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

[Cergorach]

One was born to power, one made a deal for power, and the last one studied for power.

 

[Hriston]

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

Is that what they're saying though? I'm not sure.

 

[Scribe]

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

Are there really that many now? I dont think it would be insurmountable but I guess I'll have to look after the gym.

 

[Mecheon]

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

I mean, most of your average D&D settings would have most of them lying around in droves. Fiends, Celestials and Genies aren't exactly rare, Archfey have an entire other realm they can politic in for sidequests and consequences, Fathomless has a whole host of easy grabs deep beneath the waves, and Great Old Ones is just something so beyond the stars that it won't reliably show up and if they contact it you can just blare N'zoth's drums and get weird with the descriptors

You might have a hard time for a Hexblade, but everything else is a common enough D&D thing unless you're running a game without any fiends, celestials, fey or the cold bleak darkness of the void, it shouldn't be hard.

 

[TorgoTheWhite]

I mean, most of your average D&D settings would have most of them lying around in droves. Fiends, Celestials and Genies aren't exactly rare, Archfey have an entire other realm they can politic in for sidequests and consequences, Fathomless has a whole host of easy grabs deep beneath the waves, and Great Old Ones is just something so beyond the stars that it won't reliably show up and if they contact it you can just blare N'zoth's drums and get weird with the descriptors

You might have a hard time for a Hexblade, but everything else is a common enough D&D thing unless you're running a game without any fiends, celestials, fey or the cold bleak darkness of the void, it shouldn't be hard.

If your player is ok with "I made a deal with a fiend" and I care nothing about expounding about that, yes the base high power creatures will be present in many settings. But, all the rest of the meat has to be put on the bone if the player wants more. So the what makes my patron tick? Do they have a name? Do I know any details of this pact?... etc. Suddenly, I'm fleshing out this additional legendary fiend with its' own motives in a campaign that has very few fiends on the material plane anymore. My most recent challenge was more with "The Undead" Patron from extended material, eesh. But, for me as DM it has been a recurrent theme for me to have the Patron/Pact thing be a slightly intrusive distraction... I always come around, but I also inwardly groan when I hear a player is choosing Warlock.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

This feels to me like posturing/posing/"fronting" of the most risible kind.

I guarantee if we look through campaigns you have participated in, even characters you've played, plenty of them will be "pointless" by this standard. And I very much doubt you were thinking "Well Jen's Cleric is a worthless loser fake-Cleric because ever second word out of her mouth isn't Lathander" or the like.

What I'm saying is, I feel like you don't actually believe what you're arguing here, I feel like, and obviously it's only a feeling, you made an argument of a rather-over-the-top nature and instead of saying "Well, maybe it's not as extreme as I said but I like to see patrons matter at least", you're trying to support the insupportable position that this stuff has to matter or else classes, and in fact specific PCs are "pointless". JMHO and so on.

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.

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.

90% of Paladins in 5E go through adventures never really having their oath present a major problem (generally because players rarely pick and Oath that they know is going to cause a problem, and frankly Vengeance and Ancients, two of the most popular Oaths, are pretty much the old "Path of What I Was Going To Do Anyway" from oWoD, referring to various Sabbat Humanity-alternative Paths. Anyone claiming "That's just ur table man" is obviously and trivially proven wrong by looking at actual plays of D&D, whether podcasts or forum posts or w/e. This is probably mostly a good thing too, I'd argue. Further, Paladins have no features that foreground the oath, and no mechanics that require dealing with the oath, so your point re: Warlocks also applies here and indeed to several of the classes discussed (given you're discounting Patron-specific abilities and Pact-specific abilities as "foregrounding", so we must likewise discount those for Paladin, Cleric, etc.). I agree that Warlock doesn't foreground patrons, note, but I don't think that's an accident or bad design or w/e. I think the issue here is some subsection of DMs have an odd interpretation of Warlocks, and I suspect every single one of those DMs is someone who sees Warlocks as a relatively "new" class that they probably didn't actually see in play until 5E.

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?

That's simply not logical. In fact it's actively anti-logical. Warlocks existing doesn't mean they represent the sum total of pacts with powerful beings, any more than Clerics existing means they represent the sum total of gods investing mortals with power. The point of the class is to have a class themed around that - which absolutely does not mean that the patron has to play a major part in the campaign or drive conflict, as we've already established. But a class being themed around something, doesn't mean it's the only way that thing can be in the game. That's just not a thing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And I very much doubt you were thinking "Well Jen's Cleric is a worthless loser fake-Cleric because ever second word out of her mouth isn't Lathander" or the like.

You think this was actually the sentiment they were expressing? That's certainly not what I got out of it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

You think this was actually the sentiment they were expressing? That's certainly not what I got out of it.

Yes, I do, to be honest. I'm not sure that's what @Crimson Longinus actually believes, but, it's the sentiment being expressed imho - see below:

And I understand that it is so, because a lot of people do not want to deal with the patron in play, but if you don't, then the class is pointless.

I would argue that for most Clerics played in D&D, they might mention their god, but it's very rare, in recent editions (but even back in 2E) for the god to actually interact with the story in any meaningful way, or even to significantly influence the Cleric PC's actions away from "The Path Of What I Was Going To Do Anyway", because modern D&D settings tend to have such a vast variety of religious options (especially the FR) that people can usually just select a god that is perfectly aligned with how they were going to play that PC.

You can say well he rephrased it to:

And indeed if cleric's religion never matters or if nature does not matter for a druid, then those classes are pointless too.

But I don't think that's really a change, because the discussion re: Warlocks hasn't been about patrons literally never ever mattering at all, it's about whether they're a big deal who need to be "fleshed out" or not. And I don't think it's reasonable to suggest they are, or that Warlocks are a "pointless class" if they're not. Also this change in phrasing to me brings it down to specific PCs - because a lot of Clerics will go through a campaign without their god really mattering, especially if the god is well-aligned to the goals of the PCs in that campaign.

I think the real issue is we wouldn't even be having this discussion if Warlock patrons were default-fleshed-out the way god are. Like, if each of the Warlock patrons had a specific default Forgotten Realms named entity associated with them, even if then 80% of Warlocks proceeded to just totally ignore that being in the campaign (like most Clerics do), I don't think we'd be here, even though in both cases the entity/god is pretty irrelevant.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, I do, to be honest. I'm not sure that's what @Crimson Longinus actually believes, but, it's the sentiment being expressed imho - see below:

I would argue that for most Clerics played in D&D, they might mention their god, but it's very rare, in recent editions (but even back in 2E) for the god to actually interact with the story in any meaningful way, or even to significantly influence the Cleric PC's actions away from "The Path Of What I Was Going To Do Anyway", because modern D&D settings tend to have such a vast variety of religious options (especially the FR) that people can usually just select a god that is perfectly aligned with how they were going to play that PC.

You can say well he rephrased it to:

But I don't think that's really a change, because the discussion re: Warlocks hasn't been about patrons literally never ever mattering at all, it's about whether they're a big deal who need to be "fleshed out" or not. And I don't think it's reasonable to suggest they are, or that Warlocks are a "pointless class" if they're not. Also this change in phrasing to me brings it down to specific PCs - because a lot of Clerics will go through a campaign without their god really mattering, especially if the god is well-aligned to the goals of the PCs in that campaign.

I think the real issue is we wouldn't even be having this discussion if Warlock patrons were default-fleshed-out the way god are. Like, if each of the Warlock patrons had a specific default Forgotten Realms named entity associated with them, even if then 80% of Warlocks proceeded to just totally ignore that being in the campaign (like most Clerics do), I don't think we'd be here, even though in both cases the entity/god is pretty irrelevant.

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.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

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.