I agree with Yurei on the thematic element of warlock not being a cleric
I mean, it's right in the PHB. Neither cleric nor wizard is a perfect analogy -- if they were, warlock wouldn't need to be a separate class -- but they can each be applicable
Sworn and Beholden
A warlock is defined by a pact with an otherworldly being. Sometimes the relationship between warlock and patron is like that of a cleric and a deity, though the beings that serve as patrons for warlocks are not gods. A warlock might lead a cult dedicated to a demon prince, an archdevil, or an utterly alien entity—beings not typically served by clerics. More often, though, the arrangement is similar to that between a master and an apprentice. The warlock learns and grows in power, at the cost of occasional services performed on the patron’s behalf.
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)
... A warlock is an arcane caster that draws their magic from without rather than within. They aren't manipulating the Weave directly, they aren't drawing on their innate sorcerous power... they're in some fashion allowing themselves to be a conduit for someone/something else's magic ...
This. Is. Not. True.
Warlocks are not shittier clerics. You are not channeling the power of your patron. Your patron is teaching you magic. They are giving you secrets ordinary people can't discover, teaching you things only an otherworldly being can properly teach. You cannot reteach those secrets, but you can learn them. Your powers are yours, not your patron's. They cannot turn off the tap. They cannot Assume Direct Control. They need you because they are either not strong enough to act directly in the Prime Material or are otherwise barred from doing so. Once you gain a warlock ability, it is as much yours as a sorcerer's spell.
Stop treating warlocks like value-brand clerics. If you want to channel the Infinite Power of the Multiverse's Most Powerful Beings, play a god damned cleric.
As Yurei said, not true, AFAIK, never has been.
To expand on that, Warlock's powers in 3.5E and 5E were definitely innate. The power is not their patron's it is their own but their Patron teaches them the (usually dark) secrets of how to use and manifest that power in return for services rendered. So Warlocks may promote worship of their patron, not anybody can just become a Warlock, it actually requires some innate power to begin with.
In fact, there is no reason why a Cleric's Deity and a Warlocks Patron can't be one in the same but the power they would inhibit would be vastly different, a Warlock after all is using their own power and if they turned against their Patron then they wouldn't lose access too it, while a Cleric, as they are reliant on their faith, turning against their deity technically would leave them powerless. Now for the Deity themselves, if you're capable of having clerics rather than warlocks, you'd want clerics, so most Deities that have cleric followers aren't going to deal with warlocks who are basically going to be more demanding for less payback; in terms of forgotten realms, AO, if I remember correctly made gods dependent on mortal belief as a punishment for forcing AO to have to intervene in mortal affairs at one point, since the gods got too arrogant in their powers; but I could be misremembering that part of the lore.
Oddly Paladin actually sits in a sort of middle state, their power is innate but bound to their conviction/dedication to an Oath to a deity or ideology so like a Cleric, they can lose access to their power but unlike a Cleric, it's actually the Paladin's power, not their deity's.
I mean, it's right in the PHB. Neither cleric nor wizard is a perfect analogy -- if they were, warlock wouldn't need to be a separate class -- but they can each be applicable
Sworn and Beholden
A warlock is defined by a pact with an otherworldly being. Sometimes the relationship between warlock and patron is like that of a cleric and a deity, though the beings that serve as patrons for warlocks are not gods. A warlock might lead a cult dedicated to a demon prince, an archdevil, or an utterly alien entity—beings not typically served by clerics. More often, though, the arrangement is similar to that between a master and an apprentice. The warlock learns and grows in power, at the cost of occasional services performed on the patron’s behalf.
This section has nothing to do with the source of a Warlock's power, it is fluff text on one type of relationship between Warlock and Patron, which is that they can be cult leaders for that Patron, additionally the very next section says, more commonly it's actually more a master-apprentice situation. I.E. Darth Sidious and Darth Vader, Sidious is teaching Vader the powers of the dark side of the force and Vader is learning from Sidious but at a cost of serving Sidious, Darth Vader is still using his own power but only serving Sidious while he is himself getting something back in return.
This section has nothing to do with the source of a Warlock's power, it is fluff text
Uhh, hate to break this to you, but any description of the source of a warlock's power is "fluff"
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 expand on that, Warlock's powers in 3.5E and 5E were definitely innate.
In 4e, it was a Thing to go diving for forbidden lore in old ruins from Bael Turath to learn new spells. They very much were wizard-adjacent there too.
To expand on that, Warlock's powers in 3.5E and 5E were definitely innate.
In 4e, it was a Thing to go diving for forbidden lore in old ruins from Bael Turath to learn new spells. They very much were wizard-adjacent there too.
I dug the 4e version, generally not a huge fan of 4e as due to everything following the same mechanics things felt very samey. The warlock still was very evocative in its description and style.
This section has nothing to do with the source of a Warlock's power, it is fluff text
Uhh, hate to break this to you, but any description of the source of a warlock's power is "fluff"
It maybe the case that the source is mentioned in fluff text, but this fluff text isn't talking about the source of a warlock; it's talking about the types of relationship. Nothing in that part of the fluff says, "The warlock gets their power from their Patron." The closest thing to that comes next in this fluff section when it infers that a Patron may alter the Warlock but this is like Darth Sidious putting Darth Vader into a suit, it's not a power that the Patron is resupplying power too, it's a one off permanent change, type of deal.
The one exception to this in 5E is Eldritch Master, where a level 20 Warlock can basically beg their patron to replace their depleted inner reserves of power; using whatever inner reserves they have left.
Eldritch Master
At 20th level, you can draw on your inner reserve of mystical power while entreating your patron to regain expended spell slots. You can spend 1 minute entreating your patron for aid to regain all your expended spell slots from your Pact Magic feature. Once you regain spell slots with this feature, you must finish a long rest before you can do so again.
To expand on that, Warlock's powers in 3.5E and 5E were definitely innate.
In 4e, it was a Thing to go diving for forbidden lore in old ruins from Bael Turath to learn new spells. They very much were wizard-adjacent there too.
And those versions are not particularly relevant to the 5e warlock, other than as inspiration
I fundamentally don't care how you choose to describe your pacts. If you want to role-play your Fiend warlock actually consorting with your patron at every level up to learn new magicks, fantastic. If you want your power to come through the connection created when the fiend tore off a sliver of your soul and put it in their pocket, the rules allow for that too
What I care about is having a new version of warlock that allows all of us as much flexibility and creativity as possible in coming up with that "fluff". The UA warlock is a step backwards in that regard
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 like the idea of coming with some other method to reflect pact magic, not sure having to spend 4 hit dice to upgrade armor to 5th level would work though. You'd be spending as many hit dice as temp hit points you'd gain. But maybe some other resource could work.
You would presumably be about 9th level before you could upcast something from 1st to 5th, so you'd have the HD to spend. Whether any one particular spell would be worth it, and how much (i.e. upcasting something like counterspell above 3rd), is a bit of a different question
But the idea was just an initial concept, not a rigorously analyzed proposal
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)
They very much are relevant, AntonSirius. The past of the class helps inform its future as well as gives a bit of insight into what the devs were thinking. Kind of like the same reason we study history in school.
And, afaik, most people enjoy it when fluff and mechanics are intertwined. I know there's a lot of people that like claiming that they can flavor anything the way they want, but that should be restricted to tables. The core game should be oozing with fluff and flavor with every mechanic. If I'm playing a tiefling chain'lock (fiend), I want the game to encourage those faustian bargain feeling. If I'm a cthonic book'lock, I should be enjoying the feeling of feeling of digging up the eldritch knowledge of alien creatures from the far realm. Etc.
The warlock in the core shouldn't be a blank slate. Class fantasy is important.
Like, your suggestion of using Hit Dice to power something. That is very much a good "blood magic" feel that would actually add to the class fantasy. Or it could represent the guy who's pushing themselves too hard and gets nosebleeds.
"Blood Magic" should be a subsystem (ideally a feat chain or a prestige subclass, which 1DnD makes possible), not tied to one specific class. There's no reason Wizards and Sorcerers shouldn't be able to use blood magic.
And those versions are not particularly relevant to the 5e warlock, other than as inspiration
I fundamentally don't care how you choose to describe your pacts. If you want to role-play your Fiend warlock actually consorting with your patron at every level up to learn new magicks, fantastic. If you want your power to come through the connection created when the fiend tore off a sliver of your soul and put it in their pocket, the rules allow for that too
What I care about is having a new version of warlock that allows all of us as much flexibility and creativity as possible in coming up with that "fluff". The UA warlock is a step backwards in that regard
I could by that argument if it wasn't also you that said
A warlock is an arcane caster that draws their magic from without rather than within. They aren't manipulating the Weave directly, they aren't drawing on their innate sorcerous power... they're in some fashion allowing themselves to be a conduit for someone/something else's magic
But anyway, as you say, it's better to allow flexibility and creativity; people should and can create their own reasons for their relationships with their patron and as to why or how they got their power, these are archetypes as all classes are and backgrounds exist for a reason. So to move away from the tangent and back to the original idea...
In regards to the original hit die (or alternative similar resource idea), I don't think it'd work well with multi-classing and hit die atleast, since some people are going to do a few level dips in Warlock. I personally think just having pact magic remain separate but getting 2 slots at current tier and 1 slot for each tier below is a simpler solution. It's 1 more spell slot at level 3 and 4 more slots at level 9, just not at the maximum/current level. There could then be an invocation which gives a 2nd slot for each tier below current tier.
I like the idea of coming with some other method to reflect pact magic, not sure having to spend 4 hit dice to upgrade armor to 5th level would work though. You'd be spending as many hit dice as temp hit points you'd gain. But maybe some other resource could work.
You would presumably be about 9th level before you could upcast something from 1st to 5th, so you'd have the HD to spend. Whether any one particular spell would be worth it, and how much (i.e. upcasting something like counterspell above 3rd), is a bit of a different question
But the idea was just an initial concept, not a rigorously analyzed proposal
I don't think the idea of spending hit dice in itself is bad but I'm not sure it should scale per level. at 9th level 4 hit dice is basically half of them, you kind of need those to heal as well, you only get half back with a long rest etc. A flat one hit die spent to upgrade to your max level would be sufficient imo. Sure eventually you have 20 so it wont seem like a big cost but even at 11th level a hit die has meaning, especially since you'd likely do this 2-3 times. And unless you never get attacked will still need some to heal.
I like the idea of coming with some other method to reflect pact magic, not sure having to spend 4 hit dice to upgrade armor to 5th level would work though. You'd be spending as many hit dice as temp hit points you'd gain. But maybe some other resource could work.
You would presumably be about 9th level before you could upcast something from 1st to 5th, so you'd have the HD to spend. Whether any one particular spell would be worth it, and how much (i.e. upcasting something like counterspell above 3rd), is a bit of a different question
But the idea was just an initial concept, not a rigorously analyzed proposal
I don't think the idea of spending hit dice in itself is bad but I'm not sure it should scale per level. at 9th level 4 hit dice is basically half of them, you kind of need those to heal as well, you only get half back with a long rest etc. A flat one hit die spent to upgrade to your max level would be sufficient imo. Sure eventually you have 20 so it wont seem like a big cost but even at 11th level a hit die has meaning, especially since you'd likely do this 2-3 times. And unless you never get attacked will still need some to heal.
Well, to reduce the impact and get more slots back, you can make it scale but with less impact: When you get that trait at a certain level, consider scaling from that level.
For example, at level 5, you will have level 3 slots, spend 1 hit dice, at level 9 you will have level 5 slots, and these spend 3 hit dice.
I think someone, maybe several someone’s have mentioned this already. I’m at work and can’t sift through all the posts to find it. So…
Would it be any better if the kept the “half caster” idea but instead of the paladin/ranger progression they used the standard full caster progression, like wizards /clerics, that capped at 10th level of Warlock. So by 10th level they would have 1st-5th level slots of 4, 3, 3, 3, 2. Then you can still upcast Armor if Agathys or whatever spell you like with your highest spell slot (5th) at 9th level just like Warlocks do now.
Mystic Arcanum can go back to class features or stay as invocations.
That’s pointless. The only difference from doing that and being a full caster is an additional 5th, 6th and 7th level spell slot at 18th, 19th and 20th level. If you give them full progression until 10 you might as well just make them full casters. At which point most invocations, eldritch blast and/or their spell list gets a major nerf. If you believe having 3 less spell slots than other full casters justifies having the best cantrip and invocations then you greatly misjudge the power of invocations and Eldritch blast.
I think someone, maybe several someone’s have mentioned this already. I’m at work and can’t sift through all the posts to find it. So…
Would it be any better if the kept the “half caster” idea but instead of the paladin/ranger progression they used the standard full caster progression, like wizards /clerics, that capped at 10th level of Warlock. So by 10th level they would have 1st-5th level slots of 4, 3, 3, 3, 2. Then you can still upcast Armor if Agathys or whatever spell you like with your highest spell slot (5th) at 9th level just like Warlocks do now.
Mystic Arcanum can go back to class features or stay as invocations.
That’s pointless. The only difference from doing that and being a full caster is an additional 5th, 6th and 7th level spell slot at 18th, 19th and 20th level. If you give them full progression until 10 you might as well just make them full casters. At which point most invocations, eldritch blast and/or their spell list gets a major nerf. If you believe having 3 less spell slots than other full casters justifies having the best cantrip and invocations then you greatly misjudge the power of invocations and Eldritch blast.
You mean those same full casters that have things like modify spell, Ritual casting that doesn't need to be prepared, the ability to swap out their prepared spells in 10 minutes. Or are we talking about the ones with meta magic that can give someone disadvantage on their save. Or are we talking about the ones with the powerful channel divinities or channel natures?
Most invocations are just making the cantrip ACTUALLY good rather than just ok or providing some form of first level at will utility spell. Sure cut down the invocations to something like 5 or 6, but I think we are overstating how powerful a cantrip that does 1d10+ability score is by comparison to most other classes abilities to do damage. Especially half casters and martials.
I agree with Yurei on the thematic element of warlock not being a cleric
I mean, it's right in the PHB. Neither cleric nor wizard is a perfect analogy -- if they were, warlock wouldn't need to be a separate class -- but they can each be applicable
Sworn and Beholden
A warlock is defined by a pact with an otherworldly being. Sometimes the relationship between warlock and patron is like that of a cleric and a deity, though the beings that serve as patrons for warlocks are not gods. A warlock might lead a cult dedicated to a demon prince, an archdevil, or an utterly alien entity—beings not typically served by clerics. More often, though, the arrangement is similar to that between a master and an apprentice. The warlock learns and grows in power, at the cost of occasional services performed on the patron’s behalf.
This quote doesn't say that a Patron can outright cut off a Warlock's powers though. "Sometimes the relationship is like that of a cleric and a deity" means there are some similarities, but that it ultimately isn't identical, otherwise the text would have said so. Ergo, the Patron can choose to stop teaching them - which presumably your DM would need to address in-game by pausing your progression or forcing you to multiclass or something - but not that you will wake up one day either with no spellcasting or all your prepared spells replaced etc.
I think a core issue is how a warlock is supposed to play that is somehow different.
If I want a character whose back story is making a deal with a mysterious power, I can do that with any class, because it's just backstory. The reason to play a class is because of how it actually plays. So... how do people imagine warlock actually playing, and how is this play style somehow different from a wizard or sorcerer?
The original 5e warlocks do have a distinctive play style, but it's a problem play style because it's based on short resting.
The current half-casters do have a distinctive play style -- generally eldritch blast monkey or gish -- though it may well be undertuned for that role.
A full caster would likely devolve into "plays just like a wizard", which amounts to "why should this class exist?"
I think a core issue is how a warlock is supposed to play that is somehow different.
If I want a character whose back story is making a deal with a mysterious power, I can do that with any class, because it's just backstory. The reason to play a class is because of how it actually plays. So... how do people imagine warlock actually playing, and how is this play style somehow different from a wizard or sorcerer?
The original 5e warlocks do have a distinctive play style, but it's a problem play style because it's based on short resting.
The current half-casters do have a distinctive play style -- generally eldritch blast monkey or gish -- though it may well be undertuned for that role.
A full caster would likely devolve into "plays just like a wizard", which amounts to "why should this class exist?"
Agreed. I think being a half-caster that can punch up to full caster progression in limited ways is definitely unique, and also captures the flavor that you've taken the quick yet shallow path to such power. If your blood was infused with magic, or you had a wizard's diligent study habits, you would have a much more thorough path to such power, but by being a Warlock you don't. The upside is that you're able to layer in more martial pursuits, and unique magical techniques that don't depend on spell slots.
I think someone, maybe several someone’s have mentioned this already. I’m at work and can’t sift through all the posts to find it. So…
Would it be any better if the kept the “half caster” idea but instead of the paladin/ranger progression they used the standard full caster progression, like wizards /clerics, that capped at 10th level of Warlock. So by 10th level they would have 1st-5th level slots of 4, 3, 3, 3, 2. Then you can still upcast Armor if Agathys or whatever spell you like with your highest spell slot (5th) at 9th level just like Warlocks do now.
Mystic Arcanum can go back to class features or stay as invocations.
That’s pointless. The only difference from doing that and being a full caster is an additional 5th, 6th and 7th level spell slot at 18th, 19th and 20th level. If you give them full progression until 10 you might as well just make them full casters. At which point most invocations, eldritch blast and/or their spell list gets a major nerf. If you believe having 3 less spell slots than other full casters justifies having the best cantrip and invocations then you greatly misjudge the power of invocations and Eldritch blast.
I never said it was a good idea, lol. But looking at the warlock slot progression it still ends up being 4, 3, 3, 3, 2. They just take 19 levels to get there instead of 10. 17 levels if you only want them to have 1 5th level slot.
You could keep the progression that they gain new leveled slots, just reduce how many they get. Would 3, 2, 2, 2, 2 or 4, 3, 2, 2, 1 work better? I don't know. Was just throwing the noodle against the wall to see if it would stick.
I mean, it's right in the PHB. Neither cleric nor wizard is a perfect analogy -- if they were, warlock wouldn't need to be a separate class -- but they can each be applicable
Sworn and Beholden
A warlock is defined by a pact with an otherworldly being. Sometimes the relationship between warlock and patron is like that of a cleric and a deity, though the beings that serve as patrons for warlocks are not gods. A warlock might lead a cult dedicated to a demon prince, an archdevil, or an utterly alien entity—beings not typically served by clerics. More often, though, the arrangement is similar to that between a master and an apprentice. The warlock learns and grows in power, at the cost of occasional services performed on the patron’s behalf.
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)
As Yurei said, not true, AFAIK, never has been.
To expand on that, Warlock's powers in 3.5E and 5E were definitely innate. The power is not their patron's it is their own but their Patron teaches them the (usually dark) secrets of how to use and manifest that power in return for services rendered. So Warlocks may promote worship of their patron, not anybody can just become a Warlock, it actually requires some innate power to begin with.
In fact, there is no reason why a Cleric's Deity and a Warlocks Patron can't be one in the same but the power they would inhibit would be vastly different, a Warlock after all is using their own power and if they turned against their Patron then they wouldn't lose access too it, while a Cleric, as they are reliant on their faith, turning against their deity technically would leave them powerless. Now for the Deity themselves, if you're capable of having clerics rather than warlocks, you'd want clerics, so most Deities that have cleric followers aren't going to deal with warlocks who are basically going to be more demanding for less payback; in terms of forgotten realms, AO, if I remember correctly made gods dependent on mortal belief as a punishment for forcing AO to have to intervene in mortal affairs at one point, since the gods got too arrogant in their powers; but I could be misremembering that part of the lore.
Oddly Paladin actually sits in a sort of middle state, their power is innate but bound to their conviction/dedication to an Oath to a deity or ideology so like a Cleric, they can lose access to their power but unlike a Cleric, it's actually the Paladin's power, not their deity's.
This section has nothing to do with the source of a Warlock's power, it is fluff text on one type of relationship between Warlock and Patron, which is that they can be cult leaders for that Patron, additionally the very next section says, more commonly it's actually more a master-apprentice situation. I.E. Darth Sidious and Darth Vader, Sidious is teaching Vader the powers of the dark side of the force and Vader is learning from Sidious but at a cost of serving Sidious, Darth Vader is still using his own power but only serving Sidious while he is himself getting something back in return.
Uhh, hate to break this to you, but any description of the source of a warlock's power is "fluff"
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)
In 4e, it was a Thing to go diving for forbidden lore in old ruins from Bael Turath to learn new spells. They very much were wizard-adjacent there too.
I dug the 4e version, generally not a huge fan of 4e as due to everything following the same mechanics things felt very samey. The warlock still was very evocative in its description and style.
It maybe the case that the source is mentioned in fluff text, but this fluff text isn't talking about the source of a warlock; it's talking about the types of relationship. Nothing in that part of the fluff says, "The warlock gets their power from their Patron." The closest thing to that comes next in this fluff section when it infers that a Patron may alter the Warlock but this is like Darth Sidious putting Darth Vader into a suit, it's not a power that the Patron is resupplying power too, it's a one off permanent change, type of deal.
The one exception to this in 5E is Eldritch Master, where a level 20 Warlock can basically beg their patron to replace their depleted inner reserves of power; using whatever inner reserves they have left.
And those versions are not particularly relevant to the 5e warlock, other than as inspiration
I fundamentally don't care how you choose to describe your pacts. If you want to role-play your Fiend warlock actually consorting with your patron at every level up to learn new magicks, fantastic. If you want your power to come through the connection created when the fiend tore off a sliver of your soul and put it in their pocket, the rules allow for that too
What I care about is having a new version of warlock that allows all of us as much flexibility and creativity as possible in coming up with that "fluff". The UA warlock is a step backwards in that regard
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)
You would presumably be about 9th level before you could upcast something from 1st to 5th, so you'd have the HD to spend. Whether any one particular spell would be worth it, and how much (i.e. upcasting something like counterspell above 3rd), is a bit of a different question
But the idea was just an initial concept, not a rigorously analyzed proposal
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)
They very much are relevant, AntonSirius. The past of the class helps inform its future as well as gives a bit of insight into what the devs were thinking. Kind of like the same reason we study history in school.
And, afaik, most people enjoy it when fluff and mechanics are intertwined. I know there's a lot of people that like claiming that they can flavor anything the way they want, but that should be restricted to tables. The core game should be oozing with fluff and flavor with every mechanic. If I'm playing a tiefling chain'lock (fiend), I want the game to encourage those faustian bargain feeling. If I'm a cthonic book'lock, I should be enjoying the feeling of feeling of digging up the eldritch knowledge of alien creatures from the far realm. Etc.
The warlock in the core shouldn't be a blank slate. Class fantasy is important.
Like, your suggestion of using Hit Dice to power something. That is very much a good "blood magic" feel that would actually add to the class fantasy. Or it could represent the guy who's pushing themselves too hard and gets nosebleeds.
"Blood Magic" should be a subsystem (ideally a feat chain or a prestige subclass, which 1DnD makes possible), not tied to one specific class. There's no reason Wizards and Sorcerers shouldn't be able to use blood magic.
I could by that argument if it wasn't also you that said
But anyway, as you say, it's better to allow flexibility and creativity; people should and can create their own reasons for their relationships with their patron and as to why or how they got their power, these are archetypes as all classes are and backgrounds exist for a reason. So to move away from the tangent and back to the original idea...
In regards to the original hit die (or alternative similar resource idea), I don't think it'd work well with multi-classing and hit die atleast, since some people are going to do a few level dips in Warlock. I personally think just having pact magic remain separate but getting 2 slots at current tier and 1 slot for each tier below is a simpler solution. It's 1 more spell slot at level 3 and 4 more slots at level 9, just not at the maximum/current level. There could then be an invocation which gives a 2nd slot for each tier below current tier.
I don't think the idea of spending hit dice in itself is bad but I'm not sure it should scale per level. at 9th level 4 hit dice is basically half of them, you kind of need those to heal as well, you only get half back with a long rest etc. A flat one hit die spent to upgrade to your max level would be sufficient imo. Sure eventually you have 20 so it wont seem like a big cost but even at 11th level a hit die has meaning, especially since you'd likely do this 2-3 times. And unless you never get attacked will still need some to heal.
Well, to reduce the impact and get more slots back, you can make it scale but with less impact: When you get that trait at a certain level, consider scaling from that level.
For example, at level 5, you will have level 3 slots, spend 1 hit dice, at level 9 you will have level 5 slots, and these spend 3 hit dice.
Another is to scale the cost every 2 slot levels.
That’s pointless. The only difference from doing that and being a full caster is an additional 5th, 6th and 7th level spell slot at 18th, 19th and 20th level. If you give them full progression until 10 you might as well just make them full casters. At which point most invocations, eldritch blast and/or their spell list gets a major nerf. If you believe having 3 less spell slots than other full casters justifies having the best cantrip and invocations then you greatly misjudge the power of invocations and Eldritch blast.
You mean those same full casters that have things like modify spell, Ritual casting that doesn't need to be prepared, the ability to swap out their prepared spells in 10 minutes. Or are we talking about the ones with meta magic that can give someone disadvantage on their save. Or are we talking about the ones with the powerful channel divinities or channel natures?
Most invocations are just making the cantrip ACTUALLY good rather than just ok or providing some form of first level at will utility spell. Sure cut down the invocations to something like 5 or 6, but I think we are overstating how powerful a cantrip that does 1d10+ability score is by comparison to most other classes abilities to do damage. Especially half casters and martials.
This quote doesn't say that a Patron can outright cut off a Warlock's powers though. "Sometimes the relationship is like that of a cleric and a deity" means there are some similarities, but that it ultimately isn't identical, otherwise the text would have said so. Ergo, the Patron can choose to stop teaching them - which presumably your DM would need to address in-game by pausing your progression or forcing you to multiclass or something - but not that you will wake up one day either with no spellcasting or all your prepared spells replaced etc.
I think a core issue is how a warlock is supposed to play that is somehow different.
If I want a character whose back story is making a deal with a mysterious power, I can do that with any class, because it's just backstory. The reason to play a class is because of how it actually plays. So... how do people imagine warlock actually playing, and how is this play style somehow different from a wizard or sorcerer?
The original 5e warlocks do have a distinctive play style, but it's a problem play style because it's based on short resting.
The current half-casters do have a distinctive play style -- generally eldritch blast monkey or gish -- though it may well be undertuned for that role.
A full caster would likely devolve into "plays just like a wizard", which amounts to "why should this class exist?"
Poor Sorcerer.
Agreed. I think being a half-caster that can punch up to full caster progression in limited ways is definitely unique, and also captures the flavor that you've taken the quick yet shallow path to such power. If your blood was infused with magic, or you had a wizard's diligent study habits, you would have a much more thorough path to such power, but by being a Warlock you don't. The upside is that you're able to layer in more martial pursuits, and unique magical techniques that don't depend on spell slots.
I never said it was a good idea, lol. But looking at the warlock slot progression it still ends up being 4, 3, 3, 3, 2. They just take 19 levels to get there instead of 10. 17 levels if you only want them to have 1 5th level slot.
You could keep the progression that they gain new leveled slots, just reduce how many they get. Would 3, 2, 2, 2, 2 or 4, 3, 2, 2, 1 work better? I don't know. Was just throwing the noodle against the wall to see if it would stick.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?