be a desire to avoid class bloat, which was a significant problem in late 3E and 4E. But I don't really see this as a solution. Instead of class bloat, we just get subclass bloat. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What about warlocks and sorcerers?
Top