D&D 5E What makes a "full" spellcaster? [Warlock discussion]

Lanliss · May 18, 2017

Mephista said:
I didn't say it should not, I said that its not supposed to, which I suppose is not the best way to convey my thoughts. Intended is probably a better word to use.

That still leaves the question though. What makes you think that the Chain Pact was not intended to have access to Eldritch Blast? I think they would have made it a Tome-specific feature, or Invocation, if it was intended only for Tome.

I think it is more likely that EB held an important place in the past versions of the class, and as a result was made relevant in this version as well. Unfortunately, A lot of Optimizer types latched onto that as the only acceptable way to Warlock. In my homebrew document, it will be an invocation that can be grabbed by any Warlock, but will not have the bonus invocations that are made for it (Agonizing Blast, Eldritch Spear, the UA ones).

Sword of Spirit · May 18, 2017

They are full casters because they get spells at the same levels as the other full casters, and they go all the way up to 9th level spells. You are mistaken in the sorcerer comparison--warlocks actually know more spells due to their 6th-9th level spells not being included in the spells known number.

They are a bit different than other full casters, but anyone who is packing 9th level spells is a full caster.

Mephista · May 18, 2017

Lanliss said:
That still leaves the question though. What makes you think that the Chain Pact was not intended to have access to Eldritch Blast? I think they would have made it a Tome-specific feature, or Invocation, if it was intended only for Tome.

Because leaving it as optional for anyone to have is a good thing, but its still not intended on being the main thrust of the combat ability for non-Tomes.

steeldragons · May 18, 2017

There are a few different ways that one could approach this...depending on one's perspective.

1. (as the one that WotC/5e tends to take) A "full caster" is a class that gets access to "all 9 spell levels."
or
2. A "full caster" is a class that gains their spells at a certain incremental progression, usually matching a base "Mage/Wizard/MU" class. In D&D, this traditionally looks something like "2nd level spells at 3rd level of experience, 3rd level spells at 5th level of the class, 4th level spells at 7th, etc. etc..."
or
3. The argument might made/position might be angled that, a "full caster" is a class that depends primarily upon the use of their magic above/before any other abilities, such as combat/weaponry expertise or special skills use. As opposed to "half-casters" who might rely partially on magic and partially on other specialities (typically combat prowess).

Traditionally, and to my mind, the "full caster" is one to which all of the above apply. 5e seems to stretch those common understandings a bit more. But I'd still say a class needs "any 2 outta the above 3," minimum, to warrant being considered a "full caster."

Ancalagon · May 18, 2017

*casts "Finger of Enftebtemang" on the spammer who is currently plaguing this thread*

CapnZapp · May 18, 2017

mellored said:
I still find it odd that people consider attacking with eldritch blast to be spammy, but doing the exact same thing with a bow or sword somehow isn't...

This is what I meant.

CapnZapp · May 18, 2017

Ancalagon said:
I think that of all the full caster, the warlock is, by far, the most restricted when it comes to high level spell flexibility. And that's a bit of a shame.

But if you want high level flexibility, there's the Wizard.

The Warlock gets ranged fire that rivals the best archers (especially in a featless game), it gets the best familiars, and it can keep up with the fighters during long adventure days.

What it can't do, is being the "I've got a spell for that" go-to guy. A party that wants such a character needs to recruit a Wizard before it recruits a Warlock.

It's just different.

CapnZapp · May 18, 2017

Sword of Spirit said:
They are a bit different than other full casters, but anyone who is packing 9th level spells is a full caster.

This is the fallacy that is core to the argument.

For you "full caster" means simply "9th level spells".

For others "full caster" means someone that can take on the role of the go-to guy, the magical bag of tricks that solve the party's problems and challenges in a wide variety of circumstances.

The Warlock generally isn't that guy. He doesn't have the spell list of a Wizard and he certainly doesn't have the freedom of choice either. He does get to make selections, but they are much more locked down.

To people thinking about high-level adventures with high-level challenges, people like Warlocks and Bards simply does not reach the same strata as does Wizards or Clerics.

This doesn't have to be a problem, by the way. If nobody expects the Warlock to pull out an Ethereal Jaunt or Plane Shift one day, and Dimensional Anchor, Passwall or Forcecage the next, just like they don't expect the Fighter to, there is no issue.

That is what I mean when I say playing a Warlock is only getting better and more liberating, the more spellcasters the group already contains. Not only does your average martial skills look better in comparison, you are often free to pick and use spells as you please, as opposed to the needs of the party.

On the other hand, a group of four martials looking for their first spellcaster will be much better served by a Wizard or Cleric.

CapnZapp · May 18, 2017

Mephista said:
Because leaving it as optional for anyone to have is a good thing, but its still not intended on being the main thrust of the combat ability for non-Tomes.

Please note that this is your personal opinion. There is nothing in the PHB that says Chainlocks can't or shouldn't use EB.

You have just gotten the idea in your head. It happens to us all. But there really is no reason a Chainlock can't be just as good at pew-pewing as a Tomelock.

That doesn't mean the Chainlock or any other Warlock must or should pick EB, that's true. But that's another matter.

CapnZapp · May 18, 2017

steeldragons said:
There are a few different ways that one could approach this...depending on one's perspective.

1. (as the one that WotC/5e tends to take) A "full caster" is a class that gets access to "all 9 spell levels."
or
2. A "full caster" is a class that gains their spells at a certain incremental progression, usually matching a base "Mage/Wizard/MU" class. In D&D, this traditionally looks something like "2nd level spells at 3rd level of experience, 3rd level spells at 5th level of the class, 4th level spells at 7th, etc. etc..."
or
3. The argument might made/position might be angled that, a "full caster" is a class that depends primarily upon the use of their magic above/before any other abilities, such as combat/weaponry expertise or special skills use. As opposed to "half-casters" who might rely partially on magic and partially on other specialities (typically combat prowess).

Traditionally, and to my mind, the "full caster" is one to which all of the above apply. 5e seems to stretch those common understandings a bit more. But I'd still say a class needs "any 2 outta the above 3," minimum, to warrant being considered a "full caster."

My definition of a full caster would actually be based on his utility to his party.

Allow me to offer way number 4:

4. A "full caster" is a character that can provide a wide variety of magic spells no matter the situation. That is, just because he's known for knowing Forcecage doesn't mean he can't also cast Etherealness, Magnificent Mansion, Plane Shift, Simulacrum, or Teleport. All of these are spells that are "good to have", but perhaps not *critical*, so a less flexible, a less "full" caster, can't afford to choose either of them. A "full caster" can assume the responsibilities as a party's sole caster, so let's not forget about area damage spells. He also can nova in critical situations, expending a significant number of powerful spells for many combat rounds in a row.

Obviously, this definition overlaps with both #2 and #3. But I would like to argue that these definitions are more of technical details that doesn't necessarily have to be true (perhaps the Psion/Mystic will manifest some of this).

Perhaps a nitpick, perhaps not.

D&D 5E What makes a "full" spellcaster? [Warlock discussion]

Lanliss

Explorer

Sword of Spirit

Legend

Mephista

Adventurer

steeldragons

Steeliest of the dragons

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon

CapnZapp

Legend

CapnZapp

Legend

CapnZapp

Legend

CapnZapp

Legend

CapnZapp

Legend

Similar Threads