What's the difference between Warlock, Sorcerer and Wizard?

[Max_Killjoy]

I believe the PHB is silent on the matter of breaking the pact.

At best, because of the way the PHB describes the Weave and the difference between how arcane spellcasters, including warlocks, and divine spellcasters access it, you probably shouldn't have a warlock get disconnected like a cleric would. Getting killed, and raised as an undead thrall, that's quite different.

My reading of the PHB is that it leaves open the nature of the pact, to the point where it could be a one-time exchange or agreement, with no strings attached and no further involvement by the patron.

[Millstone85]

My reading of the PHB is that it leaves open the nature of the pact, to the point where it could be a one-time exchange or agreement, with no strings attached and no further involvement by the patron.

And how does MToF contradict this? Whatever the deal was, be it a single service or ongoing fealty, the deathlock didn't do their part.

[Max_Killjoy]

And how does MToF contradict this? Whatever the deal was, be it a single service or ongoing fealty, the deathlock didn't do their part.

Seems to imply an ongoing pact, a state of servitude, rather than a one-time exchange or accidental acquisition or other non-servitude situation.

[Millstone85]

Seems to imply an ongoing pact, a state of servitude, rather than a one-time exchange or accidental acquisition or other non-servitude situation.

You will have to explain this to me.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Seems to imply an ongoing pact, a state of servitude, rather than a one-time exchange or accidental acquisition or other non-servitude situation.

Both are possible. The Pact is a very wide-open thing. Some might be ongoing debtor/creditor relationships (I see especially Fiend Pacts in this category), others might be transactional (each level is an addendum to a prior pact and has its own, independent payment), others might not be "traditional" pacts at all. I've got a patron who is known to just randomly empower someone, because he finds the ensuing chaos to be funny. Others take a much more cleric-esque tack--their warlocks are priests of churches devoted to the patron (many of these patrons are Celestial in nature).

Not all "failed warlocks" become Deathlocks--only specific patrons and specific pacts would lead to such a thing. It's just one out of many possibilities.

[Barastur]

Witches are female and Wizards are male.

Witches can be young, old, ugly or hot.

Wizards have to be old.

Sorcerers and their female counterpart are often as powerful as Wizards but younger, less experienced or even arrogant of their powers. The male ones can be both ugly and handsome but are always young or at least younger than a wizard and they often are in odds with barbarians. Females are almost exclusively hot or if not hot they use glamours and charms to appear hot. They often ditch robes in favor of skimpy leather armor.

Warlock is an oath breaker, a bad person who may or may not be supernaturally evil, people often translate it as "A male witch" but witch is a gender neutral term (even if it's often associated with females) and modern day Wicca say Warlock is a degrading offensive term that no one should self identify.

[Segev]

Seems to imply an ongoing pact, a state of servitude, rather than a one-time exchange or accidental acquisition or other non-servitude situation.

Both are possible. The Pact is a very wide-open thing. Some might be ongoing debtor/creditor relationships (I see especially Fiend Pacts in this category), others might be transactional (each level is an addendum to a prior pact and has its own, independent payment), others might not be "traditional" pacts at all. I've got a patron who is known to just randomly empower someone, because he finds the ensuing chaos to be funny. Others take a much more cleric-esque tack--their warlocks are priests of churches devoted to the patron (many of these patrons are Celestial in nature).

Not all "failed warlocks" become Deathlocks--only specific patrons and specific pacts would lead to such a thing. It's just one out of many possibilities.

As PhoenixPhyre says, it sounds like what Mordenkainen is telling us is about Warlocks whose pacts WERE of an ongoing nature, or otherwise required something of them that they reneged on. They have all their powers despite this, but when they die, they rise as deathlocks to fulfil their pact/as a penalty clause.

The PHB leaves open the possibility of a Pact which requires little or can be "paid off" or otherwise be a one-time transaction. If your Warlock has such a pact, he owes his Patron nothing further, and can't "break" it, because he's already fulfilled it. But he also likely doesn't care, because, well, he's got his powers and will keep getting them as he levels.

What Mordenkainen's entry seems to suggest is that there ARE consequences if you have a pact that actually requires you to serve and choose to break it. But they only come up when you die.



This leaves me with an interesting idea for how to exploit this. A Warlock whose Pact was to perform some mutually-agreed-upon ongoing task (e.g. "bodyguard my chosen one for all eternity"). Dying would technically constitute a violation of such a pact, and as long as you really were on the same page as your Patron, this would mean rising as a deathlock is actually a feature of the pact. You're being "punished" for an unwilling violation of it by having the thing getting in the way of you fulfilling it alleviated.

[NovenFromTheSun]

The funny thing is much of this perception comes from recent era work. When you look at truly ancient works, the sorcerer was the good guy because he studied at a college of peers while the wizard was a looked down upon wild magic naturally gifted character who figured it out all on his own. Sorcerer was a PROFESSION in an explicit study of the wondrous arts that rulers didn't understand (modern term is scientist) while wizards were the genius kid who came up with clever parlor tricks that shocked everyone who was too dumb to understand. This is why we use the term wizard in association with people who are naturally talented in an area or pick it up quickly.

Interesting, how far back and what location are we talking? I was under the impression that Greco-Roman culture has a fairly negative view of sorcery.