VenerableBede
Adventurer
If your metric to measure "full caster", "full casting", and/or "not losing out on spellcasting" is nova ability and low-level spell slots, then you are entirely correct.I don't know if I'd go that far. Pact magic lacks the ability to nova that standard spellcasting has, and also lacks the breadth of utility options that low-level slots brings. They're pretty similar in terms of total capacity, for sure, but I definitely normal spellcasting has a higher overall power level.
If your metric to measure "full caster"/"full casting" is a class's ability to match up with the wizard in raw damage output, then you are entirely correct.I did the math a long while ago. Warlocks can't out damage a wizard without a lot of Eldritch blast spam. And that assumed 2 short rests per day, which tends not to happen.
Here's my metric: if a class receives spell levels at the same rate as a full caster (we can use the wizard as the standard example) and gets comparable spell slot value as a full caster, that class is a full caster. Here's how the warlock matches up:
- Between Pact Magic and Mystic Arcanum, the warlock gains access to spell levels at the same rate as the wizard. Warlock passes this test.
- Warlocks only ever get one 8th and 9th level spell per long rest, same as the wizard. Wizard eventually gets two 6th and 7th level spells per long rest, while warlock caps out at one. For me, this still fits the metric of "comparable spell slot value," so the warlock passes this test for 6th–9th level spells, but we can note that the warlock has a little less spell slot value at higher levels.
- Warlocks get Pact Magic for 1st–5th level spells, while wizards get traditional spell progression. This is harder to measure for comparable spell slot value, but not impossible. We can use the Spell Points variant rule in the DMG to assign a value to every spell slot of every level and, from there, determine how many points' worth of slots wizards and warlocks get at every level (specifically for spell levels 1–5; we don't need to compare the higher spell levels in this test because we already did in a previous test). I'll share the chart comparing the two below. Here are the results: nine out of 20 levels, warlocks have a higher spell slot value than wizards, and on average across all levels warlocks are 1 spell point above wizards, which isn't even enough spell points to cast a first-level spell. I think that means the warlock passes this test.
Left Chart: Spell Points by Spell Level and Character Level, Traditional Caster, Spell Levels 1–5.
Middle Chart: Spell Points by Spell Level and Number of Slots, Pact Magic.
Right Chart: Difference in Total Spell Points Per Day by Level, Pact Magic Minus Traditional Magic. (Averaged at the bottom. Assumes two short rests per day for Pact Magic.)
Middle Chart: Spell Points by Spell Level and Number of Slots, Pact Magic.
Right Chart: Difference in Total Spell Points Per Day by Level, Pact Magic Minus Traditional Magic. (Averaged at the bottom. Assumes two short rests per day for Pact Magic.)
This is not an argument that the warlock does not need eldritch blast, Invocations, Pact Boons, and the rest of the warlock package. Having to take a rest in order to access all of their spell slots does limit warlock nova potential; not being able to break their spell slots up into smaller slots for the purpose of utility does limit warlock versatility; etc. Warlocks having weird casting gives them unique strengths and weaknesses that differ greatly from traditional full casters, both in flavor and in application, and in practice it may be that the warlock approach is weaker (despite still technically being full casting) because it is less flexible, or because it doesn't have as good access to spells, etc. But the math is pretty clear: strictly in terms of the relative value of spell levels and spell slots, warlocks have everything that traditional casters have, just, as Neonchameleon put it earlier, built high rather than wide. That makes them full casters.