D&D 5E The warlock is a "better" wizard than a wizard

[CleverNickName]

Well I must say I struggle with the idea of a wizard that only has 2 spell slots.

Needing to take hour long rests is a big sticking point.

The three extra cantrips from any spell list can offset that quite a bit. It's probably not everyone's cup of tea, though.

 

[toucanbuzz]

Pathfinder's Witch/Warlock class has the familiar be your spellbook and whisper its arcane secrets to you when you need to refresh your spells. That's awesome flavor. D&D Warlock getting powers from forbidden sources, also awesome flavor. Wizard opens a book, meh. But, what's to say we can't reskin the Wizard a bit to be more awesome too? Merging the Warlock and Wizard class, also very intriguing. I like it, especially since we've already got 2 charisma-based arcane casters out there already.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Of course I would remove Eldritch Blast from the list, but having the Invocations be applicable to ALL cantrips? that would be super fun, and double down on the controller role of the wizard.

Grasp of Hadar -> Astral Wind
Eldritch Spear -> Distant Cantrip
Agonizing Blast -> Aggravate Wounds

etc

So you could have a Frostbite dealing 1d6+Int cold damage with a range of 300 ft, for exemple.

Also, invocations that requires the use of Hex or other Cursing features could instead be used against a target under the effect of one your spell that a save can end.

Ex: Maddening Charm
As a bonus action, you cause a psychic disturbance around the target charmed by your spells or by a mage feature of yours, such as enchanter's Hypnotic Gaze. When you do so, you deal psychic damage to the target and each creature of your choice that you can see within 5 feet of it. The psychic damage equals your Charisma modifier (minimum of 1 damage). To use this invocation, you must be able to see the charmed target, and it must be within 30 feet of you.

 

[Ath-kethin]

This is why I only have Warlocks, Fighters, and Rogues in my Dread Carcosa campaign. Warlock fits classic weird fantasy wizardry REALLY well.

And with Celestial Warlocks, they also replace clerics.

Came here to mention much the same re: my 5e campaigns, though I allow paladins if someone really wants to play a divine-warrior type.

And I've never really liked clerics as a class anyway. They don't do things I think they should and they can do things I think they shouldn't. Make turn undead a spell instead of a class feature and voila! You can replace them easily. </semi-off-topic-rant>

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You're absolutely right that the Warlock is better at fitting the themes of a book-banging nerd than the Wizard is--because the Wizard has been forced into the "zero flavor, you must bring that yourself" hole alongside the Fighter. They've just given the Wizard lots of power to go with it, which doesn't help fix any of the flavor issues, but it does assuage the blandness of the underlying class.

I get, 100%, that some people absolutely LOATHE the idea of ANY preconceived notions about what a class should be.* I just don't think that that philosophy works in a game that makes classes front and center. IMO, the current "no-flavor" Wizard should've been a single subclass akin to Champion, where you pick your one school of magic, get a couple bonuses, and it's on you to make it flavorful. Then every OTHER subclass could, y'know, actually offer flavor concepts to start from, if you want them.

Edit: I think the most damning thing of all about the Wizard is...they don't actually do research. I mean, we have the handwave of "you develop new spells between levels" stuff, but that's just a fig leaf excuse for letting the player pick spells. They aren't researching anything as an action or effect or theme, it never comes up in play unless the player works rather hard to MAKE it come up in play. Failure to support that core thematic idea of the hermetic researcher combing through dusty tomes via the mechanics of the class is a serious fault IMO, and one I hope they address if at some point a 6th edition rolls around.

*Though I will admit, I've never understood why people feel chained by them when these notions do exist. Reskinning has always been a thing.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Hello

Now before we start, I should state that I don't mean that the warlock is better at being a wizard than the wizard. At the very birth of D&D there were only 2 classes - the fighting man and the magic user. As more and more magic using classes appeared, even today the wizard remains the best D&D magic user, no doubt about it.

However, I'm starting to feel that from a narrative and balance, the warlock - specifically the tome warlock - is a better depiction of a generic "fantasy mage" (which is not the same as a D&D wizard!).

I came to this realization watching the Dungeon Dudes 's game on youtube. In their current campaign, their party mage is a warlock (GOO, tome). This warlock is from a family of wizards, he joined the academy etc and... sucked. He just didn't have the talent, at all. So his parents made some arrangements for him to find a certain ancient text and ... voila, he's now a "mage!". (this is background stuff, not in the actual campaign).

Because of this, the character is really trying his hardest to "be a wizard", but his toolset is limited. Only a few slots available at any given time. A lot of "shenanigans" to compensate. BUT he's still an effective mage, which some really clutch moments.

And I realized, watching him, that apart from the numerous reference to his patron (Bruce, who looks like a cat), a Tome Warlock is much more like a generic fantasy wizard, or how a wizard is in several other games. They can't fix every problem with a spell (because they don't know that many), the tome aspect makes them "bookish" a bit, they have to rely on wits, guile and luck to fix other problems etc... not at all like the swiss army knife, spell for any situation wizard. This makes them more balanced too! The only change you might need is changing the main stat from cha to int and perhaps tweak the skill selection a bit...

Am I on to something? does this make any sense?

There is a reason that the "mage" in my Islands World set of new classes is the Binder, which I've built on the warlock chassis but with ritual casting built in and less BANG! built in. And a lot of ritualist flavor in the class features. They're a class that binds power to their will through rituals, and then unleashes it later.

 

[Stalker0]

What fantasy characters are you comparing him to? The most famous would be Merlin or Gandalf I suppose. I don't see the Warlock as stacking up next to them.

I think the warlock does Gandalf pretty well, ultimately Gandalf’s effects aren’t all that strong from a dnd level, and the warlock let’s you be more material.

merlin is a bit tougher, as he does a lot of crazy different Magic’s depending on which story.

I think the number 1 thing wizards have that warlocks don’t is the ability to cast any ritual they know (even if not prepared). This allows a lot of that “big magic” casting all sorts of weird spells motif…and the warlock doesn’t really have that equivalent

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I think the number 1 thing wizards have that warlocks don’t is the ability to cast any ritual they know (even if not prepared). This allows a lot of that “big magic” casting all sorts of weird spells motif…and the warlock doesn’t really have that equivalent

Giving that feature to the warlock while creating the ''Mage'' sure helps with the problem of ''too few slots''. If you only need to know the spell without preparing it as ritual, you can save your prepared spells and spells slots for more urgent things such as combat spells.

 

[Ancalagon]

This is, IMHO, the difference between a character who's meant to be read and a character who's meant to be played. Mages in books are more likely to be limited because it makes for more exciting stories. But when you're in combat and your turn comes up, being able to cast a spell that fits the situation is exciting.

(Though I'll note that there are fantasy wizards who have a wide array of spells--anyone in the Harry Potter universe, for example.)

Yes, there certainly are.

But the "better" wizard comment is not only about some fantasy archetypes, it's also about game balance. The wizards are astounding problem solvers as they go up in level, and this feature is not universal in all games. In multiple systems I've played in, the spellcasters don't have this wide array of magical tricks at their command. Either their magic is themed (fire magic - fire doesn't fix everything!) or simply limited - a "good" mage might know 5-6 spells.

(please note, I'm having some glitches, sorry if this post has appeared twice)

I really like how in 5e you can follow multiple class pathways to reach similar character archetypes. The bookish tome warlock is a really fun idea and it does line up well with Merlin and Faust.

I can see a "faustian wizard" having made a pact with a fiend for knowledge... And yes, I do like that there are many ways to make a certain character. A swashbuckler could be a rogue swashbuckler... or a battlemaster, or even could be build with the kensei monk chassi.

 

[Ancalagon]

.

I think the number 1 thing wizards have that warlocks don’t is the ability to cast any ritual they know (even if not prepared). This allows a lot of that “big magic” casting all sorts of weird spells motif…and the warlock doesn’t really have that equivalent

But they can get ritual magic with tome + the book of ancient secrets invocation