D&D 5E Sorcerer vs Warlock

[MechaTarrasque]

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

If I was building the warlock from scratch it would go something like "there are some magics that are so dangerous that even the most evil or desperate wizard shies away from them. These magics are the tools of the warlock." Mechanically it would be high risk/high reward. Things like you can summon fiends with higher CR than the spell level, but the only real control you have is where they show up (if there are a couple of trolls between you and the marilith, you should be safe right?) or you use hit points to power a spell, but if you kill something with the spell you get twice as many hit points back as you spent, or you open a portal, and everything (including you) within 30 feet of it must make a DC X strength save or be sucked into it until the portal swallows 50 hitpoints. If things work out, it would be the max nova class, but if they don't, your PC is more likely to die by his/her actions then by any enemy. Wizards stick with things that always work, and warlocks are gamblers.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

I suppose I find that a strange position.

I want the game to give me more pieces for "where is all this power coming from" not fewer.


And again, we could totally do it your way, and have the "Arcanist" class. Merge together all the salient points of the Bard, Sorcerer, Wizard, and Warlock and hand-wave the fluff of how and why they tend to do magic and how that magic might differ.

But that sends the message that "everyone who uses arcane power is essentially the same" which is a huge step away from the route DnD has taken.

So, sure, we could say that making a contract with Asmodeus with the soul of your sister in return for power is essentially the same as being born with an uncontrollable magic due to being born during the Everstorm... but those really aren't the same types of magic to me, and I don't think they should be mixed in every case.

 

[cbwjm]

I suppose I find that a strange position.

I want the game to give me more pieces for "where is all this power coming from" not fewer.


And again, we could totally do it your way, and have the "Arcanist" class. Merge together all the salient points of the Bard, Sorcerer, Wizard, and Warlock and hand-wave the fluff of how and why they tend to do magic and how that magic might differ.

But that sends the message that "everyone who uses arcane power is essentially the same" which is a huge step away from the route DnD has taken.

So, sure, we could say that making a contract with Asmodeus with the soul of your sister in return for power is essentially the same as being born with an uncontrollable magic due to being born during the Everstorm... but those really aren't the same types of magic to me, and I don't think they should be mixed in every case.

Maybe I'm not being clear. My idea would make it modular so that the player is able to decide where they get their power from. They actually will have more pieces, or at least as many as they have now. It would essentially look similar to the warlock where you chose your pact and then at third choose your boon. Something similar would be what my magic-user class would have.

 

[Yaarel]

If I was building the warlock from scratch it would go something like "there are some magics that are so dangerous that even the most evil or desperate wizard shies away from them. These magics are the tools of the warlock."

The ‘mad scientist’ archetype is pretty much *exactly* what the Wizard class is, inspired to some degree by medieval proto-scientists. Wizards are all about mastering the most ‘dangerous’ forces in the universe.

By contrast, the Warlock is mechanically about making a ‘pact’ with spiritual entities. If anything, the Warlock would essentially be a class that summons otherworldly spirits, in other words a summoner class that casts the ‘Planar Ally’ spell across all levels, invoking low CR creatures at low levels, and high CR creatures at high levels (or swarms of low CR creatures).

In other words, this kind of pact-making Warlock would look alot like Elric.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I suppose I find that a strange position.

I want the game to give me more pieces for "where is all this power coming from" not fewer.

It's like DM Empowerment, but on the player side. If you have a 'modular' magic-using class that you build into something like a wizard, something like warlock, something like a sorcerer, or something else, entirely, you can create a mechanical model of whatever "where is all this power coming from" concept you come up with.

D&D's never done that, not even close (but closer than 5e, I suppose, a bit), but other systems have. FWIW, it's not a revolutionary idea.

But that sends the message that "everyone who uses arcane power is essentially the same" which is a huge step away from the route DnD has taken.

D&D has been pretty firmly in the 'everyone who uses magic is essentially the same' camp for most of it's history. They all cast spells, from lists with some considerable overlap (more in 5e than in most, I think), and those spells all have casting times, three kinds of components, can (usually) be interrupted (or maybe counterspelled), dispelled, magic-resisted, possibly absorbed, etc... In 5e the full casters all cast have about the same slots/day chart, and MC casters use basically the same one, too.
And of course, all 5e casters cast spontaneously using slots, too.

 

[ccs]

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.

My 1/2ling fey-chain-lock serves an ancient pseudo-dragon she befriended.
He teaches her (limited) magic & projects an aspect of himself to act as her familiar. She serves him by sending home a portion of the treasure she finds (via a bag of devouring).
Now & then the other pcs will witness the 1/2ling arguing over some piece of loot with her familiar.
Anyone else ever play Rock/Paper/Scissors vs thier own familiar?

 

[MechaTarrasque]

The ‘mad scientist’ archetype is pretty much *exactly* what the Wizard class is, inspired to some degree by medieval proto-scientists. Wizards are all about mastering the most ‘dangerous’ forces in the universe.

By contrast, the Warlock is mechanically about making a ‘pact’ with spiritual entities. If anything, the Warlock would essentially be a class that summons otherworldly spirits, in other words a summoner class that casts the ‘Planar Ally’ spell across all levels, invoking low CR creatures at low levels, and high CR creatures at high levels (or swarms of low CR creatures).

In other words, this kind of pact-making Warlock would look alot like Elric.

Wizards seem to spend a lot of time stealing spells that have been proven to work from other wizards. That seems more like accounting 101 than mad science. There could be a more mad scientist wizard school (I call it the reform school wizard), but we haven't seen anything like that in 5e.

If you reread the Elric stories, you will note that making deals with spiritual entities is dangerous.

 

[Yaarel]

If you reread the Elric stories, you will note that making deals with spiritual entities is dangerous.

Yeah, that kind of danger − because dangerous spirits − makes sense for a ‘pact’ Warlock.

It reminds me, the Conjure Elemental spell. The summoned creature has a noticeably high CR rating for its spell slot, but if the caster loses concentration, control is lost and the Elemental turns hostile to attack the caster. I am uneasy about the mechanics of this spell, because I am unsure how useful the spell is because of this risk. But the flavor is right, spirits can be powerful ... but for that reason too dangerous.

Wizards seem to spend a lot of time stealing spells that have been proven to work from other wizards. That seems more like accounting 101 than mad science. There could be a more mad scientist wizard school (I call it the reform school wizard), but we haven't seen anything like that in 5e.

As wizardry, so science. Most of the time, scientists are learning from each other. But some of them are pioneers entering into uncharted unknowns. Mad science exists.



[edit]

MechaTarrasque, you are kind of right about 5e Wizard. The spin in the Players Handbook is, the Wizard goes on dangerous adventures to discover the ‘lost’ knowledge of ancient Wizards. In other words, they are intellectually lazy and only want to copy notes off of other Wizards, rather than do their own research work. Heh, that seems more like an accountant. More an archivist than a mad scientist.

Heh, but at least 5e has ancient mad-scientist Wizards, even if most are dead.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It's like DM Empowerment, but on the player side. If you have a 'modular' magic-using class that you build into something like a wizard, something like warlock, something like a sorcerer, or something else, entirely, you can create a mechanical model of whatever "where is all this power coming from" concept you come up with.

D&D's never done that, not even close (but closer than 5e, I suppose, a bit), but other systems have. FWIW, it's not a revolutionary idea.

D&D has been pretty firmly in the 'everyone who uses magic is essentially the same' camp for most of it's history. They all cast spells, from lists with some considerable overlap (more in 5e than in most, I think, and those spells all have casting times, three kinds of components, can (usually) be interrupted (or maybe counterspelled), dispelled, magic-resisted, possibly absorbed, etc... In 5e the full casters all cast have about the same slots/day chart, and MC casters use basically the same one, too.
And of course, all 5e casters cast spontaneously using slots, too.

I'm probably not explaining my thoughts very well.

I'm not saying it is revolutionary, I agree other games have done it, but I don't understand the inclination of combining them. It would be like the mystic.

Where the mystic (in its most recent UA iteration) got their powers from is completely up to the player, there are suggestions, but nothing really defines it. And the various sub-classes are highly unique while the whole is still incredibly modular to allow a full range of choice for the player.

And it works for me, but that is because psychics are not something that I see as close to the core of my game. Them being rounded up like they are is fine, because so very few players at my table would even consider playing one that the loss of identity from being combined into a single class is reversed by being the only Mystic at the table in usual circumstances.

But, Arcane magic and arcane practitioners are central to DnD, and they have always been relatively distinctive. We've had Bards being very difference from Wizards being very different from Sorcerers being very different from Arcane Archers and Theurges and on down the list for whatever list you would like to make.

And, there would be a loss in identity with the combination. Mechanically, I don't really care and mechanically it could work out, but let us assume that we rolled the Sorcerer into the Warlock, including all subclassses. We'd need to have a "source" which is a combination of all patrons and bloodlines (Chaos, Dragon, Storm, Stone, Pheonix, Sea, Shadow, Favored Soul, Fiend, Archfey, Raven Queen, Seeker, Hexblade, Great Old One) and then the "method" which is mainly warlock stuff (Tome, Chain, Blade, Bloodline, Seeker[they had their own one right?])

That is a lot of material to rewrite and combine, and it would come with all new mechanics, unless you made all sorcerers mechanically identical to warlocks or vice versa, and one of the two classes would not survive the combination. Then you have the issues involved with making some of the combinations fit. How did your Pact of the Chain make a binding deal for power from Chaos? How do you have a bloodline connected with the Raven Queen without it being an explicitly divine class and what is the difference between that and the Favored Soul? If you combine those two do you combine Stone, Storm, and Sea into Archfey? Being highly modular it is going to become difficult to ban or limit one or more of these so it may lead to just more bans of the entire new class.


And, you've gained what? Some more interesting mechanics for the Sorcerer potentially, but that doesn't require this combination. Just the ease of knowing that two concepts are now one? There is no new story here, no concept we couldn't work with before, I just don't see the point other than getting rid of the sorcerer. And if you want to get rid of the sorcerer.... just get rid of them. Again, it is a lot less work.


Other systems may have been built with a bunch of concepts swirled together. It may even work in DnD to a certain extent, but I think this is a bridge too far and would cause more loss of story potential than gain.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm probably not explaining my thoughts very well.

I'm not saying it is revolutionary, I agree other games have done it, but I don't understand the inclination of combining them.

It opens up more degrees of freedom at chargen. If you decide your caster made a pact for his power, it needn't put him on a short-rest schedule or take certain spells off his list. You can decide on something other than book-learning, magic blood, or pact. It's just a completely different design philosophy.

[quit]But, Arcane magic and arcane practitioners are central to DnD, and they have always been relatively distinctive.[/quote] Well, not always. Even the term 'arcane' is kinda a late edition. But, say, in 1e, you had the magic-user and the illusionsist, and the way they worked was basically identical. (The Bard was casting Druid spells at the time.)

We've had Bards being very difference from Wizards being very different from Sorcerers being very different from Arcane Archers and Theurges and on down the list for whatever list you would like to make.

3.x did have an explosion of classes and PrCs. But it really had 3 kinds of casting, prepped/Vancian, Spontaneous, & at-will (Warlock/Warmage).

5e nods to that with the Sorcerer, Warlock & Wizard, even though all of them, prepped wizard included, casts spontaneously and have at-wills.

And, there would be a loss in identity with the combination.

There could be a gain in identity, it'd be up to the player building the character though.