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

[Irda Ranger]

I wonder how much different the Warlock would be if you could change your spells each day like a Wizard or Cleric. You'd still have the same limitations around spell slots, so I don't think it would be that unbalancing. And it would allow you to be tailor your approach to various adventures.

 

[jgsugden]

My warlocks (both of them Chain, one Cthulhu, one Infernal) followed the same invocation path pretty much:

2nd level - Misty Visions and Agonizing Blast.
5th level - Devil's Sight.
7th level - Repelling Blast.
9th level - Ascendent Step.
12th level - One with Shadows
15th level - One with Shadows -> Visions of Distant Realms, Chains of Carceri
18th level - Shroud of Ulban (UA article - invisible as an action at will) / Witch Sight for the Infernal

As of 2nd level, they never felt like they lacked for something to do. Yeah, they blasted damage with eldritch blasts, but they also cast a lot of powerful spells and made great use of unlimited illusions. The biggest constrain on the warlocks was the same huge constraint I felt for wizards, clerics, sorcerers, druids bards etc.... - my spellcasting was limited more by being able to concentrate on only one spell than it was by having few spell slots.

Seriously - warlocks tend to have the most difficult DCs in the games for their spells due to the Rod of the Pact Keeper. They have more powerful spells than any other class. They get unlimited uses of weaker spells. Any argument that they're underpowered, lack for options for spells, or otherwise can't meet your particular definition of a full caster are stretching things quite a bit. They kick butt.

 

[Ancalagon]

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.

Exactly, well said.

If at *least* you could "dump" the slot into powering up another spell (like say, a souped up fireball for a boring but clear example) then it wouldn't be so stiflingly restrictive.

 

[Warpiglet]

I am a big fan of operationalizing terms. What does it mean to be a full caster in the first place?
There are others that leave me a bit cold: striker, tank, gish and so forth.

In the current case, I do not think the Warlock is lacking "ammunition" assuming at least a short rest between the long rests.

However, if you use all of your invocations for boosting eldritch blast, you will function more like a ranged attacker (that bores me to tears, but that is simply taste).

If you take some of the spell-like invocations such as Misty Visions, you always have something interesting and non-EB to do. The proportion of encounter ending spells will be different. You can drop one big spell a combat assuming a a short rest or two in a game day.

That said, I do not necessarily think it is a problem since you should either be able to be moderately competent in melee or EB as well. Some parties don't have a "full" spellcaster at all (I assume this means the normal spell progression of a cleric, bard, wizard).

 

[Irda Ranger]

I am a big fan of operationalizing terms. What does it mean to be a full caster in the first place?

Well that was sort of my original question. Whether the Invocations + Limited Casting = "Full" Caster, in your opinion.

What I personally have realized as part of this discussion (so I'm glad I asked!), is that what I mean by full caster includes utility. Having the right spell for the job. So in my mind, Sorcerers and Warlocks really don't count. They're more like "Super heroes" who have a fixed set of powers. Which is a fine way to play if that's what you want to play, but I (as a matter of taste) place a rally high value on the utility caster angle of spell casting.

That said, I do not necessarily think it is a problem since you should either be able to be moderately competent in melee or EB as well. Some parties don't have a "full" spellcaster at all (I assume this means the normal spell progression of a cleric, bard, wizard).

Yeah, it's not a problem. It's about adjusting your expectations I guess. The EB Warlock is (IMO) on par with the Hunter Ranger.

Personally what I think I'm going to do is re-write the Wizard class to use the Warlock framework, but with the ability to change spells out each day. I think that would be perfect for me.

 

[Warpiglet]

Well that was sort of my original question. Whether the Invocations + Limited Casting = "Full" Caster, in your opinion.

What I personally have realized as part of this discussion (so I'm glad I asked!), is that what I mean by full caster includes utility. Having the right spell for the job. So in my mind, Sorcerers and Warlocks really don't count. They're more like "Super heroes" who have a fixed set of powers. Which is a fine way to play if that's what you want to play, but I (as a matter of taste) place a rally high value on the utility caster angle of spell casting.


Yeah, it's not a problem. It's about adjusting your expectations I guess. The EB Warlock is (IMO) on par with the Hunter Ranger.

Personally what I think I'm going to do is re-write the Wizard class to use the Warlock framework, but with the ability to change spells out each day. I think that would be perfect for me.

You have to make harder choices with the warlock and sorcerer, I think.

Does being a tome boon warlock change things? At that point you can detect a lot of things and frankly, the warlock can charm and injure as well as anyone else. Choosing fly or invisibility is...a choice.

I think they can have great utility, but have to engineer it. A wizard has so many spell choices, they simply grab and go.

We will see. I have not gotten a warlock to high level. I suspect trying to be a wizard would not be fully successful.

 

[Irda Ranger]

You have to make harder choices with the warlock and sorcerer, I think.

To me it's not about hard choices, but the situational nature of many spells. When you're limited like the Warlock and Sorcerer are you'd just never take Illusory Script, and Blight isn't as widely applicable as Banishment or Dimension Door. Even spells like Magic Circle are not nearly as commonly useful as Major Image or Fly. So you never take them. They might as well not be in the game.

But Clerics can pick up rare spells any day of the week when they really need it, and Wizards (with a bit of effort, if it's a must-have for some adventure goal) can track down a scroll and add it to their spell book.

So, for me, I've realized that "full caster" means a full list of spells. Not just all levels, but the full list of whatever spell level you are powerful enough to cast. Or at least potentially, with planning.

This never bothered me for Ranger /Shadow Monk /Eldritch Knight /Etc. because I never considered them real casters. Their magic was just a "magic power" to embellish their primary nature. But for Warlock (at least in my mind), spell casting IS their primary nature. At least for Chain and Tome Warlocks. The Bladelocks are more like Eldritch Knights, so it doesn't bother me as much.

I realize that according to the above logic that a Sorcerer isn't a full caster. But I've never been happy with the Sorcerer for precisely this reason. I have a player with a Sorcerer in my campaign right now, and he's a great character, but he just takes the most generic spells ever. He also overloaded on fire damage and now he's sort of gimped by being in an ancient temple with several fire-immune enemies. Meanwhile the NPC Wizard just swapped out Fireball for Lightning Bolt.

Does being a tome boon warlock change things? At that point you can detect a lot of things and frankly, the warlock can charm and injure as well as anyone else. Choosing fly or invisibility is...a choice.

Yeah, Tome Warlock is a big improvement for me, mainly because of being able to take Rituals from any class.

We will see. I have not gotten a warlock to high level. I suspect trying to be a wizard would not be fully successful.

I think a high-level Warlock has plenty of spellcasting oomf. A dozen+ spells known, 3-4 slots per SR, good high-level Invocations, and of course your Cantrips pump out great damage. My issue, as I mentioned above, is the limitation of being fixed into spell choices for the rest of your character's life. Especially the Mystic Arcanum.

 

[Warpiglet]

yes I get that...

And there aren't many mystic arcanum choices to begin with....

 

[Corwin]

I think a high-level Warlock has plenty of spellcasting oomf. A dozen+ spells known, 3-4 slots per SR, good high-level Invocations, and of course your Cantrips pump out great damage. My issue, as I mentioned above, is the limitation of being fixed into spell choices for the rest of your character's life. Especially the Mystic Arcanum.

As a carpenter, I gotta fall back on the old adage, "Its not the tool, its how you use it." Find creative ways to apply the things you do have, rather than bemoan lacking a thing you don't. <shrug> Just how I see it, maybe. But its how I see it.

 

[Irda Ranger]

As a carpenter, I gotta fall back on the old adage, "Its not the tool, its how you use it." Find creative ways to apply the things you do have, rather than bemoan lacking a thing you don't. <shrug> Just how I see it, maybe. But its how I see it.

Sorry, no. There's no amount of creative thinking that makes Arcane Gate a substitute for True Seeing, or vice versa.