A character creation dilemma, fluff vs crunch.

[Misterwhisper]

Ok, so I am making a character for a new campaign my friend is running.

It is a module so I expect things to go pretty smooth and by the book.

The issue I have is that I am wanting to play a charisma based caster, and I can not make up my mind between Warlock and Sorcerer.

I love the flavor of warlock and it is probably my favorite class as far as fluff goes and RP, however the class is just so badly designed that the DM practically has to tailor the game to fit the warlock so he is not a hamper to the group.

I am thinking Raven Queen pact of Chain. Have my imp shape shift into another Raven and have a raven on each shoulder, one that can turn invisible, one I can bond with. Seems very cool to me.

or

Play a sorcerer, in my opinion one of the best designed classes, and with the use of meta magic and sorcery points can pretty much do everything that a warlock can do better than the warlock can, and is just an all around better built character.

My issue is, do I play the character that is much weaker and go with the interesting role play idea but always have the grass is greener issue of looking at what I could be doing with the Sorcerer instead, or do i go with the much better built and made sorcerer and wonder what it would have been like to have the cool RP of the dual ravens and the rp of playing a warlock.

This is why I end up making like 40 characters before I pick one.

P.S. Nobody knows what the other players are making so group makeup is not really going to matter.


EDIT:

I am just going to play a warlock and go for the fluff over crunch.
Leads me to more questions but I will make a different thread for that.

[gfishfunk]

Play the sorcerer as a warlock.

Whatever your sorcerer's subclass, you got it from a deal. Whatever can of deal you want: fey, fiend, GOO. Whatever. Its just fluff and has no mechanical effect.

Your power is accessed and used just like a sorcerer. You don't have two ravens, but you have one through find familiar.

I see no problem with that as your RP fluff.

[Toadkiller]

Exactly. Pick some mechanics that seem fun and fluff it however you want to tell the story. Heck you could have a paladin or a cleric you fluff as a warlock. Or most anything else if it makes you happy.

[Lombra]

Well you should first decide how you want to play the character. But either way you should just go with the thing that you would like to play and role play the most, which is warlock as far as I can tell from your description. Don't worry about "effectiveness", parties don't need to each have a pladin and a cleric to survive, fun is the most inportant thing and you can have fun with any class really.

[Toadkiller]

I would even allow a character to have two familiars so long as only one of them got an action per round. Some hand waving would need to take place about movement but as long as it wasn't abused it would be fine.

Granted the way of things it would probably come back to bite me. But I would be willing to try it. Can always kill one of them off memorably if it messes things up too much.

[Vorpalchicken]

Sounds like you want to play the warlock.
Why do you think they're weak? Have you played one before? I don't think they are weaker than sorcerers.
Your spell options will be more limited but warlocks are great at what they do.

[gfishfunk]

Sounds like you want to play the warlock.
Why do you think they're weak? Have you played one before? I don't think they are weaker than sorcerers.
Your spell options will be more limited but warlocks are great at what they do.

They are weaker if the 'adventuring day is short' sort of deal. They do well with a lot of small encounters and poorly with 2 or 3 large encounters without a short rest. Its strength v. weakness is usually DM dependent, which is true for all classes, really. I like Locks, and I prefer them over sorcerer.

But if the OP wants the mechanics of the sorcerer and the fluff of the lock. Sure. Why not?

[Addaran]

Play the sorcerer as a warlock.

Whatever your sorcerer's subclass, you got it from a deal. Whatever can of deal you want: fey, fiend, GOO. Whatever. Its just fluff and has no mechanical effect.

Your power is accessed and used just like a sorcerer. You don't have two ravens, but you have one through find familiar.

I see no problem with that as your RP fluff.

Exactly this.

Sorcerer don't get find familiar RAW though. Either spend ressource to get it (MI, multiclass) or ask the DM if you could have it on your spell list.

[Quoxis]

*cough* multiclassing exists *cough*

[Vogonjeltz]

Whatever can of deal you want: fey, fiend, GOO. Whatever. Its just fluff and has no mechanical effect.

Well....not exactly.

Some invocations are only available based on Pact; Furthermore, the Warlock is beholden to their Patron (PHB 106) and will at some point be required to complete tasks for them.

Now, these could be small or large tasks, but by RAW they exist, just undefined. That's a meaningful cost, so fluff doesn't really mean that.

Also worth noting that a Warlock has an expanded spell choice based on Patron, including spells unavailable to the Sorcerer. So, again, not fluff.

[Addaran]

Well....not exactly.

Some invocations are only available based on Pact; Furthermore, the Warlock is beholden to their Patron (PHB 106) and will at some point be required to complete tasks for them.

Now, these could be small or large tasks, but by RAW they exist, just undefined. That's a meaningful cost, so fluff doesn't really mean that.

Also worth noting that a Warlock has an expanded spell choice based on Patron, including spells unavailable to the Sorcerer. So, again, not fluff.

You misunderstand what he proposed.
He's saying to play a sorcerer like the OP wants mechanically but refluff it as coming from one of the warlock source.
So instead of wild magic or dragonic magic, it would be fiend sorcerous magic, fey sorcerous magic or GOO sorcerous magic.

[tkuremento]

Not really true crunch personally but I have a Bard who is also a chef and took Gourmand feat (from UA) to turn backstory into actual mechanic. Personally I love having a middle ground where both can flourish but lean toward the mechanical aspect as well.

[gfishfunk]

Well....not exactly.

Some invocations are only available based on Pact; Furthermore, the Warlock is beholden to their Patron (PHB 106) and will at some point be required to complete tasks for them.

Now, these could be small or large tasks, but by RAW they exist, just undefined. That's a meaningful cost, so fluff doesn't really mean that.

Also worth noting that a Warlock has an expanded spell choice based on Patron, including spells unavailable to the Sorcerer. So, again, not fluff.

I agree with you mechanically: the fluff is expressed well through the mechanics. If you chose the fairy queen 'Buttercup Princess' as your patron, expressed through the Fiend Pact, you would get all the mechanical benefits of the fiend pact and need to figure out how that affects the fluff: Buttercup Princess sees you in combat when you are slaying and wants to protect you from the nasty bullies! Have some temp HP! Here is a fireball spell!

Some re-fluffing is difficult for certain builds, but refluffing sorcerer as getting power from a fiend is not one of them.

[Dracul3S]

Well....not exactly.

Some invocations are only available based on Pact; Furthermore, the Warlock is beholden to their Patron (PHB 106) and will at some point be required to complete tasks for them.

Now, these could be small or large tasks, but by RAW they exist, just undefined. That's a meaningful cost, so fluff doesn't really mean that.

Also worth noting that a Warlock has an expanded spell choice based on Patron, including spells unavailable to the Sorcerer. So, again, not fluff.

I reread PHB 106 and you know... Warlocks need not to complete tasks for their patrons at all (unless dm and player agree to it). One of the options explicitly mentioned is even that the warlock has an antagonistic relationship to his patron. That 'meaningful cost' as per the PHB does not even exist. You might play and dm that way, but it is not required at all. You do not lose anything going by the book, should you choose to not even not work for, but fight your patron.

[tkuremento]

I reread PHB 106 and you know... Warlocks need not to complete tasks for their patrons at all (unless dm and player agree to it). One of the options explicitly mentioned is even that the warlock has an antagonistic relationship to his patron. That 'meaningful cost' as per the PHB does not even exist. You might play and dm that way, but it is not required at all. You do not lose anything going by the book, should you choose to not even not work for, but fight your patron.

Yea, Great Old One even mentions the concept of the being not even aware of you but you still draw on its knowledge and power.