Sorcerer vs. Warlock - Dueling Apotheoses

[Abracadangit]

Hi folks,

I've been combing through the classes recently, making little modifications and changing features for the purposes of my own games. While tinkering with the sorcerer and the warlock, I noticed some weird overlap.

For the purposes of this post, I'm gonna use the word "apotheosis" to mean "the ideal of what a class is designed to become." For example, the barbarian apotheosis is to become a superhumanly strong pinnacle of athleticism and might. (And I know this might not be what their apotheosis is in YOUR games, but I'm talking in the general sense.) And changing features with the sorcerer and the warlock is where things get muddy.

The sorcerer's apotheosis is pretty straightforward - as you realize more of your magical powers, you turn more into the thing that grants you your powers, right. Draconic Bloodline gets the dragon fear/charm power, Divine Souls get the wings, and so on. All well and good.

But warlocks kind of have the same apotheosis, don't they? I think the metaphysical in-universe reason is different, though. Rather than express more and more of your magical DNA, I think the idea is that you're learning how to cast the innate magic of a given magical creature. Like when your patron is the Fiend, you're not really learning arcane magic - you're learning how to cast the spells a demon casts from their Monster Manual spell list, using their magical theory/language. But since mortals aren't really supposed to be doing that, their magic slowly distorts your planar identity, morphing you over time into a quasi-fiend yourself. But now you see the problem, right? It's like BOTH sorcerers and warlocks have this apotheosis: turn increasingly into the thing that's the reason for your powers.

And because of this overlap, it feels like they're stepping on each other's toes, in the design space. Every sorcerer bloodline COULD have been a warlock patron, and vice versa. (With some admitted exceptions, like Wild Magic.)

So the first leg of my work is going to be distinguishing the sorcerer's apotheosis from the warlock's. I think what I'd like to do is steer the warlock away from an I'm-turning-into-my-patron angle and towards an I-collect-bargains-from-many-creatures-of-my-patron-type angle, but that'll take some serious work.

What are your thoughts? Do you agree with the assessment that the sorcerer and the warlock are sort of stepping on each other's toes, or am I looking at them from the wrong perspective? Have you already traveled down this path yourself, and if so, what did you bring back with you?

Thoughts, comments, whatever you have is appreciated. Thanks for reading.

[Man_Over_Game]

I think there already is the difference that you're describing, it just doesn't reflect well from the end-results. The difference is more noticeable when you take a step back and look how you make each class.


The sorcerer has very few spells known, can't easily change out his spells or metamagics, and his subclass features are just as rigid. A Sorcerer can't change who he is.

A Warlock, on the other hand, can have a number of random abilities, regardless of what their patron or boon is. It feels more like a kid at a candy store who decides to grab a little bit of everything. Even if the kid has a favorite kind of candy (like jawbreakers), it's his choice as to what candy he walks out with.

I'm not saying that the difference between the two are exaggerated enough, I'm just saying that there is that one element that does reflect what you're suggesting.

[Abracadangit]

I think there already is the difference that you're describing, it just doesn't reflect well from the end-results. The difference is more noticeable when you take a step back and look how you make each class.


The sorcerer has very few spells known, can't easily change out his spells or metamagics, and his subclass features are just as rigid. A Sorcerer can't change who he is.

A Warlock, on the other hand, can have a number of random abilities, regardless of what their patron or boon is. It feels more like a kid at a candy store who decides to grab a little bit of everything. Even if the kid has a favorite kind of candy (like jawbreakers), it's his choice as to what candy he walks out with.

I'm not saying that the difference between the two are exaggerated enough, I'm just saying that there is that one element that does reflect what you're suggesting.

You speak in truths! The sorcerer's design definitely has more of a "you are what you are" sense, while warlocks have greater freedom to mix-and-match with their customization options.

But then there's another rabbit hole - are invocations not more in line with the sorcerer, where low-grade utility spells are at-will, much the same way an X-Man uses their superpowers? And maybe metamagic is almost warlockier - they can "hack" spells to work in ways they're not originally intended, in a fashion similar to how they "hacked" their magic talents? But maybe that's a debate for another thread.

Tangent aside, you're very much right - there's texture there, to define the two. But how to twist that into a distinct apotheosis for each? That's the question.

[Millstone85]

Yeah, no clue on how to make meaningfully different apotheoses for sorcerers and warlocks.

And because of this overlap, it feels like they're stepping on each other's toes, in the design space. Every sorcerer bloodline COULD have been a warlock patron, and vice versa.

Abso-freaking-lutely! I am convinced this is the reason why, despite Fey Ancestry and Infernal Legacy having been racial traits ever since the PHB, 5e still doesn't offer sorcerous origins that explore those. Conversely, even the upcoming Fizban's Treasury of Dragons will still not give us a wyrmlock.

With some admitted exceptions, like Wild Magic.

On the subject of Wild Magic, I would imagine a patron called the Anarch, a being that would most likely hail from Limbo or another chaotic outer plane. And for the Clockwork Soul, there would be the Axiom, a being from Mechanus or another lawful outer plane. I think those were the terms once used in addition to celestial and fiend.

[Man_Over_Game]

You speak in truths! The sorcerer's design definitely has more of a "you are what you are" sense, while warlocks have greater freedom to mix-and-match with their customization options.

But then there's another rabbit hole - are invocations not more in line with the sorcerer, where low-grade utility spells are at-will, much the same way an X-Man uses their superpowers? And maybe metamagic is almost warlockier - they can "hack" spells to work in ways they're not originally intended, in a fashion similar to how they "hacked" their magic talents? But maybe that's a debate for another thread.

Tangent aside, you're very much right - there's texture there, to define the two. But how to twist that into a distinct apotheosis for each? That's the question.

The thing you're rightfully bringing up I think has more to do with the recharge philosophies between Sorcerers and Warlocks. For some reason, Warlocks can pull tiny bits of power all of the time while Sorcerers can pull lots of power only so often, but they're mixed up.

Personally, I think Warlocks should have been the normy while Sorcerers act as the fast-recharging outlier, as Warlocks draw their power from another source, like any other caster, as that would streamline what Long-Rest casting could easily represent.

Some balance tweaks would need to be made, but most of that can be fixed by just swapping the casting styles of the two classes. Invocations are a bit trickier to mess around with, but it'll be a good start without them.

As an aside, I think Warlocks should've had some kind of self-infliction mechanic, where each Patron (or Boon) takes something from you to fuel your powers. Maybe it's luck, maybe it's your life force, maybe it's your sanity, but it's always​ worth it.

And then the way you balance it, so they aren't just Wizards+1, is to give them a bunch of random benefits that don't synergize well together, kinda like how Artificer infusions were designed. Still strong, but never too​ strong. Combined, both changes would be enough to make them a valid Intelligence caster that felt different from the Wizard (which is why I think they originally changed the Warlock to Charisma to fix a problem, once again saw too much overlap, and then gave it weird casting to 'fix' it again.)

Sorry, got on a tangent.

[OldTrees1]

But then there's another rabbit hole - are invocations not more in line with the sorcerer, where low-grade utility spells are at-will, much the same way an X-Man uses their superpowers? And maybe metamagic is almost warlockier - they can "hack" spells to work in ways they're not originally intended, in a fashion similar to how they "hacked" their magic talents? But maybe that's a debate for another thread.

Tangent aside, you're very much right - there's texture there, to define the two. But how to twist that into a distinct apotheosis for each? That's the question.

Warlock has its roots in high frequency magic. (At-Will magic in the better implementations), so Invocations are definately more in line with Warlock than with Sorcerer.

However I would not mind of Sorcerer had the option to become closer to an at-will Mage.

[Valmark]

I kinda disagree on them having the same Apotheoses- the Warlock has barely any lines about becoming similar to their patrons. Nearly everything in their fluff points to them being seekers of knowledge and stuff like that- they're arguably more similar to wizards or clerics (the book actually says that some warlocks have a similar bond with their patron to that of a cleric with their deity).

With the difference that wizards don't have a sugar daddy and clerics are afraid of commitment.

[Abracadangit]

Yeah, no clue on how to make meaningfully different apotheoses for sorcerers and warlocks.

Abso-freaking-lutely! I am convinced this is the reason why, despite Fey Ancestry and Infernal Legacy having been racial traits ever since the PHB, 5e still doesn't offer sorcerous origins that explore those. Conversely, even the upcoming Fizban's Treasury of Dragons will still not give us a wyrmlock.

On the subject of Wild Magic, I would imagine a patron called the Anarch, a being that would most likely hail from Limbo or another chaotic outer plane. And for the Clockwork Soul, there would be the Axiom, a being from Mechanus or another lawful outer plane. I think those were the terms once used in addition to celestial and fiend.

Exactly - for wyrmlock, it's like WotC's tapped. Between dragonborn and draconic bloodline, they're like "We can only find so many unique ways to put breath weapons and dragon wings on things. We're out. We're all done."

That's a great take on Wild Magic/Clockwork Soul, though. To more patrons!

The thing you're rightfully bringing up I think has more to do with the recharge philosophies between Sorcerers and Warlocks. For some reason, Warlocks can pull tiny bits of power all of the time while Sorcerers can pull lots of power only so often, but they're mixed up.

Personally, I think Warlocks should have been the normy while Sorcerers act as the fast-recharging outlier, as Warlocks draw their power from another source, like any other caster, as that would streamline what Long-Rest casting could easily represent.

Some balance tweaks would need to be made, but most of that can be fixed by just swapping the casting styles of the two classes. Invocations are a bit trickier to mess around with, but it'll be a good start without them.

As an aside, I think Warlocks should've had some kind of self-infliction mechanic, where each Patron (or Boon) takes something from you to fuel your powers. Maybe it's luck, maybe it's your life force, maybe it's your sanity, but it's always​ worth it.

And then the way you balance it, so they aren't just Wizards+1, is to give them a bunch of random benefits that don't synergize well together, kinda like how Artificer infusions were designed. Still strong, but never too​ strong. Combined, both changes would be enough to make them a valid Intelligence caster that felt different from the Wizard (which is why I think they originally changed the Warlock to Charisma to fix a problem, once again saw too much overlap, and then gave it weird casting to 'fix' it again.)

Sorry, got on a tangent.

No no - not a tangent at all! That's precisely what I'm talking about. Something that makes the warlock feel more like the dark bargainer I imagine them to be. The pact didn't just happen once, and that's that; have mechanics that make it feel like the warlock is STILL haggling for spells, or advantage on certain rolls, or other bonuses here and there, but at a price. Maybe the player doesn't always get to choose what that price is, maybe there's a table a la Wild Magic, maybe the price depends on your patron. And then I agree with turning them back into Int casters instead of Cha - they should be even MORE socially maladjusted than wizards, for all their delving into forbidden lore. Your other prescribed changes are good ideas as wel;, I just want warlocks to feel "warlockier," which means figuring out what "warlockier" means.

Warlock has its roots in high frequency magic. (At-Will magic in the better implementations), so Invocations are definately more in line with Warlock than with Sorcerer.

However I would not mind of Sorcerer had the option to become closer to an at-will Mage.

Fair enough - I remember the 3e warlocks were all about the at-will, so that's kind of their legacy at this point. I can live with that. But something about snapping your fingers and donning a new magical disguise/causing the books to fly back on their shelves/getting the guard to look the other way feels sorcerous, doesn't it? So we're in agreement there.

I kinda disagree on them having the same Apotheoses- the Warlock has barely any lines about becoming similar to their patrons. Nearly everything in their fluff points to them being seekers of knowledge and stuff like that- they're arguably more similar to wizards or clerics (the book actually says that some warlocks have a similar bond with their patron to that of a cleric with their deity).

With the difference that wizards don't have a sugar daddy and clerics are afraid of commitment.

Fluffwise, I'd say you're 100% correct. But when we look at the mechanics, genielocks get their respective elemental resistance, flight, and a low-grade verison of Wish as patron abilities. Feylocks get charm abilities and a reaction Misty Step, Celestial-locks get radiant damage resistance and similarly themed holy abilities, etc. I know the books don't explicitly call them out as "becoming their patron," but even if the fluff doesn't, it certainly feels like the mechanics are pointing in that direction. And as they say, if it quacks like a become-the-creature apotheosis...

But you're right, for narrative purposes. I just want there to be a way for the mechanics to tell that story you describe, being "seekers of knowledge," specifically forbidden knowledge that others draw a line at meddling with.

[Millstone85]

Exactly - for wyrmlock, it's like WotC's tapped. Between dragonborn and draconic bloodline, they're like "We can only find so many unique ways to put breath weapons and dragon wings on things. We're out. We're all done."

Well... FToD will actually come with a couple new draconic subclasses, but for the monk and the ranger. Those will be based on this unearthed arcana, which IIRC was rather popular.

That's a great take on Wild Magic/Clockwork Soul, though. To more patrons!

Thank you!

[Abracadangit]

Well... FToD will actually come with a couple new draconic subclasses, but for the monk and the ranger. Those will be based on this unearthed arcana, which IIRC was rather popular.

Thank you!

I apologize - I knew about the monk and ranger subs, I meant like subclasses that emulate the whole "becoming a dragon" schtick. To be fair, the monk's "dragon style" and the ranger's "dragon tamer" are cool spins on dragons that work, and I think there are other potentials for growth, like why not a "Circle of Scales" druid with an ability to wild shape into a nerfed dragon, for Shyvana-esque characters that have an alternate dragon form. But yeah, we're never getting that wyrmlock, there's just no way.

And you're very welcome!

[OldTrees1]

Fair enough - I remember the 3e warlocks were all about the at-will, so that's kind of their legacy at this point. I can live with that. But something about snapping your fingers and donning a new magical disguise/causing the books to fly back on their shelves/getting the guard to look the other way feels sorcerous, doesn't it? So we're in agreement there.

Yes. But I need to be careful or I would accidentally transform every caster into one of the variants of at-will caster.

Sorcerer would be lots of static at-will magic (who you are is magical) with a refilling wellspring of power that they use to declare reality.
Warlocks would be an increasing list of magic lessons or granted powers you could do at-will.
Wizards would have lengthy rituals they could enact but be limited by the volume and complexity of magic they can sustain. Some rituals would create triggered effects. (act like limited resource casting, generated by at will rituals)
...

[Corey]

Sorcerer doesn't need to be its own class. Some of the other casting classes could have metamagic subclasses instead.

[Kane0]

Sorcerer - You gradually exhibit more and more of your bloodline's inheritance
Warlock - It's complicated

In the flavor text Warlocks don't have a set pattern. The circumstances could be a contract bound in a master/servant relationship, or a strange but largely equal agreement with a fey being, or had a single transactional encounter with a genie, or a complete charity case from an angel, or a byproduct of unfathomable happenings that don't even know who you are.

In the same vein, Warlock magic isn't all that concrete either. It could be taught by your patron, learned *despite* your patron, given to you once and yours to command henceforth, given to you on a daily/request basis and can be taken away, etc.

Finding the commonality between all these directions is going to be difficult. I imagine paladins face a similar conundrum, although they at least can all agree on 'conviction made manifest' or something.

[Abracadangit]

Sorcerer doesn't need to be its own class. Some of the other casting classes could have metamagic subclasses instead.

Aha! See, now THERE'S an idea. I see this show up a lot on these forums, that we abolish the sorcerer and give metamagic up to other classes.

I definitely belong to the camp that feels like metamagic should be given back to wizards - it feels more their speed. Spell ranges and durations and target numbers feel arithmetic and fiddly, which feel more like how wizards approach magic. Plus if spells are music, then wizards are classically trained, so they can read music and adjust time signatures or beats accordingly.

Maybe it's because I'm from 3e, but I feel like sorcerers still deserve a spot on the list. Though they certainly have to earn it, and metamagic plus an odd mishmash of subclass abilities doesn't feel robust enough, does it. They've got to earn their keep another way.

Perhaps sorcerers should get turned into spell-eating blue mage types, who absorb energy/magic from not just enemy spells, but ALSO monsters' innate spellcasting. Eh?

I'm not averse to pushing sorcerers in a different direction also, if it means both them and warlocks get their own apotheosis and identity.

[Abracadangit]

Yes. But I need to be careful or I would accidentally transform every caster into one of the variants of at-will caster.

Sorcerer would be lots of static at-will magic (who you are is magical) with a refilling wellspring of power that they use to declare reality.
Warlocks would be an increasing list of magic lessons or granted powers you could do at-will.
Wizards would have lengthy rituals they could enact but be limited by the volume and complexity of magic they can sustain. Some rituals would create triggered effects. (act like limited resource casting, generated by at will rituals)
...

That wouldn't be so terrible! I'm all for at-will utility spells across the board, then let's give martials maneuvers that recharge every round and call it a day. More at-wills, all around.

[Abracadangit]

Sorcerer - You gradually exhibit more and more of your bloodline's inheritance
Warlock - It's complicated

In the flavor text Warlocks don't have a set pattern. The circumstances could be a contract bound in a master/servant relationship, or a strange but largely equal agreement with a fey being, or had a single transactional encounter with a genie, or a complete charity case from an angel, or a byproduct of unfathomable happenings that don't even know who you are.

In the same vein, Warlock magic isn't all that concrete either. It could be taught by your patron, learned *despite* your patron, given to you once and yours to command henceforth, given to you on a daily/request basis and can be taken away, etc.

Finding the commonality between all these directions is going to be difficult. I imagine paladins face a similar conundrum, although they at least can all agree on 'conviction made manifest' or something.

You raise very good points. Part of the trouble is that warlocks' relationships with their patrons are so varied, that it seems difficult to reconcile all the different possibilities.

But! There's a tidbit in the PHB warlock fluff that strikes at what I'm going for:

"Warlocks are driven by an insatiable need for knowledge and power, which compels them into their pacts and shapes their lives. This thirst drives warlocks into their pacts and shapes their later careers as well."

THAT'S what I'm zeroing in on. In fact, let's zoom and enhance one more time:

"Warlocks are driven by an insatiable need for knowledge and power..."

Boom - and there they are. "Ok," goes the counterpoint. "But you could say the same for wizards. They want knowledge and power too." Sure, some of them do. But wizards, archetypally speaking, want knowledge for knowledge's sake. Power is a rad side effect of all that knowledge, but the ur-wizard is a scholar first and a power-hoarder second. Again, I know the specific wizard someone plays might be different, but we're talking in trope distillations here, pure as possible.

Warlocks, on the other hand, are in the magic game because they want power, and wizards spending years in magic schools are playing a sucker's game when you could call up a devil and get signing bonuses TODAY. And that's what I'm after -- mechanics that reflect that spirit of "Screw the rules, I have extraplanars on speed dial." A mechanic to hang the class on that makes a warlock FEEL like a warlock. What if pact magic wasn't just a name, but after burning your 2 puny slots or whatever, you could get more, but at a cost? Roll a Dark Bargain die, see what you roll, and pay the price. Or... something.

That's still very much in the R&D phase, but you see what I'm saying. Warlocks shouldn't just be Fausts and Tamm Lins, stuck in their deal -- they should be active bargainers and brokers, constantly whittling off pieces of their soul for new secrets while the party members look on in horror. And I want their mechanics to reflect that.

[ThatDuckGrant]

So I’ve actually gone down a few of these rabbit holes myself, as I think 5e has reached a point with almost too many classes and subclasses. In my opinion, the classes/subclasses should represent a different character archetype, not necessarily just different in-game mechanics. Did we actually need a clockwork soul sorcerer for someone to play a super-lawful caster? Probably not. Do we need a war mage wizard, when most players would play that archetype as some fighter/wizard multiclass? Do we need a valor bard and a swords bard? Etc. that said, I don’t think the sorcerer as a class is completely superfluous because it’s a different “sort” of character than a warlock.

So if you look at the archetypes of a sorcerer vs a warlock, you get a very different type of person. Like you pulled out of the PHB, a warlock is someone willing to give ANYTHING to get more powerful, or know something that someone else doesn’t. A sorcerer is someone who was born with innate powers inside them, that (flavor wise) sometimes are uncontrollable or even unwanted.

That said, how does one make a warlock feel more warlocky and a sorcerer more sorcerous? I think a lot of that is in the flavor. The powers warlocks gain are “bestowed” on them by their patron. So a celestial can bestow its natural resistance to radiant damage, or a fiend it’s natural luck on a mortal. In exchange, I think it’s fair to say that you ought to expect a character to RP having those powers bestowed on them (either by earning them, or otherwise convincing the patron they deserve them). A sorcerer on the other hand, may RP their powers by waking up one morning with something “different” going on. I do also think that there are more physical manifestations involved with sorcerers than with warlocks.

One rabbit hole from the thread I really enjoy though, is making the warlock an Int caster. Anyone can want power, but most individuals in most DND worlds can’t just find a fiend to chat with to sell their soul. It takes a certain level of intelligence to determine a way to contact and draw up an agreement with a patron. I think making this switch would also help by breaking up the odd “sorlock” mix that is mechanically popular, but narratively tenuous at best.

Lastly, I’ll attempt to define the Apotheoses:

A sorcerer is an individual with magic in their very soul. They manifest this magic in physical and psychological ways, and grow very powerful, all without any clue HOW they’re doing it.

A Warlock is an individual who seeks knowledge and power. They take the short route by contacting an exceptionally powerful entity and offering something in exchange for power. While they progressively grow more powerful, it’s always at their patron’s whim, either as a reward or an incentive.

In short, a sorcerer has power forced on them, whether they want it or not, while a warlock wants power more than anything else, but always has to ask for it.

[Kane0]

Warlocks, on the other hand, are in the magic game because they want power, and wizards spending years in magic schools are playing a sucker's game when you could call up a devil and get signing bonuses TODAY. And that's what I'm after -- mechanics that reflect that spirit of "Screw the rules, I have extraplanars on speed dial." A mechanic to hang the class on that makes a warlock FEEL like a warlock. What if pact magic wasn't just a name, but after burning your 2 puny slots or whatever, you could get more, but at a cost? Roll a Dark Bargain die, see what you roll, and pay the price. Or... something.

That's still very much in the R&D phase, but you see what I'm saying. Warlocks shouldn't just be Fausts and Tamm Lins, stuck in their deal -- they should be active bargainers and brokers, constantly whittling off pieces of their soul for new secrets while the party members look on in horror. And I want their mechanics to reflect that.

The 3.5 Binder class might interest you then, there are a lot of the similarities you can draw on. Potentially even the Incarnum stuff too if you're talking souls.

[Corey]

Aha! See, now THERE'S an idea. I see this show up a lot on these forums, that we abolish the sorcerer and give metamagic up to other classes.

I definitely belong to the camp that feels like metamagic should be given back to wizards - it feels more their speed. Spell ranges and durations and target numbers feel arithmetic and fiddly, which feel more like how wizards approach magic. Plus if spells are music, then wizards are classically trained, so they can read music and adjust time signatures or beats accordingly.

Maybe it's because I'm from 3e, but I feel like sorcerers still deserve a spot on the list. Though they certainly have to earn it, and metamagic plus an odd mishmash of subclass abilities doesn't feel robust enough, does it. They've got to earn their keep another way.

Perhaps sorcerers should get turned into spell-eating blue mage types, who absorb energy/magic from not just enemy spells, but ALSO monsters' innate spellcasting. Eh?

I'm not averse to pushing sorcerers in a different direction also, if it means both them and warlocks get their own apotheosis and identity.

I hate Wild Magic.

But if somebody wants Sorcerers to be Wild Magic only, I guess that would support its own class identity.

Wild Magic and Metamagic seem a bit contradictory, however. As you noted, Metamagic is the epitome of fiddly control, which is pretty much the opposite of Wild Magic.

[Salmon343]

I think the issue here is that moving from 3.5 to 5e several class lines have been blurred. Warlocks get casting now, Vancian Magic has heavily slid into spontaneous magic's design space.

I think moving away from Warlocks turning into their patrons and reserving that for Sorcerers is a good idea, instead focusing Warlocks on having a suite of at-will/encounter (short rest) powers. It brings them further towards their 3.5 roots, and definitely fits the "seekers of arcane and forbidden" law thing they've got going on. Perhaps the pact could grant access to more choices? A Celestial would grant a different selection of knowledge to a Pit Fiend, after all.

Regarding Sorcerers, I still think they have a right to exist. Wizards are heavily tied to study in both concept and form (most of the subclasses focus on a school of magic after all, which is very study inclined.) The focus on origins that 5e has made for them is pretty good. What I'd recommend, is giving metamagic back to everyone, but making prepared casters prep them as different spells. (Still not one per casting, but one per day. You'd need to prep Fireball and Quickened Fireball as separate selections, but could do them all day while you have the slots.) Spontaneous casters can do them spontaneously.

We'd now have a thematic and mechanical separation for all the spontaneous classes. Bards are more skill baaed, with Bardic Inspiration on top of their casting. (Would also be inclined to bring Bardic Music back in some form...) Sorcerers have a spell list more closely tied to their Origin as well as Origin Powers (perhaps have more metamagic too, if that's not enough.) Warlocks have a selection of at-will and encounter abilites, guided but not limited by their patron. Under this paradigm Sorcerers and Warlocks are long-rest / at-will reflections of each other. So the lore could also be swapped for particular characters - a Sorcerer whose power was a boon from their Patron, or a Warlock who manifests their inborn power in moderate but unyielding ways.

[Justin Sane]

Permanence.

Sorcerers slowly (and permanently) become more and more like their Ancestor, but never turn into the real deal, even if they get quite close. Their Apotheosis should be something permanent, an always-on effect to remind people of their legacy.

Warlocks bought/borrowed/stole their power from their Patrons, but it's not (as) transformative - it's more like putting on a mask that's been given to you. Their Apotheosis should be something temporary, a short burst of otherworldly power, to remind people their power came from outside.

[Abracadangit]

One rabbit hole from the thread I really enjoy though, is making the warlock an Int caster. Anyone can want power, but most individuals in most DND worlds can’t just find a fiend to chat with to sell their soul. It takes a certain level of intelligence to determine a way to contact and draw up an agreement with a patron. I think making this switch would also help by breaking up the odd “sorlock” mix that is mechanically popular, but narratively tenuous at best.

Lastly, I’ll attempt to define the Apotheoses:

A sorcerer is an individual with magic in their very soul. They manifest this magic in physical and psychological ways, and grow very powerful, all without any clue HOW they’re doing it.

A Warlock is an individual who seeks knowledge and power. They take the short route by contacting an exceptionally powerful entity and offering something in exchange for power. While they progressively grow more powerful, it’s always at their patron’s whim, either as a reward or an incentive.

In short, a sorcerer has power forced on them, whether they want it or not, while a warlock wants power more than anything else, but always has to ask for it.

Same here! In my games, I even say "If you wanna be an Int warlock, go for it." It's what they should have been.

Those are very good summations of the apotheoses, and you have a point -- there's a lot to be said for how one narratively fluffs them, in a campaign. I don't know if I want the fluff to do the heavy lifting, but there's probably some point that I'll hit where it'll be like "Ok, the fluff has to take it from here." Which isn't so bad, really. The question is should warlocks have a "warlocky" mechanic, or should it all be wrapped up in their spellcasting mechanics/invocations.

The 3.5 Binder class might interest you then, there are a lot of the similarities you can draw on. Potentially even the Incarnum stuff too if you're talking souls.

Hey, I remember those guys! The kooky pact-makers with the vestiges based on the Seals of Solomon, and whatnot. You're right, I think they're a step closer to what I'm talking about. Thank you for reminding me of them - I should reread their info.

I hate Wild Magic.

But if somebody wants Sorcerers to be Wild Magic only, I guess that would support its own class identity.

Wild Magic and Metamagic seem a bit contradictory, however. As you noted, Metamagic is the epitome of fiddly control, which is pretty much the opposite of Wild Magic.

You hate the flavor idea of it, or you hate the random table? (Or both, ha ha.) I usually think it's harmless, but I DO wonder how people play a Wild Magic sorcerer without going full Terry Pratchett. Like it's kinda hard to stare someone down all intimidating when your roll turns you into a potted plant.

I think the issue here is that moving from 3.5 to 5e several class lines have been blurred. Warlocks get casting now, Vancian Magic has heavily slid into spontaneous magic's design space.

I think moving away from Warlocks turning into their patrons and reserving that for Sorcerers is a good idea, instead focusing Warlocks on having a suite of at-will/encounter (short rest) powers. It brings them further towards their 3.5 roots, and definitely fits the "seekers of arcane and forbidden" law thing they've got going on. Perhaps the pact could grant access to more choices? A Celestial would grant a different selection of knowledge to a Pit Fiend, after all.

Regarding Sorcerers, I still think they have a right to exist. Wizards are heavily tied to study in both concept and form (most of the subclasses focus on a school of magic after all, which is very study inclined.) The focus on origins that 5e has made for them is pretty good. What I'd recommend, is giving metamagic back to everyone, but making prepared casters prep them as different spells. (Still not one per casting, but one per day. You'd need to prep Fireball and Quickened Fireball as separate selections, but could do them all day while you have the slots.) Spontaneous casters can do them spontaneously.

We'd now have a thematic and mechanical separation for all the spontaneous classes. Bards are more skill baaed, with Bardic Inspiration on top of their casting. (Would also be inclined to bring Bardic Music back in some form...) Sorcerers have a spell list more closely tied to their Origin as well as Origin Powers (perhaps have more metamagic too, if that's not enough.) Warlocks have a selection of at-will and encounter abilites, guided but not limited by their patron. Under this paradigm Sorcerers and Warlocks are long-rest / at-will reflections of each other. So the lore could also be swapped for particular characters - a Sorcerer whose power was a boon from their Patron, or a Warlock who manifests their inborn power in moderate but unyielding ways.

Agreed. You can kinda tell the designers were stuck in this weird place where they could only innovate so much, and if an idea got TOO innovative, a buzzer went off saying "THIS WILL SCARE PEOPLE LIKE 4E DID" and they had to start over. So we got a warlock that has one foot in novelty and one foot in the 3.5e warlock, which made for an oddball result. Plus the way all prepared casters can pick a "spell pool" for each day now really put a dent in the sorcerer's style.

Your spellcasting amendments make sense, and definitely drive variety between the classes. Would you keep the warlock subclass abilities more or less how they are, though? Or swap them out for more invocations or different abilities? Or heck, maybe just more spell slots.

Permanence.

Sorcerers slowly (and permanently) become more and more like their Ancestor, but never turn into the real deal, even if they get quite close. Their Apotheosis should be something permanent, an always-on effect to remind people of their legacy.

Warlocks bought/borrowed/stole their power from their Patrons, but it's not (as) transformative - it's more like putting on a mask that's been given to you. Their Apotheosis should be something temporary, a short burst of otherworldly power, to remind people their power came from outside.

Good thinking. It's interesting how sorcerer subclasses have so many active abilities and fewer passives, when passives seem more like their thing (i.e. transforming into their Ancestor). And your warlock idea is close to what I'm thinking -- abilities that let the warlock ping their patron for, say, a substantial boost on an Arcana/Nature/Religion check, or advantage on a saving throw, but it costs the warlock something to do it.

[Hytheter]

But then there's another rabbit hole - are invocations not more in line with the sorcerer, where low-grade utility spells are at-will, much the same way an X-Man uses their superpowers? And maybe metamagic is almost warlockier - they can "hack" spells to work in ways they're not originally intended, in a fashion similar to how they "hacked" their magic talents? But maybe that's a debate for another thread.

And because of this overlap, it feels like they're stepping on each other's toes, in the design space. Every sorcerer bloodline COULD have been a warlock patron, and vice versa. (With some admitted exceptions, like Wild Magic.)

My stance is that Sorcerers and Warlocks should be combined. Origins and Patrons have significant overlap, metamagic could be folded into invocations, and I think SR casting is a good fit for sorcerers, personally.

[Abracadangit]

My stance is that Sorcerers and Warlocks should be combined. Origins and Patrons have significant overlap, metamagic could be folded into invocations, and I think SR casting is a good fit for sorcerers, personally.

There's the overlap, SR casting is a good fit for sorcerers since they're basically quick-charging arcane batteries, invocations feel sorcerous, AND for bonus points, Eldritch Blast is pretty sorcerous too, isn't it. What telegraphs someone's volatile magical power more keenly than firing off shotgun blasts of arcane energy? I know, I know - Eldritch Blast belongs to warlocks because they had it in 3.5e, so they get it forever now, but there's nothing "warlocky" about it. They just called dibs.

I for one am all for giving the sorcerer a lot of what the warlock has now. But -- I do feel like the warlock, tropewise, still gets a spot on the roster. So if we're gutting the current warlock to give all that to the sorcerer, then what are we giving the warlock instead.

Current ideas I'm experimenting with:

--Dark Bargain: These are situational boons and bonuses (resistance to a certain kind of damage, advantage on a roll, Expertise on certain knowledge checks, proficiency with a tool) where you get a couple free per day, but then if you want more, you have to roll for it, simulating the warlock bargaining with a patron. Roll goes well, the bargain costs you nothing, roll goes poorly, it's gonna cost you something but the cost will be randomized from a table of things you don't want (think Bowser Space from Mario Party). And then there's some kind of mechanic in place that upticks the DC with every iteration, so each time you use it per day, you're making the next one more likely to fail.
--Controlled Creatures: Similar to the shadow sorcerer's "Hound of Ill Omen," each warlock variety gets a not-too-strong summon ability, echoing their need to have power over others. So fiendlock would get a demon, feylock would get a fey, etc. And these don't have to be demons or fey out of the MM, they can be tailor-made so they're not too powerful.

Granted, I know that's a lot of theorizing and not much concrete, but for now, they're jumping-off points. There's definitely too much overlap between sorcerers and warlocks that can be collapsed together (and it's probably in the direction of moving more warlock pieces into sorcerer), but then I want warlocks to still have a reason to be here, and for that reason to feel sufficiently warlocky enough.

[Hytheter]

There's the overlap, SR casting is a good fit for sorcerers since they're basically quick-charging arcane batteries, invocations feel sorcerous, AND for bonus points, Eldritch Blast is pretty sorcerous too, isn't it. What telegraphs someone's volatile magical power more keenly than firing off shotgun blasts of arcane energy? I know, I know - Eldritch Blast belongs to warlocks because they had it in 3.5e, so they get it forever now, but there's nothing "warlocky" about it. They just called dibs.

My hypothetical 'Warcerer' would probably have Eldritch Blast as a class feature defined/modified by your Origin/Patron.

I for one am all for giving the sorcerer a lot of what the warlock has now. But -- I do feel like the warlock, tropewise, still gets a spot on the roster.

In my eyes, the thematic niche of the Warlock is just a more specific version of the Sorcerer's. Origins are often regarded as 'bloodlines' but the truth is sorcerer is thematically far broader than that. - which is to say, ancestry is just one of the many possible causes of sorcerous power. The core theme as I see it is exposure to some force or entity; why not add 'intentionally sought the entity and made a pact' to the already large list of possible influence vectors? Heck, Draconic's flavour text even implies the existence of functional draconic warlocks already.

That said, the pact making is a strong and appealing thematic. I just don't see it as one that requires a distinct class in its own right.

[AHF]

Exactly - for wyrmlock, it's like WotC's tapped. Between dragonborn and draconic bloodline, they're like "We can only find so many unique ways to put breath weapons and dragon wings on things. We're out. We're all done."

That's a great take on Wild Magic/Clockwork Soul, though. To more patrons!



No no - not a tangent at all! That's precisely what I'm talking about. Something that makes the warlock feel more like the dark bargainer I imagine them to be. The pact didn't just happen once, and that's that; have mechanics that make it feel like the warlock is STILL haggling for spells, or advantage on certain rolls, or other bonuses here and there, but at a price. Maybe the player doesn't always get to choose what that price is, maybe there's a table a la Wild Magic, maybe the price depends on your patron. And then I agree with turning them back into Int casters instead of Cha - they should be even MORE socially maladjusted than wizards, for all their delving into forbidden lore. Your other prescribed changes are good ideas as wel;, I just want warlocks to feel "warlockier," which means figuring out what "warlockier" means.



Fair enough - I remember the 3e warlocks were all about the at-will, so that's kind of their legacy at this point. I can live with that. But something about snapping your fingers and donning a new magical disguise/causing the books to fly back on their shelves/getting the guard to look the other way feels sorcerous, doesn't it? So we're in agreement there.



Fluffwise, I'd say you're 100% correct. But when we look at the mechanics, genielocks get their respective elemental resistance, flight, and a low-grade verison of Wish as patron abilities. Feylocks get charm abilities and a reaction Misty Step, Celestial-locks get radiant damage resistance and similarly themed holy abilities, etc. I know the books don't explicitly call them out as "becoming their patron," but even if the fluff doesn't, it certainly feels like the mechanics are pointing in that direction. And as they say, if it quacks like a become-the-creature apotheosis...

But you're right, for narrative purposes. I just want there to be a way for the mechanics to tell that story you describe, being "seekers of knowledge," specifically forbidden knowledge that others draw a line at meddling with.

I see it as less becoming a part of the patron and more as a series of boons that the patron grants to you. And it makes perfect sense that if you are coming to a Vampire for boons you are getting undead type boons and if you come to an elder fey for boons you are getting fey type abilities, etc.

I guess I see Warlocks as being granted boons of one type or another from their patron throughout their development moreso than becoming minor versions of their patrons. (You make a deal with the Devil to get abilities but don’t become a Devil.)

[Hytheter]

Now that you mention it, the Pact Boons are kind of the most Warlocky part of the class. There's no sorcerous origin that would really fit summoning a magic sword, for instance. If you wanted to distinguish the warlock it might serve to double down on stuff like that, things that are clearly given rather than just cribbing the patron's power set.

[Abracadangit]

I see it as less becoming a part of the patron and more as a series of boons that the patron grants to you. And it makes perfect sense that if you are coming to a Vampire for boons you are getting undead type boons and if you come to an elder fey for boons you are getting fey type abilities, etc.

I guess I see Warlocks as being granted boons of one type or another from their patron throughout their development moreso than becoming minor versions of their patrons. (You make a deal with the Devil to get abilities but don’t become a Devil.)

Now that you mention it, the Pact Boons are kind of the most Warlocky part of the class. There's no sorcerous origin that would really fit summoning a magic sword, for instance. If you wanted to distinguish the warlock it might serve to double down on stuff like that, things that are clearly given rather than just cribbing the patron's power set.

Good points! Maybe the trick here is to fuse certain elements of the class, like Pact of the Blade with Hexblade, Pact of the Tome with other features, Pact of the Chain with the summons, for the major different warlock varieties, and then your patron dovetails with those choices in meaningful ways. Like if you go Blade/Fiend, the Blade deals fire damage whenever you get your Thirsting Blade, GOO deals psychic damage, and so on. There's definitely room to blow up the pacts, and you're both right, the idea of "this physical thing being given to you" is much more in line with warlocks. Plus the pacts divvy the warlock up nicely into their different respective subtropes: classic occult scholar (Tome), summoner/subjugator of extraplanars (Chain), Spawn-esque melee antihero who made a deal with the devil for physical power (Blade).

[ThatDuckGrant]

My stance is that Sorcerers and Warlocks should be combined. Origins and Patrons have significant overlap, metamagic could be folded into invocations, and I think SR casting is a good fit for sorcerers, personally.

So from a game mechanics standpoint, I agree. Both a warlock and a sorcerer would be more compelling to play with combinations of their class features, in my opinion. For instance, adding eldrich/agonizing blast to a sorcerer feels sorcerery, and helps the sorcerer compete for power with the wizard. I think another issue with both classes is that both feel underwhelming at level 20 compared to a Bard or Wizard, so I think that turning either the sorcerer or Warlock into the world-crippling blaster is a good idea.

From a trope standpoint though, I still think there needs to be a “sought out a patron” trope.

[Salmon343]

Agreed. You can kinda tell the designers were stuck in this weird place where they could only innovate so much, and if an idea got TOO innovative, a buzzer went off saying "THIS WILL SCARE PEOPLE LIKE 4E DID" and they had to start over. So we got a warlock that has one foot in novelty and one foot in the 3.5e warlock, which made for an oddball result. Plus the way all prepared casters can pick a "spell pool" for each day now really put a dent in the sorcerer's style.

Your spellcasting amendments make sense, and definitely drive variety between the classes. Would you keep the warlock subclass abilities more or less how they are, though? Or swap them out for more invocations or different abilities? Or heck, maybe just more spell slots.

I'm a child of 4e, so less afraid of slaughtering the sacred cows - but I do recognise where they're seen as sacred, 4e is _very_ different to 3.5 and 5e. Hence trying to draw inspiration was 3.5s Warlock chassis.

I'd probably swap out the warlock subclass abilities for more invocations, ideally at-will or encounter equivalents. There's inspiration from 3.5 to mine here, stuff like making Eldritch Blasts heal and what-not. But to be honest, I think the game would benefit from putting everyone functionally on the same resource track. If I had free reign over 5.5, I'd probably make all casters a combination of long and short rest, so invocations as at-will powers would be the Warlock's niche among the spellcasters.