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

[I'm A Banana]

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?

How big does the difference need to be?

Like, Paladins and Rangers and Barbarians are just Fighters if you squint. Druids are just clerics. Clerics are mostly a variant wizard. Etc. Etc. Etc.

When it comes to class-based design, you are always somewhere on the Splitter/Joiner axis. The more Splitter you are, the more you see the unique aesthetics and names as worthy of new classes. The more Joiner you are, the more you want to have like, 1-5 classes that can Do Everything With The Right Options.

I lean a bit more Splitter myself, since I think a class label is a powerful psychological tool in play to achieve imaginary harmony. I'd rather be a Death Knight than a Paladin with the Death Knight Subclass, just because saying "I am a death knight" at the table is a powerful tool for putting an image in everyone else's head in a way that saying "I am a specific kind of paladin" does not.

As a consequence, I tend to think that D&D classes should be smaller, lighter, and more focused, and that there wouldn't be a problem with more of them.

So not only is there a difference between a sorcerer, a warlock, and a wizard, I also think that a pyromancer is different and a psionicist is different and a necromancer is different and a diviner is different and an elementalist is different and a shadow mage is different and...

 

[TigerDude]

No lack of distinction between Warlocks and the other 2? Really? Because Warlocks sure play differently. I look at Wizards and Sorcs as different species in the same genus like lions and tigers. Warlocks are a different biology family, they just do some of the same things, like tigers & wolves, both carnivores.

 

[bloodtide]

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

Each has hugely different role-play.

The Wizard is an 'everyperson', who went to magic school, Like Harry Potter.

The Sorcerer is born with the power, like ah Jedi.

The Warlock makes a Pact to get power with "something", the classic "trade your soul for power"

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Each has hugely different role-play.

The Wizard is an 'everyperson', who went to magic school, Like Harry Potter.

The Sorcerer is born with the power, like ah Jedi.

But in HP wizards are born with special magical spark that allows them to learn magic and the jedis are trained to use their 'magic' since childhood.

The Warlock makes a Pact to get power with "something", the classic "trade your soul for power"

But if that pact gives you magical knowledge, how doesn't that just make you a wizard with the patron as a tutor? Or if the pact alters you to become a magical being, then surely you're just a sorcerer? Or if you channel the magic of your patron, then that sounds exactly like a cleric to me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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?

Is this question specifically targeted at 5.5 (as the tag indicates), or 5e in general?

Ever since the sorcerer was introduced in 3.0, I've felt the draw for these classes was the mechanical difference. I really try to make the mechanics reflect the fiction as best I can to compensate.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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,

The fact that they are excuses. I strongly feel the mechanics should follow the fiction, not the other way around.

 

[Micah Sweet]

They exist because there is a demand for different caster conceptions. Their problems stem from the fact that wizard came first and most of its class features in spells.
The Warlock has a better framework and it has got better but the sorceror suffers.
IMHO, detect magic should be a soceror class feature for example. To show their innate connection to magic.

IMO Level Up does a much better job than WotC 5e in presenting all three classes a different both fictionally and mechanically. All the different class feature options each one gets in that system really help with that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Metamagic came to the sorcerer class long after it was created. Originally that was a wizard feature.

 

[Voadam]

But in HP wizards are born with special magical spark that allows them to learn magic and the jedis are trained to use their 'magic' since childhood.

Harry Potter Wizards are D&D sorcerers like Jedi are, they just have a school.

Just like the X-Men of born mutants have a school.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

There would be if clerics were more clearly a divine caster class as primary. As it is it's up to the player.

I don't agree about fighter and barbarian. They seem quite different to me in fiction and mechanics.