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

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I liked the different versions of spells. I feel it added verisimilitude, since the effects were developed from different sources. Unified spellcasting is an overly simplified crutch IMO, and I was never looking for "easier" in any case.

 

[Voadam]

But if that pact gives you magical knowledge, how doesn't that just make you a wizard with the patron as a tutor?

It doesn't give you magical knowledge, it gives you magical power. Anybody can make a pact, it does not require any study or learning or work the way wizardry does.

Or if the pact alters you to become a magical being, then surely you're just a sorcerer?

Anybody can make a pact, not everybody is born with magical power.

You could narratively say a pact was how you gained sorcerous power though, it is just not the default options.

Or if you channel the magic of your patron, then that sounds exactly like a cleric to me.

It is very similar to clerics and druids but a different tradition and tapping a different power source in different ways. Making a deal with Asmodeus for power is different than being a priest with the blessing of Asmodeus. I do like that three different spellcasting traditions could call upon Shub Niggurath (mythos being nature god) and get different versions of D&D magic power.

There can be narrative overlap, which I think works well with D&D's core magic system that shares a lot of mechanical similarities.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It doesn't give you magical knowledge, it gives you magical power. Anybody can make a pact, it does not require any study or learning or work the way wizardry does.

Anybody can make a pact, not everybody is born with magical power.

You could narratively say a pact was how you gained sorcerous power though, it is just not the default options.



It is very similar to clerics and druids but a different tradition and tapping a different power source in different ways. Making a deal with Asmodeus for power is different than being a priest with the blessing of Asmodeus. I do like that three different spellcasting traditions could call upon Shub Niggurath (mythos being nature god) and get different versions of D&D magic power.

There can be narrative overlap, which I think works well with D&D's core magic system that shares a lot of mechanical similarities.

That's all very fuzzy for my tastes. If your source of power as a character has a different story, that fiction should IMO be reflected in the mechanics pretty strongly. The easiest way to present this is in spells (though class features are also important). If you cast spells through intensive study and training, inborn magical talent, or a pact with a higher (or lower) being, you probably shouldn't be casting the same spells.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If a person can come up with a distinction between a Psion and a Sorcerer (or a Psion and a Wizard)... and they do, because of all the complaints we get any time the possibility is floated that we don't actually need a Psion class because we can just have it be a subclass of the Sorcerer and Wizards and the pro-Psion players all say that doesn't work... then we can come up with the same distinctions between Sorcerers, Wizards, and Warlocks as well.

I mean it's all narrative. And we know this. We see each of those four classes and can easily say with a couple sentences exactly how and why they are different types of people. Now, can you add a characterization to any of them that morphs them towards one of the others? Of course. Someone wants to say that they learned their wizardry from a school whose teacher was a demon, then suddenly that Wizard might feel like a Warlock. Or someone says that the innate magic a character has inside of them is all from their mental acuity and strength, and their Sorcerer is now like a Psion. Or a Sorcerer or a Warlock gain their powers from some outer planar Celestial creature and they are now like a Cleric instead. Any of these are possible, especially because the designers occasionally make subclasses that are essentially 'multiclass' subclasses that give you a tase of one while you are leveling in another. So there are middle ground combinations available as well.

But for the most part, it's pretty easy to determine when one comes up with a narrative character idea of what is the stronger class to use to best exemplify it. You make a deal with the devil, you play Warlock. You make things burst into flame with no idea how it happened or why you can do it, like the girl in Firestarter? You play a Sorcerer. You actually study magic and go to school to learn to be a magician? You play a Wizard. Heck, just ask yourself if your character is magical because of their high Intelligence, and that right there will split character class decisions right in half, LOL. And if by some chance you come up with some idea that threads the needle between any of these? Then you take a few more moments and possibly consider if the mechanics of any of them might point you in the right direction as well and then make a choice.

 

[Charlaquin]

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?

I think you’ve gotten the cause and effect reversed there. The different casting mechanics are excuses for making them three distinct classes. Why did they want to make them three different classes in the first place? Because they were three different classes in older editions. One of the design goals of 5e was for the PHB to include all of the classes that have been in the PHB1 of any previous edition, in some form. Assassin and Illusionist ended up being subclasses, of course. And they just gave up on trying to include the Warlord in any form, apart from a single Battlemaster maneuver and the general idea that bards heal by inspiring people. But, among people participating in the 5e playtest, those of us who thought 4e should count were apparently in the minority.

 

[Doug McCrae]

The source of magical power has been very important with regard to real world beliefs about magic. Therefore I think it’s reasonable that D&D should represent these different categories of magic in some way. We can distinguish between three varieties of magical practitioner: witch, sorcerer, and magician. The witch’s power derives from a pact with the Devil. The sorcerer (or conjurer) uses ritual magic to command demons. The magician understands and controls the hidden connections and properties within nature and has no truck with demons.

In John Fletcher’s 1647 play The Fair Maid of the Inn, one character states that a “conjurer” is “the Devil’s master, and commands him” while “a witch is the Devil’s ‘prentice, and obeys him.” English occultist Robert Turner asserted, in his 1655 introduction to the Fourth Book of Occult Philosophy, that the magician is very different to the witch or sorcerer. “Witchcraft and sorcery are works done merely by the Devil, which with respect unto some covenant made with man, he acteth by men his instruments, to accomplish his evil ends”. By contrast, a “magician” is “a studious observer and expounder of divine things”. “Magic is the connection of natural agents and patients, answerable each to other, wrought by a wise man, to the bringing forth of such effects as are wonderful to those that know not their causes.”

The witch resembles the D&D warlock, while the magician corresponds to the wizard class. The sorcerer or conjurer doesn’t really exist in D&D, with the exception of the 1st edition AD&D 7th level magic user spell, “Cacodemon”.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There's a great 5e class from Mage Hand Press called the Investigator that focuses on ritual magic. They don't generally cast from spell slots, but they have enhanced ability to cast spells as rituals (they may cast faster, have enhanced effects, or ritually cast from an expanded list). I wouldn't mind a setting where that kind of magic is all there is, or where traditional casting only becomes available at higher levels.

 

[SkidAce]

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.



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.

My opinion?

Wizards are born with that magical spark. But unlike Sorcerers, it has to be trained and learned to be of any use. Students of Magic.
Sorcerers are born with a magical bonfire, that manifests spontaneously until they get the hang of it. Natural Athletes of Magic.
Warlocks make a deal and cheat the system to learn hacks and shortcuts, and gain certain bits of magic. Tool users of Magic.
Clerics align with deities and gods and powers, etc, letting the power of philosophy or the god flow through them. Channelers of Magic.

 

[SkidAce]

That's all very fuzzy for my tastes. If your source of power as a character has a different story, that fiction should IMO be reflected in the mechanics pretty strongly. The easiest way to present this is in spells (though class features are also important). If you cast spells through intensive study and training, inborn magical talent, or a pact with a higher (or lower) being, you probably shouldn't be casting the same spells.

Unless the rules of magic follow least resistance rules. Ending up in similar results. (or its a shortcut for game purposes, so we dont have a wizard fireball, a warlock fire blast, and a sorcerer fire bomb spell)

"A wizard, a warlock, and a sorcerer, walk into a bar. All three pick up a mug and drop it, it crashes to the floor. Bartender says 'I thought that would go differently' "

 

[Micah Sweet]

Unless the rules of magic follow least resistance rules. Ending up in similar results. (or its a shortcut for game purposes, so we dont have a wizard fireball, a warlock fire blast, and a sorcerer fire bomb spell)

"A wizard, a warlock, and a sorcerer, walk into a bar. All three pick up a mug and drop it, it crashes to the floor. Bartender says 'I thought that would go differently' "

That can absolutely work, of course, but I think different magical sources should lead to different magical results. Magical science is IMO only one kind of magic.