# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 5e/Next >  Sorcerers are weird

## RSP

Sorcerers are weird when looking at them through the lens of the in-game world. 

They draw their power from innate abilities tied to their bloodline (or direct exposure that affects their blood). So, if we scrap the game mechanics, specifically the class designation, theyre essentially the same as High Elves, Drow, Tieflings, or any other race that gets to cast spells simply from their race. Are the elven racial casters all Fey Bloodline Sorcerers, Tieflings Fiend Bloodline Sorcerers, and Aasimars Celestial Bloodline Sorcerers?

Waterdeep has a guild that polices Arcane casters. How the heck do they differentiate Drow High Magic casting vs being a Sorcerer? Do all High Elves need to join the guild?

Something about this affects immersion (for me at least), in that theres this idea everyone just knows Sorcerers are a class in the game. 

Not sure this is anything but a mini-rant, but curious what yall think of this.

----------


## sithlordnergal

So, if you're looking just at the class designation, then they are similar to races with innate spellcasting. However, I feel like the thing that makes Sorcerers stand out is that their innate casting is more pronounced and stronger. Yeah, all High Elves can cast a bit of magic, but their innate casting is a lot weaker. Your standard Elf/Tiefling/Aasimar has some magic, but that magic is too diluted for them to be considered a Sorcerer. There are ways to increase the magic in one's blood. I'm willing to bet certain ceremonies could be done to supercharge that innate magic, giving you Wild Magic, Clockwork, and Aberrant Mind Sorcerers. Meanwhile odd pairings, like an Elf with a Dragon, or maybe even an Elf and Tiefling, could give their offspring enough innate magic to turn them into some kind of Sorcerer.

As for places like Waterdeep, I suspect they don't require every single Elf/Tiefling/Ect. to register with them because they don't have enough innate magic to be considered a Sorcerer. But I do suspect they would require a test of some sort on every Elf/Tiefling/Ect. in the city to make sure they aren't a Sorcerer. They'd probably be tested after they reach a certain age.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Sorcerers are weird when looking at them through the lens of the in-game world. 
> 
> They draw their power from innate abilities tied to their bloodline (or direct exposure that affects their blood). So, if we scrap the game mechanics, specifically the class designation, theyre essentially the same as High Elves, Drow, Tieflings, or any other race that gets to cast spells simply from their race. Are the elven racial casters all Fey Bloodline Sorcerers, Tieflings Fiend Bloodline Sorcerers, and Aasimars Celestial Bloodline Sorcerers?
> 
> Waterdeep has a guild that polices Arcane casters. How the heck do they differentiate Drow High Magic casting vs being a Sorcerer? Do all High Elves need to join the guild?
> 
> Something about this affects immersion (for me at least), in that theres this idea everyone just knows Sorcerers are a class in the game. 
> 
> Not sure this is anything but a mini-rant, but curious what yall think of this.


I think the problem is this whole "guild that polices Arcane casters" thing. It might have made sense back in 2e when there were only Wizards, but now? Yeah, no.

Personally, I think the culprits here (setting the guild part aside) is _racial casting as some biological trait_. Races shouldn't cast spells _in the fiction_. Races could have _spell-like abilities_ that, mechanically, are modeled by "you can cast X spell Y times per day with Z components" for ease of use. But that's just a mechanical shortcut.

In my personal setting, high elf adults from the only major grouping of high elves in the main play area all can cast at least one cantrip in the normal fashion. That's a rite of passage into adulthood, as the high elves are super magic-obsessed. But if you had a high elf who grew up elsewhere or among others, they may or may not have gotten that training. All other races with racial spells end up with "not-really-spellcasting".

----------


## RSP

> So, if you're looking just at the class designation, then they are similar to races with innate spellcasting. However, I feel like the thing that makes Sorcerers stand out is that their innate casting is more pronounced and stronger. Yeah, all High Elves can cast a bit of magic, but their innate casting is a lot weaker. Your standard Elf/Tiefling/Aasimar has some magic, but that magic is too diluted for them to be considered a Sorcerer. There are ways to increase the magic in one's blood. I'm willing to bet certain ceremonies could be done to supercharge that innate magic, giving you Wild Magic, Clockwork, and Aberrant Mind Sorcerers. Meanwhile odd pairings, like an Elf with a Dragon, or maybe even an Elf and Tiefling, could give their offspring enough innate magic to turn them into some kind of Sorcerer.


But power discrepancies assumes Levels (also a Metagame term, at least to a degree). 

A Drow can cast Darkness and Faerie Fire, and could very well be considered more powerful in magic than a 1st or 2nd level Sorcerer. 

I find it odd that an in-world designation would separate these things, as, Id imagine, theres such a thing as low level Sorcerers in those worlds (and if not, if the only Sorcerers that exist are PCs, then the in-game world shouldnt identify anything do with Sorcerers anyway, and just assume theyre something else).

----------


## sithlordnergal

> But power discrepancies assumes Levels (also a Metagame term, at least to a degree). 
> 
> A Drow can cast Darkness and Faerie Fire, and could very well be considered more powerful in magic than a 1st or 2nd level Sorcerer. 
> 
> I find it odd that an in-world designation would separate these things, as, Id imagine, theres such a thing as low level Sorcerers in those worlds (and if not, if the only Sorcerers that exist are PCs, then the in-game world shouldnt identify anything do with Sorcerers anyway, and just assume theyre something else).


Not really. I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and say even a 1st level Sorcerer has more magic, and stronger magic, that make them standout from a Drow that's powerful enough to cast Darkness and Faerie Fire. This is mostly because of the 1st level Sorcerous Origin features you get. Its hard to deny you're a Sorcerer when you can read minds, have a sheen of dragon scales covering you, are able to impose concepts of order over chaos, have wild magic surges, ect. Its also because by the time Drow are able to cast those spells, they're pretty well established. Or at the very least, they'd be established and known enough that they probably had a visit from the guild to find out if they're a caster or not.

----------


## RSP

> Not really. I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and say even a 1st level Sorcerer has more magic, and stronger magic, that make them standout from a Drow that's powerful enough to cast Darkness and Faerie Fire. This is mostly because of the 1st level Sorcerous Origin features you get. Its hard to deny you're a Sorcerer when you can read minds, have a sheen of dragon scales covering you, are able to impose concepts of order over chaos, have wild magic surges, ect. Its also because by the time Drow are able to cast those spells, they're pretty well established. Or at the very least, they'd be established and known enough that they probably had a visit from the guild to find out if they're a caster or not.


Disagree on stronger power, but definitely disagree on what the public would know about that. If a 1st level AM Sorc is observed doing stuff next to a Drow, the Drow will have more castings a day, of more powerful spells (spell levels are a thing, even if not seen in a world as 1st level, 2nd level, etc. - a first level caster can look at a scroll and have some idea of what they can cast, to some degree - again this makes more sense from the view of a Wizard, but still exists in the in-game world).

The effectiveness of the spell is based on Cha, so that cant really be a determined as, Id imagine, there are higher Cha NPC Drows and lower Cha PC Sorcerers (lowest Cha Ive played is Cha 13). 

What would a level 1 Sorc do thats more powerful than Darkness? Whats the difference to find out if theyre a caster or not? Its not like they ask do you have the Spellcaster class feature.




> I think the problem is this whole "guild that polices Arcane casters" thing. It might have made sense back in 2e when there were only Wizards, but now? Yeah, no.


I agree the Guild isnt well fleshed out, at least what I know of it. 




> Personally, I think the culprits here (setting the guild part aside) is _racial casting as some biological trait_. Races shouldn't cast spells _in the fiction_. Races could have _spell-like abilities_ that, mechanically, are modeled by "you can cast X spell Y times per day with Z components" for ease of use. But that's just a mechanical shortcut.


Well theres certainly a factor in that Spellcasting, being associated with their Bloodline, is kind of a biological trait for the Sorcerer too. I see it similar to what I think youre saying about the racial castings. And this is weird when considering Components, too. Like does a Sorcerer just know what counts as a focus?

It makes sense that a wizard, in their studies, would learn about using a focus, and what is needed to qualify.

But a Sorcerer is going off feel, with their innate magic. Do they just know by touching an amulet or a staff, or whatever, that it can be used as a focus for their magic? Or do they just have innate knowledge that an orb, a crystal, a rod, a specially constructed staff, a wand-like length of wood, or some similar itemdesigned to channel the power of arcane spells will get them where they want to go?

Again, it makes perfect sense that a Wizard would learn in their studies that bat guano is needed to produce Fireball, but how does this translate with a Sorcerer? Or for a Drow, who apparently learns the M component for Dancing Lights and Darkness somehow (even an adopted Drow knows these spells apparently so its not something necessarily passed from parent to child).

----------


## Oramac

> But power discrepancies assumes Levels (also a Metagame term, at least to a degree). 
> 
> A Drow can cast Darkness and Faerie Fire, and could very well be considered more powerful in magic than a 1st or 2nd level Sorcerer. 
> 
> I find it odd that an in-world designation would separate these things, as, Id imagine, theres such a thing as low level Sorcerers in those worlds (and if not, if the only Sorcerers that exist are PCs, then the in-game world shouldnt identify anything do with Sorcerers anyway, and just assume theyre something else).


I would say the thing that separates them, mechanically, are spell _slots_. The sorc has a couple spells and cantrips that it can cast several times per day. The Drow may have more powerful spells (mechanically), but can only cast them _once_. 

In-game, the various sentient beings might view "more uses" as being more powerful, since they don't actually know the (out-of-game) level of the spell.

----------


## Sparky McDibben

> I would say the thing that separates them, mechanically, are spell _slots_.


Yeah, but OP's query is focused entirely on the game world. 

In my world, the folk who are knowledgeable about the arcane know that some groups have certain thematic abilities (e.g., the drow and darkness), while certain individuals are blessed with connections to ancestral power (e.g., sorcerers). So a drow shadow sorcerer could call upon his innate lineage to cast darkness (racial ability), his ties to his grandmother Obsidia, Queen of the Darkened Mirror (subclass ability), or by using their sheer force of personality to compel reality (spell slot).

Side note: I find it's useful to have spell slots be an in-game thing, too. In my world, for example, spells are assigned to a valence, since magic surrounds the world like an atom. Those spells which require energy of a higher valence require more from the caster, and thus indicate a more powerful caster.

So, a caster would not refer to "using a 6th level spell slot," but could say they "uttered a working of the Sixth Valence."

----------


## sithlordnergal

> Disagree on stronger power, but definitely disagree on what the public would know about that. If a 1st level AM Sorc is observed doing stuff next to a Drow, the Drow will have more castings a day, of more powerful spells (spell levels are a thing, even if not seen in a world as 1st level, 2nd level, etc. - a first level caster can look at a scroll and have some idea of what they can cast, to some degree - again this makes more sense from the view of a Wizard, but still exists in the in-game world).
> 
> The effectiveness of the spell is based on Cha, so that cant really be a determined as, Id imagine, there are higher Cha NPC Drows and lower Cha PC Sorcerers (lowest Cha Ive played is Cha 13). 
> 
> What would a level 1 Sorc do thats more powerful than Darkness? Whats the difference to find out if theyre a caster or not? Its not like they ask do you have the Spellcaster class feature.


I mean, I agree that the public at large would not know much about the differences in magic and where magic comes from. If you tossed some random guard or commoner down and asked them to determine who is the sorcerer, a powerful Drow or 1st level Sorcerer, I would expect them to choose the Drow. But we're not really talking about a Commoner or Guard. We're talking about a mage guild, and specifically we're talking about the people in charge of figuring out who is and isn't a Sorcerer. I would expect them to know the different Sorcerous Origins and what sort of power those Origins can bestow. 

Additionally, have they changed Drow at all? Last I checked they can only cast their spells once per Long Rest, just like a 1st level Sorcerer. However, they lack the 5 Cantrips of a Sorcerer, and lack the Origin features of a Sorcerer. Some of which are physical changes, some of which or just innate magical power. I guess "power" is the wrong term to use here. But the fact that Sorcerers have 5 Cantrips, 2 spells, and whatever features their Origins bestow really helps to differentiate between a Sorcerer and a race with innate spells.

----------


## Oramac

> Yeah, but OP's query is focused entirely on the game world.


I know. That's what the second part of my post was addressing. 

In any case, I think we're saying more or less the same thing. Spell slots (mechanically) translate into "using a power of the Sixth Arcanum" or whatever fluff you want to use for the game world. Therefore, the main differentiating factor between a Drow and a Sorc, in-world, would be the amount of use they get from their power (i.e. multiple spell slots vs 1/day racial feature).

----------


## Sparky McDibben

> I know. That's what the second part of my post was addressing. 
> 
> In any case, I think we're saying more or less the same thing. Spell slots (mechanically) translate into "using a power of the Sixth Arcanum" or whatever fluff you want to use for the game world. Therefore, the main differentiating factor between a Drow and a Sorc, in-world, would be the amount of use they get from their power (i.e. multiple spell slots vs 1/day racial feature).


Ah, I misunderstood. Thank you for clarifying! As to your second piece, though, not actually. The spell slot is kind of irrelevant to me in determining a sorcerer in the game world. After all, you could have multiclass characters who can spend spell slots on a variety of effects. 

To me, the thing that makes a sorcerer a sorcerer is the source of their power. If they're using a spell slot, is that slot coming from years of careful study? A pact with an otherworldly being? Music? Or is it coming from an innate connection with a certain type of magical energy (sorcerer!)

This really only matters to other arcanists, of course. To a regular Joe, the type of caster doesn't matter; what matters is that they can burn down your home with a sneeze.

----------


## JadedDM

I guess one way to look at it is this:  High Elves (as an example) are naturally good at swordsmanship (they get proficiency with short and long swords), but only the ones who hone those skills become particularly good at it, like Fighters, Rangers, or any other martial class.  That is, all High Elves are innately born good at swordsmanship, but only those who train and hone their skills would be called true swordsmen.  In the same vein, all High Elves are innately born with sorcery, but only those who train and hone their skills would be called true sorcerers.

----------


## Bobthewizard

I think the guild in Waterdeep would know about classes, even if they don't call them classes. They'd know that some spell casters use books, some use music, and some are gifted their magic through a bloodline or a pact with a stronger being. They could use the term sorcerer to describe anyone who knows their magic without books, music, or a pact. Some people could fool them into thinking they were something else, though. Perhaps a pact of the tome warlock or a sorcerer with the ritual caster feat could pose as a wizard.

The guild would know most spells and could police those spells, making exceptions for those they know are using divine or natural magic. Perhaps a druid hiding their natural magic source and using thunderwave and flaming sphere might draw their attention. 

As a magic guild, I would expect them to know about the innate casting abilities of elves, tieflings and gnomes. They might not require those races to register, but they'd watch the drow for castings of darkness and police that. They might even ask the drow, "can you cast darkness yet?" Or they might require all elves, tieflings and gnomes to register, asking "What is your magical aptitude?"

----------


## Samayu

> Waterdeep has a guild that polices Arcane casters. How the heck do they differentiate Drow High Magic casting vs being a Sorcerer? Do all High Elves need to join the guild?


Are you talking about The Watchful Order? I don't know anything about it, but The Google tells me that "all wizards and sorcerers are required to establish membership." Even without mention of sorcerors right there, I'd say that in this case "wizard" just means non-priest caster. Which means everybody but clerics. Druids, paladins, sorcerers, everyone. I mean, who cares whether you learned your spells from a book, or by trading your services with some dark power? "Can you cast spells? Yes? Are you aligned with a temple? No? OK, you're in." And if were up to me, that "aligned with a temple" part would refer to one of the city's officially recognized orders. Everyone is paying their dues, one way or another.

The wizard vs. cleric split is a holdover from earlier times, and they've had trouble adjusting their terminology to the nonbinary nature of modern practitioners.

----------


## Damon_Tor

Just because you sorcle a little does not make you a sorcerer.

----------


## Unoriginal

The Waterdeep magic "guild" is more a government office that just gives you a "paper saying you can use magic legally", it won't bother more than that unless the person wants to.

And yes, anyone who want to use their innate magic, from the human Commoner who can innately cast Prestidigitation to the Drow Sorcerer who can One-Turn-Kill a young Dragon, got to register if they want to use their magic publicly in an obvious manner. Otherwise the local guards will show up  and at best remind them the guild is waiting for their contribution, at worse prosecute them to the maximum extent of the Waterdavian Legale Code.

----------


## animorte

> Just because you sorcle a little does not make you a sorcerer.


Thats funny and could be said for any number of magic-producing effects from any number of sources.

A long time ago I ran a campaign in which the most prominent establishment had strict laws on the use of magic, while a different competing (and rapidly growing) community welcomed it in all its forms.

The more traditional nation imprisoned anybody that resembled anything even remotely close to magic. The battle-chemist in the party (which would now be similar to Artificer: Alchemist) was immediately arrested for something akin to prestidigitation. They investigated, forced him to show what he was capable of, then kindly escorted him out of town because (even though it wasnt technically magic) it would scare the townsfolk.

----------


## RSP

> To me, the thing that makes a sorcerer a sorcerer is the source of their powerOr is it coming from an innate connection with a certain type of magical energy (sorcerer!)


This is the point: Drow, Tieflings, etc. are also getting it from an innate connection with a certain type of magical energy (their bloodline/ancestry). 

I agree that spell slots exist in some way shape or form, as do spell levels (again though not necessarily referenced as such). 

But, as I understand it, NPCs dont level. a 1st level NPC Sorcerer is a 1st level NPC Sorcerer unless the DM decides theyre going to increase in power for whatever story reasons, and then they do. But in game, just because Joe Smith has innate casting, doesnt mean hes destined to be a 20th level Sorc. He has what he has - leveling is a Metagame thing for PCs. 

Even the NPC Wizards are what they are, with again, very, very few (albeit game world dependent) reaching higher level abilities. 

So Racial casters are the same thing as low-powered Sorcerers: theyre each capable of doing a spell or two a day, using innate casting they got from something magical in their ancestry.




> I guess one way to look at it is this:  High Elves (as an example) are naturally good at swordsmanship (they get proficiency with short and long swords), but only the ones who hone those skills become particularly good at it, like Fighters, Rangers, or any other martial class.  That is, all High Elves are innately born good at swordsmanship, but only those who train and hone their skills would be called true swordsmen.  In the same vein, all High Elves are innately born with sorcery, but only those who train and hone their skills would be called true sorcerers.


The issue with this is that Prof Bonus is more a translation of how good you are at something. A High Elf with Firebolt gets better with magic as they increase in Prof Bonus; same as they get better with a long sword.

A Fighter gets more attacks, but theyre just as proficient with their weapon attacks as an equal leveled Wizard (assuming theyre each using a weapon theyre proficient with).

And yes, whereas there may be a clear power delineation between a powerful Sorcerer and a basic Drow, theres the same power delineation between the powerful Sorcerer and a 1st level Sorcerer.

----------


## Mastikator

I think the difference between innate magic and sorcerers is that a sorcerer can train and expand on their innate magic. If someone trains their innate magic to become better at it then they've become a sorcerer.

----------


## Kane0

If you drained the blood of an elf and the blood of a sorcerer, only one of those would register as magical and be able to be injected into some other compatible humanoid in order to transfer said magic.

Not that I would ever do that.

----------


## Sparky McDibben

> If you drained the blood of an elf and the blood of a sorcerer, only one of those would register as magical and be able to be injected into some other compatible humanoid in order to transfer said magic.
> 
> Not that I would ever do that.


Aaaand that's my next adventure. Thanks!

----------


## Pooky the Imp

> Personally, I think the culprits here (setting the guild part aside) is _racial casting as some biological trait_. Races shouldn't cast spells _in the fiction_. Races could have _spell-like abilities_ that, mechanically, are modeled by "you can cast X spell Y times per day with Z components" for ease of use. But that's just a mechanical shortcut.


This is why it was a mistake to remove Spell-Like Abilities and Supernatural Abilities as defined traits.

----------


## Segev

> If you drained the blood of an elf and the blood of a sorcerer, only one of those would register as magical and be able to be injected into some other compatible humanoid in order to transfer said magic.
> 
> Not that I would ever do that.


I am legitimately curious which one of those it is, in your opinion/setting/DM-call.

----------


## Sorinth

Well High Elf uses Int as a casting stat so I would argue their spellcasting comes from being taught magic like a wizard and not bloodline related.

As to your actual point, I'm not super familiar with the current lore about waterdeep and arcane casting but I would assume the laws are about using Arcane magic and not knowing Arcane magic. So if you don't use your Tiefling magic then you haven't broken laws (But the cops might hassle you anyways because they know you can cast). As an example a Wizard who casts Fireball is guilty of a crime, a high level Rogue who uses a Wand of Fireballs via their Use Magic Device feature is guilty of the same crime.

For me the bigger problem is the arcane vs divine divide that is sometimes there but not really, and with evil gods would be a pointless distinction anyways. I mean you get taken to court for raising an army of undead and your defence is that you were doing it with divine magic in service of an evil god so I should get a lighter punishment then the guy doing the same thing with arcane magic?

----------


## skaddix

I think the issue with Sorcs is more they lack definition because DnD Wizards are behind the time.
Aint no Wizards you see in any other media are so chained to their spellbook. 
Wizard, Sorc, Bard and Warlock all bleed into each other. I think you can easily eliminate one of them.

----------


## Unoriginal

> As to your actual point, I'm not super familiar with the current lore about waterdeep and arcane casting but I would assume the laws are about using Arcane magic and not knowing Arcane magic.


Specifically, the Volo's Waterdeep Enchiridion says: 




> Expect to be questioned at the gate, or when you register with a magister, regarding your ability to cast arcane magic. Wizards, sorcerers, and other arcane spellcasters who intend to stay in Waterdeep for any length of time are required to register with the city, and will be strongly encouraged to join the Watchful Order of Magists and Protectors, headed by the Blackstaff.
> 
> Members of the Watchful Order are expected to render service to the city when called upon, acting as temporary members of the City Watch or City Guard. Their expertise often helps investigators determine whether magic was used to commit a crime in the city. Members can also expect to be tapped for assistance during and after fires, natural events that cause multiple casualties, or other nonmagical disasters.
> 
> Members of the Watchful Order form a more or less sociable association in the city, working together to keep an eye on any spellcasters who opt not to join their guild. Any havoc caused by a spellcaster in Waterdeep risks drawing the wrath of the Lords of Waterdeep-so it behooves the Watchful Order to watch all its members.


So essentially, it's "if you can cast any arcane magic, Waterdeep want you to get your paper rubber-stamped, would like you to join the We-Help-the-City magic organization, and whether you join or not people will be keeping an eye on you."

Do note that Waterdeep is a city where doing something like "brandishing a weapon without due cause" can get you thrown in jail for 10 days.

----------


## Mark Hall

> I guess one way to look at it is this:  High Elves (as an example) are naturally good at swordsmanship (they get proficiency with short and long swords), but only the ones who hone those skills become particularly good at it, like Fighters, Rangers, or any other martial class.  That is, all High Elves are innately born good at swordsmanship, but only those who train and hone their skills would be called true swordsmen.  In the same vein, all High Elves are innately born with sorcery, but only those who train and hone their skills would be called true sorcerers.


Why is that assumed to be an innate trait, not a learned one?

Personally, I figured that high elves learned some basic wizard spells (qv Int-based casting), and were trained in swordsmanship as a matter of course. Keen Senses, Fey Ancestry, maybe Trance are all innate abilities, but weapon training, cantrip, and languages? Those are learned things.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Why is that assumed to be an innate trait, not a learned one?
> 
> Personally, I figured that high elves learned some basic wizard spells (qv Int-based casting), and were trained in swordsmanship as a matter of course. Keen Senses, Fey Ancestry, maybe Trance are all innate abilities, but weapon training, cantrip, and languages? Those are learned things.


Yeah, very much agreed on that matter.

----------


## KyleG

> I think the problem is this whole "guild that polices Arcane casters" thing. It might have made sense back in 2e when there were only Wizards, but now? Yeah, no.
> 
> Personally, I think the culprits here (setting the guild part aside) is _racial casting as some biological trait_. Races shouldn't cast spells _in the fiction_. Races could have _spell-like abilities_ that, mechanically, are modeled by "you can cast X spell Y times per day with Z components" for ease of use. But that's just a mechanical shortcut.
> 
> In my personal setting, high elf adults from the only major grouping of high elves in the main play area all can cast at least one cantrip in the normal fashion. That's a rite of passage into adulthood, as the high elves are super magic-obsessed. But if you had a high elf who grew up elsewhere or among others, they may or may not have gotten that training. All other races with racial spells end up with "not-really-spellcasting".


I've always thought that either these should be not spells, as you say spell like but without vsm. How powerful does that make them do you think?
Either that or they are a cultural thing but that means elves from elsewhere should have other traits.

----------


## RSP

> Why is that assumed to be an innate trait, not a learned one?
> 
> Personally, I figured that high elves learned some basic wizard spells (qv Int-based casting), and were trained in swordsmanship as a matter of course. Keen Senses, Fey Ancestry, maybe Trance are all innate abilities, but weapon training, cantrip, and languages? Those are learned things.


I imagine its because nothing in the trait lists it as dependent on being raised by elves. Its a racial trait, not a learned cultural or societal one. 

RAW, an elf raised by Dwarves still has the trait because theyre an elf.

----------


## Mark Hall

> I imagine its because nothing in the trait lists it as dependent on being raised by elves. Its a racial trait, not a learned cultural or societal one. 
> 
> RAW, an elf raised by Dwarves still has the trait because theyre an elf.


So, dwarves are born as Beer Dwarves, Stone Dwarves, or Metal Dwarves, depending on which innate tool proficiencies they have? A variant human might be born with a crossbow in his hand, indicating that he was divinely ordained to have the Crossbow Expert feat?

"It doesn't say it's not innate"... it also doesn't say it _is_ innate. That is an inference from very bare descriptions, and conflicts with both sense (q.v. Beer Dwarves v. Stone Dwarves) and with the description of what racial traits mean. I direct you to "Racial Traits" on page 17 describes racial abilities as "The description of each race includes racial traits that are *common* to members of that race." Emphasis added. They're not necessarily innate. Just what a member of a given race is most likely to have. So that high elf raised by dwarves? He might have no reason to know long swords. He may have no reason to know cantrips, or even Elven. From a mechanical perspective, he'd be a custom subrace of one.

----------


## Kane0

> Aaaand that's my next adventure. Thanks!


You're welcome




> I am legitimately curious which one of those it is, in your opinion/setting/DM-call.


The sorcerer.
Creatures with 'innate' access to magic can get that from nature and/or nurture in varying amounts based on the particulars of that race (and individual), and of the nature part it may or may not be in the blood or something else (like in the horn of a unicorn for example).
Sorcerers by contrast are much more heavily weighted specifically towards blood with the focus on bloodlines, lineage and whatnot.
You could feasibly extract magic from magically inclined creatures in a variety of ways with varying success, but in this circumstance a blood transfusion will have much better chances of success using a random sorcerer than say, a random tiefling.

Edit: There are of course exceptions, Wild Sorcerers for example are... wildcards.

----------


## RSP

> So, dwarves are born as Beer Dwarves, Stone Dwarves, or Metal Dwarves, depending on which innate tool proficiencies they have? A variant human might be born with a crossbow in his hand, indicating that he was divinely ordained to have the Crossbow Expert feat?
> 
> "It doesn't say it's not innate"... it also doesn't say it _is_ innate. That is an inference from very bare descriptions, and conflicts with both sense (q.v. Beer Dwarves v. Stone Dwarves) and with the description of what racial traits mean. I direct you to "Racial Traits" on page 17 describes racial abilities as "The description of each race includes racial traits that are *common* to members of that race." Emphasis added. They're not necessarily innate. Just what a member of a given race is most likely to have. So that high elf raised by dwarves? He might have no reason to know long swords. He may have no reason to know cantrips, or even Elven. From a mechanical perspective, he'd be a custom subrace of one.


Im not sure why you seem agitated at me: I didnt write the rules. I agree that it makes sense to allow things like the optional rules for character creation in Tashas, but thats not whats in the RAW of High Elves. 

Elven character raised by Dwarves? Still has Elven Weapon Training; still has a Cantrip. Why? Because theyre an high elf, not a dwarf.

----------


## Lokishade

I never liked Sorcs.

The theme of Wizards, has always been "power comes at a cost". Wizards sacrifice everything to unlock the wonders of magic. They have to devote themselves so much to it, they don't have any time left to jog every morning before sword practice. And their social skills usually suffer.

Along comes the Sorcerer, whose powers come at no cost. They're power creep Wizards.

Their magic is innate, so they don't have to carry a fragile spellbook that can get destroyed or stolen. You thought it was about bloodlines or a magical event? No. It was to get rid of a stupid book. Also, they are self-taught, so they don't bow to a master and no league of mages lords over them.

To top is off, their spellcasting stat is charisma, because who want to be an awkward nerd? What, you thought this was because they channel their will? If that were the case, their spellcasting ability would have been Wisdom.

Make no mistake. This is what Sorcerers are about. They weren't built out of a perticular fantasy. They were built as an excuse to bend the rules surrounding the Wizard.

How do you develop your powers? Why do you have to sacrifice your martial proficiency if you don't need to devote time to developing your powers? Are there ceremonies involved? If I drink dragon blood or inject myself with magic crystals, do I get more spells?

The answer to all that seems to be: "Shut up and cast your Fireball".

That's why I never liked Sorcs.

----------


## Bobthewizard

> Im not sure why you seem agitated at me: I didnt write the rules. I agree that it makes sense to allow things like the optional rules for character creation in Tashas, but thats not whats in the RAW of High Elves. 
> 
> Elven character raised by Dwarves? Still has Elven Weapon Training; still has a Cantrip. Why? Because theyre an high elf, not a dwarf.


You can make an elf raised by dwarves and use the dwarf mechanics. Then they wouldn't have the longsword training and wizard cantrip. They'd have proficiency in hammers and axes and medium armor, and be slower than other elves. But you can role-play them as a high elf. 

Or you can make your elf character raised by dwarves and use elf mechanics and say the traits are inborn. Either one is fine. I let the player decide for their character.

----------


## Segev

> I never liked Sorcs.
> 
> The theme of Wizards, has always been "power comes at a cost". Wizards sacrifice everything to unlock the wonders of magic. They have to devote themselves so much to it, they don't have any time left to jog every morning before sword practice. And their social skills usually suffer.
> 
> Along comes the Sorcerer, whose powers come at no cost. They're power creep Wizards.
> 
> Their magic is innate, so they don't have to carry a fragile spellbook that can get destroyed or stolen. You thought it was about bloodlines or a magical event? No. It was to get rid of a stupid book. Also, they are self-taught, so they don't bow to a master and no league of mages lords over them.
> 
> To top is off, their spellcasting stat is charisma, because who want to be an awkward nerd? What, you thought this was because they channel their will? If that were the case, their spellcasting ability would have been Wisdom.
> ...


Well, sorcerers in 3e and 5e have always been weaker casters, mechanically in practice, than wizards, so they aren't actually getting to be "power creep wizards" in real play.

So there's that, at least.

----------


## animorte

> Well, sorcerers in 3e and 5e have always been weaker casters, mechanically in practice, than wizards, so they aren't actually getting to be "power creep wizards" in real play.
> 
> So there's that, at least.


Thats pretty much what I was going to say. Theyre more stream-lined, but weaker in just about every way.

Also, a lot of the circumstances mentioned about the details of Wizards almost rarely see play in whats Ive witnessed and heard. Theres a lot of immersion (and maybe some role-playing) required to account for the worlds different view of Wizards vs other casters.

I prefer Sorcerers. To each their own.

----------


## hiptobecubic

> To top is off, their spellcasting stat is charisma, because who want to be an awkward nerd? What, you thought this was because they channel their will? If that were the case, their spellcasting ability would have been Wisdom.


Definitely disagree. Charisma is a fine stat to use because their magic is an *expression* of themselves. It might have nothing to do with wisdom at all. Wild Magic is almost antithetical to WIS imo. The fact that being charismatic *also* means you're a smooth talking swindler is just a weakness of the simplicity of D&D. Otherwise i think basically only bards would be charisma based.




> How do you develop your powers? Why do you have to sacrifice your martial proficiency if you don't need to devote time to developing your powers? Are there ceremonies involved? If I drink dragon blood or inject myself with magic crystals, do I get more spells?


Just because you didn't learn your magic by reading cookbooks doesn't mean you don't spend your time on it. I would expect sorcerers spend a long time learning to control their innate abilities. Maybe you were born with excellent aim, but you won't make it onto the team without lots of practice.

----------


## RSP

> Just because you didn't learn your magic by reading cookbooks doesn't mean you don't spend your time on it. I would expect sorcerers spend a long time learning to control their innate abilities. Maybe you were born with excellent aim, but you won't make it onto the team without lots of practice.


I get what youre saying, but thats not what innate means. Innate is the opposite of learning through experience.

----------


## Unoriginal

Sorcerers have the innate capacity for magic, that does not mean they don't have to train it.

Same way as most humans have the innate capacity for making complexe sounds, recognizing sound patterns, and associating said patterns with specific ideas/concepts, but we still require to learn a language to communicate with others, and will have to learn *even* more in order to produce what is considered poetry by our specific cultures.

To be more specific: all 5e Sorcerers are born with the capacity to turn sorcery points into spell slots, and the reverse. If they train that capacity they learn to use sorcery points *when* they spend a spell slot in order to modify the spell's parameters.

----------


## RSP

> Sorcerers have the innate capacity for magic, that does not mean they don't have to train it.
> 
> Same way as most humans have the innate capacity for making complexe sounds, recognizing sound patterns, and associating said patterns with specific ideas/concepts, but we still require to learn a language to communicate with others, and will have to learn *even* more in order to produce what is considered poetry by our specific cultures.
> 
> To be more specific: all 5e Sorcerers are born with the capacity to turn sorcery points into spell slots, and the reverse. If they train that capacity they learn to use sorcery points *when* they spend a spell slot in order to modify the spell's parameters.


All characters have the innate _capacity_ for magic. Training it is what creates Wizards. You dont need to have magic born in you to do magic. Non-innate casters can become Clerics, Druids, Wizards, Bards, EKs, etc. 

Sorcerers have it sans training. Thats what innate means. Or as stated in the PHB: No one chooses sorcery; the power chooses the sorcerer. If you choose not to train, youre still a Sorcerer.

----------


## Keltest

> All characters have the innate _capacity_ for magic. Training it is what creates Wizards. You dont need to have magic born in you to do magic. Non-innate casters can become Clerics, Druids, Wizards, Bards, EKs, etc. 
> 
> Sorcerers have it sans training. Thats what innate means. Or as stated in the PHB: No one chooses sorcery; the power chooses the sorcerer. If you choose not to train, youre still a Sorcerer.


Sure, youre just a level 1 sorcerer. Humans have the innate capacity to throw things far and accurately. Doesnt mean every human is equally good at it, or that we dont improve our innate abilities through practice.

----------


## hiptobecubic

> Sure, youre just a level 1 sorcerer. Humans have the innate capacity to throw things far and accurately. Doesnt mean every human is equally good at it, or that we dont improve our innate abilities through practice.


Right. I don't understand why someone would see "innate" as "incapable of refinement." Wizards learn to make all the famous dishes by reading The Joy of Cooking. Sorcerers learn to make their own unique dishes by following their intuition in the kitchen, but that doesn't mean they are born knowing what all their favorite dishes will be.

----------


## Mark Hall

> Im not sure why you seem agitated at me: I didnt write the rules. I agree that it makes sense to allow things like the optional rules for character creation in Tashas, but thats not whats in the RAW of High Elves. 
> 
> Elven character raised by Dwarves? Still has Elven Weapon Training; still has a Cantrip. Why? Because theyre an high elf, not a dwarf.


That is not the RAW; that's the suggested. I cited a part of the book that specifically says that is just the common, not innate and necessary. That High Elves have those as innate abilities is an interpretation not supported by the text.

----------


## Slipjig

It's a holdover from a previous edition that no longer fits the current mechanics.  You also have to ask whether Eldritch Knights, Arcane Tricksters, and Bards have to get their papers stamped, too.  It's the same issue you have with the Tower of High Sorcery in DL.

Personally, I'd rule that they don't care about you until you are casting Level 2+ spells in public, but that everybody who casts those spells has to register.  Yes, that includes all Elves over a certain level, but I think the Elves resenting (or resisting) that could be an interesting plot point.

----------


## Unoriginal

> All characters have the innate _capacity_ for magic. Training it is what creates Wizards. You donÂt need to have magic born in you to do magic. Non-innate casters can become Clerics, Druids, Wizards, Bards, EKs, etc. 
> 
> Sorcerers have it sans training. ThatÂs what innate means. Or as stated in the PHB: ÂNo one chooses sorcery; the power chooses the sorcerer.Â If you choose not to train, youÂre still a Sorcerer.


As I wrote in the post you're quoting, all Sorcerers are born with the capacity to turn sorcery points (their own internal spark of magic) into spell slots (the abstraction for how much a character can interract with the Weave to activate spells before needing to rest), and the reverse. 

That's something no other can do.

A Sorcerer can then train that further, learning how to use their sorcery points while they are casting to modify the spell on the fly, which is what Metamagic is. 

Metamagic is 100% something that they learn to do, since anyone can learn it to some extent as shown with the Metamagic Adept feat. But not only the weakest Sorcerer has more of the spark of magic that what can be achieved otherwise (a Metamagic Adept gaining 2 sorcery points to use metamagic with, and that's it), no one can replicate the Sorcerer's "sorcery point to spell slot to sorcery point" innate capacity.

High Elves can't do it, Drow can't do it, Tieflings and Aasimar can't do it. 

A Wizard needs to train for years to shoot fire from their fingers, when a Sorcerer can just do it thanks to being a Sorcerer. BOTH the Wizard and the Sorcerer needs to train to be able to cast Polymorph, via different methods of course, and no matter how much he trains the Wizard will never be able to Twin Polymorph's effect as often as the Sorcerer can.

----------


## Witty Username

I mean the whole idea of magic having regulation is to prevent its reckless use, 
It shouldn't matter how one is able to do it.
I would just require the innate casting races to register, heck, for things like Tiefling and Drow,  it makes sense that you may have some extra bureaucracy on the boarder given your a low reputation race.

Clerics, druids, etc. Are exempt because of strong religious lobbies.

----------


## Keltest

> Clerics, druids, etc. Are exempt because of strong religious lobbies.


And even that implies the religious lobbies are in turn regulating the behavior of clerics to allow that kind of trust. So it's not necessarily no regulation, just a different group.

----------


## Mark Hall

> It's a holdover from a previous edition that no longer fits the current mechanics.  You also have to ask whether Eldritch Knights, Arcane Tricksters, and Bards have to get their papers stamped, too.  It's the same issue you have with the Tower of High Sorcery in DL.


AD&D Tower of High Sorcery would have worked so much better if they put the requirement for the test be "Able to Cast 3rd level spells", rather than "After you can cast 1 2nd level spell, for some reason." If you had to pass the test to go from 4 to 5 without becoming a renegade, then you could have also made bards past the test to go from 6 to 7 (when they get 3rd level spells)

----------


## Witty Username

> Sorcerers have the innate capacity for magic, that does not mean they don't have to train it.
> 
> Same way as most humans have the innate capacity for making complexe sounds, recognizing sound patterns, and associating said patterns with specific ideas/concepts, but we still require to learn a language to communicate with others, and will have to learn *even* more in order to produce what is considered poetry by our specific cultures.
> 
> To be more specific: all 5e Sorcerers are born with the capacity to turn sorcery points into spell slots, and the reverse. If they train that capacity they learn to use sorcery points *when* they spend a spell slot in order to modify the spell's parameters.





> All characters have the innate _capacity_ for magic. Training it is what creates Wizards. You dont need to have magic born in you to do magic. Non-innate casters can become Clerics, Druids, Wizards, Bards, EKs, etc. 
> 
> Sorcerers have it sans training. Thats what innate means. Or as stated in the PHB: No one chooses sorcery; the power chooses the sorcerer. If you choose not to train, youre still a Sorcerer.



This dichotomy is probably the biggest reason I dislike sorcerer from a thematic standpoint, first the concept of training is fundamental to the class and level system. So sorcerer must have to train and hone their skills, but they are defined as innate power without needing to study or learn. This has a gap to hide in, the concept of talent vs study and practice, but this thematic split simply confuses the identity of both sorcerer and wizard, as the sorcerer mechanics convey conceptually the gains of iteration and improved understanding (Metamagic). It amounts to the only thematic take away for sorcerer is "The Stupid Wizard"

I honestly think a lot of setting design works better with the removal of the sorcerer, with the possibility of some of its mechanics being reabsorbed into the Wizard, either as base class features or a subclass. Bard is a much more thematic fit for charisma spellcasting, and Warlock has a better mechanical base for being an innate caster anyway (If one wanted to go that route).

----------


## Gignere

> This dichotomy is probably the biggest reason I dislike sorcerer from a thematic standpoint, first the concept of training is fundamental to the class and level system. So sorcerer must have to train and hone their skills, but they are defined as innate power without needing to study or learn. This has a gap to hide in, the concept of talent vs study and practice, but this thematic split simply confuses the identity of both sorcerer and wizard, as the sorcerer mechanics convey conceptually the gains of iteration and improved understanding (Metamagic). It amounts to the only thematic take away for sorcerer is "The Stupid Wizard"
> 
> I honestly think a lot of setting design works better with the removal of the sorcerer, with the possibility of some of its mechanics being reabsorbed into the Wizard, either as base class features or a subclass. Bard is a much more thematic fit for charisma spellcasting, and Warlock has a better mechanical base for being an innate caster anyway (If one wanted to go that route).


I think a better analogy to compare the differences between the innate magic of the sorcerer and the technical study of magic of wizards is cooking. 

The chef that creates great dishes without any precision versus the food scientist that also create food but following exact formulas.

Does the current iteration of 5e sorcerer and wizards make that distinction? Probably not enough. I feel that at a minimum sorcerers should have the former metamagic feat eschew materials, in that sorcerers should not require a component pouch or even focus to cast, unless the spell calls for a material component with a cost. 

Another thing Id like for the sorcerer is even less spells known but way more metamagic and easier access to metamagic. As well as the ability to change the V,S components of the spells like maybe for this sorcerer they have to have S components for all spells regardless of the original requirements unless they use subtle. 

I feel like the design space for sorcerers should be they create spectacular effects innately and on their own terms but of course like the chef that cooks by intuition still need training to become a master chef, the sorcerer would similarly need training to access more powerful spell effects/metamagic effects. Perhaps their training is much less formal than a wizard and is more like self practice and less schooling.

----------


## animorte

I agree that Bards already cover the Charisma casting well enough.




> Another thing Id like for the sorcerer is even less spells known but way more metamagic and easier access to metamagic.


Id be absolutely fine with this and I already like Sorcerers.




> Perhaps their training is much less formal than a wizard and is more like self practice and less schooling.


Well said. Ive always felt this way too. Just because you dont study in the books to improve and expand doesnt mean you arent passionate about what youre doing.

----------


## Psyren

> So, dwarves are born as Beer Dwarves, Stone Dwarves, or Metal Dwarves, depending on which innate tool proficiencies they have? A variant human might be born with a crossbow in his hand, indicating that he was divinely ordained to have the Crossbow Expert feat?
> 
> "It doesn't say it's not innate"... it also doesn't say it _is_ innate. That is an inference from very bare descriptions, and conflicts with both sense (q.v. Beer Dwarves v. Stone Dwarves) and with the description of what racial traits mean. I direct you to "Racial Traits" on page 17 describes racial abilities as "The description of each race includes racial traits that are *common* to members of that race." Emphasis added. They're not necessarily innate. Just what a member of a given race is most likely to have. So that high elf raised by dwarves? He might have no reason to know long swords. He may have no reason to know cantrips, or even Elven. From a mechanical perspective, he'd be a custom subrace of one.


This is correct. Adding to your quote from PHB 17, we have concrete rules showing that not every member of a given race is guaranteed to get all the racials listed in their entry. The _PCs_ do, because adventurers are assumed to be special by default in 5e (see DMG 37), but the NPCs aren't guaranteed to have these. 

For example, MM 342 provides the specific example of taking the Druid statblock and making it a Halfling, but that NPC Halfling is shown to only get the Lucky trait from their race, not Nimbleness or Brave like a PC Halfling would. Similarly, the NPC creation rules on DMG 282 provide suggested racial traits that NPCs can be customized with, and the list does not include every feature from that race's entry - Half-Orc NPCs in the table for example get Menacing and Relentless but not Savage Attacks, and Dwarves get Stonecunning and Resilience but not Combat Training etc.

Essentially, the common features are not all guaranteed for every member of a race, so extrapolating backward from them to conclude "every feature in the race entry must be wholly innate/divine and not involve training, culture, or even variable talent at all" is not supported by the rules. Elves, Tieflings et al can in fact vary in racial magical capability just like they can from class.

----------


## animorte

> Essentially, the common features are not all guaranteed for every member of a race, so extrapolating backward from them to conclude "every feature in the race entry must be wholly innate/divine and not involve training, culture, or even variable talent at all" is not supported by the rules.


I very much like this sentence. It supports my statement a while back on that thread about players opening the monster manual at the table. Just because a basic stat-block says this thing does not logically conclude that everyone of that particular race species shares influence in their history. Everybody is allowed to be at least a little bit different.

----------


## Witty Username

> Well said. Ive always felt this way too. Just because you dont study in the books to improve and expand doesnt mean you arent passionate about what youre doing.


I dont disagree with the sentiment, so much as self-practice feels thematically wizard to me. In-deapth knowledge and an exacting nature does not require schooling in any formal sense.
My last wizard I concepted was a goblin book-thief that realized he could use arcane power in the same way as the book he stole described, for example.

But this kinda speaks to my sense of confusion, there shouldn't be a line between sorcerer and wizard so much as a gradient, like the chef analogy, many chefs I have known are at times very exacting, and others very freeform, as their mood allows and depending on what they are working with.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

To me, a sorcerer's _access to spells_ comes from within. They don't _learn_ spells, they _master_ the ones that are already latent inside of them. Their training isn't _learning_ or _study_, it's _self-mastery_. They train to, with their will, bring the spell into being fully (instead of misfiring/fizzling). A teacher or book can guide, give advice, but isn't actually a source of the spells themselves. The spells are inside them, the struggle is to make them useful. Their understanding of magic is instinctive, driven by emotion and passion. They learn about components via trial and error, instinct, and yes, books (especially for material components). But those are more "hey, other people tried this. Let's try that too" instead of actually understanding _why_ those components matter.

On the other hand, a wizard's source of spells is external. They learn them from books, from teachers, from private research. They are an empty vessel that can only be filled by dint of hard intellectual labor. Their understanding of magic is intellectual and "cold" (for lack of a better term). Based on first principles and practice. Being able to learn from others is a benefit that (in a sane world where wizards weren't "I cast all the spells") would also have tradeoffs. Broader range, in exchange for, well...not much. But that's an issue with wizards, not sorcerers.

Both access the same fundamental method of altering the universe (which is why both need the same types of components). And why they can cast similar spells.

Warlocks, on the other hand, cheat. They neither do the first principles understanding themselves _nor_ have the magic indwelling in them. They bargain for scraps of other people's knowledge and the capability to control it. Their power is not theirs (even if their patron cannot withdraw it), although some later come into a stronger understanding of things themselves.

----------


## Snowbluff

> They draw their power from innate abilities tied to their bloodline (or direct exposure that affects their blood). So, if we scrap the game mechanics, specifically the class designation, theyre essentially the same as High Elves, Drow, Tieflings, or any other race that gets to cast spells simply from their race. Are the elven racial casters all Fey Bloodline Sorcerers, Tieflings Fiend Bloodline Sorcerers, and Aasimars Celestial Bloodline Sorcerers?


Because you're right on the money. Sorcs are basically suped up versions of the casting certain creatures get innately. Not unlike a dragon or a demon, a sorcerer is a monster. This is also reflected in their casting stat, which is lost on some people.

Charisma is the stat of influence, but it also extends to the metaphysical level. This is the stat of innate spellcasting. It's not about being pretty, or speaking well, but rather impacting your surroundings. For ordinary people, this is merely being able to influence people socially, but for a monster or sorcerer, this effect is far more tangible. For example an atropal, which is pretty horrifying and grotesque in ways immediately apparent but also existentially, has a huge charisma score (although ironically IIIRC they're wis casters in 5e).

----------


## EggKookoo

One of the things I'd do with future-D&D -- something that people almost certainly would hate -- is get rid of the wizard class and make "wizard" a subclass of sorcerer. A wizard would be a sorc whose inherent arcane powers are present, but weak. So the sorc needs to bolster that power with some book-learning.

It would take retooling sorcery points so that the bulk of them come from your subclass, and the wizard subclass doesn't add to them, but that's a small change in context.

----------


## Spore

> Waterdeep has a guild that polices Arcane casters. How the heck do they differentiate Drow High Magic casting vs being a Sorcerer? Do all High Elves need to join the guild?


This is some advanced governmental control, so I would say they do not differentiate. I as a DM would go one step beyond and have said races be categorized as arcanists, with everything that comes with it. Registration, laws and punishments, and prejudices. 

Law sees the deed, not the source.

----------


## RSP

> One of the things I'd do with future-D&D -- something that people almost certainly would hate -- is get rid of the wizard class and make "wizard" a subclass of sorcerer. A wizard would be a sorc whose inherent arcane powers are present, but weak. So the sorc needs to bolster that power with some book-learning.
> 
> It would take retooling sorcery points so that the bulk of them come from your subclass, and the wizard subclass doesn't add to them, but that's a small change in context.


I dont know that Id like the approach of rolling Sorc and Wiz together. I like 5e having differences in the how a character became a caster. 

Id actually probably like to see more separating them. Mechanically, I think the point of failure between Sorc and Wiz, what typically Ive seen here as Sorcerer is just a worse Wizard, is that they need more distinction. 

I personally like having Sorcerers use the Spell Point Variant (in lieu of Font of Magic, to help the mechanical class distinction. 

So youd have Sorcerers with Spell Points, being different from Warlocks with Pact Magic, and Wizards with their current system. 

In the in-game fiction, this would create differences in how those characters do magic. A Warlock cant help but do big bursts of magic, Sorcerers pull from their pool of strength in whatever ways are needed, and Wizards are beholden to the structure of their learned ways. 

Id even probably make it canon that the same magic effect can be accomplished multiple ways. As is, the rules are silent on whether, say, every Fireball requires the same S movements or the same V sounds. (This adds to the whole weirdness of Sorcerers if theyre all supposed to be the same V and S components, in my opinion.)

Just my thoughts on this, and my preference in more interesting options rather than less.

----------


## Mark Hall

> Waterdeep has a guild that polices Arcane casters. How the heck do they differentiate Drow High Magic casting vs being a Sorcerer? Do all High Elves need to join the guild?


Bear in mind, the Watchful Order of Magist & Protectors dates back to the "Waterdeep and the North" supplement, published in 1987 (likely earlier, since Ed has been working on the Realms forever, but that's when it was published). In 1e, it was a lot easier to keep track of the magic-users and the illusionists, instead of the wizards and the sorcerers and the bards and the warlocks and the eldritch knights and the artificers and the arcane tricksters and so on. 

And, at least in 1e, they didn't "Control" so much as "influence and suggest." They can't go up to the Blackstaff and say "You didn't pay your dues, you can't do magic in the city", but they can say "Hey, can you avoid doing flashy and dangerous magic in the streets, so we don't wind up hated?" And they can go to less powerful mages and say "Hey, we can hook you up with information and jobs, provided you pay your dues and don't blow up anything you're not supposed to."

It's quite clear in this 35 year old book, about a city with another 10+ supplements written about it over the past four decades.  :Small Wink:

----------


## BRC

My personal headcanon is that Spellcasting is a process that is known and understood in-universe, All spellcasting follows this process.

A Spellcaster draws magical energy from a source, shapes it, and then releases it as the Spell. 

For Clerics, the Source is their Deity, like sticking a stick into a bonfire to make a torch.

Wizards draw upon ambient magic, or use faint traces of magic within spell components and arcane foci to produce spells, like slathering a stick in oil and lighting it off a candle. 

Sorcerors magical source is innate, but they still follow the same process, even if they don't necessarily understand it fully. 

Warlock Invocations and Racial SLAs are "Abilities", rather than Spellcasting, since they don't follow this process, they don't consciously shape the magic, they just hit a button. It's like the difference between cooking a pizza from scratch and heating up a frozen pizza. Activating a "Wand of Fireball" isn't Spellcasting for the same reason.

(Warlocks, for there part, are closer to Magic Items than Sorcerors under this logic).

----------


## Psyren

> Bear in mind, the Watchful Order of Magist & Protectors dates back to the "Waterdeep and the North" supplement, published in 1987 (likely earlier, since Ed has been working on the Realms forever, but that's when it was published). In 1e, it was a lot easier to keep track of the magic-users and the illusionists, instead of the wizards and the sorcerers and the bards and the warlocks and the eldritch knights and the artificers and the arcane tricksters and so on. 
> 
> And, at least in 1e, they didn't "Control" so much as "influence and suggest." They can't go up to the Blackstaff and say "You didn't pay your dues, you can't do magic in the city", but they can say "Hey, can you avoid doing flashy and dangerous magic in the streets, so we don't wind up hated?" And they can go to less powerful mages and say "Hey, we can hook you up with information and jobs, provided you pay your dues and don't blow up anything you're not supposed to."
> 
> It's quite clear in this 35 year old book, about a city with another 10+ supplements written about it over the past four decades.


This. They're not the Towers of High Sorcery or the Mutant Registration Act hunting down renegades, they're more like a magic DMV slash fire department slash school. 

The more recent 3.5 book _Waterdeep City of Splendors_ (2005) says this about them:




> The Watchful Order encourages prudence in the use of the Art so that arcane spellcasters will be respected and looked up to, not feared and actively opposed. Effectively, it polices less powerful arcane spellcasters who reside in or visit the city, actively discouraging them from throwing spells around to influence the populace.
> 
> Since many powerful arcane spellcasters are not members of the Watchful Order, the guild uses its influence to mitigate their most egregious behavior as well...members of the guild can find regular employ as fire guards and spell guards.

----------


## RSP

> Bear in mind, the Watchful Order of Magist & Protectors dates back to the


Apologies if my mentioning the Order sidetracked the thread: Im not overly concerned with it or their history, I just used them as an example of an interested in-world entity that wouldnt be able to distinguish between a 1st level Sorc and a Drow. 

Any person or organization interested in casters or magic users, Id imagine, would have difficulty making such distinctions.

----------


## Psyren

> Apologies if my mentioning the Order sidetracked the thread: Im not overly concerned with it or their history, I just used them as an example of an interested in-world entity that wouldnt be able to distinguish between a 1st level Sorc and a Drow. 
> 
> Any person or organization interested in casters or magic users, Id imagine, would have difficulty making such distinctions.


What we're telling you though is that the distinction doesn't actually matter. A spell is a spell is a spell, especially in 5e which doesn't have SLAs; and a "magic crimes unit" would likely be engaged whether it was a bard who charmed their way past a guard with their class, a feral tiefling using their racial, someone with an aberrant dragonmark etc.

----------


## Mark Hall

> Apologies if my mentioning the Order sidetracked the thread: Im not overly concerned with it or their history, I just used them as an example of an interested in-world entity that wouldnt be able to distinguish between a 1st level Sorc and a Drow. 
> 
> Any person or organization interested in casters or magic users, Id imagine, would have difficulty making such distinctions.





> What we're telling you though is that the distinction doesn't actually matter. A spell is a spell is a spell, especially in 5e which doesn't have SLAs; and a "magic crimes unit" would likely be engaged whether it was a bard who charmed their way past a guard with their class, a feral tiefling using their racial, someone with an aberrant dragonmark etc.


Actually, what I'm saying is that the field has changed significantly since it was codified (not that you're wrong, just that wasn't my thrust).

In 1e, arcane spellcasters were magic-users and illusionists. There were no sorcerers or warlocks. Bards were divine casters. Both magic-users and illusionists require spellbooks, ink, material components... lots of things that are relatively easy to keep an eye on. Blank spellbook and a lot of ink? Probably a spellcaster. Persnickety about vellum? Good chance they're a spellcaster. In 2e, you add bards, but they've got the same sort of limitations.

But 3e and later? You start adding classes, many of which don't have those limitations. A sorcerer, a bard, other classes and prestige classes... many of these avoid the limitations of a wizard-type-caster.

----------


## Psyren

> Actually, what I'm saying is that the field has changed significantly since it was codified (not that you're wrong, just that wasn't my thrust).
> 
> In 1e, arcane spellcasters were magic-users and illusionists. There were no sorcerers or warlocks. Bards were divine casters. Both magic-users and illusionists require spellbooks, ink, material components... lots of things that are relatively easy to keep an eye on. Blank spellbook and a lot of ink? Probably a spellcaster. Persnickety about vellum? Good chance they're a spellcaster. In 2e, you add bards, but they've got the same sort of limitations.
> 
> But 3e and later? You start adding classes, many of which don't have those limitations. A sorcerer, a bard, other classes and prestige classes... many of these avoid the limitations of a wizard-type-caster.


And there was no real racial spellcasting back then either, which is the core of the discussion - groups that keep tabs on magic users didn't worry about "high elves" because being a high elf didn't really give you anything magically beyond talent.

----------


## Segev

> And there was no real racial spellcasting back then either, which is the core of the discussion - groups that keep tabs on magic users didn't worry about "high elves" because being a high elf didn't really give you anything magically beyond talent.


Drow always had racial spells or spell-like abilities.

----------


## paladinn

When sorcerers were introduced in 3e, I actually jumped for joy.  For all their limitations, at least here was a chance to be a caster and Not be bound by "fire-and-forget."  And for years, if I was a caster, I was a sorcerer.  Then when the favored soul was intro'ed, the same thing could apply to divine casters!  Now in 5e, of course, all casters are "spontaneous" and sorcerers don't seem as special.

From my initial understanding, wizards got their magic through study, while sorcerer magic was more "innate", requiring the sorc to have something "different" in his/her background, a connection to something that went beyond wizardry.  I thought it was a great idea because it opened-up magic to creatures that were obviously magical but not studious (like dragons) or less-civilized races that weren't know to be readers.  But the immediate application that came to mind was elves, who were always supposed to be inherently magical.  There would be room for studious elves to be wizards; but All elves had at least Some magic, and sorcery could express that.  Same with gnomes.  Unfortunately that never developed, and wizard continued to be the elven "favored class."

----------


## Asmotherion

Sorcerers are probably my favorite class flavor wise. You are born with power in your bloodline, and you inherit this power. Streightforward and cool. 

I am more bothered by the Wizard as a class (Not that I don't love the class, I do, but I will rant about it either way). The implication is that either:

A) Everyone with the appropriate intellect can become a Wizard, and if so, society should at least be full of Wizard Schools. or
B) Only those who have both intelect and magical aptitude can become Wizards, which blurs the line between Sorcerers and Wizards. 

In the first case, which implies either that most people are not that bright or that they have more interesting things to do (than, I don't know, make the laws of science their plaything), it is implied that the social place of a Wizard is regarded as something not so sought after, otherwise everyone would at least try to become one. This makes some sence, since not everyone in this world becomes an accademic, despite the fact it has a higher probability to grant them a higher paying job. It still bothers me somehow, but I can get behind the idea at least. 

In the seccond case, some sort of inheritory trait passes down from generation to generation, that enables one to do magic. You could say that magic is in your Bloodline. Which sounds awefully familiar, considering this is the description of a Sorcerer. Are Sorcerers just Self Taught Wizards that never attended Wizard School? If so, why would they not? Or does the Sorcerer win the Genetic Lottery by both having the "Spark of magic" AND the power to inherently cast spells? Is the Wizard a Sorcerer without the power to inherently cast spells and that's why they have to dedicate years to learning magical theory before they can manifest the simplest cantrip? 

Also, on Racial Abilities; Yes, I believe that races that have Inherent Casting of some spells are considered to be a Magical Bloodline, and thus are alike Sorcerers in that matter, but with limited potency in their Bloodline.

----------


## Witty Username

> Id actually probably like to see more separating them. Mechanically, I think the point of failure between Sorc and Wiz, what typically Ive seen here as Sorcerer is just a worse Wizard, is that they need more distinction.


I dont mind them having more distinction, I am just not sure about the tenability given this isn't a new problem, so much as a problem since the introduction of the sorcerer in 3rd edition.

Because of how my coments can be construed, I want to be clear, when I say "stupid", I don't mean "worse", I mean stupid in the literal sense. I.E a sorcerer is a wizard of low intelligence. It is a comment that the only strong distinction between them is the casting stat.

----------


## Psyren

> Drow always had racial spells or spell-like abilities.


Even if they did in the same way those terms are used today, as the thread is asking about this concept in-universe, various setting organizations were likely keeping tabs on Drow in their cities for other reasons so it's likely moot.

----------


## BRC

> Sorcerers are probably my favorite class flavor wise. You are born with power in your bloodline, and you inherit this power. Streightforward and cool. 
> 
> I am more bothered by the Wizard as a class (Not that I don't love the class, I do, but I will rant about it either way). The implication is that either:
> 
> A) Everyone with the appropriate intellect can become a Wizard, and if so, society should at least be full of Wizard Schools. or
> B) Only those who have both intelect and magical aptitude can become Wizards, which blurs the line between Sorcerers and Wizards. 
> 
> In the first case, which implies either that most people are not that bright or that they have more interesting things to do (than, I don't know, make the laws of science their plaything), it is implied that the social place of a Wizard is regarded as something not so sought after, otherwise everyone would at least try to become one. This makes some sence, since not everyone in this world becomes an accademic, despite the fact it has a higher probability to grant them a higher paying job. It still bothers me somehow, but I can get behind the idea at least. 
> 
> ...




My take is that the first case is technically true, but it doesn't quite resolve as wizards being everywhere.

Start with the fact that PC's are exceptional, and in a pre-printing press world, books are rare, so arcane knowledge is expensive and hard to come by. Becoming a Wizard is an investment of time at least equivalent to learning any other trade, but more expensive and harder to find an apprenticeship for. Every decently sized town will have a blacksmith who could teach you to make horseshoes. 

Second fact: given that your average person is not a PC, they have no guarantee of reaching "Physics is my plaything" levels of arcane mastery. A novice blacksmith can still make a living making pots and pans and horseshoes, and in the process become a more skilled blacksmith. 

A novice Wizard on the other hand? I guess they could ritual cast Unseen Servant a bunch to do some light mechanical labor? Otherwise, they only get to cast a few real spells each day. If you're not independently wealthy, you can't really afford to study the arcane full-time, and your novice-wizard skillset isn't going to make you much of a living. By D&D rules, most of the things a low-level wizard is well suited for involves risking your life, and yeah, that's a good way to get REAL good at magic real fast, but not everybody is going to want to go risk getting stabbed by goblins for a paycheck. 


The result is that Wizardry is limited to those either wealthy enough to pursue studying it full-time until such a point as they can start justifying charging people for their services, probably around when they get 3rd level spells and can enter the employ of a noble or wealthy merchant who benefits from having a few Sending spells per day, OR people desperate enough to take their spellbook into the wilderness, risking life and limb, hoping that their basic grasp of the arcane is going to keep them alive.

Most people smart enough to become Wizards are probably ALSO smart enough to realize that pottery and blacksmithing is a far better proposition, even if they don't quite lead to the same heights of power.

And because wizards are rare, it's not like you can just find "Magic 101" books lying around. Even if you ARE inclined to become a Wizard, it's not easy to get started.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

My default take on the wizard issue is 

a) "wizard spellcasting" (ie learning to cast spells using books, etc) is possible for everyone
b) but the effort and time investment required puts it out of reach for most people.

Specifically with (b) there are two issues
a) learning how to learn spells is hard. Unless you're specially talented (in the "really high IQ/special mindset" bent, not the "bloodline flag" sense), that alone takes a few years of solid, mostly uninterrupted work.
b) for everyone without special talent, opening spell slots at all is difficult and time consuming. And requires peace and quiet and practice/meditation/dedication (depending on approach).

So for a commoner to learn even the simplest wizard spell, he'd have to give up half a decade, pay a crap-ton out of pocket just for quiet stable living conditions, plus have a teacher.

PCs are among the special talented people who can open spell slots and pick up new tricks way faster than most, without needing several years of cloistered quiet and dedication.

----------


## BRC

> My default take on the wizard issue is 
> 
> a) "wizard spellcasting" (ie learning to cast spells using books, etc) is possible for everyone
> b) but the effort and time investment required puts it out of reach for most people.
> 
> Specifically with (b) there are two issues
> a) learning how to learn spells is hard. Unless you're specially talented (in the "really high IQ/special mindset" bent, not the "bloodline flag" sense), that alone takes a few years of solid, mostly uninterrupted work.
> b) for everyone without special talent, opening spell slots at all is difficult and time consuming. And requires peace and quiet and practice/meditation/dedication (depending on approach).
> 
> ...


I view it like this
A 1st level sorcerer could represent somebody who woke up a month ago with the ability to cast spells, and has spent their spare hours experimenting with that until they got a few neat tricks done reliably. 

A 1st-level wizard is somebody who has spent at minimum a year in study before they can grasp the basics of spellcasting enough to reliably cast cantrips.

----------


## RSP

> Because of how my coments can be construed, I want to be clear, when I say "stupid", I don't mean "worse", I mean stupid in the literal sense. I.E a sorcerer is a wizard of low intelligence. It is a comment that the only strong distinction between them is the casting stat.


What makes the sorcerer even more in the low intelligence category is that, even though they dont spend all that time Wizards do studying, they still dont have any proficiencies to show for all that free time. 




> Even if they did in the same way those terms are used today, as the thread is asking about this concept in-universe, various setting organizations were likely keeping tabs on Drow in their cities for other reasons so it's likely moot.


But what would distinguish a Drow from a Draconic Sorcerer to anyone looking? Why wouldnt the in-world researchers/observers come up with this person has innate magic from their fey blood and this person has innate magic from their dragon blood and decide they are in the same category of arcane caster who draws power from innate magic in their bloodline (or Sorcerer).

----------


## Keltest

> But what would distinguish a Drow from a Draconic Sorcerer to anyone looking? Why wouldnt the in-world researchers/observers come up with this person has innate magic from their fey blood and this person has innate magic from their dragon blood and decide they are in the same category of arcane caster who draws power from innate magic in their bloodline (or Sorcerer).


I believe the question being asked here is, why do they need to? Its an interesting distinction from an academic stance, but not really the point of the organization.

----------


## Unoriginal

> The implication is that either:
> 
> A) Everyone with the appropriate intellect can become a Wizard, and if so, society should at least be full of Wizard Schools. or
> B) Only those who have both intelect and magical aptitude can become Wizards, which blurs the line between Sorcerers and Wizards. 
> 
> In the first case, which implies either that most people are not that bright or that they have more interesting things to do (than, I don't know, make the laws of science their plaything), it is implied that the social place of a Wizard is regarded as something not so sought after, otherwise everyone would at least try to become one. This makes some sence, since not everyone in this world becomes an accademic, despite the fact it has a higher probability to grant them a higher paying job. It still bothers me somehow, but I can get behind the idea at least.


You're overlooking a fact: even for those with the intellect, learning wizardry is both time-consuming and expensive, and many just don't have the ressources to pursue that path.

You're born in a city with several wizards who take students, in a family with enough income to afford having one less kid helping in the business, buying the books, inks, materials, etc needed to practice AND paying whatever the teacher is asking for? You have a chance to be a wizard.

You're born with two parents working as minimal-pay laborers in a small village, with the one wizard within four days' travel a) only shows up for the big markets or when something goes very wrong b) already has an apprentice by the time you're 15 and will have the same apprentice by the time you're 23? Yeah, becoming a wizard is going to be *hard*, even if you actually have more INT than the guy born in a city above.


Plus what BRC said.

----------


## Psyren

> A) Everyone with the appropriate intellect can become a Wizard, and if so, society should at least be full of Wizard Schools. or
> B) Only those who have both intelect and magical aptitude can become Wizards, which blurs the line between Sorcerers and Wizards.


This is like saying society should be full of medical schools or full of ivy league schools. Dabbling in wizardry is easy, becoming a true wizard is much harder.




> I believe the question being asked here is, why do they need to? Its an interesting distinction from an academic stance, but not really the point of the organization.


Precisely.

Another way of asking this - which organization in which setting cares so exclusively about sorcerers that no other form of spellcasting would matter to them?

----------


## RSP

> I believe the question being asked here is, why do they need to? Its an interesting distinction from an academic stance, but not really the point of the organization.





> Another way of asking this - which organization in which setting cares so exclusively about sorcerers that no other form of spellcasting would matter to them?


Thats the point. In-game, nothing distinguishes a Sorc (Magic from bloodline) from races that get casting from their ancestry. 

We know Wizards are distinguished by learning magic through study. We know Warlocks get their magic from a Patron. Bards seem to be very similar to Wizards, though apparently in a less time-intensive manner. 

There is no in-game-world difference between Sorcerers and Racial casters. So anyone who cares about such wouldnt have a way to distinguish between them.

----------


## Psyren

> *So anyone who cares about such* wouldnt have a way to distinguish between them.


Who is this nebulous "anyone?" I'm not aware of any such organization in any published setting. It feels like you're inventing a problem here.

----------


## RSP

> Who is this nebulous "anyone?" I'm not aware of any such organization in any published setting. It feels like you're inventing a problem here.


The organization doesnt matter. The Watchful Order was just one such example of in-game world people who would be interested in knowing these things.

I imagine the Arcana skill would cover how creatures get magical ability, if you really feel the need to have a thing to discuss in regards to this.

But the point is: outside of the Metagame class Sorcerer (and perhaps whatever level that Sorcerer is), theres nothing in the game world that would distinguish a Sorcerer from other innate casters.

----------


## animorte

> There is no in-game-world difference between Sorcerers and Racial casters. So anyone who cares about such wouldnt have a way to distinguish between them.


I think its a lot more than that. You see somebody casting magic, how do you determine which of the many classes it is?

Essentially, in-game there is minimal discernible difference between Sorcerers and any other form of casting whatsoever, except how they got their spells. Any witness to the spell-casting doesnt really have a way to know where this magic is coming from, or the class that is casting it.



> theres nothing in the game world that would distinguish a Sorcerer from other innate casters.


Ok, you just addressed that but I still think it can easily extend to any form of caster.




> Who is this nebulous "anyone?" I'm not aware of any such organization in any published setting. It feels like you're inventing a problem here.


I think its fair enough that something if this nature could easily exist in a homebrew world or campaign.

----------


## JNAProductions

Power.

A Drow or High Elf with the PC racial traits can cast a cantrip.
A Sorcerer, even at first level, has four different cantrips and two first level slots.

I could see an organization that's concerned with racial casting, meager as it might be, in addition to more potent casting. And in that case, Sorcerers would likely be classed similarly to Drow or Tieflings. Maybe not quite the same, seeing as there's a significant power gap and stranger bloodlines, but it could all be filed under "Innate Casting Power".

Is that a problem?

----------


## Psyren

> I think its fair enough that something if this nature could easily exist in a homebrew world or campaign.


And that's perfectly fine, but that also provides the solution - if you're homebrewing a world where the distinction matters, homebrew in a way to tell them apart too.




> The organization doesnt matter. The Watchful Order was just one such example of in-game world people who would be interested in knowing these things.


They're interested in policing magic use. Not sorcerers specifically.




> But the point is: outside of the Metagame class Sorcerer (and perhaps whatever level that Sorcerer is), theres nothing in the game world that would distinguish a Sorcerer from other innate casters.


Sure there is - both the spells sorcerers have access to, and the ceiling on their magic.

If a crook used Misty Step to rob a bank, sure it might be difficult to tell just from that whether the culprit used their Eladrin powers or their Sorcerer powers. But if they used Dimension Door, you can rule one of those out.

----------


## animorte

> Power.
> 
> A Drow or High Elf with the PC racial traits can cast a cantrip.
> A Sorcerer, even at first level, has four different cantrips and two first level slots.


Absolutely thats the difference. But any one NPC or group of NPCs would need to witness the varying degrees of examples for this separately. With new ONE, everything can change spells out anyway, so that still doesnt address the low level differences.




> And that's perfectly fine, but that also provides the solution - if you're homebrewing a world where the distinction matters, homebrew in a way to tell them apart too.


One would hope.




> They're interested in policing magic use. Not sorcerers specifically.


This is *exactly* the point I was making.

----------


## The ShadowVerse

> Sure there is - both the spells sorcerers have access to, and the ceiling on their magic..


Yeah, each of the racial casters gets a couple specific spells (ignoring ONE rules to swap them). I imagine a group with the resources to police magic use is going to have memorized the short list of races and their spells, and know that Drow can do _Darkness_ but Eladrin can't.

----------


## RSP

> They're interested in policing magic use. Not sorcerers specifically.


Again, the Watchful Order was just an example: what Im referring to applies to anyone interested in casters for any reason. 





> Sure there is - both the spells sorcerers have access to, and the ceiling on their magic.
> 
> If a crook used Misty Step to rob a bank, sure it might be difficult to tell just from that whether the culprit used their Eladrin powers or their Sorcerer powers. But if they used Dimension Door, you can rule one of those out.


Whats the difference between Eladrin powers and sorcerer powers, outside of the Metagame? Both are magic done from their respective bloodline.

----------


## Unoriginal

> Whats the difference between Eladrin powers and sorcerer powers, outside of the Metagame? Both are magic done from their respective bloodline.


As said by others in this thread, the difference is that Sorcerer powers are (potentially) greater and (always) more diverse than Eladrin powers. 

Your typical lvl 1 Eladrin will be able to teleport up to 30ft, then need to rest to be able to do it again. That's the extent of their magical power. 

Your typical lvl 1 Sorcerer (before taking their specific lineage's perks into account) will have 4 at-will magical powers out of 28 possible at-will magical powers, AND two magical powers out of 29 possible powers which they can use two times before needing to rest. 


Your typical Eladrin will never be able to cast Polymorph while gagged and handcuffed to a wall. A Sorcerer of enough power can do that, though.

----------


## Psyren

> Whats the difference between Eladrin powers and sorcerer powers, outside of the Metagame? Both are magic done from their respective bloodline.


I don't think it's possible to distinguish a racial misty step from a sorcerer's in-universe.

Distinguishing a sorcerer themselves will be possible if they use different powers or keep leveling.




> Again, the Watchful Order was just an example: what Im referring to applies to anyone interested in casters for any reason.


And again, an organization to whom that matters would need to be homebrewed, therefore homebrew is also the solution.

The purely academic question ("_should_ this distinction matter?") is going to be DM/table-dependent.

If that answer doesn't satisfy, that's fine, maybe someone else can come up with another - but at this point I'm not clear on what you might be looking for.

----------


## Frogreaver

@RSP

To flip the question around, how do you tell if someone is a wizard or a drow carrying someone else's spellbook?

----------


## Unoriginal

Also worth noting it's impossible to distinguish a Wizard from a Sorcerer casting Fire Bolt unless they are using powers their class/subclass has which the other doesn't have.

Same way that one cannot distinguish a Cleric fromma Divine Soul Sorcerer if they both cast Cure Wound once and without changes.

----------


## animorte

> Also worth noting it's impossible to distinguish a Wizard from a Sorcerer casting Fire Bolt unless they are using powers their class/subclass has which the other doesn't have.
> 
> Same way that one cannot distinguish a Cleric fromma Divine Soul Sorcerer if they both cast Cure Wound once and without changes.


Yes, exactly. These are few of many examples in which the class would be indiscernible.

----------


## RSP

> Also worth noting it's impossible to distinguish a Wizard from a Sorcerer casting Fire Bolt unless they are using powers their class/subclass has which the other doesn't have.
> 
> Same way that one cannot distinguish a Cleric fromma Divine Soul Sorcerer if they both cast Cure Wound once and without changes.


From a straight just-casting perspective, thats probably true (DM dependent). But one still clearly relies on a spellbook, and the other does not. 

Id imagine in most settings, Wizards are known by that (and most probably have a system of learning magic via Wizardry). Id imagine theres likely the knowledge of casting without studying, which would include Warlocks and Sorcerers, and maybe Bards, depending on how theyre ruled. 

But some people are just born with magic seems to include Sorcerers and racial casters.

----------


## Psyren

> From a straight just-casting perspective, thats probably true (DM dependent). But one still clearly relies on a spellbook, and the other does not. 
> 
> Id imagine in most settings, Wizards are known by that (and most probably have a system of learning magic via Wizardry). Id imagine theres likely the knowledge of casting without studying, which would include Warlocks and Sorcerers, and maybe Bards, depending on how theyre ruled. 
> 
> But some people are just born with magic seems to include Sorcerers and racial casters.


[/quote]

You don't need your spellbook to cast anything, so unless you're watching that caster every morning you have no way of knowing. In fact, even if they lose their spellbook, Firebolt will stay prepared for the rest of their lives until they change their preparations with another book.

----------


## Unoriginal

> You don't need your spellbook to cast anything, so unless you're watching that caster every morning you have no way of knowing. In fact, even if they lose their spellbook, Firebolt will stay prepared for the rest of their lives until they change their preparations with another book.


Indeed.




> But some people are just born with magic seems to include Sorcerers and racial casters.


Sure. What's the problem with that?

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

Magic A is Magic A. The spells themselves are identical no matter who casts them. The method of mastering the casting (ie _access_) differs.

I don't expect in-universe _enforcement_ groups to care at all where the spell came from. Arcane, divine, inborn, learned, granted--a fireball's a fireball. It's only the effects that matter.

_Research_ groups might specialize, but they're more likely to determine things by, you know, _research_. Interviews, observations, etc. Or just asking people.

----------


## Witty Username

> Magic A is Magic A. The spells themselves are identical no matter who casts them. The method of mastering the casting (ie _access_) differs.


It doesnt even vary that much, in the case of sorcerers and wizards, as they both use arcane focuses for casting, outwardly there isnt a difference bewteen a sorcerer casting and wizard casting like a paladin using a holy symbol or a druid using a mistletoe would.

Bundling sorcerer, wizard, and warlock makes alot of sense from a worldbuilding perspective.

----------


## EggKookoo

> Magic A is Magic A. The spells themselves are identical no matter who casts them. The method of mastering the casting (ie _access_) differs.


I tend to see individual differences in casting. Wizard A and wizard B standing next to each other casting _magic missile_ might be making different gestures and uttering different incantations, but both are using the same underlying principles and building blocks that differ from casting, say, _mage armor_. I equate it to writing code. Wizard A is all about OOP while wizard B likes functions, but they're both using the same programming language to accomplish the same task.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> I tend to see individual differences in casting. Wizard A and wizard B standing next to each other casting _magic missile_ might be making different gestures and uttering different incantations, but both are using the same underlying principles and building blocks that differ from casting, say, _mage armor_. I equate it to writing code. Wizard A is all about OOP while wizard B likes functions, but they're both using the same programming language to accomplish the same task.


I see the differences being mostly at the level of variable names and coding styles (indentation, etc), IDE choice, etc. The compiled program runs the same once you boil it down. But it looks different to a casual inspection. Same OS level APIs doing all the work, called from the same basic structure.




> It doesnt even vary that much, in the case of sorcerers and wizards, as they both use arcane focuses for casting, outwardly there isnt a difference bewteen a sorcerer casting and wizard casting like a paladin using a holy symbol or a druid using a mistletoe would.
> 
> Bundling sorcerer, wizard, and warlock makes alot of sense from a worldbuilding perspective.


But how they  learn and master those spells varies a lot. Doesnt change the direct end product, but produces very different byproducts. Even just the difference between an academic, first-principles approach and a phenomenological, ad hoc seat of the pants approach produces characters who have different ancillary skill sets and may even make some spells easier or harder to master.

----------


## Rukelnikov

I think innate casters and sorcerers would be part of the same "family" of casters, though Sorceres would likely be labeled as mutants. How would someone make the distinction without resorting to outright magic?

Well if 99% of Drows can cast Dancing Lights without formal preparation, but only 1% can cast magic missile without formal preparation, then the outlier is labeled as a mutant, and maybe "Sorcerer" could be the term used for such mutants.




> I see the differences being mostly at the level of variable names and coding styles (indentation, etc), IDE choice, etc. The compiled program runs the same once you boil it down. But it looks different to a casual inspection. Same OS level APIs doing all the work, called from the same basic structure.


I don't think they are necessarily that similar.

In the same way a Gladius, Kris and Jian are functionally the same at the game's mechanical abstraction level (a shortsword). One casters detect magic and anothers may be different in their in world execution but the same at the games abstraction level, like if a character in WoD was a designer I wouldn't expect a mechanical difference in his designing skills whether he uses GIMP or Illustrator.

So a shaman's detect magic may be awakening an instinctual feeling inside him, and a wizard is maybe looking with a magic equivalent heat detector. At abstraction level the both work the same though, require Conc, detect magic within 30 ft you have line of sight to.

----------


## RSP

You don't need your spellbook to cast anything, so unless you're watching that caster every morning you have no way of knowing. In fact, even if they lose their spellbook, Firebolt will stay prepared for the rest of their lives until they change their preparations with another book.[/QUOTE]

Its not about noting differences in casting (which may or may not be a thing in any given campaign), its about what would be known about how magic works for casters. 

Without the Metagame concept of classes, nothing really separates racial casters and Sorcerers: they each get their magic from their bloodlines. 

Theres probably a similar issue with Clerics and Warlocks, depending on if one can determine Arcane vs Divine casting/magic (campaign/DM dependent - I dont think theres any RAW on if the divide is noticeable), though this is a bit more open to how stuff gets boiled down: how do Patrons give their power to a Warlock? What is needed to achieve being a Patron? Etc. A god clearly has the ability to grant power to their chosen (clerics), but Patrons arent as defined in that sense.

----------


## EggKookoo

> Its not about noting differences in casting (which may or may not be a thing in any given campaign), its about what would be known about how magic works for casters. 
> 
> Without the Metagame concept of classes, nothing really separates racial casters and Sorcerers: they each get their magic from their bloodlines.


This is also setting/campaign-dependent. Some tables assume game mechanics exist within the fiction, some assume they're totally disconnected and the players are at best getting strong abstraction of what's "really" going on, and many tables perform a kind of cognitive-dissonance dance around the subject (which describes mine).

Ultimately this is a narrative thing. If you want there to be a distinction between racial casters and sorcs, create it or leverage something like spell slots to justify it.

----------


## Unoriginal

> Without the Metagame concept of classes, nothing really separates racial casters and Sorcerers: they each get their magic from their bloodlines.


Why do you refuse to accept "yes, there is a difference, the Sorcerer gets more powers, more potent ones and more versatile ones" as a response?

Because it's the objectively correct response.

----------


## RSP

> Why do you refuse to accept "yes, there is a difference, the Sorcerer gets more powers, more potent ones and more versatile ones" as a response?
> 
> Because it's the objectively correct response.


Because its not. Higher level Sorcerers get more powers, etc. 1st level ones do not. 

There is nothing differentiating racial casters from the same power-source as Sorcerers. The fact that with that power source, some are more powerful than others, is a distinction in power, not in source. 

Id imagine theres a vast range of power in those who study magic and cast spells from what they learn in spellbooks, as well. It doesnt mean theyre not all getting their casting from studying magic and learning it from spellbooks.

----------


## Keltest

> Because its not. Higher level Sorcerers get more powers, etc. 1st level ones do not. 
> 
> There is nothing differentiating racial casters from the same power-source as Sorcerers. The fact that with that power source, some are more powerful than others, is a distinction in power, not in source. 
> 
> Id imagine theres a vast range of power in those who study magic and cast spells from what they learn in spellbooks, as well. It doesnt mean theyre not all getting their casting from studying magic and learning it from spellbooks.


Racial spells dont necessarily use charisma to cast their spells. A high elf uses int for their wizard cantrip for example, even though its a racial spell.

----------


## JNAProductions

> Because its not. Higher level Sorcerers get more powers, etc. 1st level ones do not. 
> 
> There is nothing differentiating racial casters from the same power-source as Sorcerers. The fact that with that power source, some are more powerful than others, is a distinction in power, not in source. 
> 
> Id imagine theres a vast range of power in those who study magic and cast spells from what they learn in spellbooks, as well. It doesnt mean theyre not all getting their casting from studying magic and learning it from spellbooks.


Tieflings get one cantrip, racially, as a PC.
A level one Sorcerer gets four cantrips and two 1st level spells known and slots, as a PC.

By the time a Tiefling gets a single second level spell, a Sorcerer has four spells known, two 2nd level slots, and four 1st level slots.
By the time a Tiefling gets a second second level spell, a Sorcerer has gone up to five cantrips, six spells known, and 4/3/2 1st/2nd/3rd level slots.

Now, not everyone is the same level-a fifth level Tiefling PC has two second level slots, effectively, making them have more raw power than a first level Sorcerer, though they're less flexible.
You could definitely have an organization that would treat Tiefling Fighter 5 the same as a non-casting race Sorcerer 1.

And that's not a problem. A properly knowledgeable organization should know that the Fighter is pretty much maxed out, in terms of racial casting, while the Sorcerer has much more potential (assuming no multiclassing), but they're both a person of interest to them.

Also note, that's for PCs. NPCs are not guaranteed to have the same things PCs have. You could have a Tiefling NPC who can't cast _Thaumaturgy_ at all.

----------


## Psyren

> Because its not. Higher level Sorcerers get more powers, etc. 1st level ones do not. 
> 
> There is nothing differentiating racial casters from the same power-source as Sorcerers. The fact that with that power source, some are more powerful than others, is a distinction in power, not in source.


Even for low level ones it can. There are some low-level spells (e.g. Eldritch Blast) that you can't obtain racially, and so seeing a low level character use such spells will clue you in to what their class is, or at least help you narrow it down.

I'm actually inclined to agree with you that there are other spells where that distinction is much more difficult. If you see a Forest Gnome casting a minor illusion for example, you can't conclude just based on that whether they're a sorcerer (or wizard etc) or not.

I still struggle to imagine why it _matters_ (it certainly doesn't in any published setting), or why any playgroup should care, however.

----------


## JNAProductions

> I still struggle to imagine why it _matters_ (it certainly doesn't in any published setting), or why any playgroup should care, however.


Yeah, that's the big thing. I could see some researcher wanting to classify different types of magic who'd be interested in distinctions, but for an organization that's intended to be... I don't want to say opposed to the players, but affecting them because they're mages, the distinction is less "You study, you were born with it," and more "You can all cast _Fireball_ or similarly destructive spells-you're being watched."

----------


## RSP

> Tieflings get one cantrip, racially, as a PC.
> A level one Sorcerer gets four cantrips and two 1st level spells known and slots, as a PC.
> 
> By the time a Tiefling gets a single second level spell, a Sorcerer has four spells known, two 2nd level slots, and four 1st level slots.
> By the time a Tiefling gets a second second level spell, a Sorcerer has gone up to five cantrips, six spells known, and 4/3/2 1st/2nd/3rd level slots.
> 
> Now, not everyone is the same level-a fifth level Tiefling PC has two second level slots, effectively, making them have more raw power than a first level Sorcerer, though they're less flexible.
> You could definitely have an organization that would treat Tiefling Fighter 5 the same as a non-casting race Sorcerer 1.
> 
> ...


Levels are a PC thing too. They're Metagame stuff just like classes. The in-game world doesnt have Warlocks and Sorcerers, or Level 8 Fighters. 

They have people who fight well, use poisons, or use magic. The people using magic is what Ive been focusing on in this thread. Id imagine the majority of people who do magic are the spellbook using, years-of-study type of casters, though I imagine this is campaign world dependent. 

NPCs arent expected to level like PCs: the DM doesnt total up all the NPCs experience each session and spend a day adding levels on all the MM entries. They may grow in power, but they arent on the same trajectory as PCs. 

Its an interesting concept on its own, because spell slot levels apparently exist. Spell slots are not just an abstraction, casters would have to know I have X amount of castings of this power of spell a day, Y amount of this power of spell, etc. 

So you may be able to have in-game-world categories of power, like shes a category III caster, but not hes a level 10 fighter. 

The NPCs in the rule books, or premades so far as Im aware, arent level or class anything: even though they may have the same or similar capabilities to classes. So the in-game world wont really have that. 

(I imagine you could have world where Sorcerers are a thing, and have green skin, or a tattoo or something that distinguishes them; and everyone has DBZ style power levels that directly correlate to class level, but even then youd have to add all those correlations into the MM entries. I find the in-game-world stuff interesting as I like to RP and join in that immersion, but I dont want to go off on too much of a tangent.)

----------


## animorte

> NPCs arent expected to level like PCs: the DM doesnt total up all the NPCs experience each session and spend a day adding levels on all the MM entries. They may grow in power, but they arent on the same trajectory as PCs. 
> 
> So you may be able to have in-game-world categories of power, like shes a category III caster, but not hes a level 10 fighter. 
> 
> The NPCs in the rule books, or premades so far as Im aware, arent level or class anything: even though they may have the same or similar capabilities to classes. So the in-game world wont really have that.


Me over here running my sessions where 70% of anything worth fighting has class levels.

----------


## Snails

The "weirdness" of sorcerers is just an artifact of D&D game development history, because the game started from Int-based Magic-Users.  But looking more broadly at many beings of myth and legend, it is obvious that most seem sorcerer-like and Cha-based.  We certainly do not expect fey to be hitting the booksto charm people, for example.  Thus a bit of sorcery should be normal, as far as spell-using goes.  It is the wizards who the outliers, albeit it is a success tradition that has produced an impressive portion of the top notch spellcasters.

I would make your typical High Elves more like Drow, and it is a matter of cultural history that some High Elves are very studied in the wizard tradition.

----------


## Unoriginal

> Because its not. Higher level Sorcerers get more powers, etc. 1st level ones do not.


Incorrect, even a 1rst level Sorcerer will habe more magic powers and more varied ones than any species who has "those are your racial spells" as a feature.




> There is nothing differentiating racial casters from the same power-source as Sorcerers. The fact that with that power source, some are more powerful than others, is a distinction in power, not in source.


Yes, that is agreed on by everyone who posted. Doesn't mean there is no difference, as you claimed above.




> Levels are a PC thing too. They're Metagame stuff just like classes. The in-game world doesnt have Warlocks and Sorcerers, or Level 8 Fighters.


The "The Wild Beyond the Witchlight" book has two classic DnD characters, one being a Warlock (complete with a Patron) and the other a Sorcerer., and both are known as that in-universe. 

"Level 8" is a metagame stuff, not the rest.

----------


## RSP

> The "The Wild Beyond the Witchlight" book has two classic DnD characters, one being a Warlock (complete with a Patron) and the other a Sorcerer., and both are known as that in-universe. 
> 
> "Level 8" is a metagame stuff, not the rest.


Does the book explain what that means? Harry Potter is both a wizard and a sorcerer in the fiction, no? Jedi are also wizards, etc. 

Id imagine Wizard could very well be the book-learned, studious caster; Warlock could well mean someone who gets power from an entity (though, again, Im not sure how this is really different from a Cleric), and Sorcerer could well be everyone else who does magic or magic in their blood. 

Either of those definitions for Sorcerers fit racial castings as well. Its tough not to have you get your magic from your ancestry or bloodline not fit you get your magic from your ancestry or bloodline.

----------


## Witty Username

> Id imagine Wizard could very well be the book-learned, studious caster; Warlock could well mean someone who gets power from an entity (though, again, Im not sure how this is really different from a Cleric), and Sorcerer could well be everyone else who does magic or magic in their blood.


The divide between warlock and cleric is the difference between bargain and devotion.

A warlock is an exchange, power for the soul or some service, from what I can tell most tables treat this as a one-time exchange, but I tend to use it as a service contract that can be terminated by either party. This has no relationship value with a patron.

A cleric is a devotee, and the power they get is an expression of that devotion, the deity in question is by necessity a focal point of their life, and a positive relationship is almost a guarantee. 

Also, the systems they use for magic are radically different: arcane vs divine for one but also warlocks have the most powerful spells in their perview available basically all the time, for example.

----------


## Unoriginal

> Does the book explain what that means?


The adventure assumes you have read the PHB, so it doesn't go into the details, but:

1) the Sorcerer is contrasted with another character who is a with-a-spellbook-studied-for-his-magic Wizard, while having ancestral magic that is both too powerful and too versatile to fit any of the racial casting options. Plus the Sorcerer is a human with sorcery, not from a species that always have some innate magic powers.

2) the fact the Warlock is a Warlock who made a Pact with a specific Patron is an minor but still important plot point that explains several things about the situation the PCs find when they show up.




> Sorcerer could well be everyone else who does magic or magic in their blood.


The first definition is not what a Sorcerer is at all, and the second is only a partial definition of what a Sorcerer is. 





> Either of those definitions for Sorcerers fit racial castings as well. Its tough not to have you get your magic from your ancestry or bloodline not fit you get your magic from your ancestry or bloodline.


This is like saying "by definition both marathoners and sprinters are athletes participating in races, therefore all sprinters are marathon runners".

You cannot use a partial definition and then declare two things that fit that partial definition are the same. 

Once again, yes racial casters and Sorcerers both get magic from their ancestry/bloodline/circumstances of birth, but the racial casters do *not* get the same magic as the Sorcerers, be it in variability or in potential power, therefore racial casters are not all Sorcerers. 


If you want all racial casters to be considered Sorcerers, you will have to decide so as the DM of your own game or as the writer of your own campaign setting.

----------


## Keltest

At least in the Forgotten Realms, the differences between a Sorcerer and a Wizard (and a warlock) are known, documented, and generally used by people who know anything at all about magic. Examples of the characters getting them wrong are usually exactly that: the character being wrong.

For example, a warlock who deliberately pretends to be a wizard or sorcerer in order to hide the fact that he made a pact with the lower planes.

----------


## animorte

> ts tough not to have you get your magic from your ancestry or bloodline not fit you get your magic from your ancestry or bloodline.


This made me laugh. Anyway

It is worth pointing out that there are valuable differences between ones culture, ethnicity, and race species. Various groups can share different features of these three things without being synonymous with each other.

Of course, the word bloodline implies that the thing is something directly specific to your own *personal* family tree. Otherwise, different things can be acquired through the characters culture, ethnicity, or race species.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Of course, the word bloodline implies that the thing is something directly specific to your own *personal* family tree. Otherwise, different things can be acquired through the characters culture, ethnicity, or race species.


Yeah. I'd say that sorcerers are those who got _significant_ access to spellcasting through their own personal/family heritage or experiences (cf Wild Magic, who can get it even post-natally, with similar statements for other bloodlines). "Racial" spellcasting is its own bundle of fixed traits. Being a sorcerer is much more flexible and personal.

----------


## RSP

> The divide between warlock and cleric is the difference between bargain and devotion.
> 
> A warlock is an exchange, power for the soul or some service, from what I can tell most tables treat this as a one-time exchange, but I tend to use it as a service contract that can be terminated by either party. This has no relationship value with a patron.
> 
> A cleric is a devotee, and the power they get is an expression of that devotion, the deity in question is by necessity a focal point of their life, and a positive relationship is almost a guarantee. 
> 
> Also, the systems they use for magic are radically different: arcane vs divine for one but also warlocks have the most powerful spells in their perview available basically all the time, for example.


Not necessarily. Per the PHB:

 Sometimes the relationship between warlock and patron is like that of a cleric and a deity, though the beings that serve as patrons for warlocks are not gods. A warlock might lead a cult dedicated to a demon prince, an archdevil, or an utterly alien entitybeings not typically served by clerics.

So, whereas Warlock may be a known thing, I dont think any determinations could be made without knowing who the source of the power is. And, if wikis are to be believed, Asmodeus, at least, bucks the notion that one cannot be both a god and a patron. 

I could see Warlocks who legitimately see themselves as Clerics, and it would just be a subjective determination if a particular Patron counts as a god or not (I understand there are in-fiction rules for godhood, but I imagine those serving powerful enough beings may consider them gods regardless). 

But either way, I dont think its as simple a difference, in-game-world particularly, as you seem to think it is. 

Also, Divine vs Arcane isnt spelled out that much in this edition, so I dont think we can consider them radically different: that seems by design to be left up to each DM to determine.

----------


## animorte

> (I understand there are in-fiction rules for godhood, but I imagine those serving powerful enough beings may consider them gods regardless).


Indeed. Genies fancy themselves to rival the power of some deities.

----------


## Witty Username

> Not necessarily. Per the PHB:
> 
>  Sometimes the relationship between warlock and patron is like that of a cleric and a deity, though the beings that serve as patrons for warlocks are not gods. A warlock might lead a cult dedicated to a demon prince, an archdevil, or an utterly alien entitybeings not typically served by clerics.
> 
> So, whereas Warlock may be a known thing, I dont think any determinations could be made without knowing who the source of the power is. And, if wikis are to be believed, Asmodeus, at least, bucks the notion that one cannot be both a god and a patron. 
> 
> I could see Warlocks who legitimately see themselves as Clerics, and it would just be a subjective determination if a particular Patron counts as a god or not (I understand there are in-fiction rules for godhood, but I imagine those serving powerful enough beings may consider them gods regardless). 
> 
> But either way, I dont think its as simple a difference, in-game-world particularly, as you seem to think it is. 
> ...


A Warlock can be devoted to their patron in the way a cleric is, but it is not a requirement, this is what I meant by no relationship value, a warlocks pact has no inposed context:
- a devoted servant
- a practical alliance
- bound by a obligation (debt or penal service)
- no relationship, all bargains have been met

All of these are valid for a warlock to use as their relationship with their patron.

Cleric has much stricter requirements:
-devoted to a God or Pantheon
-devoted to an Ideal or set of values

Devotion is not negotiable for a cleric.

As for self-identification, sure, a warlock could be a part of a priesthood, as could a sorcerer or a wizard (Mystra, Goddess of Magic encourages the study of magic as part of her worship, for example, and many of her clergy are wizards at least in part). But none of these characters will pass as a cleric even superficially. Holy icons, kinds of spells they cast, equipment they use, the ability to turn undead will all signify a cleric in ways an outside observer can learn and identify.

----------


## Unoriginal

> Cleric has much stricter requirements:
> -devoted to a God or Pantheon
> -devoted to an Ideal or set of values
> 
> Devotion is not negotiable for a cleric.


Devotion is actually entirely optional for a Cleric.

In 5e, you are not a Cleric because you believe in a god, you are a Cleric because a god believes in you. 

Or in other words, you don't get to choose to be a deity's/Ideal's Chosen One. 

That being said, most gods will choose among their worshipers for obvious reasons. 

The big difference between the empowerment given to a Warlock and the empowerment given to a Cleric is that 
the Cleric's is always an ongoing affair, with the god/Ideal/etc granting the miracles, while the Warlock's is a punctual business. As in, be it given, bargained or stolen, Warlocks get a bunch of power then the Patron doesn't have to do anything. Even in Pacts where the Patron can remove the power once given, it's always a "rip the power out of the Warlock" or "leave the power there but make so the Warlock can't use it" situation.




> As for self-identification, sure, a warlock could be a part of a priesthood, as could a sorcerer or a wizard (Mystra, Goddess of Magic encourages the study of magic as part of her worship, for example, and many of her clergy are wizards at least in part). But none of these characters will pass as a cleric even superficially. Holy icons, kinds of spells they cast, equipment they use, the ability to turn undead will all signify a cleric in ways an outside observer can learn and identify.


Very true.

Another example: Imix, the Elemental Evil of Fire, has a whole bunch of Warlocks who serve as his priests and who think he is a god. While it's not true in an academic sense, the Warlocks of Imix will object to any scholar trying to argue that point with literal firepower.

So sure, it's entirely possible for an High Elf sellsword to call themselves a Sorcerer because they got one mean Green Flame Blade cantrip they like to show off with. But if that is said within earshot of an actual Sorcerer who takes offense to it, well, they will probably be shown what actual sorcery is like.

----------


## RSP

> Cleric has much stricter requirements:
> -devoted to a God or Pantheon
> -devoted to an Ideal or set of values
> 
> Devotion is not negotiable for a cleric.


As Unoriginal stated, 5e Clerics are Chosen by the god: its closer to the Warlock than you think. (Im not sure the part about differences is correct: I dont think theres anything RAW about going against patron or deity, either way, though I could be wrong).




> As for self-identification, sure, a warlock could be a part of a priesthood, as could a sorcerer or a wizard (Mystra, Goddess of Magic encourages the study of magic as part of her worship, for example, and many of her clergy are wizards at least in part). But none of these characters will pass as a cleric even superficially. Holy icons, kinds of spells they cast, equipment they use, the ability to turn undead will all signify a cleric in ways an outside observer can learn and identify.


Maybe, but not necessarily so. Warlocks can have the same gear as Clerics. They can cast a lot of the same spells too. 

Also, I feel its important, characters in game probably arent picking spells from a known list when they level. I guess its technically campaign/DM dependant, but I dont see in-game-world Sorcerers discussing how they could have chosen Fireball at level 6, but went with Hypnotic Pattern instead. They just have HP. 

And with the subclasses, you can have classes casting a whole lot of spells. So is the medium armor wearing fireball caster a cleric or a warlock? Could be either. The mere existence of Divine Soul Sorcerers would really confuse anyone looking at spells cast and wanting to create in-game class lists. 

Again, RAW there isnt anything telling about Arcane vs Divine magic, but I could see campaigns having that be a thing (which again would set everything on its head when dealing with DS Sorcerers).

----------


## Unoriginal

To sum up the whole thread in one quote:






At 19:50.

----------


## Witty Username

> Again, RAW there isnt anything telling about Arcane vs Divine magic, but I could see campaigns having that be a thing (which again would set everything on its head when dealing with DS Sorcerers).


It was more of a thing in earlier editions and is therefore baked into the settings that were part of those editions.
For example FR, the one we are talking about primarily:
Magic is divided into to broad categories when discused philosophically:
The Art - arcane magic, magic that primarily interacts with the weave (wizards, sorcerers, bards, and warlocks)
The Power - divine magic, magic that is the result of being used as a conduit for a god (cleric, druid, paladin, ranger)

More on this later, I have work.

----------


## Mark Hall

> The divide between warlock and cleric is the difference between bargain and devotion.
> 
> *A warlock is an exchange, power for the soul or some service, from what I can tell most tables treat this as a one-time exchange, but I tend to use it as a service contract that can be terminated by either party. This has no relationship value with a patron.
> 
> A cleric is a devotee, and the power they get is an expression of that devotion, the deity in question is by necessity a focal point of their life, and a positive relationship is almost a guarantee.* 
> 
> Also, the systems they use for magic are radically different: arcane vs divine for one but also warlocks have the most powerful spells in their perview available basically all the time, for example.


This isn't necessarily the case. As mentioned above, some warlocks ARE devoted to their patron as if to a deity, and I don't see any reason why some gods wouldn't employ clerics on a transactional basis (qv Boccob, of Greyhawk, who doesn't really care WHO his clerics are).

Warlocks, when you get down to, shouldn't have been Arcane casters.

----------


## Witty Username

> This isn't necessarily the case. As mentioned above, some warlocks ARE devoted to their patron as if to a deity, and I don't see any reason why some gods wouldn't employ clerics on a transactional basis (qv Boccob, of Greyhawk, who doesn't really care WHO his clerics are).
> 
> Warlocks, when you get down to, shouldn't have been Arcane casters.


At least most deities that I am aware of that would be of the mindset of employing clerics transactionally tend to have small numbers of or no clerics,
Mystra for example has some clerics but most of her worshipers are wizards, as study of the arcane is part of the ideology.
Similarly Solinari, Lunitari and Nuitari of Dragonlance have no clergy, as they see it as superfluous in comparison to the arcane magic they provide.
I will admit I do not have a strong grip of Greyhawk, though. All I really know is Baccob is god of magic, and am thinking in comparisons.


But to quote the PHB: "the ability to cast cleric spells relies on devotion" - a cleric without devotion is not a cleric

But this is all to say, while a warlock can, a cleric must. Unless we are on Eberron, in which case I am not sure the distinction between arcane and divine magic matters at all in the first place.
--
On the matter of distinction that came up (warlock and clerics looking different) take say equipment:
Cleric medium-heavy armor, sometimes martial weapons, probably a holy symbol
Warlock light-no armor, sometimes a pact weapon but either simple weapons or no weapons
Counter argument- hexblade
Rebuttal spells:
A hexblade warlock will have wildly different spell set than any cleric
Counter argument - celestial
Rebuttal equipment
The spell problem is solved somewhat by celestial, there are some tells but it could go unnoticed for a bit
But we are back to the equipment, a warlock is back to light armor and simple weapons.

And warlocks use arcane focuses instead of holy symbols, which their isn't a clean solution for.

Note, this is in the context of the original post of how does border patrol know, a person with training would have means to pick up on this with observation. This to mean they will make correct identifications, but there is ways that it can be done and more importantly foiled, which makes for a gamable space. If one wants to use it.

----------


## Unoriginal

> But to quote the PHB: "the ability to cast cleric spells relies on devotion" - a cleric without devotion is not a cleric.


To also quote the PHB: "Once youve chosen a deity, consider your clerics relationship to that god. Did you enter this service willingly? Or did the god choose you, impelling you into service with no regard for your wishes?"

----------


## Witty Username

> To also quote the PHB: "Once youve chosen a deity, consider your clerics relationship to that god. Did you enter this service willingly? Or did the god choose you, impelling you into service with no regard for your wishes?"


Are you saying a god that you are devoted to can't compel you to do something that you wouldn't otherwise?

----------


## Mark Hall

> Are you saying a god that you are devoted to can't compel you to do something that you wouldn't otherwise?


They are gods, after all. They don't need your devotion, or even your permission, to use you as a tool.

----------


## Spore

> Warlocks, when you get down to, shouldn't have been Arcane casters.


There is a good amount of people in the camp who describe the Pathfinder's witch class as a divine caster. Partially because they have half of the cleric's spell list; *particularly inflict/cure spells, clerical debuffs, necromancy, enchantment spells and what was there again what made the cleric unique?*

Now the warlock in 5e is a bit more focussed on the arcane, as arcane is really just a word that means secretive. In such a way, perhaps the warlock is the only TRUE arcane caster. In a world where wizards are out in the open and magic is accessible enough for it to turn heads, but not make the average farmer's head explode in sheer surprise when an errant mage waltzes by and summons animal fat to make their enemies fall down, an "arcane" caster is not as alien as one might think.

Yes, the two other flavors of arcane casters; warlocks and sorcerers are far rarer still, but for the perception of the common folk, they are all just wizards with weird (self) applied titles. I would care little if my toilet was broken, if a plumber fixed it himself, a CEO summoned their facility staff to do so or an engineer first took two hours of measurements before fixing the toilet. What is important is the task done. If you are ignorant enough, you do not care if they have a degree, a business or work experience. The result is important. And that is why all of them are arcane casters.

Because they have access to functionally a similar pool of spells. Which is where 5e class balance really crashes in my eyes. Divine Souls have cleric spells, so they can suddenly heal, buff, debuff, control AND damage with their spells. Hexblades are better fighters than fighters for the most part (well not better, but more flexible and you get my point I think). Necromancy clerics are better ones than necromancer wizards. 

And sorcerers always had the design scope of "do the same as wizards, but more often but less flexible" which is out of the window the way 5e designs their casters. Imho short rests should be 10ish minutes (it works for ritual casting, so why not here) or on a "per encounter" basis like 4e. Suddenly the sorcerers have more spells per day by a medium of sorcery points (it somewhat fixes monks too) because it is just weird to take a 1 hour break several times a day. We are still people in day jobs pretending to be wizards, and sleeping/resting 8 hours at a time in very uncomfortable environments is one thing, but the narrative suffers if you switch from high octane fighting to what is essentially the lunch break in D&D meandering around and relaxing in the other minute.

----------


## Snowbluff

Warlocks are arcane because they were always arcane. The relationship with the patron isn't even necessarily voluntary or known. A pact can be inherited in 3.5, making it potentially inborn. I don't think a divine relationship described that very well at all, making it akin to sorcerer. A big part of this is also the similarity to natural magic/SLAs as well, which is usually lumped with being arcane in nature.

----------

