Does the warlock count as a full caster?

[danpit2991]

there has been much discussion about the warlocks shortcomings as a caster and its place in the game.

i would like your opinions on things like:

if it is not a full caster what is it.... i feel it was supposed to have filled that kind of role but in play feels ile a 1/8 edit meant 1/5 caster i just does not have enough spell slots to be considered as a full caster


where does the warlock fit in a party...... i believe the warlock is best suited as a face type and as a backup to the main party roles IE healer tank ect.

what does the warlock excel at..... social campaigns with the invocations and as a CHA class social interaction and intrigue are the bread and butter of this class and everyone already knows the OPness of a warlock dip which i feel it the best use for this class and steady damage via EB

what are its biggest drawbacks..... complete lack of spell slots even though the reset on a short rest their just is not enough of them to feel all magical and crap


so those were my questions and feelings on the subject, IDK maybe my expectations for the class were too high of i thought it was something its not what are your thoughts?

[Millstone85]

if it is not a full caster what is it.... i feel it was supposed to have filled that kind of role but in play feels ile a 1/8 edit meant 1/5 casterLess of a caster than an eldritch knight or an arcane trickster, really?

I see the warlock as being somewhere between half and full, which can already be a heated debate.

But 1/8 1/5, wow!

[SkylarkR6]

As a celestial tomelock I never felt like I wasn't anything but what I was. A short rest recharging full caster. It depends on your dm, your team, and your choices though. I had rituals for days, shillelagh for melee and excellent ranged damage with eb+ab. Invocations help a bit. I just had to ration my slots better and use more cantrips.

Originally since the party refused to short rest, the dm gave me the extra spell slots so that helped. Later on SR became a thing so I went back to normal but often got extra slots since we rested more.

I can see if you spend all your invocations on passive boosts, but getting creative with silent image, speak with animals to help track if no ranger/druid, hell detect magic is such a common spell chosen, having it for free always isn't a terrible option. Eldritch sight is obviously better if you don't take tome heh.

At the end of the day, you get out what you put into it. You can look at it as "I only get 2 spell slots? WTF can you do with only 2 spell slots?" Or as "I get 2 of my highest level spell slots every time we take a short rest? Sweet! How do I use these best and can I convince these guys to take a short rest?"

[Aett_Thorn]

It really depends on how many short rests you're going to be able to get. If your DM and/or the rest of the party doesn't take short rests, you're going to be in trouble. But if you're going to be getting a decent amount of rests in, you're pretty close to a full caster for most of your career. This is especially true depending on your pact and invocation choices, which can often give you free utility spells to cast for out-of-combat uses.

[Arkhios]

The question whether Warlock is or isn't a full caster is a big can of worms best left alone. What does it matter, anyway?

That said, by definition, what makes a full caster? The ability to cast spells from levels 0 (cantrips) through 9, or is having spell slots up to 9th level from your class the requirement?

A Warlock certainly can learn and cast spells from levels 6th through 9th, as well as 1st through 5th, but the difference compared to "normal" spellcasters is that the Warlock doesn't have spell slots outside of Pact Magic, and those select few high level spells are cast with Mystic Arcanum instead.

In a way, I suppose Warlock could count as a full caster, but I prefer not to think about it too much. I just like my sanity more.

[bid]

there has been much discussion about the warlocks shortcomings as a caster and its place in the game.

in play feels ile a 1/8 caster

Please don't restart
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?514648-Warlock-is-a-full-caster-so-stop-claiming-that-he-isn-t


There's quite a few at will invocations, and getting short rests off your DM is your responsibility.

[MxKit]

I'd call the Warlock a "3/4ths Caster" at absolute worst. By which I mean, it basically is a full caster, yes, it just worries about and manages its spell slots in a very different way from any other full caster. Making sure to short rest when you can, taking Invocations that let you cast spells, and only ever getting one "slot" each for 6th and 7th level spells, instead of the two slots that other full casters eventually get.

You can't play it the same as any other full caster, and it has that small Mystic Arcanum limitation, but otherwise, yes. If built around spellcasting, it's a full caster. If not built around spellcasting, it's still nearly as good at casting as any other full caster and has additional capabilities besides. (IE, if you take Pact of the Blade a bunch of melee Invocations, you'll only wind up with ~16 "spell slots per long rest" by lv17 rather than, for example, the Sorcerer's 19 spell slots per long rest, but also nice melee tricks that Sorcerer won't have access to. Plus all 16 of your spell slots will be 5th level and up, whereas with other full casters, 13 of their spell slots will be 4th level and lower. That trade-off's pretty good all on its own, I think.)

If you want a Warlock that focuses on casting, take Pact of the Tome, take Invocations like Armor of Shadows, Ascendant Step, Mask of Many Faces/Master of Myriad Forms, Misty Visions, Shroud of Shadow, Visions of Distant Realms, etc., take Book of Ancient Secrets for great ritual casting, and make sure your party's taking two short rests between long rests most of the time. You'll keep up.

If you don't want a Warlock that focuses on casting, take a different pact, build what you want using different Invocations, and still make sure your party's taking those short rests, and you'll still nearly be able to keep up with full casters while having an added level of versatility on top of that. Figure out what you want to do most first, then lean into it hard, and you'll be great at that thing as well as barely falling behind where a full caster "should" be (like I said, three spell slots short, but with most of your spell slots of a higher level).

[Toadkiller]

I generally got short rests by being too tired to go on. Collapsed in the corner (or wherever) drained by the expenditure of arcane energies. My character was generally useful enough that he wasn’t left behind. Sure, not always possible but we usually worked it out.

[Kane0]

To me it's like a 3/4 or 2/3 caster. Definitely more than EK/AT and Pally/Ranger, noticeably less than Bard/Druid/Cleric/Sorc/Wiz. Your cantrips are good, you have the options to get the best ritual casting available, your spells auto-scale and return on a short rest and you get a selection of passive/at-will magic in the form of invocations but your spell slots are severely limited for the meat and potatoes portion of your career and your mystic arcanums aren't quite the same as proper high level spell slots.

[danpit2991]

Less of a caster than an eldritch knight or an arcane trickster, really?

I see the warlock as being somewhere between half and full, which can already be a heated debate.

But 1/8, wow!

didnt catch the finger slip on keypad meant 1\5

[danpit2991]

yup just as i figured the problem is all in my head lol i got my dm to let me use spell points and that workrd great and the invocations that used slots became 1/sr or 1/lr and didnt use slots depending on the power level and it made warlock so much more enjoyable .... and sorry i didnt know (kinda figured) that this had been beaten to death before

[Protato]

They get L9 spells so I would say yes. They just get cast in an odd way.

[Mortis_Elrod]

um....In the sense that you can cast 9th level spells the same time the other casters can? then yes.

Warlocks are very close to full casters when it matters, there's only ever a slight difference.

But a few changes in how the game is played can make the difference bigger.



In my eyes warlocks are really good where they want to be really good. There's alot of variance in play that develops while leveling through the class so its easy to change to widen you're abilities or specialize. It's very much a mutable class.

In terms of role, they can do almost anything. Face, Scout, Tank, Ranged Artillery Cannon, Controller, Healer, Melee Smacker, and Buffer, they can do it all. Maybe not as well as some but a warlock can generally be built to cover many different things or one thing really really well. A nice 5th man, or even a primary role a warlock can be built for. Just note that you won't be doing any more than 3 of this things at once, and 3 is very very hard to pull off without giving too much up.


I think the warlock really excels in any campaign that requires more than just killing whats in front of you, specifically urban campaigns with lots of chances to rest and plan ahead as well as talk and investigate things. If time is an issue a warlock can still be good, but will require more thought/mastery to make good use of spells and invocations.

The downsides to being a warlock are many if you expect a 'fullcaster' experience. Alot of times you'll do the same things over and over, and its up to you use the same tools in different ways to solve problems. Sometimes this means being creative with spells you normally wouldn't use, sometimes this means going about a problem from a completely different strategy in mind. This is a problem for anybody but its slightly more prevalent for warlocks who don't rest often.


I think alot of the cool magical feel of the warlock can come in alot of forms, not just spells. Describing even the most simple and mundane things you do as a warlock is important, this is true with spells, subclass features, invocations and just how you flavor all of this with your patron and pact boon.

[CircleOfTheRock]

if it is not a full caster what is it.... i feel it was supposed to have filled that kind of role but in play feels ile a 1/8 edit meant 1/5 caster i just does not have enough spell slots to be considered as a full caster

It is an almost-full caster, and is meant to be one - DMs not sticking to the recommended adventuring day/encounter guidelines are making it seem like it’s a 1/5 (or lower) caster.

The class has no flaws, and amazing flexibility due to invocations and pacts - it’s simply that WoTC didn’t make the importance of a proper adventuring day clear to DMs.

[JakOfAllTirades]

In the simplest of terms, a Warlock is a full caster. They get cantrips (really good ones) and access to 9th level spells. And they have a LOT of other excellent class features.

But when it comes to spellcasting, the large print giveth and the small print taketh away. Their low level spells are meted out two, maybe three at a time, always being cast at the highest possible level whether it makes sense or not. (Who needs a 5th level Misty Step?) And their high level spells can't be upcast, ever. No other full caster in the game has deal with these issues. If the Warlock is full caster, they're a badly gimped one.

[Elminster298]

One of the most fun characters I have ever played was a tiefling GOO Tomelock and I never once felt like anything other than a full caster. I can see it not being the same for all of the different combinations of possible Warlock though. Some feel 1/2, some 3/4, and some full.

[Waazraath]

The beauty of the Warlock that it is the most customizable class in 5e, imo. You can build it as a melee weapon fighter, ranged weapon fighter, at will blaster, healer, caster., a quite decent skill monkey, scout... and do some weird funky niche things with it.

If you go tomelock, spend invocations on at will spells, and use your warlock slots for spells that have a direct effect in combat (instead of buffing yourself with Hex, AoA, and the like), it will feel like a (full) caster imo. Given that the DM doesn't mess up the resting mechanic. Of course, if you spend all your resources (invocations, ASI, pact boon) into buiding a melee fighter, and use your spells on Smite, you'll hardly feel like a caster, but more like a melee class. And that's great, because you can choose what you want to build.

[Unoriginal]

"Full caster", "half-caster" and any other kind of "percentage caster" are not concepts the game designers or the game itself concerned themselves with. They are fan-made categories, which didn't necessarily account for everything.

[DivisibleByZero]

there has been much discussion about the warlocks shortcomings as a caster and its place in the game.

i would like your opinions on things like:

if it is not a full caster what is it....

It is a full caster. It just uses a different mechanic than the other casters.

As I said in the thread that someone conveniently linked, if you break the casters down using the Spell Point variant, the parallels are quite obvious. As far as spellcasting power is concerned, they hold up.
Many people just don't like the mechanics, and that's a subjective preference. But objectively, where spellcasting power is concerned, they are 100% full casters.

Just because some people subjectively dislike their mechanics doesn't change the class' objective power level.
As far as spellcasting power is concerned, they are objectively full casters. Dislike of the mechanic doesn't change the math.
If you get less short rests than recommended, the class feels weak. If you get more, the class is undeniably the most powerful in the game. If you get what is recommended, the class is balanced against other casters. If your DM doesn't follow the recommended rest suggestions/guidelines, the fault doesn't lie with the Warlock class design.

[Joe the Rat]

Well...

Paladins and Rangers progress at half speed on spell slot/level progression, EK's and AT's at 1/3, and when multiclassing count every 2nd and 3rd level (respectively) as caster levels for spell slot progression, yes, the designers very much considered these ideas.


As to the topic, with assumed rests, Warlocks have raw power comparable to full casters, but with less flexibility in slots traded for more potential at will effects via Invocations

[strangebloke]

As to the topic, with assumed rests, Warlocks have raw power comparable to full casters, but with less flexibility in slots traded for more potential at will effects via Invocations

Their spells also hit a lot harder on average than a wizard's. A ninth level wizard can potentially cast a spell every round during almost every combat, but many times his spell options will be worse than just throwing out a cantrip.

Warlocks get 1-3 big spells per short rest, and that's it. They get the same average spell-point output over an adventuring day that a Wizard or Sorcerer gets, but they spend it over the course of much fewer rounds. That's either a strength or a weakness depending on things. Overall, I would tend to say that it's a strength if you play to it and you have something good to do on your non-spell rounds. (This is what your invocations are for.)

[Tanarii]

The warlock is a short-rest based full caster, using the term "full caster" the way it's been used for the previous few editing: gain a level of "caster" power every level, and access to a new level of spells every other level.

The warlock is not a full Spellcaster "Spellcasting class feature" caster, to use a 5e term, obviously.

Edit:

Please don't restart
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?514648-Warlock-is-a-full-caster-so-stop-claiming-that-he-isn-tHey, thanks. To requote myself from a post I made on page three of that thread:
So I'm revising my statement. Warlocks are short-rest regen casters that progress to level 9 spells. Done.

Edit2:


if it is not a full caster what is it.... i feel it was supposed to have filled that kind of role but in play feels ile a 1/8 edit meant 1/5 caster i just does not have enough spell slots to be considered as a full caster
If an adventuring day has two short rests, which is considered the "default" for 5e, then the warlock has enough spell slots and Mystic Arcanum to be (very roughly) on par with a Spellcasting Feature class that advances at a 1:1 ratio.

So given this statement, I'm going to jump to a conclusion: are you not getting enough Short Rests per Long Rest in your games?

[Hesh]

There is no definition of Full Caster within the core rulebook. Please choose your definition of what a Full Spellcaster is before we can answer correctly.

If it's the ability to cast a 9th level spell, then a Thief Rogue gets the ability to do so. If it's the ability to do so without Magic Items, then yes, it's a Full Caster. If it's a spellcaster which matches the spell progression of the typical "full casters" like Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard, then no, it's not a Full Caster.

I'll be happy to clarify according to your definition of what a full spellcaster is if a Warlock matches that limited definition.

[trctelles]

Bad short rest "economy" make short rest characters feels lackluster (Like Warlock and Fighter to an extent). If your party is not taking short rests, and thus making your Warlock feel like he's not a caster, you should ask your DM to use the Spell Point Variant rule from DMG (Page 288), but you'll have to adapt it (if you do a quick search you'll find threads here on how to do it properly).

To answer to topic question: Yes, the Warlock is a full caster, but he NEEDS his shorts rests to do so. If you have the "proper" amount of short rests, you'll be relevant at casting, just like other full casters, but you'll be doing so with max lvl spell slots.

[DivisibleByZero]

A Warlock who receives two short rests keeps up with the full casters at all times, with a slight exception during levels 8-9-10, where he lags behind slightly, and then gets back on track at level 11.
A Warlock who gets three short rests is the undisputed champion of spellcasting power at pretty much any level (excluding a tiny deficiency at level 10).

If the Warlock got his 3rd slot at level 8 instead of level 11 (and received 2 short rests), it would look like what the "Alternate Warlock 2-sr" column has.
Perhaps that is all the change that would be needed to make people happy? 3rd slot at level 8 (or maybe 9) would fill that gap, without increasing his power to OP levels in comparison.
If I felt the need to "fix" Warlock in any way (I do not), then I'd just give him his third slot a couple/few levels earlier, at 8 or 9 instead of 11. That's it.




Equivalent
Spell Points
By Level


Alternate


Level
1/3 Caster
Half Caster
Full Caster
Warlock 2-sr
Warlock 3-sr
Warloc 2-sr


1st


4
6
8
6


2nd

4
6
12
16
12


3rd
4
6
14
18
24
18


4th
6

17





5th

14
27
30
40
30


6th


32





7th
14
17
38
36
48
36


8th


44


54


9th

27
57
42
56
63


10th
17

64





11th

32
73
72
93
72


12th








13th
27
38
83
82
103
82


14th








15th

44
94
93
114
93


16th
32







17th

57
107
127
155
127


18th


114





19th
38
64
123





20th


133
155
183
155

[the secret fire]

Warlock is, it seems to me, a better caster as a villain than as a PC. Warlocks are great at going nova then, running away (leaving their minions to fight) and coming back later for another fight. As villains (especially in their own lairs), they can put a lot of pressure on the party because you know if you don't catch the damn Warlock now, he's going to blap you with two more high-level spell slots (again) the next time you see him.

[Matrix_Walker]

Whether the Warlock is a "full caster" is a hot debate item, as there is no official definition. Mostly it depends on your definition and why you need it.

If a Warlock stays single classed, they get access to new levels of spells at the same rate as the magic focussed classes that no one would question are "full casters".
If that is your sole criteria, they are full casters to you.

If you are looking to multiclass and are looking at using the term in that context, they cannot be considered full casters, as they use "Pact Magic" rather than the spellcasting feature, and their levels cannot be combined to determine multiclass spell progression (which in my personal opinion is the metric that matters, as it is the only definition with real game meaning that doesn't involve looking at warlocks on an island). So to me, they are not full casters, and tyring to wedge them in with them leads to confusion.

Warlocks can't upcast spells over level 4, they only (EVER) get access to a single spell per level over level 5, and unless they get to rest after each encounter are pretty much always starved for spell slots until very high level. If you combine any ther two "full caster" classes, you have spell slots equivelent to your full level and if you combine warlock in the mix, that total amount of spell power drops off considerably. For these reasons, they do not "feel" like full casters to me.

So it doesn't behave like a "full caster" in many ways that I feel are criteria, but without an official description of the term, you can't really say with certainty (but if you do say they are, I will disagree. )

[Matrix_Walker]

A Warlock who receives two short rests keeps up with the full casters at all times, with a slight exception during levels 8-9-10, where he lags behind slightly, and then gets back on track at level 11.
A Warlock who gets three short rests is the undisputed champion of spellcasting power at pretty much any level (excluding a tiny deficiency at level 10).


What if you were to compare the slots and spell power available to a multiclass Sorcerer-5/Bard-5 vs. Bard-5/Warlock-5 character?

[DivisibleByZero]

What if you were to compare the slots and spell power available to a multiclass Sorcerer-5/Bard-5 vs. Bard-5/Warlock-5 character?

I hope that's rhetorical.
You can cross reference and do simple addition as well as I can, I assume.

[Matrix_Walker]

I hope that's rhetorical.
You can cross reference and do simple addition as well as I can, I assume.

Sure, but you do such a nice job on the tables...

You don't need to see the math laid out to see there is a vast discrepancy in spell power if you multiclass two of the "other" full caster classes vs multiclassing with Warlock.

[WickerNipple]

The use of fraction-whatever in relation to casters only applies to those who use the standard spell progression table, which Warlocks do not do.

Therefore it is a misleading, irrelevant, bias filled and ultimately boring discussion to even consider.

[rbstr]

Sure, but you do such a nice job on the tables...

You don't need to see the math laid out to see there is a vast discrepancy in spell power if you multiclass two of the "other" full caster classes vs multiclassing with Warlock.

Like, the warlock-MC doesn't get to learn higher leveled spells, or that your spell points are way different?
The former is true, the later is clearly not vast if just by looking at the table. A level 10 normal caster gets 64 points, a 5/5 warlock/caster gets 30+27...

Multi-classing two casters gives you exactly the same number of spell slots as single classing...so there's no difference there.

[DivisibleByZero]

You don't need to see the math laid out to see there is a vast discrepancy in spell power if you multiclass two of the "other" full caster classes vs multiclassing with Warlock.

Multi-classing two casters gives you exactly the same number of spell slots as single classing.

Exactly. I'm not really sure what "vast discrepancy" he's referring to.
The only difference is in spells known, and that has nothing at all to do with overall spell power with regards to equivalent spell points.

[Matrix_Walker]

I guess it's a bit closer at that level than I anticipated, but that difference is going to expand with each further level.

There is more impact than just the point totals, as upcasting spells can add more targets and damage than is otherwise possible as well.


Regardless, they have their own rules separate and distinct from the spellcasting feature.

[Ganders]

The warlock is a half caster.

The most typical half-casters are paladins and rangers. They make it quite obvious that they're getting fewer spells in exchange for more combat ability. And when they do use spells it's mostly to enhance their combat (smites, self-buffs, hunter's mark and so on).

If you choose bladelock, the similarity is most clear. You have weapon skills in addition to a few spells, and you often use the spells to help your combat (hexes and self-buffs especially, but also curses and smites if you consult Xanathar).

If you choose tomelock, the similarity is less clear. Instead of getting weapon skills in exchange for fewer spells, you're getting spell-like abilities in exchange for fewer spells. Between the extra cantrips, and rituals, and probably some low-level spells from invocations (typically Mage Armor, False Life, Detect Magic, Silent Image, Jump, Levitate, Disguise Self, or super-darkvision, but there are a few other options), you can find yourself slinging spells (or magical effects) constantly, all day long. So it will feel very much like a full caster out of combat. But those are unlimited-use abilities (and at higher levels also some limited-use abilities), not spells. If you have a couple of combats in a row, you're quickly reminded that you're still a half caster with very few spell slots... you're just a very magical half caster.

If you choose chainlock, the closest analogy is to a pet class, such as a beastmaster ranger. And beastmaster rangers are half casters aren't they? Why wouldn't this be the same? BTW, you need to get a TON of use out of your special fimiliar to make it worthwhile to play this instead of a bladelock or tomelock, so hope your DM is liberal with his rulings on this.

[DivisibleByZero]

The warlock is a half caster. .
I think the math clearly proves this untrue.


I guess it's a bit closer at that level than I anticipated, but that difference is going to expand with each further level.

There is more impact than just the point totals, as upcasting spells can add more targets and damage than is otherwise possible as well.

Regardless, they have their own rules separate and distinct from the spellcasting feature.

Multiclassing Warlock, or any other caster for that matter, reduces your highest level spells known. This is not new information, nor does it have any direct impact on this discussion.
This isn't a Warlock problem. It's true across the board for all casters, and everyone already knows it.

As for upcasting your spells, they're all upcast already. They just can't be upcast into a 6th level slot or higher.
Everyone complains about this, but let's be perfectly honest here. If you're using your 6th+ level slots to upcast something, you're probably doing it wrong. The spells at this level are powerful enough that wasting this slot on a lower level spell is almost always going to be less efficient.
It's a non-issue that people bring up from the white room, when you'd rarely actually even *want* to do it at the table.
It's a theoretical complaint, not a practical one. .... and here come all the corner cases in 3... 2... 1...

If your complaint was against the fact that Pact Magic and Spellcasting are incompatible, then that's a subjective complaint, not an objective problem with the class.
Multiclassing is an optional rule.
You might not like that it doesn't multiclass well, but your not liking how it interacts with a Optional rule doesn't change its power level.
As a pure class, the Warlock is balanced against the spellcasting power of the other 9th level casters.
If you have complaints that the two different mechanics are incompatible, that's fine, but it doesn't alter the mathematics which show that a Warlock is indeed a caster balanced against and completely on par with a Wiz/Sorc/Bard/Cleric/Driud.

[Matrix_Walker]

Multiclassing Warlock, or any other caster for that matter, reduces your highest level spells known. This is not new information, nor does it have any direct impact on this discussion.
This isn't a Warlock problem. It's true across the board for all casters, and everyone already knows it.

As for upcasting your spells, they're all upcast already. They just can't be upcast into a 6th level slot or higher.
Everyone complains about this, but let's be perfectly honest here. If you're using your 6th+ level slots to upcast something, you're probably doing it wrong. The spells at this level are powerful enough that wasting this slot on a lower level spell is almost always going to be less efficient.
It's a non-issue that people bring up from the white room, when you'd rarely actually even *want* to do it at the table.

I'm sure we could review it for weeks and not agree, as my investment in the term centers around multiclassing and exists as a vairable in my mind (4 half caster levels + 2 full caster levels + 3 3rd caster levels gets you a 5th level caster), and yours seems to be an investment in the opinion that being roughly eqivelent in power and getting higher level spells at the same levels when single classed should quailify them. I don't mean to be rude, but this definition seems to be aiming at being in the Primary Caster club, rather than Full Caster as a classification.

I didn't refer to higher level spells known, I referred to possessing higher level spell slots, which is a different situation when mixing full casters and full casters with other casting methods.

Upcasting is of significant value for spells that mutiply the spell targets, and for the classes like sorcerer who get extremely limited spells known is an essential part of being able to utilize those resources. This is very much a play-time issue and not a whiteroom situation. If you've selected True Seeing and Globe of Invulnerability for your 6th level spells, you will likely be using a 6th level slot upcasting scortching ray's and other direct damage spells as needs be.

I do, however, find the theory that you get 2 short rests in the field after using both your spell slots to be very much a white room situation that rarely happens in my play experience. Even getting one is often a challenge.

-----

I have no problem agreeing that they have been balanced against the "other" full casters mathematically in a whilteroom when certain assumptions are made.

[DivisibleByZero]

I addressed your multiclassing concerns in an edit about 15 minutes before you posted.
Your complaint is that Pact Magic isn't compatible with Spellcasting via multiclassing.
So your complaint is that the core class doesn't play nice with an Optional Rule.

This fact does nothing to change the power level of the class. With Multiclassing being an Optional Rule in 5e, and the fact that the classes were designed and balanced for pure classes without using the Optional Multiclassing Rule, complaining that it doesn't play nice with an Optional Rule is not a valid complaint for its power level.
Don't like the way that it interacts? Then don't use that Optional Rule on this character.
And so now I'll repeat what I said in my first post of this thread:
As far as spellcasting power is concerned, they are objectively full casters. Dislike of the different mechanic doesn't change the math.

You're taking your subjective dislike of the different mechanic and leveraging that subjective opinion against its objective power level.
I don't like Ford. That doesn't mean the Mustang has less horsepower than its sticker says.

[Daithi]

Definitely not a full caster, but I like playing a warlock anyway. It is ranged spellcaster that can blast away with Eldritch Blast. It also gets a choice of a lot of different invocations that cast AT WILL. Mask of Many Faces is pretty cool --- you can play a more powerful and magical version of Arya Stark. Plus, who doesn't want one of those kickass familiars? Then again, a spell book full of rituals from ALL of the spellcaster classes is pretty cool too. Then again, I also like the hexblade. For me, the hard part is deciding which direction I want to go.

[Matrix_Walker]

I addressed your multiclassing concerns in an edit about 15 minutes before you posted.
Your complaint is that Pact Magic isn't compatible with Spellcasting via multiclassing.
So your complaint is that the core class doesn't play nice with an Optional Rule.

This fact does nothing to change the power level of the class. With Multiclassing being an Optional Rule in 5e, and the fact that the classes were designed and balanced for pure classes without using the Optional Multiclassing Rule, complaining that it doesn't play nice with an Optional Rule is not a valid complaint for its power level.
Don't like the way that it interacts? Then don't use that Optional Rule on this character.
And so now I'll repeat what I said in my first post of this thread:
As far as spellcasting power is concerned, they are objectively full casters. Dislike of the different mechanic doesn't change the math.

You're taking your subjective dislike of the different mechanic and leveraging that subjective opinion against its objective power level.
I don't like Ford. That doesn't mean the Mustang has less horsepower than its sticker says.

Like I said, we can go in circles for weeks. And of course, we're just chatting and none of this is of any importance ;)

There is no need to paint my opinions with emotional concerns. It's a logical classification for me, not a subjective one based on feelings.

I don't have a "complaint", just the observation they they have a completely different behavior than full casters.

I'm not talking about "power level", but about fungible attributes for useful comparison between classes and their behaviors. If you doubled warlock slots and their Mystic Arcanum they would be demonstrably more powerful than full casters, that still would not make them any less Pact Casters or any more compatable with the classes with the spellcasting trait.

I'm talking about the incompatibility and non-cumulative nature with the casting classes.

Liking or disliking doesn't enter into it... other than our preferences for the definitions we like.

[rbstr]

If you'd actually look at the spell points table you'd find that outside of taking exactly 9 or 10 warlock levels (which are known for falling behind the curve, for whatever reason) the spell point difference is not that substantial between pure-classed and any mixture of "other" caster and warlock...
If you're going to get into upcasting, the fact is that Warlock casts at a higher average level than anyone else. So it's really better at that than the casters on the table. Level-native spells are nearly always the most efficient though. Using 6th level slots for scorching ray is a bad idea...and not a good way to compare things.

Just like you're accusing DivbyZero of defining to include you're defining to exclude. Franky, your conditions are verging into "true Scottsman" levels of being arbitrary. If you want to restrict "full caster" to things that use the table, fine, but it makes no actual difference. The argument just shifts to "Is the Warlock a 'primary caster?'" or some other equivalent argument.

Particularly if you're going to decide that the game's designed balance point of an average of two short rests per long rest is somehow any more "whiteroom" than 0SR/LR or 3SR/LR or whatever. Those decisions are on your party or DM because the game's design intent is pretty clear.

[Matrix_Walker]

Warlocks are most definitely primary casters. No argument there.

I'm not suggesting they are stronger or weaker, just that they are different. I see them as congruent but not equal if that makes any sense. They can certainly come out on top in the power department with just a few short rests.

I guess it's just that as I see it, "1/2, 3rd, full", are fractional expressions of the whole. The "whole" is the table in the PBH on page 165.

If that's not your definition, then that's cool. But I see including Warlocks under the descriptor as negating the legitimacy of the variable in the only place I see it as useful. Some monks might have the ability to cast spells with their ki, but since it does not combine with the ablity of a character with the spellcasting trait, I would not describe them as 3rd or half casters, recardless of if their mathematical equivelent matched up to a similar number of spell points to a caster. Likewise I would not describe the UA Mystic as a full caster, even though they get equivelent spell points as one in the form of their psi points.

So I don't disagree with the opposing arguments, they show strong compatability and equivelency in power level for single classed characters. I just disagree with the conclusion. It's really all just sematics.

[DivisibleByZero]

Does he get cantrips and 1st level spells at level 1?
Does he get 2nd level spells at level 3?
Does he get 3rd level spells at level 5?
Does he get 4th level spells at level 7?
Does he get 5th level spells at level 9?
Does he get 6th level spells at level 11?
Does he get 7th level spells at level 13?
Does he get 8th level spells at level 15?
Does he get 9th level spells at level 17?
Is his overall spellcasting power approximately the same as a Bard/Cleric/Druid/Sorcerer/Wizard?

That's a full caster.
No two ways about it.

[Tanarii]

The use of fraction-whatever in relation to casters only applies to those who use the standard spell progression table, which Warlocks do not do.The term "full caster" predates 5e.


The warlock is a half caster.The only way this is true is if you get 0 Short Rests per day, in which case they're roughly equivalent of a 1/3 caster for spell slot power / Long Rest. 1 SR ~= 2/3 caster. 3 SR ~= 1-1/3 caster. 4 SR ~= 1-2/3 caster.

Calling Warlocks a 1/2 caster is only reasonable if I get to call them a x1.5 caster, because I'm assuming +2 SR above the norm just as you're assuming -2 SR below the norm.

(My groups occasionally have to leave the adventuring site to return to town and end the session (a Long Rest) after 1 SR. Sometimes they manage to push on using a 3rd SR.)

[Asmerv]

Traditional full casters have two things going for them that Warlock does not:

1) Measured response to a situation through the use of low level spell slots.

2) Having all of their daily spellcasting use at their disposal to ration as they see fit.

A hypothetical warlock with 1 but not 2 would have roughly 1 spell slot of each level that recharges on short rest.

Another hypothetical warlock with 2 but not 1 would have 6 spell slots of the highest level that recharge on a long rest.

A wizard at 7th level can assess an encounter as easy/medium and throw out a single 3rd level spell, potentially saving other party members valuable resources by ending the encounter swiftly. A warlock might hesitate to do so. What if a short rest isn't available for a while?

Similarly, the story might culminate in a large assault / boss battle / whatever - in this case a wizard can use their entire allotment on this single encounter, leaving a warlock in the dust.

As it stands, the Warlock suffers from a huge flexibility issue - with seemingly very little to gain in return as far as spell casting goes. Whether a magical bow in the form of Eldritch Blast makes up for it or not is up to you.

I'll also say that a lot of people consider where a warlock catches up to a wizard as the 'correct number of short rests'. I take issue with this as the *median* should be the standard, with roughly equal days favoring the warlock and the wizard for each to feel satisfied and get a chance to shine. As it stands, the warlock lags behind, only rarely matching the wizard and almost never exceeding it. Therefore, most of the time wizard feels more satisfying and occasionally warlock feels like it pulled its weight, but very rarely does a wizard go "wow the Warlock really was the powerhouse of today"

As others mentioned, it just comes down to rest frequency.

[Tanarii]

A wizard at 7th level can assess an encounter as easy/medium and throw out a single 3rd level spell, potentially saving other party members valuable resources by ending the encounter swiftly. A warlock might hesitate to do so. What if a short rest isn't available for a while?Conversely, what if a Long Rest isn't available for a while, but shorter rests are? In that case, the Warlock can keep on trucking, and the wizard blew out early.

Warlocks can count on getting back their resources fairly shortly after their trigger-happy reflexes have caused them to go crazy. Or put another way, they can't drop an entire Long Rest's worth of spell slots early.

[MxKit]

The warlock is a half caster.

The most typical half-casters are paladins and rangers. They make it quite obvious that they're getting fewer spells in exchange for more combat ability. And when they do use spells it's mostly to enhance their combat (smites, self-buffs, hunter's mark and so on).

Paladins and Rangers don't get access to cantrips, or 6th, 7th, 8th, or 9th level spells at all. Their spell progression is also much slower than a full caster. That's what makes them half casters. Compare: Warlocks get two 5th level spells per short rest at lv9 -- what should come to six 5th level spell slots per long rest* -- while Paladins and Rangers have to wait until lv17 to even get one 5th level spell slot per long rest.

(*For the rest of this post, I'm going to be calculating Warlock spell slots by how many they get per long rest, assuming two short rests per long rest, as that's what they're balanced around.)


If you choose bladelock, the similarity is most clear. You have weapon skills in addition to a few spells, and you often use the spells to help your combat (hexes and self-buffs especially, but also curses and smites if you consult Xanathar).

As I stated before in the thread, you're still getting nearly the same amount of spellcasting as a full caster even as a bladelock that's focusing on melee Invocations; this is way more than a half-caster ever gets. At lv12, a Paladin has 10 spell slots per long rest, and their highest are three 3rd level spell slots, and they have no cantrips. At lv12, even a Bladelock still has four cantrips and 10 spell slots (including their Mystic Arcanum), and their highest is a 6th level "slot," and all nine of the rest of their spell slots are 5th level slots. At lv12, a Sorcerer has 6 cantrips known, 16 spell slots, with the highest being a 6th level slot, and two of the others being 5th level slots.

(That difference in spell slots there between Warlock and Sorcerer is why I'd say that when not built to focus on being a full caster, you're trading some full caster strength for something else that full casters don't get, and could agree to call the Warlock a "3/4ths caster." Building a Bladelock doesn't make you a half-caster, it makes you a gish that didn't need to multiclass and trade away spell power progression to become one.)


If you choose tomelock, the similarity is less clear. Instead of getting weapon skills in exchange for fewer spells, you're getting spell-like abilities in exchange for fewer spells. Between the extra cantrips, and rituals, and probably some low-level spells from invocations (typically Mage Armor, False Life, Detect Magic, Silent Image, Jump, Levitate, Disguise Self, or super-darkvision, but there are a few other options), you can find yourself slinging spells (or magical effects) constantly, all day long. So it will feel very much like a full caster out of combat. But those are unlimited-use abilities (and at higher levels also some limited-use abilities), not spells. If you have a couple of combats in a row, you're quickly reminded that you're still a half caster with very few spell slots... you're just a very magical half caster.

This is just an inaccurate and tortured comparison. You had a theory and decided it was true and kinda... wrangled things around to come as close to fitting it as you possibly could. But saying they're "spell like abilities" and not spells is inaccurate. They are spells. They act as spells, they follow the spell rules, enemies treat them as spells, you are casting a spell. They flat-out say you're casting that spell! "You can cast [x spell]..." is in all of them. And there's no reason at all for you to decide the extra spells you get are only good for out of combat, or that a spellcaster that doesn't use all their spells for in-combat stuff isn't a full caster (what?). Levitate and invisibility, especially, are great in-combat spells and there are Invocations that let you cast them at at will, and if you want to you can choose solely cantrips that will be of use in combat, and you can't tell me that many Wizards don't take spells like arcane eye and detect magic.

And again, at lv12, the Paladin and the Sorcerer still have the same stuff as above. The Tomelock now has 7 cantrips (more than the Sorcerer!) and potentially up to 16 spell slots (including their Mystic Arcanum and Invocations; same as the Sorcerer, only arguably better, because most of those Invocations allow you to cast at will so are actually superior to spell slots), with their highest spell slot being a 6th level slot (same as the Sorcerer). (The Tomelock can also have one more cantrip than a Sorcerer, one less spell slot than a Sorcerer, and access to Ritual Casting, which the Sorcerer does not get at all.)

(This is why I said that if you're actually building to be a full caster, you're flat-out the same as a full caster. You just have the flexibility to trade a bit away from that for different things -- buffing eldritch blast, being able to see in magical and nonmagical darkness, basically gaining the elven Trance racial ability -- while still nearly keeping up with full casters and dropping nowhere near half caster territory.)


If you choose chainlock, the closest analogy is to a pet class, such as a beastmaster ranger. And beastmaster rangers are half casters aren't they? Why wouldn't this be the same? BTW, you need to get a TON of use out of your special fimiliar to make it worthwhile to play this instead of a bladelock or tomelock, so hope your DM is liberal with his rulings on this.

It's not the same because, again, your spellcasting is better even if you don't build for it. Even just access to 6th-9th level spells, more than one or two 5th level spells per long rest, and any cantrips means you have more spellcasting than a Ranger, which makes sense because the Ranger is a half caster who's also built for martial ability and the Exploration pillar. Also, the Chainlock is nothing like the Beast Master; your familiar doesn't follow the same rules as the Ranger's companion, it's a familiar. As a Chainlock, you're probably either building yourself to be stealthy, or you're still building to be nearly a full caster, with a few fewer cantrips and probably one or two fewer spells, in return for a familiar that's way more awesome than you can get with the basic find familiar spell. Again, no ritual casting, but again, Sorcerer doesn't get that anyway.

Even a Warlock not built to focus on spellcasting is getting a large amount of things that half casters do not, at a much faster level progression than half casters do. They have a potential for built-in gishing, and a potential for sacrificing bits and bobs of spellcasting ability for greater ability elsewhere, but even if the player is taking advantage of those things, they're still getting powerful spells at a full caster's pace, and cantrips that mean they can cast all day no matter how many slots they have.

[Zalabim]

Traditional full casters have two things going for them that Warlock does not:

1) Measured response to a situation through the use of low level spell slots.

2) Having all of their daily spellcasting use at their disposal to ration as they see fit.
Of course, Warlocks have some things that traditional long rest casters do not.

1) Higher output when minimal expenditure is justified thanks to at-will invocations.

2) Having more spellcasting available later on no matter how much they use right now. Unlimited power is an enticing offer.

Now, the Warlock's spell list is very different from other casters, however I know for a Wizard that there's a diminishing value for each spell slot spent on a combat. The greatest value is usually whatever requires Concentration and whatever is done on the 1st turn. Whatever spell you cast on round 3 or round 5 won't make as much of an impact as what you cast on round 1 or round 2, even if you're doing the same thing every round. With the way a long rest caster's spell slots are set up, they also end up using lower level spells later on, so they aren't doing the same things on round 3 or round 5 anyway. Sorcerers and paladins really do the whole nova thing to a more substantial degree than wizards.

Also, 2 short rests is the median. In my first adventure on my new warlock, we had an encounter in town. Traveled to a dungeon location and fought a group of orcs outside which we were warned about. Then had encounters with skeletons, traps, and spiders once we went into the dungeon. The whole trip had a planned encounter at midnight outside of the dungeon at the end. Finally, there was a sealed vault with a standalone encounter (zombies and an imp with a wand) once we'd solved the dungeon's puzzles.

We defused the town encounter without violence, but I could have simply cast sleep and gotten a short rest. We handled the dungeon entrance encounter and some people needed a rest to restore HP. Inside the dungeon we ran into traps and a few easy to moderate encounters. I used armor of agathys when I finally got injured, while others cautioned me about saving spell slots for the big meeting we're crashing at midnight. Dungeon explored, we rested again before midnight so the rest of us can use our hit dice, and I'm totally fresh once again. We ended up leaving it as eavesdropping and tailing, since the big midnight meeting looks as rough as what we broke up when we arrived and the rest of the party is battered and more cautious this time. This is when we chose to take a long rest (and leveled up there), and crack open the vault in the morning, but seeing what was inside, we could have handled it beforehand after we didn't fight the second group of orcs.

Long story short, first adventure actually had two short rests, but had the time and pacing for four if we wanted to do it that way.

[Citan]

The question whether Warlock is or isn't a full caster is a big can of worms best left alone. What does it matter, anyway?

That said, by definition, what makes a full caster? The ability to cast spells from levels 0 (cantrips) through 9, or is having spell slots up to 9th level from your class the requirement?

A Warlock certainly can learn and cast spells from levels 6th through 9th, as well as 1st through 5th, but the difference compared to "normal" spellcasters is that the Warlock doesn't have spell slots outside of Pact Magic, and those select few high level spells are cast with Mystic Arcanum instead.

In a way, I suppose Warlock could count as a full caster, but I prefer not to think about it too much. I just like my sanity more.




You can't play it the same as any other full caster, and it has that small Mystic Arcanum limitation, but otherwise, yes. If built around spellcasting, it's a full caster. If not built around spellcasting, it's still nearly as good at casting as any other full caster and has additional capabilities besides.

If you want a Warlock that focuses on casting, take Pact of the Tome, take Invocations like Armor of Shadows, Ascendant Step, Mask of Many Faces/Master of Myriad Forms, Misty Visions, Shroud of Shadow, Visions of Distant Realms, etc., take Book of Ancient Secrets for great ritual casting, and make sure your party's taking two short rests between long rests most of the time. You'll keep up.

If you don't want a Warlock that focuses on casting, take a different pact, build what you want using different Invocations, and still make sure your party's taking those short rests, and you'll still nearly be able to keep up with full casters while having an added level of versatility on top of that. Figure out what you want to do most first, then lean into it hard, and you'll be great at that thing as well as barely falling behind where a full caster "should" be (like I said, three spell slots short, but with most of your spell slots of a higher level).


It is an almost-full caster, and is meant to be one - DMs not sticking to the recommended adventuring day/encounter guidelines are making it seem like it’s a 1/5 (or lower) caster.

The class has no flaws, and amazing flexibility due to invocations and pacts - it’s simply that WoTC didn’t make the importance of a proper adventuring day clear to DMs.
I think those three posts (I cut a bit in the middle one because redundant with the others) sum this up quite well. : )

Also, while I'd argue that a problem of "not enough short rest" should be actually fixed through oog discussion with DM and party, when no consensus is easily reachable, using spell point variant as a compromise can work well as long as the number of short rests stays mostly under target nominal number. Using it while getting the expected number would end as a big power boost (because spell points is in itself a big power boost)

[Unoriginal]

In which way a class "counting as" full caster matter, anyway?

[Arkhios]

In which way a class "counting as" full caster matter, anyway?

Exactly. The loud and clear answer to that is: It does not. Period. :smallsmile:

Stop splitting hairs with matters that are irrelevant.

[EvilAnagram]

Exactly. The loud and clear answer to that is: It does not. Period. :smallsmile:

Stop splitting hairs with matters that are irrelevant.
Have you met playgrounders before?

[Arkhios]

Have you met playgrounders before?

I guess I'm a bit like Don Quixote fighting windmills believing that they could change if they are reminded of the futility of splitting hairs every once in a while. :smalltongue:

[Millstone85]

Alright, let me get my hair-splitting comb.


In which way a class "counting as" full caster matter, anyway?The eldritch knight is 1/3 caster, 2/3 martial.

The paladin is 1/2 caster, 1/2 martial.

The warlock is being accused of being 3/4 caster, 1/4 nothing.

[DivisibleByZero]

Alright, let me get my hair-splitting comb.

The eldritch knight is 1/3 caster, 2/3 martial.

The paladin is 1/2 caster, 1/2 martial.

The warlock is being accused of being 3/4 caster, 1/4 nothing.

But it isn't.
The 1/3 casters end with 7 caster levels on the chart.
The half casters end with 10 caster levels on the chart.
A 3/4 caster would end with 15 caster levels on the chart.
To plot this, there would need to be dead levels every 4th, ending with 15 at level 20. This means that levels 1, 5, 9, 13, and 17 would be dead levels for casting (with the exception that they would gain cantrips at 1st level to keep the "caster feel" alive).
If we plot this on the chart, the comparison would look like the following, where you can clearly see that Warlocks far exceed what would be considered a 3/4 caster.
So basically, anyone making that accusation is simply wrong, and is basing that claim on personal feeling rather than empirical data. The empirical data, without personal feelings involved, shows us that the Warlock is indeed a "full caster," who just happens to use a different casting mechanic.




Equivalent
Spell Points
By Level



Alternate
Theoretical


Level
1/3 Caster
Half Caster
Full Caster
Warlock 2-sr
Warlock 3-sr

Warloc 2-sr
3/4 caster


1st


4
6
8

6



2nd

4
6
12
16

12
4


3rd
4
6
14
18
24

18
6


4th
6

17




14


5th

14
27
30
40

30



6th


32




17


7th
14
17
38
36
48

36
27


8th


44



54
32


9th

27
57
42
56

63



10th
17

64




38


11th

32
73
72
93

72
44


12th







57


13th
27
38
83
82
103

82



14th







64


15th

44
94
93
114

93
72


16th
32









17th

57
107
127
155

127



18th


114




83


19th
38
64
123







20th


133
155
183

155
94

[strangebloke]

Alright, let me get my hair-splitting comb.

The eldritch knight is 1/3 caster, 2/3 martial.

The paladin is 1/2 caster, 1/2 martial.

The warlock is being accused of being 3/4 caster, 1/4 nothing.

You could maybe argue this from the perspective that they're 3/4 as effective as a wizard or cleric? I could see that argument. Of course, following that line, bards are also not full casters.

They certainly do get as many spells and as high level of spells as every other 'full caster.'

[Willie the Duck]

"Full caster", "half-caster" and any other kind of "percentage caster" are not concepts the game designers or the game itself concerned themselves with. They are fan-made categories, which didn't necessarily account for everything.

This to the original question.

On a grander level-yes, the warlock "feels" less spell-casty than a wizard or sorcerer. But so does a valor bard or cleric or whatnot. A 9th level wizard is contributing to party success the most when they are laying down 3rd-5th level spells, and a warlock held to the same metric is going to feel lesser (as of course is one in a party which does not take enough short rests).


As a celestial tomelock I never felt like I wasn't anything but what I was. A short rest recharging full caster. It depends on your dm, your team, and your choices though. I had rituals for days, shillelagh for melee and excellent ranged damage with eb+ab. Invocations help a bit. I just had to ration my slots better and use more cantrips.

I cheated as my celestial Tomelock had a 1 level arcana cleric dip (get ALL THE CANTRIPS!), but I had the same experience. A class that has something to do every round (EB), has all sorts of answers to questions, all the ritual spells, and good social skills? Hard to call that character unfun-to-play even without their 2 main spells/SR.

[Citan]

And the wormy-canned Pandora's Box is opened *yet again*.

Humanity (at least Playgrounders) never learn. XD

[Millstone85]

But it isn't.Just trying to explain why such comparisons matter to people in the first place.

Personally, I am on the fence.

[Tanarii]

In which way a class "counting as" full caster matter, anyway?


Alright, let me get my hair-splitting comb.

The eldritch knight is 1/3 caster, 2/3 martial.

The paladin is 1/2 caster, 1/2 martial.

The warlock is being accused of being 3/4 caster, 1/4 nothing.
In this thread alone, they've been called 1/5 casters and 1/2 casters.

It matters to me a little bit because I expect people to understand when I'm trying to communicate. Never seems to happen tho. :smallamused:

Martial is a similar term with similar issues.

Personally, I count 5e as having 6 full caster classes, and 6 martial classes. To me, it means "not a full caster".

It also has 3 classes each of :
warrior/tanks
scout/skirmishers
arcane nukes
healer/buffers

[MxKit]

The warlock is being accused of being 3/4 caster, 1/4 nothing.

Oh, I hope my posts weren't coming across that way! I definitely don't want to say they're 1/4 nothing.

The reason I say I wouldn't quibble if someone called them a 3/4 caster, though I think of them as a full caster with versatility personally, is because if they're not built to "be" a full caster they trade away some things other full casters get in order to be 1/4 something else.

Like, for example: If I was going full Bladelock, I still feel like a Warlock is a full caster, but I wouldn't argue if someone saw that build as 3/4 caster, 1/4 martial -- almost (not quite) the inverse of an Eldritch Knight, actually. When it comes to someone trying to explain how it plays, the strategies you'd use, etc., that seems fair enough to me, I wouldn't quibble with it being described that way. I would absolutely disagree with anyone saying it's 1/5 caster, half caster, or any fraction of "nothing," though. You're at most trading away a sliver of a full caster's spellcasting in order to get tangible returns in something else, almost certainly something that's a priority to you for your character. Which makes a lot of sense for a Warlock, come to think of it.

[Tanarii]

The only time you're trading something away is in the level 7-10 range. (See DbZ's chart up thread.)
That's not nothing, of course. It's probably about 1/2 to 1/3 of the play time of the typically played campaign.

[danpit2991]

ok so pandoras box has been flung open yikes!


so what im getting from this is that on paper the warlock mathematically has the same number of "slot levels" or spell points as the other caster WHEN there are sufficient S/R, but i feel that this is an apple orange comparison, because with 2 short rests there will be 6 slots a day or 2 per encounter for the majority of the career and this is just too few when compared to other casters.

the response to that will be "but they are at the highest level" and the point i would make as rebuttal to that is that it removes any versatility to your spell use it would be like a wizard burning a 5th level slot on grease when it is literaly half of his allotment of spells see how much sense that makes? the simple fact that your spell slots are always max and you have so few limits your casting.


"Invocations make up for it" except that most of them are taken by the "must haves" like the E/B and the pact invocations or they use up your already limited slots and the ones that dont are primarily social or situational YMMV and you have to decide if its worth it

"you still get a 9th level spell slot" not a slot you get 1 each non exchangeable 6th-9th level SLA

dont get me wrong the warlock if fun and customizable but in play it feels lackluster and at best adequate

[Matrix_Walker]

When all is said and done, there is no "official definition" for "Full Caster."


So the question as to whether Warlocks are a Full Caster lacks the resolution needed for an accurate answer.

What is a "Full Caster" to the OP? Getting 9th level spells and a general level of spell-power, or using the full caster spell chart?

[Tanarii]

so what im getting from this is that on paper the warlock mathematically has the same number of "slot levels" or spell points as the other caster WHEN there are sufficient S/R, but i feel that this is an apple orange comparison, because with 2 short rests there will be 6 slots a day or 2 per encounter for the majority of the career and this is just too few when compared to other casters.In Tier 1 & 2:
Warlocks get 6 slots per 3-6 encounters (Deadly to Medium). At levels 2-10. Always at their highest level.

Other casters get 6 slots starting at level 3, and up to 13 at level 10. But typically on the highest 2 available levels can be considered "encounter ending" slots on par with a Warlock's slots, and they only get 4-5 of those. The rest are lower powered. If you want to start counting 3-5 as encounter ending, which isn't unreasonable given how powerful they are, they start pulling ahead around level 7. Which is exactly where both DbZ showed they pull ahead.

In Tier 3:
Other casters get 13 slots level 1-5 for 6 encounters starting at level 10. Warlocks get 9 slots level 1-5 for 6 encounters starting at level 11 through 16.

So again, it's level 7-10 where Spellcasting casters get an advantage in a "typical" adventuring day. That's not nothing, but it's not the end of the world for Warlocks.

------

My personal experience in Tier 1 & 2 is that Warlocks (and other non-long rest dependent classes) come into the fore as soon as the party plans to push on into a longer adventuring day (typically 1/3 longer than "expected"), and takes a third short rest in the process of doing so. This is far more the norm for my campaign than stopping at some point after only one Short Rest (ie a short adventuring day), but less common than stopping some time after the normal two Short Rests. But this is partially due to the vagaries of the way my campaign works.

[Arkhios]

ok so pandoras box has been flung open yikes!


so what im getting from this is that on paper the warlock mathematically has the same number of "slot levels" or spell points as the other caster WHEN there are sufficient S/R, but i feel that this is an apple orange comparison, because with 2 short rests there will be 6 slots a day or 2 per encounter for the majority of the career and this is just too few when compared to other casters.

the response to that will be "but they are at the highest level" and the point i would make as rebuttal to that is that it removes any versatility to your spell use it would be like a wizard burning a 5th level slot on grease when it is literaly half of his allotment of spells see how much sense that makes? the simple fact that your spell slots are always max and you have so few limits your casting.


"Invocations make up for it" except that most of them are taken by the "must haves" like the E/B and the pact invocations or they use up your already limited slots and the ones that dont are primarily social or situational YMMV and you have to decide if its worth it

"you still get a 9th level spell slot" not a slot you get 1 each non exchangeable 6th-9th level SLA

dont get me wrong the warlock if fun and customizable but in play it feels lackluster and at best adequate

You need to define what a full-caster actually means, unquestionably without differing opinions, before anyone can really deduce whether warlock is a full-caster or not based on that definition. And even then, it's only one point of view.

I repeat the question that has been laid out for countless times already: Why does it matter?

Warlock is, as is, a uniquely designed character class with their own merits to stand out from the rest, and that should be all you need to decide whether you want to play warlock or not. Whether they are full-casters or not is, again, irrelevant.

[Snowbluff]

All of this talk about "what makes a full caster" is annoying me. I'll just break it down so it'll never happen again.

1) 9th levels spells (counts as 1:1 progression on MC table, which is the effectual definition)
2) Fills a caster role, with enough effective slots to do so. (that guy's table does show this)

In short, Warlock is functionally and effectively a full caster. IF you felt the need, you could play it as a dedicated caster. HOWEVER, I will point out that you're limited to 4 slot-level actions per SR, +1 per LR. Assuming 10 rounds of combat per SR, you're going to be strapped for slots to pull off your powerful abilities.

Furthermore, I don't think the chart accounts for this, but Sorcerer and Wizard can inflate their longevity using SP slots or Arcane Recovery. IN my experience, I have never seen a warlock get enough Spell Slots from Short Rests to be an effective caster on each turn. Over 20 levels, a non-pact magic user will have 15 spell slots of 3rd and above, which is a glut for an adventuring day. Worse still is that Cat Nap is a spell, basically making any caster in a warlock that gets 9+ 5th and above spell slots.

So in theory: Positively yes.
In practice: I think this class is 3 levels long, via la invocations!

[Arkhios]

All of this talk about "what makes a full caster" is annoying me.

Heh, it seems I have struck a nerve. (Good! >:))

I am, on the other hand, annoyed with the need to label classes as full-casters, half-casters, partial-casters, bunny-bear-casters, and what-not, so I guess that makes us even? :smallwink:

A spellcaster is a spellcaster (or a Pact Magician, if you want to be pedantic, since Warlocks technically don't have the "Spellcasting" feature). That is all you need to know.

[Snowbluff]

Heh, it seems I have struck a nerve. (Good! >:))

I am, on the other hand, annoyed with the need to label classes as full-casters, half-casters, partial-casters, bunny-bear-casters, and what-not, so I guess that makes us even? :smallwink:

A spellcaster is a spellcaster (or a Pact Magician, if you want to be pedantic, since Warlocks technically don't have the "Spellcasting" feature). That is all you need to know.

Nah, that's terrible. Lowering the number of functional distinctions only limits peoples' ability to communicate about the game, and weakens frameworks of understanding for various playstyles.

Saying that all spellcasters are equivalent to saying a sorcerer is the same as a fighter because it has simple weapon proficiency. Even if you built your sorcerer for melee, it won't function in anyway the same as a fighter would. For a spellcaster, no one would expect a paladin to play the same way as a cleric, and even if you've focused on your paladin's spellcasting abilities, it still won't have the longevity or variety of spells to make it comparable when performing in that capacity. Knowing if one class can cast spells or not is literally NOT all you need to know, because a simple yes/no doesn't represent at all the class's abilities, and this is before we even start talking about spell lists.

Not to mention that the progressions have been literally defined with a fractional value, which form a strong rule of thumb for gauging both dept and breadth of a spellcaster's ability.

In short, labels are a good thing.

[Tanarii]

Over 20 levels, a non-pact magic user will have 15 spell slots of 3rd and above, which is a glut for an adventuring day. And a Warlock of level 17+ gets 15 per adventuring day, all level 5 and greater. Even at level 11+, they're getting 9+ slots / adventuring day of level 5 or higher compared to a Spellcasting caster getting 9+ Slots of level 3 or higher.

Where Spellcasting classes get a bonus over an adventuring day at level 11-17 is they have an additional 6 level 1 & 2 spell slots.

[Citan]

ok so pandoras box has been flung open yikes!


so what im getting from this is that on paper the warlock mathematically has the same number of "slot levels" or spell points as the other caster WHEN there are sufficient S/R, but i feel that this is an apple orange comparison, because with 2 short rests there will be 6 slots a day or 2 per encounter for the majority of the career and this is just too few when compared to other casters.

the response to that will be "but they are at the highest level" and the point i would make as rebuttal to that is that it removes any versatility to your spell use it would be like a wizard burning a 5th level slot on grease when it is literaly half of his allotment of spells see how much sense that makes? the simple fact that your spell slots are always max and you have so few limits your casting.


"Invocations make up for it" except that most of them are taken by the "must haves" like the E/B and the pact invocations or they use up your already limited slots and the ones that dont are primarily social or situational YMMV and you have to decide if its worth it

"you still get a 9th level spell slot" not a slot you get 1 each non exchangeable 6th-9th level SLA

dont get me wrong the warlock if fun and customizable but in play it feels lackluster and at best adequate
Honestly, sorry to be blunt but I don't see your point of thread interest here.

People explained in several ways how the Warlock was perfectly balanced per the guidelines and could also be considered a fullcaster per access to the higher level spells.

You clearly don't like the way that class is built and played because of the short-rest dependencies, which is no problem, to each his own taste. :)

But then I don't understand the problem you have...
- Warlock's exclusive spells are very few so you could poach most of them through Bard's Magic Secrets or Magic Initiate.
- Most Warlock's features can be replicated or replaced by things that are close enough in fluff and mechanics.

Basically (admitedly I oversimplify a little bit) the main reason to play a Warlock is either for the short-rest slots spellcasting, or some specific Invocations, or some Patron features.
If you are interested in neither, then I fail to see the kind of character concept that you couldn't build with all the other classes, thus I don't understand why you'd feel the need there is something "lacking" in the class. :)

[Willie the Duck]

Seems pretty clear to me. He had a notion at the start of the thread, and didn't see anything that changed his mind. Doesn't really seem like he was that open to being convinced otherwise, nor that he needed much defense of his original position to maintain it, but otherwise it's all self-consistent.

He doesn't like the warlock implementation. Done. Whole thread could have lasted one sentence.

[Hesh]

Nah, that's terrible. Lowering the number of functional distinctions only limits peoples' ability to communicate about the game, and weakens frameworks of understanding for various playstyles.

Saying that all spellcasters are equivalent to saying a sorcerer is the same as a fighter because it has simple weapon proficiency. Even if you built your sorcerer for melee, it won't function in anyway the same as a fighter would. For a spellcaster, no one would expect a paladin to play the same way as a cleric, and even if you've focused on your paladin's spellcasting abilities, it still won't have the longevity or variety of spells to make it comparable when performing in that capacity. Knowing if one class can cast spells or not is literally NOT all you need to know, because a simple yes/no doesn't represent at all the class's abilities, and this is before we even start talking about spell lists.

Not to mention that the progressions have been literally defined with a fractional value, which form a strong rule of thumb for gauging both dept and breadth of a spellcaster's ability.

In short, labels are a good thing.

That's the same as defining something as a fullcaster, simply because it can cast 9th level spells, though. A warlock uses it spell slots much differently to a wizard or cleric, though.

[Snowbluff]

And a Warlock of level 17+ gets 15 per adventuring day, all level 5 and greater. Even at level 11+, they're getting 9+ slots / adventuring day of level 5 or higher compared to a Spellcasting caster getting 9+ Slots of level 3 or higher.

Where Spellcasting classes get a bonus over an adventuring day at level 11-17 is they have an additional 6 level 1 & 2 spell slots.

The problem is that you've got to make some pretty strong assumptions about what constitutes an adventuring day. 15 rounds of combat is common in my experience, but in modules I've played there is rarely an opportunity for a short rest. Furthermore, a 5th level slot is quite limited in the hands of a warlock, with literally more than have of their spells coming from XGtE, bring them up to 11 options (from 4).

Not to mention that now most caster classes (Bard, Wizard, Sorcerer) can literally just Catnap. Which gives you 3 times as many spells slots as a warlock would have. Sorcerers can make 2 more 5th level slots, and a 4th level one, as well as going to consuming lower slots for more higher level ones.

... Well damn, I was going to make a Storm Cleric with a tiny bit of Sorcerer, but I think I just talked myself into making a sorcerer with a tiny bit of storm cleric.

[Hesh]

In my experience, catnap is a trap. Any time I've been able to take 10 minutes rest, I've been able to take a short rest.

[Tanarii]

The problem is that you've got to make some pretty strong assumptions about what constitutes an adventuring day. 15 rounds of combat is common in my experience, but in modules I've played there is rarely an opportunity for a short rest. My assumptions are the game's designed assumptions. And I'd recommend you talk to your DM about making adjustments to multiple parts of the game, because you're using D&D 5e far outside its design parameters. That's not the specifically the fault of the warlock's design, nor generally the game's design.

The game even provides recommendations for various ways you can adjust things for exactly your gaming situation in the DMG, like 5 minute short rests if an hour is too long. Others , like 15 rounds of combat in a battle per battle, you'll have to figure out solutions for on your own.

[MaxWilson]

ok so pandoras box has been flung open yikes!

so what im getting from this is that on paper the warlock mathematically has the same number of "slot levels" or spell points as the other caster WHEN there are sufficient S/R, but i feel that this is an apple orange comparison, because with 2 short rests there will be 6 slots a day or 2 per encounter for the majority of the career and this is just too few when compared to other casters.

You realize that spells can be used outside combat encounters? A wizard who's expecting to go dungeon crawling through six encounters worth of materials may not want to expend a spell slot to heal a dying dinosaur found on the plains, or to have an Unseen Servant do his chores before breakfast. But a warlock who's planning to have breakfast in an hour has no real reason NOT to use up his spell slots being constantly magical.

Similar to how the Shadow Monk can afford to keep the whole party permanently stealthy (2 ki per hour, resting for an hour whenever she gets low on ki) a warlock can afford to cast noncombat spells (Comprehend Languages, Unseen Servant, Fly, Suggestion, Illusory Script--for celestiallocks, Cure Wounds/Revive) whenever he wants to unless in imminent danger.

It is too bad warlocks don't have more and more worthwhile non-combat spells to take advantage of this fact. The warlock spell list doesn't actually play to the warlock's mechanical strengths, and IMO that plus limited spells known are their key weaknesses--not the spell slot. (But at least now warlocks have Dance Macabre for skellies and Summon Greater Demon to summon a Chasme every combat by 9th level, so WotC is learning.)

[Citan]

Not to mention that now most caster classes (Bard, Wizard, Sorcerer) can literally just Catnap. Which gives you 3 times as many spells slots as a warlock would have.
Well, thanks for making me discover that spell. Because I don't own Xan was unaware of it.

Do you realize though that you are actually making a very compelling case *in favor* of the warlock (or maybe that was your point and I misunderstood because of your formulation)?

Bard has no slot recovery at all.
Sorcerer has only 4 SP per short rest, meaning 2*1st level spells.
Wizard has a slot recovery mechanic which works only once per day, even if it depends on ending a short rest meaning that Catnap is a facilitator. But Wizards already had Rope Trick and ritual Leomund Tiny Hut, in addition to higher level spells for most pressing cases, so they always had no problem taking a rest.

Catnap I feel is actually the solution that WoTC gave for parties to alleviate or entirely bypass the "short rest problem" for disparate parties: before you had to get Rope Trick (Bard's Magic Secret, Wizard, Gloomstalker Ranger, mid-level AT/EK), find a place to hold a ritual Leomund's Tiny Hut (Bard/Wizard, Ritual Caster, Tome Warlock) or invest in a three-level dip.

Now? For a long-rest caster, using a 2nd level slot to allow up to three members an accelerated short rest is a great benefit for the cost.

And I disagree with someone else that implied that "if you can be safe 10mn you can be safe 1 hour anyways".
I'd find many situations IMX where that wouldn't be the case, for example when you finished an encounter but couldn't prevent one to run away: you may be able to find/set up a place to stay "safe" (although on high alert) for a couple of minutes, but you're pretty sure it won't be one hour before new troops arrive.

Of you may have managed to successfully sneak into someplace while silently killing guards, until you found a calm place: you expect the place to get on high alert soon because they'll eventually realize guards are missing, yet you have no idea whether that will be in 5, 10 or 60 / 90 minutes. So betting on Catnap is much better than either using another spell but be broken before one hour was spent, or just decide to engage the next fight with short-rest based classes significantly out of fuel.


You realize that spells can be used outside combat encounters? A wizard who's expecting to go dungeon crawling through six encounters worth of materials may not want to expend a spell slot to heal a dying dinosaur found on the plains, or to have an Unseen Servant do his chores before breakfast. But a warlock who's planning to have breakfast in an hour has no real reason NOT to use up his spell slots being constantly magical.

Similar to how the Shadow Monk can afford to keep the whole party permanently stealthy (2 ki per hour, resting for an hour whenever she gets low on ki) a warlock can afford to cast noncombat spells (Comprehend Languages, Unseen Servant, Fly, Suggestion, Illusory Script--for celestiallocks, Cure Wounds/Revive) whenever he wants to unless in imminent danger.

It is too bad warlocks don't have more and more worthwhile non-combat spells to take advantage of this fact. The warlock spell list doesn't actually play to the warlock's mechanical strengths, and IMO that plus limited spells known are their key weaknesses--not the spell slot. (But at least now warlocks have Dance Macabre for skellies and Summon Greater Demon to summon a Chasme every combat by 9th level, so WotC is learning.)
I'd tend to agree with you, or rather, I'm often a bit frustrated to know there are so many good uscalable spells that a Warlock won't ever get by default. Which is often why I take one or two levels dips (although, I tend to do that even when playing prepared casters: I guess I'm just the kind that will never have enough XD).

I wouldn't use as black a brush as you though: Armor of Agathys, Hex, Hold Person, Cloud of Daggers (not sure), Shadow Blade, Fly, Counterspell, and I probably forget a few other handful (plus spells available from Patrons)...
You do have some quite nice choices... :)

[Saggo]

You need to define what a full-caster actually means, unquestionably without differing opinions, before anyone can really deduce whether warlock is a full-caster or not based on that definition. And even then, it's only one point of view.

I repeat the question that has been laid out for countless times already: Why does it matter?

Warlock is, as is, a uniquely designed character class with their own merits to stand out from the rest, and that should be all you need to decide whether you want to play warlock or not. Whether they are full-casters or not is, again, irrelevant.

"Full caster" is easier to say and type than "Classes that have up to 9th level spell progression and an expected amount of spell power in an adventuring day" or "Classes where All levels count towards multiclassed spell slot progression". We can distinguish between them easily enough with context, so it can be both.

While it's not as relevant to gritty details of choice and execution, it is relevant to general conversation.

[Tanarii]

"Full caster" is easier to say and type than "Classes that have up to 9th level spell progression and an expected amount of spell power in an adventuring day" or "Classes where All levels count towards multiclassed spell slot progression". We can distinguish between them easily enough with context, so it can be both.Usually people denying Warlocks are full casters have an agenda: They're denying that warlocks have the power of a long rest caster. They think the warlock is "broken".

[Matrix_Walker]

Usually people denying Warlocks are full casters have an agenda: They're denying that warlocks have the power of a long rest caster. They think the warlock is "broken".

There are all kinds, but I'm firmly in the "A full caster uses the full spellcasting progression as listed on the multiclass spell table PBH p165" camp.

It's the only definition I find to be actually useful. Including Warlocks in the mix introduces confusion and negates the usefulness of the term.

I may have referenced arguments like 'getting the right number of rests', or a general feeling of being 'spell starved' despite all the potential invocation support, but those are just peripheral points that don't really enter into it.

Pact Casters are special in the magic world, lumping them with the typical long rest casters with the spellcasting trait is probably doing them a disservice.

[TheYell]

1. then, no, they're not.

2. So what?

[Tanarii]

There are all kinds, but I'm firmly in the "A full caster uses the full spellcasting progression as listed on the multiclass spell table PBH p165" camp.I really should have said "Usually people starting threads denying Warlocks are full casters have an agenda".


It's the only definition I find to be actually useful. Including Warlocks in the mix introduces confusion and negates the usefulness of the term.Conversely, I find the term full caster = "full spellcasting caster" useless. Whereas I find the term full caster = "gets level 9 spells, progresses 1 spell level every other character level" very useful, to distinguish them in online and offline discussions from the "martial" classes.

[TheYell]

A paladin isn't a full caster, if I get you; nobody should use them as such, nor are they useless because of their limited magical ability.

[Matrix_Walker]

I really should have said "Usually people starting threads denying Warlocks are full casters have an agenda".

Conversely, I find the term full caster = "full spellcasting caster" useless. Whereas I find the term full caster = "gets level 9 spells, progresses 1 spell level every other character level" very useful, to distinguish them in online and offline discussions from the "martial" classes.

I get that you weren't calling me out specifically, just over-chiming my bell.

The term as a variable has a demonstrable use tho, and I find that if you're talking about Warlocks, you're going to have to list some proviso's into the discussion (multiclassing can deny you higher level slots unlike all the rest, etc) due to their unique nature ANYWAY, so why bother devaluing the term?

Then the natural question arises, what do we call the primary casters that use the standard progression? If you use the term as I do, in multiclassing discussion and archetype descriptions, it is natural to have a term to refer to the casters who's powers neatly combine. So if "get's 9th level spells at 17th level" = Full Caster, what would make sense to describe the primay casters that you can do character math with along with the 1/3rd casters and 1/2 casters? (Whole Casters?) Seems silly to me that all the other Full Casters are the ones who have to adapt for a special class that has rules all its own. (Not to mention Warlock appologists would probably take offence saying "Warlocks are not less than 'whole' casters, they get everything, or close enough mathematically!" and restart the discussion under a new name.)

The people who understand the question already have their answer, it's embedded in why they are asking.

Those who do not understand the question need to have both the standard progression the warlock's special quirks spelled out to them, and how they differ. So it really doesn't make any difference if you say "yes" or "no", because you have to follow that with "But..."

[Tanarii]

Then the natural question arises, what do we call the primary casters that use the standard progression?Full spellcasting casters. Or full spellcasters for short.

[Saggo]

I get that you weren't calling me out specifically, just over-chiming my bell.

The term as a variable has a demonstrable use tho, and I find that if you're talking about Warlocks, you're going to have to list some proviso's into the discussion (multiclassing can deny you higher level slots unlike all the rest, etc) due to their unique nature ANYWAY, so why bother devaluing the term?

Then the natural question arises, what do we call the primary casters that use the standard progression? If you use the term as I do, in multiclassing discussion and archetype descriptions, it is natural to have a term to refer to the casters who's powers neatly combine. So if "get's 9th level spells at 17th level" = Full Caster, what would make sense to describe the primay casters that you can do character math with along with the 1/3rd casters and 1/2 casters? (Whole Casters?) Seems silly to me that all the other Full Casters are the ones who have to adapt for a special class that has rules all its own. (Not to mention Warlock appologists would probably take offence saying "Warlocks are not less than 'whole' casters, they get everything, or close enough mathematically!" and restart the discussion under a new name.)

The people who understand the question already have their answer, it's embedded in why they are asking.

Those who do not understand the question need to have both the standard progression the warlock's special quirks spelled out to them, and how they differ. So it really doesn't make any difference if you say "yes" or "no", because you have to follow that with "But..."

The context of a conversation or thread can reasonably determine all of that for you. "Full caster" can have more than one purpose or meaning.

[Snowbluff]

In my experience, catnap is a trap. Any time I've been able to take 10 minutes rest, I've been able to take a short rest.
Well, then you're better off being one of the classes that can catnap, because if you can never short rest, the LR casters are just going to have more to do that you will. :P

My assumptions are the game's designed assumptions. And I'd recommend you talk to your DM about making adjustments to multiple parts of the game, because you're using D&D 5e far outside its design parameters. That's not the specifically the fault of the warlock's design, nor generally the game's design.

The game even provides recommendations for various ways you can adjust things for exactly your gaming situation in the DMG, like 5 minute short rests if an hour is too long. Others , like 15 rounds of combat in a battle per battle, you'll have to figure out solutions for on your own.
Well, it's a fair assumption on the side of design, but I play in Hardcovers and Modules. A large number of them simply aren't designed this way.

Well, thanks for making me discover that spell. Because I don't own Xan was unaware of it.

Do you realize though that you are actually making a very compelling case *in favor* of the warlock (or maybe that was your point and I misunderstood because of your formulation)?

Bard has no slot recovery at all.
Sorcerer has only 4 SP per short rest, meaning 2*1st level spells.
Wizard has a slot recovery mechanic which works only once per day, even if it depends on ending a short rest meaning that Catnap is a facilitator. But Wizards already had Rope Trick and ritual Leomund Tiny Hut, in addition to higher level spells for most pressing cases, so they always had no problem taking a rest.


Point of order, sorcerer starts with their level in SP. I actually didn't even know Sorcerers could recover SP on a short rest. I made my calculation without that. Wizard does their feature *once* and just spends all of the resource on it. I don't see the issue at all. In short my point is Warlock needs 2 short rests to catch up, and even then the other classes can up ahead.

[Tanarii]

Well, it's a fair assumption on the side of design, but I play in Hardcovers and Modules. A large number of them simply aren't designed this way. 5e DDEX modules are usually written with the standard design assumed.

From what I've seen, the published adventure paths depend heavily on the DM and players knowing what the standard design is, and not intentionally ignoring it. Or adjusting if they are going to ignore it. In other words, there aren't blindingly obvious "Rest Here!" signs built into the 5e adventure paths, because they cover extreme amounts of material on a fairly high level overview, as opposed to detailed single session adventures. You have to know Rests should be there, and play accordingly.

Edit: As a side note, what blows my mind is the assumption that player's can't rest. IMX if they really need one, they will work to find a way to get in a rest if they need. The biggest problem is long rest casters insisting on resting on their schedule, that short rests aren't needed. But oh look I'm suddenly out of spell slots well short of an adventuring day, we'd better find a way to Long Rest now.
Luckily my campaign has a built in check against this kind of 5MWD system, because it means returning to town & ending the session. And potentially giving another adventuring party a chance to go get that juicy loot you were working towards. Why give someone else a chance to claim jump? Especially another member of your party, who can attend a session before you and lead a different party to where you were.

[Matrix_Walker]

I did a Facebook poll on a 5e group to get a notion of people's opinions. After the first 10 minutes, it's 22 to 1 for the poll takers.


What do you feel is the best definition of "Full Caster"?

Uses their full level to determine spell slots available using the Multiclass Spellcaster table on Page 165 of the Players Handbook. - 22

Gains access to a new spell level every 2 levels. - 1

[Kyrinthic]

A Warlock who receives two short rests keeps up with the full casters at all times, with a slight exception during levels 8-9-10, where he lags behind slightly, and then gets back on track at level 11.
A Warlock who gets three short rests is the undisputed champion of spellcasting power at pretty much any level (excluding a tiny deficiency at level 10).

If the Warlock got his 3rd slot at level 8 instead of level 11 (and received 2 short rests), it would look like what the "Alternate Warlock 2-sr" column has.
Perhaps that is all the change that would be needed to make people happy? 3rd slot at level 8 (or maybe 9) would fill that gap, without increasing his power to OP levels in comparison.
If I felt the need to "fix" Warlock in any way (I do not), then I'd just give him his third slot a couple/few levels earlier, at 8 or 9 instead of 11. That's it.




Equivalent
Spell Points
By Level


Alternate


Level
1/3 Caster
Half Caster
Full Caster
Warlock 2-sr
Warlock 3-sr
Warloc 2-sr


1st


4
6
8
6


2nd

4
6
12
16
12


3rd
4
6
14
18
24
18


4th
6

17





5th

14
27
30
40
30


6th


32





7th
14
17
38
36
48
36


8th


44


54


9th

27
57
42
56
63


10th
17

64





11th

32
73
72
93
72


12th








13th
27
38
83
82
103
82


14th








15th

44
94
93
114
93


16th
32







17th

57
107
127
155
127


18th


114





19th
38
64
123





20th


133
155
183
155



Its a pretty chart, but it doesn't tell a real story.

I wont even argue that warlocks are full casters, that is clearly the intent, and mostly the reality. I just wanted to pop in to point out that there is a wold of difference between total power by spell level, and actual usage.

a wizard at 11 (one of the levels you show warlocks as being roughly even, has 16 spells over that day vs a warlock's 9. (using the normal 2 sr day). They also get 5 more levels to play with on top of that that can be divided up as they wish. A paladin gets 9 spell slots to play with in that same day, just like the Warlock, despite being a half caster, they are spending as many actions per day casting spells (well, ok, the ranger is probably a better comparison since most of the pally ones go to smites).

When you start looking at utility, having slots of things like misty step and shield, and the like, the warlocks really feels lacking. You can output the same level of nova damage in a fight as a different full caster, but you almost completely lack the ability to take utility spells or really any spell that doesn't upscale well. Their spell list is also pretty meager. Its bad when the sorcerer list starts to look good by comparison.

This makes warlocks in play feel like they can keep up offensively for the most part, but very squishy. They cant afford to put up a mage armor in the morning, or burn spell slots on things like blur, shield, misty step, or even really counterspell in all but the most desparate circumstances. This leaves them lacking that full caster feel, and is why so many people dont see them as such. The shenanigans in the multiclass section dont help of course.

Once they nudge into the 6+ level slots it starts feeling better, until you look at their spell lists. where the warlock has a tiny fraction of the spells a wizard or cleric would, which again hurts that versitility and feeling of 'being able to do anything with magic'. that you expect from a full caster.

[Tanarii]

Spell level 5 slots are encounter enders at character levels 9-11. Misty Step is not.

[Matrix_Walker]

An hour in and we have...

40 in the poll defining Full Caster as using the full progression as listed in the PHB on page 165
2 in the poll defining a Full Caster as getting access to a new spell level every odd level until 9th level spells at level 17
and 1 response that a Full Caster is anyone who uses spells, as long as it is right after dinner.

[MaxWilson]

I did a Facebook poll on a 5e group to get a notion of people's opinions. After the first 10 minutes, it's 22 to 1 for the poll takers.

That makes sense because your second definition is clunky. Just say "gets 9th level spells on schedule."

[EvilAnagram]

and 1 response that a Full Caster is anyone who uses spells, as long as it is right after dinner.

That is the best thing to come out of 90+ posts, and it wasn't even part of the thread.

[MxKit]

When you start looking at utility, having slots of things like misty step and shield, and the like, the warlocks really feels lacking. You can output the same level of nova damage in a fight as a different full caster, but you almost completely lack the ability to take utility spells or really any spell that doesn't upscale well...

This makes warlocks in play feel like they can keep up offensively for the most part, but very squishy. They cant afford to put up a mage armor in the morning, or burn spell slots on things like blur, shield, misty step, or even really counterspell in all but the most desparate circumstances.

If you build with an eye towards being a full caster, they can have plenty of utility and defence options. If you take the Armor of Shadows Invocation you can cast mage armor at will -- ie, they can get at lv2 one of the things people prioritize the Wizard getting at lv18. You can also get Invocations for levitate, detect magic, disguise self/alter self, silent image, arcane eye, speak with dead, water breathing (once per long rest), and invisibility, that don't use your spell slots at all. And I honestly disagree with danpit that a bunch of EB and pact invocations are "must haves" if you're building for being a full caster; you get 8 total Invocations and even if you decided you did want to grab Agonizing Blast and Book of Ancient Secrets, that leaves six "bonus spells" you can pick up through Invocations, most of them ones you'll be able to cast all you like.

And admittedly it does feel a little wasted to cast a 1st level spell that doesn't upscale with a 5th level slot, but it's really not as wasteful as it seems and it's definitely not necessary to avoid spells that don't upscale. Remember, by the time you get 5th level spell slots, you have six of them per long rest, whereas other full casters only have one 5th level slot. Things only get better at lower and higher levels; the chart is more useful than you might guess:

At lv6, where the Warlock on the chart still seems about on-par, Tomelocks have six cantrips and six 3rd level spell slots (as well as likely one more spell, potentially at will, from an Invocation). At lv6, other full casters have three to five cantrips and ten spell slots total (three 3rd level). That's not many fewer spells known; hell, if you use two Invocations to grab spells, rather than worrying about adding damage to eldritch blast, you'll have one to three more cantrips than other full casters and only two fewer "spell slots," the latter of which cancels out pretty neatly since you can likely cast two 1st level spells at will. And you'll have Ritual Casting, which Sorcerers don't get at all, which means you'll likely have out of combat utility right there (at least two 1st level rituals from any spell list that you can cast as rituals).

At lv11, where the Warlock seems to be getting back on-par, Tomelocks have seven cantrips, nine 5th level spell slots, one 6th-level spell slot from Mystic Arcanum, and likely three or four spells from Invocations, potentially at will ones (so again better than just a slot). At lv11, other full casters have four to six cantrips and sixteen spell slots total (two 5th level, one 6th level). Again, at that point, even if you have Book of Ancient Secrets and maybe Agonizing Blast, you'll have one to three more cantrips than other full casters and only two or three fewer spell slots, which again cancels out since likely a lot of those Invocation spells are ones you can cast at will. Plus Ritual Casting, and probably more than just the two rituals by that point, since you can copy down rituals from any class's spell list.

Yeah, at levels 7 through 10 you fall behind, and that is definitely a chunk of the game. But that's also the part of the game where DivisibleByZero's chart shows you falling behind, so the chart does hold up even if it's calculating by total power rather than available spell slots.

(And remember, too, that some of the Warlock's subclass abilities can be analogous with spells. For one example, if you go Archfey patron, you get Misty Escape at lv6, which basically means you can cast a superior version of misty step three times per long rest. That's the equivalent of adding three spell slots to your total, basically, and helps with those levels when you're feeling the lack a little bit.)

[MaxWilson]

If you build with an eye towards being a full caster, they can have plenty of utility and defence options. If you take the Armor of Shadows Invocation you can cast mage armor at will -- ie, they can get at lv2 one of the things people prioritize the Wizard getting at lv18.

At-will Shield at 18th level? Yes please! Especially if you can re-map it to other spells on a rest, and if it comes with an at-will second-level spell too.

At-will Mage Armor at 18th level would be... nobody cares.

At-will Mage Armor at level 2 can be sort of neat under the right circumstances (Abjuror) but it's not remotely comparable to Spell Mastery.

[TheYell]

Would you rather have a party of four wizards and nothing else, or four warlocks and nothing else?

[Matrix_Walker]

That makes sense because your second definition is clunky. Just say "gets 9th level spells on schedule."

It's not my definition. "get's 9th level spells on schedule" is even clunkier, as it is less precise and has a circular reference to Full Caster progression

I don't think there is a non-clunky but accurate way to describe it (which is part of the issue in and of itself).

But to blame a (now 46 to 2) landslide on accurate but "klunky" verbiage... Seems like more desperate stretching than just before the Jane Fonda workout video reunion special.

[TheYell]

Well that settles it, because Facebook polls MATTER.

[Matrix_Walker]

Well that settles it, because Facebook polls MATTER.

I think the popular opinion is relevant to a discussion about the definition of a term. Especially when it's near unanimous.

[danpit2991]

[QUOTE=Willie the Duck;22917574]

as far as bluntness its ok im not easily offended as for the shift from the title ....thread drift happens.

and early on in the thread i stated that warlock is fun and that my perception was most likely to blame for my disappointment or my expectations were so far from reality that i was soured on things, several of the posts in this thread have if not cured those conceptions have at least rubbed off the sharp edges. i might try full warlock again thanks to some posters and see if with more idk realistic? expectations if i have a different experience. so thank you all for your assistance

[MaxWilson]

It's not my definition. "get's 9th level spells on schedule" is even clunkier, as it is less precise and has a circular reference to Full Caster progression

I don't think there is a non-clunky but accurate way to describe it (which is part of the issue in and of itself).

But to blame a (now 46 to 2) landslide on accurate but "klunky" verbiage... Seems like more desperate stretching than just before the Jane Fonda workout video reunion special.

Well, I would vote for option #1 over option #2 too, because it's a less klunky definition. This is despite not actually sharing your opinion on what "full caster" should mean.

Even a bad option is better than a garbage option, so I vote for the bad option.

[DivisibleByZero]

Your ridiculous poll is flawed anyway.
One description is well explained, and one is rubbish. Of course the well defined and explained one, which had a reference to the phb, is going to trample on the garbage explanation of the second choice.
And the third option is missing.
Where is option 3: Both?

Do it again. But this time, do a decent job explaining the 2nd option, just like you did with the first option, and then add a third.
I bet you'll find it becomes a whole lot closer than you're seeing now

[danpit2991]

and with the discussion of "whats the definition of full caster" maybe my question in my title should have been something along the lines of where does warlock fit in / compare with other casters or something like that

[Tanarii]

and 1 response that a Full Caster is anyone who uses spells, as long as it is right after dinner.


That is the best thing to come out of 90+ posts, and it wasn't even part of the thread.
Seriously. I think it's time for us all to lay this to rest, and embrace this as the correct definition of Full Caster moving forward. :smallamused:

[Matrix_Walker]

Your ridiculous poll is flawed anyway.
One description is well explained, and one is rubbish. And the third option is missing.
Where is option 3: Both?

Do it again. But this time, do a decent job explaining the 2nd option, just like you did with the first option, and then add a third.

Please provide the description you'd like, as I found mine to be wholly descriptive as I understand your outlook.

And it CANNOT be both, as Pact Caster levels are not cumulative with the Spellcasting feature. Which is the point of my objection.

This is a "They are changing the definition of literally to mean figuratively as well, negating its value as a word" situation.

edit--

My Definition Updated : Poseses the spellcasting class feature, using their full level on a 1/1 basis to determine spell slots available using the Multiclass Spellcaster table on Page 165 of the Players Handbook.

[Tanarii]

Please provide the description you'd like, as I found mine to be wholly descriptive as I understand your outlook.
A) Progresses to 9th level spells at level 17.
B) Progresses to 9th level spells at level 17, and has Spellcasting class feature.
C) Other
D) Banana

Done.

(Edit: Yes, I'm fully aware that's biased. :smallbiggrin: )

[TheYell]

and with the discussion of "whats the definition of full caster" maybe my question in my title should have been something along the lines of where does warlock fit in / compare with other casters or something like that

They're specialized casters with real melee capabilities. I don't think they can replace a tank but they could easily replace a sorcerer. They're CHA based so intrigue and urban RP is a real possibility. They reward preparation and planning, and less rewarding to somebody who wants to level up and wing it.

if you don't know what you'll be doing at level 15

if you want all the spells for the sake of having all the spells

if you feel your melee role is giving the rogue somebody to rescue with a backstab

then you'd want a wizard instead.

[Citan]

and with the discussion of "whats the definition of full caster" maybe my question in my title should have been something along the lines of where does warlock fit in / compare with other casters or something like that
Well, it will depend on what was the biggest point of disappointement in your past experiences.

For example, if it was the low amount of spellcasting, then you could build an Hexblade Tome Pact Warlock specializing in utility (Hexblade simply to still have a spike to contribute in biggest battles and have not to worry too much about survival). Of course you'll need the DM to work a bit towards you, much like a Wizard.

Or maybe you could make a dual-class, pairing Warlock with 3 levels of Bard so you can get control over short rests by being able to cast Catnap yourself.

If the point was about being too dispersed in many directions, you have some ways to build pretty focused, thematic yet efficient characters.
For example, a Fiend Warlock could brand himself as a commander's whose charisma is so great that he inspires paralyzing fear into his enemies (when he's in fact just upcasting Hold Person and Command ;)).
Or take a warring vow and become infamous for his ability to kill while standing impervious to attacks (Shadow Blade + Armor of Agathys).
Or make a career as a powerful king's trusted spy and right hand (Tome with Rituals, Suggestion, Beguiling Influence, Devil's Sight, Eldricht Sight, Beast Speech or Gaze of Two Minds or Mask of Many Faces).

If the point was rather about low number of spells, then as little as may be, just two level dips into two other casters may bring much better uses for your scaling slots.
For example, although it would require 14-16 WIS, a Life Cleric 1 + Druid 1 would net you medium armor and shield and the ability to have 6-9 more spells, many of which scale pretty well (Healing Words, Bless, Fog Cloud, Longstrider, you could even go for Command or Ice Knife in spite of lower DC/attack).


Its a pretty chart, but it doesn't tell a real story.

I wont even argue that warlocks are full casters, that is clearly the intent, and mostly the reality. I just wanted to pop in to point out that there is a wold of difference between total power by spell level, and actual usage.

When you start looking at utility, having slots of things like misty step and shield, and the like, the warlocks really feels lacking. You can output the same level of nova damage in a fight as a different full caster, but you almost completely lack the ability to take utility spells or really any spell that doesn't upscale well. Their spell list is also pretty meager. Its bad when the sorcerer list starts to look good by comparison.

This makes warlocks in play feel like they can keep up offensively for the most part, but very squishy. They cant afford to put up a mage armor in the morning, or burn spell slots on things like blur, shield, misty step, or even really counterspell in all but the most desparate circumstances. This leaves them lacking that full caster feel, and is why so many people dont see them as such. The shenanigans in the multiclass section dont help of course.

I fully agree with the bolded+underlined sentence (emphasis mine).

Like most people that want to present the Warlock as lacking in power or spellcasting fuel, you just blatantly forget...
- All the Patron features that are equivalent or better in power as named spells,
- As well as free-spell Invocations.
- And spells, whether from list, Patron or Invocations, that scale extremely well (like the given above, but also Fireball, Elemental Weapon, Wall of Fire, Blindness, Vampiric Touch, Wall of Light).

Your post just proves you never played a Warlock's strengths, be it by lack of knowledge, understanding or plain interest (which is not a critic, to each his own taste), or maybe just because your party/DM never gave you a chance to play it as intended.

Although I do understand what you say about "lacking that fullcaster feel", in that many people are indeed used to get mechanical incentive to use different levels of resources by using different spells.

Which is indeed different from Warlock for which resource management is rather binary (free low-power or 2/rest full-power until level 11), putting aside the long-rest spells from Invocations and Patron's short rest abilities. But that is precisely a unique strength of Warlock imo, providing a very different and refreshing experience of a fullcaster because it does indeed make you think differently about spell choice and resource consumption, motivating the player to be smarter about upscale. :)

The main reason why people argue that's it's not a fullcaster is that he's the single representant of its kind.
Should WoTC introduce one or more classes following the same kind of progression, I'd expect the community to change its definition of "fullcaster" quickly enough. ^^

[Matrix_Walker]

So does anyone want to supply their definition for my follow up poll?

My definition clarified:

"Possesses the spellcasting class feature, using their full level on a 1/1 basis to determine spell slots available using the Multiclass Spellcaster table on Page 165 of the Players Handbook."

If you give me others and I will add them to the list. I'm being told in this thread that I'm not describing the other definition(s) to everyone's satisfaction.

I thought "Acquires access to a new spell level at each odd level until acquiring 9th level spells at level 17" would suffice, but I suppose it is somewhat inelegant.

[DivisibleByZero]

So does anyone want to supply their definition for my follow up poll?

I'm not sure anyone really cares about your FB poll.
Let's ask a bunch of random people who have not been involved in this conversation at all what they think about this conversation. But let's do it in the most general terms possible and not include any of the points that have been made along the way. And let's describe one side well while we are vague and unclear about the other.
No thanks.
I think we were commenting on the fact that the one you did, which we didn't care about then and still don't now, was biased out of the gate and therefore not a fair polling.

Have you seen the movie The House?
It was like a scene in that film, where a child won a scholarship but the city took the money away to build a pool, and when it was brought up at a town meeting it went somewhere along the lines of:
"By a show of hands, who likes swimming?
OK.
By another show of hands, who thinks one family should benefit while the rest of us....."

You get the idea.
Your options were inequal, and that lead to inequal results in your poll.
But even if your poll were fair, which is was not, we still wouldn't care because the people you're polling are not a part of this conversation.

[MaxWilson]

So does anyone want to supply their definition for my follow up poll?

My definition clarified:

"Possesses the spellcasting class feature, using their full level on a 1/1 basis to determine spell slots available using the Multiclass Spellcaster table on Page 165 of the Players Handbook."

If you give me others and I will add them to the list. I'm being told in this thread that I'm not describing the other definition(s) to everyone's satisfaction.

I thought "Acquires access to a new spell level at each odd level until acquiring 9th level spells at level 17" would suffice, but I suppose it is somewhat inelegant.

Definition in bold isn't terrible, but instead let's go with "Acquires 9th level spells such as Foresight and True Polymorph by or before level 17; can cast approximately as many powerful spells per adventure as a wizard or a cleric."

I put a poll up on Tenkar's Tavern Facebook group (https://www.facebook.com/groups/849179298513223/). I fully expect option (C) to get the most votes.

5E semantics question:

When you hear a class described as a "full caster", which of these options best matches your expectations for members of that class?

(A) "Acquires 9th level spells such as Foresight and True Polymorph by or before level 17; can cast approximately as many powerful spells per adventure as a wizard or a cleric."

(B) "Possesses the spellcasting class feature, using their full level on a 1/1 basis to determine spell slots available using the Multiclass Spellcaster table on Page 165 of the Players Handbook." E.g. not warlocks.

(C) Who cares about semantics?

(D) Other.

[Matrix_Walker]

Cool beans.

If I redo it, I may have to include a little more text, as I kind of glossed over the most important point that it combines it's levels with other classes on the aforementioned table... but I was kind of taking that as self evident. But it does demonstrate the relationship of Full - Half - Third caster.

[Kyrinthic]

I fully agree with the bolded+underlined sentence (emphasis mine).

Like most people that want to present the Warlock as lacking in power or spellcasting fuel, you just blatantly forget...
- All the Patron features that are equivalent or better in power as named spells,
- As well as free-spell Invocations.
- And spells, whether from list, Patron or Invocations, that scale extremely well (like the given above, but also Fireball, Elemental Weapon, Wall of Fire, Blindness, Vampiric Touch, Wall of Light).

Your post just proves you never played a Warlock's strengths, be it by lack of knowledge, understanding or plain interest (which is not a critic, to each his own taste), or maybe just because your party/DM never gave you a chance to play it as intended.

Although I do understand what you say about "lacking that fullcaster feel", in that many people are indeed used to get mechanical incentive to use different levels of resources by using different spells.

Which is indeed different from Warlock for which resource management is rather binary (free low-power or 2/rest full-power until level 11), putting aside the long-rest spells from Invocations and Patron's short rest abilities. But that is precisely a unique strength of Warlock imo, providing a very different and refreshing experience of a fullcaster because it does indeed make you think differently about spell choice and resource consumption, motivating the player to be smarter about upscale. :)

The main reason why people argue that's it's not a fullcaster is that he's the single representant of its kind.
Should WoTC introduce one or more classes following the same kind of progression, I'd expect the community to change its definition of "fullcaster" quickly enough. ^^

I have actually played several warlocks, and they do some things well, but other things less well. I have played wizards, and they feel a lot more like a caster than a warlock does in play.

Even with invocations, and lets face it, the spell options you get from invocations is distinctly limited. Useful, sure, but not a lot of true standouts, or the ones that are are 1/day type abilities anyhow. Outside of the standard 'heavy hitters' that let your cantrips do the heavy lifting between spell usage. Which is why they are so often seen as mandatory.

The Patron abilities are ok, but poorly balanced, some are blatantly better than others. Overall they compare quite unfavorably to archetype abilities that other casters have. Wizard schools and cleric domains generally both feel more powerful (though there are some balance issues in those as well).

Even giving the benefit of the doubt on spells cast, the warlock has to play very carefully to actually get 6 spells on a long rest. as often as not, you will have some short rests where you didn't spend all spells, and spots where you go a while between short rests that you really need spells. The wizard just has them all the time as needed.

I am not saying they wont do the job of a full caster, but they are going to feel more limited than a wizard. There are significant holes in their spell lineup, that are sometimes filled by a patron choice, but only if you pick the right patron (want to actually do arcane caster level damage with a third level slot? Hope you picked fiend pact). They compare unfavorably to sorcerers in both spells known, cantrips known (though book pact can help there), and just spells on their spell list, and these things are generally seen as significant weaknesses for sorcerers, so it stands to reason they will feel bad on warlocks as well.

I don't think there is any question if he feels like a full caster, but rather it feels like he doesn't bring the level of utility and versatility a wizard or cleric do. Outside of being an Eldritch blast battery, there is very little they bring to the table that a wizard or sorcerer doesn't do better, unless they can manage to get the GM to give out more short rests than normal.

[danpit2991]

I have actually played several warlocks, and they do some things well, but other things less well. I have played wizards, and they feel a lot more like a caster than a warlock does in play.

Even with invocations, and lets face it, the spell options you get from invocations is distinctly limited. Useful, sure, but not a lot of true standouts, or the ones that are are 1/day type abilities anyhow. Outside of the standard 'heavy hitters' that let your cantrips do the heavy lifting between spell usage. Which is why they are so often seen as mandatory.

The Patron abilities are ok, but poorly balanced, some are blatantly better than others. Overall they compare quite unfavorably to archetype abilities that other casters have. Wizard schools and cleric domains generally both feel more powerful (though there are some balance issues in those as well).

Even giving the benefit of the doubt on spells cast, the warlock has to play very carefully to actually get 6 spells on a long rest. as often as not, you will have some short rests where you didn't spend all spells, and spots where you go a while between short rests that you really need spells. The wizard just has them all the time as needed.

I am not saying they wont do the job of a full caster, but they are going to feel more limited than a wizard. There are significant holes in their spell lineup, that are sometimes filled by a patron choice, but only if you pick the right patron (want to actually do arcane caster level damage with a third level slot? Hope you picked fiend pact). They compare unfavorably to sorcerers in both spells known, cantrips known (though book pact can help there), and just spells on their spell list, and these things are generally seen as significant weaknesses for sorcerers, so it stands to reason they will feel bad on warlocks as well.

I don't think there is any question if he feels like a full caster, but rather it feels like he doesn't bring the level of utility and versatility a wizard or cleric do. Outside of being an Eldritch blast battery, there is very little they bring to the table that a wizard or sorcerer doesn't do better, unless they can manage to get the GM to give out more short rests than normal.

this was almost my exact experience, but i have a problem concisely explaining myself thank you for putting into words what i was having difficulty saying

[bid]

An hour in and we have...

40 in the poll defining Full Caster as using the full progression as listed in the PHB on page 165
2 in the poll defining a Full Caster as getting access to a new spell level every odd level until 9th level spells at level 17
and 1 response that a Full Caster is anyone who uses spells, as long as it is right after dinner.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Leading question ftw.


And no, I don't see what the MC rules has to do with "full caster".
You'll have to find another approach to make the point valid.


Why are wizard and cleric full casters?
- because they both get access to 9th spells,
- because they have a spread of spell slots of all levels,
- wizards aren't full caster because their choice is limited by their spellbook,
- clerics aren't full casters because the cleric spell list is too limited.
- something more complicated.

And maybe someone will come up and say "they both are, but sorcerer aren't with only 15 spells known". But this will come out naturally without any prodding to get what you want.

[Matrix_Walker]

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Leading question ftw.


And no, I don't see what the MC rules has to do with "full caster".
You'll have to find another approach to make the point valid.


I'll phrase it however people want. I didn't see it as leading.

Wizards and Clerics are Full Casters because if you take 10 levels of each you have the full spell slots of a 20th level caster.

Are you familiar with the terms "3rd Caster" and "Half-Caster"? and if so, do you think there is no relationship with the term "Full Caster"? The terms don't actually appear in the books, they are shorthand. The multiclass rules point out which classes and subclasses are divided by a particular number to determine their contribution to casting level. They identify the Half and Third casters by their divisor, and the full casters by the fact that they add their full level. That is why the muticlass rules are important. They are the only point of reference in D&D books that relates in any way to the terms. How can that not be relevant?

[Arkhios]

Are you familiar with the terms "3rd Caster" and "Half-Caster"? and if so, do you think there is no relationship with the term "Full Caster"? The terms don't actually appear in the books, they are shorthand. The multiclass rules point out which classes and subclasses are divided by a particular number to determine their contribution to casting level. They identify the Half and Third casters by their divisor, and the full casters by the fact that they add their full level. That is why the muticlass rules are important. They are the only point of reference in D&D books that relates in any way to the terms. How can that not be relevant?

Granted, those are solid points. I suppose the terms, even while not official, have their own value.

However, I'd stress the importance that these shorthands become relevant only if a player wishes to multiclass. If a player doesn't want that (let's face it, not everyone does!), then whether a class is a full-caster, half-caster, or third-caster is much less relevant. Then it's more about whether you like the class as a whole or not.

[Matrix_Walker]

Granted, those are solid points. I suppose the terms, even while not official, have their own value.

However, I'd stress the importance that these shorthands become relevant only if a player wishes to multiclass. If a player doesn't want that (let's face it, not everyone does!), then whether a class is a full-caster, half-caster, or third-caster is much less relevant. Then it's more about whether you like the class as a whole or not.

There is the disconnect. I think people who love their warlocks see it as a slight to not be included in the "Full Caster" club, when they can be just as powerful and versitile, or even more so depending on the circumstances. Saying Pact Casters are distict from Full Casters is in no way taking anything away from them, and isn't meant to imply they are 'less than', simply that they are a bit different and follow their own rules.


The main reason why people argue that's it's not a fullcaster is that he's the single representant of its kind.
Should WoTC introduce one or more classes following the same kind of progression, I'd expect the community to change its definition of "fullcaster" quickly enough. ^^
I think if they present more Pact Casters, the need to distinguish them will remain, and we will be using terms like Half and Third Pact Caster, as presumably those will add together when multiclassed to form some fraction of the Full Pact Caster progression that Warlocks enjoy.

[MxKit]

At-will Shield at 18th level? Yes please! Especially if you can re-map it to other spells on a rest, and if it comes with an at-will second-level spell too.

At-will Mage Armor at 18th level would be... nobody cares.

At-will Mage Armor at level 2 can be sort of neat under the right circumstances (Abjuror) but it's not remotely comparable to Spell Mastery.

You've got a point; for a minute I was forgetting the Warlock had light armor proficiency, so I went overboard when I compared Armor of Shadows to Spell Mastery so favorably. That said, I'll walk that part back, but I do think the point that they do get access to mage armor if they want it and can cast it at will rather than having to use slots is a point worth making. They're definitely not all combat damage, and they measure up if you're treating the spell Invocations as tools to let you keep up with the other full casters' spell slots.

[MrStabby]

The warlock is of comparable power to other classes, so the discussion is more about how it is distributed between effects.

The warlock combat power is mainly in eldritch blast and the associated invocations. Large and effective at-will damage. No running out of this. This is very much the characteristic of a non-caster like a fighter, barbarian or rogue.

The warlock has a limited number of spells that recharge on a short rest - obviously casting things like fireball pulls the warlock towards being more like a caster. I think a feature of a caster is their strength from being able to use the right spell for the situation to target vulnerabilities and weak saves. Warlocks can do much of that but their limited spell selection and the fact that everything is cast from the top spell slot (till level 11) means that you miss our on some of the caster "well placed low level spell turns around the combat" type effects a bit. Not saying it doesn't happen just that it is a bit less common.

Also, as other people have noted, the warlock isn't fragile. In this sense it is like the cleric with a D8 hit die (instead or sorcerer or wizard D6), can get mage armour and has a bundle of other defensive abilities. Not a huge gap here but just another nudge away from the full caster end of the spectrum.


Certainly I have found that warlocks get a lot less of their power and utility from spell slots than other classes with the spellcasting ability have. If someone wanted to play a character that was a "caster" and that was the description they gave when looking for advice, I would mention the warlock but suggest that wizard, bard, sorcerer, cleric or druid (in that order) would be where to look.

[Tanarii]

However, I'd stress the importance that these shorthands become relevant only if a player wishes to multiclass. If a player doesn't want that (let's face it, not everyone does!), then whether a class is a full-caster, half-caster, or third-caster is much less relevant. Then it's more about whether you like the class as a whole or not.It's about if it's gets 2nd level spells at character level 3rd level, 3rd level spells at level 5, 4th at level 7, and so on. Any class that progresses to level 9 spells. And single class is also the default rule.

Like I said, anything being based on multiclassing is a meaningless term to me offline ... and every single possible player in my campaign. When I say 'full caster' in an offline discussion, if I'm not including Warlock I'm not including critical that I'm trying to convey.

Same in an online discussion. If I am referring in any way to multiclassing, the terms should (and from now on will be) full Spellcasting caster, half Spellcasting caster, and 1/3 Spellcasting caster.

There isn't currently a 1/3 short rest caster, although the 4 Elements Monk emulates one. But if there ever is it will be a 1/3 caster.

Edit: Here's an example of two statements where clarity matters. The first is implicitly about how a type of class gets spells, the second implicitly about multiclassing works. There are hints (plurals), but also the focus being discussed is different. Caster vs Spellcasting.

1/2 or 1/3 casters gets access to their highest spell level as 1/2 or 1/3 of level rounded off.

1/2 or 1/3 Spellcasting casters get access to spells as 1/2 or 1/3 of combined levels rounded down.

(If you weren't aware, there is a difference between how casting advance for a single class 1/2 or 1/3 caster, and Spellcasting multiclasses.)

[DivisibleByZero]

There is the disconnect. I think people who love their warlocks see it as a slight to not be included in the "Full Caster" club, when they can be just as powerful and versitile, or even more so depending on the circumstances. Saying Pact Casters are distict from Full Casters is in no way taking anything away from them, and isn't meant to imply they are 'less than', simply that they are a bit different and follow their own rules.

You see, the disconnect that we think you have is that you see it that way in the first place.
You define Caster as someone with the Spellcasting feature that plays well with an optional rule which isn't even going to be guaranteed to be available. You have to, because of you didn't define it that way then you wouldn't have continued to say things like "Pact Casters are distict from Full Casters."
Your bias is showing. That's your disconnect as far as we're concerned.
The Pact Magic feature is indeed different from the Spellcasting feature. But both follow the same pattern and have approximately the same overall power. So claiming one is "full" and the other is not is just ridiculous.

Pact Magic effectively uses the spell point variant by default, but can only creates slots of their highest available level.
In exchange for this restriction, they get powerful Invocations in addition.
In fact, if you want the Warlock to play nice with the optional multiclassing rules, all you have to do is also use the optional spell point rules, and simply keep that restriction in place no matter the class (which would add an houserule, but that houserule would make it play nice).

[Willie the Duck]

You see, the disconnect that we think you have is that you see it that way in the first place.
You define Caster as someone with the Spellcasting feature that plays well with an optional rule which isn't even going to be guaranteed to be available. You have to, because of you didn't define it that way then you wouldn't have continued to say things like "Pact Casters are distict from Full Casters."
Your bias is showing. That's your disconnect as far as we're concerned.
The Pact Magic feature is indeed different from the Spellcasting feature. But both follow the same pattern and have approximately the same overall power. So claiming one is "full" and the other is not is just ridiculous.

Pact Magic effectively uses the spell point variant by default, but can only creates slots of their highest available level.
In exchange for this restriction, they get powerful Invocations in addition.
In fact, if you want the Warlock to play nice with the optional multiclassing rules, all you have to do is also use the optional spell point rules, and simply keep that restriction in place no matter the class (which would add an houserule, but that houserule would make it play nice).

I have to agree with this. Saying that warlocks are not part of the "Full Caster Club" but instead the "Pact Casters Club," and I don't see why people are taking that as a slight seems pretty... I don't even know what to say, how can one not see how declaring one side 'full' and the other side a more specific descriptive sounds biased. That's like a bowling league pitting the East Side of town and West Side of town (who happen to be left handed) against each other and saying, "Okay, I've drawn up a scoreboard. Here we have my team, the East Side Grown-Adults, and their opposition, the West Side Southpaws."

[Hesh]

I have to agree with this. Saying that warlocks are not part of the "Full Caster Club" but instead the "Pact Casters Club," and I don't see why people are taking that as a slight seems pretty... I don't even know what to say, how can one not see how declaring one side 'full' and the other side a more specific descriptive sounds biased. That's like a bowling league pitting the East Side of town and West Side of town (who happen to be left handed) against each other and saying, "Okay, I've drawn up a scoreboard. Here we have my team, the East Side Grown-Adults, and their opposition, the West Side Southpaws."

I thought the differentiation would be more akin to someone stating 'this is what X is', and there, by definition, something that is different than X, is not X.

The problem comes when people understand that there a different interpretations of what X is.

Given that that there is nothing with the game that declares something to be a 'full caster' that I'm aware, there is only the definition of what a full caster is in the eyes of the players. And given that this example of a thread shows that there are wildly differing understandings of whst a full caster is, there will always be two or more people believing themselves to be correct.

Until DivisibleByZero and everyone else can agree on what the definition of a full caster is, there will be no answer.

If it is as simple as casting 9th level spells, then even a Thief Rogue is capable. If it's 9th level spells without magic items, a Warlock is the same. If it is a case of having the Spellcaster Class feature and 9th level spells, and you have a number of spell slots per day in a 4/3/3/3/2/2/2/1/1 pattern on its Class Progression Table, then a Warlock isn't included.

[DivisibleByZero]

Pact Magic effectively uses the spell point variant by default, but can only creates slots of their highest available level.
In exchange for this restriction, they get powerful Invocations in addition.
In fact, if you want the Warlock to play nice with the optional multiclassing rules, all you have to do is also use the optional spell point rules, and simply keep that restriction in place no matter the class (which would add an houserule, but that houserule would make it play nice).

To expand upon this, and explain it more fully, let's take a look at what any other caster who uses the spell point variant would look like if he had this same restriction in place, only allowing him to create slots of his highest level with any excess points left over being unusable.
Compare.
The Warlock is pretty much exactly where he needs to be.
The Alt Warlock in this table receives his 3rd slot at level 9 instead of level 11, which I what I think should have been designed.

The Warlock does not lag behind. He only feels like he does to some people because he starts out so much more powerful than the others do. So he starts out far more powerful, and then tapers off while everyone else catches up.
This leads people to feel like they're weaker, when they are not. They were considerably stronger to start, and end about the same. Actually, they end more powerful, but the vast majority of the levels are quite even.
The people claiming he doesn't hold up are confusing their starting power increase with an eventual power decrease which doesn't exist.

Their problem is with their perception, not with the math. Unfortunately perception is reality.

So the Warlock is approximately right where he should be. Normally casters who use the spell point variant gain increased versatility. Instead of this increased versatility, the Warlock has a restriction on the level of the spell slots that he can create, and gains a whole slew of powerful Invocations to counteract this restriction.
He is right about where he should be. He is a full caster, who uses the spell point system, but he trades the usual versatility for Invocations.



Slots
Available
Using
Spell
Point
Variant















Spell level
Slot cost for
Total
Slots for
Slots for

Slots for Alt


Level
Available
that level
Spell Pts
others
War w/ 2-sr

War w/ 2-sr


1st
1st
2
4
2
3

3


2nd


6
3
6

6


3rd
2nd
3
14
4
6

6


4th


17
5
6

6


5th
3rd
5
27
5
6

6


6th


32
6
6

6


7th
4th
6
38
6
6

6


8th


44
7
6

6


9th
5th
7
57
8
6

9


10th


64
9
6

9


11th
6th
9
73
9+1
9+1

9+1


12th



9+1
9+1

9+1


13th
7th
10
83
9+1+1
9+1+1

9+1+1


14th



9+1+1
9+1+1

9+1+1


15th
8th
11
94
9+1+1+1
9+1+1+1

9+1+1+1


16th



9+1+1+1
9+1+1+1

9+1+1+1


17th
9th
13
107
9+1+1+1+1
12+1+1+1+1

12+1+1+1+1


18th


114
10+1+1+1+1
12+1+1+1+1

12+1+1+1+1


19th


123
11+1+1+1+1
12+1+1+1+1

12+1+1+1+1


20th


133
12+1+1+1+1
16+1+1+1+1

16+1+1+1+1

[MaxWilson]

FWIW, the current winner of my Facebook poll on Tenkar's Tavern is, as expected, (C) Who cares?

[Willie the Duck]

I thought the differentiation would be more akin to someone stating 'this is what X is', and there, by definition, something that is different than X, is not X.

The problem comes when people understand that there a different interpretations of what X is.

Given that that there is nothing with the game that declares something to be a 'full caster' that I'm aware, there is only the definition of what a full caster is in the eyes of the players. And given that this example of a thread shows that there are wildly differing understandings of whst a full caster is, there will always be two or more people believing themselves to be correct.

Until DivisibleByZero and everyone else can agree on what the definition of a full caster is, there will be no answer.

That is definitely the technical problem we are facing.

On a social level, saying that clerics, wizards, etc. are 'Full Caster' and Warlocks are 'Pact Caster' is one of tone. 'Full' is a term with positive connotation. 'Pact' is relatively neutral. Insistently categorizing the classes one has already stated as you think the work better with a positive trait and the one you've already stated as working less well with a neutral one and then saying that it is "in no way taking anything away from them, and isn't meant to imply they are 'less than'" seems, at best, rather tin-eared.

[Tanarii]

If it is as simple as casting 9th level spells, then even a Thief Rogue is capable.
Use Magic Device doesn't allow you to cast spell scrolls in 5e. You must have the ability to cast a spell on your spell list to do that, and UMD doesn't change that.

JC confirmed that by tweet, but that he allows it anyway. For what it's worth.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/10/14/thief-spell-scroll-and-use-magic-device/

[MaxWilson]

You've got a point; for a minute I was forgetting the Warlock had light armor proficiency, so I went overboard when I compared Armor of Shadows to Spell Mastery so favorably. That said, I'll walk that part back, but I do think the point that they do get access to mage armor if they want it and can cast it at will rather than having to use slots is a point worth making. They're definitely not all combat damage, and they measure up if you're treating the spell Invocations as tools to let you keep up with the other full casters' spell slots.

It's not terrible but... it's not like you even get to cast Mage Armor at will. You only get to cast Mage Armor at will on yourself, so all the other potential things you'd like to do with Mage Armor (like up-armoring all of the druid's summoned giant cobras) are illegal.

Effectively it's just +1 AC for the warlock. It's not awful, but is more comparable to the Forge Cleric's level 1 bonus or the Fighter's level 1 Defense fighting style than to spell mastery.

[Tanarii]

Effectively it's just +1 AC for the warlock. It's not awful, but is more comparable to the Forge Cleric's level 1 bonus or the Fighter's level 1 Defense fighting style than to spell mastery.+3 in any situation where you can't wear your armor. Obviously in typical D&D that's not an issue?. I only bring it up because Dungeonomics had a wonderful article on mission impossible like spy teams, and the EK was the team member muscle, with his ability to Weapon Bond summon and Mage Armor during an infiltration mission. So it stuck with me. :smallbiggrin:

[Hesh]

Use Magic Device doesn't allow you to cast spell scrolls in 5e. You must have the ability to cast a spell on your spell list to do that, and UMD doesn't change that.

JC confirmed that by tweet, but that he allows it anyway. For what it's worth.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/10/14/thief-spell-scroll-and-use-magic-device/

How odd that you get to ignore class requisites, but not THAT class requisite.

[Tanarii]

How odd that you get to ignore class requisites, but not THAT class requisite.
The problem is it's not a prerequisite. It's something that happens based on your class.

OTOH JC is inconsistent on this one. I also found this tweet, about 1 year after his first tweet, saying that RAI is actually yes they can use spell scrolls.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/11/07/does-the-thief-rogues-use-magic-device-cover-the-use-of-spell-scrolls/

/facepalm

[Hesh]

Meh. It happens. Rules interactions are often screwy with games this complex. I'm cool either way, but i have a thief rogue at my table and when he gets to 13 letting him read scrolls the party otherwise can't cast hardly seems more broken than if the party had that caster available.

[Saggo]

Are you familiar with the terms "3rd Caster" and "Half-Caster"? and if so, do you think there is no relationship with the term "Full Caster"? The terms don't actually appear in the books, they are shorthand. The multiclass rules point out which classes and subclasses are divided by a particular number to determine their contribution to casting level. They identify the Half and Third casters by their divisor, and the full casters by the fact that they add their full level. That is why the muticlass rules are important. They are the only point of reference in D&D books that relates in any way to the terms. How can that not be relevant?

You're still trying to enforce a dichotomy that doesn't exist. The terms can (and do) have contextually different meanings. They may have historical roots in multiclassing rules, but the multiclassing rules themselves only serve to group classess/subclasses that have like progression.

Warlock is categorically, measurably equal in progression and power to the full casters listed in the multiclass rules, it has "like progression". Broadening "Full Caster" to include Warlock when conversing about single classes is not only reasonable, it's a natural growth of language. Multiclass rules are an extremely narrow conversational topic, referencing 9th Level Casters is very broad.

Let context define the meaning, it satisifies most people's requirements.

[bid]

Wizards and Clerics are Full Casters because if you take 10 levels of each you have the full spell slots of a 20th level caster.
That's being crafty.

I guess there are those who would call warlock 3/5 of a caster because they can't leave their bias behind.

[MaxWilson]

+3 in any situation where you can't wear your armor. Obviously in typical D&D that's not an issue?. I only bring it up because Dungeonomics had a wonderful article on mission impossible like spy teams, and the EK was the team member muscle, with his ability to Weapon Bond summon and Mage Armor during an infiltration mission. So it stuck with me. :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, that's one of my favorite things about Eldritch Knights.

Also, I love monks in spy adventures. Pretend to be an accountant or something until you're in place for a sucker punch. (Actually didn't Black Widow do exactly this in Iron Man 2?)

[Matrix_Walker]

FWIW, the current winner of my Facebook poll on Tenkar's Tavern is, as expected, (C) Who cares?

I looked... it's also 4 to 1 for the results we're looking for.



I have to agree with this. Saying that warlocks are not part of the "Full Caster Club" but instead the "Pact Casters Club," and I don't see why people are taking that as a slight seems pretty... I don't even know what to say, how can one not see how declaring one side 'full' and the other side a more specific descriptive sounds biased. That's like a bowling league pitting the East Side of town and West Side of town (who happen to be left handed) against each other and saying, "Okay, I've drawn up a scoreboard. Here we have my team, the East Side Grown-Adults, and their opposition, the West Side Southpaws."

My point is that it is not a "club" at all, but a metric.

That "Full" is shorthand for Full Progression on the Spellcaster Table.
That "Caster" is shorthand for "Possessing the Spellcasting Feature."

It is not an implication that "Not Full = Less Than"
The implication is that Not a Spellcaster, so their spells are aquired in parallel, not cumulatively.

Can we at least agree that 1/3rd and 1/2 casters refer to the rate at which these classes advance on the standard spellcaster table?


You're still trying to enforce a dichotomy that doesn't exist. The terms can (and do) have contextually different meanings. They may have historical roots in multiclassing rules, but the multiclassing rules themselves only serve to group classess/subclasses that have like progression.


Warlock is categorically, measurably equal in progression and power to the full casters listed in the multiclass rules, it has "like progression". Broadening "Full Caster" to include Warlock when conversing about single classes is not only reasonable, it's a natural growth of language. Multiclass rules are an extremely narrow conversational topic, referencing 9th Level Casters is very broad.

Let context define the meaning, it satisifies most people's requirements.

I think there is a clear existing dichotomy. Pact Magic is noncumulative, spellcasting is.

On the optional bit: I've been playing D&D since I was 13 years old at dozens of tables and dozens of groups. I have yet to run into a game that did not allow multiclassing.

Discussion of aquiring 9th level spells is not an ongoing one, it's a quick dichotomy you think about at character creation, despite the fact that probably less than 1% of characters ever advance that far. As a multiclassing definition, it's relevance appears every time a character gains a level. The label tells you the impact on your spellcasting progression.

Broadening Full Caster to include warlocks negates the usefulness of the term in determining you caster level. If you want to multiclass your wizard for better armor, you may think picking a class that won't interrupt your spell slot progression. A level Fighter or Hexblade will improve your armor situation, but you will have less than your full spellcasting progression, a level of any other Full Caster class will not, so you're probably better off with a level of Cleric to pick up that armor, as it doen't interfier with your full spell slot progression.

I don't care if they have the same aproximate mathematical equivelency at the end of the adventuring day, you're still describing an orange in the apple basket that doesn't work right if you try and put it in an apple pie.


That's being crafty.

I guess there are those who would call warlock 3/5 of a caster because they can't leave their bias behind.

Not I.

I am in full agreement that they are mathematically and power-level equivalent to the Full Casting classes, they are a 5/5 pact magic user.

I have nothing against Warlocks, nor do I think they are less than. They just have their own "full Pact" progression that is quite distinct from the spellcasting feature.

Enough about how biased I am, everyone has an opinion, and we're all talking about them. In this thread, I've been called ridiculous and my efforts garbage, and I'm full of bias and told I don't like Warlocks and their mechanics. How about we stick to the facts?

I still haven't got a description defining "Full Caster" succinctly enough to ask for outside opinions. How about someone takes a shot, as "gaining a new spell level every two levels until 9th level spells at level 17" was so biased and unacceptable.

(Seems like some feel that the definition I am supplying is unfair because it's too succinct, logical, easy to communicate, and has a basis in the D&D rules... How shifty of me!)

[Hesh]

I looked... it's also 4 to 1 for the results we're looking for.



Not I.

I am in full agreement that they are mathematically and power-level equivalent to the Full Casting classes, they are a 5/5 pact magic user.

I have nothing against Warlocks, nor do I think they are less than. They just have their own "full Pact" progression that is quite distinct from the spellcasting feature.

Enough about how biased I am, everyone has an opinion, and we're all talking about them. In this thread, I've been called ridiculous and my efforts garbage, and I'm full of bias and told I don't like Warlocks and their mechanics. How about we stick to the facts?

I still haven't got a description defining "Full Caster" succinctly enough to ask for outside opinions. How about someone takes a shot, as "gaining a new spell level every two levels until 9th level spells at level 17" was so biased and unacceptable.

(Seems like some feel that the definition I am supplying is unfair because it's too succinct, logical, easy to communicate, and has a basis in the D&D rules... How shifty of me!)

Hey man, you do you. If you have a definition which doesn't match someone elses definition, that's cool. Until the two definitions agree, both of you are correct, but also wrong. I don't think that the definition of Full Caster entirely relevant, as a Cleric is different enough from a Bard, and a Life Cleric is different enough from a Light Cleric that being a 'Full Caster' itself is a different enough interpretation that it's arguably irrelevant of whether a Warlock or Druid are Full Casters, because what does being a full Caster mean really?

But hey, that's me.

[Amdy_vill]

i feel warlock is just a warlock. it does not fit into the slots of full half and 1/4 casters. so i just call it warlock casting

[MaxWilson]

I looked... it's also 4 to 1 for the results we're looking for.

Which is very different from 20 to 1 in your original poll, thus making the point: wording matters.

Note that it's also 3 votes for "Wizard who just ate at a feast" and 1 vote for "depends on the edition," so out of the 15 votes cast so far, only 4 of them are for the definition which involves multiclassing and PHB table 165. To whatever extent Facebook polls are valuable, it's clear that there is no consensus in favor of your preferred definition. Most people seem to think it's a pointless distinction to make.

[Saggo]

I think there is a clear existing dichotomy. Pact Magic is noncumulative, spellcasting is.

Discussion of aquiring 9th level spells is not an ongoing one, it's a quick dichotomy you think about at character creation, despite the fact that probably less than 1% of characters ever advance that far. As a multiclassing definition, it's relevance appears every time a character gains a level. The label tells you the impact on your spellcasting progression.
Neither of those are what I was talking about.


Broadening Full Caster to include warlocks negates the usefulness of the term in determining you caster level. If you want to multiclass your wizard for better armor, you may think picking a class that won't interrupt your spell slot progression. A level Fighter or Hexblade will improve your armor situation, but you will have less than your full spellcasting progression, a level of any other Full Caster class will not, so you're probably better off with a level of Cleric to pick up that armor, as it doen't interfier with your full spell slot progression.

That is relevant if the context of the sentence or conversation is multiclassing. Value isn't suddenly lost by categorizing (categorization is something we do in conversation all the time) Warlock with like-progression casters if the context isn't about multiclassing (which occurs far more often in my experience).

Using both meanings doesn't reduce the usefulness of either one because you can reasonably distinguish between the context of either, because contextual definitions exist. The idea that "Full caster" can have one and only one meaning is flawed. I'm not taking your definition away, I'm adding one.

Once more, let context define the meaning.

[Matrix_Walker]

I have to agree with this. Saying that warlocks are not part of the "Full Caster Club" but instead the "Pact Casters Club," and I don't see why people are taking that as a slight seems pretty... I don't even know what to say, how can one not see how declaring one side 'full' and the other side a more specific descriptive sounds biased. That's like a bowling league pitting the East Side of town and West Side of town (who happen to be left handed) against each other and saying, "Okay, I've drawn up a scoreboard. Here we have my team, the East Side Grown-Adults, and their opposition, the West Side Southpaws."

I see that scoreboard more that the west side of town is the "Righties" and the east is the "Lefties", and then getting complaints that the "Left is sinister" and "If we're not right, you're waying we're wrong!"

"Full" is a descriptive term, it is neither positive nor negative.


Which is very different from 20 to 1 in your original poll, thus making the point: wording matters.

Note that it's also 3 votes for "Wizard who just ate at a feast" and 1 vote for "depends on the edition," so out of the 15 votes cast so far, only 4 of them are for the definition which involves multiclassing and PHB table 165. To whatever extent Facebook polls are valuable, it's clear that there is no consensus in favor of your preferred definition. Most people seem to think it's a pointless distinction to make.

It is different, but responses on "ate a feast" amount to "I don't care" which is a non-vote. As I have said, I'll phrase it however people like.

Is this any better?

What defines a Full Caster:
-Access to 9th level spells at level 17
-Adds their unmodified level when determining Multiclass Spell progression.
-Has a clear primary focus of Magic.
-Any of these are acceptable based on context.
-Other

Also, if it's a meaningless distiction to an individual, that kind of indicates they don't really use the term an don't have a meaningful opinion or a 'dog in the race' so to speak. So they don't seem particularly relevant.

Once more, let context define the meaning.

We're trying to define a term. If your feeling is that the term doesn't really matter, and a specific definition isn't required, then statements to that effect do not further any position other than "Let's not talk about this." aren't particularly helpful in hashing out a definition.

Without one, you can run into things like...

-Only Bards have the opportunity to cast any spell in the books, how can anyone else be considered full casters?
-Clerics get all simple weapons, shields and medium armor at the minimum AND a d8 hit die, clearly they have a more martial focus than Wizards and Sorcerers who get no armor and can only fight with daggers and sticks, how can they be Full Casters?
-Sorcerers have access to metamagic, which let them do things with magic no one else can come close to, how can anyone be a full caster next to that unbridled power?
-Sorcerers can't cast Rituals, how can you have "full" power when wizards, bards and clreics can cast spells all say without slots if they want?

So forth and so on.


But let's say that I agree that Warlocks are Full Caster's too, since they are close enough when monoclassed. In that event, if someone asks if the Warlock is a Full Caster, I am going to have to say "Yes, but they play a little differently than than the others because they have pact magic instead of spellcasting." or something to that effect. So including them doesn't add value to the term, because it's unique behavior will STILL beg for further explanation. Including them does exactly two things in my view. One is to introduce confusion in the form of this need to clairify behavior across the board for the Warlock's special status. The second, is to reassure Pact Magic Casters that no one feels Pact Magic progression is less powerful than Standard Progression (Which is what I was talking about before with the "full caster club").

But it's fine if you want to say I'm Full of ****, and the next guy is Pact with it.

[Nifft]

1 - Warlocks have a weird casting mechanism that isn't normal spellcasting.

2 - Warlocks have a weird resource which refreshes on short rest, and which isn't advanced by any other multiclass.

Warlocks therefore count as Monks.

[DivisibleByZero]

So let me ask you, Matrix, or anyone who claims Warlock is not "full" by your <insert definition here> reason, would you consider the Mystic a full caster?
If not, would you consider him more or less of a caster than a Warlock?

[Hesh]

So let me ask you, Matrix, or anyone who claims Warlock is not "full" by your <insert definition here> reason, would you consider the Mystic a full caster?
If not, would you consider him more or less of a caster than a Warlock?

Why are you getting so worked up over the definition of what a Full Caster is?

Probably time to leave the thread if you're this priapic over trying to tell someone they are incorrect, especially when it boils down to a differentiation of opinion.

[DivisibleByZero]

Who's worked up? I asked a question.
If you tell me to leave the thread or call me phallic again I will get worked up, though.

[Saggo]

We're trying to define a term. If your feeling is that the term doesn't really matter, and a specific definition isn't required, then statements to that effect do not further any position other than "Let's not talk about this." aren't particularly helpful in hashing out a definition.

But it's fine if you want to say I'm Full of ****, and the next guy is Pact with it.
Don't twist my words, I don't want to play games.

I clearly stated several times that both meanings are valid and that you can reasonably use both. There is no lost value because they are contextually different.


But let's say that I agree that Warlocks are Full Caster's too, since they are close enough when monoclassed. In that event, if someone asks if the Warlock is a Full Caster, I am going to have to say "Yes, but they play a little differently than than the others because they have pact magic instead of spellcasting." or something to that effect.

You're nitpicking. Every caster plays a little differently. I can replace Warlock and Pact Magic with Wizard and Spellbook and have the same problem. Categorization isn't about defining every explicit detail.

[Hesh]

If you tell me to leave the thread or call me phallic again I will get worked up, though.

Out of interest, and do what?

Do you have a definition of what a Full Caster is? Or are you just content to tell people their opinion is wrong because your opinion is differential?

[Nifft]

Probably time to leave the thread if you're this priapic over



priapic (prī-āˈpĭk, -ăpˈĭk)

adj.
Of, relating to, or resembling a phallus; phallic.



Out of interest, and do what?

I suspect this is what he meant.

It was rather impolite of you to call him a ****.

[Hesh]

I suspect this is what he meant.

It was rather impolite of you to call him a ****.

Ah. I thought that meant something different. Haha, my bad.

[danpit2991]

I don't care if they have the same approximate mathematical equivalency at the end of the adventuring day, you're still describing an orange in the apple basket that doesn't work right if you try and put it in an apple pie. )

and when i tried to make an apple pie with the orange i ended up with peach cobbler

[Matrix_Walker]

So let me ask you, Matrix, or anyone who claims Warlock is not "full" by your <insert definition here> reason, would you consider the Mystic a full caster?
If not, would you consider him more or less of a caster than a Warlock?

I'm surprised that my responses to these questions are not obvious by my reasoning thus far.

The Mystic (with the exception of the Wu Jen) Does not possess the Spellcasting Trait, so they don't get a spot on the Caster scale here. The Wu Jen is a special case, who's levels do not apply to multiclass spell advancement, so don't get a spot on the list despite having the Spellcasting trait.

Neither, as neither one has the spellcasting trait. Use of the spell point system in different ways leave these classes in catagories of their own. Both IMO approximately equal in power to what I would call a Full Caster.


Don't twist my words, I don't want to play games.

I clearly stated several times that both meanings are valid and that you can reasonably use both. There is no lost value because they are contextually different.

You're nitpicking. Every caster plays a little differently. I can replace Warlock and Pact Magic with Wizard and Spellbook and have the same problem. Categorization isn't about defining every explicit detail.

I'm not trying to twist anything, appologies. I clearly disagree about the lack of lost value. It adds the requirement of establishing the other speaker's context when asking in a vacuum, whch then leads to the need to clairify.

If people get together and start building characters and someone asks "is this guy a full caster" instead of answering, you have to ask them why they want to know, and if they do not yet know, explain all the differences. Don't you agree? If you have to ask if the Warlock is a full caster, you need the whole shabang explained to get an answer. I find it difficult to imagine the conversation when you can just say yes without qualification.

Yes they play a little differently, but the other full casters all follow certain rules together that Warlocks (and Mystics) do not.
Out of interest, and do what?

Do you have a definition of what a Full Caster is? Or are you just content to tell people their opinion is wrong because your opinion is differential?

Don't worry, no mail bombs or anything. they'll just block you.

[DivisibleByZero]

So let me ask you, Matrix, or anyone who claims Warlock is not "full" by your <insert definition here> reason, would you consider the Mystic a full caster?
If not, would you consider him more or less of a caster than a Warlock?
I'm surprised that my responses to these questions are not obvious by my reasoning thus far.

The Mystic (with the exception of the Wu Jen) Does not possess the Spellcasting Trait, so they don't get a spot on the Caster scale here. The Wu Jen is a special case, who's levels do not apply to multiclass spell advancement, so don't get a spot on the list despite having the Spellcasting trait.

Neither, as neither one has the spellcasting trait. Use of the spell point system in different ways leave these classes in catagories of their own. Both IMO approximately equal in power to what I would call a Full Caster.

So Warlock and Mystic are not even casters in your mind, because they do not have the Spellcasting feature?

edit:
Or are you saying that they are no more and no less a caster than others with the Spellcasting trait, but that you for some reason need to differentiate from the word "full" for some strange reason?
It has to be one of those.

[Matrix_Walker]

So Warlock and Mystic are not even casters in your mind, because they do not have the Spellcasting feature?

Correct. They do not use the Spellcasting table, so they don't qualify. They are Pact Casters and Psi Point users deserving of their own classifications (and if 5e Proliferates to have "Half Pact Casters" and "Third-Psions" that will be great, and the need for their distinctions will be even more important when you are playing a guy who's multiclassing a half-pact caster and a full pact caster as their abilities will combine with each other, but not with the levels of any other catagory.

Edit:

Note also, if there are half-pact casters, Warlocks would be best catagorized as Full Pact Casters, and if there are third-psions, the mystic would be a "Full Psion"

"Full" is reference as the part of the whole for their contribution to their area of expertise in an area where these abilities have cumulative effect from being combined. "Full" - "Half" - "Third"

We don't have to say "Full Pact Magic" at this point, becasue there are no instances of Half or third pact magic.

[MaxWilson]

One interesting thing about the multiclassing-oriented definition of "full caster" is that you could have a full caster, by this definition, who can nevertheless never cast a 3th level spell at 20th level. E.g. a Bard 4/Wizard 4/Cleric 4/Sorcerer 4/Druid 4 gets to count all of his levels 1:1 on the multiclassing spell chart and has tons of high-level spell slots, but he can't use them for beans.

And yes, I have actually played alongside a player whose cleric/wizard actually did spend 9th level spell slots on Chromatic Orb. It made me want to cry. :)

[Matrix_Walker]

One interesting thing about the multiclassing-oriented definition of "full caster" is that you could have a full caster, by this definition, who can nevertheless never cast a 3th level spell at 20th level. E.g. a Bard 4/Wizard 4/Cleric 4/Sorcerer 4/Druid 4 gets to count all of his levels 1:1 on the multiclassing spell chart and has tons of high-level spell slots, but he can't use them for beans.

And yes, I have actually played alongside a player whose cleric/wizard actually did spend 9th level spell slots on Chromatic Orb. It made me want to cry. :)

They might not be able to cast a spell that's base level is over 2, but when you cast a spell with a higher level slot it counts as a higher level spell. The result may not have been as spectacular, but if he used a level 9 spell slot to cast magic missile, he just cast a 9th level spell.

[MaxWilson]

They might not be able to cast a spell that's base level is over 2, but when you cast a spell with a higher level slot it counts as a higher level spell. The result may not have been as spectacular, but if he used a level 9 spell slot to cast magic missile, he just cast a 9th level spell.

And that is tragic.

[DivisibleByZero]

Correct. They do not use the Spellcasting table, so they don't qualify.

OK, so you actually believe that Warlocks are not spellcasters. Gotcha.
You are wrong. Demonstrably and veritably so. Warlocks are Spellcasters.
This is why we're having this disconnect. Because you believe that anyone who lacks the Spellcasting feature cannot be a spellcaster. And I say again, you're wrong, and that's why this has raged on so long.

[Matrix_Walker]

OK, so you actually believe that Warlocks are not spellcasters. Gotcha.
You are wrong. Demonstrably and veritably so. Warlocks are Spellcasters.
This is why we're having this disconnect. Because you believe that anyone who lacks the Spellcasting feature cannot be a spellcaster. And I say again, you're wrong, and that's why this has raged on so long.

They obviously cast spells, but they absolutely do not posess the "Spellcasting" trait and therefore do not fit into the neat "caster" catagories.

You are muddying general language and game terminology. If a Wizard entered into a pact with another wizard to teach him wizard magic, that would not make him a pact caster, it would be a colorful detail without mechanical impact.

[DivisibleByZero]

They obviously cast spells, but they absolutely do not posess the "Spellcasting" trait and therefore do not fit into the neat "caster" catagories.

You are muddying general language and game terminology. If a Wizard entered into a pact with another wizard to teach him wizard magic, that would not make him a pact caster, it would be a colorful detail without mechanical impact.

So you admit that they cast spells. You admit that they are spellcasters. You admit that they are approximately equivalent in power to the other casters.
But you take issue with the fact that their spellcasting mechanic is different, and therefore they are not truly casters.

But *I'm* the one muddying general language?

[Matrix_Walker]

So you admit that they cast spells. You admit that they are spellcasters. You admit that they are approximately equivalent in power to the other casters.
But you take issue with the fact that their spellcasting mechanic is different, and therefore they are not truly casters.

But *I'm* the one muddying general language?

I have no issue that it is different. My issue is that it is incompatible.

[Nifft]

They might not be able to cast a spell that's base level is over 2, but when you cast a spell with a higher level slot it counts as a higher level spell. The result may not have been as spectacular, but if he used a level 9 spell slot to cast magic missile, he just cast a 9th level spell.

I'd suggest Bestow Curse as the example here, since it's available to Warlocks (through an Invocation), and seems quite in-theme for the Warlock, and there are valid scenarios where an intelligent person might want to up-cast it using a 9th level slot.

Warlock is screwed out of Warlock-like behavior by not having any 9th level slot, and this deficit is because the Warlock is not a full-caster (and is in fact a Monk).

[Tanarii]

So Warlock and Mystic are not even casters in your mind, because they do not have the Spellcasting feature?


Correct. They do not use the Spellcasting table, so they don't qualify.


(and is in fact a Monk).
At this point, the arguments against warlocks have gone completely off the rails. :smallamused:

[Matrix_Walker]

At this point, the arguments against warlocks have gone completely off the rails. :smallamused:

As I've said before "Caster" in this context is shorthand for "The Spellcasting Trait" Otherwise the terms Half, Third and Full Caster make zero sense.

[DivisibleByZero]

I have no issue that it is different. My issue is that it is incompatible.

And as we have established, and as you certainly already know, the only incompatibility it has with anything is with an optional rule.

So just to recap:
You admit they cast spells.
You admit they are spellcasters.
You admit they follow the same pattern for gaining new spell levels as the other casters in the game.
You admit that they have approximately equivalent power to the other casters in the game.
But they are not casters in your eyes, because they don't play well with one particular optional rule in the book.

But *I'm* the one muddying general language....
Got it.

[Nifft]

You admit they follow the same pattern for gaining new spell levels as the other casters in the game.


Not that guy, but I think this is the pattern he means:

https://i.imgur.com/w2uQFcK.png

That seems to accurately represent full-, half-, and third-casters.

Sorry if I'm getting his argument wrong.

[DivisibleByZero]

Not that guy, but I think this is the pattern he means:

https://i.imgur.com/w2uQFcK.png

That seems to accurately represent full-, half-, and third-casters.

Sorry if I'm getting his argument wrong.

And look at what level Warlocks get their spells.
1st lvl @ 1, 2nd lvl @ 3, so on and so forth, culminating in 9th @ lvl 17
That's the same progression as that table you're showing.
His problem is that Pact Magic doesn't get to play on that chart. But Multiclassing is an optional rule.
So he's discounting Warlocks as even being casters at all (his words) because they don't play well with one specific optional rules.
Because that's logical.

[Nifft]

And look at what level Warlocks get their spells.
1st lvl @ 1, 2nd lvl @ 3, so on and so forth, culminating in 9th @ lvl 17
That's the same progression as that table you're showing.
His problem is that Pact Magic doesn't get to play on that chart. But Multiclassing is an optional rule.
So he's discounting Warlocks as even being casters at all (his words) because they don't play well with one specific optional rules.
Because that's logical.

Four Elements Monk also get spells "on time" as a third-caster.

But the 4EM spell slots don't follow the above chart.

The Warlock also doesn't follow the chart.

Therefore, Warlocks are Monks.

Perfectly logical, right?

[EvilAnagram]

This might be the least important discussion I've seen on this forum. The spambots at least have a goal in mind. One hundred seventy posts in, and I can't figure out why anyone here is arguing, aside from, "someone is wrong on the internet!"

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate semantics for establishing a basis of discussion, but this is semantics for the sake of semantics.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This might be the least important discussion I've seen on this forum. The spambots at least have a goal in mind. One hundred seventy posts in, and I can't figure out why anyone here is arguing, aside from, "someone is wrong on the internet!"

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate semantics for establishing a basis of discussion, but this is semantics for the sake of semantics.

https://media.giphy.com/media/GQnsaAWZ8ty00/giphy.gif

Exactly. I love semantic arguments when there's a point to them. This is not one of those cases.

[GlenSmash!]

This might be the least important discussion I've seen on this forum. The spambots at least have a goal in mind. One hundred seventy posts in, and I can't figure out why anyone here is arguing, aside from, "someone is wrong on the internet!"

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate semantics for establishing a basis of discussion, but this is semantics for the sake of semantics.

I for one consider this circle sufficiently jerked.

[Matrix_Walker]

And as we have established, and as you certainly already know, the only incompatibility it has with anything is with an optional rule.

So just to recap:
You admit they cast spells.
You admit they are spellcasters.
You admit they follow the same pattern for gaining new spell levels as the other casters in the game.
You admit that they have approximately equivalent power to the other casters in the game.
But they are not casters in your eyes, because they don't play well with one particular optional rule in the book.

But *I'm* the one muddying general language....
Got it.

Yes, they cast spells without the spellcasting trait. Just like Monks, Magic Adepts, Wu Jen Mystics, Teiflings with infernal legacy, and Elf races with a cantrip. Including these only adds confusion with no useful application.

They are not "Casters" (short for "posessing the spellcasting feature") as it pertains to the fractional to full designations as they are not cumulative.

You insist on reiterating that Multiclassing is optional, but I've never seen it not used, but still feel it's appropriate to site spell points, an optional rule I've never seen used by anyone. If I have to stop referencing Multiclassing (the only place the terms have any useful meaning in the first place) you really need to give up on the spell point arguments.

Note: I am still waiting on an acceptable definition of "Full Caster" as you see it. I take it to assume that you include Mystics, most of whome do not even cast spells at all, as full casters as well?

[DivisibleByZero]

Yes, they cast spells without the spellcasting trait. Just like Monks, Magic Adepts, Wu Jen Mystics, Teiflings with infernal legacy, and Elf races with a cantrip. Including these only adds confusion with no useful application.

They are not "Casters" (short for "posessing the spellcasting feature") as it pertains to the fractional to full designations as they are not cumulative.
Those are all casters. All of them.
Your designation of "casters" being short for "possessing the spellcasting feature" is exclusionary garbage.
Caster is not short for anything other than Spellcaster. It has nothing to do with the Spellcasting feature and everything to do with whether or not you can cast spells. Any spells.
You're being arbitrarily exclusionary. I'm being pointedly inclusive.


You insist on reiterating that Multiclassing is optional, but I've never seen it not used, but still feel it's appropriate to site spell points, an optional rule I've never seen used by anyone. If I have to stop referencing Multiclassing (the only place the terms have any useful meaning in the first place) you really need to give up on the spell point arguments.
I reference the spell point variant because it is relevant to determine power levels, and because it is relevant to determine how the Warlock was built the way that it was.
You're arbitrarily excluding something from the definition of something else because of an optional rule that might not be in play.
I'm including something because of an optional rule that is relevant to the discussion on design and power levels.


Note: I am still waiting on an acceptable definition of "Full Caster" as you see it. I take it to assume that you include Mystics, most of whome do not even cast spells at all, as full casters as well?
I think I've made my position clear on it. But yes, since you asked, Mystics are primary casters, and follow the power guidelines/standards set forth by the other casters, so I consider them full casters, absolutely.
You = arbitrarily exclusionary
Me = reason and evidence based inclusivity

:smallamused:

[Tanarii]

You insist on reiterating that Multiclassing is optional, but I've never seen it not used, but still feel it's appropriate to site spell points, an optional rule I've never seen used by anyone. 1) I run my campaign without multiclassing. Your definition is pointless as far as I'm concerned. (Edit: that's not to say I don't understand how you or anyone else thinking about multiclassing might find it useful. To be clear.)
2) Your personal experience doesn't make it any less of an optional rule.

[Hesh]

You are being arbitrarily inclusive, and he is being reasonably exclusive, DivisibleByZero.

[DivisibleByZero]

You are being arbitrarily inclusive, and he is being reasonably exclusive, DivisibleByZero.

He's excluding warlocks from even being a caster at all because they don't have the spellcasting feature.
That's not reasonable. That's flat out incorrect.
Basing your entire stance on something that is demonstrably incorrect is the opposite of reasonable.

[TheYell]

A while back I asked "So What" and haven't really seen an answer.

I think the point of the thread to some of us, is, that people who don't really know how to use a warlock have come up with terminology to further their ignorance, and expect us to share in it. So that noobs, instead of learning how to use the warlock properly, will avoid the class because "it's not a Full Caster".

[PhoenixPhyre]

One meaningful difference between the definitions: by one definition a warlock can't attune to a wand of binding, while by the other they can.

It specifically requires attunement "by a spellcaster". Same with several other wands.

I remember vaguely some SA that said "if you can cast a spell, you can attune that item", but maybe not.

[DivisibleByZero]

One meaningful difference between the definitions: by one definition a warlock can't attune to a wand of binding, while by the other they can.

It specifically requires attunement "by a spellcaster". Same with several other wands.

I remember vaguely some SA that said "if you can cast a spell, you can attune that item", but maybe not.

Yep. Because anyone who can cast a single spell on their own (without the aid of a magical item or the like) is a spellcaster.
An high elf barbarian could attune to that wand, because he can cast a cantrip of his own power, which makes him a spellcaster.

[Matrix_Walker]

Those are all casters. All of them.
Your designation of "casters" being short for "possessing the spellcasting feature" is exclusionary garbage.
Caster is not short for anything other than Spellcaster. It has nothing to do with the Spellcasting feature and everything to do with whether or not you can cast spells. Any spells.
You're being arbitrarily exclusionary. I'm being pointedly inclusive.


I reference the spell point variant because it is relevant to determine power levels, and because it is relevant to determine how the Warlock was built the way that it was.
You're arbitrarily excluding something from the definition of something else because of an optional rule that might not be in play.
I'm including something because of an optional rule that is relevant to the discussion on design and power levels.


I think I've made my position clear on it. But yes, since you asked, Mystics are primary casters, and follow the power guidelines/standards set forth by the other casters, so I consider them full casters, absolutely.
You = arbitrarily exclusionary
Me = reason and evidence based inclusivity

:smallamused:
Sure, I'm being exclusionary. You have to be to set catagories and their subsets.
My creiteria is very specific and basically right out of the book (yes, in an optional section), so I'm not sure how it can be interpreted as arbitrary.

Of course I'm basing it on the spellcasting trait in area's of multiclassing, as it's the only context it appears in print in the game.

Ironically, you present us with mathematical evidence of equivalency, while I see the term as a set variable. If that variable is no longer static (saying 3 or 3.25 depending on the day is close enough to pi (3.14...), discussions involving that variable fall apart. A fluctuating constant is worthless. The arches cannot stand, and if someone says, "if I have 5 full caster levels and 6 half caster levels, what level spellcaster am I?" I no longer have the infomation to answer, and if I want to tell someone they can take a full caster level to increase their highest spell slot level a little faster, I have to be sure they know I mean any full caster except Warlocks or mystics. Individually all very minor things that are highly situational to be sure, but they will keep coming up constantly.

Grouping them with those with the spellcasting trait, in short, makes it a pain in the ass.

What my problem seems to be here, is that I'm failing to see the benefit. If I saw an upside to diluting the definition, I'd be more amenable, but broadening the scope ends it's usefulness. Maybe "Full Caster" isn't the best term for the full progression spellcasters, but it seels to be the right one for the array: 1/3, 1/2, Full.

You don't need a list of the things long rest full casters have in common that are not true with the Warlock to see they are a bit different. A 9th level Pact Caster can cast 30 5th level spells in a day as long as they are taking it easy between, why lump them with the mere Spellcasting Trait peons limited to a handful?

Me=Logic based inclusion following the rules on PBH pg 165 to have a useful metric
You=Smart fella who might need to look up the word "arbitrary"



1) I run my campaign without multiclassing. Your definition is pointless as far as I'm concerned. (Edit: that's not to say I don't understand how you or anyone else thinking about multiclassing might find it useful. To be clear.)
2) Your personal experience doesn't make it any less of an optional rule.

Fair enough, but optional or not, they are both part of the game and reveal mechanics and our thinking processes. We can only speak to our own experience. I really don't think whether or not they are optional is very relevant, but it had been pointed out that my argument was based in an optional rule, so I thought it natural to point out that the opposition argument was similarly based.

[Unoriginal]

Does anyone here really think the game's designers had concept such as "full caster", "half-caster" or the like when they wrote the game?

[DivisibleByZero]

My creiteria is very specific and basically right out of the book

Right out of the book insofar as it's completely wrong?
Warlocks are casters. Your criteria claims they are not. So your criteria is wrong and is certainly not right out of the book.

[Matrix_Walker]

Right out of the book insofar as it's completely wrong?
Warlocks are casters. Your criteria claims they are not. So your criteria is wrong and is certainly not right out of the book.

As I have said many times, of course, they are spellcasters, but it is my contention that the "caster" part of Half-caster et all, is a specific reference to the Spellcasting Class Feature, as that is where it is defined under determining how many spell slots you get.


Does anyone here really think the game's designers had concept such as "full caster", "half-caster" or the like when they wrote the game?
They certainly had the concept. They may have used different terminology, but it's clear in the presentation.
Under The Spellcasting Feature:
"You determine your available spell slots by adding together all your levels 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 leveis (rounded down) if you have the Eldritch Knight or the Arcane Trickster feature. Use this total to determine your spell slots by consulting the Multiclass Spellcaster table."

[TheYell]

They certainly had the concept. They may have used different terminology,

Completely wrong. And backwards. You're the one diverging from the rulebook. The rulebook is not agreeing with your homebrew, in different words. Get that straight from the getgo.

We've gone from "We've made up a term that most people understand" to "The rulebook applies to our made-up term, kinda."

That's cheating.

[Snowbluff]

This might be the least important discussion I've seen on this forum. The spambots at least have a goal in mind. One hundred seventy posts in, and I can't figure out why anyone here is arguing, aside from, "someone is wrong on the internet!"

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate semantics for establishing a basis of discussion, but this is semantics for the sake of semantics.

Agreed. It's important to define your terms and then move on, which is why I stepped in to provide one so a productive conclusion would be reach. :smallannoyed:

[DivisibleByZero]

As I have said many times, of course, they are spellcasters, but it is my contention that the "caster" part of Half-caster et all, is a specific reference to the Spellcasting Class Feature, as that is where it is defined under determining how many spell slots you get.

And your contention? It's baseless. It has no basis in fact. You are taking the word caster, which is just another way of saying spellcaster, and placing extraneous connotations into it about specific claas features that are allowed and specific class features that are not allowed.
There is no basis for this.
It is.... Arbitrary.




any class with a feature that says "you can cast" is considered a caster then? Shadow/Elements monks both have this kind of class feature.

If you can cast even one spell on your own—not with something like a magic item—you're a spellcaster, Harry. #DnD

The words "caster" and "spellcaster" are interchangable. It only has any connection to the Spellcasting feature in your mind, and your mind alone. That's an arbitrary exemption you're including.

[TheYell]

Now they're arguing their semantics allow a DM to deny spell slots to a multiclass warlock under the rulebook, because its not a "full caster".

[DivisibleByZero]

As I said back in the beginning, we could go in circles for weeks and not agree. So I'll make this my last post on the subject (If I can resist).
I posted it before but one more time won't hurt.

Bottom Line: It's right here.

A list of the Full Progression Spellcasters, Half progression Spellcasters, and Third Progression Spellcasters, so referred to by their behavior as it pertains to their spell advancement due to having the Spellcasting Class Feature, right out of the players handbook.

But none of that means that Warlocks. Are. Not. Spellcasters.
They use a different mechanic. Yes. We're all aware. That different mechanic does not interact with the table that specifically only works with the Spellcasting feature. Yes. We're all aware.
But that has no bearing on your exclusion of the Warlock as a caster. The word caster does not, in any way, refer to that table. That's all in your head, and it's arbitrary.
You keep bringing it up and referring to that table, but that table is completely irrelevant.

[Unoriginal]

Warlock NPCs have the Spellcasting trait, btw.

[Hesh]

Does anyone have a definition for what a Full caster is, so that we can point out where they are incorrect because I believe differently and think they are being arbitrarily exclusionary or arbitrarily inclusive as appropriate to my bias?

[TheYell]

Does anyone have a definition for what a Full caster is, so that we can point out where they are incorrect because I believe differently and think they are being arbitrarily exclusionary or arbitrarily inclusive as appropriate to my bias?

It's jargon. It has no agreed definition.

It's not in the rulebook.

You're not allowed to interpret rules based on your own invented jargon.

[Hesh]

It's jargon. It has no agreed definition.

It's not in the rulebook.

You're not allowed to interpret rules based on your own invented jargon.

Apparently this thread says otherwise. And I want to join in calling people wrong because they have different opinions :( It seems so much fun.

[Matrix_Walker]

Guess I couldn't resist.


But none of that means that Warlocks. Are. Not. Spellcasters.
They use a different mechanic. Yes. We're all aware. That different mechanic does not interact with the table that specifically only works with the Spellcasting feature. Yes. We're all aware.
But that has no bearing on your exclusion of the Warlock as a caster. The word caster does not, in any way, refer to that table. That's all in your head, and it's arbitrary.
You keep bringing it up and referring to that table, but that table is completely irrelevant.

I don't see why you feel the need to continue to mischaracterize my statement. If it were not initially clear, I'm sorry, but I have clarified it many times now.

Warlocks are spellcasters, they have the spellcasting trait. Warlocks do not however, have the "Spellcasting Class Feature" having "Pact Magic Class Feature" instead.

the Full, half and third casters are named in a complete list under the spell slot section describing behavior of those with the Spellcasting Class Feature.

Not everyone with the spellcasting trait (anyone with racial spells, Monks, Pact Casters) posess the "Spellcasting Class Feature."

Restriction of the term to the classes with the spellcasting trait where the complete list appears is not arbitrary. There is no question that all the third and half casters all posess the spellcasting class feature as do all the full casters that no one would dispute. This isn't in my head, it's just the facts. Including anyone without the Spellcasting Class Feature breaks the mold. That is why I interpret "Caster" when presented with "half" "third" & "full" as an abreviation of "Spellcasting Class Feature"

I understand we are not going to agree, I knew that out of the gate, but there is no need to twist my meaning when I have clairified it.

[DivisibleByZero]

I don't see why you feel the need to continue to mischaracterize my statement.
I'm not mischaracterizing anything.


So Warlock and Mystic are not even casters in your mind, because they do not have the Spellcasting feature?
Correct. They do not use the Spellcasting table, so they don't qualify.
I asked if they were casters.
You replied in the negative.
In your eyes, Warlocks are not casters at all, because you arbitrarily and incorrectly define that as "someone who has the Spellcasting feature, and all others do not count at all."
Anyone who lacks the Spellcasting class feature does not qualify as a caster.
Your words. So how am I mischaracterizing them?

[Matrix_Walker]

I had already explained that in this discussion, that these were my assumptions.


That "Full" is shorthand for Full Progression on the Spellcaster Table.
That "Caster" is shorthand for "Possessing the Spellcasting Feature."



I'm not mischaracterizing anything.


I asked if they were casters.
You replied in the negative.
In your eyes, Warlocks are not casters at all, because you arbitrarily and incorrectly define that as "someone who has the Spellcasting feature, and all others do not count at all."
Anyone who lacks the Spellcasting class feature does not qualify as a caster.
Your words.

Yes, which I clarified, yet you continue to pick out that statement saying that warlocks not being 'casters' was demonstrably wrong, when in fact, if you are accepting my terminology for the discussion, is demonstrably TRUE. They do not have the Class Feature.

You also keep calling my definition arbitrary, when it is clearly based on a specific system detailed in the book. You can disagree, but it's certainly not arbitrary.

If you want me to get arbitrary, I can do that too

--------------------

What to all full casters have in common...?

At 20th level...
...They have the Spellcasting Class Feature
...They can know or have prepared at least 2 spells of each level from 6 to 9
...They can cast a spell of level 3 or higher with a spell slot every round in a 10 round combat and have plenty of spell slots left over.
...They have 2 6th level and 2 7th level spell slots per day.
...They can have multiclass with another Full Caster class and have their spell power, as measured by slot level, advance unabated.

[Tanarii]

Does anyone have a definition for what a Full caster is, so that we can point out where they are incorrect because I believe differently and think they are being arbitrarily exclusionary or arbitrarily inclusive as appropriate to my bias?


It's jargon. It has no agreed definition.

It's not in the rulebook.

You're not allowed to interpret rules based on your own invented jargon.


Apparently this thread says otherwise. And I want to join in calling people wrong because they have different opinions :( It seems so much fun.
Here ya go, from page 3.

A) Progresses to 9th level spells at level 17.
B) Progresses to 9th level spells at level 17, and has Spellcasting class feature.
C) Other
D) Banana

Done.

(Edit: Yes, I'm fully aware that's biased. :smallbiggrin: )I highly recommend option D. Clearly it's the most logical, and anyone who doesn't disagree must be wrong. Or if you prefer to attack their character as well, you can always go for one of irrational, intellectually dishonest, not arguing in good faith, or insulting or attacking you instead of your argument (when they aren't). Those are all time honored forum debate tactics.

[DivisibleByZero]

I had already explained that in this discussion, that these were my assumptions.


That "Full" is shorthand for Full Progression on the Spellcaster Table.
That "Caster" is shorthand for "Possessing the Spellcasting Feature."
Your assumptions are wrong. That's the problem.


Yes, which I clarified, yet you continue to pick out that statement saying that warlocks not being 'casters' was demonstrably wrong, when in fact, if you are accepting my terminology for the discussion, is demonstrably TRUE. They do not have the Class Feature.
I'm not accepting your terminology, because that terminology is incorrect.
The word Full is not shorthand for "Full Progression on the Spellcaster Table."
The word Spellcaster is not shorthand for "Possessing the Spellcasting feature."
Give up on that Multiclass Spellcasting table. That has zero to do with it. You continue to base your terminology on an Optional Rule that doesn't even apply to every game. That is your mistake.

If a DM decides to remove Reactions from his game, then basing game terms around the idea of Reactions is a mistake. This is why basing your game terms around an Optional Rule is a mistake, because the Core game does not include the thing you're using as a basis of determination.

And before you get on about my use of Spell Points, first, that is only as a frame of reference. Second, I can easily remove that and replace it with the rules for creating slots with sorcery points. My frame of reference and my argument do not alter at all if we make that change. What happens to your entire argument when we remove the optional multiclass rules?

[Hesh]

Here ya go, from page 3.
I highly recommend option D. Clearly it's the most logical, and anyone who doesn't disagree must be wrong. Or if you prefer to attack their character as well, you can always go for one of irrational, intellectually dishonest, not arguing in good faith, or insulting or attacking you instead of your argument (when they aren't). Those are all time honored forum debate tactics.

I like those. Can we invoke Godwins law also?

[Matrix_Walker]

Your assumptions are wrong. That's the problem.
...
Give up on that Multiclass Spellcasting table. That has zero to do with it. You continue to base your terminology on an Optional Rule that doesn't even apply to every game. That is your mistake.
You can certainly choose not accept my use of the terminology as correct, but you still should present the position honestly in terminology you do accept.
It is disingenuous to take my statement that equates to "they do not have the spellcasting Class Feature" and present it as "he thinks warlocks can't cast spells"


But none of that means that Warlocks. Are. Not. Spellcasters.



If a DM decides to remove Reactions from his game, then basing game terms around the idea of Reactions is a mistake. This is why basing your game terms around an Optional Rule is a mistake, because the Core game does not include the thing you're using as a basis of determination.

And before you get on about my use of Spell points, first, that is only as a frame of reference. Second, I can easily remove that and replace it with the rules for creating slots work sorcery points. My frame of reference does not change of we make that change. What happens to your entire argument when we remove the optional multiclass rules?

But it is not anchored to the optional rule, it's based on generic uniform progression. That is simply where is is best illustrated in the text. It is a convenient reprinting of the standard spellcasting advancement table without class labels, and an observation of the rate at which the full and fractional casters advance. Just like your use of spell points, it is merely a frame of reference. Without the optional rule, the 6 full casting classes would just continue to use their Full Casting advancement rate, and the fractional casters would at their fractional rates. Knowing what level caster or half caster a character is would still reveal their number of slots by looking at any Full Caster advancement table. Removing multiclassing changes nothing.

[TheYell]

Arbitrary
.
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.



My creiteria is very specific and basically right out of the book (yes, in an optional section), so I'm not sure how it can be interpreted as arbitrary.

Of course I'm basing it on the spellcasting trait in area's of multiclassing, as it's the only context it appears in print in the game.

Ironically, you present us with mathematical evidence of equivalency, while I see the term as a set variable. If that variable is no longer static (saying 3 or 3.25 depending on the day is close enough to pi (3.14...), discussions involving that variable fall apart. A fluctuating constant is worthless. The arches cannot stand, and if someone says, "if I have 5 full caster levels and 6 half caster levels, what level spellcaster am I?" I no longer have the infomation to answer, and if I want to tell someone they can take a full caster level to increase their highest spell slot level a little faster, I have to be sure they know I mean any full caster except Warlocks or mystics. Individually all very minor things that are highly situational to be sure, but they will keep coming up constantly.

Grouping them with those with the spellcasting trait, in short, makes it a pain in the ass.

What my problem seems to be here, is that I'm failing to see the benefit.

All sincere I'm sure, but it's as if you decided it was a pain in the ass and unfair to have XP dished out equally to warlocks and wizards alike. You would find nothing in the book against it, and you have the same spell progression to deduce from, so....logically...

[Matrix_Walker]

Arbitrary
.
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
Right, and the system is spelled out in the description of the spellcasting class feature.


All sincere I'm sure, but it's as if you decided it was a pain in the ass and unfair to have XP dished out equally to warlocks and wizards alike. You would find nothing in the book against it, and you have the same spell progression to deduce from, so....logically...
I'm not sure what you mean here. Nothing in the book against what? XP distribution doesn't enter into it. What's a pain in the ass is turning a constant with predictable behavior and a useful function into a guideline with a vague definition.

[Snowbluff]

The notion that there should be no term for the role a wizard or a cleric fulfills in a team is patently ridiculous. Him using the term full caster to make this distinction for the sake of discussion means there's a reason why he did it, hence it's not arbitrary.

Also, arguing against the concept is arguing in bad faith.

[Hesh]

The notion that there should be no term for the role a wizard or a cleric fulfills in a team is patently ridiculous. Him using the term full caster to make this distinction for the sake of discussion means there's a reason why he did it, hence it's not arbitrary.

Also, arguing against the concept is arguing in bad faith.

A life cleric performs so differently from an Illusion or Evoker Wizard though, so how can you equate the two?

[Nifft]

A life cleric performs so differently from an Illusion or Evoker Wizard though, so how can you equate the two?

I'm not that poster, but both a Cleric and a Wizard have access to plot-device tiers of spells (level 6+) at high levels.

Also, I don't see anyone ~equating~ the two, I just see someone saying that there's something about their role that they have in common.

[Snowbluff]

I'm not that poster, but both a Cleric and a Wizard have access to plot-device tiers of spells (level 6+) at high levels.

Also, I don't see anyone ~equating~ the two, I just see someone saying that there's something about their role that they have in common.
This. Basically, your job is to lob large effects, be it heals or buffs or utilities or even damage spells. While wizard and cleric will have some differences in what spells they provide, they both are closer to each other than they are to fighter in terms of role and abilities.

Which is great, because I'm DMing SKT for a team that is a fighter, a monk, and a druid. Only having a single caster is miles apart from when I went through it as a player, where we have a rogue, warlock, a cleric, and a bard.

[GreyBlack]

The answer here is simple: the Warlock is the Warlock. It just kinda does its own thing. It's like asking what role the Monk plays in the party.

[bid]

The answer here is simple: the Warlock is the Warlock. It just kinda does its own thing. It's like asking what role the Monk plays in the party.
Does the Monk count as a full martial?

[SkylarkR6]

Does the Monk count as a full martial?

Of course not. Martials get their resources back on a long rest. Obviously monk is it's own classification since it gets ki back on short rests. I think we should call them something else so as not to confuse the issue

[Nifft]

The answer here is simple: the Warlock is the Warlock. It just kinda does its own thing. It's like asking what role the Monk plays in the party.

Therefore, the Warlock is a Monk.

[Tanarii]

Of course not. Martials get their resources back on a long rest. Obviously monk is it's own classification since it gets ki back on short rests. I think we should call them something else so as not to confuse the issue
Nonsense. Clearly the real definition of full martial is no spells or rituals cast all. :smallwink:

[bid]

Nonsense. Clearly the real definition of full martial is no spells or rituals cast all. :smallwink:
You are wrong.*

Clearly the only full martial are barbarian and monk. They are mentioned twice in the MC section, once for extra attack (which they share with half-martial), and also for unarmored defense. Spirit seeker is not in the MC section, you cannot use it to define full martial.

*:smallwink:

[DivisibleByZero]

You are wrong.*

Clearly the only full martial are barbarian and monk. They are mentioned twice in the MC section, once for extra attack (which they share with half-martial), and also for unarmored defense. Spirit seeker is not in the MC section, you cannot use it to define full martial.

*:smallwink:

This post wins the entire thread! :smallbiggrin: