Are warlocks just reflavored fighters?

[LVOD]

So i had a realization today: the reason I've been having trouble reconciling the warlock is because they're treating it like a caster, but its really more of a fighter in terms of its mechanics.

Hear me out. Everyone complains that eldrich blast is too easy, but thats because its essentially a weapon: base damage die plus a stat. You gradually get more attacks with it, but the core ability doesn't really scale. They're meant to have a higher consistent damage rather than mini novas (like a sorcerer of a wizard who can cast large numbers of higher damage spells, but are left to weaker at will damage when they run out). Their abilities are also typically limited use and short rest recharge, which are more akin to martials, and a lot of their at will abilities just mimic things appropriately skilled characters could accomplish with checks.

The warlock spells and invocations and things seem magical, but are mostly focused (mechanically) around more mundane things (temporary hp, control, athletic feats, avoiding damage). They aren't meant to be blasters, they're just reskinned fighter/rogues.

Anyway, i thought this might help reconcile some logic. For me, this method of thinking makes the warlock make a LOT more sense in terms of comparing their abilities. The more i look at them, warlocks really do have more in common with fighters or rogues than with wizards.

[Iamcreative]

Warlocks in DND have always felt more like magical archers than casters. I think thats a fairly common thought process. (Especially with their ability to have lots of at-wills something caster classes have always lacked)

[Matrix_Walker]

More like the half casting Martial classes than Fighters IMO, but sort of.

Thinking of them that way will certainly leave you far more satisfied than trying to compare your character to a full casting class.

Now I want an Invocation that lets you pick a fighting style...

[JellyPooga]

Their ability to fling Fireballs around, conjure areas of Darkness, summon otherworldly beings and send people to other planes of existence, turn invisible, teleport, read the thoughts of others, see far away places as if they were there, Fly and kill a man with naught but a single, mighty word of power...those things beg to differ.

They may have game mechanics that are similar to the likes of Fighters and Monks but Warlocks are, first and foremost, casters of spells.

[Sigreid]

Their ability to fling Fireballs around, conjure areas of Darkness, summon otherworldly beings and send people to other planes of existence, turn invisible, teleport, read the thoughts of others, see far away places as if they were there, Fly and kill a man with naught but a single, mighty word of power...those things beg to differ.

They may have game mechanics that are similar to the likes of Fighters and Monks but Warlocks are, first and foremost, casters of spells.

I disagree because while they have impressive magics the fact that their spell slots are doled out short rest by short rest means they play like a lot more like a fighter than a wizard or sorcerer. Part of this is they can't hit the panic button and drop a metric tonne of magic on a problem.

[ad_hoc]

3 times as many high level spell slots per long rest than any other caster actually makes them the caster with the most amount of raw oomph.

They actually the opposite of the Fighter.

[JellyPooga]

I disagree because while they have impressive magics the fact that their spell slots are doled out short rest by short rest means they play like a lot more like a fighter than a wizard or sorcerer. Part of this is they can't hit the panic button and drop a metric tonne of magic on a problem.

As I said, their game mechanics might be more akin to that of a Fighter or Monk, but the actual effects they bring to the table are definitively those of a person using magic of the highest calibre. The fact that they can't alpha strike with a crap-ton of spells all at once has nothing to do with it. The fact that they have the option of wiggling their fingers and "poof!"ing to another place or plane, or saying "die" or "I turn you into a pig!" to a person and it happening, does.

[Steampunkette]

Warlocks are, ultimately, Warlocks.

They're arcane casters who don't function like other casters. They're magical archers that don't function like other archers. They're utility characters who don't work like other utility characters. They're bound to an entity of power but they're not divine magic users. They kind of blur a lot of lines, like Bards do, but while they can Face for a Party they don't do it like a Bard or Paladin. They can fight in melee but don't thrive in it like a martial.

Warlocks have a somewhat unique niche even without the flavor fluff. They are facets of different aspects of other classes while being wholly their own.

And I love them for it.

[xyianth]

Warlocks in DND have always felt more like magical archers than casters. I think thats a fairly common thought process. (Especially with their ability to have lots of at-wills something caster classes have always lacked)

When they were introduced in 3.5, how they felt depended entirely on what you wanted to focus them on. Focus on eldritch blast? Feels like a magical archer. Focus on at-will invocations? Feels like a sorcerer. Focus on eldritch glaive? Feels like a magical rogue. Focus on eldritch claw? Feels like an arcane monk. Focus on imbue item? Feels like an alternative form of a wizard. (my personal favorite)

In 5e though, they pretty much are limited to the magical archer or magical rogue concepts. Their casting is flat out not flexible or long lasting enough to be considered as a sorcerer or wizard type, and eldritch glaive/eldritch claw doesn't really exist. (Pact of the blade is a far cry from either.) The one exception is in gritty realism campaigns, where a long rest is 7 days long. In those campaigns, warlocks end up being the primary casters due to their access to all rituals and potent spell slots that refresh daily.

[Foxhound438]

I definitely see where you're coming from, what with eldritch blast being how it is and all, but no fighter can learn things like forcecage to absolutely lock something out of a fight, or true polymorph to turn themselves into a dragon or something. Yes, they play very similarly most of the time, though.

[Asmotherion]

So i had a realization today: the reason I've been having trouble reconciling the warlock is because they're treating it like a caster, but its really more of a fighter in terms of its mechanics.

Hear me out. Everyone complains that eldrich blast is too easy, but thats because its essentially a weapon: base damage die plus a stat. You gradually get more attacks with it, but the core ability doesn't really scale. They're meant to have a higher consistent damage rather than mini novas (like a sorcerer of a wizard who can cast large numbers of higher damage spells, but are left to weaker at will damage when they run out). Their abilities are also typically limited use and short rest recharge, which are more akin to martials, and a lot of their at will abilities just mimic things appropriately skilled characters could accomplish with checks.

The warlock spells and invocations and things seem magical, but are mostly focused (mechanically) around more mundane things (temporary hp, control, athletic feats, avoiding damage). They aren't meant to be blasters, they're just reskinned fighter/rogues.

Anyway, i thought this might help reconcile some logic. For me, this method of thinking makes the warlock make a LOT more sense in terms of comparing their abilities. The more i look at them, warlocks really do have more in common with fighters or rogues than with wizards.

Mechanically, you are partially correct. The Warlock is esentially using a Flavored weapon, aka the Eldritch Blast. He also has spellcasting, to a limited extend in some aspects, and a great way in others. His invocations are also one of it's core mechanics, allowing a further level of customisation.

To me, mechanically, the Warlock is the equivalent of a Bard in aspects of fully customising his fighting style and abilities, with the basic diferance being the Bard is more focused on generalism and spell-wielding, wile the Warlock is more focused on Combat Casting in a weapon-like way.

People from past editions might have trouble processing it, as they were used to a different aproach to spellcasting, a more defined role, as "the guy who sits behind the tanks and casts buffs and fireballs 'till he's out of spells". The warlock brings, lore wise, a diferent concept of spellcaster, one that is the exact oposit than the original: Instead of the guy who does wonderous things till he's out of power, and then falls back to cantrips/reserve feats/crossbows (the last 2 refear to 3.5e), he is the one that activelly does at-will DPT as a ranged caster, and will have a limited resource to fuel his other spells, something he does occasionally, in contrast to the stereotypical caster.

The Warlock archetype was a need in the modern age of Fantasy Games, as Fantasy today is defined by more and more Spellcasters; People who grew up with Harry Potter, Charmed, Merlin, an unlimited amound of anime/manga/comics depicting magic/supernatural abilities, and a lot more mages who had their at-will go-to offencive raged spell or ability needed someone who was a specialist in exactly that... a cauncation beam-wielding character who also happens to be a mage.

So, basically we have people who think "that's not what a spellcaster should be like" and other people who think "that's exactly what a spellcaster should be like" (including me), created by exposure to different kinds of fantasy, and/or preferance of one over the other. Mechanically, the Warlock is very well balanced, and so is Eldritch Blast. People should just accept other people's views on fantasy, instead of being judgmental for no good reason.

[djreynolds]

More like paladins with eye liner or mascara

[Asmotherion]

More like paladins with eye liner or mascara

More like paladins, except less self-righteus virgins with promess rings and more edgy anti-hero bad@ss, if we talk stereotyping ;)

[djreynolds]

More like paladins, except less self-righteus virgins with promess rings and more edgy anti-hero bad@ss, if we talk stereotyping ;)

For sure, unless they are multiclassed..... teenagers on the varsity football team... who also have a fake ID to by beer