5e warlock

I'm not sure if this belongs in the general but I have a specific question about 5e. what makes the warlock special? as far as I can tell they're less of a caster and more of a empowered rogue or ranger like the Paladin is an empowered fighter, or mabye just a better arcane trickster since they cast with CHA. They don't seem really special mechanically but their flavor is cool. couldn't you just flavor your wizard as someone who got their spell book from a devil rather than go pact of the tome? with their limited spells they seem more of a petty dabbler than the master of the forbidden arts that the PHB suggests.

Iirc their gimmick is that they get limited spells but unlimited casts. Thats not a bad deal, and tbqh I think that style of casting would resolve some of balancing issues vis a vis Quadratic Wizard vs Linear Fighters by narrowing their scope

I think that was like that in 3.5. now they get like 4 slots at high level

They're the most mechanically different caster in the game. pally, ranger, etc still all use the same casting system just diminished, warlock changes the rules with their refresh rate and always maxed slots, not to mention their invocations making a bunch of things at will. The execution is really questionable, but overall I think warlocks are the kind of direction they should take things when developing alternative casting methods. It's better than the sorcerer method anyway.

And fluff wise, warlocks are supposed to be cheaters. That's why they ultimately end up weaker than true full casters, because the designer don't like the idea of rewarding cheaters.

agreed but why sell them as like dr. stranger when they're perhaps more fittingly John Constantine

like if I play one he's gonna be more a trickster than a blast spammer

They have a unique cantrip that holds up with the classes that get extra attack in terms of damage and they're the only short rest based caster

I mean short rest is only as good as the campaign allows for. as for Eldritch Blast a bard could take it and it almost as good you don't get the invocations but you can still crowd control with that and have stronger spells to back it up

Two words my friend, ELDRITCH BLAST. Thats right nigga Eldritch MOTHERFUCKING Blast.

Its the best all around damaging cantrip in the game and can compete for the best damaging spell.

Flavor-wise, the mechanics really do help you get ideas for a character concept. Deals with fiends and great old ones and living darkness and the like. Wizard just goes, "you learn spells from a book". Well so can a Warlock. Not just any book, but an ancient or lost or forbidden one.

Mechanics-wise, it allows you to feel magical all the time. Between the boons, thematic patron powers, and invocations, you have magic even when you aren't using your spell slots.

And having only a few available to blow at any moment makes choosing the right spell a bigger impact than when a Wizard uses their half dozen'th spell.

They're also more balanced than the other spellcasting classes and never have to worry about the long rest aside from regaining HP.

I never see them sold like Dr. Strange i.e. as full casters. They're always more like Faust/Constantine/Hellboy/Cthulu Cultist type characters.

They're the fighter of spell casters, running on all short rests. That said, their two major features are:

>Spell slots always being max level and recharging on short rests.

If your party takes short rests, this can really add up. While they get fewer total slots, being able to chuck 2-3 5th level fireballs and such per short rest is pretty awesome.

>Invocations

Lets you more or less build to the class features you want. A number of them give you some good support/RP options, and a few others are solid combat choices.

Warlock was a bad idea from the start. Back in 3.5 it should have just been a prestige class and forgotten but they tried to push it hard, real hard. Then they tried to make it part of the 4e core and now it's in 5e too because why use a new edition to re-evaluate all the old bullshit.

They don't bring anything new or represent a different theme that another class couldn't have represented with various features. You can say the same for the sorcerer which was really just a Wizard that could cast spontaneously, however now that's not even an issue to they're just oddly flavored wizards.

So you could create a wizard class and then create two alternative paths(5e), kits (2e), or prestige class (3e). Call one the innate talent, who inherits their power from a magical ancestor and doesn't use a spell book, call the other pact bonded which they can channel effects from an otherwordly patron.

Low level warlocks tend to just spend all of a campaign spamming Eldritch Blast which basically just makes them boring martials. Their backstory is the only thing interesting about them.

>Warlock was a bad idea from the start. Back in 3.5 it should have just been a prestige class and forgotten but they tried to push it hard, real hard.

They didn't push it. It just became insanely popular as the first and pretty much only "at-will magic" class.

>>Then they tried to make it part of the 4e core
>>tried

>> 5e too because why use a new edition to re-evaluate all the old bullshit.

Just like everything else in 5e.

>>So you could create a wizard class and then create two alternative paths(5e), kits (2e), or prestige class (3e). Call one the innate talent, who inherits their power from a magical ancestor and doesn't use a spell book, call the other pact bonded which they can channel effects from an otherwordly patron.

The whole system needs to go back to Warrior/Rogue/Mage/Priest as pretty much everything is just a variation on that and D&D has progressed to the point where the differences between Mage and Priest are superficial at best too. Just combine them into Adept/Mystic/Spellcaster.

Nothing. They're a jack of all trades, but almost all the classes in 5e can do everything anyways so they're just bad. Easily the worst class in the game.

Inb4
>But r-r-rangers are b-b-bad
They out damage warlocks and provide actually good utility spells that only a few classes have access to like entangling strike and pass without trace. You're retarded if you think rangers are worse.

No it wasn't that popular they pushed it very very hard. 3.5 already allows spellcasters more slots than ever before and sorcerer had the most spells out of all. You would have to spend countless turns in combat to exhaust a sorcerer of spells.

Then again you also had reserve feats and other things like that which was the same, I think signature spells, inarcum, psionics, spellfire. You also had wands which got totally out of hand in 3.5 as well as other spell items.

>The whole system needs to go back to Warrior/Rogue/Mage/Priest as pretty much everything is just a variation on that and D&D has progressed to the point where the differences between Mage and Priest are superficial at best too.

I agree with that. Like the 5e druid is stupid and just a nature spellcaster rather than anything druidic, it's just an old name now. Things like polymorph and shape change even make wild shape pretty redundant.

>No it wasn't that popular they pushed it very very hard. 3.5 already allows spellcasters more slots than ever before and sorcerer had the most spells out of all. You would have to spend countless turns in combat to exhaust a sorcerer of spells.

They didn't push it and the forums were still full of people tearing at their hair and gnashing their teeth at the thought of "at will magic" because most people playing 3e didn't understand that crazy shit called balanced and all they knew was that casters had slots, but Warlocks didn't and that made them dangerous just like Psionics was OP, maneuvers were weeaboo fightan magic, and CoDzilla was fine.

But the class was the most popular one to come out of the Complete X series. Scout, Swashbuckler, Favored Soul were also standouts in their respective books. Scout really influenced the 4e Ranger and Swashbuckler became a 4e Rogue specialization.

It's a shitty ass class for edgelords fags

I still dont understand the salt river over "Weaboo fightan magic". God forbid martials become useful and scale up. Even if their powers are magic, why get so butthurt about spell-like abilities in a high-magic D&D setting?? Any mid-level fighter is going to be dripping in magic gear, it's not like they are compelled to be magic-athiests

At least it is mechanically different, with a different game pace than other spellcasters. I'd scrap sorceror and keep Warlock.

>Things like polymorph and shape change even make wild shape pretty redundant.
Isn't that more a problem with wizard spell bloat than anything else?

Honestly, I'd rather scrap the wizard, since it's the only caster that doesn't have a source for its power. "Studying" has always been a weak asspull, it's not like the other classes are clueless about how their magic works.

>The whole system needs to go back to Warrior/Rogue/Mage/Priest as pretty much everything is just a variation on that and D&D has progressed to the point where the differences between Mage and Priest are superficial at best

My autism likes best starting with five 'base' classes: Strong/Fighty guy, Religious Guy, Magic Guy, Sneaky/Clever guy, Naturey Guy.

By mixing these 5 base archetypes you can develop a path for every basic idea

>"Studying" has always been a weak asspull, it's not like the other classes are clueless about how their magic works.

Make them more like the Hermetic/Solomonic mages of yore they're based on, who utilized the carefully accrued bartering of favors and control of spirits elemental, infernal, and celestial in order to perform magic.

>Sorcerer
Inborn talent, magic is in their blood and power in their bodies, passed down by heritage. Give them a mana pool/power resource to manage.

>Warlock
Patron/Servant relationship with a powerful supernatural entity of some sort, the Warlock is given a 'spark' of magic which they nurture within themselves, it also leaves them tenuously connected to and at the whims of their patron. The Warlock must placate and serve their patron to continue receiving spells, similar to a cleric.

>Wizard
Casting spells via invoking the power of various alchemical spirits and daemons that have fallen under your domain or debt. The Vancian system makes sense here, as their spells are given to them as supernatural knowledge from beings beyond, and once used burns out of their memory. However they may have bound spirits and familiars which permit them to cast cantrips or weaker magics at will.

What refresh during short, not long, rests.

I like that. Witches in Pathfinder are neat too. Iirc their magic is a favor from a patron (generally unknown to the player, which makes for good RP opportunities). They get a lot of more classic hex and familiar magics, a lot like the wizard you described. I see your beef with wizards though

Nature guy tends to overlap too much with religion and magic guy. Just make a nature themed religious or magic guy.

Warlocks will never be as good as wizards, never ever.

losing literally half of EB base dmg.
no 10 feet pushback.
almost as good. Sure thing

But reverting back to Man-at-Arms, Thief, Mage and Priest must be done wisely, to avoid the difference between Fighter (subclass Paladin) and Paladin to be just a subdivision. I mean, if the Fighter archetypes were Battlemaster, Paladin/Ranger (think EK), Berserker.

I agree Sorcerer and Warlock should be archetypes of Wizard, but I also want the Druid to be inside Cleric, Bard inside Rogue and Ranger inside Fighter, and this makes people angry.

>I agree Sorcerer and Warlock should be archetypes of Wizard, but I also want the Druid to be inside Cleric, Bard inside Rogue and Ranger inside Fighter, and this makes people angry.

It makes people who started playing D&D in 3e (i.e. most people who play D&D) angry because it changes things.

I understand why you feel a Druid is the same thing as a priest, but from my perspective it's a matter of power source - a druid derives their power from the natural world, the spirit of the world itself. a Priest draws power from the gods, the divine realm.

>I understand why you feel a Druid is the same thing as a priest, but from my perspective it's a matter of power source - a druid derives their power from the natural world, the spirit of the world itself. a Priest draws power from the gods, the divine realm

Druids are literally pantheist/animist/nature priests.

Not to mention that in D&D, you don't need an actual "god" to be a Cleric. You can just believe in a philosophy or powerful spirit or something.

Under this overarching Priest class, you'd have something like the usual D&D Cleric (heavily armored battle priest), a Druid (nature themed, not-metal wearing shapeshifter), Shaman (spirit summoning controller or whatever) and other subclasses.

Or just base the subclass on what you worship. At the end of the day, the spells and general abilities of a Druid and the Cleric of a Nature god or a Warlock that made a pact with a powerful nature spirit are just a matter of degrees.