I would.
The point is every class would have a role in combat, exploration, and social interaction.
There wouldn't be super experts in one pillar like Bard not classes inept in one pillar like Barbarian.
D&D 5E (2024) What’s the difference between sorcerers, warlocks, and wizards?
- Thread starter overgeeked
- Start date
The point is every class would have a role in combat, exploration, and social interaction.
There wouldn't be super experts in one pillar like Bard not classes inept in one pillar like Barbarian.
Corinnguard
Hero
So, are all sorcerers in your system blaster/controllers, athletes and charmers? You can't be a sorcerer who is a sniper, ritualist sage?
TorgoTheWhite
Explorer
Thinking back on our "cleric", I can understand what you say. That player just kind of crapped out Celestian.. which is nebulous at best compared to the main pantheon players, so I had to cater-fill a good bit of institutional lore there to make the character make sense at the very least. The comparison to some of these other classes with the story driven and pervasive elements starts to get away from the OP arcane class, what makes them different? question. Where I feel that these elements are a big differentiation between the Warlock and the other arcanes.... but I obviously invite the tangential
No. Not unless your subclass branches you out to it.
And you still would be a blaster/controller, athlete charmer.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Fair enough. I respect your opinion on it, but I can't agree. As far as I'm concerned, my preferred 5e already does this to the extent I would want. Furthermore, the explicit class roles move away from the simulation-based play I prefer to a more overtly game-oriented, mechanics over fiction model. I think that is a workable model, but not for me as I understand your position.
Bae'zel
Hero
I think that the different spellcater classes (Wizard, Sorceror, Bard, Warlock and Cleric) become especially interesting when you customize your setting a bit, introducing some thematic constraints. Imagine a campaign setting where the only full magic users are:
and so on. Instead of "kitchen sink" settings where it is assumed that EVERY class is available, why not curate a bit?
- devoted worshippers of the Gods (Clerics only)
- from a unique elite, noble bloodline (Sorcerors only)
- from desperate pacts with local nature, fey or devilish spirits (Warlocks only)
and so on. Instead of "kitchen sink" settings where it is assumed that EVERY class is available, why not curate a bit?
It is less about explicit role and more about balance.
I want someone to have the option of a real mechanical or story reason to play a wizard over a warlock or bard in a social heavily, lords and castles, intrigue game.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
What does your explanation in the second paragraph have to do with your claim about balance in the first? What kind of balance do you mean?
One class would have a wide array of divination magic (wizard)
One class would have a wide assortment of language magic and naturally speak their patron's tongue (warlock)
One class would have Charisma boosting and appearance magic (sorcerer).
A wizard wouldn't have the spells to smooth talk Lord Gray not the natural talent. But he would have the spells to contact an outsider who can inform them of information about the lord's domain.
Information he could do pass onto the sorcerer who is a natural smooth talker and has Charisma buff spells.
Last edited:
Corinnguard
Hero
Aren't Bards supposed to be the natural smooth talker of the party with the Charisma buff spells?
Similar Threads
