Warlocks as a Sorcerous Origin

[Galithar]

So I got this idea while looking at 5e classes and what I would different. This is NOT an idea I want to add to 5e but a brainstorm for my (likely never too be finished, way over ambitious) own system.

I love Warlocks, but how I want them to operate as the 'less versatile but very consistent' At-Will caster overlaps with my similar ideas for a Sorcerer. So what would your opinions on Warlock being an origin type for a Sorcerer. You get slightly modified powers, but would function very similarly. The main difference being in you got your magic from making a Pact with a powerful entity rather then having a hereditary thing like Draconic blood or Divine ancestors.

Thoughts and opinions?

[Man_Over_Game]

I guess I don't understand. What's the problem that's being fixed? What exactly is the goal? What is being provided that doesn't already exist?

For example, the Warlock already does exist as its own class. What are you trying to make that doesn't fit into the existing Warlock?

Additionally, the Class flavor of a Sorcerer is that they innately have their own magic from no other entities. Wouldn't it make more sense to modify the Warlock to have Sorcerer-esc spellcasting?

[XionUnborn01]

I guess I don't understand. What's the problem that's being fixed? What exactly is the goal? What is being provided that doesn't already exist?

For example, the Warlock already does exist as its own class. What are you trying to make that doesn't fit into the existing Warlock?

Additionally, the Class flavor of a Sorcerer is that they innately have their own magic from no other entities. Wouldn't it make more sense to modify the Warlock to have Sorcerer-esc spellcasting?

OP stated this was for their own system, not an adaptation for use in 5e. They're basically asking for an opinion on the idea.

I think it's a fine idea, warlocks, wizards, and sorcerers are basically interchangeable in the average person's mind.

[Man_Over_Game]

OP stated this was for their own system, not an adaptation for use in 5e. They're basically asking for an opinion on the idea.

I think it's a fine idea, warlocks, wizards, and sorcerers are basically interchangeable in the average person's mind.

I get that, but then he went and described Sorcerers as they are in 5e as the reference point.

It's not 5e, but it's referring to Sorcerers as they are in 5e.

He wants to make the Warlocks like 5e Sorcerers, but they don't want the thing to make them into 5e Sorcerers (which is their inherent magical ability).

Why have the chassis be Sorcerers at all, if the Sorcerer concept doesn't matter?

Or if it does, what about the Sorcerer matters?

[Galithar]

@MOG
The idea is basically just asking how people would feel about Warlocks being 'part of Sorcerers'. Does it break any 'established image' or some such mental construct to have Warlocks being little more then Sorcererers with "fancy" names.

I guess the question most simply put: Would you be confused or dislike the idea if someone presented a game system to you in which there were 'Draconic Heritage' Sorcerers that had the same 'base class' as a 'Demonic Pact' Warlock

In system I might not even use the word Warlock which would probably be the best way to prevent confusion or issues in the first place though and just call them 'Demonic Pact' Sorcerers...

I guess my issue is probably all in my head in that I'm a fan of 5e Sorcerers AND Warlocks, but the model I'm creating for my own system (inspired by 5e and PF2) seems to be pushing their classes so close together as to not be distinct enough to buy be full class. So I'm probably creating a problem in my head where there isn't one because I could just do what I said in the previous paragraph. Lol

EDIT: it's also about having them with difference magical sources, [inherent Vs bought] which to me says different classes, but with such similar abilities it's hard to justify not having them as one class...

[Man_Over_Game]

@MOG
The idea is basically just asking how people would feel about Warlocks being 'part of Sorcerers'. Does it break any 'established image' or some such mental construct to have Warlocks being little more then Sorcererers with "fancy" names.

I guess the question most simply put: Would you be confused or dislike the idea if someone presented a game system to you in which there were 'Draconic Heritage' Sorcerers that had the same 'base class' as a 'Demonic Pact' Warlock

In system I might not even use the word Warlock which would probably be the best way to prevent confusion or issues in the first place though and just call them 'Demonic Pact' Sorcerers...

I guess my issue is probably all in my head in that I'm a fan of 5e Sorcerers AND Warlocks, but the model I'm creating for my own system (inspired by 5e and PF2) seems to be pushing their classes so close together as to not be distinct enough to buy be full class. So I'm probably creating a problem in my head where there isn't one because I could just do what I said in the previous paragraph. Lol

EDIT: it's also about having them with difference magical sources, [inherent Vs bought] which to me says different classes, but with such similar abilities it's hard to justify not having them as one class...




You COULD have all Charisma-based classes to be called "Sorcerers", or all "Sorcerers" to be utilizing dark arcane energy, but right now, it seems like the question is "How can someone who buys their magic be grouped into Sorcerers (who's identity is that they have inherently magical powers)"?

You can have Draconic-blooded casters and Demon-pact casters be grouped into the same thing, but I think you should then ask what the term "Sorcerer" means in your game. That could mean something as simple as "An Arcane Caster who has magic readily available at their fingertips and uses it on a whim", but just remember that nothing else (Bard, Wizard, Cleric, etc) should have a similar niche without it being grouped into the same class.

[Galithar]

You COULD have all Charisma-based classes to be called "Sorcerers", or all "Sorcerers" to be utilizing dark arcane energy, but right now, it seems like the question is "How can someone who buys their magic be grouped into Sorcerers (who's identity is that they have inherently magical powers)"?

You can have Draconic-blooded casters and Demon-pact casters be grouped into the same thing, but I think you should then ask what the term "Sorcerer" means in your game. That could mean something as simple as "An Arcane Caster who has magic readily available at their fingertips and uses it on a whim", but just remember that nothing else (Bard, Wizard, Cleric, etc) should have a similar niche without it being grouped into the same class.

I'm really early in my brainstorming stage right now, but that's actually heading towards one of my ideas. Fewer base classes. Everyone is generally one of these 4 classes for example (It would probably be closer to 6 in the actual system) But then allowing customization within the class to make two 'Sorcerers' look like different classes all together.

By that Arcane At-Will casters are Sorcerers. That would include Warlocks, Sorcerers, and Bards (using 5e as a base for brainstorm concepts)
Then Divine At-Will casters would be Clerics (Clerics and Paladins)
Prepared Arcane casters are Wizards, which is a direct 1:1 translation
Nature casters are all Druids (Which would include Druids and Rangers)

And now my brain is spinning me so far off my original train of thought I'm beginning to forget why I asked the original question haha

Edit: I'm also probably giving so few details and skipping things which makes me sound like a rambling mad man lol

[John Out West]

Yeah this works fine.

Sorcerers and Warlocks/Witches are extremely similar, in that neither of them deserve their powers. Where Wizards train and study, Sorcerers and Witches get their powers either because they are innately magical or they make a deal to become magical. I would use this as the defining trait of a class that combines them together. If you were combining them together I would probably change the name, as Sorcerer is already heavily established. If you were to call the class a "Talent" or "Magic-User" you'd be able to convey the difference without people getting confused with what they already know.

[Paleomancer]

Interestingly, since the 15th century, the word "sorcerer" meant "a summoner of evil spirits" (aka fiends or unholy undead), so the idea of a pact sorcerer would be consistent with the default Medieval-esque setting of many such games. "Sorcery" itself is thought to have originated as "caster of lots" (someone who petitions the gods for answers through rite and ritual), so you've got a nice link with divine casters as well. Ironically, for being a newer class, the warlock of D&D is a lot closer to the original folklore than the D&D sorcerer has ever been.

See:
https://www.etymonline.com/word/sorcerer
https://www.etymonline.com/word/sorcery

[RedWarlock]

Yeah, most of the terminological flavor you're riding on is a D&D-ism, not a universal truth. 'Warlocks' are those who have pacts with unearthly forces (usually demonic, other pact-sources are another D&Dism), but 'sorcerer' just means 'magic user' in the common lexicon, entirely interchangeable with 'wizard'.

(Look at the Diablo world, for instance. Sorcerers there are the strict, organized casters, as of D2, while d3 established the term wizard to refer to the wilder, more unorthodox user of the same kind of arcane magic.)

It's fine if you want to build from the D&D foundation, just be aware of those preconceptions as you explore outside that world.