D&D 5E Sorcerer vs Warlock

[foeblade1]

oh most of my mods went for casting in general and wizards. I was going to get rid of locks but they really are a neat little nitch so i kept them. Sorcerers are redundant in 5th edition i moved their abilities to wizard class and got rid of them.(sans the bloodline abilities) All casters can maintain concentration on 1 spell per proficiency level and i am fixing specific spells that are to weak and returned to one save and out to give enchantment spells some umph at lower levels. Also full casters add their proficiency bonus for the number of casting slots available per level.. I am working on the half casters next. I am not sure how to work on locks yet iam not done yet edition five has a lot of things that need fixing.

 

[Alexemplar]

its a general comment about what they did to a lot of creatures, dragons, demons ect. back in 3.5 they had a lot more spell and spell like abilities. They seem to have been cut back a lot in 5th edition. A warlock has a sponsor to get all his power from. I figure that its not going to be a deity otherwise the warlock would be a cleric so its going to be a power ful critter like a hag or pit fiend or weak demon prince that sort of thing. but by the time the warlock is mid level he has more magical abilities then the critter that is most likely sponsoring him. Most critters in 5th edition are really just meat shields lots of hit points a couple of attacks and thats it. Rather weak really.

They cut down on spell lists printed in the stat block to save space but there's really no reason you can't have a particular near epic level planar power be able to cast a certain spell/ritual if they need to. The stat block doesn't tell all.

That's why stats for full on deities like Tiamat don't have spell lists. It isn't that Tiamat isn't magical or have powers or cold never cast spells. It's just that it's not necessarily in the form if wizard/sorcerer/bard/cleric/druid/warlock spell progression or PC spell prep rules.

And warlocks don't make pacts with normal hags, minor demons, etc. They make pacts with archfey, demon lords and other entities which usually lack stats but those that do tend to be 20+ cr.

Yeah, it's possible the Warlock could eventually kick their arse, but it wouldn't be the first time in mythology/fantasy literature that kind of thing happened.

 

[Alexemplar]

I noticed up thread that you mention in your game that you merged some of the casters and amplified the effectiveness of spells. Do you say the warlock has more power because of the changes you've done in your game? What do you perceive that gives you an indication that the warlock classes have more power than the creature granting them power?

Were you under the impression that spellcasters, particularly wizards, were underpowered?

 

[Nevvur]

And warlocks don't make pacts with normal hags, minor demons, etc. They make pacts with archfey, demon lords and other entities which usually lack stats but those that do tend to be 20+ cr.

There's at least one official instance of an imp patron, per the AL adventure It's All in the Blood.

"If asked, Pipyap abjectly refuses to serve as a familiar. He is still pretty broken up about the death of Halvin, his last master. He does, however, allow any characters that are also warlocks swear fealty to him in exchange for "slightly impressive power." A fiend-pact warlock who received the story reward, above, may choose Pipyap as their patron. This has no effect on the character's abilities."

I think it's more likely this is a case of the author taking liberties with or ignorant of 'standard' warlock patronage, but it's a concept I liked when I read it. One of the players in my homebrew campaign, playing a sorlock and knowing he wouldn't be investing heavily in the warlock class, suggested a lesser demon as his patron. He decided on a succubus, I agreed, and much fun was had including her in the campaign.

 

[Alexemplar]

There's at least one official instance of an imp patron, per the AL adventure It's All in the Blood.

"If asked, Pipyap abjectly refuses to serve as a familiar. He is still pretty broken up about the death of Halvin, his last master. He does, however, allow any characters that are also warlocks swear fealty to him in exchange for "slightly impressive power." A fiend-pact warlock who received the story reward, above, may choose Pipyap as their patron. This has no effect on the character's abilities."

I think it's more likely this is a case of the author taking liberties with or ignorant of 'standard' warlock patronage, but it's a concept I liked when I read it. One of the players in my homebrew campaign, playing a sorlock and knowing he wouldn't be investing heavily in the warlock class, suggested a lesser demon as his patron. He decided on a succubus, I agreed, and much fun was had including her in the campaign.

Aside from being a blunder I'd also be inclined to think the Imp is acting as a go between/handler. Sure, he's the one the player interacts with, but the knowledge/power/resources the Imp is providing aren't wholey it's own.

But again, it's not unheard of in tales for people who bargain with Satan or powerful deities/spirits to end up one upping them in the end by being more capable than the immortal thought.

 

[InspetorG]

Thematically, they are VERY different.

My take on Casters in 5e:

Clerics - get their magic from a God/Godess. Magic is themed and structured by the God's archetype.

Wizards study and learn how to manipulate Magic like a tool. Structured and rigid applications to get consistent outcomes.

Warlock - you bargained for Magic power that belonged to another, more powerful entity. Magic is rigidly defined by the Entity's abilities because, logically, the entity in question couldn't offer what they didnt have.

Sorcerers - CAVEAT: DM needs to define the Cosmology of his/her world to define the Sorcerer. In a manner, if say, if you want easy hanging fruit, say that the Universe IS Magic. From Magic comes all the things. Sorcerers have a direct tap on that stuff, but it is distilled thought the Planes and through the Sorcerer so it takes a familiar 'shape' of Arcane Magic.

Its your table.

But,

Lumping Sorcerers into Warlocks would be like lumping Fighters and Rogues together because they both 'use weapons'.

Sorcerer class was perhaps a bit too vague in description by WotC. Maybe by design?

 

[Leatherhead]

Rogues and Fighters should be lumped together. Mostly so that Fighters can get some proper out of combat options.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I figure if a demon lord rules over a layer of the Abyss with millions of damned souls, any number of whom were warlocks, and he/she/it can just get the spell from one of them to give to his/her/its new warlock buddy, then there is no actual reason for the demon lord to be saddled with the warlock spells.

And that is just demons, devils have bureaucracy and record keeping. Every warlock spell that ever was is sitting on their bookshelf. Pretty easy to see archfey or even hags having books o' warlock spells on hand too.

 

[InspetorG]

So like OD&D?

Fighter, Thief, Wizard, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Cleric are all the classes?

 

[Wulffolk]

Classes are one of the "sacred cows / fatal flaws" of D&D, in my opinion. I prefer a game system that doesn't rely upon classes, but ultimately removing classes would mean you aren't really playing D&D any more.