You're a half-caster - and you can access the same spell circle as a full-caster with a Mystic Arcanum
You're getting access to the whole Arcane list
You get to choose your spellcasting ability score (they had a fantastic insight here!)
You're getting a bunch of bonus prepared spells through your subclass (10 of them?)
Class features have been improved
All my pain points as a DM have been bandaged
I can run games for warlocks now and they won't short rest after every battle
No more sorlock munchkin
Players can still dish out the damage with Hex but now it requires resources to do so (needs to be upcast)
But it isn't necessarily the features - it's the systemic way that the mechanics of this class interact with each other, with general game mechanics, and with multiclassing. It's like WotC's IQ jumped 20 points since playtest #4. I wonder if they had a leadership change or new hires on the design team.
Fighter & Wizard don't seem as well designed in playtest #5 - but it's early yet in the design cycle for weapon mastery & wizard spell customization - I'm hoping we will eventually see the same level of sophistication.
If you don't like the class - help me fill in my blind spots.
There’s about a dozen threads on warlocks in the unearthed arcana tab. You might head over there for this debate.
And because this is the internet and tone doesn’t always come across. I’m intending this to be friendly and helpful, not snarky and derisive. Apologies if it’s coming out the wrong way.
when someone says this iteration of the UA warlock is better or more fun, the ten-cent word 'carcinization' comes to mind. that's the thing where convergent evolution favors bugs and crustaceans and general non-crab stuff ending up in a crab shape over time. except, rather than crabs it's wizards. warlock fun goes up as it gets closer to wizard shape: full arcane list, lots of spell slots, summon familiar.
and i don't contest that it's more fun. it probably is (wish i knew first hand)! but it makes me wonder whether the next stab at UA warlock will be polishing this (populist?) formula or if they'll go looking for a more unique expression.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
You're a half-caster - and you can access the same spell circle as a full-caster with a Mystic Arcanum
You're getting access to the whole Arcane list
You get to choose your spellcasting ability score (they had a fantastic insight here!)
You're getting a bunch of bonus prepared spells through your subclass (10 of them?)
Class features have been improved
All my pain points as a DM have been bandaged
I can run games for warlocks now and they won't short rest after every battle
No more sorlock munchkin
Players can still dish out the damage with Hex but now it requires resources to do so (needs to be upcast)
But it isn't necessarily the features - it's the systemic way that the mechanics of this class interact with each other, with general game mechanics, and with multiclassing. It's like WotC's IQ jumped 20 points since playtest #4. I wonder if they had a leadership change or new hires on the design team.
Fighter & Wizard don't seem as well designed in playtest #5 - but it's early yet in the design cycle for weapon mastery & wizard spell customization - I'm hoping we will eventually see the same level of sophistication.
If you don't like the class - help me fill in my blind spots.
You're a half-caster. That means you gain spells and spell slots at half the level of a full caster or 5e Warlock. You get mystic arcanum, which allows you a quasi full caster progression, but they're only once per long rest, and will basically boil down to whatever gives the biggest bang at that particular level. There is no point at which it's better to take a regular invocation over a mystic arcanum, so it's the illusion of choice.
Having full access to the Arcane list is good. However that in turn drives the "cannot be a Wizard hence must come up with some arbitrary limit like half caster" problem.
Choosing the spellcasting ability is good, but does encourage single level dips into Bladelock for Clerics, Paladins, and Rangers.
Getting known spells via the Patron spell list is good, but except for the Celestial and Hexblade they're mostly spells on the Arcane list anyway.
Hex is awful. 2d6 for a third level slot, and 3d6 for a fifth level? If 3d6 damage matters at level 17 then someone is playing the game wrong. The most that might be of value is expending a first level slot to put an NPC on disadvantage for wisdom (for insight) or charisma (for persuasion/deception) checks.
The short rest recharge was a pain, but this doesn't make it better.
I totally agree that Warlocks should get to choose Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma as their spell casting ability. It opens up so many more character concepts by doing this. I actually like the idea of making Charisma a dump stat for some Warlocks now - as I think the bookish occultist and ugly witch should be supported by this Class too.
I also like a number of the other changes, although I’d be taking a few things. For example, I don’t see the point of putting the Pact abilities in the spell list - only Warlocks use them and why have book flipping made necessary in character generation.
You're not wrong. The new warlock is good. It's not perfect, but for what it's obvious design goals are (elimination of short rest mechanics) it's as good as you can ask for.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I love a lot of the tweeks made but over all the play style of making it a half caster is just clunky, and part of me thinks this was done in large part to make it easier to code for VTTs.
-Warlocks loose a large part of what made them unique to become a half caster -Half casters are designed to have an attack action or attack like ability so they don't have to rely on their limited slot -For warlocks this was Eldritch blast + Hex, and hex now needs to be up cast to keep up with damage. -The problem since they are half casters, they need to hit 9th level before they can upcast it to get the extra 1d6 damage per round. -Mystic arcanum requires an invocation now, so basically you get a single spell slot that can only ever be used to cast the same 1 spell.
The fact that they let you choose the casting ability score is great on paper. The problem is that to do this they took away pretty much all multiclass synergy warlocks had so they wouldn't have to worry about balance issues with warlock + every caster.
The fact that they let you choose the casting ability score is great on paper. The problem is that to do this they took away pretty much all multiclass synergy warlocks had so they wouldn't have to worry about balance issues with warlock + every caster.
i think warlock still retains a viable EB archer identity. also, i have to imagine they'll add up-casting to Mystic Arcanum (as early as the very next UA, i predict!) to return a token piece of pact magic. as for the inclusion of medium armor and lots of low level spell slots, it's weird but apparently testing favorably by anyone who's brought it to the table.
having said that, what multiclass synergy do you suppose they lost? most people that bring it up seem to have the opinion that it's too multiclass friendly with the lvl 1 pact cantrips. thoughts?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
I also like a number of the other changes, although I’d be taking a few things. For example, I don’t see the point of putting the Pact abilities in the spell list - only Warlocks use them and why have book flipping made necessary in character generation.
One bizarre rules interaction; As Cantrips, rather than Class Abilities, they can be made into Scrolls.
Sure, you have to be a Warlock to use these scrolls, but if you know another friendly Warlock who chose a different Pact Boon and also has sufficient cash, downtime, and Arcana Proficiency. By Xanathar's, it's 15GP and 1 day to craft a scroll of Book of Shadows, Pact Familiar, or Pact Weapon, as appropriate.
Book of Shadows and Pact Familiar last until recast or destroyed, Pact Weapon lasts for 24 hours.
You're expending a resource to recast, unlike a Warlock who chose the Boon at level 1, but other than that, using Warlock-Made Pact Spell Scrolls has almost the same benefit of taking multiple Pact Boons up to level 9, where Boon-linked invocations come into play.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
🎵I'm on top of the world, looking down on creation, wreaking death and devastation with my mind.
As the power that I've found erupts freely from the ground, I will cackle from the top of the world.🎵
I don't think I can disagree with you more here. There was no way that the old system was going to last, and it's not for VTT. It's because they are getting rid of short rest focus features. You cannot preserve old warlock spell casting AND get rid of short rest recharging. Given that maintaining the old style is not an option, making it a half caster is the best possible outcome.
- yes. Removing short rest casting is a design goal. It wasn't done to become a half caster. Becoming a half caster was the outcome of the obvious design goal to remove short rest focus.
- This hasn't changed.
- hex is crap. Now, we'll be concentrating on better spells.
- 3.5 damage/round is overrated. hex was changed so it's not a multi-hitter anymore. Hunter's mark was changed the same way. This is a design goal, not a warlock nerf. We're still going to multi-hit better than rangers or paladins because we'll still get more shots/round than they do.
- Who cares? You're not going to cast hex beyond low levels now anyways.
- Rangers and Paladins wish they could spend a mystic arcanum to get better spells sooner.
Synergy is not removed. You can still 1 level dip into warlock and get SAD Bards and Paladins. Only multi-hitter sorlocks were impacted for dipping because EB no longer scales on character level.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
The fact that they let you choose the casting ability score is great on paper. The problem is that to do this they took away pretty much all multiclass synergy warlocks had so they wouldn't have to worry about balance issues with warlock + every caster.
i think warlock still retains a viable EB archer identity. also, i have to imagine they'll add up-casting to Mystic Arcanum (as early as the very next UA, i predict!) to return a token piece of pact magic. as for the inclusion of medium armor and lots of low level spell slots, it's weird but apparently testing favorably by anyone who's brought it to the table.
having said that, what multiclass synergy do you suppose they lost? most people that bring it up seem to have the opinion that it's too multiclass friendly with the lvl 1 pact cantrips. thoughts?
EB no longer scales up with player level, it scales with warlock level. This means that when you multiclass you no longer get multiple bolts at level 5. This is the equivalent of not getting and extra attack if you are using EB. Add this along with the nerf to hex and the need to up cast and it's a massive hit to making a warlock multiclass.
Currently all you need now to be decent in combat is 2 levels of warlock to get EB, hex, and agonizing blast. After that you can goof around and multiclass into what ever you want for RP, flavor, story reasons, and still be decent in combat. You can blow all your spell slots on utility or RP spells as long as you have 1 1st slot for hex.
The fact that they let you choose the casting ability score is great on paper. The problem is that to do this they took away pretty much all multiclass synergy warlocks had so they wouldn't have to worry about balance issues with warlock + every caster.
i think warlock still retains a viable EB archer identity. also, i have to imagine they'll add up-casting to Mystic Arcanum (as early as the very next UA, i predict!) to return a token piece of pact magic. as for the inclusion of medium armor and lots of low level spell slots, it's weird but apparently testing favorably by anyone who's brought it to the table.
having said that, what multiclass synergy do you suppose they lost? most people that bring it up seem to have the opinion that it's too multiclass friendly with the lvl 1 pact cantrips. thoughts?
EB no longer scales up with player level, it scales with warlock level. This means that when you multiclass you no longer get multiple bolts at level 5. This is the equivalent of not getting and extra attack if you are using EB. Add this along with the nerf to hex and the need to up cast and it's a massive hit to making a warlock multiclass...
huh, i know i've read about that before but i have trouble retaining this information. if you want to attack as would a level 5 fighter, then the solution is to be a level 5+ fighter. that it should be any different for warlock doesn't make sense.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
...Currently all you need now to be decent in combat is 2 levels of warlock to get EB, hex, and agonizing blast. After that you can goof around and multiclass into what ever you want for RP, flavor, story reasons, and still be decent in combat. You can blow all your spell slots on utility or RP spells as long as you have 1 1st slot for hex.
...and now you've completely lost me. is this a free form tabletop role playing game or a world of warcraft raid? someone's clocking your dps and adjusting your loot schedule if you don't perform at the far end of the bell curve?? i don't think the rest of the game is intended to be gated behind a mandatory multiclass dip. and it's for everyone? what does that even look like, the whole party solving every combat with a barrage of lasers so they can get back to the fantasy?? admittedly, i'm familiar with characters that would see it as problematic for someone to reveal they've made a taboo pact with unholy powers, let alone to reveal that as casually and as frequently as multiple times every battle.
i think i'm missing some nuance like "personal preference for min-maxing" rather than the "they'll replace me if i can't keep up" vibe i've clocked here, so i'm going to take a step back and see if clarity comes with time and other people's discussion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
...Currently all you need now to be decent in combat is 2 levels of warlock to get EB, hex, and agonizing blast. After that you can goof around and multiclass into what ever you want for RP, flavor, story reasons, and still be decent in combat. You can blow all your spell slots on utility or RP spells as long as you have 1 1st slot for hex.
...and now you've completely lost me. is this a free form tabletop role playing game or a world of warcraft raid? someone's clocking your dps and adjusting your loot schedule if you don't perform at the far end of the bell curve?? i don't think the rest of the game is intended to be gated behind a mandatory multiclass dip. and it's for everyone? what does that even look like, the whole party solving every combat with a barrage of lasers so they can get back to the fantasy?? admittedly, i'm familiar with characters that would see it as problematic for someone to reveal they've made a taboo pact with unholy powers, let alone to reveal that as casually and as frequently as multiple times every battle.
i think i'm missing some nuance like "personal preference for min-maxing" rather than the "they'll replace me if i can't keep up" vibe i've clocked here, so i'm going to take a step back and see if clarity comes with time and other people's discussion.
No sir, there is a huge gap between min-maxing and focusing on how much damage you put out and just making a mechanically adequate character. You can recognizing that this is a game and play that game using strategy, and not just treat it as improv theatre.
If you think that making a mechanically functional character that can contribute in combat is "min-maxing" then yeah I think you have missed some nuance.
Aslo warlocks aren't all "unholy powers" there are plenty that don't fit that mold celestial warlocks, fey, magic swords, genie (it specifically says "noble" genie)
...If you think that making a mechanically functional character that can contribute in combat is "min-maxing" then yeah I think you have missed some nuance...
i think that focusing on the mechanisms is optimizing or min-maxing, but i also think that's not an offensive or unfair label. you can optimize without putting aside the spirit of the rules. if they're changing EB then it seems RAI wasn't on the side of RAW. shrug.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
...If you think that making a mechanically functional character that can contribute in combat is "min-maxing" then yeah I think you have missed some nuance...
i think that focusing on the mechanisms is optimizing or min-maxing, but i also think that's not an offensive or unfair label. you can optimize without putting aside the spirit of the rules. if they're changing EB then it seems RAI wasn't on the side of RAW. shrug.
You really can not defend the position of considering EB spam to be "optimizing". It's not in any way optimal, it's adequate.
The whole point that I was making was that it allows you to be adequate at damage, which then allows you to make whatever choices you want with levels and features for RP or other reasons and still be able to contribute to combat. It's the most opposite of min maxing, power gaming, optimizing, etc, without fully ignoring the attempt to make a functional character.
...If you think that making a mechanically functional character that can contribute in combat is "min-maxing" then yeah I think you have missed some nuance...
i think that focusing on the mechanisms is optimizing or min-maxing, but i also think that's not an offensive or unfair label. you can optimize without putting aside the spirit of the rules. if they're changing EB then it seems RAI wasn't on the side of RAW. shrug.
You really can not defend the position of considering EB spam to be "optimizing". It's not in any way optimal, it's adequate.
The whole point that I was making was that it allows you to be adequate at damage, which then allows you to make whatever choices you want with levels and features for RP or other reasons and still be able to contribute to combat. It's the most opposite of min maxing, power gaming, optimizing, etc, without fully ignoring the attempt to make a functional character.
single class characters are 'adequate' and 'functional' right out of the box. if you apply an optional rule (multiclass) to gain additional power, then you (and your DM) are opting to go beyond baseline adequate. your end goal appears to be optimizing a ratio of objectives: damage and 'features for RP or other reasons.' minimizing some things so you can maximize others. however, consider this: if your party's combat power has increased, then your DM has to readjust combat CRs to challenge you all. it's a cycle.
anyway, i'm sorry for not addressing the other points you've brought ("unholy powers", etc) up in the previous reply, but i really am interested in making room for other voices here. i think i've clarified what i meant by 'min-maxing' and i don't want to be the derail any further. please let me know if you would like to continue discussion in a thread about min-maxing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
But it isn't necessarily the features - it's the systemic way that the mechanics of this class interact with each other, with general game mechanics, and with multiclassing. It's like WotC's IQ jumped 20 points since playtest #4. I wonder if they had a leadership change or new hires on the design team.
Fighter & Wizard don't seem as well designed in playtest #5 - but it's early yet in the design cycle for weapon mastery & wizard spell customization - I'm hoping we will eventually see the same level of sophistication.
If you don't like the class - help me fill in my blind spots.
There’s about a dozen threads on warlocks in the unearthed arcana tab. You might head over there for this debate.
And because this is the internet and tone doesn’t always come across. I’m intending this to be friendly and helpful, not snarky and derisive. Apologies if it’s coming out the wrong way.
I like Warlock, but not getting access to spells like Clone makes me so sad.
Nah, you're not wrong, the OD&D Warlock is better.
when someone says this iteration of the UA warlock is better or more fun, the ten-cent word 'carcinization' comes to mind. that's the thing where convergent evolution favors bugs and crustaceans and general non-crab stuff ending up in a crab shape over time. except, rather than crabs it's wizards. warlock fun goes up as it gets closer to wizard shape: full arcane list, lots of spell slots, summon familiar.
and i don't contest that it's more fun. it probably is (wish i knew first hand)! but it makes me wonder whether the next stab at UA warlock will be polishing this (populist?) formula or if they'll go looking for a more unique expression.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
You're a half-caster. That means you gain spells and spell slots at half the level of a full caster or 5e Warlock. You get mystic arcanum, which allows you a quasi full caster progression, but they're only once per long rest, and will basically boil down to whatever gives the biggest bang at that particular level. There is no point at which it's better to take a regular invocation over a mystic arcanum, so it's the illusion of choice.
Having full access to the Arcane list is good. However that in turn drives the "cannot be a Wizard hence must come up with some arbitrary limit like half caster" problem.
Choosing the spellcasting ability is good, but does encourage single level dips into Bladelock for Clerics, Paladins, and Rangers.
Getting known spells via the Patron spell list is good, but except for the Celestial and Hexblade they're mostly spells on the Arcane list anyway.
Hex is awful. 2d6 for a third level slot, and 3d6 for a fifth level? If 3d6 damage matters at level 17 then someone is playing the game wrong. The most that might be of value is expending a first level slot to put an NPC on disadvantage for wisdom (for insight) or charisma (for persuasion/deception) checks.
The short rest recharge was a pain, but this doesn't make it better.
I totally agree that Warlocks should get to choose Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma as their spell casting ability. It opens up so many more character concepts by doing this. I actually like the idea of making Charisma a dump stat for some Warlocks now - as I think the bookish occultist and ugly witch should be supported by this Class too.
I also like a number of the other changes, although I’d be taking a few things. For example, I don’t see the point of putting the Pact abilities in the spell list - only Warlocks use them and why have book flipping made necessary in character generation.
You're not wrong. The new warlock is good. It's not perfect, but for what it's obvious design goals are (elimination of short rest mechanics) it's as good as you can ask for.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Overall the changes are bad.
I love a lot of the tweeks made but over all the play style of making it a half caster is just clunky, and part of me thinks this was done in large part to make it easier to code for VTTs.
-Warlocks loose a large part of what made them unique to become a half caster
-Half casters are designed to have an attack action or attack like ability so they don't have to rely on their limited slot
-For warlocks this was Eldritch blast + Hex, and hex now needs to be up cast to keep up with damage.
-The problem since they are half casters, they need to hit 9th level before they can upcast it to get the extra 1d6 damage per round.
-Mystic arcanum requires an invocation now, so basically you get a single spell slot that can only ever be used to cast the same 1 spell.
The fact that they let you choose the casting ability score is great on paper. The problem is that to do this they took away pretty much all multiclass synergy warlocks had so they wouldn't have to worry about balance issues with warlock + every caster.
i think warlock still retains a viable EB archer identity. also, i have to imagine they'll add up-casting to Mystic Arcanum (as early as the very next UA, i predict!) to return a token piece of pact magic. as for the inclusion of medium armor and lots of low level spell slots, it's weird but apparently testing favorably by anyone who's brought it to the table.
having said that, what multiclass synergy do you suppose they lost? most people that bring it up seem to have the opinion that it's too multiclass friendly with the lvl 1 pact cantrips. thoughts?
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
One bizarre rules interaction; As Cantrips, rather than Class Abilities, they can be made into Scrolls.
Sure, you have to be a Warlock to use these scrolls, but if you know another friendly Warlock who chose a different Pact Boon and also has sufficient cash, downtime, and Arcana Proficiency. By Xanathar's, it's 15GP and 1 day to craft a scroll of Book of Shadows, Pact Familiar, or Pact Weapon, as appropriate.
Book of Shadows and Pact Familiar last until recast or destroyed, Pact Weapon lasts for 24 hours.
You're expending a resource to recast, unlike a Warlock who chose the Boon at level 1, but other than that, using Warlock-Made Pact Spell Scrolls has almost the same benefit of taking multiple Pact Boons up to level 9, where Boon-linked invocations come into play.
🎵I'm on top of the world, looking down on creation, wreaking death and devastation with my mind.
As the power that I've found erupts freely from the ground, I will cackle from the top of the world.🎵
Charisma Saving Throw: DC 18, Failure: 20d6 Psychic Damage, Success: Half damage
One definitively good reason why they should remain as class abilities rather than spells.
I don't think I can disagree with you more here. There was no way that the old system was going to last, and it's not for VTT. It's because they are getting rid of short rest focus features. You cannot preserve old warlock spell casting AND get rid of short rest recharging. Given that maintaining the old style is not an option, making it a half caster is the best possible outcome.
- yes. Removing short rest casting is a design goal. It wasn't done to become a half caster. Becoming a half caster was the outcome of the obvious design goal to remove short rest focus.
- This hasn't changed.
- hex is crap. Now, we'll be concentrating on better spells.
- 3.5 damage/round is overrated. hex was changed so it's not a multi-hitter anymore. Hunter's mark was changed the same way. This is a design goal, not a warlock nerf. We're still going to multi-hit better than rangers or paladins because we'll still get more shots/round than they do.
- Who cares? You're not going to cast hex beyond low levels now anyways.
- Rangers and Paladins wish they could spend a mystic arcanum to get better spells sooner.
Synergy is not removed. You can still 1 level dip into warlock and get SAD Bards and Paladins. Only multi-hitter sorlocks were impacted for dipping because EB no longer scales on character level.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
EB no longer scales up with player level, it scales with warlock level. This means that when you multiclass you no longer get multiple bolts at level 5. This is the equivalent of not getting and extra attack if you are using EB. Add this along with the nerf to hex and the need to up cast and it's a massive hit to making a warlock multiclass.
Currently all you need now to be decent in combat is 2 levels of warlock to get EB, hex, and agonizing blast. After that you can goof around and multiclass into what ever you want for RP, flavor, story reasons, and still be decent in combat. You can blow all your spell slots on utility or RP spells as long as you have 1 1st slot for hex.
huh, i know i've read about that before but i have trouble retaining this information. if you want to attack as would a level 5 fighter, then the solution is to be a level 5+ fighter. that it should be any different for warlock doesn't make sense.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
...and now you've completely lost me. is this a free form tabletop role playing game or a world of warcraft raid? someone's clocking your dps and adjusting your loot schedule if you don't perform at the far end of the bell curve?? i don't think the rest of the game is intended to be gated behind a mandatory multiclass dip. and it's for everyone? what does that even look like, the whole party solving every combat with a barrage of lasers so they can get back to the fantasy?? admittedly, i'm familiar with characters that would see it as problematic for someone to reveal they've made a taboo pact with unholy powers, let alone to reveal that as casually and as frequently as multiple times every battle.
i think i'm missing some nuance like "personal preference for min-maxing" rather than the "they'll replace me if i can't keep up" vibe i've clocked here, so i'm going to take a step back and see if clarity comes with time and other people's discussion.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
No sir, there is a huge gap between min-maxing and focusing on how much damage you put out and just making a mechanically adequate character.
You can recognizing that this is a game and play that game using strategy, and not just treat it as improv theatre.
If you think that making a mechanically functional character that can contribute in combat is "min-maxing" then yeah I think you have missed some nuance.
Aslo warlocks aren't all "unholy powers" there are plenty that don't fit that mold celestial warlocks, fey, magic swords, genie (it specifically says "noble" genie)
i think that focusing on the mechanisms is optimizing or min-maxing, but i also think that's not an offensive or unfair label. you can optimize without putting aside the spirit of the rules. if they're changing EB then it seems RAI wasn't on the side of RAW. shrug.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
You really can not defend the position of considering EB spam to be "optimizing". It's not in any way optimal, it's adequate.
The whole point that I was making was that it allows you to be adequate at damage, which then allows you to make whatever choices you want with levels and features for RP or other reasons and still be able to contribute to combat. It's the most opposite of min maxing, power gaming, optimizing, etc, without fully ignoring the attempt to make a functional character.
single class characters are 'adequate' and 'functional' right out of the box. if you apply an optional rule (multiclass) to gain additional power, then you (and your DM) are opting to go beyond baseline adequate. your end goal appears to be optimizing a ratio of objectives: damage and 'features for RP or other reasons.' minimizing some things so you can maximize others. however, consider this: if your party's combat power has increased, then your DM has to readjust combat CRs to challenge you all. it's a cycle.
anyway, i'm sorry for not addressing the other points you've brought ("unholy powers", etc) up in the previous reply, but i really am interested in making room for other voices here. i think i've clarified what i meant by 'min-maxing' and i don't want to be the derail any further. please let me know if you would like to continue discussion in a thread about min-maxing.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!