D&D 5E Sorcerer vs Warlock

[InspetorG]

Slightly related to this is what to do when the warlock acts against the interests of the patron. The patron doesn't even need to be evil, I just feel like the standard lore could stand to include some guidance on what happens when the relationship between a caster and the source of his magic goes sour. Same goes for clerics.

Yeah.

Demons and Devils should be obvious. Faust had to pay up. And why wouldne an evil Demon/Devil just leave a Warlock High and Dry jut for entertainment's sake?

Fey can be very fickle, and even the Good aligned Patrons wouldn't be above making the Warlock quest or demand compensation over some mythical slight. What about some powerful fey that is unimaginably beautiful, took notice of the Warlocks affections, granted him powers in exchange for passion and devotion? Starts out all fun and games but what happens when said Warlock is near death on a campaign, needs that long rest, and the Patron demands an evening of passion? If he refuses, does he lose his powers for insulting the object of his devotion? For breaking his promise?

Hexblade could be trickier, but could throwback to AD&D with super-intelligent magic weapons that are pretty representative of their alignment. The weapons usually end up possessing the user.

GOO should be more insidious and warrant more fear and regret. It seems the Patron with the most latitude for theme because they seem so impersonal and distant. But what happens when they arent?
Warlock thinks he tapped into something that doesnt notice him siphoning a little power and all seems well. Later finds out that whatever he tapped into noticed and may have planted those ideas in his head in the first place. Then i demands he start a cult, where he finds some forgotten hamlet, take all the townsfolk, cut out their tongues and insert a parasitic but in th tongues place. He does this to 50 people and then gets to go back to whatever he was doing. He comes back 2 years later and all the townsfolk are otherwise normal and healthy, but built this big metal dish the size of a castle and it points to a very ominous star. Good aligned characters should have serious doubts about what they did.

But no, a lot of untapped theme and no mechanical structure for when things go bad.

 

[InspetorG]

You should, its fun.

Would be considered 'rules lite' by today's standards and IMO, lends more to just dungeon crawl hack&slash.

 

[InspetorG]

I'm not sure what truly defines "core D&D," but the six abilities, the notion of classes (with specific classes, incl. the "core four"), certain races, and so on is probably in it.

If i had to define:

Classes, later Class+Race, Class+Race+Skills

THACO/D20

Vancian magic that generally divides between Save or Die/Suck and Fist Full of Dice(cuz whats more fun that rolling lots o dice?)

Alignments that shape the Cosmology.

 

[jimtillman]

Hi everyone. I'm going to take a small step away from mechanics to discuss something that's been on my mind. Outside of different class mechanics, should the Sorcerer and Warlock classes be separate? I like them both. They're some of my favorite classes. But, are they really two sides of the same coin?

Both get their power from someone else. Warlocks get their power from their patron, sorcerers get theirs from their bloodline. But what about when those overlap? What is the difference between a Great Old One's Warlock or the sorcerers scion of some bad aberration mixups?

Merging the two class concepts could open up more origins and stories for the character's power. Were they born with it, or was it Maybelline (you know, the Arch Fey of beauty)?

The only way I see the need to keep them firmly separate is if the story and theme of the Warlock serving their patron was more apparent. The Warlock is sort of the forbidden Cleric, so if that was more important then I see the class being it's own thing.

What are your thoughts?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

sorcerer and warlock really are not sharing the same game space
the sorc is an alternate to a wizard
the lock is more an alternate for the ranger
the lock gets power from a deal

the sorc from themselves.

 

[Xeviat]

I think a lot of people are latching onto very different things when describing their positions. It makes the discussion very dynamic, but difficult to pin down.

I’m growing convinced that the distinction between the two could be blurred by a first level choice: Bloodline or Pact. Within each has the nature of that choice. Or the choice isn’t really a mechanical necessity: you can choose Fiend or Dragon or Aberrant or whatever the source of your power is, then the decision of where that power comes from (your blood, a pact, a magical accident) comes down to you.

They could be different like they are now. The world doesn’t end. But the Samurai could be its own class if the setting demanded it (possibly replacing the Paladin).

Since the pact is not reflected mechanically (not even like 4E did it), it could just be fluff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cbwjm]

I think a lot of people are latching onto very different things when describing their positions. It makes the discussion very dynamic, but difficult to pin down.

I’m growing convinced that the distinction between the two could be blurred by a first level choice: Bloodline or Pact. Within each has the nature of that choice. Or the choice isn’t really a mechanical necessity: you can choose Fiend or Dragon or Aberrant or whatever the source of your power is, then the decision of where that power comes from (your blood, a pact, a magical accident) comes down to you.

They could be different like they are now. The world doesn’t end. But the Samurai could be its own class if the setting demanded it (possibly replacing the Paladin).

Since the pact is not reflected mechanically (not even like 4E did it), it could just be fluff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I completely agree, I'd expand it to include the three: bloodline, pact, study as I think sorcerers, warlocks, and wizards could be condensed down into a single class. However, I never seem to get around to putting my thoughts down on paper and seeing how it looks.

 

[Chaosmancer]

[MENTION=57494]Xeviat[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6788732]cbwjm[/MENTION] Sure, there are a lot of things we "could" do.

I mean, in one respect, the only difference between a wizard and a bard is divide between Art and Science. And Music aficionados are usually quite eager to point out the science behind the art, and vice versa.

But, if anything, the Wizard and the Warlock are more similiar. It doesn't matter if you studied for the test or someone handed you the answer sheet, you're still taking a test. That is a fundamental difference between "I was born for this"


Birds don't need to study to know how to migrate and fly, they just do it, and no amount of tinkering to grow wings or building things that fly makes us birds.


The metaphors can get really mixed, and, like I said, we can make all of these crushed together, but there are fundamental differences at play in the lore of the sorcerer that really should not be ignored. Even if the mechanics of the class and the game don't reflect that story accurately

 

[Xeviat]

But, if anything, the Wizard and the Warlock are more similiar. It doesn't matter if you studied for the test or someone handed you the answer sheet, you're still taking a test. That is a fundamental difference between "I was born for this"

Maybe if the Warlock was themed more around forbidden knowledge. I suppose that gets into the Int vs Cha divide.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cbwjm]

[MENTION=57494]Xeviat[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6788732]cbwjm[/MENTION] Sure, there are a lot of things we "could" do.

I mean, in one respect, the only difference between a wizard and a bard is divide between Art and Science. And Music aficionados are usually quite eager to point out the science behind the art, and vice versa.

But, if anything, the Wizard and the Warlock are more similiar. It doesn't matter if you studied for the test or someone handed you the answer sheet, you're still taking a test. That is a fundamental difference between "I was born for this"


Birds don't need to study to know how to migrate and fly, they just do it, and no amount of tinkering to grow wings or building things that fly makes us birds.


The metaphors can get really mixed, and, like I said, we can make all of these crushed together, but there are fundamental differences at play in the lore of the sorcerer that really should not be ignored. Even if the mechanics of the class and the game don't reflect that story accurately

The fluff wouldn't matter, it could be developed as needed by the player. Some things could be merged as mentioned already you could get your power from a pact with a fiend or because you had a fiend somewhere in your ancestry. The classes are similar enough that have a single modular magic-user class should be fairly easy to fit together. If I wasn't so easily distracted I could have a go at creating it but I just know I'd get basics written up then move on to something else.

 

[Yaarel]

As far as game mechanics go, seems to me, the salient distinction is between the scholar mage who knows many spells versus the superhero mage who only has a few powers but does many kinds of stunts with them.

Sorcerer and Warlock merge well together as the superhero mage.

Wizard is the scholar mage.

I would remove the ‘Tome Pact’ out of the Warlock, and just let Wizard cover this concept.



But even here, a Wizard with a thematic choice of spells, and using spell points, can look alot like the superhero mage.

For example, because of cantrips and 5e spontaneous casting, I am comfortable using the Wizard class to incarnate the Psion tradition, which is moreorless a kind of superhero mage.