Warlock vs mage which one is stronger lorewise?

[kingarthas]

I was thinking, they both use int and cast spells. Are warlocks just mages use Fire shadow and demonology, instead of arcane frost fire. Or its totally new school of magic?

If they have same knowlodge of their class ( same int, mastery etc.) who would win 1v1 duel to death in lore?

Ps. Do not answer like sargeras is warlock, medivh is mage. Answer questions for avarage ones.

[Combatbutler]

Warlocks are often mages who seek more power, and fel is inherently stronger than arcane.

So the average warlock is stronger than the average mage

[Varodoc]

Mages, because they have control over time. Theoretically they can pretty much hax their way to victory by using their time-related spells. There's not much you can do when your opponent can erase any damage they take, significantly increase the speed at which they attack, etc.

[LordVargK]

You already made a thread about this topic.

Hello guys, while in quarantine i had plenty of time to think about this. I am asking about in general. I think warlock is better than others (shammy, druid etc.) Which one is stonger according to lore?

[Razion]

Azshara is the most prominently powerful "naturally talented" mage in the setting, and meanwhile Gul'dan is indisputably the most powerful "naturally talented" warlock in the setting.

In terms of power that "any" mage or warlock could possess, they represent the pinnacle of what they can accomplish.

Gul'dan's greatest feat was raising the Tomb of Sargeras.
Azshara's greatest feat was displacing all the water of Zin'Azshari.
(Jaina's flood that threatened Orgrimmar required outside help, if it was stronger so irrelevant as far as feats go to the topic.)

Obviously Zin'Azshari as a zone is a lot larger than the Tomb of the Sargeras on the outside - but on the inside and all the collective landmass it has, the Tomb itself can be quite large. Without pixel measurements of the Tomb to compare to Zin'Azshari, I would tentatively say the zone of Zin'Azshari would be larger and so we can probably tentatively say Mages are more powerful.

Warlock power is quick and easy.
Mages have to study for theirs.

Warlocks can pull from an entire dimension and from endless armies for their power. But this power has never been enough to topple Azeroth. And yet, Malygos in the Eye of Eternity cites its power as being enough to destroy the world ten times over. So, even if we're extending Warlock powers as far as they can go, as far as what has been represented and what is known, while Warlock power is impressive for what you can get immediately the universe seems to kind of indicate perpetually that Mages are stronger when it comes to an average joe who works hard - that the easy path is dangerous, and not worth it, and comes with consequences. Warlocks are almost never the heroes of the story. And by the nature of us, the heroes, and our incessant penchant for victory in the setting, it's no wonder if Warlocks are perpetually portrayed as weaker - that's just their lot that they've thrown themselves in with at least until such a time that Sargeras actually leads the Crusade to put an end to the Void once and for all, anyway.

Edit:
If you're just trying to find the most powerful int based class again, Velen fought off foes that Gul'dan also had trouble with - so considering how we need measurements to determine whether the water displacement of Zin'Azshari by Azshara or the Tomb raising by Gul'dan is greater, we can at the very least know that Velen is stronger than Gul'dan canonically. So, if anything, Priests stronger than Warlocks confirmed basically. And since Mannoroth cites Azshara as being weaker than Archimonde, Kil'Jaeden, and Sargeras, this probably puts Velen ahead of Azshara as well. So Priests, probably stronger than Mages too.

[A Chozo]

Warlocks are sightly stronger because their magicks are way more riskier.

[Tuor]

Mages are...



EDIT:

Medivh

[ButterBeast]

Kil'jaeden and archimonde were warlocks.


/thread

[Razion]

Kil'jaeden and archimonde were warlocks.


/thread

They were granted power by Sargeras. Gul'dan is the most powerful relative to natural warlock ability in the setting.

[Yorimar]

Mages, because they have control over time. Theoretically they can pretty much hax their way to victory by using their time-related spells. There's not much you can do when your opponent can erase any damage they take, significantly increase the speed at which they attack, etc.

if mages were this powerful, why didnt they prevent any damage done to azeroth? mages are powerful, yes, but to stop time and erase damage? no, absolutely not.

[Razion]

Interesting. Gul'Dan and Khadgar went even in the Broken Shore audiodrama if I recall.

Khadgar wields Atiesh, which is said to grant the wielder "power unending". For the purposes of a fair judge of mage potential by itself, I think Azshara's water displacement is probably the greatest unaided mage feat (prior to her being empowered by N'Zoth). Khadgar and Gul'dan being equal doesn't really settle the debate of which is more powerful, so I think comparing Azshara's water displacement feat to Gul'dan's feat of raising the Tomb is the best measure we can get in terms of evaluating potential of the classes at this point. Both Jaina and Lor'themar have cited Azshara to be perhaps the most powerful sorceress Azeroth has ever known.

[Varodoc]

if mages were this powerful, why didnt they prevent any damage done to azeroth? mages are powerful, yes, but to stop time and erase damage? no, absolutely not.

Wrong. They have several time-related spells, such as Rewind Time and Time Warp. Temporal Shield specifically allows them to put themselves in a special time bubble that erases any damage taken upon its end.

As for why they don't use that to heal the world, most likely because the defensive abilities only affect them, like Tracer's rewind.

Control over time is also something only a select few beings have, such as the titans and the Bronze dragonflight. So the fact that a mortal mage can attain such power is truly impressive.

[kingarthas]

Azshara is the most prominently powerful "naturally talented" mage in the setting, and meanwhile Gul'dan is indisputably the most powerful "naturally talented" warlock in the setting.

In terms of power that "any" mage or warlock could possess, they represent the pinnacle of what they can accomplish.

Gul'dan's greatest feat was raising the Tomb of Sargeras.
Azshara's greatest feat was displacing all the water of Zin'Azshari.
(Jaina's flood that threatened Orgrimmar required outside help, if it was stronger so irrelevant as far as feats go to the topic.)

Obviously Zin'Azshari as a zone is a lot larger than the Tomb of the Sargeras on the outside - but on the inside and all the collective landmass it has, the Tomb itself can be quite large. Without pixel measurements of the Tomb to compare to Zin'Azshari, I would tentatively say the zone of Zin'Azshari would be larger and so we can probably tentatively say Mages are more powerful.

Warlock power is quick and easy.
Mages have to study for theirs.

Warlocks can pull from an entire dimension and from endless armies for their power. But this power has never been enough to topple Azeroth. And yet, Malygos in the Eye of Eternity cites its power as being enough to destroy the world ten times over. So, even if we're extending Warlock powers as far as they can go, as far as what has been represented and what is known, while Warlock power is impressive for what you can get immediately the universe seems to kind of indicate perpetually that Mages are stronger when it comes to an average joe who works hard - that the easy path is dangerous, and not worth it, and comes with consequences. Warlocks are almost never the heroes of the story. And by the nature of us, the heroes, and our incessant penchant for victory in the setting, it's no wonder if Warlocks are perpetually portrayed as weaker - that's just their lot that they've thrown themselves in with at least until such a time that Sargeras actually leads the Crusade to put an end to the Void once and for all, anyway.

Edit:
If you're just trying to find the most powerful int based class again, Velen fought off foes that Gul'dan also had trouble with - so considering how we need measurements to determine whether the water displacement of Zin'Azshari by Azshara or the Tomb raising by Gul'dan is greater, we can at the very least know that Velen is stronger than Gul'dan canonically. So, if anything, Priests stronger than Warlocks confirmed basically. And since Mannoroth cites Azshara as being weaker than Archimonde, Kil'Jaeden, and Sargeras, this probably puts Velen ahead of Azshara as well. So Priests, probably stronger than Mages too.

Thx for asking this time pure warlock vs mage and their source of power. The Light is boring to me. also priest doesnt have any light dps spec, it kills the fantesy for me. We have ret Paladin tho but light is not my taste...

[Razion]

Mages, because they have control over time. Theoretically they can pretty much hax their way to victory by using their time-related spells. There's not much you can do when your opponent can erase any damage they take, significantly increase the speed at which they attack, etc.

if mages were this powerful, why didnt they prevent any damage done to azeroth? mages are powerful, yes, but to stop time and erase damage? no, absolutely not.

Using time magic to radical extent would call the attention of the Bronze Dragonflight, which would arguably be a greater threat to an average mage than an individual warlock. (Counter-spelling Felpuppies aside.)

[matrix123mko]

Arcane and fel are equally strong overall. However, becoming a mage is more difficult than becoming a warlock. Warlock just has a deal with a demon that empowers him while mage needs to study a lot to be on the same level. Average warlock is more powerful than average mage but he doesn't understand the power he uses, giving mage a way to defeat him. Consider a duel between a trained fighter and idiot with a gun.

[DemonHunter18]

depends on a mage and warlock.

warlocks are definitely the most destructive.

[ButterBeast]

They were granted power by Sargeras.

No....They were warlocks. You can easily look that up.

[Carmion]

Arcane and fel are equally strong overall. However, becoming a mage is more difficult than becoming a warlock. Warlock just has a deal with a demon that empowers him while mage needs to study a lot to be on the same level. Average warlock is more powerful than average mage but he doesn't understand the power he uses, giving mage a way to defeat him. Consider a duel between a trained fighter and idiot with a gun.

These energies are probably the key.
Fel and Arcane are both different cosmic energies, that were never ranked in power. So assuming that Mages have the same control over Arcane as Warlocks have over Fel, the most reasonable answer is:

Equal, depending on the individuals.

The risk that comes for Warlocks is the tradeoff for ease of accessibility, not for greater power.

[Stormspellz]

by lore potential, typically warlock. as mentioned most warlocks are simply mages who turned to fel for more power. It also varies what "rules" you want to use, for example breaking down mages by DnD like rules evocation, illusion, abjuration, ect school archtypes which one could argue fel is simply another school

[Aquamonkey]

"If they are so dangerous, why did the wizards there not deal with them?" Graymane demanded. "Why did they not use their magic to end the threat"
"Because the orcs possess magic of their own," Antonidas countered. "Potent magic. Most of their warlocks are weaker than our own wizards, at least from what my fellows reported, yet they have far greater numbers and can work in unison, something my own brethren have never found easy." Khadgar was sure he heard some bitterness in the old archmage‘s voice, and understood it well. If there was one thing every member of the Kirin Tor valued, it was his independence. Getting even two wizards to work together was difficult enough—the thought of managing more than that was almost beyond imagining.
--Tides of Darkness