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

[CapnZapp]

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.

Of course, a large part of the complaints against the sorcerer is how its very limited number of spells known make it hard for the class to both meet the demands of a full caster and at the same time retain any semblance of a theme and personal choice. (Unless your grandmother was a red dragon)

But that's off topic.

 

[Ancalagon]

Of course, a large part of the complaints against the sorcerer is how its very limited number of spells known make it hard for the class to both meet the demands of a full caster and at the same time retain any semblance of a theme and personal choice. (Unless your grandmother was a red dragon)

But that's off topic.

Well ... on one hand you are correct that a "full" spellcaster should be more than just the "can cast the highest level spells (or has the potential to)". But on the other hand if you demand a lot of utility and flexibility, then sorcerers aren't full casters either, and then you have to wonder if your definition is too narrow...

 

[CapnZapp]

But on the other hand if you demand a lot of utility and flexibility, then sorcerers aren't full casters either, and then you have to wonder if your definition is too narrow...

It depends. What makes a definition "too narrow"?

The definition is useful to argue the Sorcerer needs more support. That doesn't have to mean "moar and bettor" - it can mean the class being given a mechanism that allows it to bypass Fireball in order to pick a more thematic spell, but without going uncompensated for that.

It all boils down to whether you agree when I say that the definition of "full caster" really isn't compromisable. Lowering the standards just to be able to include the Sorcerer, or the Bard, or the Warlock does little to change the fact that, no, they can't provide the full services of the Wizard.

But sure - all this is saying is: "play a Wizard if you want to play a Wizard".

There is nothing wrong with Bards or Sorcerers or Warlocks. Just don't expect the full repertoire.

In the case of Bard, that class gets surprisingly many utility spells, so if you just make clear you can't be the area blaster, you can pull a lot of "full caster" weight otherwise.

In the case of Sorcerer, unless you play a Fire Draconic sorcerer, you will need to choose between your personal (characterization) needs and the needs of the party. As long as everybody are aware of this limit on the class, you're good to go.

In the case of Warlock, you will never be able to do everything a "full caster" is expected to. Name any single thing a full caster can do, and chances are, you can do it too. But once you make a list of five such things, you can no longer pull it off. So everybody needs to appreciate your other abilities, which much simplified can be summarized as "look at me as an alternative fighter".

 

[Mephista]

What is a full caster anyways?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[yakuba]

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.

To me, that definition is far too narrow in that it really defines 'full caster' down to Wizard. Bards and Sorcerers do not bring that level of spell flexibility and IME actually have less of it than Warlocks. Clerics and Druids are better, but nothing matches the spell versatility of the Wizard (nor should it, since that's essentially their schtick)

 

[yakuba]

Sidestepping the 'what is a full caster?' question. In actually playing the Warlock and comparing to playing other WOTC-defined 'full casters', I was actually surprised. I now feel like if my Warlock get one short rest than his spell power output is on par. As you level up your lower level spells loose utility (obviously) and always having 4 highest level spells is nicer for encounters than a 2-3-3-3-4 cascade. Moreover, should you choose to use the EB/AB combination, you have a cantrip that very quickly becomes better than 1st or 2nd level spells in combat. It's much more of a power hourglass than the power pyramid of all the other WOTC-defined 'full casters', but it surprisingly doesn't feel less powerful.

On the utility side, the infinite-cast and passive ability invocations again seem just as powerful, (though clearly less flexible) than 7 or so 1st and 2nd level spells.

The one thing I don't like is the Mystic Arcanum. Because you have only one unchanging choice, you're almost forced to take the blandest choice that you know you'll get to use most often, even though there are some nicer, but clearly more situational, options.

I think the main thing a Warlock loses vis-a-vis the WOTC-defined full-casters is flexibility, though playing Bard and Sorcerer, I think that point may be being overstated a tad. Power wise they subjectively feel fine to me.

 

[jgsugden]

What is a full caster anyways?

Don't be silly. It is far more interesting to argue about whether a label applies if we all use different definitions than if we decided on a definition before deciding on whether the label applies.

Anyone with the guild artisan and a specialty that works with metal is a full caster.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[MechaTarrasque]

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.

Even the Beast Master's AC gets a little combat boost as time goes on, but the chainlock's familiar is pretty much as good at fighting/surviving at level 3 as at level 20. That makes it hard to believe that they intended the familiar to be fighting for you as a regular thing. Right now it is Seventh Voyage of Sinbad territory, where the familiar is good at spying and sabotage, and if it gets caught it can try to fight its way free.

If they want to add a bunch of new chainlock invocations in the Big Book of Crunch (pretty, pretty please), then a fightin' familiar is more reasonable.

When 5e came out, I had strongly hoped that the chainlock would focus on warlock's ally (maybe something like starting at 3rd level, you summon a fiend, fey, or aberration minion with CR 1/3rd or less of your warlock level [round down], fights with you like the paladin's steed, etc......you can have 1 minion at a time). Of course, ideally we would have a bunch more fey and some more abberations for the nonfiend-pact 'locks.