Also you aren't taking Arcane Recovery into account. The level 1 wizard for example gets two spells plus one for arcane recovery, meaning 6SP not 4. The only levels at which the warlock is ahead are 2 and 17 (which is a weird one because it's the level where the wizard completely blows the curve by getting any L1 and L2 spell to stop taking a slot), and at level 10 the wizard is up 74:42.
Plus Mystic Arcanum is far weaker than level 6th or higher spells. Wizards don't just get more slots, the warlock only gets to know a single spell from Mystic Arcana. A warlock is far behind a wizard here as even if the spell points are even the flexibility doesn't come vaguely close.
Throw in arcane recovery and the warlock is only ahead at 2 and even at 1 and 3 while falling behind at higher levels as Eldritch Blast gets better and they have to lean on Invocations more - and at level 17 things change massively. That feels right to me.
You're right in every respect. That said, my purpose is not to say that warlock spellcasting is equal in raw power to wizard spellcasting—I don't think even the most diehard warlock fan genuinely believes that. My purpose was to show how the underlying mechanics support that Pact Magic and Mystic Arcanum, together, are the equivalent of full casting, but in a different form—the warlock is a full caster, so tweaks to Pack Magic need to be made with that in mind. It isn't necessarily as strong as traditional spellcasting, but it's still worthy to be recognized as an equivalent category.
That's also why I wasn't taking into consideration (in that analysis) features like Arcane Recovery. I just wanted to compare the barebones Spellcasting feature with the barebones Pact Magic and Mystic Arcanum features.
Of course, pointing out things like Arcane Recovery and other ways traditional casters squeeze out extra spells, to me, just supports the argument that maybe WotC should go further than I've suggested in beefing up Pact Magic—maybe, if they go the route of Meditation/Channel Patron, let the warlock recharge 3 times a day eventually, or let the warlock have 3 and 4 slots earlier than it does and eventually get to 5 slots. I'm just spitballing here.
I'm not sure "can cast high level spells" was ever in any design document of a warlock.
"Had at will magic" was the original idea. (Now eveyone has at-will cantrips).
So really. Removing spell casting all together, and increasing the number of invocations would be closer to the "real" warlock.
I'm not talking about original intent, whatever that might have been. I'm talking about what we actually have (2014 PHB warlock), how what we actually have can work exceptionally well, and how it's only held back by a faulty universal mechanic (short rests). We have something that exists we can work off, so I'm going off of that.
But making them another boring Vancian caster is a no-go, for me and for a lot of people who love the warlock. I think the feedback on this one is likely to be pretty polarized, much as it was on the wild shape changes. And with the wild shape changes they recognized that a different approach may be necessary. So my hope is that the same thing will happen here.
Agreed—any solution that makes the warlock more Vancian is the wrong one. We have enough Vancian casters.
Honestly, that seems closer to the 3.5 warlock. I'd be fine with that too.
For my personal tastes (and being a big fan of 3.5 warlock, I played a lot of it), if they went this direction I'd rather have them make an entirely new class that was a modern adaptation of the 3.5 warlock. 5e being as averse to new classes as it is, that will never happen, but I can dream.
That said, I'd vastly prefer this approach to "fixing" the warlock than anything that makes the warlock Vancian. At least it would keep the warlock unique and lean even more heavily into how uniquely customizable the warlock is.
You can take Mystic Arcanum to get spells at the same max level as a wizard.
So fireball at 5, and wish at 17 are still possible
Let's keep this AND ditch any semblance of Vancian casting in the warlock class
Look, warlocks have a distinct mechanical identity from other 5e casters. Making them work like other 5e casters would ruin that mechanial identity. Whatever words you would rather I used to express that, just pretend I used them so we can move on from this incredibly pedantic point.
+1
It's nice having at least one class where your spellcasting is an encounter-based resource instead of an adventuring day resource, where you know you can cast a level-appropriate spell basically every combat, maybe a couple times in a combat if you're in a rough spot, and don't have to fiddle with a bunch of low-level spells and ration them all out across the entire day.
+1 +1
Funny story, I keep up with 5th Edition and
Level Up, and at first I was stoked when I saw that
Level Up warlocks used spell points instead of spell slots. Now I could get as fiddly as I wanted with the little low-level spells that most warlocks forget about as I leveled up—particularly
misty step. Then I quickly discovered I actually hated that change, and it took less than a single game session to decide I was just going to use normal spell slots. It helped me solidify my understanding that I played warlock exactly because I wanted to play a full caster that wasn't so darn fiddly and that always had a trick or two up his sleeve every encounter.
If I wanted to play a caster that was obnoxiously fiddly and had unfun resource management, I'd play literally any other full caster offered by 5e. Warlock is the one full caster that feels simple
and flexible
and has a bevvy of at-will or easily recharged options that are both satisfying to use and frequently useful. And on top of all that, the class still has a lot of depth under the hood. There's a reason I can't stop playing warlocks in 5e—it's the closest class they got to perfect right from the beginning (which is extra miraculous considering warlock was also the newest of all the classes).
