So I am a DM, thinking of houseruling a tweak to the warlock class. one of the few issues I have with the class in 5E is the number of warlock spell slots, while yes they recover them with a short rest of the party are being put through there paces the warlock can really struggle.
So I am considering tweaking the spell slots to match proficiency, this would mean warlocks getting access to 3 spell slots earlier, and having a maximum of 6. What are peoples thoughts on this?
I feel like this would hit kind of a weird point in the mid-levels then taper off at higher levels. Because at level 9 suddenly you've got 4 5th level spell slots that recover on a short rest. No class ever gets more than 3 5th level spell slots, and I think it will turn most Warlocks into total beasts compared to their allies... at least until 13th level and everyone else starts getting into 7th level spell slots. After that I think the increase in spell slots will have less overall impact, although the extra spell slots in the early levels, I think, will be more of a cushion that will make the class more friendly to new players.
Overall I think it's an experiment worth playtesting. I feel like if this were to be implemented some other change would have to come with it... maybe delaying Mystic Arcanums or reducing Invocations, but in general I don't think it will be so earth shattering as to completely break the game. In my own campaign I'm playing through my DM eventually just gave our Warlock player an extra spell slot as a boon for completing some specific tasks for her Patron, and it hasn't unbalanced the game or anything.
So I am a DM, thinking of houseruling a tweak to the warlock class. one of the few issues I have with the class in 5E is the number of warlock spell slots, while yes they recover them with a short rest of the party are being put through there paces the warlock can really struggle.
So I am considering tweaking the spell slots to match proficiency, this would mean warlocks getting access to 3 spell slots earlier, and having a maximum of 6. What are peoples thoughts on this?
If your warlocks are struggling and your wizards aren't, you're probably being too generous with long rests or too harsh with short rests.
An invocation that simply granted another warlock spell slot might be a plausible option.
To echo what others stated; Warlock as written is pretty dependant upon having the opportunity for short rests. If your group doesn't use that mechanic often then well: teh warlocks are going to suffer compared to basically any other spell caster.
Personally: i've thought for ages that the 2 slots forever is pretty under-powered. But then again: my normal group doesn't use short rests that often, so I'm seeing it from that perspective.
While not an official design consideration, it's worth noting how it could impact multiclassing. Warlocks are a popular class to blend and making them more powerful would have consequences.
Warlocks are the people who do not cast a lot of spells but instead get magical abilities. The invocations, pacts, etc. are the stuff you want/get not really the spells.
So I am a DM, thinking of houseruling a tweak to the warlock class. one of the few issues I have with the class in 5E is the number of warlock spell slots, while yes they recover them with a short rest of the party are being put through there paces the warlock can really struggle.
So I am considering tweaking the spell slots to match proficiency, this would mean warlocks getting access to 3 spell slots earlier, and having a maximum of 6. What are peoples thoughts on this?
If your warlocks are struggling and your wizards aren't, you're probably being too generous with long rests or too harsh with short rests.
An invocation that simply granted another warlock spell slot might be a plausible option.
I don't define when long/short rests happen, these are decided by the party based on the challenges they face and the sandbox they are in. I dont disrupt short or long rests so they get to define how often they happen.
I don't define when long/short rests happen, these are decided by the party based on the challenges they face and the sandbox they are in. I dont disrupt short or long rests so they get to define how often they happen.
That almost always translates as being too generous (which is bad game design, but...).
At level 5, they would get 3 level 3 spell slots that refresh on short rest. That's three fireballs from your Warlock every single combat, or your warlock not being afraid to be a counterspell bot while still having the most reliable DPR in the game with Eldritch blast. You just posted that you allow your party to dictate short rests and you never interrupt them.
To the earlier points, Warlocks are meant to get a lot of their flavor/meat from their invocations/subclass abilities. If there is one thing a Warlock shouldn't feel, it's hampered unless it's prior to level 3. All classes feel weak prior to 3, but warlocks only getting 2 spell slots until the 11th makes sense when you remember how they work. Warlocks just need to be vocal about their specific needs and remind the party they synergize. Druids get wild shapes back on a short, Fighters get action surge back, Clerics/Paladins get their channel divinities back. Have those classes use those every/every other combat, and then they go hey, let's take a break.
I agree. That would give warlocks way too many spell slots.
Warlocks are my favorite class and I’m playing a Wizard right now. My Wizard can cast 1 or 2 5th level spells per long rest at 9th level. A Warlock would be able to cast 4 5th level spells per short rest at 9th level. That’s a huge boost in power for a Warlock!
If your warlocks are relying on their spells as a primary feature of their class, they're ignoring their other abilities. As already mentioned, (in)frequency of short rests also becomes a factor since they regain slots then, unlike other classes; even with one short rest per day a warlock should be able to wisely use their available spells (which always cast at their highest available level) to good utility.
So I am a DM, thinking of houseruling a tweak to the warlock class. one of the few issues I have with the class in 5E is the number of warlock spell slots, while yes they recover them with a short rest of the party are being put through there paces the warlock can really struggle.
So I am considering tweaking the spell slots to match proficiency, this would mean warlocks getting access to 3 spell slots earlier, and having a maximum of 6. What are peoples thoughts on this?
If your warlocks are struggling and your wizards aren't, you're probably being too generous with long rests or too harsh with short rests.
An invocation that simply granted another warlock spell slot might be a plausible option.
I don't define when long/short rests happen, these are decided by the party based on the challenges they face and the sandbox they are in. I dont disrupt short or long rests so they get to define how often they happen.
If you're the DM, yes you do.
It ruins the game if you allow a lot of long rests.
It doesn't necessarily "ruin" the game, but if the DM doesn't factor things like the how often both short and long rests will be needed (and possible) into the content and pacing of challenges they present the party it can and will make things awkward and unbalanced. This part is at least partially on the DM because they are the source of everything that exists in their world. Setting up an adventure where the party has to go through fourteen combat encounters back to back with no possibility for any rests is probably not going to be a good idea, and it can be just as bad to always have a single such encounter where casters can unload all their spells without worrying about saving any because they know they'll be able to long rest before the next bit of action. For a DM to not take at least some responsibility for this is just as bad as a player robbing/killing other PCs and justifying it with "it's what my character would do." The player made that character, and the DM made that inescapable dungeon full of monsters (or only put one monster within fifty miles of the objective); there is responsibility there.
Granted, if you pace things so that players can take a short rest after a few encounters (or even just one very difficult one) and they don't then that's on them. But the availability of such opportunities absolutely should be a major consideration in your adventure/dungeon/sandbox/funhouse/etc building.
So I am a DM, thinking of houseruling a tweak to the warlock class. one of the few issues I have with the class in 5E is the number of warlock spell slots, while yes they recover them with a short rest of the party are being put through there paces the warlock can really struggle.
So I am considering tweaking the spell slots to match proficiency, this would mean warlocks getting access to 3 spell slots earlier, and having a maximum of 6. What are peoples thoughts on this?
If your warlocks are struggling and your wizards aren't, you're probably being too generous with long rests or too harsh with short rests.
An invocation that simply granted another warlock spell slot might be a plausible option.
Give them a rod of the pact keeper…once per day additional spell slot
But yea, be more generous with short rests and more restrictive with long rests
I have to join the others who say this is probably not a good idea. I think warlock's current design is pretty good and balanced making this class very unique and powerful if played right (or rather if played one of the many right ways). I have never had issues or felt under-powered compared to others in my party (we got a sorcerer and a bard as spell casters) and we do not even take that many short rests, sometimes we have a session without a single one and I am still doing ok. The key is utilizing concentration spells and eldritch blast (it can be a tad different for hex blades). Granting warlock more spell slots than what he has now would make him downright broken, you have to especially count in mystic arcana which (albeit only once per long rest) are ON TOP of the other spell slots. I suggested this to others - if someone playing a warlock feels like they have too few spell slots, give them the Rod of the Pactkeeper - once per long rest it can be used to recover one spell slot (on top of increasing spell save DC and to hit modifier). You can always justify that it came with whatever pact a warlock made with their patron.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Warlock in WoW, warlock in D&D, warlock everywhere.
It basically rises with Cantrip levels right now, but with no boost at 5 1,2,11,17 for 1,2,3,4 slots. If you put another one in there at level 5 for 1,2,3,4,5 slots at 1,2,5,11,17 levels you probably get something that works a little better.
There is some weakness levels 7-10 before getting that 3rd slot that this progression would help with. Prof bonus feels a little too fast.
In general, I agree that warlocks need more spell slots AND that they should be able to upcast spells beyond 5th level.
Exactly how many slots/upcasting is up for debate.
How would you feel about including the option to use a Mystic Arcanum to up-cast one of the Warlock's lower-level spells? That way it's still just a once-a-day thing...
Personally I agree with Butch94 that a Rod of the Pact Keeper is the best way to address Warlock Spell slots. It's a nice little boost to a Warlock's versatility but isn't a major game changer that requires a lot of rebalancing.
In general, I agree that warlocks need more spell slots AND that they should be able to upcast spells beyond 5th level.
Exactly how many slots/upcasting is up for debate.
How would you feel about including the option to use a Mystic Arcanum to up-cast one of the Warlock's lower-level spells? That way it's still just a once-a-day thing...
Personally I agree with Butch94 that a Rod of the Pact Keeper is the best way to address Warlock Spell slots. It's a nice little boost to a Warlock's versatility but isn't a major game changer that requires a lot of rebalancing.
That's a good idea, but I was also thinking about warlocks being able to upcast any spell at any time to the equivalent mystic arcanum level. IMO, that's not OP considering the relative power level of other casters.
Funny you should mention that. My character got his hands on a pact keeper rod, and to my DM's regret, my spell save DC is now 19. (que evil laughter)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Kinbard Kroft: 32nd Lvl Arch Mage (1E/2E)
Grunk: 15th Lvl Barbarian/3rd Lvl Wizard (5E)
CT: 4th Lvl Wild Magic Sorcerer (5E)
Ezekiel Millwood: 11th Lvl GOO Warlock (5E)
Leif Loadstone: 3rd Lvl Circle of the Moon Druid
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So I am a DM, thinking of houseruling a tweak to the warlock class. one of the few issues I have with the class in 5E is the number of warlock spell slots, while yes they recover them with a short rest of the party are being put through there paces the warlock can really struggle.
So I am considering tweaking the spell slots to match proficiency, this would mean warlocks getting access to 3 spell slots earlier, and having a maximum of 6. What are peoples thoughts on this?
I feel like this would hit kind of a weird point in the mid-levels then taper off at higher levels. Because at level 9 suddenly you've got 4 5th level spell slots that recover on a short rest. No class ever gets more than 3 5th level spell slots, and I think it will turn most Warlocks into total beasts compared to their allies... at least until 13th level and everyone else starts getting into 7th level spell slots. After that I think the increase in spell slots will have less overall impact, although the extra spell slots in the early levels, I think, will be more of a cushion that will make the class more friendly to new players.
Overall I think it's an experiment worth playtesting. I feel like if this were to be implemented some other change would have to come with it... maybe delaying Mystic Arcanums or reducing Invocations, but in general I don't think it will be so earth shattering as to completely break the game. In my own campaign I'm playing through my DM eventually just gave our Warlock player an extra spell slot as a boon for completing some specific tasks for her Patron, and it hasn't unbalanced the game or anything.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
If your warlocks are struggling and your wizards aren't, you're probably being too generous with long rests or too harsh with short rests.
An invocation that simply granted another warlock spell slot might be a plausible option.
To echo what others stated; Warlock as written is pretty dependant upon having the opportunity for short rests. If your group doesn't use that mechanic often then well: teh warlocks are going to suffer compared to basically any other spell caster.
Personally: i've thought for ages that the 2 slots forever is pretty under-powered. But then again: my normal group doesn't use short rests that often, so I'm seeing it from that perspective.
While not an official design consideration, it's worth noting how it could impact multiclassing. Warlocks are a popular class to blend and making them more powerful would have consequences.
Warlocks are the people who do not cast a lot of spells but instead get magical abilities. The invocations, pacts, etc. are the stuff you want/get not really the spells.
They are more like a Paladin than like a Wizard.
I don't define when long/short rests happen, these are decided by the party based on the challenges they face and the sandbox they are in. I dont disrupt short or long rests so they get to define how often they happen.
That almost always translates as being too generous (which is bad game design, but...).
So I wouldn't allow it.
At level 5, they would get 3 level 3 spell slots that refresh on short rest. That's three fireballs from your Warlock every single combat, or your warlock not being afraid to be a counterspell bot while still having the most reliable DPR in the game with Eldritch blast. You just posted that you allow your party to dictate short rests and you never interrupt them.
To the earlier points, Warlocks are meant to get a lot of their flavor/meat from their invocations/subclass abilities. If there is one thing a Warlock shouldn't feel, it's hampered unless it's prior to level 3. All classes feel weak prior to 3, but warlocks only getting 2 spell slots until the 11th makes sense when you remember how they work. Warlocks just need to be vocal about their specific needs and remind the party they synergize. Druids get wild shapes back on a short, Fighters get action surge back, Clerics/Paladins get their channel divinities back. Have those classes use those every/every other combat, and then they go hey, let's take a break.
I agree. That would give warlocks way too many spell slots.
Warlocks are my favorite class and I’m playing a Wizard right now. My Wizard can cast 1 or 2 5th level spells per long rest at 9th level. A Warlock would be able to cast 4 5th level spells per short rest at 9th level. That’s a huge boost in power for a Warlock!
Professional computer geek
If your warlocks are relying on their spells as a primary feature of their class, they're ignoring their other abilities. As already mentioned, (in)frequency of short rests also becomes a factor since they regain slots then, unlike other classes; even with one short rest per day a warlock should be able to wisely use their available spells (which always cast at their highest available level) to good utility.
How is the warlock struggling? They have eldritch blast, similar to a fighters extra attacks.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
If you're the DM, yes you do.
It ruins the game if you allow a lot of long rests.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
It doesn't necessarily "ruin" the game, but if the DM doesn't factor things like the how often both short and long rests will be needed (and possible) into the content and pacing of challenges they present the party it can and will make things awkward and unbalanced. This part is at least partially on the DM because they are the source of everything that exists in their world. Setting up an adventure where the party has to go through fourteen combat encounters back to back with no possibility for any rests is probably not going to be a good idea, and it can be just as bad to always have a single such encounter where casters can unload all their spells without worrying about saving any because they know they'll be able to long rest before the next bit of action. For a DM to not take at least some responsibility for this is just as bad as a player robbing/killing other PCs and justifying it with "it's what my character would do." The player made that character, and the DM made that inescapable dungeon full of monsters (or only put one monster within fifty miles of the objective); there is responsibility there.
Granted, if you pace things so that players can take a short rest after a few encounters (or even just one very difficult one) and they don't then that's on them. But the availability of such opportunities absolutely should be a major consideration in your adventure/dungeon/sandbox/funhouse/etc building.
Give them a rod of the pact keeper…once per day additional spell slot
But yea, be more generous with short rests and more restrictive with long rests
I have to join the others who say this is probably not a good idea. I think warlock's current design is pretty good and balanced making this class very unique and powerful if played right (or rather if played one of the many right ways). I have never had issues or felt under-powered compared to others in my party (we got a sorcerer and a bard as spell casters) and we do not even take that many short rests, sometimes we have a session without a single one and I am still doing ok. The key is utilizing concentration spells and eldritch blast (it can be a tad different for hex blades). Granting warlock more spell slots than what he has now would make him downright broken, you have to especially count in mystic arcana which (albeit only once per long rest) are ON TOP of the other spell slots. I suggested this to others - if someone playing a warlock feels like they have too few spell slots, give them the Rod of the Pactkeeper - once per long rest it can be used to recover one spell slot (on top of increasing spell save DC and to hit modifier). You can always justify that it came with whatever pact a warlock made with their patron.
Warlock in WoW, warlock in D&D, warlock everywhere.
In general, I agree that warlocks need more spell slots AND that they should be able to upcast spells beyond 5th level.
Exactly how many slots/upcasting is up for debate.
It basically rises with Cantrip levels right now, but with no boost at 5
1,2,11,17 for 1,2,3,4 slots. If you put another one in there at level 5 for 1,2,3,4,5 slots at 1,2,5,11,17 levels you probably get something that works a little better.
There is some weakness levels 7-10 before getting that 3rd slot that this progression would help with. Prof bonus feels a little too fast.
How would you feel about including the option to use a Mystic Arcanum to up-cast one of the Warlock's lower-level spells? That way it's still just a once-a-day thing...
Personally I agree with Butch94 that a Rod of the Pact Keeper is the best way to address Warlock Spell slots. It's a nice little boost to a Warlock's versatility but isn't a major game changer that requires a lot of rebalancing.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
That's a good idea, but I was also thinking about warlocks being able to upcast any spell at any time to the equivalent mystic arcanum level. IMO, that's not OP considering the relative power level of other casters.
Funny you should mention that. My character got his hands on a pact keeper rod, and to my DM's regret, my spell save DC is now 19. (que evil laughter)