D&D General One thing I hate about the Sorcerer

[Vaalingrade]

And neither is warlock magic. You cannot be born a warlock.

Interesting character choice: a kid whose parents made the pact on their behalf.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I see. You're just refusing to understand what it says. Cool. I think we're done, there is no point of discussing this further if we cannot even agree on meaning of such a simple sentence.

Is everything that results from a pact also part of the pact?

Or is it possible--just maybe possible--that something can result from a pact without, y'know, BEING that pact itself?

Because I'd argue that's precisely how that passage is meant to be read. The result of a pact--but not a pact itself. Because otherwise we get an incredibly schizophrenic, self-contradictory passage that spends all this time talking about something innate (whether inherited or acquired, it's still "in the blood" one way or another) and then swerves at the last possible moment to claim that nope, it's perfectly 100% possible to be absolutely purely just a pact and nothing whatsoever else.

OR we could take it to mean "at some point, someone made a pact, and now the echoes of that choice bear fruit in you, the distant child." Which conforms just fine to every other part of the flavor and fluff, and avoids the ridiculous contradiction you keep trying to read into the text.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You obviously haven't even read the sorcerer fluff so this is pointless.

Mod Note:

Posting parting shots like this aren’t conducive to constructive conversations. Do better going forward.

 

[Guest 7037866]

Concerning this whole "pact" issue, I think there is a difference here that perhaps is being overlooked?

Pact (big "P") = Warlock

vs.

pact (small "p") = Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer

The difference being what your PC is "given" and I think lacking a firm distinction between the two is a bit of a failing by the designers.

IME Warlocks, for instance, should really have their patron directly involved with the PC. The two made a bargain, magical knowledge and power for "occasional services performed on the patron's behalf." How often and in what way the patron communitates with their warlock depends on the relationship between the two and the vision created by player and DM.

Sorcerers, on the other hand, have many ways in which magic was infused into their being. In the case of the Draconic Bloodline, being the first of a bloodline might involve a pact (again, small "p") or bargain as well. If your PC is the "first of a new bloodline", and you are actually playing your PC as a sorcerer, then the bargain has either been satisfied or perhaps needs to be (like part of the first adventure!). Either way, the magic is in your blood now, and can't be removed (at least not easily...). Of course, the dragon could always "enforce" the bargain if you welch--in which case your PC won't have a long adventuring career.

Over all, Sorcerers (if they have a "pact") due to their bloodline, already have the magic and it the bargain is likely done, but Warlock have an on-going arrangement with their Patron. Finally, Patrons are other-worldly beings, which depending on how you run your game, dragons usually aren't.

That's my take, anyway.

 

[Remathilis]

I think it's important to realize that the lore of sorcerers changed to being purely "bloodline" based to be more ambiguous to allow for a wider variety of origins, rather than once your ancestors got jiggy with a monster. They subtly did that with planetouched species as well. I guess they don't want them to be defined purely by bloodlines and parentage. It gets a touch murky when you involve pacts, but again D&D has more than one was to express an idea. You can have a grizzled woodman living in the forest and be a fighter, barbarian or ranger and you wouldn't be wrong. I got no problem with "made a deal with a powerful entity for magic" being a cleric, sorcerer or warlock.

 

[TwoSix]

I think it's important to realize that the lore of sorcerers changed to being purely "bloodline" based to be more ambiguous to allow for a wider variety of origins, rather than once your ancestors got jiggy with a monster. They subtly did that with planetouched species as well. I guess they don't want them to be defined purely by bloodlines and parentage. It gets a touch murky when you involve pacts, but again D&D has more than one was to express an idea. You can have a grizzled woodman living in the forest and be a fighter, barbarian or ranger and you wouldn't be wrong. I got no problem with "made a deal with a powerful entity for magic" being a cleric, sorcerer or warlock.

Exactly. Which gets back to the basic idea that D&D (especially 5e) is a toolkit with a hint of implied setting, but no actual setting. Any class diegetic elements pointing towards a particular cosmology are purposely weak for that reason.

Everyone's interpretations of how the classes "work" are valid because there was no attempt to formalize any of these concepts. It's why combining classes because "the flavor" is similar will never fly.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I see. You're just refusing to understand what it says. Cool. I think we're done, there is no point of discussing this further if we cannot even agree on meaning of such a simple sentence.

Right, because your interpretation that supports your point must be the only logical and possible interpretation of the sentence. Even though I laid out exactly how mine is also logical, and would follow the written lore of the classes as they exist now.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Interesting character choice: a kid whose parents made the pact on their behalf.

Oh yeah, it is an awesome backstory. I sort of did that with a Druid of mine. He was the "price" paid by an elven princess to keep her human lover alive to match her lifespan (firstborn child) and then one day... he was kicked out of the Fey Court because the deal had expired and he had to figure out how to exist in the mortal realms. He was a great character.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I think it's important to realize that the lore of sorcerers changed to being purely "bloodline" based to be more ambiguous to allow for a wider variety of origins, rather than once your ancestors got jiggy with a monster. They subtly did that with planetouched species as well. I guess they don't want them to be defined purely by bloodlines and parentage. It gets a touch murky when you involve pacts, but again D&D has more than one was to express an idea. You can have a grizzled woodman living in the forest and be a fighter, barbarian or ranger and you wouldn't be wrong. I got no problem with "made a deal with a powerful entity for magic" being a cleric, sorcerer or warlock.

I agree that it could be possible, I certainly wouldn't tell a player that they couldn't do that.

However, it is also possible to have a monk whose backstory is that they were isekai'd after watching too many Bruce Lee films (I... may have done exactly that in a story I'm writing for a side character...) The difference I see in it is that, if you have your sorcerous origin in power from a n powerful entity, then it is a one and done situation. Like, you jumped in front of an iron crossbow bolt and saved a Fey Lord, so he uses his magic to heal you and reward you for saving him. But after that moment, you and that fey lord have nothing binding you together. The magic was a gift or a curse, not an ongoing deal.

To me, warlocks are almost the most egotistical class. They are the type of person who would stomp up to a God, shove the paper with the pact written on it into their face and say "We had a deal, pay up, or else". The contractual magic is key to the warlock identity, and it is key to all their stories. A Cleric would never do that (in my mind), a sorcerer wouldn't do that. Neither class has a sense to them that the source of their power OWES them something. Warlocks have it in writing, and that agreement puts them on equal footing with the beings they have made those deals with. [A key part of warlocks being possible to me, is that contract magic is cosmically enforced. Even a God would suffer from breaking a contract. Which is why no one breaks them.]

And I think, if you had a sorcerer who made a deal and got sorcerer powers, then it would be like being a cleric who got their powers from eating a god, or who are their own god either via a religion like the Blood of Vol or from being an Aasimar. Possible, but you are coloring outside the lines.

 

[TwoSix]

Here's a random but related question.

When you play, do you prefer characters who adhere to tropes, or do you prefer characters who violate them?

Likewise, what do you prefer when you're DMing?