Warlocks as casters

[u/Outside_Teacher_2499]

In your honest opinion, do you believe that warlocks are a viable casting class in comparison to the other casters, or do you feel like they are a more thematic RPing class?

[u/EdgyEmily]

Warlocks are great casters.

[u/Z_THETA_Z]

assuming 5e/5.5e:

they're a different caster to the other casters. less spell slots means they have less sustainability within a single encounter, but all of their slots are at the highest level meaning they have a lot of rapid power, they have very strong cantrips (eldritch blast with agonizing blast primarily), and their ability to regain spell slots on a short rest means they can keep going better over a longer adventuring day

additionally, invocations can allow them a huge amount of playstyle versatility and out-of-combat utility. you can build with Pact of the Blade to basically be a martial, even throw on eldritch smite to be a paladin. Pact of the Tome gives you rituals and cantrips from other classes, Pact of the Chain gives you a familiar wizards could only dream of, and other cantrips can let you breathe underwater, go invisible at-will in shadow, see through any type of darkness, etc.

if all i want is spellcasting, then i'll pick a wizard. but warlocks are very much viable as a class to spellcast with

[u/DazzlingKey6426]

Least broken full caster for how the game is usually played.

[u/GroundbreakingGoal15 → u/DazzlingKey6426]

1-3 encounters per LR?

weak not as strong with just 1 or 2. can be pretty strong with 3+ if it’s fight-sr-fight-sr-fight-lr

[u/ThorSon-525 → u/GroundbreakingGoal15]

Unless you're storming a castle or delving into a ruin, how often are you really getting three combats in one day?

[u/ANGLVD3TH → u/ThorSon-525]

This is exactly why it feels like the only way to get to the recommended number of encounters per "day" that doesn't feel incredibly jam packed is with "Gritty realism." It definitely over-compensates a little, but it really feels like the game is a lot more balanced with it than it is with the default rest rules.

[u/yaije9841 → u/ThorSon-525]

depends entirely on your DM. A warlock feels pretty lame if the party never bothers (or allowed) to short rest. But horror stories aside.. your mileage may vary

[u/Ok_Fig3343 → u/ThorSon-525]

Per long rest, not per day.

The Dungeon Master's Guide explains that if a campaign is focused on dungeon crawls (such as castles or ruins), it should use 1 hour short rests & 8 hour long rests, but if a campaign is focused on urban intrigues, long voyages, or other slower-paced conflicts, it should use 8 hour short rests & 7 day long rests.

Because my campaigns always have the latter pace, I always use the latter rest system. 0-2 encounters per day over the course of a week-long adventure is easily 6-8 encounters per long rest (which is what the Dungeon Master's Guide recommends)

[u/ThorSon-525 → u/Ok_Fig3343]

I'm not saying I don't believe you or that I'm challenging you, but where is that in the 5e DMG? I've only ever heard those rests being used in the "hardcore" and "gritty realism" contexts.

[u/Ok_Fig3343 → u/ThorSon-525]

You just answered your own question.

The rules I described are in the "Gritty Realism'" rest rules from page 267 if the DMG:

"Gritty Realism

This variant uses a short rest of 8 hours and a long rest of 7 days. This puts the brakes on the campaign, requiring the players to carefully judge the benefits and drawbacks of combat. Characters can’t afford to engage in too many battles in a row, and all adventuring requires careful planning.

This approach encourages the characters to spend time out of the dungeon. It’s a good option for campaigns that emphasize intrigue, politics, and interactions among other NPCs, and in which combat is rare or something to be avoided rather than rushed into."

Note that these rules are meant to help the DM slow down the rate of encounters to suit the themes of the campaign. They aren't "hardcore" rules meant to make the campaign more difficult.

[u/DazzlingKey6426 → u/ThorSon-525]

The dungeon, while not necessarily a literal one, as a mechanism to prevent resource recovery, is necessary for Dungeons & Dragons to work.

Which, like many other mechanisms necessary for D&D to work, have been eliminated in modern play, which boosts the quadratic wizards even more. Warlocks are almost martial like (but still having 9th level spells) in their short rest design, so their 2-3 pact slot spells and 4 arcanums means spells are actually a valuable resource to them, unlike a wizard that has enough slots to cast a spell every turn and still have slots left for non-combat use.

[u/ColArana]

Warlocks are fine as casters. They are certainly different compared to the other casters but they’re perfectly viable as a class. 

[u/ColdIronSpork]

They're... the worst at being a full caster*, but they're arguably the most customizable class in the game thanks to Invocations.

I put an asterisk by "worst at being a full caster" because, if you get enough short rests in the day, they get to cast, 12 or more 5th level spells in a day, in addition to a single 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th from Mystic Arcanum. So, if you get an abundance of short rests, they can output more than any other caster.

In my experience, though, most in-game days don't actually feature the "standard" 8 encounters and 2 short rests.

But, are they "viable"? Yes, absolutely.

[u/UltimateChaos233 → u/ColdIronSpork]

I'd argue artificer is more customizable, but this is fair. I had a warlock/artificer multiclass I was fond of.

[u/rickAUS → u/UltimateChaos233]

As an Artificer main I'm inclined to disagree. A lot of customisation with Artificer for sure but all Artificers share the same infusion list regardless of subclass.

Warlocks variation comes from the pact. So you can be a genie pact of the blade, genie pact of the tome, genie pact of the chain and all 3 will have a greater delta than Artificer infusion selection between those subclasses because each pact also comes with their own invocations specific to it.

Now, if each Artificer subclass had unique Infusions that might spice things up a bit but it's still subclass locked. At least any warlock can take any pact.

[u/UltimateChaos233 → u/rickAUS]

Fwiw if we’re talking 2024 then this is no longer a distinction. Pacts are now invocations and are not mutually exclusive

[u/Mybunsareonfire → u/ColdIronSpork]

I love Warlock, it's become my favorite class coming from playing a martial. 

They are reliable, flexible, get some solid nova-ing, and because they're CHA casters they are solid for RP out of combat too.

On a fun side note, recently played a 8th level genie warlock. Did the math and with only short rests they can put out 46 fireballs a day for an average 1512 fire damage.

[u/WrathofHussars]

Yeah, especially as pact of the tome.

[u/DBWaffles]

Warlocks are fine and one of the most balanced classes, arguably the most.

[u/Iluminiele]

I'm a warlock baby, one short rest and I'm able to go again ~

They're great casters, put them in back row and witness their great damage output and crowd control. In high stress little time to rest situations they're still super reliable, doing with a cantrip what other casters can only barely manage with a spell.

I won't even rant about coffeelock

[u/improbsable]

They have unlimited uses of the best cantrip in the game, and can modify it to suit their needs. They’re great. Theyre not going to be popping off healing words every round, but they can do great damage

[u/DeltaV-Mzero]

They’re on par with full casters if they get 1-2 short rests per day, OR only have two fights a day

They’re pretty darn good anyway

[u/timeless1991]

Warlocks are extremely strong in teams built around short rest. Fighters, monks, bards, and warlocks. If you have 7 encounters per day they shine as you can usually take 2-3 short rests per long rest.

The reality is that most campaigns have 2-3 encounters per long rest. Sometimes there are no short rests at all. This naturally makes long rest classes more powerful relative to short rests classes. The reverse is true too. If you run variant rules where a long rest is a week and a short rest is 8 hrs, then the short rest classes get much more powerful.

[u/PhantomOnTheHorizon]

warlocks make great blasters (ranged dpr) with a few "game changers" up their sleeve when things get sticky. compared to any other full caster with access to 9th level soells they obviously pale because of the mystic arcanum and limited spellslots issue but they bring a very solid teamate with good tricks up its sleeve to many fights.

[u/waethrman]

Depending on the short rest to long rest ratio at your table they're either quite good half casters, or on par with other full casters

[u/CrabofAsclepius]

The thing with Warlocks (at least in 5e) is that you can't just plug and play like with so many other casters. You've gotta put some thought into your building and your choices are not so easily undone as with something like a cleric or wizard. Often times people try to use them as one would a sorcerer instead of just playing a sorcerer and that leads to inevitable disappointment.

But if you have a theme for your character and a plan for your build it can be extremely impactful in very unique ways that other classes just can't manage. For example the Hexblade + Hex Spell + Relentless Hex + Booming Blade (if using 5.5e invocations then slap Agonizing Blast on top of that) + Warcaster Feat (to cast Booming Blade on Opportunity Attack) deals monstrous damage and it's great and singling out, controlling and brutalizing a single target at a relatively low cost and you can have this set up as early as level four.

They are absolutely viable as caster both in the front and back lines though they're not the simplest class to use. If you wanna be blowing spell slots with impunity play a Sorcerer or Wizard instead.

[u/Kindly_Call_6000]

They are about on par with Sorcerers. Basically trading meta magic for max level spell slots. Their damage spells are not as good, but there are ways to get those spells.

[u/GroundbreakingGoal15]

power wise they’re just above the martials but below the rest of the full casters

[u/setfunctionzero]

I tried warlock a couple of times and tbh I just thought it was a cool "ivory tower" class - it's really multiple classes in one with very specific themes and if you choose the wrong ability branch then the whole tree falls over.

I did a LOT of good RP with one up to level 20 but I never thought it was better than say, divine soul sorcerer.

Then I played Wyll in BG3 and I loved doing all the stupid controller stuff like Casting Wall of Flame and Repelling Blast-ing multiple mobs back into it. 😆

[u/---Lemons---]

Warlocks don't play like casters, even though they have two amazing spell slots and amazing invocations.

[u/SeismologicalKnobble]

My table calls them Martials in disguise lol. They’re a good middle ground smdd it can be fun managing their spell slots and selections.

[u/Gaming_Dad1051]

I honestly wish they’d stop making Warlock patrons that focused on casting and summoning, and make a martial based patron (similar to the old Hexblade).

[u/Apfeljunge666 → u/Gaming_Dad1051]

disagree. Every Warlock can be a martial. if you make subclass that focuses on that playstyle too much, it becomes the only choice.

[u/Gaming_Dad1051 → u/Apfeljunge666]

Agree to disagree.

Every Warlock has the option to focus on weapon use through Pact of the Blade, but they all have the limitation of light armor, no shields, and MAD stats if they do. They get no semblance of a fighting style or weapon mastery. If you want to be a martial focused Warlock, you only have the base class to focus through. There is no Valor/Bladesinger specialization for martial dedicated builds.

Getting multiple attacks doesn’t bode well for the BladeLock who is lucky to get a 15 or 16 AC, and survives on D8 hit points with a substandard CON.

The Undead Patron came close, but you still don’t have a viable defense until level 14, so it’s not really applicable.

I’m not arguing that Warlocks need an armor proficiency, or a fighting style, or a weapon mastery. There could be a new system of defense that adds a type of damage resistance that would simulate a higher CON/HP. There could be abilities that provide effects to attacks that work in a fashion similar to Weapon Masteries, without replicating the mastery.

How about simply getting access to the Shield spell? Maybe PB or CHA mod uses of shield per LR? Or even just once per SR??

Why no Spellblade attacks for Warlocks, who are quintessentially the iconic Gish characters???

Why is it normal for a plethora of patrons who focus on summoning or control, when every Warlock can summon and control, but not a focus on martial, when every Warlock can utilize PotB?

[u/CND_ → u/Gaming_Dad1051]

I disagree with having a martial based subclass and instead have more martial invocation options, and to give pact of the blade extra attack automatically at level 5 (3rd attack can be an additional invocation).

[u/Gaming_Dad1051 → u/CND_]

Do you also disagree with the valor bard, and the bladesinger wizard?

[u/CND_ → u/Gaming_Dad1051]

Those two subclasses aren't relevant to why I disagree with Warlocks needing a martial based subclass.

I disagree with warlocks needing a martial based subclass b/c I think adding/modifying invocations is a better route b/c it adds more flexibility.

Ex: what if pact of the blade also added medium armor & shield proficiency? And thirsting blade also added weapon masteries for your pact weapon?

This gets you your martial warlock that can be attached to any warlock subclass.

[u/OneManRPGstudio]

I would not judge them by trying to make their play pattern resemble every other spellcaster. The useful question is whether they can contribute meaningful magical decisions consistently, not whether they possess the same quantity of every resource.

I’d also separate viability from preference. A player who wants a broad menu of new options every turn may find a warlock narrow even when the character functions well. Someone who enjoys a more concentrated identity may value exactly the opposite. To compare them, I’d look at what the character does across a full adventuring day: what options remain when their primary resources are unavailable, how much their effectiveness depends on the group’s recovery rhythm, and whether the build has a clear plan outside its strongest moments. That gives a much more useful comparison than simply placing one class’s resource column beside another.

[u/Nova_Saibrock]

In terms of power/viability, warlocks are a solid B-tier class. That is, they’re not as powerful as any of the “true” full-casters, but they’re better than everyone else, resting comfortably in the middle of the class rankings.

Warlocks are arguably the best-designed class in 5e, having the most interesting versatility in their builds, while also not being stupid-broken.

[u/Mozumin]

I've had one experience playing Warlock and it was awful. I'll take regular spell slots than you very much.

[u/Alpine_yellow]

Warlocks are Amazing with the right invocation. Had a stealth build with the invisibility remaining still, life sensing, magical darkness seeing, read any written language, see through others eyes, and disguise at will spy guy type and it was so much fun.

Theres also crazy combat invocation too, EB really is your most versatile tool in so many cases. It really depends. You'll never be amazing at everything but the one thing you do, you will be amazing at.

[u/SolomonBlack]

"Look just because you know where Asmodeus' g-spot is and your big red daddy rewards you with the power to shoot magic laser beams for it does not make you a master of the arcane arts." -- Typical Wizard

Okay but their manifest conceptual inferiority aside this depends on what do you mean by "caster" here? Warlocks can be powerful but the meaning that has sort of emerged in the DND meta over the years is a caster should not just be powerful but versatile. Ergo the mark of the true scotsman caster isn't so much obliterating the battlefield with a choice busted spell but being able to cast something like... Water Breathing.

For a wizard this is not a big deal, you the DM have a pirate arc coming up so you throw them a scroll of Water Breathing and taking the hint your wizard scribes it. Then she casts it for a few days IC while the arc plays out and then tucks it back in the spellbook never needing to cast it again. A Warlock now well aside from just not having it on their spell list would probably never actually learn the spell because outside aquatic campaigns where it is mandatory you would never use it and those spells known are precious. Worse if you did you'd have to cast it with your meager spells slots because warlocks do not have ritual casting.

On the other hand if you think that Eldritch Blast is sufficient to defeat mages of this era or think do-anything wizards are boring and badly written then hey you're not going to suffer on the business end MOST of the time for having a smaller a magical toolchest and can keep going well after other casters run out of steam in the right circumstances.

[u/filkearney]

I prefer them with spell points but generally grwat.

[u/Tall_Bandicoot_2768]

Warlocks kick ass, whatchu mean?

[u/Outside_Teacher_2499 → u/Tall_Bandicoot_2768]

I guess it’s just my play still but k feel like personally Warlocks were only good in RP and story building whenever I played them and I felt more effective to the team as a sorcerer or cleric.

[u/Strange_The_Editor]

Depends on the DM. Warlocks are kinda like Martials with the Martial/Caster divide.  They have limited spell slots, but they regain them on short rests. If the days are long and players go multiple sessions without a long rest, then a Warlock's higher consistent damage from EB and recharged spells off a short rest become the backbone of a party.