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

[TorgoTheWhite]

I think the DM should have agency to call world-building, history, cultures: "MY story" all the framework to the game. Though I have let players propose world-building too. But Warlocks feel like they tread hard upon the grounds of needing to add historic and world building elements that the DM is not in love with - and it is very player dependent on what level of homework the player wants the DM to do.

My Warlock player is a great RP'er and he likes the mystery/unraveling the mystery of his Patron. This makes for a pretty DM intensive world-building and basically a character that is 2-for the price of 1..+

 

[Minigiant]

Just to say.
If there was an edition that was an iteration of 4e and I designed it, the Arcane Power source would be split

• Wizardry powers would be Arcane Daily Powers
• Witchcraft powers would be Arcane Encounter Powers
• Sorcery powers would be Arcane At Will Powers
• Level 1 Wizards would get 2 Sorcery and 2 Wizardry
• Level 1 Warlocks would get 1 Sorcery, 1 Wizardry, and 2 Witchcraft
  • The Sorcery is ELDRITCH BLAST!!
• Level 1 Sorcerers would get 4 Sorcery
  • Sorcerers get Points to up damage of Sorcereries

 

[Micah Sweet]

It doesn't though. Like, really, it doesn't.

The Warlock's patron doesn't have to feature in the campaign at all. It could, or... not... I mean, if you've played BG3, compare how much Warlock Tav's patron features (barely at all, and optionally) to how much Wyll's does (a ton, and as a major part of the plot intertwining with the backstory of another companion even).

You, as the DM, have the choice to go anywhere on that scale. It's like, 1-10 and it seems like you're acting like it only goes between 8 and 10.

Ignoring a warlock's patron doesn't really meet setting logic though. You can ignore it, but to me the world starts to feel less real when you do.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It really isn't.

That's a very strange thing to say.

You might as well say Clerics are pointless if the campaign doesn't involve going on and on and on endlessly about the PC's god and their various worldly conflicts, and if they follow a god who doesn't have worldly conflicts, or whose values align so well with adventuring that they don't cause conflict, the class is pointless. Or a Druid who isn't forever dealing with conflicts with nature, even if that's not a major part of their backstory, is a "pointless class". Or a Wizard who we don't learn about the actual backstory of how and why they're a [specialization] specifically, and have it frequently come up for non-mechanical reasons. Pointless class. How about a Monk who doesn't yammer on about their monastery every ten minutes lol? Pointless, no? Might as well be a Rogue! Or god help us a Paladin who has a set of values which fail to sufficiently frequently cause a scene whilst adventuring? Might as well be a Fighter because we've already established Cleric is a pointless class lol.

Hell, by this logic, maybe all Fighters, Rogues, Barbarians and Rangers are "pointless" because they don't have a weird supernatural backstory and are, by your logic, essentially interchangeable. We can just revert to Fighting-Man, I guess?

Sorry but like what you talking about lol? Really wild take.

It is pretty reasonable take that a class based on Faustian bargain implies that such bargain matters. Like that is the core of the identity of the class. And it doesn't need to be a conflict, but yes, it should matter. And indeed if cleric's religion never matters or if nature does not matter for a druid, then those classes are pointless too. Then they are just generic magic users.

And some other classes actually do constantly represent their core fiction with mechanics. Barbarian for example has rage and features tied to it. This constantly foregrounds them being a mad berserker. Paladin has oath, and must uphold virtues related to it. Warlock has no features that foreground the pact, they have no mechanics that require dealing with the patron.

I mean, it doesn't, does it? You can still absolutely have that, why can't you? It's no different to any other edition. The Warlock just makes a specific type of pact, it doesn't cover absolutely every possible supernatural pact does it? Did I miss some clause where it said it did?

To me existence of warlock pact implies that this is the method and result of a powerful being investing magic into a mortal. If it isn't, again what's the point of having the class? If bargain could make you just a better wizard instead, then why we even have warlock?

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think the DM should have agency to call world-building, history, cultures: "MY story" all the framework to the game. Though I have let players propose world-building too. But Warlocks feel like they tread hard upon the grounds of needing to add historic and world building elements that the DM is not in love with - and it is very player dependent on what level of homework the player wants the DM to do.

My Warlock player is a great RP'er and he likes the mystery/unraveling the mystery of his Patron. This makes for a pretty DM intensive world-building and basically a character that is 2-for the price of 1..+

Best case scenario with things like Warlock patrons is that the player works with the DM to find ones appropriate for the setting the DM is using and subclass the player has chosen. There's no reason why a DM needs to go out of their way to insert a patron the player just invents... but by the same token the DM should make sure their setting has appropriate patrons in it for the various Warlock subclasses if they are going to allow the Warlock class to be used. And so long as they do that... the player has options from within the setting to choose from and should do so. And if the player doesn't like any of the options available... then barest minimum they and the DM should work together to create something appropriate to use if both parties are willing to put in the work for the good of both sides of the screen.

Same way a Cleric player has the gods of the setting presented to them by the DM and then chooses the one that works best for their character concept. No reason to think the player is just going to invent a new god for the game out of whole cloth (provided that every Cleric domain subclass has an applicable god in-setting to use.)

 

[Hriston]

It's an opinion. But if I have a whole bunch of enriched world-building, I don't love the fact that the class forces me to suddenly insert another major power player into my campaign. I didn't really think my DM style would get attacked saying that I don't like adding another powerful figure into my world. To me this is a big downside to the Warlock. Others post that as a story point advantage.. but there's another side to that

As others have pointed out, you don't have to do much of anything. It's the player's character, so you could let them make the patron as present or remote as they wish, as an expression of their character. The game doesn't put it on you to do that, and if it was my character, I'd prefer you didn't.

 

[Hriston]

In an ideal world, is the Patron not simply a part of the same world (cosmology) anyway? Why does the story need to adjust for what should already be there?

I don't think I understand these questions.

 

[TorgoTheWhite]

So - to me, for how I DM. The Warlock's pact is a story-driven difference between it and other arcane classes. Other, externally driven classes (cleric), indeed do require external inputs.. however, running off established theological principles and gods (which aren't expected to form a personalized pact or speak directly to the PC) just play out much easier or more naturally from the DM side of things. As for how I DM these by-case Warlock characters.. if the player wants to explore their patron, and gets a high level feature to do it, I'm not going to say "jokes on you, the patron says nothing"... it may be funny but it also seems lazy.

This has been my perspective on the Warlock a couple of times now. I have trouble truly differentiating them. Wizards, at the character level, not difficult. Sorcerers, the same.

Mechanically, spell-list-wise. It would be nice for the Warlock to embrace more cursy-debuffiness (which they do some, but could lean into that more). Sorceror spell list could also benefit from more differentiation but I'm not sure how that would look.

 

[Aldarc]

I think the DM should have agency to call world-building, history, cultures: "MY story" all the framework to the game.

"My world" would be preferrable in that case to "my story." "My story" raises red flags about the sort of agency your players have when playing the game. "Story" is what happens at the table.

 

[TorgoTheWhite]

I don't think I understand these questions.

I don't really understand this either. I don't see how I would have a patron fleshed out for all the possible Warlock subclasses, in a game where there is a lot more going on beyond one player possibly needing a patron option