Warlock is a full caster, so stop claiming that he isn't.

[DivisibleByZero]

There have been many upon many debates in the past, and even more recently, that the warlock is not a full caster.
I am here to debunk those claims with cold, hard, mathematics.

Using the variant spell points rul in the DMG, the pell point cost to create slots is as follows:
1st: 2
2nd: 3
3rd: 5
4th: 6
5th: 7
6th: 9
7th: 10
8th: 11
9th: 13

Under those same rules, the spell points granted to a caster per level are as follows:
1st: 4 (two 1st level spells)
2nd: 6 (+one 1st level spell)
3rd: 14 (+one 1st level spell, +two 2nd level spells)
4th: 17 (+one 2nd level spell)
5th: 27 (+two 3rd level spells)
6th: 32 (+one 3rd level spell)
7th: 38 (+one 4th level spell)
8th: 44 (+one 4th level spell)
9th: 57 (+one 4th level spell, +one 5th level spell)
10th: 64 (+one 5th level spell)
11th: 73 (+one 6th level spell)
12th: 73
13th: 83 (+one 7th level spell)
14th: 83
15th: 94 (+one 8th level spell)
16th: 94
17th: 107 (+one 9th level spell)
18th: 114 (+one 5th level spell)
19th: 123 (+one 6th level spell)
20th: 133 (+one 7th level spell)
You'll notice that it all lines up perfectly.

Now let's look at the warlock's progression.
1st: one 1st level slot, equivalent to 2sp
2nd: two 1st level slots, = 4sp
3rd: two 2nd level slots, = 6sp
5th: two 3rd level slots, = 10sp
7th: two 4th level slots, = 12sp
9th: two 5th level slots, = 14sp
11th: three 5th level slots, = 21sp
17th: four 5th level slots, = 28sp

The rules recommend two or three short rests per adventuring day. So we can average that at 2.5 short rests to replenish your slots. So now we multiply our equivalent SP by 3.5 (one set of spells to start, plus 2.5 replenishments = 3.5).
So looking at that table and multiplying, we get:
1st: one 1st level slot, equivalent to 2sp x3.5 = 7sp
2nd: two 1st level slots, = 4sp x3.5 = 14sp
3rd: two 2nd level slots, = 6sp x3.5 = 21sp
5th: two 3rd level slots, = 10sp x3.5 = 35sp
7th: two 4th level slots, = 12sp x3.5 = 42sp
9th: two 5th level slots, = 14sp x3.5 = 49sp
11th: three 5th level slots, = 21sp x3.5 = 73.5sp
17th: four 5th level slots, = 28sp x3.5 = 98sp
At 20th level, their capstone, Eldritch Master, gives us another replenishment, making the multiplier 4.5.
20th: four 5th level slots, = 28sp x4.5 = 126

Now we add in the equivalent spell points for Mystic Arcanum
11th: one 6th level slot, = 9sp
13th: one 7th level slot, = 10sp
15th: one 8th level slot, = 11sp
17th: one 9th level slot, = 13sp

Now we take those figures and add them to the previous table
1st: one 1st level slot, equivalent to 2sp x3.5 = 7sp
2nd: two 1st level slots, = 4sp x3.5 = 14sp
3rd: two 2nd level slots, = 6sp x3.5 = 21sp
5th: two 3rd level slots, = 10sp x3.5 = 35sp
7th: two 4th level slots, = 12sp x3.5 = 42sp
9th: two 5th level slots, = 14sp x3.5 = 49sp
11th: three 5th level slots, = 21sp x3.5 = 73.5sp, plus one 6th level slot (9sp) = 82.5sp
13th: one 7th level slot, +10sp (totaling 19 for MA) = 92.5sp
15th: one 8th level slot, +11sp (totaling 30 for MA) = 101.5sp
17th: one 9th level slot, +13sp (totaling 43 for MA)
17th: four 5th level slots, = 28sp x3.5 = 98sp, +43 total from MA = 141sp
20th: four 5th level slots, = 28sp x4.5 = 126, +43 from MA = 169sp

Now let us compare these numbers with those from the spell point table.
1st: 4 for the caster, vs 7 for the warlock
2nd: 6 for the caster, vs 14 for the warlock
3rd: 14 for the caster, vs 21 for the warlock
4th: 17 for the caster, vs 21 for the warlock
5th: 27 for the caster, vs 35 for the warlock
6th: 32 for the caster, vs 35 for the warlock
7th: 38 for the caster, vs 42 for the warlock
8th: 44 for the caster, vs 42 for the warlock
9th: 57 for the caster, vs 49 for the warlock
10th: 64 for the caster, vs 49 for the warlock
11th: 73 for the caster, vs 82.5 for the warlock
12th: 73 for the caster, vs 82.5 for the warlock
13th: 83 for the caster, vs 92.5 for the warlock
14th: 83 for the caster, vs 92.5 for the warlock
15th: 94 for the caster, vs 101.5 for the warlock
16th: 94 for the caster, vs 101.5 for the warlock
17th: 107 for the caster, vs 141 for the warlock
18th: 114 for the caster, vs 141 for the warlock
19th: 123 for the caster, vs 141 for the warlock
20th: 133 for the caster, vs 169 for the warlock

That's comparing Warlocks with Bards, Clerics, Moon Druids, and Sorcerers (because let's face it, Sorcs should be using their points on metamagic, not on creating more slots).
If we factor in the Wizards' and Land Druids' ability to create more slots (henceforth referred to as reco, for recovery), the comparison looks like this:
1st: 4 for the caster (+2 reco = 6sp), vs 7 for the warlock
2nd: 6 for the caster (+2 reco = 8sp), vs 14 for the warlock
3rd: 14 for the caster (+3 reco = 17sp), vs 21 for the warlock
4th: 17 for the caster (+3 reco = 20sp), vs 21 for the warlock
5th: 27 for the caster (+5 reco = 32sp), vs 35 for the warlock
6th: 32 for the caster (+5 reco = 37sp), vs 35 for the warlock
7th: 38 for the caster (+6 reco = 44sp), vs 42 for the warlock
8th: 44 for the caster (+6 reco = 50sp), vs 42 for the warlock
9th: 57 for the caster (+7 reco = 54sp), vs 49 for the warlock
10th: 64 for the caster (+7 reco = 71sp), vs 49 for the warlock
11th: 73 for the caster (+9 reco = 80sp), vs 82.5 for the warlock
13th: 83 for the caster (+10 reco = 93sp), vs 92.5 for the warlock
15th: 94 for the caster (+12 reco = 106sp), vs 101.5 for the warlock
17th: 107 for the caster (+13 reco = 120sp), vs 141 for the warlock
18th: 114 for the caster (+13 reco = 127sp), vs 141 for the warlock
19th: 123 for the caster (+14 reco = 137sp), vs 141 for the warlock
20th: 133 for the caster (+14 reco = 147sp), vs 169 for the warlock

So you can claim that you don't like the warlock's design. You can claim that you believe it isn't versatile enough. You can complain about a million other subjective things that you dislike about it.
But the warlock has 9th level spells, and not only keeps up with every other caster in the game in terms of spell power, there are many times where the warlock is mathematically the most powerful caster in the game.
He is a full caster that is forced to use the spell point variant, with the stipulation that he can only create slots of the highest level of which he is capable.
So you can complain all you want about subjective issues, but objectively, you simply cannot claim that it is any less than a full caster.

[Dr. Cliché]

Just to reiterate what I said in the other thread - I don't think spell points are a good comparison tool.

The fact that you can use them for every casting class *except* warlocks would indicate that spell points simply don't work for warlocks.

Hence, I can't see how they'd be a reliable comparison tool for warlocks.

[JackPhoenix]

More important thing is: What defines full caster? Access to level 9 spells? In that case, warlock is full caster. Full spell slot progression? In that case, nope, warlock isn't. Unless you establish what IS a full caster, discussion if warlock is or isn't one is meaningless.

[DivisibleByZero]

Just to reiterate what I said in the other thread - I don't think spell points are a good comparison tool.

The fact that you can use them for every casting class *except* warlocks would indicate that spell points simply don't work for warlocks.

Hence, I can't see how they'd be a reliable comparison tool for warlocks.

As I said, warlocks were designed using the spell point variant as a baseline for its power, as you can clearly see by the math.
This is also the reason that they only get two slots prior to level 11, because a third slot before then breaks the math.

The reason that you can't use spell points with a warlock is because they already use the spell point system but are relegated to the stipulation that they can only create slots at the highest level of which they are capable.... just like I said in the text above.
So go ahead and let them use spell points. But they can only create their highest level slots. And in so doing, when you actually use the spell point variant, they actually become weaker because of it.

[MrStabby]

More important thing is: What defines full caster? Access to level 9 spells? In that case, warlock is full caster. Full spell slot progression? In that case, nope, warlock isn't. Unless you establish what IS a full caster, discussion if warlock is or isn't one is meaningless.

No, the point is to be angry and opinionated.

Step 1: Decide what you want the answer to be
Step 2: Create a definition, possibly a circular definition to support your desired answer
Step 3: Insist that everyone else in the world use your definition rather than any of the others
Step 4: Get angry when anyone points out what you have done
Step 5: ???
Step 6: Profit

[gfishfunk]

I'm in the camp of 'full caster is an arbitrary definition'. If you split the game into caster classes and non-casters, things don't compare well. Ranger is very different from wizard.

If you split into non-casters, third casters, half casters, and full casters you still have problems.

I don't think its an issue of whether the warlock is a full caster because the mechanics are different enough that warlock is its own thing with its own strengths and weaknesses. An 8th level Warlock will rarely cast a level 1 spell as a level 1 spell, and that is because the spell does not scale when cast at a higher level. So it casts several spells at max level, and can do it multiple times per day.

If you create too few boxes to put all classes in, you will get stuck with things that are not fitting well in either. If you create too many boxes to put all classes in, it will be 1 class per box.

[Dr. Cliché]

As I said, warlocks were designed using the spell point variant as a baseline for its power, as you can clearly see by the math.
This is also the reason that they only get two slots prior to level 11, because a third slot before then breaks the math.

Unless you've actually spoken with the designers, this is just conjecture on your part.



The reason that you can't use spell points with a warlock is because they already use the spell point system but are relegated to the stipulation that they can only create slots at the highest level of which they are capable.... just like I said in the text above.

Um . . . what?

Warlocks aren't even close to using the spell point system. If anything, they're further from it than most or all of the other casting classes.



I'm in the camp of 'full caster is an arbitrary definition'. If you split the game into caster classes and non-casters, things don't compare well. Ranger is very different from wizard.

If you split into non-casters, third casters, half casters, and full casters you still have problems.

I don't think its an issue of whether the warlock is a full caster because the mechanics are different enough that warlock is its own thing with its own strengths and weaknesses. An 8th level Warlock will rarely cast a level 1 spell as a level 1 spell, and that is because the spell does not scale when cast at a higher level. So it casts several spells at max level, and can do it multiple times per day.

If you create too few boxes to put all classes in, you will get stuck with things that are not fitting well in either. If you create too many boxes to put all classes in, it will be 1 class per box.

I'd agree with this.

[Vorpalchicken]

Warlock is a full caster*

*however most of his career he will be limited to casting a maximum of two non cantrip spells in an encounter. refunds will not be honored.

[MadBear]

No, the point is to be angry and opinionated.

Step 1: Decide what you want the answer to be
Step 2: Create a definition, possibly a circular definition to support your desired answer
Step 3: Insist that everyone else in the world use your definition rather than any of the others
Step 4: Get angry when anyone points out what you have done
Step 5: ???
Step 6: Profit

I'd say your Step 1, is not really supported. You don't have access to the OP's mind, and therefore can't possibly justify this step.

Step 2-3 are possibly justified. It depends entirely on context outside of this thread that I have no interest in hashing out, since it seems this is more of a personal dispute, that would probably be better handled by PMing each other.

With that said, the OP does give their reasoning in pretty decent depth, and responding to that rather then what you've done would be more productive on this particular thread.

[bid]

Warlock are full casters because:
- they gain higher level spells at the same time,
- they have cantrips,
- they can have rituals.

Warlock aren't full casters because:
- they only have access to a single arcanum for 6th+ spells,
- they can't do the 5 minutes day.

Warlocks have a different flavor because:
- their slots don't MC with the others,
- they lack lower slots and must use invocations to cover for it,
- they can only cast at full power and must rest.

[DivisibleByZero]

Warlock are full casters because:
- they gain higher level spells at the same time,
- they have cantrips,
- they can have rituals.

Warlock aren't full casters because:
- they only have access to a single arcanum for 6th+ spells,
- they can't do the 5 minutes day.

Warlocks have a different flavor because:
- their slots don't MC with the others,
- they lack lower slots and must use invocations to cover for it,
- they can only cast at full power and must rest.

Part 1: Correct.
Part 2: Like I said, they use a modified (as in, they can only create slots of their highest level) spell point variant. Under that variant, you can only create a single slot of each of levels 6-9. No discrepancy here. In fact, it strengthens my point.

[Desamir]

Warlock are full casters because:
- they gain higher level spells at the same time,
- they have cantrips,
- they can have rituals.
Cantrips don't really mean much, since third casters get them too.


Warlock aren't full casters because:
- they only have access to a single arcanum for 6th+ spells,
- they can't do the 5 minutes day.
So-called full casters don't get their second 6th level slot until level 19, so it's a pretty slim distinction.

I guess I'm just having some trouble with a) what a "full caster" is, and b) why it matters whether or not you are one.

[Millstone85]

Cantrips don't really mean much, since third casters get them too.But half casters don't, which is weird.


I guess I'm just having some trouble with a) what a "full caster" isMulticlassing rules make it clear what counts as a full, half or third caster class for the purpose of spell slot calculation, and that the warlock does not enter in said math.


and b) why it matters whether or not you are one.I am not sure but here is what I think. If you were playing a druid, you might want to "measure up" to the cleric. Same with a ranger and a paladin, or an arcane trickster and an eldritch knight. But the warlock doesn't know who to compete against.

[gfishfunk]

I am not sure but here is what I think. If you were playing a druid, you might want to "measure up" to the cleric. Same with a ranger and a paladin, or an arcane trickster and an eldritch knight. But the warlock doesn't know who to compete against.

I'm not sure that you are competing with anyone, and I truly mean that. Its just so different from everything else. No other class gets so many at-will spells (available though invocations), which just tosses spells-per-day out the window.

Maybe compare them to the Five Elements Monk. Just for giggles.

[MrStabby]

I'd say your Step 1, is not really supported. You don't have access to the OP's mind, and therefore can't possibly justify this step.

Step 2-3 are possibly justified. It depends entirely on context outside of this thread that I have no interest in hashing out, since it seems this is more of a personal dispute, that would probably be better handled by PMing each other.

With that said, the OP does give their reasoning in pretty decent depth, and responding to that rather then what you've done would be more productive on this particular thread.

I wasn't necessarily responding to this thread - more the general type of thread where someone opens with a theme of "I am angry that someone thinks differently to me and it is important to me that no one expresses an opinion I disagree with". So often they follow the same old tired format.

As to being productive? Well I am sorry if you feel I am harming the thread. It may just be my cynicism having seen this so many times but no one really listens to anyone else on this kind of thread and i have never ever seen this type of thread be productive so I figured it would be no loss to the world to have some fun.

As to the reasoning in depth - well I can respect showing your working. It may not be the right working (even if the arithmetic is correct) but at least it allows the debate to be on appropriate ways to evaluate these things rather than if the calculation is correct.


For me, I think the useful measure/question is "what proportion of a class's power derives from their spell slots/arcana?" I wouldn't push for particular numbers at this stage but I would feel reasonably comfortable ranking them:

Wizard (recovery + huge range of spells + prepared caster vs low HP)
Sorcerer (metamagic +font of magic + bonus damage or wild surge vs low HP (in part)
Land druid (recovery - modest HD and wildshape)
Bard (great caster but an appreciable part of the class' power is held in skills for the lore bard and martial prowess for the valor bard. Magical secrets ensures that a focus remains on spells)
Cleric (normal spell slots vs more weapon proficiency and heavy armour + some power in channel divinity)
Moon druid (more of this class power begins to drift into the wildform, spells carry the slack)
Warlock (more inflexible casting and limited spells known and more of the class power is in invocations, a powerful at-will attack and patron features)
Paladin (Paladin sports a second attack, lots of martial proficiency, auras and so on so relies less on spells for class power)
Ranger (similar to the paladin but with even worse casting - fewer spells known and no prepared casting)
Monk (for either shadow or 4E there are good spells that are useful and are likely to see a lot of play as a major class feature but it really isn't where most of the class power is)
EK/AT (both are casters, both have class features that boost their casting but neither really get the slots to capitalise on it)
Totem barbarian (magic is pretty much an afterthought)


Now if people want to discuss semantics and where to draw the line that is fine - I don't really care what names other people give to different groups. I do think that there is no useful binary classification for these classes.

[MrStabby]

I guess I'm just having some trouble with a) what a "full caster" is, and b) why it matters whether or not you are one.

A "Full Caster" is a made up term. it doesn't really have meaning, but arguing on the internet is fun. And no - it doesn't matter at all if you are one or not.

[Willie the Duck]

As I said, warlocks were designed using the spell point variant as a baseline for its power, as you can clearly see by the math.

No, what we can clearly see is that you can create a mathematical model with models the warlock and other 'full casters' (a subjectively defined term) mapping to each other with moderate-to acceptable accuracy. Nothing more, nothing less. Declaring this to be proof, much less suggesting that you know how warlocks were designed, are assertions that you have not supported.

[Gawayne]

I've been away from the tables for a while, since the introduction of 3.5, came back a couple months ago. So what I'm about to ask may seen silly but I'd really appreciate if someone can answer me.

So, my question is: Why does it matter? Why is it so important to define a Warlock as a full caster, or to prove otherwise?

[xyianth]

It comes down to feeling for me. If you are playing a full caster, the general expectation is that you will be spending most of your time casting spells. At-will cantrips don't really feel like spells. Especially if you spend 99% of your cantrip uses on the same exact cantrip. At that point it feels more like you are swinging you magic sword or shooting your magic bow.

When examined from this perspective, warlocks don't feel like full casters. I personally would have much preferred that the warlock had been designed as a non-caster that instead got access to far more interesting and potent invocations that granted the ability to cast specific effects throughout the day.

[clash]

As other as said before me. In order to say that a warlock is a full caster you must first define fullcaster. In this case:
"A warlock is a fullcaster given that a fullcaster is defined as a class that at any given level, if they have their suggested number of spells slots per day converted to the spell points variant, will have above defined thresholds for daily number of spell points"

You have done solid math to prove that statement. I can agree it is irrefutable. You nothing at all to prove that a warlock is a fullcaster in any other given definition of the word.

[clash]

I've been away from the tables for a while, since the introduction of 3.5, came back a couple months ago. So what I'm about to ask may seen silly but I'd really appreciate if someone can answer me.

So, my question is: Why does it matter? Why is it so important to define a Warlock as a full caster, or to prove otherwise?

It doesnt matter whatsoever beyond a discussion capacity. Mechanically being a fullcaster or not changes nothing.

[MadBear]

I wasn't necessarily responding to this thread - more the general type of thread where someone opens with a theme of "I am angry that someone thinks differently to me and it is important to me that no one expresses an opinion I disagree with". So often they follow the same old tired format.

Ah, ok. In that case, it might be more productive to just point out that the OP is being to hyperbolic and not to just dismiss someone's point entirely (or if you find the thread frivolous just ignore it entirely).



As to being productive? Well I am sorry if you feel I am harming the thread. It may just be my cynicism having seen this so many times but no one really listens to anyone else on this kind of thread and i have never ever seen this type of thread be productive so I figured it would be no loss to the world to have some fun.

I can appreciate that. I've found that being negative/cynical on a thread rarely helps make your point, and instead just eventually leads a thread to being locked due to fighting. With that said, that's just my opinion and I don't offer it up as "fact".


As to the reasoning in depth - well I can respect showing your working. It may not be the right working (even if the arithmetic is correct) but at least it allows the debate to be on appropriate ways to evaluate these things rather than if the calculation is correct.

and isn't this really the crux of the disagreement. Would it not be appropriate to just say:
"I agree that Warlocks are full casters in the sense that, they're power is roughly equivalent using the spell point variant. But that's not all I take into consideration when defining a full caster."

That way you stipulate his point only works within his definition, while showing why it doesn't hold water with your view.

[gfishfunk]

It comes down to feeling for me. If you are playing a full caster, the general expectation is that you will be spending most of your time casting spells. At-will cantrips don't really feel like spells. Especially if you spend 99% of your cantrip uses on the same exact cantrip. At that point it feels more like you are swinging you magic sword or shooting your magic bow.

When examined from this perspective, warlocks don't feel like full casters. I personally would have much preferred that the warlock had been designed as a non-caster that instead got access to far more interesting and potent invocations that granted the ability to cast specific effects throughout the day.

Without meaning offense, how many encounters do you usually have in any given adventuring day, xyianth? Its sounds like you might typically experience a shorter adventuring day. EDIT: by no offense, I mean I am not implying you are playing wrong.

The longer the day goes, the more the wizard / sorcerer / cleric / bard / druid seem to function like the Warlock. Kick a few spells out each encounter, mostly rely on cantrips, and try to budget your spells. That feels similar.

If you have a shorter adventuring day, the wizard / sorcerer / cleric / bard / druid can shoot out spells to their heart's content, and warlocks definitely feel different.

I speak as a player that mostly played 3-4 encounters in a longer adventuring day as a warlock. The bard could keep slinging spells, and I had to budget in an encounter.

I also speak as a DM that typically provides 6-9 encounters in an adventuring day, and the bard, cleric, and the warlock all have a similar experience: one or two spells in an encounter and mostly cantrips afterwards.

I don't care if the DM runs a 5 minute adventuring day or a lot of encounters throughout the adventuring day, just so long as it is an intentional choice and the DM is aware (and makes the players aware) of the effect it has on resource management.

[Millstone85]

It comes down to feeling for me. If you are playing a full caster, the general expectation is that you will be spending most of your time casting spells. At-will cantrips don't really feel like spells. Especially if you spend 99% of your cantrip uses on the same exact cantrip. At that point it feels more like you are swinging you magic sword or shooting your magic bow.Yeah, the warlock feels like a gish to me. At least, most "blastlock" builds do, and "bladelock" ones try. But I am completely fine with being the pew-pew-pew guy. It is a blast! :smallwink:

[Paeleus]

Ok, since y'all asked, I'll chime in.

In the Multiclassing section of the PHB, it refers to Full Casters, Half Casters, and Third Casters based off of the Spellcasting feature from their class/subclass and how they work together when determining slots available and spells known/prepared. And Pact Magic plays by different rules. Because Warlocks play by different rules. Both in spell casting and class features (Invocations).

tl;dr
Warlock's aren't Spellcasters, they're the red headed step-children of Spellcasters. (No offense to any Spellcasting, ginger step-children out there).

[Dr. Cliché]

It comes down to feeling for me. If you are playing a full caster, the general expectation is that you will be spending most of your time casting spells. At-will cantrips don't really feel like spells. Especially if you spend 99% of your cantrip uses on the same exact cantrip. At that point it feels more like you are swinging you magic sword or shooting your magic bow.

I think this is pretty fair.



When examined from this perspective, warlocks don't feel like full casters. I personally would have much preferred that the warlock had been designed as a non-caster that instead got access to far more interesting and potent invocations that granted the ability to cast specific effects throughout the day.

Any chance you could elaborate on this (by pm if you like)? It sounds like a really interesting idea and I'd like to hear more about it. :smallsmile:

Also, out of interest, how does the 3.5 warlock compare to your idea? Is it any closer to what you'd like to see?


Without meaning offense, how many encounters do you usually have in any given adventuring day, xyianth? Its sounds like you might typically experience a shorter adventuring day. EDIT: by no offense, I mean I am not implying you are playing wrong.

I don't know if this is just my playstyle, but I think one major difference is when it comes to having a spell 'in reserve'. Basically, leaving something to help you get out of a sticky situation (misty step, invisibility etc.). With most 'full' casters, you can cast a lot of spells throughout the day, but still have one or two spells (well, spell slots) as insurance.

With a warlock though, keeping a spell in reserve means that, for most of the game, you've got about 1 spell per ~3 encounters. Or, if you cast all your spells, then you've got absolutely nothing left for an emergency.

[brainface]

It is a blast! :smallwink:
*highfives*

Warlock's reliance on short rests makes them play very different than the other full casters--there's a good chance you either have far fewer spells a day or a few more than the other guys. Hypothetically perfectly designed adventuring days have them coming up about the same, but danged if I've ever seen those. Add in spells you don't really want to upcast--comprehend languages, charm person, hideous laughter, what have you--I feel like their special casting system tends to hamper them more than help.

[Saggo]

b) why it matters whether or not you are one.
While it's not the point of this thread, it does ultimately matter for game balance.


No, what we can clearly see is that you can create a mathematical model with models the warlock and other 'full casters' (a subjectively defined term) mapping to each other with moderate-to acceptable accuracy. Nothing more, nothing less. Declaring this to be proof, much less suggesting that you know how warlocks were designed, are assertions that you have not supported.

It's not really subjective, it's just culturally accepted shorthand for objective facts. We know for fact what casters contribute their full levels to spell slots. We can convert their slots to a single measurement thanks to spell points. By converting Warlock to the same measurement, we see they are equal in measure (thus equal in spellcasting power) to what we call full casters.

It might be more accurate to say that Warlocks are equal to full casters, but the sentiment is exactly the same if you call them full casters.

[Giant2005]

I consider Warlocks to be full casters - they attain new levels of spells at the same level as the other full spellcasters and can eventually cast spells as high as 9th level. That is enough for me.
Having said that, Warlocks do suffer from a few serious drawbacks which make them far weaker in practice (with reference to non-Cantrip spellcasting at least).

-They can't upcast spells with level 6, 7, 8, or 9 slots.
-They are forced to waste the equivalent of high level spell slots when casting non-scaling spells.
-They rely on having 2 or more Short Rests per adventuring day, but that is often impractical and actually a pretty rare occurrence.
-Any spellcaster worth their salt saves at least 1 spell slot for emergencies and Warlocks just can't practically do that. Any other level 10 full caster that keeps a spell in reserve would have 14+ other slots to cast throughout the day. A level 10 Warlock that tries the same would only have 3 (assuming 2 short rests).

[King539]

Warlocks aren't full spellcasters. They're full Pact-Magicers. They are equivalent in power to full casters, but play differently.

[Mikey P]

While in the perfect world where every encounter day has the perfect number of rests, Warlocks may have the equivalent number of spell points, but the reality doesn't play out in such a way that they feel like a full caster. Play style won't let them.

I had to multi-class the hell out of there in the game I currently play, when it became apparent that all the other "full casters" would blow their best spells in the first encounter, then bitch about needing a long rest until they got one. So while I would try and use 1 spell or none and stick to cantrips to have my spell levels be ready for a surprise, but inevitably, it would end with me having unused slots, and the other full casters spent all their best goodies.

The reality of play means I don't think I have ever seen the game session where there were 3 short rests in a day, or that my Warlock has ever come close to the spell level expenditure of the other "full Casters"

Short of lecturing my GMs and the other players of how they are having wrong bad fun and wrecking the game by blowing this aspect of resource management, I don't see a fix for it. So you can call them "Full Casters" buy they sure don't feel like them.

YMMV obviously.

[Asmotherion]

The Warlock is a Warlock. They have more blasting power in place of versality. Some things they cast at-will others they cast at maximum power but this process burns more spell power from them than normal, allowing them only 4 spells like this per day. They then have their Mystic Arcanums; Spells they can cast once per day, but cannot enhance further with higher spell slots.

In spell-point system, I'd say he is a full caster who has to cast his spells using the highest number of spell points he can on a spell when casting it... It could be explaind as magic too strong to control that works in bursts of wild magical power. Starting at 6th level spells, as the power gap between 5th and 6th level spells is quite big (magical energy wise) he starts having a limited control over what spell level he casts, but he can never cast a spell at a level lower than 5th unless it's by the means of a cantrip or invocation.

Optionally, have their spell progression be full caster but stop at 5th level spells. Then have Mystic Arcanum work as a ceparate thing not fueled by Spell Points.

[Mikey P]

Actually I think they are NOT full casters.


There have been many upon many debates in the past, and even more recently, that the warlock is not a full caster.
......
So you can complain all you want about subjective issues, but objectively, you simply cannot claim that it is any less than a full caster.

I disagree with your definition of "Full Caster"

You can complain all that you want that people don't agree with your interpretation of this subjective term, but objectively you cannot claim they follow all the conditions of what I think of as a full caster.

A "Full Caster" follows the standard spell progression table, and it's levels can be combined with the levels of other full caster classes for uninterrupted progression on the Multiclass Spellcaster table.

This does NOT describe a Pact magic user.

[KorvinStarmast]

Warlock is a full caster*

*however most of his career he will be limited to casting a maximum of two non cantrip spells in an encounter. refunds will not be honored.
The quote that to me nails this class is:

Warlocks have a different flavor because:
- their slots don't MC with the others,
- they lack lower slots and must use invocations to cover for it,
- they can only cast at full power and must rest.
They are meant to have a different flavor. That's on purpose.

Nice summary, analysis.

That makes sense.

So, my question is: Why does it matter? Why is it so important to define a Warlock as a full caster, or to prove otherwise? It doesn't.


While it's not the point of this thread, it does ultimately matter for game balance. Calling something a "full caster" does nothing for game balance. One of the answers further up points out that if, per the general design model, there are 6-8 encounters per day and two short rests -- that's the model this game was allegedly balanced around -- all of a sudden the spell regeneration and balance points begin to find the Warlock having more spell levels to offer up.

Warlocks aren't full spellcasters. They're full Pact-Magicers. They are equivalent in power to full casters, but play differently. That's another way the say it.

[Asmotherion]

Actually I think they are NOT full casters.



I disagree with your definition of "Full Caster"

You can complain all that you want that people don't agree with your interpretation of this subjective term, but objectively you cannot claim they follow all the conditions of what I think of as a full caster.

A "Full Caster" follows the standard spell progression table, and it's levels can be combined with the levels of other full caster classes for uninterrupted progression on the Multiclass Spellcaster table.

This does NOT describe a Pact magic user.

That said, they are definitelly not 1/2 or 1/3 casters either.

They gain access to new spell levels as fast as full casters and get to cast 9th levels spells, just like them. Overall, they may not be full casters, but full caster progression is the closest thing to them, and in a simplifyed spell point system, it should be the way to translate them.

[Mikey P]

That said, they are definitelly not 1/2 or 1/3 casters either.

They gain access to new spell levels as fast as full casters and get to cast 9th levels spells, just like them. Overall, they may not be full casters, but full caster progression is the closest thing to them, and in a simplifyed spell point system, it should be the way to translate them.
Agreed, they aren't fractional casters either.

You can say they are equivalent, but a dip alters your spell slot progression, ergo, not a full caster class.

[xyianth]

Without meaning offense, how many encounters do you usually have in any given adventuring day, xyianth? Its sounds like you might typically experience a shorter adventuring day.

No offense taken. The answer is it varies wildly. When 5e first started we stuck to the 10 encounters per day, 2 short and 1 long rest per day mechanic. The warlocks basically never cast anything but hex until after level 11. It did not feel like a caster in any way, shape, or form. Eventually we tried different variants on rests and such. We eventually settled on a modified version of gritty realism rules in sandbox style campaign worlds. For our purposes it helped balance the power between classes that are dependent on short rests and classes that are dependent on long rests. When I say modified, we added an heroic surge ability to all classes to help out the purely long rest dependent classes cope with the gritty realism rest restrictions:


Heroic Surge
You gain a number of heroic surges equal to your proficiency bonus when you complete a long rest. As a bonus action on your turn you can expend a heroic surge to regain the use of any single class feature as if you had completed a short or long rest. (your choice) This is not a class feature, so you can not use this feature on itself. If you are a spellcaster and you use this to regain your spellcasting you regain a number of spell levels equal to 1/2 your level. (round up) You can divide these up however you wish. Warlocks regain all pact magic slots by expending a surge to regain pact magic. This feature can not be used to regain a slot higher than 5th level.

The only class that doesn't really benefit from this is rogue. (non-arcane trickster) I gave my rogues the ability to spend a surge to take a second reaction or bonus action in a round. (their choice) Between uncanny dodge, cunning action, and opportunity attacks rogues can make great use of an extra bonus action or reaction.


Any chance you could elaborate on this (by pm if you like)? It sounds like a really interesting idea and I'd like to hear more about it. :smallsmile:

Also, out of interest, how does the 3.5 warlock compare to your idea? Is it any closer to what you'd like to see?

I'll try to elaborate without going into full homebrew territory. Yes, the 3.5 warlock is a closer match to my idea, but I recognize that fully at-will powers of varying level would not work in 5e. What I would have liked is invocation chains that allow a warlock to either specialize on a few tricks or generalize and pick up a bunch. I also think the concept of blast shapes and essences would have gone a long way towards incentivizing people to do more than dip warlock.

In my rough conceptual example, the warlock would gain 2 invocations at 2nd level, then 1 more every level afterwards. Eldritch blast would no longer be a cantrip, but instead a class feature gained at level 1. At warlock level 5, 11, and 17 it increases in damage. Invocations could then allow you to modify it, but not all invocations would apply every use. You would mix and match between available essences and shapes. (1 of each per use) One such shape would allow you to split it into multiple blasts on use by dividing its damage up, similar to how it works now. Another might turn it into an AoE explosion. Yet another might turn it into a curse that triggers when the cursed creature is hit by an ally. Essences would allow you to change the element, apply a save vs debuff, or turn it into an hp draining blast. In addition to shapes and essences, invocations might also add the ability to cast a spell a certain number of times per short or long rest. No slots would be needed, the invocations themselves would indicate the level of the effect. You could also retain some invocations that are neither shapes nor essences but permanently modify eldritch blast, such as agonizing blast or repelling blast do now.

As they do now, invocations would have requirements to take them. Some may only require a certain warlock level, others may require that you already know other invocations, still others might require a certain pact or patron. You could even make invocation chains that work on spell effects, something like an improved fiendish resilience invocation that improves the false life to 3rd level spell equivalent when used.

The overall net effect is that you could make some warlocks that hyper specialize on eldritch blast and use it in many different ways while other warlocks specialize in a variety of potent spell effects and basically never use it. And perhaps best of all, warlocks would actually be rewarded for staying single-classed.

If there is interest, I can try and write up a more complete and thought out homebrew warlock based on this concept.

[Asmotherion]

Agreed, they aren't fractional casters either.

You can say they are equivalent, but a dip alters your spell slot progression, ergo, not a full caster class.

True, but that would mean no way to translate the warlock into a SP system, unless you:

A) Ignore what you mentioned and allow full caster progression. After all, Spell Point System is a variant ruling that already allows things otherwise unavalable (casting more than one 9th level spell per day for example), so stacking SP progression to full caster wouldn't be that terrible. Or;
B) Make a ceparate spell point system for the warlock that does not stack with SP of other casters. Or just leave the warlock out of the SP system instead giving them theit regular spell progression.

I tend to favor option A for simplicity's sake, though I do recognise that if you want strict rullings, option B is the way to go.

[Ninja-Radish]

I don't think anyone's disputing that Warlocks are casters, at least I haven't heard that disputed. They are full casters, just designed in a way that makes them extremely limited and underpowered compared to other caster classes.

That's why most people just dip 2 levels of Warlock and move on to some other class; because the class actually punishes the player for sticking with it for 20 levels.

[Crusher]

Warlock's aren't Spellcasters, they're the red headed step-children of Spellcasters. (No offense to any Spellcasting, ginger step-children out there).

Really, its only fiend-locks who are like Gingers, right? Or does the soul thing automatically apply to all Locks?

[Mikey P]

True, but that would mean no way to translate the warlock into a SP system, unless you:

Well, they do tell you not to...
I'd have to review the SP system again before making a determination, but I think I would vary their recovery rate or some such... But this is obviously total homebrew territory we're in.

I don't think anyone's disputing that Warlocks are casters, at least I haven't heard that disputed. They are full casters, just designed in a way that makes them extremely limited and underpowered compared to other caster classes.

That's why most people just dip 2 levels of Warlock and move on to some other class; because the class actually punishes the player for sticking with it for 20 levels.
Sadly.

[Tanarii]

They definitely aren't full spellcasting casters ... Because pact magic isn't spellcasting. But they are functionally equivalent in magical spell power to a full caster, but on a Short Rest recharge mechanic. So it's only an important point if you mean full spellcaster when you say full caster. If you mean a caster that has equivalent magical power to a full spellcaster, they're the same over the typical adventuring day.

Just as the Elemental Monk isn't a 1/3 spellcasting caster. But they are functionally equivalent to a 1/3 spellcasting caster on a short rest recharge mechanic. You have to make an assumption on that one though ... that they'll only spend 1/2 their available Ki on elemental 'Spells'. Otherwise they're actually more powerful.

[DivisibleByZero]

I don't think anyone's disputing that Warlocks are casters, at least I haven't heard that disputed. They are full casters, just designed in a way that makes them extremely limited and underpowered compared to other caster classes.

That's why most people just dip 2 levels of Warlock and move on to some other class; because the class actually punishes the player for sticking with it for 20 levels.

Going to have to agree to disagree here.
Warlock is one of the best designed classes in the game.
It forces you to make meaningful decisions, both during creation and while leveling, and also within actual gameplay. And it does so in a way that is different, while still being balanced extremely well.
Any problems players have with it (as mentioned above about other casters blowing their wad and then crying for a long rest) is not a problem wit the warlock, but rather a problem with the players and/or DM expecting/allowing such behavior to go unpunished.

[jaappleton]

I'll be honest, there's a lot of posts. I haven't read them.

I know what the Spell Point system is.

As its written, it can't be used with a Warlock.

Why?

It requires the spellcasting feature. Warlocks don't have that.

They have the Pact Magic feature.

[Deleted]

Warlocks are weird and thats ok. They aren't full casters and they don't already use the spell point variant.

Warlocks have the best casting system in 3e, 4e, and 5e. By taking the 4e system and making it look 3e (with a few adjustments) they have created that happy medium between at-will and daily.

But at the end of the day it doesn't matter if you or I call them a full caster or not... That term doesn't hold any weight.

Martials, Hybrids, and Casters are my three main groups. Martials have no magic, hybrids have a little bit of magic, and casters are defined by their magic.

Sometimes a subclass or option can let one bleed into another catagory (blade warlock bleeds into hybrid territory a bit).

[Mikey P]

Going to have to agree to disagree here.
Warlock is one of the best designed classes in the game.
It forces you to make meaningful decisions, both during creation and while leveling, and also within actual gameplay. And it does so in a way that is different, while still being balanced extremely well.
Any problems players have with it (as mentioned above about other casters blowing their wad and then crying for a long rest) is not a problem wit the warlock, but rather a problem with the players and/or DM expecting/allowing such behavior to go unpunished.

Right, so the choices are

1] Constantly remind the other players and GM that they are doing it wrong and having bad fun
2] Play a real full caster (Maybe take a dip if you can handle to loss of spell progression).

[DivisibleByZero]

Right, so the choices are

1] Constantly remind the other players and GM that they are doing it wrong and having bad fun
2] Play a real full caster (Maybe take a dip if you can handle to loss of spell progression).

I don't know how you got that from what I typed.

[Tanarii]

Right, so the choices are

1] Constantly remind the other players and GM that they are doing it wrong and having bad fun
2] Play a real full caster (Maybe take a dip if you can handle to loss of spell progression).if the DM makes a bunch of house rules or goes outside the recommendations of the game, you have to adapt to that. It's not the fault of the game though.

[Millstone85]

Even if the party normally gets two short rests per day, there will be days where it is all about that one big fight, or a fight goes wrong and becomes it.

Here, the wizard & co. have the option to go all-out. I think it is called "nova".

The warlock can't do that. So that's another way the class feels different.

[Tanarii]

Even if the party normally gets two short rests per day, there will be days where it is all about that one big fight, or a fight goes wrong and becomes it.

Here, the wizard & co. have the option to go all-out. I think it is called "nova".

The warlock can't do that. So that's another way the class feels different.And there will be days when there are four short rests. And the warlock and other short rest recharge classes will have the advantage there.

Just because there will be occasional variants from the baseline doesn't mean they'll always vary in the same direction. If they do, you're back to having to adjust because the DM isn't using the games expected baseline. And that isn't the games fault.

Edit: not the games fault doesn't imply the DM is doing something wrong. I'm just saying if it's being perceived as a problem, don't point the finger at the game.

[Mikey P]

Any problems players have with it (as mentioned above about other casters blowing their wad and then crying for a long rest) is not a problem wit the warlock, but rather a problem with the players and/or DM expecting/allowing such behavior to go unpunished.

Right, so the choices are

1] Constantly remind the other players and GM that they are doing it wrong and having bad fun
2] Play a real full caster (Maybe take a dip if you can handle to loss of spell progression).


I don't know how you got that from what I typed.

You're not picking up on the correlation?

It seems like you're saying that the problem is with the GM and Players, so if I want a Warlock to be the equivalent of a full caster, I'll have to manage the GM and other players play style, and brandish the book and tell them they are doing it wrong and this is the way it has to be for this special snowflake class to sit at the big kids table.

[DivisibleByZero]

You're not picking up on the correlation?

It seems like you're saying that the problem is with the GM and Players, so if I want a Warlock to be the equivalent of a full caster, I'll have to manage the GM and other players play style, and brandish the book and tell them they are doing it wrong and this is the way it has to be for this special snowflake class to sit at the big kids table.

Read the post above yours.
T already explained it.
Deviation from the game's intended functionality is the problem. That's not the Warlock's fault. The fault lies with the deviation. It isn't a problem with the class. It's a problem with the table's style vs the game's expectation. The design of the class is not to blame.

[gfishfunk]

Warlock is one of the best designed classes in the game.
It forces you to make meaningful decisions, both during creation and while leveling, and also within actual gameplay. And it does so in a way that is different, while still being balanced extremely well.
Any problems players have with it (as mentioned above about other casters blowing their wad and then crying for a long rest) is not a problem wit the warlock, but rather a problem with the players and/or DM expecting/allowing such behavior to go unpunished.

I agree with this 100% - definitely one of the best designed classes in terms of meaningful choices and interesting combos, but flawed by the agonizing blast invocation (make it prerequisite level 7 or 11 and we are golden). You can really create some interesting combos.

I have been toying with ways to modify other classes to allow for more interesting builds in the same way.

[Tanarii]

Deviation from the game's intended functionality is the problem. That's not the Warlock's fault. The fault lies with the deviation. It isn't a problem with the class. It's a problem with the table's style vs the game's expectation. The design of the class is not to blame.
I'd say insofar as it's a problem, the problem is deviating regularly from the games expectations without making adjustments.

Examples of adjustments:
Using the Heroic Rest variant.
Changing warlocks from a short rest mechanic to a long rest mechanic (ie trippling their slots). Although that one has it's own pit-falls when it comes to nova situations.
Having Short & Long Rests be a mechanical thing with no in-game time, but triggered by DM fiat after X number of Combats, where X varies from 3 (Easy) to 1 (Difficult) depending on Encounter difficulty.

[Mikey P]

Read the post above yours.
T already explained it.
Deviation from the game's intended functionality is the problem. That's not the Warlock's fault. The fault lies with the deviation. It isn't a problem with the class. It's a problem with the game's style vs the expectation. The design of the class is not to blame.

We will have to agree to disagree. I think it's a little of both.

When finicky rules create these kind of discrepancies, it's certainly a game issue. You have to expect for some variation, and that variation has a disproportionate impact on the Warlock by a huge margin.


But if you can miss out on your 9th level slots by taking a Warlock dip, it can't really be a "Full Caster" now can it?

[DivisibleByZero]

But if you can miss out on your 9th level slots by taking a Warlock dip, it can't really be a "Full Caster" now can it?

You need 17 levels of warlock to get your 9th level Mystic Arcanum slot.
You need 17 levels of another caster to get your 9th level spell slot.

I'm not seeing your point here. Not even a little bit.

[Arnie82]

You need 17 levels of warlock to get your 9th level Mystic Arcanum slot.
You need 17 levels of another caster to get your 9th level spell slot.

I'm not seeing your point here. Not even a little bit.

10/10 split of a sorcerer and bard gets you level 9 spell slots.

10/10 split bard warlock doesn't

[Mikey P]

You need 17 levels of warlock to get your 9th level Mystic Arcanum slot.
You need 17 levels of another caster to get your 9th level spell slot.

I'm not seeing your point here. Not even a little bit.

Multiclass any two Full Caster classes and you will get a 9th level slot at character level 17
Multiclass any Full Caster with a Warlock and you will not.

You're really not picking up on that??

[Rysto]

Anyone else see the irony here? One of the biggest complaints about 4e is that all of the classes felt the same: everybody had at-will, per-encounter and daily powers, and the system was balanced around that. So 5e changes that up so different classes recharge their resources at different rates, and balanced the system around that, and now people complain that the classes work differently.

[Millstone85]

Anyone else see the irony here? One of the biggest complaints about 4e is that all of the classes felt the same: everybody had at-will, per-encounter and daily powers, and the system was balanced around that. So 5e changes that up so different classes recharge their resources at different rates, and balanced the system around that, and now people complain that the classes work differently.The real kick is that the 5e class most apart is the most 4e-like class.

[DivisibleByZero]

Multiclass any two Full Caster classes and you will get a 9th level slot at character level 17
Multiclass any Full Caster with a Warlock and you will not.

You're really not picking up on that??

Dude I'm done with your attitude. Read my sig and congratulations.

[DivisibleByZero]

10/10 split of a sorcerer and bard gets you level 9 spell slots.

10/10 split bard warlock doesn't

That's not a dip.

[Arnie82]

That's not a dip.

16/4 happy? You're dense

[Deleted]

That's not a dip.

But it still shows that Warlocks are not full casters.

There is nothing wrong with them not being full casters. They just aren't the same as Wizards and Clerics.

[Tanarii]

When finicky rules create these kind of discrepancies, it's certainly a game issue. You have to expect for some variation, and that variation has a disproportionate impact on the Warlock by a huge margin.But it's disproportionate in both directions based on number of encounters/SR. Just as spellcasting casters have disproportionate based on number of encounters/LR.

3 Encounters/LR, no SR = massive boost to Spellcasting classes, penalty to Warlocks.
1 Encounter/SR, 12 encounters before LR = massive boost to warlocks, penalty to Spellcasting classes.

I mean, you can argue "I don't want to have to deal with resource management to make my classes balanced". But in that case, what the hell are you playing D&D (specifically) for? Choose a different RPG that resource management isn't a core concept for every single edition ever printed.


But it still shows that Warlocks are not full casters.No it doesn't. It just shows they aren't full Spellcasting Feature casters.


The real kick is that the 5e class most apart is the most 4e-like class.Yeah it is kinda, isn't it? :smallbiggrin: Well, that and the Monk. Any Short Rest rechargable feature really, since they're all loosely based on 4e's post-encounter Short Rest.

[Saggo]

Calling something a "full caster" does nothing for game balance.
Sure, but having a measured spellcasting power does.


Multiclass any two Full Caster classes and you will get a 9th level slot at character level 17
Multiclass any Full Caster with a Warlock and you will not.

You're really not picking up on that??

If multiclassing is a hard definition for your use of "Full Caster", then no, Warlock is not a full caster. They are still measurably equivalent in spellcasting power to a full caster.

If your argument is predicated on multiclassing, you've missed the forest for the trees.

[Deleted]

No it doesn't. It just shows they aren't full Spellcasting Feature casters.


Uhh... So they are full casters but they don't get the same treatment as full casters... Right...

Have fun playing 4D chess.

[Mikey P]

Sure, but having a measured spellcasting power does.



If multiclassing is a hard definition for your use of "Full Caster", then no, Warlock is not a full caster. They are still measurably equivalent in spellcasting power to a full caster.

If your argument is predicated on multiclassing, you've missed the forest for the trees.
I think that's backwards.

What else would it be based on? The whole point of "% caster" is the relationship of the spellcasting feature's behavior on the spell progression table when multi-classing. "% Caster" is predicated on using a fraction of your level compared to full casting progression. If you don't use that progression, and cannot add to it, it seems pretty straight forward.




Dude I'm done with your attitude. Read my sig and congratulations.

I don't care if you cant' read this, maybe someone will quote it and you will.

If you think you are attitude free, you are mistaken.
You seem to be offended by my replying to your "I can't see your argument, not even a little" with my "really?"

If that is worth blocking me over, so be it... Hope you find your safe space.

[MadBear]

So much of this thread can be summed up as follows:

Person A: I think full casters are X, and the warlock can/can't do that therefore they are/aren't full casters

Person B: I think you're wrong, I think full casters are Y, and the warlock can/can't do that therefore they are/aren't full casters

Congratulations, we have a situation with the definitions muddying up any chance of reaching agreement.

To me, the simplest solution is to just say:

- I understand how it's a full (or not a full) caster under your definition, but I mean something different by that term. Rather then letting language get in the way, let's just accept that both of us are right under our own definitions and stop getting hung up on definitions.

[Dr. Cliché]

What else would it be based on? The whole point of "% caster" is the relationship of the spellcasting feature's behavior on the spell progression table when multi-classing. "% Caster" is predicated on using a fraction of your level compared to full casting progression. If you don't use that progression, and cannot add to it, it seems pretty straight forward.

Agreed.



I don't care if you cant' read this, maybe someone will quote it and you will.

Happy to help. :smallsmile:



If you think you are attitude free, you are mistaken.
You seem to be offended by my replying to your "I can't see your argument, not even a little" with my "really?"

If that is worth blocking me over, so be it... Hope you find your safe space.

[Mikey P]

So much of this thread can be summed up as follows:

Person A: I think full casters are X, and the warlock can/can't do that therefore they are/aren't full casters

Person B: I think you're wrong, I think full casters are Y, and the warlock can/can't do that therefore they are/aren't full casters

Congratulations, we have a situation with the definitions muddying up any chance of reaching agreement.

To me, the simplest solution is to just say:

- I understand how it's a full (or not a full) caster under your definition, but I mean something different by that term. Rather then letting language get in the way, let's just accept that both of us are right under our own definitions and stop getting hung up on definitions.

I think we're all on the same page there except DivisibleByZero.

[jas61292]

But it's disproportionate in both directions based on number of encounters/SR. Just as spellcasting casters have disproportionate based on number of encounters/LR.

3 Encounters/LR, no SR = massive boost to Spellcasting classes, penalty to Warlocks.
1 Encounter/SR, 12 encounters before LR = massive boost to warlocks, penalty to Spellcasting classes.

I mean, you can argue "I don't want to have to deal with resource management to make my classes balanced". But in that case, what the hell are you playing D&D (specifically) for? Choose a different RPG that resource management isn't a core concept for every single edition ever printed.

This is so important. As we all knos, often people argue that things are unbalanced, but fail to realizes they are deviating from the standard assumptions. However, I also see people claim to play at the standard assumptions most of the time, but occasionally deviate (ie single big boss for the day), claiming that is normal, but still unbalancing. Yes, deviating from the assumptions is normal. They are designed to represent your average day, not every single adventuring day ever. However, if the game is balanced around 7 encounters a day, and your average week consists of 5 adventuring days with four being 7 encounters and one being only 1 boss fight, then your average day is not 7 encounters. That is your mode, sure, but not your mean. You are deviating from the average a significant percentage of the time, but only in one direction, meaning those classes that benefit from the shorter work day will have a day to shine, while those that do comparably better on longer days will never have that opportunity.

Basically, classes are balanced around certain assumptions, and you can absolutely deviate and still have them be balanced. But if you only ever deviate in one way, this will not be the case.

[Arnie82]

Happy to help. :smallsmile:

Dang, you beat,me to it!

[Tanarii]

Uhh... So they are full casters but they don't get the same treatment as full casters... Right...They are (approximately) mechanically equivilent in spellcasting power, assuming the baseline rests, as any full spellcasting feature caster.

I was pointing out that your definition of full caster is not the definitive definition of full caster. But it certainly is the definitive definition of a full spellcasting feature caster.


Have fun playing 4D chess.The problem here is you're trying to redefine ... uh, give me a sec, I'll come up with an analogy. :smallbiggrin:

Edit: Got it. You're pointing at a board of 8x8 squares in black and white, and saying "this defined chess". To be precise, it's the board used for chess.
Edit2: And also, no one can agree on what "chess" actually is, because it's not a defined thing. :smallwink:

[Mikey P]

They are (approximately) mechanically equivilent in spellcasting power, assuming the baseline rests, as any full spellcasting feature caster.

Agreed, as I said with my experience above, YMMV, mine had been unfortunately slanted.

[RickAllison]

I think we're all on the same page there except DivisibleByZero.

And then don't forget how at least twice in the thread, s/he has publically responded to people by Ignoring/threatening to Ignore them. S/he isn't here to discuss the topic, but to indulge their ego.

[Saggo]

I think that's backwards.

What else would it be based on? The whole point of "% caster" is the relationship of the spellcasting feature's behavior on the spell progression table when multi-classing. "% Caster" is predicated on using a fraction of your level compared to full casting progression. If you don't use that progression, and cannot add to it, it seems pretty straight forward.

Yes, the historical origin of the caster levels is in the multiclassing rules. They are, however, discrete categories with each denoting a particular measurable amount of spellcasting. An argument solely based on a binary it does/doesn't contribute to multiclassed spellcasting levels ignores that and the analysis it brings. Hence missed the forest for the trees.

Colloquially, it's simpler to say "Warlock is a full caster" vice the much clunkier "Warlock is not full caster but provide a functionally equivalent level of power."

[MrStabby]

And then don't forget how at least twice in the thread, s/he has publically responded to people by Ignoring/threatening to Ignore them. S/he isn't here to discuss the topic, but to indulge their ego.

So: "Warlock is a full caster, so stop claiming that he isn't."

I guess that the consensus is unconvinced. Or at least convinced that it is more complex than that.

My preferred measure is to ask if the class would become more or less powerful by switching to the other progression. Would my wizard become more or less powerful by switching to the pact magic progression - well it would lose out on so much flexibility, nova power that it would be considerably less powerful. Likewise I can ask if my warlock would prefer the spellcasting trait rather than pact magic - again the ability to cast hex AND other spells in a short rest before level 11 (by using low level slots) and actually being able to tailor a response to an encounter would be a nice boost in power.

To me it seems clear that one system is better than the other. If one is better they are not equal. Now some people might be willing to swap the other way, but I would strongly anticipate that they would be fewer in number.

[Mikey P]

Colloquially, it's simpler to say "Warlock is a full caster" vice the much clunkier "Warlock is not full caster but provide a functionally equivalent level of power."

Perhaps so, but if someone asks the question "Is the Warlock a full caster?" can you really just answer an unqualified "Yes"? Or do you have to qualify it?

[Tanarii]

My preferred measure is to ask if the class would become more or less powerful by switching to the other progression. Would my wizard become more or less powerful by switching to the pact magic progression - well it would lose out on so much flexibility, nova power that it would be considerably less powerful.Yeah, now you're just defining "power" in a special way to allow you to say it's losing power. Your wizard would lose that, but would gain the ability to go further as long as they kept getting short rests, and gain free upcasting to level 5. It's a lateral movement in power, not a loss of power.


Likewise I can ask if my warlock would prefer the spellcasting trait rather than pact magic - again the ability to cast hex AND other spells in a short rest before level 11 (by using low level slots) and actually being able to tailor a response to an encounter would be a nice boost in power.Again, it's not a boost in power. It's a lateral movement. In some ways it's more powerful, in other ways it's not.


To me it seems clear that one system is better than the other. If one is better they are not equal. Now some people might be willing to swap the other way, but I would strongly anticipate that they would be fewer in number.They're only "not equal" because you've very carefully drawn up your definitions to make them not equal. That's fine in terms of your personal preferences ... they obviously aren't equal in those terms. But in terms of actual power, they're equal, but excel at different things.

[Deleted]

So: "Warlock is a full caster, so stop claiming that he isn't."

I guess that the consensus is unconvinced. Or at least convinced that it is more complex than that.

My preferred measure is to ask if the class would become more or less powerful by switching to the other progression. Would my wizard become more or less powerful by switching to the pact magic progression - well it would lose out on so much flexibility, nova power that it would be considerably less powerful. Likewise I can ask if my warlock would prefer the spellcasting trait rather than pact magic - again the ability to cast hex AND other spells in a short rest before level 11 (by using low level slots) and actually being able to tailor a response to an encounter would be a nice boost in power.

To me it seems clear that one system is better than the other. If one is better they are not equal. Now some people might be willing to swap the other way, but I would strongly anticipate that they would be fewer in number.

Personally I don't care either way, I don't see why anyone was getting so worked up about the Warlock not being a full caster.

If you have to use round about logic to loosely prove a point... Then your point isn't proven.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and mates with ducks (and produces viable offspring :smallfrown:)... It's a duck.

The warlock neither walks like a duck full caster, quacks like a duck full caster, or mates with ducks full casters (to produce viable offspring) (multiclassing warlocks and full casters doesn't work to give more spells).

But it doesn't matter. The warlock is the warlock, nothing more or less. Has the best, or close to it, casting systems made. I would give their casting system to any other class and call it a step forward.

[Saggo]

Perhaps so, but if someone asks the question "Is the Warlock a full caster?" can you really just answer an unqualified "Yes"? Or do you have to qualify it?

Context qualifies it for you. Just like you should know I'm not literally talking about trees.

[Vogonjeltz]

There have been many upon many debates in the past, and even more recently, that the warlock is not a full caster.
I am here to debunk those claims with cold, hard, mathematics.

Point of Order, the concept of Full, Half, and Third casters only exists by virtue of the Multiclass Rules. A Warlock does Pact Magic and doesn't count as a Full Caster for Multiclass purposes. (PHB 164)

*Mic Drop*

[bid]

So-called full casters don't get their second 6th level slot until level 19, so it's a pretty slim distinction.
Irrelevant. You missed the point.

Arcanum can never be changed. There's no known spell, no slot, only a feature that simulates it. You pick it as you'd pick a fighting style.

A level 11 bard can have 2 known spells of level 6 and still upcast another spell to use his 6th slot.

[MrStabby]

Yeah, now you're just defining "power" in a special way to allow you to say it's losing power. Your wizard would lose that, but would gain the ability to go further as long as they kept getting short rests, and gain free upcasting to level 5. It's a lateral movement in power, not a loss of power.

Again, it's not a boost in power. It's a lateral movement. In some ways it's more powerful, in other ways it's not.

They're only "not equal" because you've very carefully drawn up your definitions to make them not equal. That's fine in terms of your personal preferences ... they obviously aren't equal in those terms. But in terms of actual power, they're equal, but excel at different things.

Hmm. Maybe I chose my words poorly given your response.

I am not trying to say that everyone should find one casting system better than another. Whilst I do use an implicit definition of power - that the more powerful system is the system that (if you were optimising) you would chose over the other system - I don't think that that is what you are referring to. If "better is what people would chose" is a "carefully drawn up definition to make them not equal" then yeah, maybe we do have a difference of opinion.

If you were to say that you would prefer a smaller number of higher powered spell slots rationed out across the day to more spell slots of varied levels that you could chose to use as you wish then that is fine. It represents your experience and probably factors such as the number of short rests you can take per day (we usually use two, for which I find the Pact magic feature weaker). This is not wrong experience - I expect it to be uncommon but you are not in any way wrong to have experienced it.

If you were to come to me in a game I was DMing and want to play a cleric using pact magic as your casting model I would be more likely to accept that than you wanting to play a warlock with a conventional spellcasting model (even acknowledging that there are some spells that are very powerful from higher level slots (bestow curse, banishment come to mind). If you would say otherwise, that is also reasonable.

My main stance is not that pact magic is much worse (yeah I do think it is more limited but not really relevant) but more so that you cannot say that they are equal on the basis of one measure without saying how important that measure is to an individual. Blindly adding up spell points and insisting that your answer is "the one truth" is pretty unconvincing when the differences are so numerous and complex.

[Tanarii]

Hmm. Maybe I chose my words poorly given your response.And maybe ... uh, definitely ... I fired from the hip without thinking too much about the possible meaning behind your words.


My main stance is not that pact magic is much worse (yeah I do think it is more limited but not really relevant) but more so that you cannot say that they are equal on the basis of one measure without saying how important that measure is to an individual. Blindly adding up spell points and insisting that your answer is "the one truth" is pretty unconvincing when the differences are so numerous and complex.
I totally agree that the measures of power involved are significantly different enough that merely declaring them equally powerful is not entirely meaningful.


Point of Order, the concept of Full, Half, and Third casters only exists by virtue of the Multiclass Rules. A Warlock does Pact Magic and doesn't count as a Full Caster for Multiclass purposes. (PHB 164)The term "full caster" existed long before 5e.

[Mikey P]

The warlock neither walks like a duck full caster, quacks like a duck full caster, or mates with ducks full casters (to produce viable offspring) (multiclassing warlocks and full casters doesn't work to give more spells).
Indeed. And entertainingly put!

Context qualifies it for you. Just like you should know I'm not literally talking about trees.
Okay... I submit that the context could support an unqualified "Yes" are quite slim.

Point of Order, the concept of Full, Half, and Third casters only exists by virtue of the Multiclass Rules. A Warlock does Pact Magic and doesn't count as a Full Caster for Multiclass purposes. (PHB 164)

*Mic Drop*
This is what I'm saying


Arcanum can never be changed. There's no known spell, no slot, only a feature that simulates it. You pick it as you'd pick a fighting style.

A level 11 bard can have 2 known spells of level 6 and still upcast another spell to use his 6th slot.
Very good point.




So you can complain all you want about subjective issues, but objectively, you simply cannot claim that it is any less than a full caster.

Disagree.

[SethoMarkus]

The term "full caster" existed long before 5e.

Are we talking about the idea of a "full caster" as a concept, or about a "Full Caster" as described by the D&D 5e rules?

I feel that there is a disconnect going on here...

There is no reason that a Warlock cannot be a "full caster". Casting spells, I'm sorry, Invocations, is fairly centric to their identity, and they can cast all day long.

On the other hand, arguing that a Warlock is a "Full Caster" is also implying that a Warlock 10/Wizard 10 would have full spellcasting progression, because in D&D 5e that is what "Full Caster" means.

Both terms can exist side-by-side.

Also, the power of a class is fairly irrelevant for this discussion, since, and correct me if I'm wrong, isn't the ideal for all classes to be balanced with each other? Having different strengths and weaknesses, but balanced? (Whether that is true or not is a different discussion, but as far as I am concerned showing that Warlock and Wizard are mathematically equal with each other just shows that the designers did their job right.)

Don't get me wrong, I take it as a possitive thing that Warlocks are equal to Wizards. And in-universe, a Warlock is no less a caster than a Wizard. They just aren't a "Full Caster".

[Saggo]

I totally agree that the measures of power involved are significantly different enough that merely declaring them equally powerful is not entirely meaningful.
It is meaningful enough to observe that Warlocks are competitive with other full spellcasters without relying on preference, at the very least.


Okay... I submit that the context could support an unqualified "Yes" are quite slim.

Based on what? I'm not sure what you're trying to show.

[MeeposFire]

One thing that needs to be mentioned here is that some of us are getting caught up arguing over the power of the warlock compared to other classes as if whether it is equal or not to say for sure "full casters" somehow validates it or not as a full caster.

That is not the case. Power is not definition of being a full caster and trying to use that as a proof jsut leads to arguments about something that in the end does not matter. As an example you could have somebody using the standard spellcasting abilities just like a sorc but give them all the worst spells and none of the good ones with no class abilities and it would be a full caster even though it would be seen by most as being extremely weak even weaker than the warlock if looked at with the lens of those who disparage it (as a note I like the warlock and think it is fine).

So what I am saying is even if you find the class weak that does not make it a full caster or not a full caster and the same goes for those who say it is equal to full casters.

As for the OP I don't think the OP adequately proves that a warlock is a full caster but I do think the OP does prove how if using the games default expectations that the warlock is roughly equal in effect in many ways to what we know are full casters. That being said I am not saying that the warlock is not a full caster just that the the OP does not prove it. My problem is that I do not have an actual definition for "full caster" and so lacking one to my satisfaction I find full caster to be using the traditional casting and therefor the warlock is not a full caster but it is roughly equal to one but is its own thing. If you want to call it a full caster I would not argue it because I find the difference academic and not a really helpful distinction.

To me the warlock is just its own special thing and that is fine since I think it is cool.

[Vogonjeltz]

And maybe ... uh, definitely ... I fired from the hip without thinking too much about the possible meaning behind your words.


I totally agree that the measures of power involved are significantly different enough that merely declaring them equally powerful is not entirely meaningful.

The term "full caster" existed long before 5e.

Irrelevant, this is a 5e discussion. If they weren't defined here the terms would be meaningless. The only value they have is by the 5e definitions which preclude pact magic from counting.

[Deleted]

One thing that needs to be mentioned here is that some of us are getting caught up arguing over the power of the warlock compared to other classes as if whether it is equal or not to say for sure "full casters" somehow validates it or not as a full caster.

That is not the case. Power is not definition of being a full caster and trying to use that as a proof jsut leads to arguments about something that in the end does not matter. As an example you could have somebody using the standard spellcasting abilities just like a sorc but give them all the worst spells and none of the good ones with no class abilities and it would be a full caster even though it would be seen by most as being extremely weak even weaker than the warlock if looked at with the lens of those who disparage it (as a note I like the warlock and think it is fine).

So what I am saying is even if you find the class weak that does not make it a full caster or not a full caster and the same goes for those who say it is equal to full casters.

As for the OP I don't think the OP adequately proves that a warlock is a full caster but I do think the OP does prove how if using the games default expectations that the warlock is roughly equal in effect in many ways to what we know are full casters. That being said I am not saying that the warlock is not a full caster just that the the OP does not prove it. My problem is that I do not have an actual definition for "full caster" and so lacking one to my satisfaction I find full caster to be using the traditional casting and therefor the warlock is not a full caster but it is roughly equal to one but is its own thing. If you want to call it a full caster I would not argue it because I find the difference academic and not a really helpful distinction.

To me the warlock is just its own special thing and that is fine since I think it is cool.

*fist bump*

[Tanarii]

Irrelevant, this is a 5e discussion. If they weren't defined here the terms would be meaningless. The only value they have is by the 5e definitions which preclude pact magic from counting.
Yeah, neither you nor anyone else gets to declare "full caster" = spellcasting class feature and 1:1 progression. Because it is NOT defined that way in the PHB, and it's a term that existed long before 5e.

So no, just because this is a 5e discussion does not magically turn full caster into spellcasting class feature and 1:1 progression.

You certainly can choose to use that meaning for the existing term in 5e. But it is not the definition for it. And personally, I absolutely count Warlocks as full casters. They're a subset of them. They are short rest full casters. But that's my personal definition of an undefined term.

Edit: I actually removed my first few posts from this thread right after I made them. Because while I absolutely think that Warlocks are full casters in 5e, and reasons that basically boil down to DivisibleByZero spell point analysis, ultimately I don't think that it's a defined term. So it's kind of meaningless to say 'yes they are full casters' or 'no they aren't'. Be specific. Either they are full spellcasting class feature casters, or they are short rest resource casters that get spell progression every other level through spell level 9. The term 'full caster' just is too divisive.

So I'm revising my statement. Warlocks are short-rest regen casters that progress to level 9 spells. Done. :smallcool:

[Deleted]

Point of Order, the concept of Full, Half, and Third casters only exists by virtue of the Multiclass Rules. A Warlock does Pact Magic and doesn't count as a Full Caster for Multiclass purposes. (PHB 164)

*Mic Drop*


Yeah, neither you nor anyone else gets to declare "full caster" = spellcasting class feature and 1:1 progression. Because it is NOT defined that way in the PHB, and it's a term that existed long before 5e.

So no, just because this is a 5e discussion does not magically turn full caster into spellcasting class feature and 1:1 progression.

You certainly can choose to use that meaning for the existing term in 5e. But it is not the definition for it. And personally, I absolutely count Warlocks as full casters. They're a subset of them. They are short rest full casters. But that's my personal definition of an undefined term.

Edit: I actually removed my first few posts from this thread right after I made them. Because while I absolutely think that Warlocks are full casters in 5e, and reasons that basically boil down to DivisibleByZero spell point analysis, ultimately I don't think that it's a defined term. So it's kind of meaningless to say 'yes they are full casters' or 'no they aren't'. Be specific. Either they are full spellcasting class feature casters, or they are short rest resource casters that get spell progression every other level through spell level 9. The term 'full caster' just is too divisive.

So I'm revising my statement. Warlocks are short-rest regen casters that progress to level 9 spells. Done. :smallcool:

Except 5e does define them.

Warlocks aren't even spellcasters (1/3, 1/2 or Full), they use Pact Magic

:smallcool:

[Tanarii]

Except 5e does define them.

Warlocks aren't even spellcasters (1/3, 1/2 or Full), they use Pact Magic

:smallcool:Then stop saying full caster.

And start saying full spellcaster.

Because if that's what you mean, use the term that the PHB actually defines. If you say full caster, you're using a legacy term that doesn't necessarily mean the same thing.

[SethoMarkus]

Then stop saying full caster.

And start saying full spellcaster.

Because if that's what you mean, use the term that the PHB actually defines. If you say full caster, you're using a legacy term that doesn't necessarily mean the same thing.

I do need to ask, can the same phrase not refer to two different concepts? I understand the distinction you are making, but if you underatand what is intended, what is the issue?

[Tanarii]

I do need to ask, can the same phrase not refer to two different concepts? I understand the distinction you are making, but if you underatand what is intended, what is the issue?
Of course it can. And sometimes what's intended is clear from context. Other times it isn't.

I mean, this thread wouldn't be 4 pages long if people didn't disagree on if 5e warlocks are full casters. If I tell you, a player looking to join my game, that the current party needs a arcane full caster, do you think I'm including Warlocks, or not? (Obviously the smart thing to do is ask. But let's put aside doing the smart thing for a second.)

[Deleted]

Then stop saying full caster.

And start saying full spellcaster.

Because if that's what you mean, use the term that the PHB actually defines. If you say full caster, you're using a legacy term that doesn't necessarily mean the same thing.

No, make me.

Warlocks don't have the full array of spellcasting that full casters have.

You can't deny this, unless you like alternative facts...

[SethoMarkus]

Of course it can. And sometimes what's intended is clear from context. Other times it isn't.

I mean, this thread wouldn't be 4 pages long if people didn't disagree on if 5e warlocks are full casters. If I tell you, a player looking to join my game, that the current party needs a arcane full caster, do you think I'm including Warlocks, or not? (Obviously the smart thing to do is ask. But let's put aside doing the smart thing for a second.)

Yes, the smart thing to do is to ask, and after learning what you consider to be a "full caster", that is the way I would use the term while addressing you. I would continue to use "full caster" to mean my own definition of thw phrase otherwise.

Edit: I suppose my point is that arguing over the term used is irrelevant when, "Yes, under that definition I see your point. However, I use this definition in general conversation."

I mean, we certainly are all understanding at least part of the context here. So far no one has interpreted "full caster" to mean a sated angler.

Double Edit: And while I am primarily replying and responding to Tanarii, this is intended for everyone. I simply quotes Tanarii originally for the convenience of that first post.

[Tanarii]

No, make me.lol I like that.


Warlocks don't have the full array of spellcasting that full casters have.

Circular logic on your part. Since you define full casters = spellcasting feature, therefor warlocks don't have the full array.

[Sigreid]

How does it matter whether they fit an arbitrary label or not?

Aside from that, the way I mostly see "Not a full caster" used is as a tool to help people understand how to play a warlock effectively. Yes, they have solid magical power, but it's not all on tap in quite the same way as say a wizard or a sorcerer's power. So, people generally advise others to play the warlock more like a archer that has some really impressive add on abilities instead of trying to play it the way you would a straight up wizard. While the wizard has a pretty impressive breadth of powers that he's expected to spend pretty regularly, the warlock is expected to use their a cantrip pretty close in power to a fighter with a longbow, punctuated with unleashing what really amounts to 1 powerful effect per fight (assuming 6-8 encounters per day with 2 short rests).

[Syll]

Personally I define a full caster as a class that can natively cast 9th level spells.

The fact that I thus classify a warlock as a full caster, and see 1/3 casters have more spell slots per day than a warlock at level 10 is the source of no small amount of annoyance for me.

Note: Since the takeaway of this thread seems to be that everyone has a different definition for everything, please don't try to tell me that I'm wrong because if you take 15 short rests the warlock has more spell slots/day than deities do. I'm -lucky- to get 2 SR/day, 1 is far more common. Since I predicated this post with a "I define...as" this is of course subjective.

[Sigreid]

Personally I define a full caster as a class that can natively cast 9th level spells.

The fact that I thus classify a warlock as a full caster, and see 1/3 casters have more spell slots per day than a warlock at level 10 is the source of no small amount of annoyance for me.

Note: Since the takeaway of this thread seems to be that everyone has a different definition for everything, please don't try to tell me that I'm wrong because if you take 15 short rests the warlock has more spell slots/day than deities do. I'm -lucky- to get 2 SR/day, 1 is far more common. Since I predicated this post with a "I define...as" this is of course subjective.

You're wrong and you should feel bad! :smallbiggrin:

As I said, the label has no bearing on how it plays.

[Tanarii]

Aside from that, the way I mostly see "Not a full caster" used is as a tool to help people understand how to play a warlock effectively. Yes, they have solid magical power, but it's not all on tap in quite the same way as say a wizard or a sorcerer's power. So, people generally advise others to play the warlock more like a archer that has some really impressive add on abilities instead of trying to play it the way you would a straight up wizard. While the wizard has a pretty impressive breadth of powers that he's expected to spend pretty regularly, the warlock is expected to use their a cantrip pretty close in power to a fighter with a longbow, punctuated with unleashing what really amounts to 1 powerful effect per fight (assuming 6-8 encounters per day with 2 short rests).They unleash 1-2 per fight. As opposed to Spellcasting casters, that unleash an average of 1-2.5 powerful effects per fight. (I'm assuming we're not counting level 6+ effects here, since they're equal on that). On average, warlocks get one less spell per fight, starting around level 7. And that spell is level 1 or 2. Meanwhile all the warlock spells are level 5, as opposed to a mix of 3-5.

I mean, I agree that they can't go as nova. But the number of spell slots across an adventuring day works out to spellcasting casters getting 1 extra level 1-2 spell per fight.

I think the main difference comes from people feeling compelled to use Hex or Armor of Agathys or Darkness, and thinking they get 0 extra spells per fight.

You're wrong and you should feel bad! :smallbiggrin:
hahahahaha

[Sigreid]

They unleash 1-2 per fight. As opposed to Spellcasting casters, that unleash an average of 1-2.5 powerful effects per fight. (I'm assuming we're not counting level 6+ effects here, since they're equal on that). On average, warlocks get one less spell per fight, starting around level 7. And that spell is level 1 or 2. Meanwhile all the warlock spells are level 5, as opposed to a mix of 3-5.

I mean, I agree that they can't go as nova. But the number of spell slots across an adventuring day works out to spellcasting casters getting 1 extra level 1-2 spell per fight.

I think the main difference comes from people feeling compelled to use Hex or Armor of Agathys or Darkness, and thinking they get 0 extra spells per fight.


I was actually thinking more of the breadth of tricks available. But I fully admit I'm a wizard mindset because I like the flexibility. For me a warlock or a sorcerer is just a dalliance when I play one and I don't take them seriously as a long term investment.

[Deleted]

lol I like that.


Circular logic on your part. Since you define full casters = spellcasting feature, therefor warlocks don't have the full array.

There is no circular logic, only your alternative facts. I refer to the duck analogy.

Warlocks do not gain "full spellcasting" or what makes a "full caster" a "full caster". The PHB also calls them out as something else entirely.

There is no shame in not being a full caster. All the people who are calling the warlock a full caster seem to always give off the vibe that it would shame the warlock if they aren't a full caster. Fricken weird.

[Xetheral]

I'm assuming we're not counting level 6+ effects here, since they're equal on that.

Wait, what? How are they equal?

Sure, they have a similar number of "slots", but the Warlock can use each slot only to cast one specific spell. The (e.g.) Wizard, by contrast can use each high level slot to (up)cast any spell he has prepared of the same level or lower.

So if the Warlock's choices are all exactly what is needed on a given day, the Warlock's high level slots can be as valuable as the Wizard's. But if some of the Warlock's choices are not optimal for a particular day, the value of those high level slots will be strictly less than the value of the Wizard's high level slots. (I'm ignoring the difference in the class's spell lists here, but on balance that factor would favor the Wizard even more.)

So rather than the Warlock's high level "slots" being equal to the Wizard's, I think it's pretty clear that a Warlock's high level slots are strictly less-than-or-equal to the Wizard's. Do you disagree?

[Saggo]

Warlocks do not gain "full spellcasting" or what makes a "full caster" a "full caster". The PHB also calls them out as something else entirely.

Only in relation to multiclassing. Still equivalent as an individual.

[Tanarii]

Wait, what? How are they equal?The context was the number of spells per fight.

[Deleted]

Only in relation to multiclassing. Still equivalent as an individual.

The warlock doesn't quack like a fullcaster, doesn't walk like a fullcaster, and doesn't mate like a fullcaster... So it isn't a fullcaster.

Might as well say that the Champion is a full caster who can cast "hurt others" as a cantrip and "indomitable" and "action surge" as daily spells.

[Ninja-Radish]

Personally I define a full caster as a class that can natively cast 9th level spells.

The fact that I thus classify a warlock as a full caster, and see 1/3 casters have more spell slots per day than a warlock at level 10 is the source of no small amount of annoyance for me.

Note: Since the takeaway of this thread seems to be that everyone has a different definition for everything, please don't try to tell me that I'm wrong because if you take 15 short rests the warlock has more spell slots/day than deities do. I'm -lucky- to get 2 SR/day, 1 is far more common. Since I predicated this post with a "I define...as" this is of course subjective.

I couldn't agree more.

[Saggo]

The warlock doesn't quack like a fullcaster, doesn't walk like a fullcaster, and doesn't mate like a fullcaster... So it isn't a fullcaster.

I appreciate the use of the analogy, but it's still too glib. Point is warlock is measurably equivalent to other full casters (including how much and how high), even if it uses a different approach. That lends validity to grouping them with the other full casters. The only real authority arguing otherwise is that they don't contribute when multiclassing.



Might as well say that the Champion is a full caster who can cast "hurt others" as a cantrip and "indomitable" and "action surge" as daily spells.

There wasn't a need for hyperbole.

[Vaz]

I'd say your Step 1, is not really supported. You don't have access to the OP's mind, and therefore can't possibly justify this step.

Step 2-3 are possibly justified. It depends entirely on context outside of this thread that I have no interest in hashing out, since it seems this is more of a personal dispute, that would probably be better handled by PMing each other.

With that said, the OP does give their reasoning in pretty decent depth, and responding to that rather then what you've done would be more productive on this particular thread.

Pot kettle black.

And so it continues. What was your point again?

[Aelyn]

Warlocks do not gain "full spellcasting" or what makes a "full caster" a "full caster". The PHB also calls them out as something else entirely.

This is the entire crux of the debate - what defines a "full caster"? Is it "having the highest spell slot progression from the PHB"? "Maximising spell slots as part of a multiclass"? Or is it "Being able to unleash equivalent magical destruction to the highest spell slot progression, given the dev team's stated assumptions"?

This thread is full of people arguing because they're using one term which hasn't been defined, and assuming their interpretation is "correct", but no-one's disagreeing about the actual rules. So why not just agree the term "Full Caster" is not a useful one to use when thinking about Warlocks? (http://www.egscomics.com/index.php?id=2046)

FYI - that's why the distinction between "Full Caster" and "Full Spellcaster" is important - "Spellcaster" is a defined term, "Caster" is not. Helps clarify matters.

FWIW, based on my interpretation of the phrase, I don't consider Warlocks to be full casters.

[MrStabby]

How does it matter whether they fit an arbitrary label or not?

Aside from that, the way I mostly see "Not a full caster" used is as a tool to help people understand how to play a warlock effectively. Yes, they have solid magical power, but it's not all on tap in quite the same way as say a wizard or a sorcerer's power. So, people generally advise others to play the warlock more like a archer that has some really impressive add on abilities instead of trying to play it the way you would a straight up wizard. While the wizard has a pretty impressive breadth of powers that he's expected to spend pretty regularly, the warlock is expected to use their a cantrip pretty close in power to a fighter with a longbow, punctuated with unleashing what really amounts to 1 powerful effect per fight (assuming 6-8 encounters per day with 2 short rests).

This is a crucial distinction for me. If you spend 80% of your combat turns behaving like an archer and only 20% behaving like a caster then if someone unfamiliar with the class were to ask if it was a "full caster" and you were to answer that it was, it would be misleading. This was my personal experience as one of my first characters.

I think the warlock is so distinct from other casting classes that not making the distinction and lumping them all together under one heading of "full casters" is not helpful. It isn't that the warlock lacks power - it is a solidly powerful class - but so much of that power is in an at-will damage ability (much like the fighter) and compared to a wizard so much less of the class's power is in its spell slots.

[Xetheral]

The context was the number of spells per fight.

How is that a useful metric when the value of each high-level warlock "slot" is less-than-or-equal in value to a high-level wizard slot?

[Tanarii]

This is a crucial distinction for me. If you spend 80% of your combat turns behaving like an archer and only 20% behaving like a caster then if someone unfamiliar with the class were to ask if it was a "full caster" and you were to answer that it was, it would be misleading. This was my personal experience as one of my first characters.As opposed to 40% of your time behaving like a caster, and 60% of your time behaving as a sub-par archer? Because that's how the ratio works out for character's with the spellcasting feature. I'm assuming here you mean a 5 round combat, a warlock in the level range 2-10, so I'm assuming a spellcasting caster in the level range 7-10.

That's one extra round / combat of a spell, in the level range 1 or 2 no less, and 3 rounds of way less powerful cantrips. (Of course, casting spells that use your action or bonus action or whatever will change this for both classes. But you made a generalization so I'm running with it.)


How is that a useful metric when the value of each high-level warlock "slot" is less-than-or-equal in value to a high-level wizard slot?
It's the metric repeatedly being brought up, so it's the one I'm responding to.

Edit: Does it help if I say: yes a level 6-9 slot is clearly more valuable than a Mystic Arcanum level 6-9, because it can be any spell. You're right Xetheral.

[MadBear]

Pot kettle black.

And so it continues. What was your point again?

what? I'm genuinely not seeing how I'm doing what I claim you to be doing. Or did you mean to respond to someone else?

[MadBear]

The warlock doesn't quack like a fullcaster, doesn't walk like a fullcaster, and doesn't mate like a fullcaster... So it isn't a fullcaster.

Might as well say that the Champion is a full caster who can cast "hurt others" as a cantrip and "indomitable" and "action surge" as daily spells.

you realize your statement while your reasoning is sound, your ignoring the main crux of the argument. If we break it down into premises you basically have your argument being:

Premise 1: Full caster= someone with the Full spell caster feature
Premise 2: Warlocks don't have the full spell caster feature
Conclusion: Warlocks are not full spell casters.

People are challenging you that they don't accept premise 1 of your argument, and you keep going back to premise one and just claiming it to be true. If you want to make any headway you either need to:

1. Agree people define full casters differently (which most reasonable people in this thread have done)
2. Make an argument defending why premise 1 is the only conclusion we should draw.

as opposed to just saying premise 1 is true.

[Vaz]

what? I'm genuinely not seeing how I'm doing what I claim you to be doing. Or did you mean to respond to someone else?
Just the irony of you telling someone off for not contributing to a conversation when your post wasn't contributing either.

Felt hypocrotical, but hey that's just me.

[Solunaris]

I'll throw my hat into the thread; what could go wrong?

In my opinion, I'd not call the Warlock a Fullcaster in 5e. One of the things that means "Fullcaster" to me (beyond the spell slot progression) is flexibility. A Warlock certainly has consistent damage in a fight and superb bursts twice a short rest (before level 11) but lacks the flexibility to cast for RP reasons and instead has to rely on Invocations.

Let me elaborate with an anecdote from my current game. I play a Sorcerer and another player is a Warlock. The Warlock has traditionally always played the party caster (since we started playing way back in 3.5e) while I manned the front lines. For this game I wanted to play the Warlock because it seemed like a fairly interesting caster that could skirmish on the front but the other player wanted the Warlock so I ceded the class to her. Having played from level 1 to 9 with her at the table, I can't tell you how many times she has lamented the fact that she entered a fight without any spell slots, or how she hates just casting the same cantrip over and over again like a Fighter. This is accentuated by the fact that she initially started selecting spells as she would have if she was playing a Wizard or Sorcerer in 3.5 for out of combat uses.

This is in stark contrast to me who almost always has a spell or two on hand for a combat and room to spare to cast a bit out of combat for RP. Add in that we have a Bard and a Cleric in the party and she just gets walked all over by the "Fullcasters" in combat and RP as far as spellcasting goes.

tl;dr: It's not the mathematical equivalency that makes one a Fullcaster, but casting like a Fullcaster.

((Oh, and before you ask yes we tend to get 1-3 short rests a day with around 2-8 combats depending on how dire the situation is.))

[Misterwhisper]

Warlocks are not "Full Casters" because they are Pact Magic Users.

Real casters have spell slots of 1 - whatever level it is they have attained at the time. Ex. at level 10 full casters have access to spell levels 1 through 5.

A warlock does not, he ONLY has access to spell level 5. He can not cast ANYTHING lower than that because he does not even have those levels any more. He can cast a lower level spell using his 5th level slot if he wants, but he has no chance to cast anything level 1 though 4 at it's normal level, even if that spell gains nothing from being cast from a higher level slot.

Ask any full caster at level 10 if they want to spend their 5th level spell slot to cast Unseen Servant, once the laughing is over point out that the Warlock does not have the choice to do it any other way.

This annoyance is compounded further considering multiple very powerful spells that combat oriented caster would want do not even gain a benefit from those extra levels either. I felt awesome when I hit level 5 and finally was able to cast Hunger of Hadar, an amazing warlock only spell. Lost a lot of its shine when we were level 10 and I had to use my half of my casting ability for an encounter to cast the exact same spell as I did 5 levels earlier with no bonuses because it does not scale.

A full caster has spell slots that go from level 1 though 9.

A warlock has spell slots that go from level 1 through 5. It is right there on their chart. They do no have spell slots for level 6 though 9, they have a completely separate class ability that lets them use 1 single spell, ever, for each spell level as a 1 per long rest ability.

Not only can they never change what arcanum they know, they can not choose to learn a lower level spell to cast as an arcanum because it says spell from the 6th level spell list, not a spell cast from the 6th level slot, because they do not have a 6th level slot.


The major issue with Warlock is that it is so amazingly powerful as a 2 level dip for other classes so they can get Eldritch Blast + Agonizing blast, and Devil's Sight, plus a refilling on short rest first level spell or 2 like Mage Armor or whatever.

Warlock 2/ + any charisma based class is FAR superior to just about anything that a full warlock could ever pull off.

ex.

I payed a Warlock from level 1 through 20 in the same game as a Lore Bard, who took 2 levels of warlock and then just used his first set of lore spells to get Hunger of Hadar and Hex... want to guess how well that went over?

[MadBear]

Just the irony of you telling someone off for not contributing to a conversation when your post wasn't contributing either.

Felt hypocrotical, but hey that's just me.

In that case you missed the point being made.

[Vaz]

Nope. Not at all. Still find it ironic you didn't (and still aren't) participating in the thread discussion. Those who live in glass houses and all that.

[SethoMarkus]

Nope. Not at all. Still find it ironic you didn't (and still aren't) participating in the thread discussion. Those who live in glass houses and all that.

But then you also are not contributing to the discussion with these replies to MadBear, and nor am I with this post... So is it just one big circle of hypocrisy that you are just as guilty of, if not more so for initially perpetuating the irrelevant additional argument?

[Saggo]

A warlock does not, he ONLY has access to spell level 5. He can not cast ANYTHING lower than that because he does not even have those levels any more. He can cast a lower level spell using his 5th level slot if he wants, but he has no chance to cast anything level 1 though 4 at it's normal level, even if that spell gains nothing from being cast from a higher level slot.

It's a weakness, yes, but it's also a strength. Not taking advantage at least some of the time of having more slots at a higher level would be like a bard using Magical Secrets on the Bard list and then complaining about not having enough spell options.

If you don't take advantage of it, good chance it's not the right playstyle for you.




Warlock 2/ + any charisma based class is FAR superior to just about anything that a full warlock could ever pull off.

ex.

I payed a Warlock from level 1 through 20 in the same game as a Lore Bard, who took 2 levels of warlock and then just used his first set of lore spells to get Hunger of Hadar and Hex... want to guess how well that went over?

That would be a wholly separate issue.

[Vaz]

But then you also are not contributing to the discussion with these replies to MadBear, and nor am I with this post... So is it just one big circle of hypocrisy that you are just as guilty of, if not more so for initially perpetuating the irrelevant additional argument?
I wasn't the one yelling at people for not participating though haha. I'm really not that fussed, just find it hilarious at people thinking of looking at others from their high horse when they are playing in the **** too.

[SethoMarkus]

I wasn't the one yelling at people for not participating though haha. I'm really not that fussed, just find it hilarious at people thinking of looking at others from their high horse when they are playing in the **** too.

That's the exact same sentiment that I am expressing. Because, and I certainly can be and seem to be wrong here, from my perspective you were giving MadBear the same attitude you were scolding him for.

Actually, the most helpful and on-topic way to admonish such a comment would probably be something along the lines of, "While it is true that we should try to keep the discussion relevant, there is no need to talk down to others or issue passive aggressive insults. Let's return to the topic at hand rather than continue with this side discussion."

With that said...

While it is true that we should try to keep the discussion relevant, there is no need to talk down to others or issue passive aggressive insults. Let's return to the topic at hand rather than continue with this side discussion.

[Misterwhisper]

[QUOTE=Saggo;21690453]It's a weakness, yes, but it's also a strength. Not taking advantage at least some of the time of having more slots at a higher level would be like a bard using Magical Secrets on the Bard list and then complaining about not having enough spell options. =QUOTE]

If you don't take advantage of it, good chance it's not the right playstyle for you.

That is not an advantage at all, every class has the option of upcasting their spells if they want to gain better effects, the Warlock does not have that option because they have to do it no matter what. They also do not have more slots at higher level per combat, they only have more slots IF you are given the chance get short rests through the game. Also those slots are only of the highest level that cap out at 5.

Being able to take advantage of short rests is completely up to the DM, and at least somewhat up to the rest of the party.

Warlocks are only even passable if the DM decides to let you be on even footing, and tailor the game to hand hold the gimp class so they can feel even with other classes.

A soccer could also just burn spells into Spell Points and create more slots of their highest level spell for spell levels 1 through 5 same as a warlock, and does not even have to take a short rest to do it.

At level 10 a Sorcerer and a Warlock both can cast 2 spells of 5th level.

The warlock can short rest to get those 2 spells back.

Let's be VERY generous and say that nobody is in a hurry and encounters only happen when you need them to so you can take 3 short rests per day. That means that the Warlock can cast 8 spells that day that MUST be 5th level castings.

What if there was a Sorcerer in the same group. At level 10 he can also cast 2 5th level spells, and has 10 sorcery points, and can burn his spell levels of level 1 through 4 into more spell points if he needs to.
To the math:He has 10 SP naturally, he can burn all his 4th level spells for 12 SP, 3rd levels for 9 SP, 2nd levels for 6 SP, and 1st levels for 4 more. That means he can go though 41 Sorcery points. You know what he can burn those on... 5 more spell slots of 5th level and have 6 SP left over for whatever he wants like Metamagics, or even 1 more 4th level spell slot.

So for a Warlock to cast 8 spells of 5th level and never more than 2 in any one encounter, it takes 3 different 1 hour long breaks for the day, that are not long enough to be long rests.
A Sorcerer can cast 7 spells of 5th level, and 1 of 4th level using whichever ones he needs in as many encounters as needed, and all they need is to blow bonus actions that can be done outside combat or in combat, and never need to take a short rest. ALSO, they have the option of just keeping all those extra spell levels where they are or moving them around to whatever level they need depending on the situation.

Heaven forbid we mention higher levels than that because the few extra spells the Sorcerer gets above 5th level and the extra SP they get for leveling to get even more spell levels of 5th level.
ex. Late game, while the Warlock only has their pre-chosen arcanum once per long rest the Sorcerer could just burn their extra 6th and 7th level spell slot into more SP to get even more 5th level spell slots than the warlock again.

Even at lower levels it is not much better:
At 5th level both classes can cast 2 3rd level spells, the warlock can get both back per short rest.
The Sorcerer has a base of 5 SP, and could burn their 1st and 2nd level spells for 10 more, thus converting them into 3 more 3rd level spell slots. Not as effective as level 10+ but still kind of gives the finger to the warlock, when it would take 2 short rests just to be able to pull ahead of what the sorcerer can do without resting and even then only if the sorcerer chooses to give up his lower level spells, the warlock does not get that choice.

I absolutely loved the Warlock Class in 3.5, it was my favorite class.
In my option the Warlock of 5th edition has the best flavor of any class in the game with all the story points that could be written just from the idea of making pacts with otherworldly entities to gain power for whatever reason your character has, and all the combinations of those pacts and patrons... too bad they put all that flavor on a set of class mechanics that are so poorly designed.

They honestly should have just designed an Eldritch Path for Sorcerers and given them the warlock flavor and EB as their sorcerous origin ability. Problem solved.

[Mikey P]

I'm astonished this discussion has continued like this...

The bottom line is that while they may be the equivalent of full casters, every meaningful use of the term is only supported by a class' interaction with multiclasing.

It reminds me of when they decided to add a definition for "literally" so that it is jut emphasis and not longer has a true definition. Idiots have used it wrong for so long that the misuse has made it into the dictionary, and negating the whole real use of the word.

And now we know what the folks at Oxford Dictionary felt.

Full Casters: Normal progression
Half Caster: Normal spellcasting progression at Effective Level/2+1 (Level/2 when Multiclassing)
Third Caster: Normal spellcasting progression at Effective Level/3+1 (Level/3 when Multiclassing)

Pact Magic: What Warlocks use. Specifically not compatible with the spellcasting trait

All fractional casters can add their effective spellcasting levels together when multicalssing to determine their position in the progression.

Bonus question: If I take 4 Full caster Levels, 3 Half caster levels and 4 3rd caster levels, What caster level am I?
(hint: the answer does not involve asking what class the full casting class is.)

[Tanarii]

Despite those of you trying to redefine "full caster" as "full spellcasting feature caster", there's nothing anywhere that defines it as such. And this is a pre-5e term. It was never clearly defined previously. Various definitions were used, such as "gains a new spell level slot every other level", "goes up to level 9 spells", or even "adds +1 spellcaster level per level gained from a prestige class". (Note the last one means it only added if you already had a spellcasting class). There was no exact definition for the term.

[Mikey P]

Despite those of you trying to redefine "full caster" as "full spellcasting feature caster", there's nothing anywhere that defines it as such. And this is a pre-5e term. It was never clearly defined previously. Various definitions were used, such as "gains a new spell level slot every other level", "goes up to level 9 spells", or even "adds +1 spellcaster level per level gained from a prestige class". (Note the last one means it only added if you already had a spellcasting class). There was no exact definition for the term.

True, there is no printed definition.. But there is only ONE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT IT MATTERS.

If it is in reference to advancing your Caster level (on the table) then it is logical, and has a useful meaning that an be used to compare game situations. If it has another definition, that STILL HAS NOT BEEN PRESENTED.

If it is not in reference to that, then it has absolutely no bearing for a definition, and perhaps this thread would be better served by defining it.

Really, how do those who think Warlock is a full caster define full caster? If you can build a table that says their spell like powers balance out with spellcasting, then Monks are full casters too, right?

The only instance you would ask if a class is a full casting class is if you want to multiclass an you want to know haw that will affect your spellcasting progression. So you've got a situation where only one definition is useful, and only one definition is logical.

If you still disagree, How about supplying that definition? Let's hear what a "Full Caster" is.

[Tanarii]

If you still disagree, How about supplying that definition? Let's hear what a "Full Caster" is.
I define it as "casts up to 9th level spells, gets 1 spell level every 2 levels in the class".

I generally use it as a short-hand for a group of classes that is Cleric, Druid, Bard, Warlock, Sorcerer and Wizard. Similarly do use 1/2-caster as short-hand for Ranger/Paladin, and 1/3-caster as short-hand for AT/EK. I use the term to describe the categories as how fast they gain access to the next higher spell level. Not multiclassing. Because only the former is relevant and matters to me. How fast do you get your next spell level as single class character. I don't really care how it interacts with multiclassing.

Edit: To be clear, this is my own personal definition of something that isn't defined, and therefore everyone definition of it is a personal definition.

[JakOfAllTirades]

I've played a Warlock. I chose the Armor of Agathys spell. (Cool spell!) It maxed out at 5th level for me, for some strange reason. That's the limitation of Pact Magic.

But a Bard who chooses Armor of Agathys as one of his Magical Secrets can scale it all the way up to 9th level like any other Full Caster, thus casting a "Warlock only" spell 4 levels higher than any Warlock!

Then there's the Mystic Arcanum. If I choose Mass Suggestion (Cool spell!) when I reach 11th level, I can't ever scale it up so it lasts longer. It'll last 8 hours even when I'm a 20th level Warlock.

But a Bard who chooses the same spell gets to scale it up as he gains higher spell levels; a 17th level Bard can cast it with a 9th level slot so his Mass Suggestion lasts a year and a day. (That's 1098 times longer, BTW.)

So apparently, Warlocks are Full Casters in the Orwellian sense that some Full Casters are more Full than others.

[Mikey P]

I define it as "casts up to 9th level spells, gets 1 spell level every 2 levels in the class".

I generally use it as a short-hand for a group of classes that is Cleric, Druid, Bard, Warlock, Sorcerer and Wizard. Similarly do use 1/2-caster as short-hand for Ranger/Paladin, and 1/3-caster as short-hand for AT/EK. I use the term to describe the categories as how fast they gain access to the next higher spell level. Not multiclassing. Because only the former is relevant and matters to me. How fast do you get your next spell level as single class character. I don't really care how it interacts with multiclassing.

Edit: To be clear, this is my own personal definition of something that isn't defined, and therefore everyone definition of it is a personal definition.

Okay, well, that results in a highly convoluted definition process.

If you use that definition for a full caster, you still have to explain what a half and third caster is, in equally strange terminology. And one you have done so, you have created a special definition for Casters, half caster and third casters, just to accommodate Warlocks. and the rub is, it still does not describe their spell advancement adequately. not only that, but you have invalidated that those terms can tell you anything about their spellcasting progression, as that criteria has been thrown out.

Can you see my point?

[Saggo]

Warlocks are only even passable if the DM decides to let you be on even footing, and tailor the game to hand hold the gimp class so they can feel even with other classes.
[...]
... too bad they put all that flavor on a set of class mechanics that are so poorly designed.

Oh. Well that's demonstrably not true. If you're that vehemently opposed to warlock, this is the wrong conversation.


If it is in reference to advancing your Caster level (on the table) then it is logical, and has a useful meaning that an be used to compare game situations. If it has another definition, that STILL HAS NOT BEEN PRESENTED.
The blustering aside, I did to you (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21688273&postcount=77).

[Tanarii]

Can you see my point?No. Because this "highly convoluted process" is identical to the multiclassing definition, except doesn't require a special additional rule "but only if you have the spellcasting feature". It also perfectly describes the important aspect of warlock spellcasting that is in fact identical to "full spellcasting feature casters": you get a new spell level every other level, and you get up to level 9 spells.

The difference can be described in a single important descriptive phrase: short-rest recharge (instead of long rest recharge).

Calling them "short rest full caster" and "long rest full caster" (using my definitions) is far more helpful to me in terms of encapsulated information than calling them "full caster" and "something else".

[Mikey P]

Oh. Well that's demonstrably not true. If you're that vehemently opposed to warlock, this is the wrong conversation.
I don't think that's necessarily true. If aspects of the class make it undesirable, and that is related to it's ability as a caster... it could be highly applicable.


The blustering aside, I did to you (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21688273&postcount=77).
Did you? I don't think you did.

Colloquially, it's simpler to say "Warlock is a full caster" vice the much clunkier "Warlock is not full caster but provide a functionally equivalent level of power."
That's not a definition, that's a statement that you are intentionally using the wrong definition for simplicity.

[Mikey P]

No. Because this "highly convoluted process" is identical to the multiclassing definition, except doesn't require a special additional rule "but only if you have the spellcasting feature".

Sounds like you need to read the multicalss section again, it says nothing in common with your statements



It also perfectly describes the important aspect of warlock spellcasting that is in fact identical to "full spellcasting feature casters": you get a new spell level every other level, and you get up to level 9 spells.

Warlocks never learn spells of over 5th level, not do they get slots over 5th level, they get class features instead, they can never learn other or cast something different of the same level, or use a slot over 5th to upcast a lower level spell. So Warlocks do not match this criteria.



The difference can be described in a single important descriptive phrase: short-rest recharge (instead of long rest recharge).

Calling them "short rest full caster" and "long rest full caster" (using my definitions) is far more helpful to me in terms of encapsulated information than calling them "full caster" and "something else".
[/QUOTE]
So you need to requalify every other spellcasting class for a class that dosn't not even possess the spellcasting feature.

You can do that it you want, but just like making "Literally" be used interchangeably with "figuratively", to call Warlocks a full caster class means rendering the logical, accepted definition worthless, and the term un-useful and meaningless.

You can call the "Primary Casters" as that is their main deal, but I would never call them "full"

[Ninja-Radish]

I think part of the reason people have so much hate for Warlocks is because the fluff of the class is so cool, and so many people really enjoy the fluff. Then you look into the mechanics of that class, and blech. They compete with the core Ranger for worst class in the game. That disappointment is part of the reason people hate on Warlocks so much.

I don't care how many short rests a group takes, having only 2 spell slots available at a time is a crippling limitation. Make whatever argument you want, but the Warlock doesn't "feel" like playing a caster.

Personally, I'm hoping next week's UA is a complete redesign of the class, similar to what they did with Ranger.

[Tanarii]

Sounds like you need to read the multicalss section again, it says nothing in common with your statementsIt says the same thing, just looking at it from a different perpective. ie what happens


Warlocks never learn spells of over 5th level, not do they get slots over 5th level, they get class features instead, they can never learn other or cast something different of the same level, or use a slot over 5th to upcast a lower level spell. So Warlocks do not match this criteria. Semantics. Although given this is a thread all about semantics, I'll correct your incorrect reading of what I said. I said they get up to 9th level spells. Spells are spells. It doesn't matter if you get them through a slot or a class ability. I did not say they get up to 9th level slots. Therefore, my statement was entirely correct.


So you need to requalify every other spellcasting class for a class that dosn't not even possess the spellcasting feature.I have the term provide useful definitions for my purposes. Since multiclassing isn't my purpose, it is irrelevant.


You can do that it you want, but just like making "Literally" be used interchangeably with "figuratively", to call Warlocks a full caster class means rendering the logical, accepted definition worthless, and the term un-useful and meaningless.Same back at ya. As far as I'm concerned, you're the one using literally in a un-useful and meaningless sense.

Hence, my point that it's an undefined term that everyone defined differently. Always has been. The argument "what is a full caster" is not new to 5e.


You can call the "Primary Casters" as that is their main deal, but I would never call them "full"Thanks, but I'll just keep calling warlocks full casters. Or as Deleted put it up thread ... make me. :smalltongue:

Nah seriously though, I think I'm just going to avoid the damn term altogether now for more accurate description. And when someone else says full caster and I need to be clear what they are talking about, I'll say "can you define that for me or explain exactly what you mean?"

[MrStabby]

As opposed to 40% of your time behaving like a caster, and 60% of your time behaving as a sub-par archer? Because that's how the ratio works out for character's with the spellcasting feature. I'm assuming here you mean a 5 round combat, a warlock in the level range 2-10, so I'm assuming a spellcasting caster in the level range 7-10.


This seems about right - twice the proportion of the time actually casting leveled spells. Most of my combats at level 10 are closer to 4 rounds on average than 5 - so time reduced to cantrips is probably lower than yours.

[Saggo]

That's not a definition, that's a statement that you are intentionally using the wrong definition for simplicity.
No need to nitpick semantics, the sentiment is there:

Yes, the historical origin of the caster levels is in the multiclassing rules. They are, however, discrete categories with each denoting a particular measurable amount of spellcasting.

[Vaz]

Okay, well, that results in a highly convoluted definition process.

If you use that definition for a full caster, you still have to explain what a half and third caster is, in equally strange terminology. And one you have done so, you have created a special definition for Casters, half caster and third casters, just to accommodate Warlocks. and the rub is, it still does not describe their spell advancement adequately. not only that, but you have invalidated that those terms can tell you anything about their spellcasting progression, as that criteria has been thrown out.

Can you see my point?

No. I spy pedantry instead.

What is the difference between Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, or Wizard?

Outside of how they prepare or know spells, andnwhat their casting stat is, and what spells are on it, the same for all essentially They go from 1-9 using the same process and speed.

Does a warlock? No. It has different numbers of spell slots, regains them differently, does progress spellcasting past 5, does progress their Mystic Arcanum 1/long rest abilities.

At what rate does a Paladin/Ranger get spells in comparison to full caster. Basically half? Sweet, 1/2 caster it is.

What about AT/ek? Well they are less casters, but it's basically 1/3rd give or take spare change. It's 1/3 caster then!

Simple

[MrStabby]

What is the difference between Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, or Wizard?

Outside of how they prepare or know spells, andnwhat their casting stat is, and what spells are on it, the same for all essentially They go from 1-9 using the same process and speed.


To expand slightly - wizard and druid get extra spells per day from their recovery options and the sorcerer can get more spells per day as well. Given that the overall context from the OP was to measure exclusively by the optional rules in the DMG for spell points, it seemed worth highlighting this small difference.

[DivisibleByZero]

To expand slightly - wizard and druid get extra spells per day from their recovery options and the sorcerer can get more spells per day as well. Given that the overall context from the OP was to measure exclusively by the optional rules in the DMG for spell points, it seemed worth highlighting this small difference.

That difference is included in the OP. I compared both to regular casters and to those two specific cases where they can regain slots.
Emphasis mine:

Now let us compare these numbers with those from the spell point table.
1st: 4 for the caster, vs 7 for the warlock
2nd: 6 for the caster, vs 14 for the warlock
3rd: 14 for the caster, vs 21 for the warlock
4th: 17 for the caster, vs 21 for the warlock
5th: 27 for the caster, vs 35 for the warlock
6th: 32 for the caster, vs 35 for the warlock
7th: 38 for the caster, vs 42 for the warlock
8th: 44 for the caster, vs 42 for the warlock
9th: 57 for the caster, vs 49 for the warlock
10th: 64 for the caster, vs 49 for the warlock
11th: 73 for the caster, vs 82.5 for the warlock
12th: 73 for the caster, vs 82.5 for the warlock
13th: 83 for the caster, vs 92.5 for the warlock
14th: 83 for the caster, vs 92.5 for the warlock
15th: 94 for the caster, vs 101.5 for the warlock
16th: 94 for the caster, vs 101.5 for the warlock
17th: 107 for the caster, vs 141 for the warlock
18th: 114 for the caster, vs 141 for the warlock
19th: 123 for the caster, vs 141 for the warlock
20th: 133 for the caster, vs 169 for the warlock

That's comparing Warlocks with Bards, Clerics, Moon Druids, and Sorcerers (because let's face it, Sorcs should be using their points on metamagic, not on creating more slots).
If we factor in the Wizards' and Land Druids' ability to create more slots (henceforth referred to as reco, for recovery), the comparison looks like this:
1st: 4 for the caster (+2 reco = 6sp), vs 7 for the warlock
2nd: 6 for the caster (+2 reco = 8sp), vs 14 for the warlock
3rd: 14 for the caster (+3 reco = 17sp), vs 21 for the warlock
4th: 17 for the caster (+3 reco = 20sp), vs 21 for the warlock
5th: 27 for the caster (+5 reco = 32sp), vs 35 for the warlock
6th: 32 for the caster (+5 reco = 37sp), vs 35 for the warlock
7th: 38 for the caster (+6 reco = 44sp), vs 42 for the warlock
8th: 44 for the caster (+6 reco = 50sp), vs 42 for the warlock
9th: 57 for the caster (+7 reco = 54sp), vs 49 for the warlock
10th: 64 for the caster (+7 reco = 71sp), vs 49 for the warlock
11th: 73 for the caster (+9 reco = 80sp), vs 82.5 for the warlock
13th: 83 for the caster (+10 reco = 93sp), vs 92.5 for the warlock
15th: 94 for the caster (+12 reco = 106sp), vs 101.5 for the warlock
17th: 107 for the caster (+13 reco = 120sp), vs 141 for the warlock
18th: 114 for the caster (+13 reco = 127sp), vs 141 for the warlock
19th: 123 for the caster (+14 reco = 137sp), vs 141 for the warlock
20th: 133 for the caster (+14 reco = 147sp), vs 169 for the warlock

[Mikey P]

No one is disputing they have similar slot availability if you assume the perfect number of short rests occur.

[Syll]

to call Warlocks a full caster class means rendering the logical, accepted definition worthless, and the term un-useful and meaningless.



Accepted by whom? Logical to whom? From my perspective your definition is bizarre and contrary to the norm.
Warlocks are an oddity sure, but they still meet the criterion of Tanarii's definition of a full caster

Incidentally, Tanarii's definition is identical to my own

[Arnie82]

That difference is included in the OP. I compared both to regular casters and to those two specific cases where they can regain slots.
Emphasis mine:


Numbers can show you what you want to see.

For example, 6 encounters and 2 shorts rest fits the guide for a days work. Let's say the warlock cast 1 spell each encounter. Comparing a Lock vs another casting at level 10.

If we have 3 encounters, a rest, 1 encounter then rest and finally 2 encounters before taking our long rest. E/E/E/R/E/R/E/E/Long Rest.

The Lock cast 5 spells at 7 points for a total of 35. Our full caster has 64 point with out using any type of recovery

At level 6 it would be 25(lock) to 32(other)

[Tanarii]

This seems about right - twice the proportion of the time actually casting leveled spells. Most of my combats at level 10 are closer to 4 rounds on average than 5 - so time reduced to cantrips is probably lower than yours.Four round combat should be 25%/75% for the average warlock adventuring day, and 50%/100% for the average spellcasting feature adventuring day.

And I totally agree that the fewer rounds in a combat, the more noticeable it's going to be that you've got 1 spell/combat instead of 2 spell/combat. If your combats regularly average 3-4 rounds, then spellcasting casters are going to feel a lot more 'not cantrip casters'. If they start to go over that, all spellcasters that fall back on cantrips feel more like cantrip casters.

Most of the time when I hear about how different warlocks play from spellcasting casters, it turns out that there are some assumptions going on. Typically not enough Short Rests per LR or too few encounters per LR compared to the baseline. But very few combat rounds would be another, although I'm not going to claim there's any kind of baseline on that front. Frankly I've seen numbers all over the place. My experience is that combats do have wildly different lengths depending on difficulty, objectives, terrain, player tactics, DM/monster tactics, etc.

[MrStabby]

Most of the time when I hear about how different warlocks play from spellcasting casters, it turns out that there are some assumptions going on. Typically not enough Short Rests per LR or too few encounters per LR compared to the baseline. But very few combat rounds would be another, although I'm not going to claim there's any kind of baseline on that front. Frankly I've seen numbers all over the place. My experience is that combats do have wildly different lengths depending on difficulty, objectives, terrain, player tactics, DM/monster tactics, etc.

Yeah, this changes a lot by DM style and party composition. No controlling for this.

I played with a party one where almost every character ended up being damage focused. Sorcerer, Warlock, Fighter, Paladin, Rogue. It wasn't much easier or harder than other games but combat that would take another party 5 rounds could be over in two or three.

[Mikey P]

Accepted by whom? Logical to whom? From my perspective your definition is bizarre and contrary to the norm.
Warlocks are an oddity sure, but they still meet the criterion of Tanarii's definition of a full caster

Incidentally, Tanarii's definition is identical to my own
That definition is CLEARLY convoluted to include an edge case. It is not a good basis for comparison to then draw definitions of half caster and third caster.

Accepted and logical to those who actually use the term regularly, and for whom it has a purpose and clear meaning that actually imparts information.

You can ask "How many spells does a full caster have a 12th level?" and "What are the effects of multiclassing with this class" and using "full caster' to describe Warlocks make that impossible without specifically asking "do you mean any of the other full casters, or Warlocks?"

If you include Warlocks, you have use a qualifier to single them out for just about every instance the term would come up. That makes it a really bad fit as a descriptor in my eyes.

[Saggo]

That definition is CLEARLY convoluted to include an edge case. It is not a good basis for comparison to then draw definitions of half caster and third caster.

Accepted and logical to those who actually use the term regularly, and for whom it has a purpose and clear meaning that actually imparts information.

That's not within your purview to enforce. I guess this really is done.

[DivisibleByZero]

That's not within your purview to enforce. I guess this really is done.

Welcome! Join us! We have cookies!

[Syll]

That definition is CLEARLY convoluted to include an edge case. It is not a good basis for comparison to then draw definitions of half caster and third caster.

Accepted and logical to those who actually use the term regularly, and for whom it has a purpose and clear meaning that actually imparts information.

You can ask "How many spells does a full caster have a 12th level?" and "What are the effects of multiclassing with this class" and using "full caster' to describe Warlocks make that impossible without specifically asking "do you mean any of the other full casters, or Warlocks?"

If you include Warlocks, you have use a qualifier to single them out for just about every instance the term would come up. That makes it a really bad fit as a descriptor in my eyes.

I've never heard anyone ask that question. That query would be relegated to a specific class: "hey bard, how many 3rd level spell slots do you have?"

As has been pointed out, "full caster" is a holdover term from previous editions, as is half caster. And that's where my definition comes from and probably the same is true for Tanarii.

The really amusing part of this to me, is that if you say that that 'old definition' isn't valid because terminology evolves then you will be guilty of your own rant of changing definitions...literally

Edit: and the information it imparts is the level of spell they can cast, and the rate at which that progresses.

Edit 2: on further reflection, your proposed question is meaningless by your OWN definition. How many spells does a 12th level full caster have?... are you talking spells known or spells prepared? those vary between class. Are you talking spell slots ? Because those vary by class /class feature. The max level and progression ARE the constants.

[Mikey P]

That's not within your purview to enforce. I guess this really is done.
There is nothing to enforce, I was simply answering your question.

As has been pointed out, "full caster" is a holdover term from previous editions, as is half caster. And that's where my definition comes from and probably the same is true for Tanarii.
Before 5e, my last edition was 2.5, so I'm not muddied by past edition nonsense. I know 5e. Spellcasters follow the table on pg 165, and how you calculate what is a full caster and a half and third caster are clearly spelled out, even if they do not use those terms specifically, and Pact magic gets it's own section, as they do not fit into the category.

If this is not the case, I don't see what the point of the term IS... Why use it at all if it doesn't tell you anything?

[RickAllison]

Here is a definition of mine:

Full spellcaster: Bards, Druids, Sorcerers, Wizards, Clerics. They fit the spellcaster in terms of the PHB and the Monster Manual. This is the only definition that has ANY importance when it comes to the rules. We can argue all we want on other caster definitions, but this has a specific and explained meaning. You can't contest it, nor do I think you would want to. If they have the full Spellcasting feature, they fit here.

Full Pact Magic-user/Spellcaster: Warlock

Full caster: All of the above, as well as any others who primarily use throwing weapons. After all, the rogue casting stones from his sling is just as much of a caster as a warlock casting spells. Both are casting. Also probably includes professional fisher(wo)men and metalworkers who use pre-made forms to hold molten metal.

[Mikey P]

Here is a definition of mine:

Full spellcaster: Bards, Druids, Sorcerers, Wizards, Clerics. They fit the spellcaster in terms of the PHB and the Monster Manual. This is the only definition that has ANY importance when it comes to the rules. We can argue all we want on other caster definitions, but this has a specific and explained meaning. You can't contest it, nor do I think you would want to. If they have the full Spellcasting feature, they fit here.

Full Pact Magic-user/Spellcaster: Warlock

Full caster: All of the above, as well as any others who primarily use throwing weapons. After all, the rogue casting stones from his sling is just as much of a caster as a warlock casting spells. Both are casting. Also probably includes professional fisher(wo)men and metalworkers who use pre-made forms to hold molten metal.

THIS!!!

If a character is a fly fisherman, they are for sure a full caster!

[Syll]

If this is not the case, I don't see what the point of the term IS... Why use it at all if it doesn't tell you anything?

Again... it tells me that a warlock gets (for example) 3rd level spells at level 5, and can natively cast 9th level spells, which is all the information i want from the term.... max spell level, and spell level progression

[Mikey P]

Again... it tells me that a warlock gets (for example) 3rd level spells at level 5, and can natively cast 9th level spells, which is all the information i want from the term.... max spell level, and spell level progression
Ah, well I only think of it in context of multiclassing.

In the context that I find the term meaningful, it does not apply to the Warlock.

If the OP wishes to maintain that we all must consider Warlock a full caster, well, too bad.

[Vogonjeltz]

Yeah, neither you nor anyone else gets to declare "full caster" = spellcasting class feature and 1:1 progression. Because it is NOT defined that way in the PHB, and it's a term that existed long before 5e.

So no, just because this is a 5e discussion does not magically turn full caster into spellcasting class feature and 1:1 progression.

You certainly can choose to use that meaning for the existing term in 5e. But it is not the definition for it. And personally, I absolutely count Warlocks as full casters. They're a subset of them. They are short rest full casters. But that's my personal definition of an undefined term.

Edit: I actually removed my first few posts from this thread right after I made them. Because while I absolutely think that Warlocks are full casters in 5e, and reasons that basically boil down to DivisibleByZero spell point analysis, ultimately I don't think that it's a defined term. So it's kind of meaningless to say 'yes they are full casters' or 'no they aren't'. Be specific. Either they are full spellcasting class feature casters, or they are short rest resource casters that get spell progression every other level through spell level 9. The term 'full caster' just is too divisive.

So I'm revising my statement. Warlocks are short-rest regen casters that progress to level 9 spells. Done.

Touche, the Multiclass rules don't literally say "full caster" instead they say: "You determine your available spell slots by adding together all your levels in in the bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard classes, half your levels (rounded down) in the paladin and ranger classes, and a third of your fighter or rogue levels (rounded down) if you have the Eldritch Knight or the Arcane Trickster feature."

Warlocks don't add to the spellcasting feature, is the important part, because the meaning of full caster in 3.5 was a class that added to spellcasting progression (meaning, spell slots and spells known) every single level.

Warlocks, simply don't do that when taken in concert with the other classes. So by neither the original meaning nor the 5e meaning do they fulfill the requirements.

I do partially agree with the description of Warlocks in that they are hybrid short/long rest casters who have up to 9th level spells at the same approximate progression rate as spellcasting users, if only by virtue of mystic Arcanum.

[Saggo]

There is nothing to enforce, I was simply answering your question.

There's no simply. You're antagonizing just to win using phrases like "CLEARLY convoluted" and "those who actually use," among others, and ignoring responses with phrases like "STILL HAS NOT BEEN PRESENTED." That's why this is done, for me at least, until hostilities are over.

[Mikey P]

There's no simply. You're antagonizing just to win using phrases like "CLEARLY convoluted" and "those who actually use," among others, and ignoring responses with phrases like "STILL HAS NOT BEEN PRESENTED." That's why this is done, for me at least, until hostilities are over.

Sorry if I've been coming off too aggressively.

The whole thing is really irrelevant. The OP just rubbed me the wrong way and, admittedly, I got an attitude. We can all use the term however we want, and if it needs qualification for some instances, so be it. Just don't tell me I have to use DivisibleByZero's definition because "math" or yours because it shares the milestones (despite being completely incompatible with every other caster).

You guys do you, just don't tell me I can't do me.

[Jerrykhor]

So there are only 3 classes that use the full spell level progression amirite? Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric?

[MrStabby]

So there are only 3 classes that use the full spell level progression amirite? Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric?

and druid. Dont forget druid.

[StoicLeaf]

Eh.

A wizard, as the base comparison kit, is a well rounded athlete; He can sprint, he can go for a jog and he can participate in a wide selection of sporting events, particularly if told in advance what he'll be competing in.

The warlock is the fat asthmatic kid. He can sprint. And you don't want to get in his way while he's doing so. But jogging's out of the question. He's going to need a short rest to keep participating in the day's events. And even though he might mean well, he just isn't as good at certain events like the wizard is.

[Millstone85]

So there are only 3 classes that use the full spell level progression amirite? Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric?
and druid. Dont forget druid.And the bard.

The bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard classes.

[Deleted]

and druid. Dont forget druid.


And the bard.

Sorry, the what? Not sure if I follow... I'm not sure those are even classes.

[bid]

Sorry, the what? Not sure if I follow... I'm not sure those are even classes.
Monosyllables aren't real classes, right?

[Ninja-Radish]

Eh.

A wizard, as the base comparison kit, is a well rounded athlete; He can sprint, he can go for a jog and he can participate in a wide selection of sporting events, particularly if told in advance what he'll be competing in.

The warlock is the fat asthmatic kid. He can sprint. And you don't want to get in his way while he's doing so. But jogging's out of the question. He's going to need a short rest to keep participating in the day's events. And even though he might mean well, he just isn't as good at certain events like the wizard is.

I love this analogy.

[Mikey P]

And the bard.

The bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, and wizard classes.

You can see how caster types break down in the Spellcasting header in the multiclass section of the PHB when they explain calculating your caster level when combining different classes.

Add your full level of Bard, Druid, Cleric, Sorcerer and Wizard (Full Casters)
Add Half your Levels of Ranger or Paladin (Half Casters)
One third of your levels in Arcane Trickster or Eldrich Knight (Third Casters)

In the next section the explain that Warlocks use Pact magic and not the Spellcasting trait, and this do not add levels to a Multiclass caster level, they stand alone. (Pact Caster, or to some, Full Casters*)

(* Who do not use the Spellcasting trait or use the spellcaster multiclass table, can never receive spell slots of 6th level or cast a third non-cantrip spell in a combat, other details to come up as needed.)

[Zalabim]

Just as the Elemental Monk isn't a 1/3 spellcasting caster. But they are functionally equivalent to a 1/3 spellcasting caster on a short rest recharge mechanic. You have to make an assumption on that one though ... that they'll only spend 1/2 their available Ki on elemental 'Spells'. Otherwise they're actually more powerful.
The 4ele monk is an odd duck. It gets 1st and 2nd level spells at level 3, same as a normal caster would. It gets more 2nd level spells at level 6, one level after 1/2 casters and one level before 1/3 casters. It gets 3rd level spells at level 11, two levels after 1/2 casters and two levels before 1/3 casters. It then gets 5th level spells at level 17, the same as 1/2 casters. So the element monk is a "full-5/12-5/12-1/2" caster. A "Ԏ" caster, if I were to chart it. For the purposes of this discussion, I consider a caster's level based on when they get access to each level of spells.


The really amusing part of this to me, is that if you say that that 'old definition' isn't valid because terminology evolves then you will be guilty of your own rant of changing definitions...literally
And I am slain.

[Tanarii]

The 4ele monk is an odd duck. It gets 1st and 2nd level spells at level 3, same as a normal caster would. It gets more 2nd level spells at level 6, one level after 1/2 casters and one level before 1/3 casters. It gets 3rd level spells at level 11, two levels after 1/2 casters and two levels before 1/3 casters. It then gets 5th level spells at level 17, the same as 1/2 casters. So the element monk is a "full-5/12-5/12-1/2" caster. A "Ԏ" caster, if I were to chart it. For the purposes of this discussion, I consider a caster's level based on when they get access to each level of spells.Yep. I was specifically talking about in reference to converting Ki to spell points, and comparing them to a 1/3 caster. Is using the same method of comparing a SR caster to a LR caster as the OP does, but for 1/3 casters. Turns out the 4 elements monk is balanced as a 1/3 caster in terms of 'slots', if you assume they are supposed to spend approx 1/2 their available Ki on elemental effects. (And the other 1/2 on regular monk Ki abilities.)

[CaptainSarathai]

Yeah, this whole thread is a trap. It's attempting to beat people into agreement that the Warlock is a "full caster" so that in other threads, people can say,
"Ah-ha! But the Warlock is a full caster, so it would be unfair/op to make Pacts like Blade or Chain better"

The fact is, Pact Magic is not as flexible as a full caster progression, and is entirely dependent on your DM's willingness to offer Short Rests, and your party's willingness to take them.
Furthermore, Warlock tactics don't really mesh with Pact Magic. To keep up with DPR, the Warlock needs to use Eldritch Blast, Agonizing Blast invocation, and Hex as a spell.
Some DMs rule that there's a time-limit for transmitting it from a dead foe to a new one. Others rule that you can have a formless curse hovering around for the full duration, just waiting to be shuffled on to some unsuspecting victim. Transmission is a bonus action and doesn't require the Will Save, so it seems odd that you could cast it on a measley skeleton at the front door, then walk for 7hrs and throw it at Strahd - bypassing his save entirely.
Either way, however your DM rules the Hex duration, it's still a Con spell on a class that isn't naturally proficient with the save, and it burns 1/2 - 1/3 of your slots per rest. The damage doesn't scale, only the duration. It would be better for the Warlock to be able to cast several low-level Hexes per day, with 1hr durations, so that they can save higher slots for spells that have more useful scaling. But that's not an option for Warlocks.

A true "full caster" has the flexibility to cast the spells in a slot that they need, saving bigger slots for better spells or scaling spells.
When you look at spell-points, yes, it is clear that Warlocks have just as many points as a Full Caster. What they lack, however, is the number of slots.
A 20Warlock on 2.5 rests is going to throw 18 spells per day. The Sorcerer has that many slots at 15th level, and has the flexibility to divide that number across the day however they see fit.

People act like this means that the Warlock will never be "out of spells" like the other casters, because they're always just a Short Rest away from a refill. In my experience, and the experience of anyone I've talked to who has ever sat down and played a Warlock using the standard RAW class and rest mechanics, is that Warlocks are almost always "out of spells" or are strictly rationing them. That is why people will not allow the "Warlock is a Full Caster" argument to dissuade them from asking for better non-casting abilities for Warlocks.

Now, if you want to fix that, then it's very simple. You have two options:
1. Let the Warlock use Spell Points. It's the same outcome as Slotted Pact Magic, except that it allows them to divide their slots as needed. On a 2.5 rest day, the Warlock is still dividing the Full Caster chart over a period of rests. To keep the Warlock from being the most flexible caster on the block (always generating maxxed slots) you let the other classes use SPs as well.

2. You throw away Pact Magic entirely, and just give Warlocks the normal progression. This works surprisingly well, and really, the Invocations, Pact and Patron have more of the "flavor" for Warlocks than their unusual casting mechanics.

[Citan]

I don't think anyone's disputing that Warlocks are casters, at least I haven't heard that disputed. They are full casters, just designed in a way that makes them extremely limited and underpowered compared to other caster classes.

Thank you for this great moment of laugh. ;)

If you DM a campaign some day, I'd be glad to play a "sticky" Warlock in it. As long as you respect the guidelines, I'm pretty sure I will enjoy it. ^^

Seriously though...

Limited
Sure the spell choice is limited, but who cares really? That is the whole point of having different classes with different mechanics.
Champion Fighters basically shove/push/hit all day long, but there are people enjoying it still.
Assassin Rogues basically stealth and hit all day long, but there are people enjoying it as such.
Warlock is exactly that: a class which power comes from a restrained set of features, except from a magical source instead or martial.

Underpowered
Technically, the Warlock can potentially can many more spells than ANY OTHER CASTER. Even if you don't get the short rests. Yes, I'm talking about invocations.
So what if there are usually utility ones, barring the specific "Hold Monster" one? It still means you can use all these spells at will when other casters would have to weight the benefit against the cost.

And when you are just talking about spell slots, DivisibleByZero made a pretty clear demonstration (as was done already countless times in other threads) that when a DM follows guidelines, it is damn close to a Wizard's casting power.


I think we're all on the same page there except DivisibleByZero.
Nope, definitely not.
Clearly he was not the most diplomatic in exchanging point of views, and I daresay the manner of his OP did in fact alter the message he wanted to convey.
Which was in core: with a proper DM, Warlock is as apt and powerful in spellcasting as any other caster, so plz stop bitching about it being "underpowered" or "half-caster" because it's just wrong. ;=)

[Zalabim]

Sorcerers don't have all the same spellcasting ability as wizards. Wizards don't have the same spellcasting abilities as druids. Druids don't have the same spellcasting abilities as clerics. Clerics don't have the same spellcasting abilities as sorcerers. Warlocks don't have the same spellcasting abilities as any of them. Does that mean that no one is a full caster?


Yeah, this whole thread is a trap. It's attempting to beat people into agreement that the Warlock is a "full caster" so that in other threads, people can say,
"Ah-ha! But the Warlock is a full caster, so it would be unfair/op to make Pacts like Blade or Chain better"
That's probably not what this thread is for, at all.


Now, if you want to fix that, then it's very simple. You have two options:
1. Let the Warlock use Spell Points. It's the same outcome as Slotted Pact Magic, except that it allows them to divide their slots as needed. On a 2.5 rest day, the Warlock is still dividing the Full Caster chart over a period of rests. To keep the Warlock from being the most flexible caster on the block (always generating maxxed slots) you let the other classes use SPs as well.
If someone feels that one specific class is weak in one specific way, there is no strict need to improve other classes in a different way when you improve that weak class.


2. You throw away Pact Magic entirely, and just give Warlocks the normal progression. This works surprisingly well, and really, the Invocations, Pact and Patron have more of the "flavor" for Warlocks than their unusual casting mechanics.
The invocations are part of warlock spellcasting. Pact magic (Encounter powers), Invocations (Utility powers), and Mystic Arcanum (Daily powers) all work together to form the warlock's casting. Of course if you trade just Pact Magic for spellcasting up to 9th level spells it'd be stronger, because you aren't trading all of the warlock's spellcasting and you are getting all of another class's spellcasting. (Not really because spell lists are a thing, but that's the basic idea.)

[Arkhios]

"Re: Warlock is a full caster, so stop claiming that he isn't."

Okay. Let's assume he is a full caster. Apprently she isn't then. :smallcool::smalltongue:

Seriously though, I lean towards the argument that a Warlock compares to full caster roughly on 1:1 ratio, but actually, factually, it isn't. If it was exactly a full caster, Pact Magic vs Spellcasting differentiation wouldn't exist.

[Arnie82]

Underpowered
Technically, the Warlock can potentially can many more spells than ANY OTHER CASTER. Even if you don't get the short rests. Yes, I'm talking about invocations.
So what if there are usually utility ones, barring the specific "Hold Monster" one? It still means you can use all these spells at will when other casters would have to weight the benefit against the cost.

And when you are just talking about spell slots, DivisibleByZero made a pretty clear demonstration (as was done already countless times in other threads) that when a DM follows guidelines, it is damn close to a Wizard's casting power.

)

DivisibleByZero only showed a white room perfect even layout of rests that it can be close to equal. In practice it's not. Again if you take 2 rest and 6 encounters. This is per the book.

E-E-E-R-E-R-E-E

Most warlocks are only going to spend 1 spell per encounter so they don't have encounters with no spells. So with a spell per encounter this leaves casting 5 spells. If we say he's level 10 5x7 =35. While another magic user has 64. 64=/=35.

If it's the perfect spit E-E-R-E-E-R-E-E you will still only cast 6 spells. 6×7=42 =/= 64.

Before anyone says I picked the perfect lay out of rest vs encounters to screw the warlock. There are 10 options for encounter rest combos using 6 encounters and 2 rest with out starting/finishing the day with a short rest and no back to back short rests. Only 1 of the 10 will be the perfect 2-2-2 split. While 6 of them will be a 3-2'1 split and 3 will be a 4-1-1 split.

[Citan]

DivisibleByZero only showed a white room perfect even layout of rests that it can be close to equal. In practice it's not. Again if you take 2 rest and 6 encounters. This is per the book.

E-E-E-R-E-R-E-E

Most warlocks are only going to spend 1 spell per encounter so they don't have encounters with no spells. So with a spell per encounter this leaves casting 5 spells. If we say he's level 10 5x7 =35. While another magic user has 64. 64=/=35.

If it's the perfect spit E-E-R-E-E-R-E-E you will still only cast 6 spells. 6×7=42 =/= 64.

Before anyone says I picked the perfect lay out of rest vs encounters to screw the warlock. There are 10 options for encounter rest combos using 6 encounters and 2 rest with out starting/finishing the day with a short rest and no back to back short rests. Only 1 of the 10 will be the perfect 2-2-2 split. While 6 of them will be a 3-2'1 split and 3 will be a 4-1-1 split.
You know, I find it always *strange* and funny how Warlock haters base their senseless rant on lvl 10 specifically. Why not even just 11? Would it be because, per pure coincidence, the Warlock gets its 3rd slot at this time? Surely it's only my imagination...

But anyways, let's say there, at lvl 10. And since you seem so concerned about encounters, let's say we take a Warlock tailored for encounters.

At level 10, a Warlock has 5 invocations. Let's say one is taken by Agonizing Blast.
Let's also consider the Fey Patron, because it has several spells and abilities useful in and out of combat.
1st level ability is short-rest, and can easily be evaluated as providing a benefit of a magnitude between 2nd level (because choice betwen charmed/frightened, AOE) and 1st level (only 10 feet, 1 round). So let's say 1 level.

Level 6 ability is really Misty Step, except that it uses your reaction and is better because doubled range and provides invisibility until next turn/action. So would be between 2nd and 3rd level spell. Let's again be nice to you and say it's a 2nd level spell. It's also a short-rest.

Now let's consider Invocations.
- Mage Armor: 1/day is enough, so let's count it as 1*1st level for the day.
- False Life: you can cast it at will so it's safe to say you can cast it at least once every encounter (barring discussions about the opportunity of it ;)). So 6*1st level.
- Levitate: won't help any against ranged attacks, but will at least put you beyond harm's range from melee enemies, at will, 2nd spell. Although it's hard to quantify how many times it would be really useful compared to another concentration spell. But hey, yourself did say Warlock would be out of slots, so it's better than nothing. Let's say you will have a chance to use it at least once arbitrarily (like "I'm out of slots so it's the best option for the current situation").
- Silent Image: can be used to create illusions of total cover / block line of sight. At will, 1st level spell.
Obviously won't hold if enemy sees you cast it or similar thing, but can still be used, especially if/when you have some time to prepare the encounter. Again, let's say you are out of slots, you have at least one occasion to use it effectively during the day.

A 10th level Bard (chosen because of illusion list ;)) can spend 4*1st slots, 3*2nd level slots, 3*3rd level, 3*4th level, 2*5th level for the day. So the 64 point.
Warlock can spend, on a conservative take (1 short rest), at least...
- 10*1st level "spells" (1 Mage Armor, 6 False Life, 1 Silent Image, 2 Fey Presence). 20 points.
- 3*2nd level "spells" (1 Levitate, 2 Misty Escape). 9 points.
- 4* 5th level spells. 28.
Total 57 points.
Obviously with another short rest you would go over 64 points and thus come closer to casters with recovery.

That is the reason why all arguments that "Warlock is underpowered" suck: they never consider all the "power" that comes from Patron features and invocations, that are, for the level at which you acquire, more or less corresponding to spells of the level corresponding to your current progression as a caster (modulo the fact that there are not actual spells, with benefits and drawbacks that go with it).

You can very well argue that we cannot "calculate" or "theorycraft" accurately what all these Invocations are worth in a true fight. You are right, we cannot. Because situations are too different. And most of the time dealind damage through the simple Agonizing Blast is the simple & efficient option.

But each and any of those Invocations, "free casting", allows a Warlock to gain a small but significant bonus, especially at lower levels (Disguise Self, Mage Armor, False Life), or excel in a specific area or create very funny/efficient combos (STR Bladelock, go grapple an enemy, he will probably attack you > Misty Escape up in the air, let go of the enemy, cast Levitate on you ASAP. Although admittedly not every DM would accept that, it depends on how they integrate the "falling time" into the paper-cut rounds of D&d. Or Darkness + Devil Sight + One with Shadows for master stealth).
And most of Patron features give a significant benefit, either situational or permanent, which most casters don't have unless they spend a slot on it (extra THP, damage resistance for example).

Most people here don't want to bother trying to accurately compare Warlock to others, because Warlock's true power come from stacking several sources, some of them being hard to evaluate without full context (or clearly tend to be difficult to use in unprepared encounters), so a fair comparison is really hard. That's fine. But then, don't compare at all. ;)

[Zalabim]

You did pick the perfect level to screw the warlock, and ignored part of the warlock's magical abilities. At level 7 instead, it's 36 vs 38. At level 11 it's 72 vs 73. In any case they have more or less minor abilities from their patron and invocations that pick up some slack.

There's really no reason to assume the warlock has to use a spell slot in every encounter or can only use a single spell slot in an encounter or that if there are 6 encounters of equal difficulty the short rests will be spread out unevenly or even that there will be 6 encounters or that the encounters will be of equal difficulty. In short, I believe your assumptions to be completely without basis.

The biggest difference for the warlock, the huge difference that makes them unlike wizards or sorcerers, is not how much spell point equivalent magical power they use per day, or how many times they use that power per day, but their radically different spell list. There's a little that they have in common and a lot that they don't. Warlocks don't do all the same stuff as sorcerers or wizards, no matter how you slice, dice, mince and mash the spell slots between them.

[Arnie82]

You did pick the perfect level to screw the warlock, and ignored part of the warlock's magical abilities. At level 7 instead, it's 36 vs 38. At level 11 it's 72 vs 73. In any case they have more or less minor abilities from their patron and invocations that pick up some slack.

There's really no reason to assume the warlock has to use a spell slot in every encounter or can only use a single spell slot in an encounter or that if there are 6 encounters of equal difficulty the short rests will be spread out unevenly or even that there will be 6 encounters or that the encounters will be of equal difficulty. In short, I believe your assumptions to be completely without basis.

The biggest difference for the warlock, the huge difference that makes them unlike wizards or sorcerers, is not how much spell point equivalent magical power they use per day, or how many times they use that power per day, but their radically different spell list. There's a little that they have in common and a lot that they don't. Warlocks don't do all the same stuff as sorcerers or wizards, no matter how you slice, dice, mince and mash the spell slots between them.

I picked level 10 because it's in the middle. At level 7 it is 36 to 38 if the encounters are a perfect split. That would be 1 out of 10 times. 3-2-1 split would be 30 to 38. I will try to add more to thus and respond to Citin post later. I'm not sure where I stated warlocks are UP

[Tanarii]

I picked level 10 because it's in the middle.
It's not in the middle of anything. It's at the end of a tier. Per Wotc the majority of games end by no later than 14. Half way between 1 & 20 is 10.5, meaning you chose the side of that split to make you point.

[Xetheral]

Most people here don't want to bother trying to accurately compare Warlock to others, because Warlock's true power come from stacking several sources, some of them being hard to evaluate without full context (or clearly tend to be difficult to use in unprepared encounters), so a fair comparison is really hard. That's fine. But then, don't compare at all. ;)

If your argument is that Invocations + Pact Features + Patron Features + Pact Magic + Mystic Arcanum ≈ Spellcasting, then, assuming all the terms are positive, aren't you necessarily arguing that Pact Magic + Mystic Arcanum < Spellcasting?

Your argument accordingly appears to advocate the conclusion that Warlocks are not full casters even under the disputed spellpoint-only definition used by the OP in his calculations.

[Inox]

So you can complain all you want about subjective issues, but objectively, you simply cannot claim that it is any less than a full caster.

I am going to use a different metric, as it's all conjecture unless the designers tell us what their thoughts were.

They are the only arcane-themed class that gets 9th level spells and doesn't get Wish. Even Arcana Clerics can get that--and of course, Bards, Sorcerers, and Wizards do.

If that's intentional--and not just an accidental omission the designers ran with--it tends to make me think they are something lesser in their bracket.

[Syll]

It's not in the middle of anything. It's at the end of a tier. Per Wotc the majority of games end by no later than 14.

Do you have the quote? I had thought it was that the majority of games don't make it past level 10, but now I can't find it.


Half way between 1 & 20 is 10.5, meaning you chose the side of that split to make you point.


Plenty of people don't think in those terms. Half of 20 is 10. 10 is a nice round number. Edit: Also, level a 11 is a REALLY long time to wait to have more slots than an EK...but only if you're at one of these (what I consider from personal experience to be mythical) tables that takes 2-3 SRs per day.


Yeah, this whole thread is a trap. It's attempting to beat people into agreement that the Warlock is a "full caster" so that in other threads, people can say,
"Ah-ha! But the Warlock is a full caster, so it would be unfair/op to make Pacts like Blade or Chain better"


I would go the opposite way really; "It's a full caster, so why is it so much weaker than Wizard?" I agree with your sentiments on the classes shortcomings though.

[Citan]

If your argument is that Invocations + Pact Features + Patron Features + Pact Magic + Mystic Arcanum ≈ Spellcasting, then, assuming all the terms are positive, aren't you necessarily arguing that Pact Magic + Mystic Arcanum < Spellcasting?

Your argument accordingly appears to advocate the conclusion that Warlocks are not full casters even under the disputed spellpoint-only definition used by the OP in his calculations.
My argument is that people...
1) Take the "limited spell known" against Warlock, where in fact one can know the same amount of "spells" as a Sorcerer or a tad better when you take everything into account.
2) Take the "limited power because short-rest" against Warlock, whereas, not even taking the fact that with a proper DM there is absolutely no power balance problem just when taking slots into account, the Warlock also has several "at-will" spells that completely break any possibility of comparison until 18th level, where the Wizard trumps all.

My point was to illustrate that even with a bad DM (as in one who would NEVER respect the guidelines... Occasional leeway is necessary for any DM, if only to avoid predictiveness) who would prevent all but one lone short rest, the Warlock is still roughly on par with most casters "power-wise". With expected rests, it's in the upper part of the ladder.

Beyond that, you can dislike the Warlock because the tactics it condones or the spells it proposes are of no interest to you. That's a personal opinion and taste which I fully respect. That DOES NOT mean the class is broken in any way.
The same way I personally find no interest whatsoever in Champion, and a fairly limited interest in Barbarian... But I don't pretend they are "lame" or "limited" or "underwhelming" or whatever. It's not to my taste and I suck it up, no more no less.

Warlock are just weird because they tend to have "at-will magic" for social/adventuring things (with the obvious exception of EB and related Invocations), "long-rest magic" for some specific or high-level things, and "short-rest magic" for encounters. Which is totally different from the usual caster system with one slot progression for everything. But because it is different, it provides a fresh and interesting way to build a character, who incidentally does not become nigh useless when out of slots like Bards, Sorcerers or Moon Druids, because part of his magic is perpetual.

[Tanarii]

Do you have the quote? I had thought it was that the majority of games don't make it past level 10, but now I can't find it. Nope, was going off memory. So it might be by ten.


Plenty of people don't think in those terms. Half of 20 is 10. 10 is a nice round number. Edit: Also, level a 11 is a REALLY long time to wait to have more slots than an EK...but only if you're at one of these (what I consider from personal experience to be mythical) tables that takes 2-3 SRs per day. Choosing to pick one side of what is a dividing line for 1/2 is clearly manipulating the data. Especially when it's a huge dividing line.

And I've never played or ran a game that deviated regularly from 2 SR per day in the down direction. I likewise consider these regularly less than 2 SR mythical games.

Which by the way is the DMG recommendation. 2 SR per LR. Not 2-3 (or 2.5). DivisibleByZero's 'objective math' is not correct. Warlock's absolutely get less slots in a Spell Point comparison done right, or even as a totaling of all slots. Invocations make up for that.

Edit: DMG p84
Short Rests
In general, over the course of a full adventuring day, the party will likely need to take two short rests, about one- third and two-thirds of the way through the day.

[Theodoxus]

Just to reiterate what I said in the other thread - I don't think spell points are a good comparison tool.

The fact that you can use them for every casting class *except* warlocks would indicate that spell points simply don't work for warlocks.

Hence, I can't see how they'd be a reliable comparison tool for warlocks.

Um, using spell points as they're described in the DMG, work exceedingly well for Warlocks. To the point, I won't play one unless I get the spell point variant. I don't want to be relegated to casting max level spells - I think the mechanic is boring and silly - the fluff makes no sense; it was a gimmick to get players to accept short rest recharging on a caster capable of casting high level spells.

"Full Caster" doesn't mean anything... well, I guess you could try to ask the guy who coined the term what he meant, but it's not something you'll find in a WotC publication. As such, it's fine to argue about I guess, but one should really come up with a definition - or at least try to come up with a consensus of possible definitions, before making declarative statements about what is and isn't.

[Citan]

Which by the way is the DMG recommendation. 2 SR per LR. Not 2-3 (or 2.5). DivisibleByZero's 'objective math' is not correct. Warlock's absolutely get less slots in a Spell Point comparison done right, or even as a totaling of all slots. Invocations make up for that.
True until level 20, when Warlock gets another full recover. ;)

Also, depending on your party and current situations, there are several ways to get more rests.
Obviously if you have several "short-rest" dependant characters (Monk, Battlemaster).
But you could also, provided you are travelling without much risk and at normal pace on a road or similar, ask any friend who has Tenser's Floating Disk as a ritual to cast it, so you can hope on it and rest while everyone else is walking (you lazy bum). You get your short rest without hampering party progression. ^^

Wel, obviously there are simpler means, like using a carriage or other mean of transport, but in forest or mountain it may be not the most practical...
On a side note, I wonder if it would be reasonable to accept one's short rest if he was carried by another person while sleeping/daydreaming (provided he represents a reasonable weight: for example, a Warlock Gnome carried by a Barbarian Half-Orc)... Opinions?

Um, using spell points as they're described in the DMG, work exceedingly well for Warlocks. To the point, I won't play one unless I get the spell point variant. I don't want to be relegated to casting max level spells - I think the mechanic is boring and silly - the fluff makes no sense; it was a gimmick to get players to accept short rest recharging on a caster capable of casting high level spells.
Well then, sorry if that comes off as harsh but... Suck it up and play another class!
Why the hell would you want to play a class which mechanics you find boring in the first place?

If you want conservative spellcasting, take a Sorcerer, with maybe 1-2 levels in Warlock if you want Agonizing Blast that bad, then pick Ritual Caster feat (so you have plenty utility spells that don't consume slots) and be done with it!
If you want the illusions/enchantment spells, Wizard or Bard will give plenty of those.
Or multiclass Sorcerer with a martial if you feel pure Sorcerer is lacking some of the feel of the Warlock.

Or just craft your own homebrew class and play with it (huge benefit: you will see how it is hard to actually balance different mechanics between each other, and you may realize how thoughtful Warlock actually is).

After all, the whole point of 5e in reaction to 4e was to provide very different progression mechanics so each class had a distinctive taste, and it's not like anybody is forcing you to play a Warlock, or that Warlock would be the only way to achieve one particular character concept (or maybe I just missed it). Especially since normally, a DM should have no problem with refluffing as long as you don't affect mechanics (so if you want your magic to come from an external source, be a Sorcerer which asked a great one god to bestow magic upon him, or to "activate" a long lost bloodline).

Telling "I want to play this class but I won't until they change it to my taste" is... Well, beyond egocentric, just useless...


"Full Caster" doesn't mean anything... well, I guess you could try to ask the guy who coined the term what he meant, but it's not something you'll find in a WotC publication. As such, it's fine to argue about I guess, but one should really come up with a definition - or at least try to come up with a consensus of possible definitions, before making declarative statements about what is and isn't.
My opinion was that "full caster" had to be understood as "one who can cast 9th level spells". But it seems many people here are not content with it because they also want to take into account slot scalability (which Warlock does not have) and higher level spell swap (which Warlock does not have since he chooses 6/7/8/9th level spell once and for all).
This has no meaning for me as, imo, the debate has always been mainly about "power balance", and not "choice". People who want much choice of learning have Wizard or Bard for that. People who want much flexibility in scalability have Sorcerer for that.
But since indeed there is no "official definition", their is as good as mine... ^^ Should we create a poll about this? XD

Also, people complaining that long-rest casters can blow away all their slots since they don't care about short-rest, compared to Warlocks...
It's exactly the same nonsense as comparing Paladins with other martials: Paladins can make incredible novas, sure. But once it's done, they are just decent. Others are consistently great (Rogues with Sneak Attack, Fighters with higher number of Attacks, Barbarians with Reckless Attack). Although feats change things (I'm honestly unimpressed by theorical nova of level 20 Paladin when seeing what a Rogue can do without expense, or a Fighter with just his Action Surge on a Sharpshooter/GWM build)... ^^
It's the same difference here: once out of slots, Warlocks still have better at-will utility (barring rituals) and damage (AB, possibly "ARES" -Agonizing Repelling Eldricht Spear :p). That does not make one lesser than the other, just different.

[Vaz]

It's not just that easy to drop your class in the middle of a campaign, and one where you are invested in the character itself.

[Tanarii]

It's not just that easy to drop your class in the middle of a campaign, and one where you are invested in the character itself.
Yeah. It sucks your DM didn't give you warning he'd be varying significantly from the baseline assumptions of the game mechanics. In your case, I'd ask him for a house-rule to bring you more up to snuff, on the basis that his variation is nerfing your class significantly.

It's a sad truth that many times DMs vary the without understanding the implications and trickle down affects it has in a variety of areas. And that many don't read the DMG, which has specific rest variants exactly because they knew folks would have alternative ways to play the game, and rest variants were needed to accommodate this.

[Syll]

Nope, was going off memory. So it might be by ten.

Choosing to pick one side of what is a dividing line for 1/2 is clearly manipulating the data. Especially when it's a huge dividing line.


That's a fair point (regarding change in power level at level 11) but if 10 IS the high point for the majority of campaigns, I would say it's not disingenuous to use. I just wish I could find that quote again.




After all, the whole point of 5e in reaction to 4e was to provide very different progression mechanics so each class had a distinctive taste, and it's not like anybody is forcing you to play a Warlock, or that Warlock would be the only way to achieve one particular character concept (or maybe I just missed it). Especially since normally, a DM should have no problem with refluffing as long as you don't affect mechanics (so if you want your magic to come from an external source, be a Sorcerer which asked a great one god to bestow magic upon him, or to "activate" a long lost bloodline).


I like the pact boons, I like the invocations (as a concept), but my personal hangup, is the Warlock exclusive spells. If I could get full access to that spell list on another class, I'd be fine. Now that Favored Soul has been revised to grant them unfettered access to the Cleric list, I might see if I can convince a DM to let me swap that to the Warlock list instead.

Alternatively, if WotC released a long rest variant Warlock, I'd be set.

[Tanarii]

That's a fair point (regarding change in power level at level 11) but if 10 IS the high point for the majority of campaigns, I would say it's not disingenuous to use. I just wish I could find that quote again.Then it's even more weird to use lvl 10 in that case. That's like doing a level 20 comparison. What matters in that case is the middle of tier 2.

In fact, that's generally the fair place to do your comparisons. Middle of tier 2 (7-8). And middle of tier 3 (13-14) if your campaign likes high level play. Even more so if you run a mixed level campaign within each tier.

(Edit: I don't like to use the term disingenuous. Removed from my post.)

[Syll]

Then it's even more weird to use lvl 10 in that case. That's like doing a level 20 comparison. What matters in that case is the middle of tier 2.

In fact, that's generally the fair place to do your comparisons. Middle of tier 2 (7-8). And middle of tier 3 (13-14) if your campaign likes high level play. Even more so if you run a mixed level campaign within each tier.

(Edit: I don't like to use the term disingenuous. Removed from my post.)

Well, level 20 comparisons get done all the time (not that I think it's advisable); but with a middle of Tier 2 comparison either lvl 7 or 8 (and 2 SRs, since that's what RAW advocates) that still means a warlock has the same # of spell slots as a 1/3rd caster, which is my primary frustration with the class.

[Tanarii]

Well, level 20 comparisons get done all the time (not that I think it's advisable); but with a middle of Tier 2 comparison either lvl 7 or 8 (and 2 SRs, since that's what RAW advocates) that still means a warlock has the same # of spell slots as a 1/3rd caster, which is my primary frustration with the class.
6 lvl 4 slots are not comparable to 4 lvl 1 and 2 lvl 2 slots. And that's with rounding up the 1/3 caster, as the single-class classes do.

Meanwhile a spellcasting caster gets 12 slots. Of which a bit less than half 1/2 are lvl 3-4. Which is why I said that at 2SR/day, warlock's actually get less spells. That's one reason why they have invocations and the pact boon. (Patron being the equivalent of sub-class features.) That doesn't stop them from being full casters the way I define the term, but I do understand they get less daily slots than spellcasting feature classes.

As I said up thread at least once ... warlocks are about 1 spell/encounter, on average, behind spellcasting casters. And that one spell is either a level 1 or 2 spell.

[Syll]

6 lvl 4 slots are not comparable to 4 lvl 1 and 2 lvl 2 slots. And that's with rounding up the 1/3 caster, as the single-class classes do.

Meanwhile a spellcasting caster gets 12 slots. Of which a bit less than half 1/2 are lvl 3-4. Which is why I said that at 2SR/day, warlock's actually get less spells. That's one reason why they have invocations and the pact boon. (Patron being the equivalent of sub-class features.) That doesn't stop them from being full casters the way I define the term, but I do understand they get less daily slots than spellcasting feature classes.

As I said up thread at least once ... warlocks are about 1 spell/encounter, on average, behind spellcasting casters. And that one spell is either a level 1 or 2 spell.

Level 4 slots are inherently more powerful, but comparable depending on factors (I.e. spells that do not scale with slot level, or do not scale meaningfully) but that's a debate I don't want to get into

You and I have the same definition of a full caster, so that's not what I'm arguing against. Truthfully I suppose I'm not actually arguing FOR anything specifically, just expressing frustration with a classes casting mechanics since I really like the rest of the class.

[Arnie82]

Then it's even more weird to use lvl 10 in that case. That's like doing a level 20 comparison. What matters in that case is the middle of tier 2.

In fact, that's generally the fair place to do your comparisons. Middle of tier 2 (7-8). And middle of tier 3 (13-14) if your campaign likes high level play. Even more so if you run a mixed level campaign within each tier.

(Edit: I don't like to use the term disingenuous. Removed from my post.)


So you want level 7 or 8. From my last post a perfectly even lay out of rest gives you 6 spells. At level 7 and 8 you have 36 points. Other level 7 casters will have 38 and 44. This is only if you have a perfect layout, roughly 10% of them time. The 3-2-1 gives level 7 and 8 lock 30 points.

As for the power of a warlock, it's actually very good if you get 2 short rests. Even if you get only 1 short rest it can still function. All I have been saying this whole time is that By Zero numbers are not accurate in practice. The reason I don't consider them full casters , is because they don't act like other full casters. Are they on equal power? Close enough.

If you had someone completely new to the game asking too play a full time caster, and wants to throw spells around, would you suggest warlock?

[bid]

That's a fair point (regarding change in power level at level 11) but if 10 IS the high point for the majority of campaigns, I would say it's not disingenuous to use.
Randomly picking one isn't, but sticking to it even when non-representative is living in a fantasy.

If you manage to find it weaker for 3-4 consecutive levels, then you can call the comparison "fair".

[Citan]

That's a fair point (regarding change in power level at level 11) but if 10 IS the high point for the majority of campaigns, I would say it's not disingenuous to use. I just wish I could find that quote again.


I like the pact boons, I like the invocations (as a concept), but my personal hangup, is the Warlock exclusive spells. If I could get full access to that spell list on another class, I'd be fine. Now that Favored Soul has been revised to grant them unfettered access to the Cleric list, I might see if I can convince a DM to let me swap that to the Warlock list instead.

Alternatively, if WotC released a long rest variant Warlock, I'd be set.
Well...
I understand your gripe. You'd like having all spells up to 9th but still has some invocations?
Then indeed you're stuck for now. ;)

Maybe see with your DM if he could just...
1) Add Warlock exclusive spells to Sorcerer list.
2) Trade one low-level invocation of Warlock for...
- either a spell known penalty.
- or any custom handicap to your character.
- or lesser slots/SP.

For Patron features, best bet would be to "quantify" them as spells as I tried to do above, and add them to your spell known.

It is a good sum of work but still not too hard.
Beyond that, I guess homebrewing is your only option.
If you want some help with that feel free to PM me. ;)

[Syll]

Well...
I understand your gripe. You'd like having all spells up to 9th but still has some invocations?
Then indeed you're stuck for now. ;)




Not so much that; I would just like the flexibility that other casters get in casting. Realistically the simplest implementation of that would be spell points, despite not being eligible RAW, so that with 2 5th level slots you would have 14 spell points/SR. Or, since I'm not a fan of Warlock's casting mechanic, if another class had access to the Warlock Spell list I could go that route (Profane Soul Blood Hunter looks very enticing for that reason)


Randomly picking one isn't, but sticking to it even when non-representative is living in a fantasy.

If you manage to find it weaker for 3-4 consecutive levels, then you can call the comparison "fair".

Can you clarify your post? I really don't understand what you're trying to say. What's non-representative of what?

[Sigreid]

I can't believe we're 7 pages in on a semantics argument. The warlock has impressive spellcasting ability. I'd put it on par, or close to the sorcerer. Because of its locked in nature I would put it lower than wizard, but not by much.

The real think is, as I said earlier, they don't play like a wizard or a sorcerer. Their bag of tricks is just enough different that if a player says they want spell casting to be their main shtick, warlock will probably not be as satisfying to them as wizard or sorcerer. If, on the other hand, someone wants to play a "battle mage" I think warlock is a better choice.

[bid]

Can you clarify your post? I really don't understand what you're trying to say. What's non-representative of what?
Your whole roleplaying life won't be spent at level 10, nor at level 11. To say that warlock casting power is weak, you need to show it holds true from 8 to 10.

You found it was weak at level 10, does it represents the other levels around it. Citan showed that level 11 was different, which one is the fluke?

[Arnie82]

Your whole roleplaying life won't be spent at level 10, nor at level 11. To say that warlock casting power is weak, you need to show it holds true from 8 to 10.

You found it was weak at level 10, does it represents the other levels around it. Citan showed that level 11 was different, which one is the fluke?

Again, I'm not trying to "prove" it's weak. Citan took the topic to something I wasn't even discussing. The topic has been about the warlock being a full caster or not. Full caster does not dictate weather something is OP, balanced, or UP. I will say this again, the Warlock is a great class, that has lots of power, it's just not a full caster.

The warlock doesn't need a full caster progression to work. Just like a paladin doesn't need one.

The whole point of my posting anything was to disprove DivisibleByZero's post that a warlock is a full caster when you compare how many spell points a warlock would get in a day vs a full caste's progression.

[MrStabby]

I can't believe we're 7 pages in on a semantics argument. The warlock has impressive spellcasting ability. I'd put it on par, or close to the sorcerer. Because of its locked in nature I would put it lower than wizard, but not by much.

The real think is, as I said earlier, they don't play like a wizard or a sorcerer. Their bag of tricks is just enough different that if a player says they want spell casting to be their main shtick, warlock will probably not be as satisfying to them as wizard or sorcerer. If, on the other hand, someone wants to play a "battle mage" I think warlock is a better choice.

Well to be fair it isn't just a semantics argument anymore.

It began as a semantics argument but got into questions of balance - not just one question of balance but a couple of them.

The arguments I have seen seem to be roughly:

Is the warlock less powerful than other casters such as the wizard;

Is the warlocks ability to use spell slots less powerful than other casters, such as the wizard;

Is the pact magic feature less powerful than the spellcasting feature.


For what it's worth I think the middle one is the most relevant to the start.

Warlock is decently balanced, in part because the pact magic feature isn't that far behind the spellcasting feature and the gap is made up by invocations and a really powerful at-will attack in Eldritch Blast.

Is the warlocks ability to use spell slots less than the wizard? Well no arcane recovery, no prepared casting, more limited spells and arguably worse spells as well as the way spells are rationed out to the Warlock through the day suggests not. But then, the worlock is compensated by all of the other goodies not associated with its casting feature - so sure it's weaker - but not unfairly so.

Is pact magic weaker than spellcasting feature and by how much? Well this depends how much you like flexibility as well as what your DM throws at you. If you would never need more arcane power than you have available at any point then there is no problem. If all fights are equal difficulty then no problem; If you never need to spend above average resources to resolve a tough encounter then no problem; if you get bored by spells you have cast before and would otherwise ignore lower level spells then there is no loss; if your DM is purely reactive and lets you find threats so there is no need to keep resources in reserve for the unexpected then pact magic looks comparable; if you don't like to cast spells from higher level spell slots then pact magic is less of a worry; if you don't mind never getting more than one spell per day per level for level 6+ spells then pact magic is less damaging to your casting. For each of these things that don't match pact magic takes a hit. On top of this there is the number of short rests available - which to be fair, in some campaigns may be higher than 2 per long rest.

To throw my hat into the ring on the use of level 10 to evaluate Warlock - either of 10 or 11 would be miss-representative by itself. 10 has a good excuse in that it takes a long time to level out of it. Level 11 is also the beginning of a step up in power. Any table that wanted to run a lower power campaign would be likely to stop at level 11 before level 6 spells.

Personally I feel it would be useful to divide the discussion to before and after level 11. The problems with mystic arcana kick in after 11, the problem with limited spell slots to draw upon is more pronounced prior to level 11.

[Syll]

Your whole roleplaying life won't be spent at level 10, nor at level 11. To say that warlock casting power is weak, you need to show it holds true from 8 to 10.

You found it was weak at level 10, does it represents the other levels around it. Citan showed that level 11 was different, which one is the fluke?

I think you have me mistaken for Arnie82, as I didn't math anything at any level, only compare # of slots... but the comparison of slots of a 1/3 caster to warlock holds true from 7-10 anyway.

[bid]

Again, I'm not trying to "prove" it's weak. Citan took the topic to something I wasn't even discussing.
Ah well, if you don't care about level 10 or 11 then I'm ok.

In fact, I don't even know why you're picking this up, seeing that I've been replying to Syll all this time. Did I mention you name by any chance?

[Arnie82]

To throw my hat into the ring on the use of level 10 to evaluate Warlock - either of 10 or 11 would be miss-representative by itself. 10 has a good excuse in that it takes a long time to level out of it. Level 11 is also the beginning of a step up in power. Any table that wanted to run a lower power campaign would be likely to stop at level 11 before level 6 spells.

Personally I feel it would be useful to divide the discussion to before and after level 11. The problems with mystic arcana kick in after 11, the problem with limited spell slots to draw upon is more pronounced prior to level 11.

The break down for spell points using 2 even short rest vs 3,2,1 vs full casters is:

Level /Even spaced/ 3,2 1 / full casters
1 / 6 / 6 / 4
2 /12/10/ 6
3 /18/15/14
4 /18/15/17
5 /30/25/27
6 /30/25/32
7 /36/30/38
8 /36/30/44
9 /42/35/57
10/42/35/64

Levels 1 to 4 the lock is even or more spell points. After that it's the full casters have more.

Levels 11 and down I said the warlock would use 2 spells in the first encounter and 1 spell in the second encounter.

For the even 2/2/2 encounter to rest split this gives the warlock 9 spells. For the 3/2/1 split it gives the lock 8 spells for the day.

Level/even/3-2-1/full
11 and 12/72/65/73
13 and 14/82/75/83
15 and 16/93/76/94
17/106/89/107
18/106/89/114
19/106/89/123
Level 20 is incomplete, because of the warlock getting an extra recharge of spells. There isn't an easy way to factor that in. It jut adds too wild of a variable.

In conclusion, if your rest are pefectly even. The Lock can keep pass, but the moment you have 3 encounters in a row, it falls short. There are 10 ways to lay out encounters using 6 encounters and 2 rests where you don't have back to back short rests or start/end the day with a short rest. 1 out of those 10 is the perfect 2/2/2 split.

Sorry about the formatting, but I did this from my phone.

[Arnie82]

Ah well, if you don't care about level 10 or 11 then I'm ok.

In fact, I don't even know why you're picking this up, seeing that I've been replying to Syll all this time. Did I mention you name by any chance?

Um, you jumped into what Syll and are were talking about. Even Syll thinks your quoting the wrong person.

[MrStabby]

The break down for spell points using 2 even short rest vs 3,2,1 vs full casters is:

Level /Even spaced/ 3,2 1 / full casters
1 / 6 / 6 / 4
2 /12/10/ 6
3 /18/15/14
4 /18/15/17
5 /30/25/27
6 /30/25/32
7 /36/30/38
8 /36/30/44
9 /42/35/57
10/42/35/64

Levels 1 to 4 the lock is even or more spell points. After that it's the full casters have more.

Levels 11 and down I said the warlock would use 2 spells in the first encounter and 1 spell in the second encounter.

For the even 2/2/2 encounter to rest split this gives the warlock 9 spells. For the 3/2/1 split it gives the lock 8 spells for the day.

Level/even/3-2-1/full
11 and 12/72/65/73
13 and 14/82/75/83
15 and 16/93/76/94
17/106/89/107
18/106/89/114
19/106/89/123
Level 20 is incomplete, because of the warlock getting an extra recharge of spells. There isn't an easy way to factor that in. It jut adds too wild of a variable.

In conclusion, if your rest are pefectly even. The Lock can keep pass, but the moment you have 3 encounters in a row, it falls short. There are 10 ways to lay out encounters using 6 encounters and 2 rests where you don't have back to back short rests or start/end the day with a short rest. 1 out of those 10 is the perfect 2/2/2 split.

Sorry about the formatting, but I did this from my phone.

The problem is that this is considering that spell points are a sufficient way to measure spell power.

The bigger issue is that simply arithmetically adding up spell points misses a whole load of the complexity of the different casting systems. If it were as simple as adding up some numbers this thread would have been dealt with 7 pages ago.

If you want to compare power associated with the casting mechanisms you have to have a metric that addresses the issues raised (or else you will convince nobody). What cost do you put on not being able to split your spell points between more spells? What cost do you assign to not being able to upcast spells?

[Arnie82]

The problem is that this is considering that spell points are a sufficient way to measure spell power.

The bigger issue is that simply arithmetically adding up spell points misses a whole load of the complexity of the different casting systems. If it were as simple as adding up some numbers this thread would have been dealt with 7 pages ago.

If you want to compare power associated with the casting mechanisms you have to have a metric that addresses the issues raised (or else you will convince nobody). What cost do you put on not being able to split your spell points between more spells? What cost do you assign to not being able to upcast spells?

You do realize I'm trying to point out that the warlock has less spell points compared to a normal full caster, right?

Edit to add* The whole thread was started on the notion that spell points prove that warlocks are full casters. I'm stating that they a re not full casters and DivisibleByZero's first post is false.

[Citan]

Not so much that; I would just like the flexibility that other casters get in casting. Realistically the simplest implementation of that would be spell points, despite not being eligible RAW, so that with 2 5th level slots you would have 14 spell points/SR. Or, since I'm not a fan of Warlock's casting mechanic, if another class had access to the Warlock Spell list I could go that route (Profane Soul Blood Hunter looks very enticing for that reason)



Can you clarify your post? I really don't understand what you're trying to say. What's non-representative of what?

To be honest I fail to see what spells from Warlock are all at once, exclusive to it, too numerous to be taken through Bard's Magic Secrets, and interesting enough to make you dream about a houserule. ;)

I would have understood better if you were talking about some Patron features...
Or would it be the "at-will low level spells" that was your main draw to Warlock?

Because, let's face it, Invocations and max-level short rest slots are paired for good reason, a balance one.

But really if your main "regret" is spells, I don't see how going Warlock 2 (to get the exclusive 1st level ones) + Lore Bard 18 wouldn't manage to fill your wishes... Bard 18 means 8 Magic Secrets... ;)

[MrStabby]

You do realize I'm trying to point out that the warlock has less spell points compared to a normal full caster, right?

Edit to add* The whole thread was started on the notion that spell points prove that warlocks are full casters. I'm stating that they a re not full casters and DivisibleByZero's first post is false.

Yes I do. Sorry my response came out a bit funny when I re-read it.

My gripe is as much with the measurement system as with the result. In responding to that I kind of passed over your point itself.

I probably should have put more context in or worded it differently. Also on re-reading I realise it may have sounded somewhat aggressive, it was not my intent and if i did sound this way I apologise.

[Arnie82]

Yes I do. Sorry my response came out a bit funny when I re-read it.

My gripe is as much with the measurement system as with the result. In responding to that I kind of passed over your point itself.

I probably should have put more context in or worded it differently. Also on re-reading I realise it may have sounded somewhat aggressive, it was not my intent and if i did sound this way I apologise.

I didn't take it as aggressive at all. I'm not sure there really is a good way to measure it.

[Tanarii]

You do realize I'm trying to point out that the warlock has less spell points compared to a normal full caster, right?

Edit to add* The whole thread was started on the notion that spell points prove that warlocks are full casters. I'm stating that they a re not full casters and DivisibleByZero's first post is false.
I think DivisibleByZero's post is incorrect too, in that it is based on 2.5 SR. Warlock Pact Magic, in itself, does not grant as much power as the spellcasting feature level 1-5 spell slots, based on the DMG recommended 2 SR/ day. At least, definitely not before level 10. I can't recall the 11+ and 17+ numbers off the top of my head.

I don't think that stops them from being full casters. Because they get a new spell level every other class level, up to 9th. And that's primarily how I define a full caster. They get close enough to the same spell power for my purposes, just instead based on a SR mechanic, since the extra spells / encounter for spellcasting feature are all (by level 7+ When they take a significant lead in spells/encounter) all level 1 & 2 spells. And I believe invocations balance that out power wise.

[furby076]

Why does it matter how you classify warlocks? Do certain items, feats, skills etc only pertain to full casters vs other casters?

[Mikey P]

Why does it matter how you classify warlocks? Do certain items, feats, skills etc only pertain to full casters vs other casters?


As I understand it, it's a useful classification for denoting how levels combine, that's all...


I know that if I take 6 half caster levels and 14 full caster levels, I will get a 9th level spell slot and be a 17th level caster...


But some people have a different idea. I think they look at it as a badge of some kind or sign of equivalency.

[Vaz]

Are people really teyong to justify a Warlock being behind by 1/spell encounter because it is 'only' a 1st or 2nd level spell. Shield and Mirror Image would like a word.

[Zalabim]

I picked level 10 because it's in the middle. At level 7 it is 36 to 38 if the encounters are a perfect split. That would be 1 out of 10 times. 3-2-1 split would be 30 to 38. I will try to add more to thus and respond to Citin post later. I'm not sure where I stated warlocks are UP
I don't think there's any motive in choosing level 10, and FWIW, level 10 is actually the median level in a 1-20 leveling curve based on adventuring days. Level 1 and 2 are the shortest, level 4 through 10 are on the long end, and level 11-20 are all pretty close in length. Halfway through ends up being about level 10.1.

I do think you're being disingenuous when you won't count all of the warlock's spell slots, or spells per day, but will count all of the long rest caster's slots. If there's three easy encounters in a row, maybe the warlock casts Hex in the first one and still has it for the next two. That's one spell slot, but the spell is in all three encounters. Do you count it three times? If there's a hard encounter, everyone uses more of their resources. Seriously. It is dishonest to say a warlock doesn't use both their spell slots in a single hard encounter if you aren't going to consider what the character is actually doing with their spell slots.

If the single encounter isn't hard, then it's not following the book's guidelines at all, which says short rests are about 1/3 and 2/3 of the way through the adventure day. 3M-2M-1M has a short rest at 1/2 and 5/6. That's not following the book's guidelines.

And again, the big difference is in what the character actually does. A warlock's response to three hard encounters in a day is different than a wizard's response to three hard encounters in a day because their spell lists are different. Their class abilities are different. If you're in a hard encounter, what do you end up doing for your four or five rounds after all? Both characters can also cast spells out of combat. A wizard or sorcerer can spend slots on things the warlock gets for free. The whole encounters-per-rest or spells-per-encounter comparison is pointless.

Are people really teyong to justify a Warlock being behind by 1/spell encounter because it is 'only' a 1st or 2nd level spell. Shield and Mirror Image would like a word.
I'm sure Mage Armor, False Life, Speak with Dead, and Arcane Eye would like to speak up too.

[Arnie82]

I do think you're being disingenuous when you won't count all of the warlock's spell slots, or spells per day, but will count all of the long rest caster's slots. If there's three easy encounters in a row, maybe the warlock casts Hex in the first one and still has it for the next two. That's one spell slot, but the spell is in all three encounters. Do you count it three times? If there's a hard encounter, everyone uses more of their resources. Seriously. It is dishonest to say a warlock doesn't use both their spell slots in a single hard encounter if you aren't going to consider what the character is actually doing with their spell slots.

If the single encounter isn't hard, then it's not following the book's guidelines at all, which says short rests are about 1/3 and 2/3 of the way through the adventure day. 3M-2M-1M has a short rest at 1/2 and 5/6. That's not following the book's guidelines.



Wait, so it was still disingenuous when I included the max amount of spells a warlock can have in a day with 2 rests? You're telling me I'm disingenuous for not including that when I did. Did you both to actually read the table? I also includedthe next step down from a perfect day, 3-2-1. Most people who I have talked to don't spend all of there warlock spells on the first encounter of the day.

No where in the DMG could I find that it say your encounters must be spaced out perfectly. You could be doing some exploring or social things during that 1 encounter period. Maybe one of the members had some bad luck and needs to rest, it happens.

[Citan]

You do realize I'm trying to point out that the warlock has less spell points compared to a normal full caster, right?

Edit to add* The whole thread was started on the notion that spell points prove that warlocks are full casters. I'm stating that they a re not full casters and DivisibleByZero's first post is false.
And sadly you still fail yet again to do so, because, again, you refuse to take into account at the very least "at-will" 1st level spells (and maybe 2nd) that can change considerably the result of "total spell points equivalence", as I demonstrated already in a post before.

You may find False Life, Jump or Mage Armor a "lesser" benefit than having a few slots available which you can use specifically on Shield for example, but it is still something very worth noting (especially Mage Armor which is useful all life, and False Life which is a true lifesaver at low levels).

And it's even "worse" if you try and take into account the benefits of some Patron features.

You may also find "utility" at-will spells such as Disguise Self, Jump, Detect Magic uninteresting, but there are still 1st level spells that can be cast at will and can be used in numerous situations. And the fact they are at will Invocations means there is no hard question to answer to like other casters may ("Should I prepare it for today? Should I use it or better keep the slot in case of oncoming encounter?").
Devil's Sight is better than Darkvision, and permanent.
"Read all writing" is great in any exploration/spying setting.
Etc etc...
Things that other casters can do sometimes by consuming precious slots, Warlock can do at-will. In that respect, one could say he is the most "casterish" of all. ^^

[Zalabim]

Wait, so it was still disingenuous when I included the max amount of spells a warlock can have in a day with 2 rests? You're telling me I'm disingenuous for not including that when I did. Did you both to actually read the table? I also includedthe next step down from a perfect day, 3-2-1. Most people who I have talked to don't spend all of there warlock spells on the first encounter of the day.

Yes, because you didn't. You counted spell slots only, not the other spells they could cast. You then immediately undercut that underestimate. You've called it only 1 in 10 by assuming that only in rare perfect circumstances would warlocks cast all their spells, while long rest casters never have spell slots unused at the end of a day. You're looking for excuses to trim points off the warlock's total instead of treating both sides equally. You then gave your conclusions based on your bias. Yes, that's disingenuous.


No where in the DMG could I find that it say your encounters must be spaced out perfectly. You could be doing some exploring or social things during that 1 encounter period. Maybe one of the members had some bad luck and needs to rest, it happens.
Nowhere in the PHB could I find that encounters had to be spaced perfectly for warlocks to cast their spells. PCs will rest when "they need to" and "they can" coincide. The DMG does say "they need to" will probably be at 1/3 and 2/3 for short rests.

If you would actually move beyond the platonic ideal of the adventuring day, you might notice that warlocks have such a spell list that there's little point in comparing their spell casting to other classes by such metrics. There's things you can get clerics, bards, druids, sorcerers, or wizards to do that you won't get a warlock to do that have nothing to do with spells per day or short rest spell slots.

[Tanarii]

Why does it matter how you classify warlocks? Do certain items, feats, skills etc only pertain to full casters vs other casters?Because it lets a player know, in a succinct phrase, you're talking about a category of classes that gets a new spell level every other level and goes up to 9th spells. As opposed to all other classes, which are Martials. The game has 6 of each, and it's useful to know which side of the Full Caster / Martial divide a class lies. :smallyuk:

Seriously though, it's pretty useless phrase because it's not defined so no-one knows what you're talking about. Just like 'Martials'. Do they mean 'no spells slots', 'non-full casters', or something else?


Are people really teyong to justify a Warlock being behind by 1/spell encounter because it is 'only' a 1st or 2nd level spell. Shield and Mirror Image would like a word.
Invocations. Including at-will Mage Armor, False Life, Disguise Self, Silent Image, and many non-spell (but equivalently useful) effects.

It's not as precise as 'spellcasting = pact magic + invocations' of course. It's:
spellcasting + non-subclass features + subclass features
=
pact magic + invocations + pact boon + subclass features

It's the overall packages which balance out.

[Arnie82]

Yes, because you didn't. You counted spell slots only, not the other spells they could cast. You then immediately undercut that underestimate. You've called it only 1 in 10 by assuming that only in rare perfect circumstances would warlocks cast all their spells, while long rest casters never have spell slots unused at the end of a day. You're looking for excuses to trim points off the warlock's total instead of treating both sides equally. You then gave your conclusions based on your bias. Yes, that's disingenuous.


Nowhere in the PHB could I find that encounters had to be spaced perfectly for warlocks to cast their spells. PCs will rest when "they need to" and "they can" coincide. The DMG does say "they need to" will probably be at 1/3 and 2/3 for short rests.

If you would actually move beyond the platonic ideal of the adventuring day, you might notice that warlocks have such a spell list that there's little point in comparing their spell casting to other classes by such metrics. There's things you can get clerics, bards, druids, sorcerers, or wizards to do that you won't get a warlock to do that have nothing to do with spells per day or short rest spell slots.

Have even read the entire thread? If you haven't, go read from post 1. Other wise I'm questioning you ability to read. Again, DivisibleByZero set that baseline. I countered it. Your trying to count "spell slots" that aren't always there if someone even selected them. How many invocations are you using on at will apells? Mage armor is 1, agonizing blast is 2, cool you gained a level 1 spell slots for the day. At level 5 you get your next which, most likely gets spent on your pact invocation. Sweet at level 7 you can get an invocation for a utility spell. That's if you aren't taking devils sight. It does have spell like affects, and in some cases it's better them a spell, but it still doesn't give you more spells slots. Talk about disingenuous, trying to say you get more spell slots that you may never see.

No where did I say it has to be spaced perfectly to cast spells. I know most casters don't want to go into a fight with no spell slots. Spacing them out even is just a good idea. If you want to say the caster uses both spells in the first encounter after each rest great! That means you have encounters each day were you can't even cast a spell.

Here are the different ways encounters can be payed out if you have 6 encounters and 2 shorts rests. 2-2-2, 3-2-1, 3-1-2, 1-2-3, 1-3-2, 2-1-3, 2-3-1, 1-4-1, 1-1-4, 4-1-1. A days worth of encounters will fall somewhere in here. 2-2-2 comes up 1 out of the 10 times. Granted, you may happen to cast 2 spells on the correct encounter, but you may also cast them on the first encounter of 3 encounters in a row. That just helps show warlocks are not full casters more easily by showing multiple encounters a day where you don't have spells to cast. No wait, you can keep casting mage armor!

Sweet, I'm glade warlocks get things that other casters don't. I just wish there were things that bards got that warlocks didn't. Maybe wizards or sorcerers get something that warlocks don't .

[Arnie82]

And sadly you still fail yet again to do so, because, again, you refuse to take into account at the very least "at-will" 1st level spells (and maybe 2nd) that can change considerably the result of "total spell points equivalence", as I demonstrated already in a post before.

You may find False Life, Jump or Mage Armor a "lesser" benefit than having a few slots available which you can use specifically on Shield for example, but it is still something very worth noting (especially Mage Armor which is useful all life, and False Life which is a true lifesaver at low levels).

And it's even "worse" if you try and take into account the benefits of some Patron features.

You may also find "utility" at-will spells such as Disguise Self, Jump, Detect Magic uninteresting, but there are still 1st level spells that can be cast at will and can be used in numerous situations. And the fact they are at will Invocations means there is no hard question to answer to like other casters may ("Should I prepare it for today? Should I use it or better keep the slot in case of oncoming encounter?").
Devil's Sight is better than Darkvision, and permanent.
"Read all writing" is great in any exploration/spying setting.
Etc etc...
Things that other casters can do sometimes by consuming precious slots, Warlock can do at-will. In that respect, one could say he is the most "casterish" of all. ^^

Mage armor is extremely useful! Most, if not all days will have you casting this once though. Just on yourself.

Ok, let's take pact benifits in, how about Bardic Inspiration. What about druid shape shift?

BTW How many invocations are you spending on at will spells?

Devils sight might be the beat invocation.

While a warlock doesn't have to pick between utility spells and higher usage spells, it does have to pick between utility and higher usage invocations.

Read all writing is great, but comprehend language is a ritual that a lot of the other classes get. Tome lock could save an invocation there.

Edit to add* Warlocks are great casters, that are a blast to play. I just don't think lumping them together with full casters is a great idea because they play so differently. If I had a new player joining a group who wanted to throw spells around, I would not point them to a warlock.

[Mikey P]

Because it lets a player know, in a succinct phrase, you're talking about a category of classes that gets a new spell level every other level and goes up to 9th spells. As opposed to all other classes, which are Martials. The game has 6 of each, and it's useful to know which side of the Full Caster / Martial divide a class lies. :smallyuk:
Interesting! Maybe this is the source of the (what from my perspective seems like a) fixation...
Do you think there must be a dichotomy? Must a class be a full caster or a Martial? (Assume that makes all partial casters Martial's in your eyes then? Warlock magic is way stronger than a paladin so they must be a Full Caster?



Seriously though, it's pretty useless phrase because it's not defined so no-one knows what you're talking about. Just like 'Martials'. Do they mean 'no spells slots', 'non-full casters', or something else?

YMMV, my group uses the term CONSTANTLY in theoryrafting, and character build discussions.

We consider Warlocks and Witchunter/Bloodhunters with the profane soul "Pact Casters", (which can combine half of their profane soul levels with their Warlock levels to determine their pact sting level). Before the Profane Soul got approved at our gaming store table, we didn't bother to classify Warlocks, because they didn't combine with anything, their abilities stayed and spell slots stayed side by side. It wans't until there was another source of Warlock style magic that we needed one.



Invocations. Including at-will Mage Armor, False Life, Disguise Self, Silent Image, and many non-spell (but equivalently useful) effects.

It's not as precise as 'spellcasting = pact magic + invocations' of course. It's:
spellcasting + non-subclass features + subclass features
=
pact magic + invocations + pact boon + subclass features

It's the overall packages which balance out.

All the classes are supposed balance out approximately, through spells, abilities and martial prowess... I don't see why that balancing out should impact their classification, all classes are supposed to do that. Pointing out that they reach those benchmarks in different ways isn't an argument for your case I would think.


I feel like this could be a discussion about gasoline, with people arguing that Diesel and regular gasoline should be the same category...they are both gas! Who do those octanes get to go together and diesel has to be separate? Diesel is gas, it makes my diesel car go as well as your regular gas gets your car to go! - reply - yeah, but you a mix the different octanes, and you may run a little different, but pretty much the same, but if you throw diesel into the mix, you've got a whole different story.

[Citan]

Edit to add* Warlocks are great casters, that are a blast to play. I just don't think lumping them together with full casters is a great idea because they play so differently.
THAT I certainly agree with. :smallwink:
And indeed if saying "Warlock is a full faster" would cause incomprehensions to a new player, then saying such would be a bad idea. ^^ With that said...



If I had a new player joining a group who wanted to throw spells around, I would not point them to a warlock.
Well, now we diverge. ;)
I find the warlock easier to "build" than a Sorcerer or a Bard for example, for some concepts at least, because Warlock is more about a few long-term options to vary the play, stacked on top of a solid blaster chassis.
So if anyone for example came to me and wanted to say "I want to be a magical blaster", I'd say the Warlock is perfect: magic ray and occasional Fireball.

Sorcerer is one of my favorite class, but the fact you cannot change Metamagics between levels means you have to be very careful about what to choose.

Bard is easier, except when it comes to Magic Secrets, where the sheer number of options may leave a unexperienced player in quite a huge questioning. ^^

In that regard, I find Cleric and Wizard much easier: the first because a few threads are enough to understand that a few spells are expected from you and will use most slots anyways, so anything beyond is just for your personal fun -and you can change every day anyways-.
Wizard because it's the one class that may have chance to learn spells outside leveling provided the DM gives them chances to do so. And they also get the greatest number of rituals.

So, my point would be...
Making an optimized Warlock is probably hard.
Making a good and fun Warlock though, is easy enough (obviously geared towards Eldricht Blast). ;)

[Strill]

Well, I think the one thing this thread proves is that people aren't using the recommended encounters per day. That's the only way you can come to the conclusion that casting 3+ spells per encounter is normal for a spellcaster.

[Tanarii]

Well, I think the one thing this thread proves is that people aren't using the recommended encounters per day. That's the only way you can come to the conclusion that casting 3+ spells per encounter is normal for a spellcaster.
2-1/2 is the count for fullcasters, starting at level 10. In other words, in Tier 3. Although they get 2/encounter as early as level 8 (12 total slots).

That puts them about 1 slot per encounter ahead of Warlocks, starting at levels 11-16. and 1/2 a slot per encounter ahead from levels 5-7.

[NecroDancer]

Warlock are totally a full caster, unless you are an idiot like me and forget to take short rests while traveling (especially whrn the DM said you could).

Jamgretter if you reading this I so sorry for how I played my warlock (mechanically) from levels 3-6. Hopefully now that we own a cart I'll be more diligent about my short rests.

[Strill]

Why does it matter how you classify warlocks? Do certain items, feats, skills etc only pertain to full casters vs other casters?

So you can know how to homebrew them. You have a better idea of how much survivability and sustained dpr they should do.


2-1/2 is the count for fullcasters, starting at level 10. In other words, in Tier 3. Although they get 2/encounter as early as level 8 (12 total slots).

That puts them about 1 slot per encounter ahead of Warlocks, starting at levels 11-16. and 1/2 a slot per encounter ahead from levels 5-7.

And considering the vast majority of games end at level 10-11, we can assume that most of people's experience is for levels lower than this, where spellcasters are not casting 3 times per encounter - or at least they shouldn't be, if you're following the encounter guidelines.

[Matrix_Walker]

If you take 5 levels of four full casting classes then you get 9th level spell slots. If you don't, one of them isn't a full caster.

[DivisibleByZero]

If you take 5 levels of four full casting classes then you get 9th level spell slots. If you don't, one of them isn't a full caster.

And how do you determine full caster status in a game which doesn't allow multiclassing.... like DnD5e doesn't by default?

[Strill]

And how do you determine full caster status in a game which doesn't allow multiclassing.... like DnD5e doesn't by default?

By reading the multiclassing rules anyway.

Seriously your pedantry isn't impressing anyone. We all know what he means.

[DivisibleByZero]

By reading the multiclassing rules anyway.

Seriously your pedantry isn't impressing anyone. We all know what he means.

What he means is that we should use rules designed for a different kind of casting mechanic to decide if another class is of equal power.
That's like saying Paladins are weaker than Monks because of how Maneuvers work

[Strill]

What he means is that we should use rules designed for a different kind of casting mechanic to decide if another class is of equal power.
That's like saying Paladins are weaker than Monks because of how Maneuvers work

If you can't figure it out, then there's nothing I can do for you.

[Matrix_Walker]

And how do you determine full caster status in a game which doesn't allow multiclassing.... like DnD5e doesn't by default?

Any caster that follows the standard spellcasting progression, which is identical among all full casters and matches the "Multiclass Spellcaster Spell Slots per Spell Level" table.

And I would probably say they had to have the "Spellcasting" trait as well.

[Tanarii]

Seriously your pedantry isn't impressing anyone. We all know what he means.

It's not pedantry. Why should I care about how multiclassing defines Spellcasting stacking, vs what I need to know regarding what is and is not a Full Caster, ie that it gets a new spell level every 2 levels and caps out at level 9 spells? The former is irrelevant to me. The latter is not.

[Matrix_Walker]

It's not pedantry. Why should I care about how multiclassing defines Spellcasting stacking, vs what I need to know regarding what is and is not a Full Caster, ie that it gets a new spell level every 2 levels and caps out at level 9 spells? The former is irrelevant to me. The latter is not.

Full Caster, Half caster, etc, these refer to rates of Spellcasting Progression. I don't see how you can apply it to a class that doesn't (by any measure) use standard spell progression. They are Pact Magic users, they do not even use the Spellcasting feature.

[Tanarii]

Full Caster, Half caster, etc, these refer to rates of Spellcasting Progression.
Oh yeah? Prove it. Good luck. Full caster existed as a term long before the Spellcasting feature did.

[Arkhios]

Is it getting a little hot in here? Should we call the fire department soon?

[Matrix_Walker]

Oh yeah? Prove it. Good luck. Full caster existed as a term long before the Spellcasting feature did.

I have nothing to prove. It is the OP insisting everyone use this term, and since they cannot combine progression, nor have the spellcasting feat, I do not feel swayed to do so.

Warlocks are definitively full pact magic users.

[Tanarii]

Warlocks are definitively full pact magic users.
Likewise, those that can freely multiclass are definitely full Spellcasting Feature casters.

[DivisibleByZero]

I have nothing to prove. It is the OP insisting everyone use this term, and since they cannot combine progression, nor have the spellcasting feat, I do not feel swayed to do so.

Warlocks are definitively full pact magic users.

I insisted nothing.
This entire debate was over the fact that plenty of people seem to think that the Warlock is weaker, magically, than any other full caster.
They are not. You can debate semantics all you like, but they are not weaker. They are simply different.

[Steampunkette]

I insisted nothing.
This entire debate was over the fact that plenty of people seem to think that the Warlock is weaker, magically, than any other full caster.
They are not. You can debate semantics all you like, but they are not weaker. They are simply different.

That, ultimately, depends on the DM and the party. If you get a couple of short rests, you'll feel as powerful. Of your DM throws you at a set of fast paced encounters with no chance for rests and heavy reliance on magical healing, you won't. If you wind up doing the one encounter day style you won't. And if your team doesn't feel like having a one hour nap in the middle of their excitement, you wonlt.

The latter issue is exasperated if they are using classes which regain their features after long rests.

Of course, there have been some interesting suggestions on how to handle those issues.

Warlocks are as strong as full casters if they're allowed to be. Well... aside from upcasting or having multiple extreme level damage spells.

[Misterwhisper]

I insisted nothing.
This entire debate was over the fact that plenty of people seem to think that the Warlock is weaker, magically, than any other full caster.
They are not. You can debate semantics all you like, but they are not weaker. They are simply different.

People think they are weaker than every other full caster because they are.

The have zero spell slots above 5th level spells.
The only way they can use 6th through 9th level spells is once per long rest, and they can never change those spells.
They have the smallest casting choices.
They only have one spell level to choose from.
They can never up cast a spell above 5th level.
They must cast from their highest slot even if that spell does not improve with higher levels. So when that bard who took Hunger oh Hadar out of a 3rd level slot, you will be wasting a 5th level slot for the exact same effect.
They can only come close to breaking even on spells per day if the GM and the party let you sit and take breaks.

[Tanarii]

Warlocks are as strong as full casters if they're allowed to be.
Which makes sense since they ARE full casters. :smalltongue:

[MadBear]

If we're talking high level, it should also be fair to bring invocations into the conversation.

A level 20 Warlock has potentially 8 different extra spells they can cast each day, many of which can be cast all day every day, without need for a break.

Sure false life, mage armor, aren't the best spells in the world, but being able to cast them for free essentially saves them slots they wouldn't otherwise need.

Not to mention, that they're damage cantrip + invocation gives them great sustained DPR allowing them to specialize their spells (if they so choose).

Idk, to me warlocks are 100% full casters who are a bit weird, and require the DM to play by the average encounter rules more precisely. A lot of short rests, make the Warlock potentially better then the Wizard, but in practice I think we see the opposite holds true (because more then 1 short rest seems like a luxury, at least in my games).

[Matrix_Walker]

Likewise, those that can freely multiclass are definitely full Spellcasting Feature casters.

Okay, but since there is a way that non casters. Half casters, third casters, full casters, and Pact casters combine, there is a need for a term for them, and since they behave differently, Pact casters need to be distinct from Full casters.




I insisted nothing.
This entire debate was over the fact that plenty of people seem to think that the Warlock is weaker, magically, than any other full caster.
They are not. You can debate semantics all you like, but they are not weaker. They are simply different.
The tile of the thread is a declaration followed by an order.

I never said they were weaker. I would say they are stronger than bards, and weaker than Wizards. I do not think all the full casters are equal in power. Your casting progression is only one part of a character class, and it can be heavily impacted by the spells you are allowed to learn, and if you know or prepare them. Power level is a WHOLE other subject that has no bearing on progression classification.

[RickAllison]

Whoever cast necromancy on this thread should have to play a Warlock in a game where everyone else refuses to take short rests.

[Mikey P]

Whoever cast necromancy on this thread should have to play a Warlock in a game where everyone else refuses to take short rests.

Which would certainly demonstrate to everyone that they don't work like... Say it with me Full Casters! ROTFLMAO!

Which makes sense since they ARE full casters. :smalltongue:


Yeah, again, I don't know when you would have occasion to say "Full Caster" out loud if you are not talking about multiclassing... it's not a badge, it's a classification. Saying a Warlock isn't a full caster isn't saying it's weaker, it's saying it's not compatible with maintaining your full spellcasting progression.

But to D&D it's nothing, they don't have any such classification system. The term does not exist. You go on and use it your way if you want, but it seems nonsensical and overly complicated to me, so I'm out.