I appreciate the feedback Geann. Nobody picked anything for me, I was drawn to Old One Warlock because I thought it was cool. She only insisted that I not include any complex or involved patron strings attached to my character. Also, hexblade isn't on the table, we only have PHB, Dungeon Masters Guide, and Monster Manual, no content outside of that will be allowed in this campaign.
This explains a lot - being that constrained changes game balance a lot. For example, you're effectively playing without any rules for tool proficiencies doing anything, in general (those are in Xanathar's). And without access to Hexblade, Pact of the Blade may as well not exist for you, it's so useless. Etc etc.
I suggest you go old-school traditional, if you like Warlocks: The Fiend, Pact of the Tome + Book of Ancient Secrets, Eldritch Blast+Agonizing Blast+Repelling Blast, Hex, Darkness, Devil's Sight, etc. Lean into the role of ranged murder.
I appreciate the feedback Geann. Nobody picked anything for me, I was drawn to Old One Warlock because I thought it was cool. She only insisted that I not include any complex or involved patron strings attached to my character. Also, hexblade isn't on the table, we only have PHB, Dungeon Masters Guide, and Monster Manual, no content outside of that will be allowed in this campaign.
This explains a lot - being that constrained changes game balance a lot. For example, you're effectively playing without any rules for tool proficiencies doing anything, in general (those are in Xanathar's). And without access to Hexblade, Pact of the Blade may as well not exist for you, it's so useless. Etc etc.
I suggest you go old-school traditional, if you like Warlocks: The Fiend, Pact of the Tome + Book of Ancient Secrets, Eldritch Blast+Agonizing Blast+Repelling Blast, Hex, Darkness, Devil's Sight, etc. Lean into the role of ranged murder.
Alternately, for a decent low level multiclass, a Feylock 1 / Sorcerer 2 (any) can chain faerie fire and eldritch blast in one turn using quickened spell metamagics from the sorcerer to make Faerie Fire a Bonus action spell, then blast away with advantage with eldritch blast while staying out of range (while giving all your allies advantage on their attacks as well). at Feylock 2/ Sorcerer 2 you can use one/some of the numerous invocations that mod eldritch blast to do extra damage (agonizing blast) to improve that combo further. Any Warlock 2/Sorcerer 3 can learn the darkness spell and with the devil's sight invocation you can chain darkness and eldritch blast with the same ability for similar results
I appreciate the feedback Geann. Nobody picked anything for me, I was drawn to Old One Warlock because I thought it was cool. She only insisted that I not include any complex or involved patron strings attached to my character. Also, hexblade isn't on the table, we only have PHB, Dungeon Masters Guide, and Monster Manual, no content outside of that will be allowed in this campaign.
This explains a lot - being that constrained changes game balance a lot. For example, you're effectively playing without any rules for tool proficiencies doing anything, in general (those are in Xanathar's). And without access to Hexblade, Pact of the Blade may as well not exist for you, it's so useless. Etc etc.
I suggest you go old-school traditional, if you like Warlocks: The Fiend, Pact of the Tome + Book of Ancient Secrets, Eldritch Blast+Agonizing Blast+Repelling Blast, Hex, Darkness, Devil's Sight, etc. Lean into the role of ranged murder.
Alternately, for a decent low level multiclass, a Feylock 1 / Sorcerer 2 (any) can chain faerie fire and eldritch blast in one turn using quickened spell metamagics from the sorcerer to make Faerie Fire a Bonus action spell, then blast away with advantage with eldritch blast while staying out of range (while giving all your allies advantage on their attacks as well). at Feylock 2/ Sorcerer 2 you can use one/some of the numerous invocations that mod eldritch blast to do extra damage (agonizing blast) to improve that combo further. Any Warlock 2/Sorcerer 3 can learn the darkness spell and with the devil's sight invocation you can chain darkness and eldritch blast with the same ability for similar results
Seems pretty fun but I've found that Sorlock is pretty limited until like level 8.
I appreciate the feedback Geann. Nobody picked anything for me, I was drawn to Old One Warlock because I thought it was cool. She only insisted that I not include any complex or involved patron strings attached to my character. Also, hexblade isn't on the table, we only have PHB, Dungeon Masters Guide, and Monster Manual, no content outside of that will be allowed in this campaign.
This explains a lot - being that constrained changes game balance a lot. For example, you're effectively playing without any rules for tool proficiencies doing anything, in general (those are in Xanathar's). And without access to Hexblade, Pact of the Blade may as well not exist for you, it's so useless. Etc etc.
I suggest you go old-school traditional, if you like Warlocks: The Fiend, Pact of the Tome + Book of Ancient Secrets, Eldritch Blast+Agonizing Blast+Repelling Blast, Hex, Darkness, Devil's Sight, etc. Lean into the role of ranged murder.
Alternately, for a decent low level multiclass, a Feylock 1 / Sorcerer 2 (any) can chain faerie fire and eldritch blast in one turn using quickened spell metamagics from the sorcerer to make Faerie Fire a Bonus action spell, then blast away with advantage with eldritch blast while staying out of range (while giving all your allies advantage on their attacks as well). at Feylock 2/ Sorcerer 2 you can use one/some of the numerous invocations that mod eldritch blast to do extra damage (agonizing blast) to improve that combo further. Any Warlock 2/Sorcerer 3 can learn the darkness spell and with the devil's sight invocation you can chain darkness and eldritch blast with the same ability for similar results
Seems pretty fun but I've found that Sorlock is pretty limited until like level 8.
Multiclassing in general is pretty limited until 2nd tier of play. 2-3 levels don't seem like a lot but that is the delay of an entire spell level of slot progression for casters. I play a Feylock 3/Wild Mage Sorcerer 5 right now and it's really opened up (plus, between the above combo and spells like invisibility, mirror image, misty step, and blink I'm practically untouchable)
If it makes you feel any better, I often have buyer's remorse in the whole character creation process--and I've done it dozens of times in 5e. And I still end up having fun, because the mechanical stuff is not end of the story.
I mention this, because I absolutely share your frustration with looking at the progression for warlocks. I tend to create characters who I think I'll enjoy mechanically and see what fun blooms on the roleplay side of things.
I've also discovered that I enjoy builds that include new and interesting abilities often. This has made combat classes generally less appealing. But I've been giving them a try lately and I've been pleasantly surprised as well--generally through multiclassing, as it turns out. I don't plan out all 20 levels, since I'm old and have a fraction of the playtime needed to really see my characters advance to the higher levels. But I do take a look at the possibilities for the first 8 levels or so to at least give myself an out if I get get fed up with what I've got.
Anyway, wish me luck. After obsessing over the rp value of warlocks for years, I'm finally making one: human, Fathomless, pact of the chain, with a quasit. A high CHA means I can always switch to sorcerer or bard. A high INT means I might go wizard at some point. And a mid-range DEX means I might get to add some rogue levels (which seems most likely). But I'm gonna see how long I can put up with the limited spell list :)
(my favorite character these days, for reference, is a wizard/bladesinger 7 - ranger/hunter 4, with dual scimitars. Absolutely the most fun in melee combat I've ever had.)
And best of luck to you too! (I also feel the pain of using only the base books. lotta good stuff has come out since them that spice things up!)
I appreciate the feedback Geann. Nobody picked anything for me, I was drawn to Old One Warlock because I thought it was cool. She only insisted that I not include any complex or involved patron strings attached to my character. Also, hexblade isn't on the table, we only have PHB, Dungeon Masters Guide, and Monster Manual, no content outside of that will be allowed in this campaign.
This explains a lot - being that constrained changes game balance a lot. For example, you're effectively playing without any rules for tool proficiencies doing anything, in general (those are in Xanathar's). And without access to Hexblade, Pact of the Blade may as well not exist for you, it's so useless. Etc etc.
I suggest you go old-school traditional, if you like Warlocks: The Fiend, Pact of the Tome + Book of Ancient Secrets, Eldritch Blast+Agonizing Blast+Repelling Blast, Hex, Darkness, Devil's Sight, etc. Lean into the role of ranged murder.
Alternately, for a decent low level multiclass, a Feylock 1 / Sorcerer 2 (any) can chain faerie fire and eldritch blast in one turn using quickened spell metamagics from the sorcerer to make Faerie Fire a Bonus action spell, then blast away with advantage with eldritch blast while staying out of range (while giving all your allies advantage on their attacks as well). at Feylock 2/ Sorcerer 2 you can use one/some of the numerous invocations that mod eldritch blast to do extra damage (agonizing blast) to improve that combo further. Any Warlock 2/Sorcerer 3 can learn the darkness spell and with the devil's sight invocation you can chain darkness and eldritch blast with the same ability for similar results
Seems pretty fun but I've found that Sorlock is pretty limited until like level 8.
Multiclassing in general is pretty limited until 2nd tier of play. 2-3 levels don't seem like a lot but that is the delay of an entire spell level of slot progression for casters. I play a Feylock 3/Wild Mage Sorcerer 5 right now and it's really opened up (plus, between the above combo and spells like invisibility, mirror image, misty step, and blink I'm practically untouchable)
If it helps, I can share my own multiclassing journey with my current character. I think I found a good bit of synergy to build a character that isn't directly given as an option with the current subclasses:
Which brings me to my personal anecdote about my current character. I was a veteran roleplayer, but still pretty new to D&D. My DM had tried to run a game of 3.5, but it died after one session so when I recycled the character for his 5Ed game, I still thought of him as my first D&D character. I love bards and wanted to play a gish, someone who uses magic to enhance their swordplay rather than a spellcaster who occasionally swings a sword, so I chose to play a College of Swords Bard. I requested that we start at level 3 because I wanted everyone to have some sort of signature style inherent in their gameplay and I saw the subclasses as adding that, just my personal view. After half a dozen sessions and hitting level 4 I finally had gained enough knowledge about 5Ed to stop pulling out the books for basic stuff like attack rolls and spells and could think more critically about my gaming experience. I looked ahead and realized a bit glumly that Bards are full spellcasters and that I wasn't really going to be getting much better at swinging a sword than I already was, while my spells would far outstrip and outshine my martial skills. I could keep playing the same way I had been and start to look like a low level minion compared to my partymates, or I could switch my tactics and completely go against the playstyle that I wanted to play. Neither of these seemed fun for me, so I started looking around for options. My actually DM let me completely rebuild my character in another class for one session to try it out and I really enjoyed playing as a level 4 Swashbuckler Rogue, but I did miss all of the social utility that I had become accustomed to as a Bard, which was the other half of the playstyle I wanted, a charming gish. So after awhile I came up with a plan to have my cake and eat it, too.
I had always been a fan of Eilistraee and her sword dancers and wanted that grace to be a part of this character's gish style, so I reverted my character back to the 4th level Swords Bard and when I hit level 5 I took 1 level of Hexblade, reskinned as Eilistraee's Moonblade. Now my Dex and Cha were even at this time so there was no sudden disparity in sword skill to smooth over. We had also just escaped from a foray into the Underdark. The session was unavoidably cut short due to a scheduling issue and my DM was forced to handwave and teleport us back to Waterdeep and I asked him if it was okay to say that the sound of mysterious hunting horns led us back to the surface, which allowed me to write a dream sequence where my bard met Eilistraee and received her blessing. This allowed me to pick up Shield as well as proficiency with shields, which I reskinned as a cloak wrapped around an arm so I could be a spanish style rapier and cloak fencer. Booming Blade rounded out my magical melee skill set.
Then I started taking levels of Rogue, becoming a Swashbuckler at level 8, and getting my second ASI at level 9, which I put into Charisma. This means I'm using Charisma for melee, for spellcasting, and as an initiative boost, which allows me to grow as a swordsman and a spellslinger at the same time. Plotting out my levels ahead of time I intended to end roughly at Swords 6/ Hexblade 3/ Swashbuckler 11 because that maintains a character who is mainly a charming swordsman (I love Panache and the idea of just being that silver tongued that I can do that without a spell) but also has enough magic tricks up his sleeve to make that swordplay flashier. I wouldn't have any spells higher than 3rd level, which I viewed as a benefit since I mostly wanted spells that were utility and enhancement and not spells that were huge game changers in and of themselves, that didn't fit the character concept I wanted. At level 9 (Swords 4/Swashbuckler 4/Hexblade 1) any level I took would result in meaningful growth, which allowed me to still be responsive to the plot in how I progress in my plan. I just hit level 10 in my game, for example, and we're currently in a plot arc that has open terrain and military leanings so I took that level in Bard, allowing me to better support my Fighter partymate in his quest to take over as warlord of the local orc horde.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Well the problem with your first example is that, as a DM, I would really wonder why the character's original patron lets them keep their power. A warlock's power is typically considered more a rental than a gift and there would be consequences for defaulting. If they get to keep the power, their patron would likely consider them doing so falsely and be after their head, soul, or at least wanting to take the stolen power back.
At least that is how I would see it and thus how the patron would see it.
Actually, the warlock's patron gives them eldritch knowledge of how to do certain things. Once taught, that knowledge is the warlock's and the patron can't revoke it. The warlock's patron isn't like a cleric's deity, giving them spells and powers on a daily basis. If the warlock has a bad relationship with the patron, then there may be no further eldritch knowledge being taught, but what he/she already has is theirs.
"A D&D warlock isn't required to be on good terms with their patron. They made a magical transaction, and now the warlock has power. As for switching patrons, no rule allows it, but talk to your DM if there's a good story reason to switch. Your DM might say yes. #DnD" - Jeremy Crawford
If the DM agrees you become infinitely powerful, you become infinitely powerful. If they decide you drop dead, you drop dead. The DM might indeed say many things.
Interesting that Crawford allows the DM the power to make any decision at all since he seems to think that the power comes from some sort of one shot, completely one-sided in the PC's favour transaction, as if literally merely saying 'Yes' with no strings or obligations attached at all is sufficient grounds for some cosmic being to grant power. And that he expresses that as an absolute, implying it is something a DM cannot decide otherwise about.
Properly expressing what I really think of such 'rulings' would get me banned, so I'll leave it at that.
If you and your elementary school teacher later have a "falling out" can he/she remove your ability to do basic arithmetic?
No. Once your teacher taught you, that knowledge was yours.
Btw, Mike Mearls has also said that the eldritch knowledge, once taught to the warlock can't be taken away. That the patron can only withhold future knowledge. So you may not be able to progress in levels until you make it right with your patron or find a new patron. And the second patron may want a more binding agreement, since you violated the first. Or if the relationship is really bad with that first powerful patron entity, they might want to send creatures to kill the offending warlock. What the penalty is for violating the agreement is up to the DM and can easily become a part of the storyline for the campaign.
Then what, exactly, is the difference between a warlock and a wizard? If it is literally merely learned conventionally, as in your teacher/student example, why couldn't it be learned in a conventional wizard/textbook/mage school learning manner?
Why wouldn't wizards be able to learn invocations? Why couldn't sorcerers learn them? After all, according to the model you are describing the only actual transaction with the Patron is pre-level 1. The level 6, 10 and 14 abilities you and Crawford would have us believe happen automatically, regardless of what has happened to the relationship between Warlock and Patron, even though they are unique to that patron's teachings.
The main difference between warlocks and wizards is the source of the knowledge, not the method of learning. Wizards study the books and scrolls left behind by the scholars before them, working off a system of magical pedagogy that's largely a mortal tradition.
Warlocks, on the other hand, have access to beings both ancient and strange, and glean old secrets from their tutelage. They have powerful knowledge, but they're also distinctly in-human (in-mortal, I should say) in that their minds do not work in the same way ours do, so the magic you learn from them follows suit, and its eldritch and a bit alien.
A wizard could study that kind of magic if they had access to a being of such antiquity and power, but they'd probably have little patience for all their niggling technical questions. In mechanics though, if they were successful, I'd probably represent that with the Eldritch Adept feat from Tasha's.
There are a lot of spells on the wizard spell list, but they don't know all of them by default. They might have to spend money and time on copying spells to keep up with a druid, who knows all spells automatically and can prepare any spell for any situation that can wait for a long rest.
Fighters can hit a lot, but rogue sneak attack damage is pretty big too. Rangers can hit pretty hard with Hunter's Mark.
Warlocks are relatively weak if your campaign involves only 1-3 battles per long rest, but they're strong if you have a deep dungeon with many battles. They can conserve spell slots by using Eldritch Blast, the best damage-dealing cantrip. And if there are opportunities for short rests, they get way more of their highest-level spells than other casters.
The main difference between warlocks and wizards is the source of the knowledge, not the method of learning. Wizards study the books and scrolls left behind by the scholars before them, working off a system of magical pedagogy that's largely a mortal tradition.
Warlocks, on the other hand, have access to beings both ancient and strange, and glean old secrets from their tutelage. They have powerful knowledge, but they're also distinctly in-human (in-mortal, I should say) in that their minds do not work in the same way ours do, so the magic you learn from them follows suit, and its eldritch and a bit alien.
A wizard could study that kind of magic if they had access to a being of such antiquity and power, but they'd probably have little patience for all their niggling technical questions. In mechanics though, if they were successful, I'd probably represent that with the Eldritch Adept feat from Tasha's.
Again, though, that implies that if a wizard somehow ends up with a warlock's research notes, they should be able to learn from them without needing any pact or agreement. They have the notes. The argument is that it is just knowledge, after all. No warlocks document their knowledge? No warlocks set up schools to teach their knowledge?
Why even use the words 'Patron' or 'Pact' if it is no different from a Wizard learning from their Guild?
Edit: And if it is 'just learning,' why can't warlocks simply expand their books with 'conventional' easier-to-learn-since-not-needing-special-cosmic-teacher spells? Why can't a pantheon of different patron types set up a school with a holistic approach where warlocks learn all the subclasses? The whole concept just keeps having to fall back on 'Because reasons because playbalance.' Arbitrary rules rather than a properly thought out class.
There being consequences to having a Patron makes so much more sense as a model. And it is not like it is all bad either. A Patron equals plot hooks.
The wizard got their knowledge and power through intelligence and long hours of study. The warlock got around having to spend years studying for knowledge and power by making a deal with a powerful entity. The warlock took the easy route to power, but one that has a cost in the form of a deal with that patron. How the patron imparts that knowledge and power to the warlock so quickly isn't really spelled out, that's for the DM to figure out. But it is clear from the PHB, that they are two different types of knowledge and power. And their use of the power has a lot of differences in the classes. Few who look at the wizard and warlock classes would argue they are virtually the same thing.
DnD has always had a sort of divide between arcane and divine magic. Magic comes from the weave and being able to tap into the weave. Both warlock and wizard have types of arcane magic. Whereas paladins and clerics get divine magic. This, to me, has always just been kind of a flavor thing, a "how" they get their magic access. The cleric has a conduit for magic from a deity. The wizard gets it from laborious hours of study. The warlock is a sort of hacker, who has found a way to get around long hours of study route, but it leads to a different sort of magical powers. But, at the end of the day, a spell is a spell. No matter the source or lore on how you got the power.
DnD is a game. It is the product of human minds creating fun classes with some backstory and lore. But is it going to be seamless? Why don't warlocks teach each other their secrets? Maybe their mind was altered to allow them to learn the eldritch secrets, but it's not readily understandable to somebody who doesn't also have a powerful patron imparting that knowledge also? Who knows? It's a game! It's not holy writ, given to us by God. It's there for fun and enjoyment...that's all! lol
The main difference between warlocks and wizards is the source of the knowledge, not the method of learning. Wizards study the books and scrolls left behind by the scholars before them, working off a system of magical pedagogy that's largely a mortal tradition.
Warlocks, on the other hand, have access to beings both ancient and strange, and glean old secrets from their tutelage. They have powerful knowledge, but they're also distinctly in-human (in-mortal, I should say) in that their minds do not work in the same way ours do, so the magic you learn from them follows suit, and its eldritch and a bit alien.
A wizard could study that kind of magic if they had access to a being of such antiquity and power, but they'd probably have little patience for all their niggling technical questions. In mechanics though, if they were successful, I'd probably represent that with the Eldritch Adept feat from Tasha's.
Again, though, that implies that if a wizard somehow ends up with a warlock's research notes, they should be able to learn from them without needing any pact or agreement. They have the notes. The argument is that it is just knowledge, after all. No warlocks document their knowledge? No warlocks set up schools to teach their knowledge?
Why even use the words 'Patron' or 'Pact' if it is no different from a Wizard learning from their Guild?
Edit: And if it is 'just learning,' why can't warlocks simply expand their books with 'conventional' easier-to-learn-since-not-needing-special-cosmic-teacher spells? Why can't a pantheon of different patron types set up a school with a holistic approach where warlocks learn all the subclasses? The whole concept just keeps having to fall back on 'Because reasons because playbalance.' Arbitrary rules rather than a properly thought out class.
There being consequences to having a Patron makes so much more sense as a model. And it is not like it is all bad either. A Patron equals plot hooks.
Bear in mind, the Warlock is a Charisma caster. If a Warlock kept notes on how their spells worked, it would probably reference how a spell should *feel* or describe like the gut feeling behind a particular spell, and the notes would likely ramble on obscure bits of wisdom from their patron that you really need to know the context for to fully grasp.
It would not be the well-ordered and logic-oriented notes understanding *how* the magic works, which is what the INT-based wizard would need to understand to make it work for them; the Warlock just needs to know how a thing can be *done*.
Late to this thread, but I think that while 5e simplified a lot of things from previous editions, there's still a certain amount of cruft leftover that could be simplified further, and with recent releases and UA I do wonder if Wizards might be leaning in that eventual direction.
While I loved character classes when starting in D&D, they've also quickly become something that annoys me quite a bit as well, as they can often feel like a constraint to character creation; while I'm sure a 6e is a ways off yet (we're only just about to get a 5e Feywild book in September, so there's still a lot of material to cover if they want to) my hope is that in a future edition of D&D we might do away with rigid classes entirely.
My ideal for character creation is just to have a big pile of categorised abilities (e.g- martial, stealth and magic for combat, then physical, mental and presence for non-combat) so that every character is choosing from the same abilities, but is (mostly) free to pick and choose whatever they like to best represent the character they're trying to build. With abilities separated into combat and non-combat every character should have roughly the same utility inside and outside of combat, and aside from reasonable restrictions (need a decent mental stat to master higher level magic or mental abilities etc., maybe have abilities in tiers that need to be unlocked in order) then this would just let us build whatever we want.
There could still be character archetypes recommending certain quick builds for people who just want to play a Fighter, Wizard or whatever, and would probably be specialisations that introduce extra ability categories on top of the base abilities, e.g- your "Holy" abilities for making a cleric focusing on healing magic and/or smiting, your "Nature Affinity" abilities (going beyond basic survival type stuff) for the Druid/Ranger builds etc. and so-on. Certain abilities would also be "choose one and only one", for example, in the magic category your first choice would be how your character casts spells (e.g- intuitively, through a patron, or from a spellbook?).
Of course, we'd be talking a pretty huge fundamental change in how characters are built and levelled, but I think it would be a really cool way to do it; there'd still be certain rigid elements (the abilities themselves and when you can get them) but it's otherwise a pick and mix system more focused on having the freedom to build whatever you want to build rather than having to figure out what class is the right fit initially (or justify why your character is that class despite not quite fitting its archetype) then whether multiclassing or taking feats makes more sense etc.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Kotath, I have had similar (but not the same) complaints about warlocks for some time now, their lore doesn't add up to me fully either. The way I always interpreted it was the eldritch being does NOT give them magical knowledge, that would essentially make them a jumpstarted wizard. What happens is you make an agreement that can take many different forms, servitude toward a task or goal, durational service, transactional (IE soul, or memories, or personality, alignment or other) but regardless of the form it takes the result is that the power the patron gives you is either inherent magical investiture (basically the patron modifies your body and makes you a semi magical creature, you aren't exactly casting spells, they are spell like abilities you "naturally" possess) OR the patron casts the spells for you. Both of those explanations to me satisfy why warlocks only cast spells at maximum strength, either they don't decide the power output at all or it was preinstalled in their biology and they really don't have magical knowledge in this circumstance.
The problem I then run into is spell casting requirements. Why does a warlock need a verbal or somatic component if they are not casting the spell, the patron is, or it's a natural biological force similar to flexing a muscle. In either case waving your fingers in the air or chanting becomes harder to justify. Maybe you want to claim it's to invoke and notify my patron of the spell I wish to cast. Okay. What if I serve an ancient one who is madness itself? Couldn't I just scream-cluck while flipping everyone off and headbang to activate my spells? Also, I would be naturally telepathic, so couldn't I just telepathically ask for the spell? If my patron is sane and I am not casting, just notifying them what spell to cast for me, then my trigger phrase could be "Why hello there" while waving to cast like crown of madness on someone in a social situation and nobody have any idea what's happening because nothing I did was vaguely magical right? Who needs subtle spell in that case, just be a warlock.... I know that is game breaking it's just the lore of why they cast spells confuses me.
Either they are wizards essentially or they shouldn't need to cast spells like other casters. I understand having to provide material components for spells, your patron agreed to sharing power with you, not goods and resources. But I don't understand their exact placement in the lore as it is now.
Kotath, I have had similar (but not the same) complaints about warlocks for some time now, their lore doesn't add up to me fully either. The way I always interpreted it was the eldritch being does NOT give them magical knowledge, that would essentially make them a jumpstarted wizard. What happens is you make an agreement that can take many different forms, servitude toward a task or goal, durational service, transactional (IE soul, or memories, or personality, alignment or other) but regardless of the form it takes the result is that the power the patron gives you is either inherent magical investiture (basically the patron modifies your body and makes you a semi magical creature, you aren't exactly casting spells, they are spell like abilities you "naturally" possess) OR the patron casts the spells for you. Both of those explanations to me satisfy why warlocks only cast spells at maximum strength, either they don't decide the power output at all or it was preinstalled in their biology and they really don't have magical knowledge in this circumstance.
The problem I then run into is spell casting requirements. Why does a warlock need a verbal or somatic component if they are not casting the spell, the patron is, or it's a natural biological force similar to flexing a muscle. In either case waving your fingers in the air or chanting becomes harder to justify. Maybe you want to claim it's to invoke and notify my patron of the spell I wish to cast. Okay. What if I serve an ancient one who is madness itself? Couldn't I just scream-cluck while flipping everyone off and headbang to activate my spells? Also, I would be naturally telepathic, so couldn't I just telepathically ask for the spell? If my patron is sane and I am not casting, just notifying them what spell to cast for me, then my trigger phrase could be "Why hello there" while waving to cast like crown of madness on someone in a social situation and nobody have any idea what's happening because nothing I did was vaguely magical right? Who needs subtle spell in that case, just be a warlock.... I know that is game breaking it's just the lore of why they cast spells confuses me.
Either they are wizards essentially or they shouldn't need to cast spells like other casters. I understand having to provide material components for spells, your patron agreed to sharing power with you, not goods and resources. But I don't understand their exact placement in the lore as it is now.
for someone who started a thread complaining that the game is not as synergistic between classes, it seems odd that you are now proposing a greater synergistic divergence. But Warlocks already don't cast like other casters. They always cast at the highest level possible, They have divergent spell slot progression (and regain them differently from other classes), and their invocations allow spellcasting without slots in many cases. That they share certain basic rules with other casters (spell components, casting and targeting rules, etc) makes them playable without additional special meta-knowledge on the player/DM side, other that what is needed for the above.
The Lore of the Warlock class is not in "how" they cast spells (Sorcerers get to manipulate the "how" via many of their metamagics) but "where" the power/knowledge to cast comes from. Warlocks are imbued with power by their patrons that allows them to cast spells, but that power is not revocable (like it potentially is with a cleric) or learned by rote/recorded (like it is with Wizards). You can work the lore of how these rules work with each class (for instance, a Wizard might have extensive notes on pitch, timbre, and pronunciation of a verbal component, diagrams of hand motions for somatic, and weights and measures of material components, while a Sorcerer might have unique phrases and motions that they uniquely use to channel their innate power, aided by certain materials that sparked new magics (material components), while a Warlock might speak occult words received from their patron in a vision, with a completely separate set of motions and materials dictated by the knowledge/power granted.
A wizard might not be able to unlock but a fraction of the abilities a Warlock or Sorcerer has (mechanically via feats) without sparking innate magic or making a pact themselves (mechanically by multi-classing). How do you write down and use words and motions that only work with your bloodline (sorcerer) or are spoken in a language with no written form and no discernable meaning (warlock, specifically GOO and Fathomless), or require infernal/fey power that can only be granted by a deal with one of those creatures (warlock, specifically archfey/fiend), or are powered by divine will (cleric), natural attunement (druid), or the music of creation revealed only to a few (bard)? Wizards have ferreted out ways to cast their spells through study, experimentation, and rote learning of generations, but that doesn't apply when outside forces or innate forces are the ones guiding or granting the magical power
Wizards have ferreted out ways to cast their spells through study, experimentation, and rote learning of generations, but that doesn't apply when outside forces or innate forces are the ones guiding or granting the magical power
To flip Torvald99's analogy on its head, it's wizards who are the hackers of magic. Other classes get their magic "from" something or someone, whether it's a deity, a patron, their own innate magical essence, what have you. Only wizards have figured out how to tease magic from the Weave directly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
for someone who started a thread complaining that the game is not as synergistic between classes, it seems odd that you are now proposing a greater synergistic divergence. But Warlocks already don't cast like other casters. They always cast at the highest level possible, They have divergent spell slot progression (and regain them differently from other classes), and their invocations allow spellcasting without slots in many cases. That they share certain basic rules with other casters (spell components, casting and targeting rules, etc) makes them playable without additional special meta-knowledge on the player/DM side, other that what is needed for the above.
The Lore of the Warlock class is not in "how" they cast spells (Sorcerers get to manipulate the "how" via many of their metamagics) but "where" the power/knowledge to cast comes from. Warlocks are imbued with power by their patrons that allows them to cast spells, but that power is not revocable (like it potentially is with a cleric) or learned by rote/recorded (like it is with Wizards). You can work the lore of how these rules work with each class (for instance, a Wizard might have extensive notes on pitch, timbre, and pronunciation of a verbal component, diagrams of hand motions for somatic, and weights and measures of material components, while a Sorcerer might have unique phrases and motions that they uniquely use to channel their innate power, aided by certain materials that sparked new magics (material components), while a Warlock might speak occult words received from their patron in a vision, with a completely separate set of motions and materials dictated by the knowledge/power granted.
A wizard might not be able to unlock but a fraction of the abilities a Warlock or Sorcerer has (mechanically via feats) without sparking innate magic or making a pact themselves (mechanically by multi-classing). How do you write down and use words and motions that only work with your bloodline (sorcerer) or are spoken in a language with no written form and no discernable meaning (warlock, specifically GOO and Fathomless), or require infernal/fey power that can only be granted by a deal with one of those creatures (warlock, specifically archfey/fiend), or are powered by divine will (cleric), natural attunement (druid), or the music of creation revealed only to a few (bard)? Wizards have ferreted out ways to cast their spells through study, experimentation, and rote learning of generations, but that doesn't apply when outside forces or innate forces are the ones guiding or granting the magical power
I am not really suggesting that those kinds of changes be implemented, I have no idea what the repercussions would be on game balance. I was simply saying that logically to me, the way warlocks cast spells never made a lot of sense. A wizard meticulously researches for decades to understand the underpinnings of magical forces, they understand why this exact hand gesture combined with these inflection changes calls lightning or whatever. A bard to me is more like a natural born wizard, they can "feel" the weave, and do similar manipulations but off of gut instinct. A sorcerer also doesn't make sense to me that they should require verbal components (only somatic if anything), magic is a part of their body, they are moving it themselves and shaping it by will, it doesn't make sense voice is required for that.
Warlocks on the other hand are about as opposite from a sorcerer as you can get. They are disconnected from their magic entirely, it comes from an alien source, again the idea that the patron just "imbues" them with spell like abilities makes a lot more sense than giving them magical knowledge. It explains eldritch invocations entirely and also why they can't control their magic. It's always full power or nothing, they don't have fine control because they aren't actually casting a spell. They are either requesting the patron to cast it for them or doing the equivalent of "flexing" to perform a magical effect.
If the lore were simply in how they obtained their magical knowledge, why can't they just keep a spellbook like a wizard and add every single spell they come across to it? Superficially, pact of the tome looks like a warlock attempting to be a wizard but even that isn't the reality because it wouldn't apply to just ritual spells. You aren't actually casing the spell, the ritual is you entreating your patron to enact the ritual you have listed. With the way warlocks obtain magic, the way their spell slots work, the fact that they can't just learn spells like a wizard can, eldritch invocations, and warlocks being charisma and not int based all STRONGLY indicate that a warlock doesn't actually know magic. They are either gifted innate magical ability like a sorcerer or the patron does the spellcasting for them.
But those are words and gestures. They being different words and gestures is no different than different words and gestures casting different wizard spells. If that is all they are, why couldn't they be learned? And why charisma not intelligence to learn and power words and gestures?
Learning the words doesn't cause the words to do anything. Typically the words for a warlock (or cleric) spell are a patron invocation and aren't functional unless that's your patron.
I did a quick search to make sure I wasn't being completely redundant, but I also didn't read every post, so I apologize if this was already addressed in its entirety.
Fighters get 4 attacks per action, but cantrips also scale by level to mirror that functionality. (5th, 11th, 17th)
A 20th level Fighter with a Glaive will expect to do 4x 1d10+STR. A 20th level Warlock with Eldritch Blast and the Agonizing Blast invocation will do 4x 1d10+CHA.
Each then gets a suite of other abilities to give them more substance.
Some classes, like the Artificer, are extremely valuable in low magic settings, but less impressive in high magic campaigns.
Other classes, like Druids, are extremely versatile in nearly any setting, and often under appreciated for their raw potential.
Bards are one of the best well rounded classes with martial proficiency, full casting progression, the ability to learn spells from other classes, Inspiration, and Jack of All Trades.
Each class is situationally powerful, though some situations are more common than others.
A clever player in any class will be better off than any other player in any other class. A player who knows how to synergize with their party will be the most powerful of all.
In 2019, this was the Active Class Distribution for Dndbeyond, which shows that despite a bias for Fighters and Rogues, people are generally happy with the flavor/power balance:
But those are words and gestures. They being different words and gestures is no different than different words and gestures casting different wizard spells. If that is all they are, why couldn't they be learned? And why charisma not intelligence to learn and power words and gestures?
Learning the words doesn't cause the words to do anything. Typically the words for a warlock (or cleric) spell are a patron invocation and aren't functional unless that's your patron.
But the argument is that they still function even if you completely ignore your patron, giving them no reason whatsoever to care when you invoke them... At that point, are they really still your patron?
It's highly possible that some patrons might be unaware of their warlocks entire existence, see the entry for the GOOlock:
The Great Old One might be unaware of your existence or entirely indifferent to you, but the secrets you have learned allow you to draw your magic from it.
I don't think that a patron's feelings towards you really matter to your abilities at all. While some DMs might use the master/apprentice or master/servant relationship to say that a patron might withold further teachings/bestowing of power, there is clear evidence in RAW that it is possible to have absolutely no relationship with your patron at all, good or ill.
A "pact" is not necessarily a contract, at least as described for each patron. A fiend warlock could have a literal contract with an archdevil, yes, but they could also have weathered and been transformed by a Sybriex, or been woven into one of Fraz Urb'luu's lies without their own consent. A feylock might have stumbled into an ancient grotto and been bound by the arcane magics that affect any who enter, or accepted and eaten a berry from the strange elf that seemed to vanish when they looked away for a second. A GOOlock could have opened an eldritch tome and been exposed (and altered) by the strange runes that communicated the thoughts of Cthulu. So on and on. Each of these might not entail a specific relationship, or any at all, with the patron in question.
It's highly possible that some patrons might be unaware of their warlocks entire existence, see the entry for the GOOlock:
The Great Old One might be unaware of your existence or entirely indifferent to you, but the secrets you have learned allow you to draw your magic from it.
I don't think that a patron's feelings towards you really matter to your abilities at all. While some DMs might use the master/apprentice or master/servant relationship to say that a patron might withold further teachings/bestowing of power, there is clear evidence in RAW that it is possible to have absolutely no relationship with your patron at all, good or ill.
A "pact" is not necessarily a contract, at least as described for each patron. A fiend warlock could have a literal contract with an archdevil, yes, but they could also have weathered and been transformed by a Sybriex, or been woven into one of Fraz Urb'luu's lies without their own consent. A feylock might have stumbled into an ancient grotto and been bound by the arcane magics that affect any who enter, or accepted and eaten a berry from the strange elf that seemed to vanish when they looked away for a second. A GOOlock could have opened an eldritch tome and been exposed (and altered) by the strange runes that communicated the thoughts of Cthulu. So on and on. Each of these might not entail a specific relationship, or any at all, with the patron in question.
That is deliberate, to provide the most RP flexibility. The relationship with your patron is as elaborate and fraught as you (and your DM) want it to be.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This explains a lot - being that constrained changes game balance a lot. For example, you're effectively playing without any rules for tool proficiencies doing anything, in general (those are in Xanathar's). And without access to Hexblade, Pact of the Blade may as well not exist for you, it's so useless. Etc etc.
I suggest you go old-school traditional, if you like Warlocks: The Fiend, Pact of the Tome + Book of Ancient Secrets, Eldritch Blast+Agonizing Blast+Repelling Blast, Hex, Darkness, Devil's Sight, etc. Lean into the role of ranged murder.
Alternately, for a decent low level multiclass, a Feylock 1 / Sorcerer 2 (any) can chain faerie fire and eldritch blast in one turn using quickened spell metamagics from the sorcerer to make Faerie Fire a Bonus action spell, then blast away with advantage with eldritch blast while staying out of range (while giving all your allies advantage on their attacks as well). at Feylock 2/ Sorcerer 2 you can use one/some of the numerous invocations that mod eldritch blast to do extra damage (agonizing blast) to improve that combo further. Any Warlock 2/Sorcerer 3 can learn the darkness spell and with the devil's sight invocation you can chain darkness and eldritch blast with the same ability for similar results
Seems pretty fun but I've found that Sorlock is pretty limited until like level 8.
Multiclassing in general is pretty limited until 2nd tier of play. 2-3 levels don't seem like a lot but that is the delay of an entire spell level of slot progression for casters. I play a Feylock 3/Wild Mage Sorcerer 5 right now and it's really opened up (plus, between the above combo and spells like invisibility, mirror image, misty step, and blink I'm practically untouchable)
If it makes you feel any better, I often have buyer's remorse in the whole character creation process--and I've done it dozens of times in 5e. And I still end up having fun, because the mechanical stuff is not end of the story.
I mention this, because I absolutely share your frustration with looking at the progression for warlocks. I tend to create characters who I think I'll enjoy mechanically and see what fun blooms on the roleplay side of things.
I've also discovered that I enjoy builds that include new and interesting abilities often. This has made combat classes generally less appealing. But I've been giving them a try lately and I've been pleasantly surprised as well--generally through multiclassing, as it turns out. I don't plan out all 20 levels, since I'm old and have a fraction of the playtime needed to really see my characters advance to the higher levels. But I do take a look at the possibilities for the first 8 levels or so to at least give myself an out if I get get fed up with what I've got.
Anyway, wish me luck. After obsessing over the rp value of warlocks for years, I'm finally making one: human, Fathomless, pact of the chain, with a quasit. A high CHA means I can always switch to sorcerer or bard. A high INT means I might go wizard at some point. And a mid-range DEX means I might get to add some rogue levels (which seems most likely). But I'm gonna see how long I can put up with the limited spell list :)
(my favorite character these days, for reference, is a wizard/bladesinger 7 - ranger/hunter 4, with dual scimitars. Absolutely the most fun in melee combat I've ever had.)
And best of luck to you too! (I also feel the pain of using only the base books. lotta good stuff has come out since them that spice things up!)
Yeah 8 is where the money starts for Sorlock
If it helps, I can share my own multiclassing journey with my current character. I think I found a good bit of synergy to build a character that isn't directly given as an option with the current subclasses:
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
The main difference between warlocks and wizards is the source of the knowledge, not the method of learning. Wizards study the books and scrolls left behind by the scholars before them, working off a system of magical pedagogy that's largely a mortal tradition.
Warlocks, on the other hand, have access to beings both ancient and strange, and glean old secrets from their tutelage. They have powerful knowledge, but they're also distinctly in-human (in-mortal, I should say) in that their minds do not work in the same way ours do, so the magic you learn from them follows suit, and its eldritch and a bit alien.
A wizard could study that kind of magic if they had access to a being of such antiquity and power, but they'd probably have little patience for all their niggling technical questions. In mechanics though, if they were successful, I'd probably represent that with the Eldritch Adept feat from Tasha's.
There are a lot of spells on the wizard spell list, but they don't know all of them by default. They might have to spend money and time on copying spells to keep up with a druid, who knows all spells automatically and can prepare any spell for any situation that can wait for a long rest.
Fighters can hit a lot, but rogue sneak attack damage is pretty big too. Rangers can hit pretty hard with Hunter's Mark.
Warlocks are relatively weak if your campaign involves only 1-3 battles per long rest, but they're strong if you have a deep dungeon with many battles. They can conserve spell slots by using Eldritch Blast, the best damage-dealing cantrip. And if there are opportunities for short rests, they get way more of their highest-level spells than other casters.
The wizard got their knowledge and power through intelligence and long hours of study. The warlock got around having to spend years studying for knowledge and power by making a deal with a powerful entity. The warlock took the easy route to power, but one that has a cost in the form of a deal with that patron. How the patron imparts that knowledge and power to the warlock so quickly isn't really spelled out, that's for the DM to figure out. But it is clear from the PHB, that they are two different types of knowledge and power. And their use of the power has a lot of differences in the classes. Few who look at the wizard and warlock classes would argue they are virtually the same thing.
DnD has always had a sort of divide between arcane and divine magic. Magic comes from the weave and being able to tap into the weave. Both warlock and wizard have types of arcane magic. Whereas paladins and clerics get divine magic. This, to me, has always just been kind of a flavor thing, a "how" they get their magic access. The cleric has a conduit for magic from a deity. The wizard gets it from laborious hours of study. The warlock is a sort of hacker, who has found a way to get around long hours of study route, but it leads to a different sort of magical powers. But, at the end of the day, a spell is a spell. No matter the source or lore on how you got the power.
DnD is a game. It is the product of human minds creating fun classes with some backstory and lore. But is it going to be seamless? Why don't warlocks teach each other their secrets? Maybe their mind was altered to allow them to learn the eldritch secrets, but it's not readily understandable to somebody who doesn't also have a powerful patron imparting that knowledge also? Who knows? It's a game! It's not holy writ, given to us by God. It's there for fun and enjoyment...that's all! lol
Bear in mind, the Warlock is a Charisma caster. If a Warlock kept notes on how their spells worked, it would probably reference how a spell should *feel* or describe like the gut feeling behind a particular spell, and the notes would likely ramble on obscure bits of wisdom from their patron that you really need to know the context for to fully grasp.
It would not be the well-ordered and logic-oriented notes understanding *how* the magic works, which is what the INT-based wizard would need to understand to make it work for them; the Warlock just needs to know how a thing can be *done*.
Late to this thread, but I think that while 5e simplified a lot of things from previous editions, there's still a certain amount of cruft leftover that could be simplified further, and with recent releases and UA I do wonder if Wizards might be leaning in that eventual direction.
While I loved character classes when starting in D&D, they've also quickly become something that annoys me quite a bit as well, as they can often feel like a constraint to character creation; while I'm sure a 6e is a ways off yet (we're only just about to get a 5e Feywild book in September, so there's still a lot of material to cover if they want to) my hope is that in a future edition of D&D we might do away with rigid classes entirely.
My ideal for character creation is just to have a big pile of categorised abilities (e.g- martial, stealth and magic for combat, then physical, mental and presence for non-combat) so that every character is choosing from the same abilities, but is (mostly) free to pick and choose whatever they like to best represent the character they're trying to build. With abilities separated into combat and non-combat every character should have roughly the same utility inside and outside of combat, and aside from reasonable restrictions (need a decent mental stat to master higher level magic or mental abilities etc., maybe have abilities in tiers that need to be unlocked in order) then this would just let us build whatever we want.
There could still be character archetypes recommending certain quick builds for people who just want to play a Fighter, Wizard or whatever, and would probably be specialisations that introduce extra ability categories on top of the base abilities, e.g- your "Holy" abilities for making a cleric focusing on healing magic and/or smiting, your "Nature Affinity" abilities (going beyond basic survival type stuff) for the Druid/Ranger builds etc. and so-on. Certain abilities would also be "choose one and only one", for example, in the magic category your first choice would be how your character casts spells (e.g- intuitively, through a patron, or from a spellbook?).
Of course, we'd be talking a pretty huge fundamental change in how characters are built and levelled, but I think it would be a really cool way to do it; there'd still be certain rigid elements (the abilities themselves and when you can get them) but it's otherwise a pick and mix system more focused on having the freedom to build whatever you want to build rather than having to figure out what class is the right fit initially (or justify why your character is that class despite not quite fitting its archetype) then whether multiclassing or taking feats makes more sense etc.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Kotath, I have had similar (but not the same) complaints about warlocks for some time now, their lore doesn't add up to me fully either. The way I always interpreted it was the eldritch being does NOT give them magical knowledge, that would essentially make them a jumpstarted wizard. What happens is you make an agreement that can take many different forms, servitude toward a task or goal, durational service, transactional (IE soul, or memories, or personality, alignment or other) but regardless of the form it takes the result is that the power the patron gives you is either inherent magical investiture (basically the patron modifies your body and makes you a semi magical creature, you aren't exactly casting spells, they are spell like abilities you "naturally" possess) OR the patron casts the spells for you. Both of those explanations to me satisfy why warlocks only cast spells at maximum strength, either they don't decide the power output at all or it was preinstalled in their biology and they really don't have magical knowledge in this circumstance.
The problem I then run into is spell casting requirements. Why does a warlock need a verbal or somatic component if they are not casting the spell, the patron is, or it's a natural biological force similar to flexing a muscle. In either case waving your fingers in the air or chanting becomes harder to justify. Maybe you want to claim it's to invoke and notify my patron of the spell I wish to cast. Okay. What if I serve an ancient one who is madness itself? Couldn't I just scream-cluck while flipping everyone off and headbang to activate my spells? Also, I would be naturally telepathic, so couldn't I just telepathically ask for the spell? If my patron is sane and I am not casting, just notifying them what spell to cast for me, then my trigger phrase could be "Why hello there" while waving to cast like crown of madness on someone in a social situation and nobody have any idea what's happening because nothing I did was vaguely magical right? Who needs subtle spell in that case, just be a warlock.... I know that is game breaking it's just the lore of why they cast spells confuses me.
Either they are wizards essentially or they shouldn't need to cast spells like other casters. I understand having to provide material components for spells, your patron agreed to sharing power with you, not goods and resources. But I don't understand their exact placement in the lore as it is now.
for someone who started a thread complaining that the game is not as synergistic between classes, it seems odd that you are now proposing a greater synergistic divergence. But Warlocks already don't cast like other casters. They always cast at the highest level possible, They have divergent spell slot progression (and regain them differently from other classes), and their invocations allow spellcasting without slots in many cases. That they share certain basic rules with other casters (spell components, casting and targeting rules, etc) makes them playable without additional special meta-knowledge on the player/DM side, other that what is needed for the above.
The Lore of the Warlock class is not in "how" they cast spells (Sorcerers get to manipulate the "how" via many of their metamagics) but "where" the power/knowledge to cast comes from. Warlocks are imbued with power by their patrons that allows them to cast spells, but that power is not revocable (like it potentially is with a cleric) or learned by rote/recorded (like it is with Wizards). You can work the lore of how these rules work with each class (for instance, a Wizard might have extensive notes on pitch, timbre, and pronunciation of a verbal component, diagrams of hand motions for somatic, and weights and measures of material components, while a Sorcerer might have unique phrases and motions that they uniquely use to channel their innate power, aided by certain materials that sparked new magics (material components), while a Warlock might speak occult words received from their patron in a vision, with a completely separate set of motions and materials dictated by the knowledge/power granted.
A wizard might not be able to unlock but a fraction of the abilities a Warlock or Sorcerer has (mechanically via feats) without sparking innate magic or making a pact themselves (mechanically by multi-classing). How do you write down and use words and motions that only work with your bloodline (sorcerer) or are spoken in a language with no written form and no discernable meaning (warlock, specifically GOO and Fathomless), or require infernal/fey power that can only be granted by a deal with one of those creatures (warlock, specifically archfey/fiend), or are powered by divine will (cleric), natural attunement (druid), or the music of creation revealed only to a few (bard)? Wizards have ferreted out ways to cast their spells through study, experimentation, and rote learning of generations, but that doesn't apply when outside forces or innate forces are the ones guiding or granting the magical power
To flip Torvald99's analogy on its head, it's wizards who are the hackers of magic. Other classes get their magic "from" something or someone, whether it's a deity, a patron, their own innate magical essence, what have you. Only wizards have figured out how to tease magic from the Weave directly.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I am not really suggesting that those kinds of changes be implemented, I have no idea what the repercussions would be on game balance. I was simply saying that logically to me, the way warlocks cast spells never made a lot of sense. A wizard meticulously researches for decades to understand the underpinnings of magical forces, they understand why this exact hand gesture combined with these inflection changes calls lightning or whatever. A bard to me is more like a natural born wizard, they can "feel" the weave, and do similar manipulations but off of gut instinct. A sorcerer also doesn't make sense to me that they should require verbal components (only somatic if anything), magic is a part of their body, they are moving it themselves and shaping it by will, it doesn't make sense voice is required for that.
Warlocks on the other hand are about as opposite from a sorcerer as you can get. They are disconnected from their magic entirely, it comes from an alien source, again the idea that the patron just "imbues" them with spell like abilities makes a lot more sense than giving them magical knowledge. It explains eldritch invocations entirely and also why they can't control their magic. It's always full power or nothing, they don't have fine control because they aren't actually casting a spell. They are either requesting the patron to cast it for them or doing the equivalent of "flexing" to perform a magical effect.
If the lore were simply in how they obtained their magical knowledge, why can't they just keep a spellbook like a wizard and add every single spell they come across to it? Superficially, pact of the tome looks like a warlock attempting to be a wizard but even that isn't the reality because it wouldn't apply to just ritual spells. You aren't actually casing the spell, the ritual is you entreating your patron to enact the ritual you have listed. With the way warlocks obtain magic, the way their spell slots work, the fact that they can't just learn spells like a wizard can, eldritch invocations, and warlocks being charisma and not int based all STRONGLY indicate that a warlock doesn't actually know magic. They are either gifted innate magical ability like a sorcerer or the patron does the spellcasting for them.
Learning the words doesn't cause the words to do anything. Typically the words for a warlock (or cleric) spell are a patron invocation and aren't functional unless that's your patron.
I did a quick search to make sure I wasn't being completely redundant, but I also didn't read every post, so I apologize if this was already addressed in its entirety.
Fighters get 4 attacks per action, but cantrips also scale by level to mirror that functionality. (5th, 11th, 17th)
A 20th level Fighter with a Glaive will expect to do 4x 1d10+STR.
A 20th level Warlock with Eldritch Blast and the Agonizing Blast invocation will do 4x 1d10+CHA.
Each then gets a suite of other abilities to give them more substance.
Some classes, like the Artificer, are extremely valuable in low magic settings, but less impressive in high magic campaigns.
Other classes, like Druids, are extremely versatile in nearly any setting, and often under appreciated for their raw potential.
Bards are one of the best well rounded classes with martial proficiency, full casting progression, the ability to learn spells from other classes, Inspiration, and Jack of All Trades.
Each class is situationally powerful, though some situations are more common than others.
A clever player in any class will be better off than any other player in any other class. A player who knows how to synergize with their party will be the most powerful of all.
In 2019, this was the Active Class Distribution for Dndbeyond, which shows that despite a bias for Fighters and Rogues, people are generally happy with the flavor/power balance:
It's highly possible that some patrons might be unaware of their warlocks entire existence, see the entry for the GOOlock:
The Great Old One might be unaware of your existence or entirely indifferent to you, but the secrets you have learned allow you to draw your magic from it.
I don't think that a patron's feelings towards you really matter to your abilities at all. While some DMs might use the master/apprentice or master/servant relationship to say that a patron might withold further teachings/bestowing of power, there is clear evidence in RAW that it is possible to have absolutely no relationship with your patron at all, good or ill.
A "pact" is not necessarily a contract, at least as described for each patron. A fiend warlock could have a literal contract with an archdevil, yes, but they could also have weathered and been transformed by a Sybriex, or been woven into one of Fraz Urb'luu's lies without their own consent. A feylock might have stumbled into an ancient grotto and been bound by the arcane magics that affect any who enter, or accepted and eaten a berry from the strange elf that seemed to vanish when they looked away for a second. A GOOlock could have opened an eldritch tome and been exposed (and altered) by the strange runes that communicated the thoughts of Cthulu. So on and on. Each of these might not entail a specific relationship, or any at all, with the patron in question.
That is deliberate, to provide the most RP flexibility. The relationship with your patron is as elaborate and fraught as you (and your DM) want it to be.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)