D&D 5E [+] Ways to fix the caster / non-caster gap

[Gammadoodler]

I'm not sure why you assume this is not how all warlock pacts work. It really is not defined what the pact actually means metaphysically. There is really no inclination that the patron can "end the subscription."

And in any case, as noted earlier, constant channelling of power would just make them clerics.


Sounds just like a shady cleric to me.


Nah. Sounds like a warlock. The pact is buying the power.

I can see warlocks and clerics having roughly the same transactional relationships. The important part is the transaction and to your point that is fairly consistent for both.

Sorcerers just don't strike me that way. To me the important bit is the physical transfer of power, which can be given, stolen, or just happen by accident. A transaction may occur, but no power is granted until some physical process has been completed.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I can see warlocks and clerics having roughly the same transactional relationships. The important part is the transaction and to your point that is fairly consistent for both.

Personally I wanted warlocks and clerics to be metaphysically different.

Sorcerers just don't strike me that way. To me the important bit is the physical transfer of power, which can be given, stolen, or just happen by accident. A transaction may occur, but no power is granted until some physical process has been completed.

Sure, and that is good fluff. But if you interpret warlocks not to be similar to clerics, then they become metaphysically just subset of sorcerers, i.e. the ones who bargained to gain their innate magic.

So what I did I just combined warlocks and sorcerers. Sorcerer fluff, including the interpretation that allows warlocks as a subset, mostly warlock mechanics with expanded spell list and some other tweaks.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Personally I wanted warlocks and clerics to be metaphysically different.


Sure, and that is good fluff. But if you interpret warlocks not to be similar to clerics, then they become metaphysically just subset of sorcerers, i.e. the ones who bargained to gain their innate magic.

So what I did I just combined warlocks and sorcerers. Sorcerer fluff, including the interpretation that allows warlocks as a subset, mostly warlock mechanics with expanded spell list and some other tweaks.

Reading the 5e fluff was fairly interesting.

"It's sorta like a cleric, but not a god..the magic kinda changes you..like a sorcerer..or maybe your patron gives you magical knowledge you can use to cast spells..like a wizard"

I'd be most inclined to combine them with clerics of the three. Mostly seems like the differences between them are differences of scale rather than scope.

A subset of Sorcerer could be ok I suppose, if we're thinking whatever the patron provides becomes a physical part of the caster.

 

[mamba]

And in any case, as noted earlier, constant channelling of power would just make them clerics.

I see those powers as on loan. they can be revoked at any time

Sounds just like a shady cleric to me.

no, the being is no god and there is no religion attached

 

[Pedantic]

Personally I wanted warlocks and clerics to be metaphysically different.

I'd like warlocks to be more clearly defined. "Dark pact for magic" is cool and interesting, and presumably should come with a clear layout of the costs involved. The Binder was a more interesting take on the concept, because it clearly laid out the costs of what you were doing and the reason the patron (vestiges) would want to give you magical abilities. The whole sign thing was under-developed and didn't have sufficient teeth, but the concept was significantly more grounded.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Those are narrative reasons. Completely unacceptable as an excuse for bad mechanics.

First of all, this is D&D, we need no excuse for bad mechanics. It's good mechanics that have a tough row to hoe.

But, the first set aren't "narrative" at all, they're for the DM's convenience, and since the DM can ignore/overrule/change/spindle/mutilate the rules at whim... again, no excuse needed.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

"It's sorta like a cleric, but not a god..the magic kinda changes you..like a sorcerer..or maybe your patron gives you magical knowledge you can use to cast spells..like a wizard"

Yeah, that's exactly it!

 

[Micah Sweet]

First of all, this is D&D, we need no excuse for bad mechanics. It's good mechanics that have a tough row to hoe.

But, the first set aren't "narrative" at all, they're for the DM's convenience, and since the DM can ignore/overrule/change/spindle/mutilate the rules at whim... again, no excuse needed.

I was talking about the second set, which clearly are narrative reasons.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Realism applied selectively isn't verisimilitude either.

Realism applied selectively is simply a double standard.
There are enough of those IRL, I don't want them in my escapism.

I was talking about the second set, which clearly are narrative reasons.

It was just, the DM may design NPCs to fill more/different/narrower/broader roles/purposes than the players do their PCs. NPCs also don't need to balance with eachother, just, if they're opponents for the PCs, balance like a well-designed monster, and, really, if anything else, hardly need stats... So, again, it's a matter of DM prerogative and convenience.

 

[M_Natas]

Reading the 5e fluff was fairly interesting.

"It's sorta like a cleric, but not a god..the magic kinda changes you..like a sorcerer..or maybe your patron gives you magical knowledge you can use to cast spells..like a wizard"

I'd be most inclined to combine them with clerics of the three. Mostly seems like the differences between them are differences of scale rather than scope.

A subset of Sorcerer could be ok I suppose, if we're thinking whatever the patron provides becomes a physical part of the caster.

That's what I said like 20 pages ago. Warlocks should be subclasses of Wizards, Sorcerers and Clerics, depending on if they borrow, learn or get power trough body changes.