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

[Corinnguard]

Well I have to agree with @Crimson Longinus . Classes have an associated story that justifies playing one class over another. If you're not going to engage with that story, then you are only playing the class for the mechanics. To me that makes the class pointless, because you are not engaging with it's in-setting fiction, and a consistent, verisimilitudinous setting is very important to my enjoyment of RPGs.

Which is probably why 5e2024 has tried to place more emphasis on the two other pillars of gameplay, social interaction and exploration. The combat pillar deals heavily with the mechanics. How hard you hit, how well you make a saving throw, etc. Social interaction deals with role-playing your character, who is essentially your avatar within the RPG.

If you are role-playing as a member of a particular class, then you are role-playing how you, the player, see the world via a particular lens. The Exploration pillar might have more to it than just visiting faraway places. Maybe it covers the personal exploration of the character?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

@Ruin Explorer given how rude you have been I have little desire to discuss this further with you, but to me the point of rules is to represent fiction mechanically. That is why we have rules. Classes have associated fiction, that class represents specific fiction. So if you ignore the fiction, the rules lose their meaning. They are then just arbitrary power packages that do not represent anything.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

@Ruin Explorer to me the point of rules is to represent fiction mechanically. That is why we have rules. Classes have associated fiction, that class represents specific fiction. So if you ignore the fiction, the rules lose their meaning. They are then just arbitrary power packages that do not represent anything.

I mean, that's a valid perspective, but I don't think it's one that comports well with how D&D is actually played, nor how it's treated by the designers over the editions. In every edition we've seen designers treat classes as both specific fiction and just as mechanical. We've also seen how inconsistent and double-standard-having it can be, where martial classes are frequently treated as "just mechanics", not representing anything in the fiction really, but magic-using classes are vastly more likely to be treated as diegetic. Even that's not consistent though - classes are often used "representationally" through every edition of D&D. 2E's Kits provide a lot of examples of this, in fact, I'd say, often putting the fiction of the kit first in place of any fiction associated with the class (sometimes directly contradicting the fiction of the class - we see this less with subclasses in 5E, but I would say not never). In 2E sometimes a Mage is actually a Mage who in-setting people know is that, but sometimes it's merely a representational block for a primarily-arcane spellcaster. Thinking about it diegetic or not is also not a binary but rather a sliding scale - I remember noticing this first with a 2E "Heroes of Faerun" or something similar book - there were a lot of book characters who had classes which well, clearly were just used to give them specific abilities, even though their backstory really didn't match well with that. Or other characters who had backstories which were tight matches for certain classes - they then didn't have! Back then, as I was a teenager, it just made me kind of mad and confused lol.

(The inconsistency is heightened the narrower a class is - Speciality Priest is almost always fully diegetic, but Cleric? Not so much. Paladin? Pretty much definitely diegetic. Ranger? Often just a power block, indeed whilst I won't get into a fight on this with anyone, I'd strongly suggest Drizzt is a pretty superb example of Ranger being used almost entirely as a power block - the man is a Fighter who owns a specific magic item and fights two-weapon-style, something only Rangers were good at (IIRC) in 1E when writing started on his books.)

Anyway, I understand your position I think!

 

[Micah Sweet]

I just don't buy it lol. It seems like either you're arguing for something that's so minor it's not even worth discussing (like if a Cleric's god literally-literally never comes up ever), or it's a position that isn't plausible, because it's just not how D&D is actually played. I would say in general the personality and backstory and so on of a character are much more important than their class to how they act. Their class is merely one element of that backstory.

I just explained my personal opinion on the matter, @Ruin Explorer , and it simply doesn't align with yours. These issues aren't minor to me, and they are factors I consider and try to follow as best I can when I actually play D&D.

That's all. Your feelings on the matter, as valid as they are, are no more than that: your feelings. It's nice when people agree with us, and I appreciate it, but it doesn't make either of our opinions more valid.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Which is probably why 5e2024 has tried to place more emphasis on the two other pillars of gameplay, social interaction and exploration. The combat pillar deals heavily with the mechanics. How hard you hit, how well you make a saving throw, etc. Social interaction deals with role-playing your character, who is essentially your avatar within the RPG.

If you are role-playing as a member of a particular class, then you are role-playing how you, the player, see the world via a particular lens. The Exploration pillar might have more to it than just visiting faraway places. Maybe it covers the personal exploration of the character?

I hope they have tried harder on the other two pillars. For my part, A5e has covered them far better than the official game ever has, and I see no reason to go backwards as I see it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I mean, that's a valid perspective, but I don't think it's one that comports well with how D&D is actually played, nor how it's treated by the designers over the editions. In every edition we've seen designers treat classes as both specific fiction and just as mechanical. We've also seen how inconsistent and double-standard-having it can be, where martial classes are frequently treated as "just mechanics", not representing anything in the fiction really, but magic-using classes are vastly more likely to be treated as diegetic. Even that's not consistent though - classes are often used "representationally" through every edition of D&D. 2E's Kits provide a lot of examples of this, in fact, I'd say, often putting the fiction of the kit first in place of any fiction associated with the class (sometimes directly contradicting the fiction of the class - we see this less with subclasses in 5E, but I would say not never). In 2E sometimes a Mage is actually a Mage who in-setting people know is that, but sometimes it's merely a representational block for a primarily-arcane spellcaster. Thinking about it diegetic or not is also not a binary but rather a sliding scale - I remember noticing this first with a 2E "Heroes of Faerun" or something similar book - there were a lot of book characters who had classes which well, clearly were just used to give them specific abilities, even though their backstory really didn't match well with that. Or other characters who had backstories which were tight matches for certain classes - they then didn't have! Back then, as I was a teenager, it just made me kind of mad and confused lol.

(The inconsistency is heightened the narrower a class is - Speciality Priest is almost always fully diegetic, but Cleric? Not so much. Paladin? Pretty much definitely diegetic. Ranger? Often just a power block, indeed whilst I won't get into a fight on this with anyone, I'd strongly suggest Drizzt is a pretty superb example of Ranger being used almost entirely as a power block - the man is a Fighter who owns a specific magic item and fights two-weapon-style, something only Rangers were good at (IIRC) in 1E when writing started on his books.)

Anyway, I understand your position I think!

FWIW, I think classes are more effective at their role in the game when they ARE diegetic. The more you can focus a class on a specific story, the more powerful a tool it is to help define your character, and the more likely it can help answer the core question of "what does my character do?"

Generic classes are less capable of answering that question.

It's an axis, not a binary, but D&D is typically in favor of the "no new class, use existing classes!" approach. Whether there are 3 or 5 or 13 existing classes is a bit of an ongoing dialogue, I think.

 

[Voadam]

It's an axis, not a binary, but D&D is typically in favor of the "no new class, use existing classes!" approach. Whether there are 3 or 5 or 13 existing classes is a bit of an ongoing dialogue, I think.

By D&D typically do you mean just 5e which only added artificers to the list after the 13 PH classes?

4e was full of new classes in supplement after supplement as was 3e. Even the 4e PH added warlord and the 3e PH added sorcerer as new ones for the new editions.

OD&D to AD&D added a ton of classes to the original fighting man, magic user, cleric trilogy of classes. The expansion started with OD&D supplement I.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

FWIW, I think classes are more effective at their role in the game when they ARE diegetic. The more you can focus a class on a specific story, the more powerful a tool it is to help define your character, and the more likely it can help answer the core question of "what does my character do?"

Generic classes are less capable of answering that question.

It's an axis, not a binary, but D&D is typically in favor of the "no new class, use existing classes!" approach. Whether there are 3 or 5 or 13 existing classes is a bit of an ongoing dialogue, I think.

I think subclasses are pretty good answer to this. You need less main classes when the subclasses can add the specificity. Though I still strongly feel that the main classes should have defining fiction too, but that can be a more of a broad archetype.

 

[I'm A Banana]

By D&D typically do you mean just 5e which only added artificers to the list after the 13 PH classes?

4e was full of new classes in supplement after supplement as was 3e. Even the 4e PH added warlord and the 3e PH added sorcerer as new ones for the new editions.

OD&D to AD&D added a ton of classes to the original fighting man, magic user, cleric trilogy of classes. The expansion started with OD&D supplement I.

Mostly I just mean that the exact number of classes has varied over the years. Every edition has become a bit looser on new classes as in the edition time went on, but new classes have typically been significant events in D&D.

I think subclasses are pretty good answer to this. You need less main classes when the subclasses can add the specificity. Though I still strongly feel that the main classes should have defining fiction too, but that can be a more of a broad archetype.

I think subclasses are like kits or prestige classes: a half-step. An offering to the idea that we actually need more classes than we have, while trying to avoid the big design lift that a full 20-level class would require.

They have some powerful limitations. Like, I think of the Rogue in 5e and how you can spend your entire time playing your rogue with only one level giving you anything related to what makes you different from other rogues. The six level gap between your 3rd level subclass feature and your 9th level subclass feature is IMMENSE in practice.

Though, overall, in my ideal world, classes would more resemble subclasses than traditional 20-level D&D classes (ie: like 3-5 levels focused on unique features without worrying too much about hitting required damage curves or whatever). 20 levels in one archetype is just not lining up with how a lot of games are actually played.

 

[Minigiant]

Barbarian you're just illustrating the problem. The fiction is absolutely NOT, I repeat NOT, that Barbarians are "mad berserkers". That's just Berserkers specifically, a subclass. The 5E fiction is that Barbarians are this sort of "primal warrior"-type, and it's a bit confused and broad, and the Rage doesn't really support the fiction at all. 2024 bravely attempts to square this circle in how it describes Barbarians and Rage but I'd argue in fact that they're a good example of a fiction-mechanics mismatch, because I don't think it's very convincing or intuitive. It does not suggest they are "mad berserkers", note, click the link if you disagree

A little off topic but I kind of like the Playtest of Channel Primal that the playtest had for Druids and would have loved for Rangers and Barbarian to get it. And Barbarian's would have the option of Spirit Beast, Rage, or Wildshape.

And to bring it back on topic, I'd be down to splitting warlocks and hexblades off Arcane to their own as Eldritch. Then giving them Channel Eldritch Power.