Claims
Warlock is a bizarre class that smacks of being tailor fit to someone’s precious OC. Metaphysically it steps all over the toes of cleric. Going back to the early days of 1st ed AD&D clerics were implicitly able to serve all manner of lesser cosmic beings and devils including entities like Cthulu as evidenced in Deities and Demigods. The role of pact-bound sorcerer for all intents and purposes is Cleric. There is no tangible separation, beyond aesthetic quibbling. They even are similarly able to use more weapons than other casters.
The assertion that 5e has some class design problems is not really breaking any new ground, but warlock feels like class derived backwards from its gameplay. Alongside Bard its a frustrating effort to do too many things. We’re going to cast spells and dabble in weapons and armor and bespoke special powers. The point to make here is that’s the worst possible way to design a class. The archetype (ideally pulled from the proper canon of western fiction) comes first, the capabilities and characteristics of the class are tailored to suit the fiction and not the other way around.
Arguments
My argument is that the class places almost no real limitations on conduct (RAW) that the DM can enforce to provide the essential experience of being punished by your patron or having your powers taken away for some transgression. This would be the foremost consideration when designing a class to fit the narrative circumstance of a faustian bargain magician (or whatever the class is supposed to be). Granted, cleric similarly has no framework for this but its a broad problem with the game design and ethos of the edition as a whole. So how is it evidence that the class was designed backwards? Because if it wasn’t the premise would never have been developed into the game. 5e was a streamlined product. It distanced itself from the legacy of previous editions deliberately, but cleric was too entrenched as a concept to feasibly dislodge. In 1e DMs were encouraged explicitly to punish or otherwise mandate redemption for clerics who had transgressed. Developing a class archetype which relies on this concept (outdated, fit to be ignored in their eyes) makes no sense. Its all one big justification for being a strange gishy hodgepodge class that can do all sorts of spooky things like see in the dark or what have you. Or perhaps I give jeremy crawford far too much credit and they just assumed having consequences baked into your class for unsuitable conduct was too egregiously “unfun” for anyone to ever actually implement (insane charlatan position).
Writing my latest video script has brought the topic of 5e magicians to forefront of my mind and I am not pleased.