Is the warlock's theme lacking mechanical support?

[Corran]

I've been thinking of warlocks lately, and I came to the following conclusion. Their theme is lacking for me. I basically see them as sort of an arcane cleric, with the only difference that the patron could be much more actively involved than an actual deity. This is great for highlighting a certain creature or type of creatures (eg archfey and fiends), but what about the character itself? Sure, the invocations are a nice way of grabbing some unique flavor for the warlock (which in some cases can step on toes of other themes; eg silent image and the illusionist), but I don't think they are enough on their own to do the trick. A slightly different spell list and a different way of casting (pact magic, mystic Arcanum) and a stronger (but blunt) cantrip, these things are only a superficial way of trying to give the class a distinct identity. Where is the hidden ancient knowledge that warlocks supposedly unlock? Where are the arcane secrets (and the general sense of mysticism; though this might just be me when thinking of what a warlock is) that this class promises?

Don't get me wrong. Having a patron to interact with from time to time can be more than enough for someone to want to play this class above any other, particularly when the DM takes on this opportunity to provide solid rp. Plus, patrons can be a story vehicle. And I have no problem with how the class functions mechanically. But I think that warlocks need more unique mechanics. And since they are primarily casters, that means more unique spells, instead of just giving them a subset of the wizard's spell list and adding just a few spells from here and there. Because once again, their theme revolves around finding mystical/lost knowledge. And I think this needs more mechanical support, than just adding a flavorful but lacking idea in the lines of replacing your spellbook with a talking figure you can interact with from time to time.

Thoughts?

[stoutstien]

I think the theme(s) is fine but the warlock is stretched pretty thin trying to cover too many at once like the ranger. The warlock has to be built around some vagueness due to having a duel class path design which IMO gives it a good feel mechanically but it does give it a weird feel of shopping for features vs making a pact with a powerful entity.

[firelistener]

IMO warlock already has a great niche for being the short-rest caster. All other casters, including Eldritch Knight Fighters and Rangers, rely on long rests to recover their spells (for the most part). Warlocks are built to be cantrip-heavy, better-equipped for melee, and get their spell slots back on short rest. Even ignoring the invocations and subclass pact features, a basic warlock is going to play very differently from a wizard or cleric over the course of an adventuring day.

From a lore perspective, I also see that more in line with a warlock than a wizard, personally. Whereas the wizard has a broad education and knows lots of spells, warlocks have only a handful of power granted by their patron, and must work hard just to unlock even a single new spell because the knowledge is "hidden" or something.

[Corran]

From a lore perspective, I also see that more in line with a warlock than a wizard, personally. Whereas the wizard has a broad education and knows lots of spells, warlocks have only a handful of power granted by their patron, and must work hard just to unlock even a single new spell because the knowledge is "hidden" or something.
But how hidden is that knowledge when it is accessible to other classes? I am thinking mostly of mystic arcana here. Heck, they are given a different name, but in the end it's just a collection of spells that several other casters can just as easily get. And I think that this undermines the theme I would expect from playing a warlock. For example, conjure fey is very thematic to a warlock serving an archfey, soul cage would also be very thematic for a fiendlock snatching souls for a night hag, etc. But they are not exclusive to warocks, as their lore would have me expect. I am not saying that the solution is to remove such spells from other classes that get them too, because other classes might have just as good of a reason to get such spells. But how hard would it be (for professional game designers) to create a 20-30 extra spells or so and have them be the warlock's choices for mystic arcana and nothing else (probably making different options available to every subclass so that the mechanics of the Arcanum better represent the flavor of every subclass; ie similarly to how different cleric domains allow access to different spells)? Uniqueness is important to every class obviously, and in the warlock's case I think we could do with a little more, and probably mystic arcanum would be the ideal place to add some more of it.

===================

@stoutstien: By dual path do you mean patron and pact? Because I just think of both of these as just flavorful additions (well, the patron mostly) to the warlock's overall theme. But the theme for me revolves around acquiring mystical powers through bargain (unless I have misunderstood something here). And the mystical powers are in short supply IMO, given that the class is basically a fullcaster.

[firelistener]

Oh, I think I understand where you're coming from better now. Yeah, the Warlock-exclusive spell list is indeed pretty small. Even Ranger has more Ranger-only spells than Warlock has Warlock-only spells. Warlock could definitely use a few more.

My guess is that the list is so short primarily because the entire Warlock list is so short in the first place. And that, I'm guessing, is because they're a lot harder to keep balanced. Warlocks can easily build to be melee or magical without putting ABIs into much besides Charisma, and are extremely front-loaded as a multiclass (which is why hexblade is probably the most common multiclass choice out of everything). So every time the designers create a new Warlock spell, they have to test how it plays with an extremely wide variety of builds.

That, and the fact that when new official content is released, it's probably hard to justify saying, "No, this spell is only for this one single class" so you end up with a lot of spells from XGA and the like going on multiple lists like Warlock and Wizard.

[stoutstien]

Oh, I think I understand where you're coming from better now. Yeah, the Warlock-exclusive spell list is indeed pretty small. Even Ranger has more Ranger-only spells than Warlock has Warlock-only spells. Warlock could definitely use a few more.

My guess is that the list is so short primarily because the entire Warlock list is so short in the first place. And that, I'm guessing, is because they're a lot harder to keep balanced. Warlocks can easily build to be melee or magical without putting ABIs into much besides Charisma, and are extremely front-loaded as a multiclass (which is why hexblade is probably the most common multiclass choice out of everything). So every time the designers create a new Warlock spell, they have to test how it plays with an extremely wide variety of builds.

That, and the fact that when new official content is released, it's probably hard to justify saying, "No, this spell is only for this one single class" so you end up with a lot of spells from XGA and the like going on multiple lists like Warlock and Wizard.

I should be noted that the few warlock spells that are exclusive strangely don't work that well with that warlock style of casting like HoH and SoM not scaling.

artificers got zero exclusive spells *sad trombone*

[Tanarii]

If you want them to be a cult leader, "arcane cleric" makes some kind of sense.

But most warlock players I've had either wanted them to be Faust, a researcher who made a deal with a devil, or wanted it to be a onetime blessing bestowed. In other words, basically no patron interaction once they became a warlock. Until the price came due, if any.

As far as forbidden knowledge goes ... they get power. Lots of it. Of course, they have to adventure to keep gaining it same as any other PC. But compared to everyone else in the world they're very powerful.

[Corran]

So every time the designers create a new Warlock spell, they have to test how it plays with an extremely wide variety of builds.
This problem would (entirely) go away if we restrict this to mystic arcanum territory. Now we are talking about warlock specific spells that need only be balanced against spells of similar level (I guess they would need to be balanced when thinking about multiclassing, as everything else, but since we are talking about tier 3+ features this is less of an issue).



That, and the fact that when new official content is released, it's probably hard to justify saying, "No, this spell is only for this one single class" so you end up with a lot of spells from XGA and the like going on multiple lists like Warlock and Wizard.
One easy fix to that would be to tie the mystic arcana to the subclasses. So a fey related mystic arcanum is only available to feylocks, etc. This is done so that the mystic arcana better fit the theme of your subclass/ character theme (in this case influenced by the choice of patron), but it conveniently solves issues like the one you mentioned. Personally, I'd be happy with a minimum of 2 options per spell level (from spell level 6 and onwards) for each subclass, which would bring the number of spells to be desired (at least without limiting other classes) to a minimum of 24 new spells just for the PHB subclasses (with new options released as part of the design of every new subclass). Maybe 3 options instead of 2 would be better for each spells level, if there exists a way to also match these choices with the pact selected (even a little). So for example, a 11th level feylock would have to choose from 2 or 3 options for his 6th level arcanum when reaching this level, all of them fey related and accessible only by feylocks and no one else (with the additional possibility that each of these options could somehow support your choice of pact; though this is obviously not necessary for thematic purposes).

Maybe I just need to dig a little into the homebrew forum, cause the ship has sailed for what I am arguing. I am just curious if this makes sense to anyone else though.

=========================



As far as forbidden knowledge goes ... they get power. Lots of it. Of course, they have to adventure to keep gaining it same as any other PC. But compared to everyone else in the world they're very powerful.
And here is exactly my issue (the part I bolded). The ''they get power'' feels very generic when taking the fluff into consideration. Which makes me think of the warlock as a generic spellcaster with superficial restrictions and differences, which although may be enough to provide a different playstyle experience mechanics-wise, they don't differentiate the class enough flavor wise. And thinking about it more, all it would take to fix this (assuming you agree it's an issue of course) would be something like creating 8-12 new spells for each subclass and make them unique to them.

As is, the warlock does not seem to me like someone who sold his soul (or whatever) for the unique power to do X (cheat death, cancel a prophesy, bring back a soul from the abyss, etc; ie gain powers lost to man), but more like an undergraduate wizard who was too lazy to study and chose the quick and easy way to power. Which is a completely legitimate way to play your warlock, but why have the mechanics -imo specifically mystic arcanum- point to restricting the class's theme just to that?

[ZRN]

And here is exactly my issue (the part I bolded). The ''they get power'' feels very generic when taking the fluff into consideration. Which makes me think of the warlock as a generic spellcaster with superficial restrictions and differences, which although may be enough to provide a different playstyle experience mechanics-wise, they don't differentiate the class enough flavor wise.

First, I'd recommend looking at the very first warlock playtest if you haven't already. The original concept had a lot more flavor hard-coded into the class (and was very cool if not particularly mechanically consistent); IIRC they scaled that back specifically because playtesters didn't like being tied to one specific concept of warlock ("reality hacker").

I think the problem here may be that you're suggesting that e.g. wizards and clerics are "generic spellcasters" but warlocks should be somehow more distinct and more powerful to justify selling their soul. But that doesn't really work in a party-based game. The wizard and the cleric and the druid players want to feel distinct and powerful too!

[Corran]

First, I'd recommend looking at the very first warlock playtest if you haven't already. The original concept had a lot more flavor hard-coded into the class (and was very cool if not particularly mechanically consistent); IIRC they scaled that back specifically because playtesters didn't like being tied to one specific concept of warlock ("reality hacker").
I don't remember seeing this, so I'll certainly look it up. Thanks for mentioning it.


I think the problem here may be that you're suggesting that e.g. wizards and clerics are "generic spellcasters" but warlocks should be somehow more distinct and more powerful to justify selling their soul. But that doesn't really work in a party-based game. The wizard and the cleric and the druid players want to feel distinct and powerful too!
I meant to imply none of this. First of all, I definitely have no problem with the warlock balance-wise, and I am not advocating for making it more powerful. The wizard's and the cleric's theme, and how much this is supported by their mechanics is a whole different conversation. At least I don't think how any of this relates to if the warlock's mechanics support well the theme. My issue, and give me some rope here, is that the warlock advertises itself like a class that gain access to hidden knowledge. Given that this class is a full caster, I'd expect their spells, and more specifically their arcana -which apparently needed a different name but no different mechanics, to embody the lost knowledge a warlock uncovers. And how can this knowledge be lost/secret/whatever if it's just a collection of spells that many other full casters also get? I think the warlock needed their own unique mystic arcana, because without it half of the class's theme is just an empty promise. These unique mystic arcana could just be modeled after spells of similar way for balance purposes, and if created just for the warlock you can better match the fluff of the patrons too. But these last ideas are just afterthoughts of the main idea, which is that the warlock needed unique mystic arcana.

[Joe the Rat]

Two thoughts:

Part of the secrets they get are the usual spells... the other part is Patron features and invocations.

Arcane magics are secrets to everyone. Wizards study their entire lives to uncover the secrets of magic. Sorcerers are some sort of funky juju mutant or mutate, and have to learn how to control their magics. Warlocks however are given the secrets. You don't have to learn the fundamentals to craft spells, you are given the spells. You are given the knowledge, secrets - possibly straight-up uploaded into your brain Neo-Kung-Fu style. Sorcerers and Wizards take time to learn to cast that first cantrip. You could have become a Warlock the day before the game started.

[KorvinStarmast]

Is the warlock's theme lacking mechanical support? yes. If it were an INT caster, the theme would be backed by better mechanical support.

[ZRN]

My issue, and give me some rope here, is that the warlock advertises itself like a class that gain access to hidden knowledge. Given that this class is a full caster, I'd expect their spells, and more specifically their arcana -which apparently needed a different name but no different mechanics, to embody the lost knowledge a warlock uncovers. And how can this knowledge be lost/secret/whatever if it's just a collection of spells that many other full casters also get?

First off, I definitely get what you're saying and don't mean to sound combative; there are definitely places where 5e favors uniform mechanics even though I would prefer it to be more tailored to the theme of a particular class, and I can definitely see warlock as one of those cases. (Sorcerer, or "wizard with more math," is the one that bugs me the most, but I digress.)

However, I think you could still make the case that ALL high-level spells should feel special - and that therefore, if you have to implement new mechanics or different spells to make the warlock stuff feel REALLY special, that's probably indicative of a bigger issue that impacts those other spellcasting classes as well. High-level spells are every bit as essential to defining a high-level wizard or cleric as they are to defining a high-level warlock. The warlock traded his soul for lost knowledge? Well, the wizard put in a lifetime of hard study to unlock lost knowledge!

I guess my question is, does it feel un-special for a warlock to cast, say, Teleport, just because the wizard can also do so? If it does... what should we do about this? Make a different spell with a similar effect? Come up with a different spellcasting mechanic so that the same spell feels different in-game? I mean, you could come up with a whole new class like the Mystic that has an entirely different mechanic for magic, but I assume we're not going that far here.

[Tanarii]

, but more like an undergraduate wizard who was too lazy to study and chose the quick and easy way to power. Which is a completely legitimate way to play your warlock, but why have the mechanics -imo specifically mystic arcanum- point to restricting the class's theme just to that?
Well yes, thats Definitely a common theme.

I agree there's room for more dark and twisted "delver into forbidden secrets" thematic stuff. OTOH they probably didn't want to make it too strong, because D&D is typically either about being heroes or at worst stylish tomb-robbers. I mean, if it were white wolf I'm sure it'd be different. Or Palladium. Compare summoners and witches to D&D warlocks, and it's a whole different ballgame in terms of explicit evil.

[Sorinth]

Although some more warlock specific spells would be cool, the hidden/ancient secrets that the warlock knows is actually the way in which they can access/control magic and not some long forgotten spells.

If you are building a character concept of someone who delves into ancient ruins looking for powerful/secret magics then sure you can be a Warlock, but you can just as easily be a Wizard who studies ancient magics adding what they learn to their spellbook. And if you want to have that demonic pact aspect, go ahead, not everyone who makes a pact with a Fiend becomes a Warlock. You are still a wizard who just made a pact, it's a thread in your backstory for the DM to play with like any other powerful friend/enemy in your backstory.


At the end of the day the classes are meant to be vague enough to cover a broad range of character concepts, and most concepts can be done in a variety of ways.

[thompur]

Actually, I think it would have been more thematic to get more unique powers, more invocations, instead of spells. I guess what I would prefer is something more in line with the 3.5 Warlock.

[Dienekes]

Perfectly honest, I kinda think the mechanics of the warlock being a short rest based, relatively limited number of spells known, cantrip spamming charisma caster fit the lore of a Sorcerer far more than the Warlock.

The Sorcerer is the one that is drawing from their own natural inclination, meaning they might get tired and thus be short rest based. They don't have the training to fine tune their spells, meaning whenever they use them they are at their full power. That makes sense to me.

The Warlock drawing power from some otherwordly patron either through agreement or leeching off it. I don't really know how to represent that mechanically. Perhaps ways to upcast spells or use powerful class abilities at a cost imposed upon them by their patron. GOOlock could potentially go mad from their efforts, but more likely just suffer Disadvantage on Wisdom saving throws for awhile.

But the abilities would have to be pretty cool and useful to impose such a penalty upon them.

[Man_Over_Game]

The warlock has to be built around some vagueness due to having a duel class path design which IMO gives it a good feel mechanically but it does give it a weird feel of shopping for features vs making a pact with a powerful entity.

I kinda think that does fit the mechanics, honestly. Unlike the other sources of power, the Warlock is one that makes a trade. Everyone else kinda follows their benefactor, while the Warlock chooses one.

Those powers you pick are the reason you're a Warlock, not a side effect.

[stoutstien]

I kinda think that does fit the mechanics, honestly. Unlike the other sources of power, the Warlock is one that makes a trade. Everyone else kinda follows their benefactor, while the Warlock chooses one.

Those powers you pick are the reason you're a Warlock, not a side effect.

I can see that. I actually wish that more classes that had more than one path option available like the warlock.

What I wish for is more of the trade feel without going to far into the way of old with DM taking away features because of RP choices. Less Great Expectations and more Enchantment. I don't know exactly what I think it should look like but I think the patrons seem like NPCs with no real character.

[MrStabby]

I do agree. I do think that warlocks should get more warlock only spells - although I will grant that Sorcerer is proably ahead of them in that queue.

I think one issue is that the patron is so thematically strong. There are a bunle of spells absolutely apt for one patron but not another. At low levels this is kind of OK because the patrons have their own spell list - I would like to also see these lists extended so that certain patrons would also grant access to certain mystic arcana.

One problem that the Warlock has is it only ever has spell slots of one level available (ignoring multiclasing). The way that spells do not upcast very well means that of a diverse and rich spell list there are only really a very small handful worth spending a spell slot on as you level up - and it sucks that they will be accessible to so many other classes. So you get hunger of hadar - very cool. When you hit level 10, will you still be usung this as a good spell? If we want to have some kind of exclusive knowledge then it has to scale well enough that it stays relevant from higher level spell slots.

[Tanarii]

Very much agree that any warlock only spell should have upcasting. As should any on their thematic additional spell-list spells that aren't clearly part of an upgrade path. (E.g. levitate -> fly)

[Man_Over_Game]

Very much agree that any warlock only spell should have upcasting. As should any on their thematic additional spell-list spells that aren't clearly part of an upgrade path. (E.g. levitate -> fly)

I also feel that the Warlock should have a lot more universal spells. That is, spells that can be used for more than one thing. Like Catapult.


One major complaint about the Warlock is how he isn't up to par if the party only has one combat in a day, but combat contribution isn't the only worth of a class.

Bards don't really do all that much in combat besides their chosen generic control spell effect and whatever their Bardic Inspiration does, and that's fine since they can do plenty of things outside of combat.

Warlocks can't. Most of their spells don't really do anything outside of combat (unless you wanna cast Illusory Script and spend tons of gold while doing it). If they did, you wouldn't see many people complaining about Warlocks since they would be able to fully expend their slots multiple times over a day.

Coincidentally, changing the Warlock to have more universal spells doesn't actually make him more effective than other casters, since he has such a short battery for combat in the first place. If you have a bunch of encounters that day, he can't afford to cast spells for non-combat uses. If you don't have a bunch of encounters that day, the Warlock can do a lot of heavy lifting through the day, but he's limited to his 2 slots vs. the Wizard's 10 when the party finally gets into a fight.


Although, this fits a similar design space as the Sorcerer, but my opinion is that the Sorcerer should be designed around choosing spells for their Origin rather than choosing spells to work around their limited spell choices. Warlocks already have this weird niche where they're like an arcane handyman, if you consider their invocations and Short Rest recharging, so I say they should own it.

[Evaar]

What about costs?

The warlock's theme is they made a pact. A pact implies both sides are getting something from the deal. But mechanically we only see what the Warlock gets, not what it cost them.

The DM is free to explore this in story, but I've played a few Warlocks and haven't seen that happen; it risks derailing the game, particularly if the patron doesn't have a decent connection to the broader story.

We have an example of a class with a cost to their abilities in the Blood Hunter. It doesn't need to be handled the exact same way, but I think it represents a pretty good starting point. You would obviously need to do some re-balancing to the class as a whole to justify this, but if we're just blue skying I think it would better represent the fantasy of the class as described.

[Tanarii]

One major complaint about the Warlock is how he isn't up to par if the party only has one combat in a day, but combat contribution isn't the only worth of a class.
Thats a problem with the adventure/ campaign if they only have one encounter that takes resources per day.

I cant comment on if they're combat-centric though. My campaign was heavy on resource encounters being combat encounters. Non-combat ones were typically Easy (no significant resources required, just player skill and ability checks).

[Amdy_vill]

Your right their is a disconnect in most of the Patrons. I think the New ginne warlock addresses this, It feels more like your patron is part of your class. I think this problem stems form the other classes with inbuilt NPC's. think about the Cleric,Paladin and Sorcerer. each has some kind of Inbuilt NPC but their distance from the character. your god cares but he has several hundred other things to do, the patron feels like he should hang over your shoulder, gods don't have this clinginess. you order of knights or friends or what ever you oath was made to don't need to be with you, they are the reason you are alone. and the magical sugerdaddy that is the sorcerers power does not care or even know you. each of these classes have an easy out for the NPC, this makes building mechanics much easier, I feel Warlocks in the next edition should have more low-level Patrons. things that can hang over your shoulder.

Edit: I think things like archfiend should become: Devil, Demon, Yogloth and you should get your power form a mid to high term but not asmodeusu. as you gain power you also increases you Patrons power. you should have things like the ability to call on you patron.

[Man_Over_Game]

What about costs?

The warlock's theme is they made a pact. A pact implies both sides are getting something from the deal. But mechanically we only see what the Warlock gets, not what it cost them.

The DM is free to explore this in story, but I've played a few Warlocks and haven't seen that happen; it risks derailing the game, particularly if the patron doesn't have a decent connection to the broader story.

We have an example of a class with a cost to their abilities in the Blood Hunter. It doesn't need to be handled the exact same way, but I think it represents a pretty good starting point. You would obviously need to do some re-balancing to the class as a whole to justify this, but if we're just blue skying I think it would better represent the fantasy of the class as described.

I definitely think that would be an interesting idea, although I'm not sure how you'd implement it in a way that was open-ended for the thematics (like how you can rewrite the Archfey to just as well be a Siren or a Green Dragon Patron) as well as scaled appropriately to cut down on Warlock dips while also being rewarding.

I think the best way of doing it isn't necessarily through the cost, but the reward. That is, your Patron rewards you for playing a specific way.

For example, the Archfey could reward you for Charming/Fearing enemies, giving you THP equal to your Warlock Level for doing so. So the big difference between Sorcerers and Warlocks is that Sorcerers have an all-encompassing theme (Storms, Chaos, Dragons, etc.) while Warlocks have an all-encompassing mechanic (manipulating enemies' minds, last-hitting enemies, fighting when you have 50% HP, etc).

[Evaar]

For example, the Archfey could reward you for Charming/Fearing enemies, giving you THP equal to your Warlock Level for doing so. So the big difference between Sorcerers and Warlocks is that Sorcerers have an all-encompassing theme (Storms, Chaos, Dragons, etc.) while Warlocks have an all-encompassing mechanic (manipulating enemies' minds, last-hitting enemies, fighting when you have 50% HP, etc).

Neat idea. Though I'm struggling to think of the specific mechanics that would work for each patron and be robust enough to feel like a specialization.

Fey covering Charm/Fear makes sense. Great Old One would do what, Dominate/Mind Reading? Hexblade seems like it would be based around getting the death blow on an enemy. Maybe Celestial does something when you use healing. And Fiend... I really don't know. Fire damage?

But anyway it's a good point - one thing I left out of my post is that a Pact can also just be mutually beneficial without a determined cost to either party, so having the Warlock do specific kinds of things without a direct cost to them could be sufficient.

Maybe you do a mix. It would be a balance nightmare, but that's not my job to worry about, so Fiend does cost the Warlock something like hit points or hit dice in exchange for substantial blasting power. Great Old One doesn't directly cost you anything, but its powers are more niche/subtle.

It does feel like that would explore the concept further. A Fiend Pact would be seen as truly dangerous, rather than essentially as risk-free as a Celestial Pact.

[Man_Over_Game]

Neat idea. Though I'm struggling to think of the specific mechanics that would work for each patron and be robust enough to feel like a specialization.

Fey covering Charm/Fear makes sense. Great Old One would do what, Dominate/Mind Reading? Hexblade seems like it would be based around getting the death blow on an enemy. Maybe Celestial does something when you use healing. And Fiend... I really don't know. Fire damage?

Great Old One: If a creature is Incapacitated, Charmed, Paralyzed, or Frightened from one of your spells, you can spend your Reaction when you take damage or when the spell ends to deal Psychic damage to that creature equal to your Warlock Level. If you do this when you take damage, you reduce the amount of damage by an amount equal to your Warlock level. This Psychic damage does not trigger any effects on your ongoing spells that would normally trigger when the target takes damage, such as Hideous Laughter.

Hexblade: The first time each turn a creature that is cursed by one of your Warlock spells or features deals damage to you, or when you deal damage to them, they take Necrotic damage equal to half of your Warlock level (rounded up). If you had to make a Concentration Check as part of damage received that triggered this feature, gain a bonus to your Concentration Check equal to the Necrotic damage dealt.

Fiend: If you kill a creature of CR 1/2 or more, you gain temporary hitpoints equal to your Warlock level. If they died from Fire or Necrotic damage, double the amount of temporary hitpoints gained. Gain half this amount (rounded down) if you did not kill the creature but the creature died within 30 feet of you.

Undying: While Dying, you have a bonus to your Death Saving Throws equal to half of your Warlock Level (rounded up), and you can still cast spells that use your Warlock Spell Slots while Dying. Spells cast this way ignore the incapacitated condition and do not suffer Disadvantage to attack a target. Also while Dying, you can move an amount of distance equal to your Warlock level each turn.

Celestial: The first time each round that you deal Fire or Radiant damage, grant temporary hitpoints equal to your Warlock level to an ally within 15 feet of the damaged target. These temporary hitpoints are lost at the start of your next turn.