Warlock issues

[Mordante]

Hello all,

I just started playing a Warlock in a party. We started at level 1 and now, after I think 3 or 4 sessions we are level 2. However I am sort of stuck. I know that Warlock isn't a powerful class and I'm not too worried about it. It's not a min/max party. I play a human, but still I really lack a feat. My ideal would be that at lvl 4 I could do a 1 level dip into a class that doesn't screw my warlock too much but it does give me an extra feat. I really need Weapon Finesse ASAP.

If there are no options I will have to wait till I'm level 6 but I prefer earlier.

Next question, for some PrC you need to be to cast x level arcane spells. Do Invocations counts as for these requirements? If so where can I find that?

Any help is welcome.

[Tzardok]

Hello all,

I just started playing a Warlock in a party. We started at level 1 and now, after I think 3 or 4 sessions we are level 2. However I am sort of stuck. I know that Warlock isn't a powerful class and I'm not too worried about it. It's not a min/max party. I play a human, but still I really lack a feat. My ideal would be that at lvl 4 I could do a 1 level dip into a class that doesn't screw my warlock too much but it does give me an extra feat. I really need Weapon Finesse ASAP.

I'm not sure what class you could use there besides fighter, as I don't remember any other that could give that feat as a bonus feat.


Next question, for some PrC you need to be to cast x level arcane spells. Do Invocations counts as for these requirements? If so where can I find that?


No, they don't. Complete Arcane (the book where the Warlock is from) explains in the chapter on prestige classes how warlocks interact with them. You can take any prestige class that requires a minimum arcane caster level. You can't take any classes that require a specific spell or spells of a certain level, as you don't use spells. You use spell-like abilities.

[Mordante]

I'm not sure what class you could use there besides fighter, as I don't remember any other that could give that feat as a bonus feat.



No, they don't. Complete Arcane (the book where the Warlock is from) explains in the chapter on prestige classes how warlocks interact with them. You can take any prestige class that requires a minimum arcane caster level. You can't take any classes that require a specific spell or spells of a certain level, as you don't use spells. You use spell-like abilities.

UA rogue gives feats as well. But it gimps the warlock advancement.

[Cygnia]

Swashbuckler at lvl1 gives Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat.

[Darg]

Sounds like you are many using hideous blow or eldritch glaive. So swashbuckler for 4x skills or fighter for heavy/medium armor and shield proficiency. They both allow for weapon finesse.

[Particle_Man]

What feat were you planning on taking at level 3, by the way? Oh, and Psychic Warrior 1 can give you a bonus feat and (depending on your wisdom score so you can get the points to power it up) access to a psionic power.

That said, I would wait until level 6.

[Telonius]

The UA "Sleeping Tiger Monk" (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/monk.htm) variant gives Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat as well. Monk isn't great as a full class, but it's not terrible as a dip.

[Mordante]

Swashbuckler at lvl1 gives Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat.

Thank you but I think I will need to wait till lvl 6. All the options will make a weak warlock even worse.

My build will be warlock 9/hellfire warlock 3/??

lvl 1 Willing Deformity
lvl 1 Deform claws
lvl 3 Eldritch Claw Feat
lvl 6 weapon finesse
lvl 9 soulmeld Strongheart Vest
lvl 12 Hellsworn
lvl 15 Rapidstrike

Not sure though if we will ever make it to level 12, since that is pretty high and it takes a long time to reach it.

[Mordante]

What feat were you planning on taking at level 3, by the way? Oh, and Psychic Warrior 1 can give you a bonus feat and (depending on your wisdom score so you can get the points to power it up) access to a psionic power.

That said, I would wait until level 6.

I never met a DM who allows Psionics. I wouldn't.

[Darg]

That said, I would wait until level 6.

Level 7 would be better. Level 6 is when you get access to your lesser invocations and if so desired can take the extra invocation feat to get another least. Chausable of fell power is also available around this time too.


I never met a DM who allows Psionics. I wouldn't.

I don't know why other than it's just different. It's relatively less powerful than magic.

[Telonius]

Thank you but I think I will need to wait till lvl 6. All the options will make a weak warlock even worse.

My build will be warlock 9/hellfire warlock 3/??

lvl 1 Willing Deformity
lvl 1 Deform claws
lvl 3 Eldritch Claw Feat
lvl 6 weapon finesse
lvl 9 soulmeld Strongheart Vest
lvl 12 Hellsworn
lvl 15 Rapidstrike

Not sure though if we will ever make it to level 12, since that is pretty high and it takes a long time to reach it.

Ah, going the Hellfire route. I would check with your DM to verify that the Strongheart Vest method works. There's an extremely long and contentious debate about whether it does or not. If the DM says it does, all good. If not, your dip needs to be Binder, for Naberius.

[Darg]

Ah, going the Hellfire route. I would check with your DM to verify that the Strongheart Vest method works. There's an extremely long and contentious debate about whether it does or not. If the DM says it does, all good. If not, your dip needs to be Binder, for Naberius.

Personally I don't even think it's truly necessary. If you get the craft wand feat, all you need is a paladin scroll of lesser restoration or you could pay for the services of a 4th level paladin to assist in creating a 750 gp wand of lesser restoration. Super cheap by 10th-12th level. This also lets you take advantage of your ability to take 10 on UMD checks in combat by letting you craft other useful wands and things.

[holbita]

I have to ask... why these two feats?

lvl 1 Willing Deformity
lvl 1 Deform claws

It is my understanding that Eldritch Claws takes unarmed damage and the claws you get from Willing Deformity are considered claws, not unarmed strike. May I ask why not go the Improved Unarmed Strike + Superior Unarmed Strike + Beast Strike? Seems a more appropiate way to go about this to me.

[Mordante]

I have to ask... why these two feats?

lvl 1 Willing Deformity
lvl 1 Deform claws

It is my understanding that Eldritch Claws takes unarmed damage and the claws you get from Willing Deformity are considered claws, not unarmed strike. May I ask why not go the Improved Unarmed Strike + Superior Unarmed Strike + Beast Strike? Seems a more appropiate way to go about this to me.


Benefit

The character has the ability to deal 1d6 points of damage as an unarmed claw attack. The character is considered armed even when unarmed.

So I think the deformity does unarmed damage. If I remember correctly my DM agrees.

Also it fits with the fluff of my character

[Darg]

So I think the deformity does unarmed damage. If I remember correctly my DM agrees.

Also it fits with the fluff of my character

Natural attacks are "armed" unarmed attacks (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#unarmedAttacks). They do unarmed damage, but not unarmed strike damage. If your DM says it's fine, it's all cool.

[Particle_Man]

I never met a DM who allows Psionics. I wouldn't.

Well now you have met one. I even had a campaign where I allowed psionics but banned arcane magic. :smallbiggrin: Although I guess that would not help the warlock.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

You can qualify for prerequisites that require a specific spell if you have an invocation that mimics it, but not prerequisites that just require spells of a certain level. (Can't remember what page that's on, but it's a general rule for SLAs that's come up in a few of the competitions).

Fighter, Swashbuckler, Feat Rogue, Martial Wizard, and Monk can all give Weapon Finesse at 1st level. (So can Half-Elf Paragon, but that doesn't help you). Of these, Wizard is probably the best, especially if you can later early-entry your way into Eldritch Theurge, unless you're Dragonblood and can trade heavy armor proficiency for Dragonscale Husk for some sweet, ASF free armor +6.

You could also take a level in the Ghost Savage Progression. Having the (incorporeal) subtype automatically makes your attacks use Dex (since you now lack a Str score entirely), and gives some fantastic defensive bonuses. I can't remember if your Eldritch Claws count as force damage (and thus don't have a miss chance from being incorporeal), but if so, this is a very strong option. Never mind, this would preclude Hellfire Warlock. Can't channel hellfire if you don't have a Con score.

[holbita]

Natural attacks are "armed" unarmed attacks (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#unarmedAttacks). They do unarmed damage, but not unarmed strike damage. If your DM says it's fine, it's all cool.

Natural weapon attacks are not unarmed damage, they use weapons, natural weapons, that have different rules than manufactered weapons. Unarmed strike damage is the odd child that has a mixture of rules applied to it.

I get what you are trying to say here but let's clarify so people may not get wrong ideas. That being said... if your DM says it's dandy go for it. Personally I allow a plethora of things, and fight for them when I am the player, to make some combos viable when the flavor is there and the result is not OP and I have no plans of stopping.

[Darg]

Natural weapon attacks are not unarmed damage, they use weapons, natural weapons, that have different rules than manufactered weapons. Unarmed strike damage is the odd child that has a mixture of rules applied to it.

I get what you are trying to say here but let's clarify so people may not get wrong ideas. That being said... if your DM says it's dandy go for it. Personally I allow a plethora of things, and fight for them when I am the player, to make some combos viable when the flavor is there and the result is not OP and I have no plans of stopping.

A natural attack is an unarmed attack doing damage. I was specifically tying it in with the OPs language so that they could understand that it was explicitly different from unarmed strike which is a type of weapon.

[Mordante]

Natural weapon attacks are not unarmed damage, they use weapons, natural weapons, that have different rules than manufactered weapons. Unarmed strike damage is the odd child that has a mixture of rules applied to it.

I get what you are trying to say here but let's clarify so people may not get wrong ideas. That being said... if your DM says it's dandy go for it. Personally I allow a plethora of things, and fight for them when I am the player, to make some combos viable when the flavor is there and the result is not OP and I have no plans of stopping.

I don't think anyone has to worry much about a Warlock getting OP anytime soon. :)

[Darg]

I don't think anyone has to worry much about a Warlock getting OP anytime soon. :)

They can be quite strong early levels though. Hideous Blow, greatsword proficiency and you do 3d6+str unconditional damage at first level. By level 5, it's 5d6+str. I think that's pretty strong, especially when you can force a save to be shaken/sickened. Gloves of eldritch admixture are only 2500 gp which can add 2d6-6d6 3-1 times per day.

Not to mention that RAW says that hideous blow and eldritch glaive don't provoke.

But yeah, OP it is not.

[Troacctid]

Have you seen my Warlockopedia? Link is in my signature. I have a section on dips. https://drive.google.com/open?id=1CQ7sA64GiD_Ja5bXO3RpmTJoTCyJ2sIATCyIRwx7A N8


Not to mention that RAW says that hideous blow and eldritch glaive don't provoke.
No, they provoke normally. I like to recommend Supernatural Transformation on melee warlocks partly because it fixes this issue.

[Darg]

Have you seen my Warlockopedia? Link is in my signature. I have a section on dips. https://drive.google.com/open?id=1CQ7sA64GiD_Ja5bXO3RpmTJoTCyJ2sIATCyIRwx7A N8


No, they provoke normally. I like to recommend Supernatural Transformation on melee warlocks partly because it fixes this issue.

Supernatural transformation doesn't work. Eldritch blast is not something a character has innately. While the source of the power may be innate, the ability to use the power is a trained ability, hence the required class level.

There are only 2 ways to read hideous blow and eldritch glaive: you cast the ability as a standard action and from then on gain the ability to make standard/full-round action attacks that don't provoke as you aren't casting anymore. Or, the invocations modify the blast to be a standard/full-round action instead of casting the ability. As an action you make an attack. It's not as an action you cast and make an attack as a free action. It's similar to how Spellsword's channel spell ability doesn't provoke because you aren't casting the spell. There is also no need to proclaim that hideous blow is a standard action if it isn't modifying the existing default action required. The warlock creator even mentioned that hideous blow is not supposed to provoke, even if in an unofficial capacity. Other than the FAQ, it's an assumption to think that it defaults to being a touch attack that isn't a touch attack.

[Troacctid]

Supernatural transformation doesn't work. Eldritch blast is not something a character has innately. While the source of the power may be innate, the ability to use the power is a trained ability, hence the required class level.
"Innate" isn't a special rules term or anything. It says it's innate, so it's innate. 🤷

If they meant "racial" they would have said "racial". They obviously had the technology to do so.


There are only 2 ways to read hideous blow and eldritch glaive: you cast the ability as a standard action and from then on gain the ability to make standard/full-round action attacks that don't provoke as you aren't casting anymore. Or, the invocations modify the blast to be a standard/full-round action instead of casting the ability. As an action you make an attack. It's not as an action you cast and make an attack as a free action. It's similar to how Spellsword's channel spell ability doesn't provoke because you aren't casting the spell. There is also no need to proclaim that hideous blow is a standard action if it isn't modifying the existing default action required. The warlock creator even mentioned that hideous blow is not supposed to provoke, even if in an unofficial capacity. Other than the FAQ, it's an assumption to think that it defaults to being a touch attack that isn't a touch attack.
I don't know what you're talking about. They're not general invocations. They're blast shapes. Blast shape invocations are applied to an eldritch blast as you cast it, modifying the blast accordingly. They don't have their own separate casting. Using them is part of using the blast. (CAr 130.)

Eldritch blast, with or without a blast shape, is a spell-like ability. Spell-like abilities provoke attacks of opportunity unless you cast them defensively. That doesn't change just because the spell-like ability also involves a melee attack roll.

[Psyren]

"Innate" isn't a special rules term or anything. It says it's innate, so it's innate. 🤷

If they meant "racial" they would have said "racial". They obviously had the technology to do so.

Well technically, the only part of the Warlock entry that uses the term "innate" comes from the flavor text before the section labeled "Game Rule Information." It isn't found in Eldritch Blast, nor any of their invocation entries.

[AmberVael]

Well technically, the only part of the Warlock entry that uses the term "innate" comes from the flavor text before the section labeled "Game Rule Information." It isn't found in Eldritch Blast, nor any of their invocation entries.

While true, the word "innate" it isn't found in basically any spell-like ability description, let alone the ones Darg is implying are innate. If we're not basing whether something is innate or not on its flavor identity, I don't think we have a basis for anything to be innate or not.

[paladinn]

Hopefully silly question. I've never been a fan of the 3e warlock at all, and I'd like to pretend that 4e never happened. The 5e version seems somewhat more interesting, especially subclasses like the hexblade patron and possibly the celestial.

Has anyone attempted a 5e-style warlock that is 3e or PF-compatible?

Gratzi!

[Darg]

"Innate" isn't a special rules term or anything. It says it's innate, so it's innate. 🤷

If they meant "racial" they would have said "racial". They obviously had the technology to do so.

Savage species only ever refers to innate abilities as those coming from one's race. The yuanti-cultist ability refers to the innate psionic ability of yuanti. To say that it goes beyond is adding meaning that isn't there. Even the "innate" in the warlock intro is referring to the power inside them, not the trained ability to harness it which eldritch blast is. A racial ability is something they know how to use innately.



I don't know what you're talking about. They're not general invocations. They're blast shapes. Blast shape invocations are applied to an eldritch blast as you cast it, modifying the blast accordingly. They don't have their own separate casting. Using them is part of using the blast. (CAr 130.)

Eldritch blast, with or without a blast shape, is a spell-like ability. Spell-like abilities provoke attacks of opportunity unless you cast them defensively. That doesn't change just because the spell-like ability also involves a melee attack roll.

Blast shapes are used in conjuction with eldritch blast, but nothing refers to eldritch blast having to be cast, which the blast shape modifies.

On the other hand, if you take a spell like chill touch and add "as a standard action" to the front of the description, it completely alters the meaning of how the spell resolves itself. There are examples of spells which require extra actions to take advantage of it such as call lightning and those actions don't provoke either.

It makes the least sense, and is the least supported by any existing examples to say that you cast hideous blow and as a free action you get to swing your weapon. The text says that you cast eldritch blast as a standard action and as a standard action you get to swing your weapon or you modify your eldritch blast to be a standard action in which you swing your weapon.


While true, the word "innate" it isn't found in basically any spell-like ability description, let alone the ones Darg is implying are innate. If we're not basing whether something is innate or not on its flavor identity, I don't think we have a basis for anything to be innate or not.

Huh? Savage species has 15 instances of the use of "innate." 2 of which are for the feat, the 13 others refer to racial abilities. The argument is over whether EB is an innate ability and I'm on the side that it isn’t...

[AmberVael]

Hopefully silly question. I've never been a fan of the 3e warlock at all, and I'd like to pretend that 4e never happened. The 5e version seems somewhat more interesting, especially subclasses like the hexblade patron and possibly the celestial.

Has anyone attempted a 5e-style warlock that is 3e or PF-compatible?

Gratzi!

Owen Stephens did. (https://owenkcstephens.com/2020/08/26/an-ogl-warlock-for-pathfinder-1e/)


Huh? Savage species has 15 instances of the use of "innate." 2 of which are for the feat, the 13 others refer to racial abilities. The argument is over whether EB is an innate ability and I'm on the side that it isn’t...

It uses it a lot. It never defines it. My point is that most abilities not labeled as "innate" or not in their statblocks (which Psyren was indicating should be important). If you look at a Gnome's spell-like abilities, nothing calls them innate spell-like abilities. If you look at Paladin, Detect Evil isn't called out one way or another.

As such, my argument is that the only way we have to determine whether something is innate is whether it's flavor identity would make it innate. In pretty much every way it can, Warlock calls its powers innate. It says they're part of your soul, it says warlocks are born, not made, it literally calls their powers innate. Therefore, why wouldn't Warlock's abilities, such as Eldritch Blast, be innate?

[Psyren]

While true, the word "innate" it isn't found in basically any spell-like ability description, let alone the ones Darg is implying are innate. If we're not basing whether something is innate or not on its flavor identity, I don't think we have a basis for anything to be innate or not.

Exactly - since it's not a rules term, it's up to the GM to determine. Expect table variation.



Has anyone attempted a 5e-style warlock that is 3e or PF-compatible?


You mean one that gets fewer spell slots, but that can recharge them multiple times per day (short rest?) PF1 is unfortunately a bit too tied to the "adventuring day" as the chief resource limiter, and I can't say whether PF2 got away from that. With that said, PF1 also has things like pearls and runestones to improve on intraday limits.

[AmberVael]

Exactly - since it's not a rules term, it's up to the GM to determine. Expect table variation.

Yeah, fair enough. It's definitely one of those bits of game writing I wince at.

[Thurbane]

If all you are looking for is the ability to apply Dex mod to hit on a melee weapon, the Feycraft weapon template (DMG2) when applied to a light weapon, lets you do that without needing the Weapon Finesse feat. It will lower the damage, though.

The spells Heroics, Bite of the Wererat and Nightstalker's Transformation can temporarily give you the Weapon Finesse feat, so you could grab wands or scrolls.

The Finesse weapon enhancement from ECS gives you Weapon Finesse with that weapon (as well as +2 enhancement to Dex), but it is massively expensive at +3.

[Darg]

It uses it a lot. It never defines it. My point is that most abilities not labeled as "innate" or not in their statblocks (which Psyren was indicating should be important). If you look at a Gnome's spell-like abilities, nothing calls them innate spell-like abilities. If you look at Paladin, Detect Evil isn't called out one way or another.

As such, my argument is that the only way we have to determine whether something is innate is whether it's flavor identity would make it innate. In pretty much every way it can, Warlock calls its powers innate. It says they're part of your soul, it says warlocks are born, not made, it literally calls their powers innate. Therefore, why wouldn't Warlock's abilities, such as Eldritch Blast, be innate?

There are many racial abilities that refer to themselves as innate and as I mentioned above, the yuanti cultist PRC in SS makes a direct mention for the racial psionic ability of yuanti as being innate even though the ability is never called out as being innate.

A warlock's power is innate, the ability to harness it *cough*eldritch blast*cough* is learned. If something is innate, one should already be able to do it without study. Humans have the innate power to make sounds with their vocal cords, but it takes training to learn how to speak in a way we can communicate. Class abilities are trained, hence being class abilities.

There is nothing innate about the ability other than it's source. If that qualified it as being innate then anything we do is an innate ability and we never actually learn anything as we already know everything. Knowledge is an innate quality we possess due to our innate ability to learn.

Learned is an antonym of innate.

[Troacctid]

Well technically, the only part of the Warlock entry that uses the term "innate" comes from the flavor text before the section labeled "Game Rule Information." It isn't found in Eldritch Blast, nor any of their invocation entries.
It's mentioned in several other places as well.


It makes the least sense, and is the least supported by any existing examples to say that you cast hideous blow and as a free action you get to swing your weapon.
What? Nobody is saying that. The attack is part of the invocation's casting time, which supersedes the normal action cost for attacking, per RC. Since the invocation is a spell-like ability, it provokes as normal. This is explicit in the text as well; the epic warlock rules mention it specifically.

[Thurbane]

The definition of innate has been debated a long time, and a clear consensus has not been reached. It's not a defined game term AFAIK, so the only useful answer is "Ask your DM".

FWIW, the FAQ has this to say:


Can a warlock qualify for the Supernatural Transformation feat (SS 39) and change one of his invocations into a supernatural ability?
No. The warlock’s spell-like abilities are learned (from class levels), not innate (that is, part of his racial traits).


What does “innate spell-like ability” mean for the purpose of qualifying for the Supernatural Transformation feat (SS 39)? Does the Innate Spell feat create an innate spell-like ability?
“Innate,” for the purpose of the Supernatural Transformation feat, means “gained normally as part of the creature’s race, type, subtype, or kind.”
A duergar’s enlarge person and invisibility spell-like abilities, a tanar’ri’s summon tanar’ri spell-like ability, and a juvenile gold dragon’s bless spell-like ability are all “innate” spell-like abilities. A warlock’s invocations, a paladin’s ability to call her special mount, and any spell-like abilities gained from your class, feats, or similar sources are not.
Despite its name, even the Innate Spell feat doesn’t create an “innate” spell-like ability for the purpose of the Supernatural Transformation feat. This is simply an unfortunate case of the same word being used for two different purposes.

[Darg]

What? Nobody is saying that. The attack is part of the invocation's casting time, which supersedes the normal action cost for attacking, per RC. Since the invocation is a spell-like ability, it provokes as normal. This is explicit in the text as well; the epic warlock rules mention it specifically.

Are you talking about Eldritch Sculptor which has several inconsistencies/errors that make no sense whatsoever? It has so many mechanical faults that it is pretty hard to take it seriously.

What rule in the RC tells you how hideous blow functions? Does it explain away the addition of "as a standard action"? If Hideous Blow were a spell with a cast time of 1 standard action, duration 1 round/caster level, and the description said "As a standard action, you may make a single melee attack plus 6d6 fire damage"; would it negate the duration with you making every possible attack as part of the casting action instead of you choosing to take a standard action next turn to make that special attack? I know it can't be the rule about spells making attacks on page 136 because as written hideous blow allows you to take an action which so happens to include an attack.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

Hopefully silly question. I've never been a fan of the 3e warlock at all, and I'd like to pretend that 4e never happened. The 5e version seems somewhat more interesting, especially subclasses like the hexblade patron and possibly the celestial.

Has anyone attempted a 5e-style warlock that is 3e or PF-compatible?

Gratzi!

Ironically, 5E Warlock borrows heavily from 4E design, with Daily, Short-Rest, and At-Will powers (Mystic Arcanum, Spells, and Invocations respectively). If you like the Warlock's mechanics, you may find 4E more interesting than you expect!

[paladinn]

Ironically, 5E Warlock borrows heavily from 4E design, with Daily, Short-Rest, and At-Will powers (Mystic Arcanum, Spells, and Invocations respectively). If you like the Warlock's mechanics, you may find 4E more interesting than you expect!

If I'm ever interested in 4e, I'll go play WoW.

I am intrigued by the warlock's recharging spell "slots", the e-blast ability and the invocations, and would like to adapt them to a 3e game. And anytime I run Any D&D, I'm using the 5e spell slot system.

[Psyren]

5e did indeed lift the AWED resource system from 4e. But I think most people didn't mind AWED; it was the other aspects of 4e that ended up pushing people away from the edition, like the samey-feeling powers and the weak utility magic system.

[Tzardok]

Or the utter cluster**** they made of the lore.

[paladinn]

Or the utter cluster**** they made of the lore.

Truer words were seldom spoken..

[Troacctid]

4e introduced the idea of a warlock's relationship with a patron, which IMO was a huge improvement to the class's 3.5e lore. ("It's part of your bloodline, linking you to the influence of a powerful magical being. What? How is that different from a sorcerer? Uh...look over there! Laser beams!")

[Tzardok]

That's not quite right. A warlock's power lies in their soul, not their blood. Sure, sometimes it's inheritable, but there is a difference. Not like with a hexblade and a sorcerer. There is where should ask: Where's the difference?

[Psyren]

4e introduced the idea of a warlock's relationship with a patron, which IMO was a huge improvement to the class's 3.5e lore. ("It's part of your bloodline, linking you to the influence of a powerful magical being. What? How is that different from a sorcerer? Uh...look over there! Laser beams!")

3.5 had that fluff too, it was just a bit less explicit (and narrower in scope, just as sorcerers were narrower):


Long ago, {warlocks} (or in some cases, their ancestors) forged grim pacts with dangerous extraplanar powers, trading portions of their souls in exchange for supernatural power. While many warlocks have turned away from evil...they are still chained by the old pacts through which they acquired their powers. The demand to further the designs of their dark patrons, or to resist them, drives most warlocks to seek the opportunities for power, wealth, or great deeds (for good or ill) offered by adventuring.

As far as the big difference though - sorcerers can trace their lineage back to a magical being more or less directly, whereas Warlocks either formed a pact themselves or can trace their lineage back to a pactholder. Go far enough back in a sorcerer's family tree and you'll find some kind of magical creature or mutation, whereas a Warlock's might never include anything other than an ancestor who made a deal.