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

[Crimson Longinus]

There is really no coherent distinction and it bugs me.

It also is weird that warlock for some reason has the most unique casting mechanics in the game, but there is really no reason why they would behave so differently. I always felt that warlock mechanics of always-on magical features and rapidly recharging spells made way more sense with the sorcerer fluff of being an innately magical being. Meanwhile the sorcerer feature of metamagic, being able to alter and manipulate what the spells do, makes more sense with the wizard, a person who studies arcane theory.

 

[Staffan]

There is really no coherent distinction and it bugs me.

It also is weird that warlock for some reason has the most unique casting mechanics in the game, but there is really no reason why they would behave so differently. I always felt that warlock mechanics of always-on magical features and rapidly recharging spells made way more sense with the sorcerer fluff of being an innately magical being. Meanwhile the sorcerer feature of metamagic, being able to alter and manipulate what the spells do, makes more sense with the wizard, a person who studies arcane theory.

I think the intent is that the wizard uses pre-made formulae for their spells. Some have a bit of wiggle room (e.g. Chromatic Orb can deal damage of different energy types), but basically it's a matter of doing things in a predictable way and getting a predictable result. The sorcerer, on the other hand, has a more direct relationship with their magic. It's in their blood, so they get to manipulate it to a larger degree, which in the game means meta-magic.

 

[Aldarc]

what's wrong with excuses to include different casting mechanics?

i mean, i can see what they were going for, one class that represents breadth of knowledge and the ability to learn new techniques, one that has a focused thematic core while being flexible and potent within it's niche, and a caster that feels like it's innately 'breaking the structure' of standard casting,

I didn't say there was anything wrong with different casting mechanics. I said that they were designed mechanics first. Their actual archetypes, flavor, themes, etc. were tacked on later. I would personally prefer the reverse: Different Themes -> Different Mechanics.

 

[mellored]

There is really no coherent distinction and it bugs me.

There's no coherent distinction between a paladin and cleric either.
Or fighter and barbarian.

 

[Aldarc]

There's no coherent distinction between a paladin and cleric either.
Or fighter and barbarian.

One thing at a time.

 

[TiQuinn]

I know there’s a bit of a mechanical difference between them in how the cast, slots, sorcery points, spell lists, etc.

I know there’s a membrane-thin fluff difference between them in one is born to power, one trades for power, and one studies for power. But that has effectively zero impact on the mechanics or actually playing one of the three.

But is that all? Even over a decade in to 5E and they just read like excuses to include different casting mechanics.

So fans of these three classes, besides the mechanics, what’s the draw?

Yeah, I’m not a fan of the lack of distinct spell lists between the three. I think at least the restricted number of spells and the invocations for Warlocks along with the patron lore help distinguish them from Wizards, but Sorcerers have always felt more tied to just casting differently rather than being actual different from wizards.

 

[Corinnguard]

D&D's Wizard is something of an arcane 'scientist'. When they aren't adventuring, they're experimenting and crafting spells that produce a number of different effects. All of which involve a lot of trial and error to get right at some point in time.

A D&D Sorcerer otoh is someone whose physical/mental being has been touched by magic in some way (by having a magical ancestor such as a dragon, a celestial, a fiend, etc.) or just by spending too much time in an area steeped with magic. Like the Wizard, they do a lot of trial and error trying to master what's inside of them and themselves. Unlike the Wizard, they can 'bend' magic and use it without preparation.

Lastly, a D&D Warlock IMO is sort of like the arcane equivalent of a cleric. They have been contacted by a powerful being and have been offered a measure of its' power via a pact (which is just the opposite of how a cleric receives their powers by acting as a divine channel).

 

[sevenbastard]

Id be happy if it was just wizards. Im not a fan of i was born with it spell casting and if you want to make a pact with a demon take a level in cleric.

Plus I hate Charisma based spell casting. So that might taint my opinion.

 

[Voadam]

The big thing to me is the story elements.

Sorcerers are inborn natural magicians doing a few things but doing them with power and some natural bending to make those things go different ways. This works also conceptually as the same concept as monsters with inborn magic like dragons.

The wizards have always been the scientists, learning replicable actions, researching new ones, creating a vast library of specific effects, and needing to set up specific things in advance. Takes years of study, requires apprenticeship or actual college, but don't need to be born with it. Wizardry seems in world to be originally based off of studying sorcery and then expanding into a hundred new areas.

Warlocks are the different type of magic people, an out there different tradition of magic making pacts with beings. Sort of like clerics and druids but tapping a different (arcane not divine) power source. Very much a variant cleric caster.

I also noticed 24 did a bit of spell list tuning over 14, sorcerers can do things like cast earthquake now.

 

[AlViking]

There's no inherent reason for the differences because ... wait for it ... it's a game. We used to have different completely separate spell lists for different classes but there really wasn't much of a reason for it other than you had to carefully read the spell labeled the same thing to see if there was any difference. Sometimes it was just a difference in duration or area of effect, other times you had to read the description. It didn't really add much to the game.

Meanwhile there are different options for casting spells but (other than wild magic sorcerers) casting spells is like artillery that the game grew out of, reliable and predictable. We can't even have restrictions on druids not wearing metal armor any more because for a lot of people "it doesn't make sense". So the spells and casting them has become fairly generic with good points and bad. Overall I don't have a problem with it, it makes it easier.

So if you're going to have a spell be a spell that works the same no matter the power source along with reliable casting there's only so much you can do. Meanwhile you might as well ask why we have classes at all - they're all just slight variations on a handful of themes after all. That's a bigger can of worms though and while there are certainly different approaches, every approach has trade-offs with benefits and costs associated and "better or worse" will likely be in the eye of the beholder.