D&D 5E (2024) What’s the difference between sorcerers, warlocks, and wizards?

[SkidAce]

I consider sorcerers to be the "semi-natural adepts" of the arcane world.

Just like a fighter covers everything from gladiator, to town guard, to skilled duelist, to a simple fighter doing the best he can with a big stick, Sorcerers are the big bucket.

Having fewer spells made them "themed" (IMHO).

Natural tribe of rakasta healers, divine soul sorcerer.
Family history of enchanters (charm), sorcerers with enchantment spells.
Nation with frequent pyromaniacs, sorcerers with fire spells.
etc ,etc.

Sure wizards could specialize, like an engineer or a scientist would.

And as mention previously, warlocks use cheat codes and tools/gifts aquired.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It doesn't though. Like, really, it doesn't.

The Warlock's patron doesn't have to feature in the campaign at all. It could, or... not... I mean, if you've played BG3, compare how much Warlock Tav's patron features (barely at all, and optionally) to how much Wyll's does (a ton, and as a major part of the plot intertwining with the backstory of another companion even).

You, as the DM, have the choice to go anywhere on that scale. It's like, 1-10 and it seems like you're acting like it only goes between 8 and 10.

Then again, having a patron is what sets warlock apart from the sorcerer, so if the patron is just some random even in the past that is no longer relevant, then thematically you might as well be a sorcerer.

And it does not help that the books do not do much to clarify how the relationship with the patron is supposed to work. What kind of things the patron can request? What sort of leverage they have? Can the patron shut down the warlock's powers, are their cooperation required for gaining further warlock levels? Not addressed.

And I understand that it is so, because a lot of people do not want to deal with the patron in play, but if you don't, then the class is pointless.

Also narratively I do not love that pacts with supernatural entities to gain power are siloed into one class. Because such deals can be interesting, but they are so if they are actually made during the game. Now this rarely happens, unless someone wants to multiclass into a warlock.

 

[TorgoTheWhite]

It doesn't though. Like, really, it doesn't.

The Warlock's patron doesn't have to feature in the campaign at all. It could, or... not... I mean, if you've played BG3, compare how much Warlock Tav's patron features (barely at all, and optionally) to how much Wyll's does (a ton, and as a major part of the plot intertwining with the backstory of another companion even).

You, as the DM, have the choice to go anywhere on that scale. It's like, 1-10 and it seems like you're acting like it only goes between 8 and 10.

I haven't played video games in years, BG3 references don't mean much to me. But, to me, if the core of a character's powers include a pact with a powerful being, then you should feature that being in some way, shape, or form. Also, I think Lv. 10 they can communicate directly with a patron.. so should I just not involve this core class feature? This also becomes dependent on what the player wants, and of course, my player wants to learn more about his patron and THAT lines up with that whole snipe at me earlier with: isn't it the Warlock's story? I do allow players agency to canonize cool stuff into my story to make it a shared story..

Good grief though, the whole Patron inserted into my campaign felt like pulling teeth. I have finally come to a nice story middle ground and I actually like the patron that I built.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

And I understand that it is so, because a lot of people do not want to deal with the patron in play, but if you don't, then the class is pointless.

It really isn't.

That's a very strange thing to say.

You might as well say Clerics are pointless if the campaign doesn't involve going on and on and on endlessly about the PC's god and their various worldly conflicts, and if they follow a god who doesn't have worldly conflicts, or whose values align so well with adventuring that they don't cause conflict, the class is pointless. Or a Druid who isn't forever dealing with conflicts with nature, even if that's not a major part of their backstory, is a "pointless class". Or a Wizard who we don't learn about the actual backstory of how and why they're a [specialization] specifically, and have it frequently come up for non-mechanical reasons. Pointless class. How about a Monk who doesn't yammer on about their monastery every ten minutes lol? Pointless, no? Might as well be a Rogue! Or god help us a Paladin who has a set of values which fail to sufficiently frequently cause a scene whilst adventuring? Might as well be a Fighter because we've already established Cleric is a pointless class lol.

Hell, by this logic, maybe all Fighters, Rogues, Barbarians and Rangers are "pointless" because they don't have a weird supernatural backstory and are, by your logic, essentially interchangeable. We can just revert to Fighting-Man, I guess?

Sorry but like what you talking about lol? Really wild take.

Also narratively I do not love that pacts with supernatural entities to gain power are siloed into one class. Because such deals can be interesting, but they are so if they are actually made during the game.

I mean, it doesn't, does it? You can still absolutely have that, why can't you? It's no different to any other edition. The Warlock just makes a specific type of pact, it doesn't cover absolutely every possible supernatural pact does it? Did I miss some clause where it said it did?

 

[CreamCloud0]

It was a bad showing for a first option.

Had it been a wild sorcerer who could spend sorcery points to invoke Wild Surges or chaotic explosions on a standard mage chassis, it would have tested better.

And they could have left in Dragon Breath and such as a hint to how subclasses worked.

i won't deny wild magic is a popular established archetype but putting the random effects subclass as your first showing isn't a better first impression to be showing either, at least in my opinion.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Also, I think Lv. 10 they can communicate directly with a patron.. so should I just not involve this core class feature?

Level 9 in 2024. Having a guy you can phone up and ask 5 questions, none of which he has to answer, and which might make him angry if you keep doing, doesn't mean you need to make it a major part of the campaign, which was what you seemed to say:

I don't love the fact that the class forces me to suddenly insert another major power player into my campaign.

It just doesn't.

It doesn't force you to do anything beyond identify the patron and have some idea how you want to RP them BY LEVEL 9. That's going to be months of play in most campaigns. I think you can figure out one NPC over months. They don't have to be a "major power player". They don't even have to respond to the questions (it's quite likely a Great Old One wouldn't, for example). Many patrons won't be interested in the world the PC lives in, even. Others might be very interested and have a ton of requests or demands for the PC. It's up to you and the player to determine that.

Re: "pulling teeth", I have no idea what the situation was there, but if the player wanted the Patron to be a "major power player", and you wanted to accommodate that, but the player failed to provide any help in doing so, that's kind of on them. And you could always have said no. It's optional. If you just decided for them that the Patron would be though, that's on you. Nobody made you lol in that case.

 

[Minigiant]

i won't deny wild magic is a popular established archetype but putting the random effects subclass as your first showing isn't a better first impression to be showing either, at least in my opinion.

Better than a gish as your subclass on a caster class.

more like a scarlet with with probability magic. Wild Surging only if you choose to go greedy.

 

[Scribe]

Right, I would think that if the warlock's patron features in the story, it's because it's the warlock's story.

In an ideal world, is the Patron not simply a part of the same world (cosmology) anyway? Why does the story need to adjust for what should already be there?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

In an ideal world, is the Patron not simply a part of the same world (cosmology) anyway? Why does the story need to adjust for what should already be there?

That's a reasonable question, but I think there are so many different patrons at this point it may well be that any given DM hasn't thought much about certain specific ones.

Better than a gish as your subclass on a caster class.

I think it's about equally bad, or slightly worse than that, actually. Never underestimate how much people hate forced randomness, or how much they will assume "this is just one example" actually means "THIS IS THE ONLY SUBCLASS!" (insane but they do seem to react that way).

 

[Minigiant]

I think it's about equally bad, or slightly worse than that, actually. Never underestimate how much people hate forced randomness, or how much they will assume "this is just one example" actually means "THIS IS THE ONLY SUBCLASS!" (insane but they do seem to react that way).

Again it all depends on presentation.

If

Celestial Arcana
Chaos Morph
Clockwork Cannon
Dragon Breath
Dragon Scale
Elemental Burst
Wild Explosion

were your sorcerer Sorcery options, that reaction would be limited because the base wild mage is still a mage