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

[TorgoTheWhite]

I think the DM should have agency to call world-building, history, cultures: "MY story" all the framework to the game. Though I have let players propose world-building too. But Warlocks feel like they tread hard upon the grounds of needing to add historic and world building elements that the DM is not in love with - and it is very player dependent on what level of homework the player wants the DM to do.

My Warlock player is a great RP'er and he likes the mystery/unraveling the mystery of his Patron. This makes for a pretty DM intensive world-building and basically a character that is 2-for the price of 1..+

 

[Minigiant]

Just to say.
If there was an edition that was an iteration of 4e and I designed it, the Arcane Power source would be split

• Wizardry powers would be Arcane Daily Powers
• Witchcraft powers would be Arcane Encounter Powers
• Sorcery powers would be Arcane At Will Powers
• Level 1 Wizards would get 2 Sorcery and 2 Wizardry
• Level 1 Warlocks would get 1 Sorcery, 1 Wizardry, and 2 Witchcraft
  • The Sorcery is ELDRITCH BLAST!!
• Level 1 Sorcerers would get 4 Sorcery
  • Sorcerers get Points to up damage of Sorcereries

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Ignoring a warlock's patron doesn't really meet setting logic though. You can ignore it, but to me the world starts to feel less real when you do.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

It is pretty reasonable take that a class based on Faustian bargain implies that such bargain matters. Like that is the core of the identity of the class. And it doesn't need to be a conflict, but yes, it should matter. And indeed if cleric's religion never matters or if nature does not matter for a druid, then those classes are pointless too. Then they are just generic magic users.

And some other classes actually do constantly represent their core fiction with mechanics. Barbarian for example has rage and features tied to it. This constantly foregrounds them being a mad berserker. Paladin has oath, and must uphold virtues related to it. Warlock has no features that foreground the pact, they have no mechanics that require dealing with the patron.

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?

To me existence of warlock pact implies that this is the method and result of a powerful being investing magic into a mortal. If it isn't, again what's the point of having the class? If bargain could make you just a better wizard instead, then why we even have warlock?