If you can name one REALLY god spell that only warlocks have, then i will be impressed
Oh look, another Warlock hater, trolling the Warlock forum.
Cute.
Eldritch Blast is the BEST cantrip in the game. 1d10 Force damage. Warlocks only. Two attacks at level 5. Three at 11. Four at 17. Add Charisma mod to each hit with an Invocation. That's 4d10+20 force damage, if you're keeping track.
Armor of Agathys; the Wizard in my group was ANGRY when he found out this was a Warlock-only spell.
Hunger of Hadar is amazing control: 20 foot radius blindness, difficult terrain, no-save cold damage, save for half acid damage. Warlocks only.
Armor of Agathys, Arms of Hadar, and Hunger of Hadar are all great Warlock exclusive spells.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM: Are you sure?
Wizard: Yes. I cast the Wish spell and I wish that everybody loves me!
DM: You transform into an irresistible, magnificent feast. It was so great, all who participated in devouring you tell of the joy they felt with tears in their eyes and all who hear the tale only feel sorrow that they weren't there to eat.
I have played both a Wizard and a Warlock in 5e. With 2nd and 3rd (3.5) I favored the wizard, and my group didn't use the 3.5 version of the Warlock. Both classes are powerful and have a great deal of RP potential. Personally, I love the customization of the Warlock. But I also love how the Wizard can have a different selection of spells every day.
That said, they each have a different style of play.
1. Multiple attacks also allows for multiple misses. As a result it actually tends do lower 1vs1 damage mathematically because your getting a mix of more hits and misses. The result is that Eldritch blast WILL do less damage than Toll the Dead the majority of the time....
No, this is mathematically false. Dividing damage over multiple attacks does NOT lower overall damage output at all. It makes zero difference.
Proof:
1 attack, 9 damage on hit, 50% chance to hit. Average damage 4.5 per attack.
3 attacks, 3 damage per hit, 50% chance to hit. Average damage 1.5 per attack, 4.5 average per 3 attacks.
It's the same. 1s and 20s don't make any difference to the above math.
The only difference is the split up attacks can target multiple creatures so over time the multiple attacks will yield a higher effective damage output as less damage will be useless overkill damage. It's a small but real benefit.
Warlocks are strictly less powerful than Wizards, any other interpretation is mistaken.
That does not mean that Warlocks are a bad class, most classes are less powerful than Wizards, but then that is a D&D fact going back to it's creation, and everyone kind of knows that don't they?
Most of the Warlocks unique spells (of which they get disappointingly few) are very low level spells. You can simply go Warlock 1, Wizard 19 and have a 9th level slot Armor of Agathys and be MORE durable than the Warlock is... FAR more durable as a matter of fact since you can then cast an 8th level Armor of Agathys, and then a 7th level Armor of Agathys, and so on and so forth.
Also a wizards arcane recovery can be used every short rest, so they can also regain spell slots after a short rest, although they likely won't need too because they have so many slots.
The best thing a Warlock can do to help their extremely low amount of slots is create or find magic items to use charges to cast spells that recharge daily. A staff of Fireballs goes a long way for a Warlock.
My personal preference is multiclassing a Hexblade warlock with a full caster class. This way you get the extra attack, higher spell slot Armor of Agathys, Eldritch Smite (for which you will have a lot more spell slots), etc.. Cleric is my favourite choice here because most of clerics best spells are all 5th level and lower, so missing out on the higher level spells is not a big deal. Warlock 5 / Cleric 15 is a really good very versatile character IMO. If you make the cleric a war cleric then you can sometimes get three attacks a round like that.
1. Multiple attacks also allows for multiple misses. As a result it actually tends do lower 1vs1 damage mathematically because your getting a mix of more hits and misses. The result is that Eldritch blast WILL do less damage than Toll the Dead the majority of the time....
No, this is mathematically false. Dividing damage over multiple attacks does NOT lower overall damage output at all. It makes zero difference.
Proof:
1 attack, 9 damage on hit, 50% chance to hit. Average damage 4.5 per attack.
3 attacks, 3 damage per hit, 50% chance to hit. Average damage 1.5 per attack, 4.5 average per 3 attacks.
It's the same. 1s and 20s don't make any difference to the above math.
The only difference is the split up attacks can target multiple creatures so over time the multiple attacks will yield a higher effective damage output as less damage will be useless overkill damage. It's a small but real benefit.
you don't do .5 on dice. When you roll a miss you get 0 when you roll a hit you get at least 1. The average is a decent guide but not true reflection of damage. You often see this when you have an average damage lower than the minimum damage of hit for example:
Greatsword GWM 2d6+10+3str at 50% (just using your number) = 10 average DPR... the problem with that is GWM can't do less than 15 damage on hit. So your trying to say over the course of a battle you hit for 15-25 half the time and you miss for 0 half the time and it equals 10 average DPR... but in a 3 round fight you will likely never have a DPR of 10 because if you attack 3 times:
miss 0, miss 0, miss 0 = DPR 0 <--DPR 10 not possible, possible low damage 25%
miss 0, miss 0, hit 15-25 = DPR 5-9 <--DPR 10 not possible, possible low damage 25%
miss 0, hit 15-25, hit 15-25 = DPR 10-17 <--DPR 10 will only has a 12.5% chance, "Average DPR" 3% high damage 22%
hit 15-25, hit 15-25, hit 15-25 = DPR 15-25 <--DPR 10 not possible, possible high damage 25%
So in the same 3 round battle, with 4 possible out comes you have a total of about 3% chance of a 10 DPR round. Lower is > at 50% and higher is second at 47%.
More attacks means more rolls which makes wider variation. eldritch blast at level 17, with 4 blasts, +5 agonizing blast "average DPR at 50%" = 4d10+20 ->42*.5=21 DPR
miss 0, miss 0, miss 0, miss 0 / miss 0, miss 0, miss 0, miss 0 / miss 0, miss 0, miss 0, miss 0 = DPR 0 <--DPR 21 not possible , 7.69% lower damage
miss 0, miss 0, miss 0, miss 0 / miss 0, miss 0, miss 0, miss 0 / miss 0, miss 0, miss 0, hit 6-15= DPR2-5 <--DPR 21 not possible , 7.69% lower damage
miss 0, miss 0, miss 0, miss 0 / miss 0, miss 0, miss 0, miss 0, / miss 0, miss 0, hit 6-15, hit 6-15= DPR4-10 <--DPR 21 not possible , 7.69% lower damage
miss 0, miss 0, miss 0, miss 0 / miss 0, miss 0, miss 0, miss 0 / miss 0, hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15= DPR6-15 <--DPR 21 not possible , 7.69% lower damage
miss 0, miss 0, miss 0, miss 0 / miss 0, miss 0, miss 0, miss 0 / hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15= DPR8-20 <--DPR 21 not possible , 7.69% lower damage
miss 0, miss 0, miss 0, miss 0 / miss 0, miss 0, miss 0, hit 6-15 / hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15= DPR10-25 <--DPR 21 possible @ 0.48%, 4.32% Lower & 1.92% Higher damage
miss 0, miss 0, miss 0, miss 0 / miss 0, miss 0, hit 6-15, hit 6-15 / hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15= DPR12-30 <--DPR 21 possible @ 0.40%, 3.60% Lower & 3.60% Higher damage
miss 0, miss 0, miss 0, miss 0 / miss 0, hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15 / hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15= DPR14-35 <--DPR 21 possible @ 0.35%, 2.45% Lower & 4.90% Higher damage
miss 0, miss 0, miss 0, miss 0 / hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15 / hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15= DPR16-40 <--DPR 21 possible @ 0.31%, 1.55% Lower & 5.89% Higher damage
miss 0, miss 0, miss 0, hit 6-15 / hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15 / hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15= DPR18-45 <--DPR 21 possible @ 0.27%, 0.81% Lower & 6.48% Higher damage
miss 0, miss 0, hit 6-15, hit 6-15 / hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15 / hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15= DPR20-50 <--DPR 21 possible @ 0.25%, 0.25% Lower & 7.25% Higher damage
miss 0, hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15 / hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15 / hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15= DPR22-55 <-DPR 21 not possible , 7.69% higher damage
hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15 / hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15 / hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15= DPR24-60 <--DPR 21 not possible , 7.69% higher damage
With more attacks the % of getting "Average DPR" goes down to 2.06%
The chance of lower than average damage goes UP to 51.42%
The chance of higher than average goes down to 45.42%
Now I lost 1.1% due to rounding to the hundredths place but that is spreed between them an not enough to change the out come. The reason more rolls creates lower damage is because of the 0 sum return on a miss has a greater impact than the minimum/maximum damage. When your use Average damage x average % to hit you negate the zero sum effect of rolling more times and having more misses.
1. An AoE spell will hit more targets with than 4 if those targets are available without addition roles and 0 sum loss. They also don't have to worry about damage waste from killing a target because the damage is not divided among targets they all take the same.The means that Scorching Ray and eldritch blast provide inferior damage to multiple targets when compared to spells like fireball because they are capped by the number of bolts/rays which causes a damage limit from which overkill damage becomes waste and 0 sum misses drag down the damage below what you would expect from the false "average damage".
2. Do to need multiple successful hits on the same target eldritch blast does inferior damage to high damage single target spells like Toll the Dead or Drconic Origin Sorcerers with firebolt. That is why Agonizing Blast is handy but not broken.
I use average damage too because I don't have a more accurate or easy number to get a base line but it does not let you compare damage from Eldritch blast and scorching ray to AoEs or single target spells. It my give you 3% idea... which is better than 0.... but not much.
So if Eldritch blast is inferior damage why use it? Well Eldritch blast may not do the most damaging spell but an AoE on your friends can count toward your Parties lose as much as enemy damage or your damage on your enemies counts toward your victory. It also has the ability to focus damage on a single target or spread to multiple enemies in opposite direction of 120ft without hitting your allies. This makes it the best one size fits all UTILITY damage spell in the game. Scorching ray might be better... before Eldritch invocations with scaling damage through additional rays well beyond 4... but with eldritch invocations more damage, slow effects, pull effects, push effects, extreme long range, and I am sure I missed something the Warlock class got a utility cantrip then the designers doubled down giving a TON of extra utility. Warlocks needed the utility because spell selection and spell slots are so limited. ... But a Wizard doesn't need Eldritch blast because the can take scorching ray and fire ball then up cast them with excessive spell slots destroying Warlock damage dreams.... If your playing a Warlock with eldritch blast and assuming you have the most damaging spell in the game your not just wrong your missing the point of the spell design. I would in no way say eldritch blast is over rated. If anything its highly under rated by people who don't see where it gets its real strength and are disappointed because they never seem to keep the damage they were thinking they would get with that false "average damage to hit" metric.Warlocks are not as powerful as Wizards but they have some awesome flexibility options and are hands down the most versatile class in D&D. I am playing a warlock scout right now despite know wizards are the power house I am in no way disappointed with warlocks. In fact, I would say its favorite class because you can just bend them in so many ways. I have an "arcane archer warlock", a warlock tank, a warlock ritual caster with a familiar scout all on standby in case my current warlock dies.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The lack of inflection in text means that a reader of any post adds their own inflection as they "verbalize" it in their head. I write long and repetitive in an effort to be clear and avoid my intent from being skewed or inverted. I am also bad at examples. It is common for people to skim my posts pull out the idea they think I mean or want to argue against or focus on my bad example instead of the point I am actually trying to make. I apologies for the confusion my failure to be clear and concise creates.
Warlocks are strictly less powerful than Wizards, any other interpretation is mistaken.
That does not mean that Warlocks are a bad class, most classes are less powerful than Wizards, but then that is a D&D fact going back to it's creation, and everyone kind of knows that don't they?
Most of the Warlocks unique spells (of which they get disappointingly few) are very low level spells. You can simply go Warlock 1, Wizard 19 and have a 9th level slot Armor of Agathys and be MORE durable than the Warlock is... FAR more durable as a matter of fact since you can then cast an 8th level Armor of Agathys, and then a 7th level Armor of Agathys, and so on and so forth.
Also a wizards arcane recovery can be used every short rest, so they can also regain spell slots after a short rest, although they likely won't need too because they have so many slots.
The best thing a Warlock can do to help their extremely low amount of slots is create or find magic items to use charges to cast spells that recharge daily. A staff of Fireballs goes a long way for a Warlock.
My personal preference is multiclassing a Hexblade warlock with a full caster class. This way you get the extra attack, higher spell slot Armor of Agathys, Eldritch Smite (for which you will have a lot more spell slots), etc.. Cleric is my favourite choice here because most of clerics best spells are all 5th level and lower, so missing out on the higher level spells is not a big deal. Warlock 5 / Cleric 15 is a really good very versatile character IMO. If you make the cleric a war cleric then you can sometimes get three attacks a round like that.
Right warlocks are not power. They are utility. Comparing Warlocks to Wizards for damage means you largely miss the point class. Its the kind of thing power games that only care about damage do. That kind of player takes scorching ray instead of hold person because they don't see the value in the utility hold person provides for escaping and/or the massively large amount of damage that will be inflicted because of them by their party ... because they didn't inflict the damage, they didn't get the 50 damage crit, so its not a damage spell to them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The lack of inflection in text means that a reader of any post adds their own inflection as they "verbalize" it in their head. I write long and repetitive in an effort to be clear and avoid my intent from being skewed or inverted. I am also bad at examples. It is common for people to skim my posts pull out the idea they think I mean or want to argue against or focus on my bad example instead of the point I am actually trying to make. I apologies for the confusion my failure to be clear and concise creates.
You would spend an 8th or 7th level spell on Armor of Agathys? Academic arguments are one thing, but I think those spell slots could probably be used for spells focused on ending/manipulating the fight or (depending on your school) focused on protecting the whole party.
Warlocks recover their spell slots after every short rest. Wizards can use arcane recovery once a day, after a short rest.
Yes, Wish is prolly the most powerful spell in the game. Wizards get it. I don't care whatever other spells you have, if you're sitting in an area that's been hit with silence, you've been paralyzed b/c something snuck up/hit you, or are in an anti-magic field, etc., it doesn't matter. So, get off your high horse, and give some credit to the other classes. (I'm not actually upset, it just sounded funny in my head).
Seriously, very few spells/actions may be exceptions to this: all your power means nothing if the dice disagree with you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM: Are you sure?
Wizard: Yes. I cast the Wish spell and I wish that everybody loves me!
DM: You transform into an irresistible, magnificent feast. It was so great, all who participated in devouring you tell of the joy they felt with tears in their eyes and all who hear the tale only feel sorrow that they weren't there to eat.
1. Multiple attacks also allows for multiple misses. As a result it actually tends do lower 1vs1 damage mathematically because your getting a mix of more hits and misses. The result is that Eldritch blast WILL do less damage than Toll the Dead the majority of the time....
No, this is mathematically false. Dividing damage over multiple attacks does NOT lower overall damage output at all. It makes zero difference.
Proof:
1 attack, 9 damage on hit, 50% chance to hit. Average damage 4.5 per attack.
3 attacks, 3 damage per hit, 50% chance to hit. Average damage 1.5 per attack, 4.5 average per 3 attacks.
It's the same. 1s and 20s don't make any difference to the above math.
The only difference is the split up attacks can target multiple creatures so over time the multiple attacks will yield a higher effective damage output as less damage will be useless overkill damage. It's a small but real benefit.
Another way to look at it is this:
2 attacks vs AC11 with 50% EACH to hit 1d6 short sword, the average chance to hit twice is 25%, so the average damage math (3.5 *2)*.25= 1.75 DPR , range 2-12
1 attack vs AC11 has 50% chance to hit with 2d6 greatsword, average damage math (3.5 *2)*.5= 3.5 DPR, range 2-12
1 attack with advantage vs AC11 has 75% to hit with 2d6 greatsword, average damage math (3.5 *2)*.75= 5.25 DPR, range 2-12
1 attack vs AC11 has 50% chance to hit with 1d12 lance, average damage math (6.5)*.5= 3.25 DPR, range 1-12
1 attack vs AC11 has 50% chance to hit with 1d6+3 shortsword with attribute bonus to damage, average damage math (3.5 +3)*.5= 3.25 DPR, range 4-9
The result is more attacks with the same total damage is less then the same damage with one attack roll because there are more misses, while more dice on the damage roll increases damage because the minimum rises while the max stays the same, However it reduces the chances of max damage because it requires that you roll will with 2 dice instead of 1. So Average damage is used for multiple damage dice however when you add "to hit" advantage for two tries on one attack is way better than do attacks at half damage. That's said, static bonus add to max and min but tend to have a smaller scale.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The lack of inflection in text means that a reader of any post adds their own inflection as they "verbalize" it in their head. I write long and repetitive in an effort to be clear and avoid my intent from being skewed or inverted. I am also bad at examples. It is common for people to skim my posts pull out the idea they think I mean or want to argue against or focus on my bad example instead of the point I am actually trying to make. I apologies for the confusion my failure to be clear and concise creates.
1. Multiple attacks also allows for multiple misses. As a result it actually tends do lower 1vs1 damage mathematically because your getting a mix of more hits and misses. The result is that Eldritch blast WILL do less damage than Toll the Dead the majority of the time....
No, this is mathematically false. Dividing damage over multiple attacks does NOT lower overall damage output at all. It makes zero difference.
Proof:
1 attack, 9 damage on hit, 50% chance to hit. Average damage 4.5 per attack.
3 attacks, 3 damage per hit, 50% chance to hit. Average damage 1.5 per attack, 4.5 average per 3 attacks.
It's the same. 1s and 20s don't make any difference to the above math.
The only difference is the split up attacks can target multiple creatures so over time the multiple attacks will yield a higher effective damage output as less damage will be useless overkill damage. It's a small but real benefit.
Another way to look at it is this:
2 attacks vs AC11 with 50% EACH to hit 1d6 short sword, the average chance to hit twice is 25%, so the average damage math (3.5 *2)*.25= 1.75 DPR , range 2-12
1 attack vs AC11 has 50% chance to hit with 2d6 greatsword, average damage math (3.5 *2)*.5= 3.5 DPR, range 2-12
1 attack with advantage vs AC11 has 75% to hit with 2d6 greatsword, average damage math (3.5 *2)*.75= 5.25 DPR, range 2-12
1 attack vs AC11 has 50% chance to hit with 1d12 lance, average damage math (6.5)*.5= 3.25 DPR, range 1-12
1 attack vs AC11 has 50% chance to hit with 1d6+3 shortsword with attribute bonus to damage, average damage math (3.5 +3)*.5= 3.25 DPR, range 4-9
The result is more attacks with the same total damage is less then the same damage with one attack roll because there are more misses, while more dice on the damage roll increases damage because the minimum rises while the max stays the same, However it reduces the chances of max damage because it requires that you roll will with 2 dice instead of 1. So Average damage is used for multiple damage dice however when you add "to hit" advantage for two tries on one attack is way better than do attacks at half damage. That's said, static bonus add to max and min but tend to have a smaller scale.
You're forgetting to add the damage if you have multiple attacks and only one attack hits to your average:
from your example:
2 attacks vs AC11 with 50% EACH to hit 1d6 short sword. 1/4 (1/2*1/2) chance to hit 2x , avg damage = 7 1/4 (1/2*1/2) chance of hitting someone with the first attack, but not the second, average damage = 3.5 1/4 (1/2*1/2) chance of hitting someone with the second attack, but not the first, average damage = 3.5 1/4 (1/2*1/2) chance of missing with both attacks, average damage = 0 average damage any time you make two attacks with a 1d6 short sword: (7+3.5+3.5+0)/4 = 3.5 avg damage, on par w/ greatsword as best avg damage. BUT that also means having two attacks with weaker damage each is more consistent in terms of damage output. w/ greatsword, you have a 50/50 chance of doing 0 damage, but with two short swords, you have only a 1/4 chance of doing no damage. Which means, say if combat only lasts three rounds, the person with the greatsword might have a 1/2*1/2*1/2=1/8 chance of doing absolutely nothing (which is fairly likely!), but the person with the short swords has a 1/4*1/4*1/4=1/64 chance of doing absolutely nothing.
1. Multiple attacks also allows for multiple misses. As a result it actually tends do lower 1vs1 damage mathematically because your getting a mix of more hits and misses. The result is that Eldritch blast WILL do less damage than Toll the Dead the majority of the time....
No, this is mathematically false. Dividing damage over multiple attacks does NOT lower overall damage output at all. It makes zero difference.
Proof:
1 attack, 9 damage on hit, 50% chance to hit. Average damage 4.5 per attack.
3 attacks, 3 damage per hit, 50% chance to hit. Average damage 1.5 per attack, 4.5 average per 3 attacks.
It's the same. 1s and 20s don't make any difference to the above math.
The only difference is the split up attacks can target multiple creatures so over time the multiple attacks will yield a higher effective damage output as less damage will be useless overkill damage. It's a small but real benefit.
Another way to look at it is this:
2 attacks vs AC11 with 50% EACH to hit 1d6 short sword, the average chance to hit twice is 25%, so the average damage math (3.5 *2)*.25= 1.75 DPR , range 2-12
1 attack vs AC11 has 50% chance to hit with 2d6 greatsword, average damage math (3.5 *2)*.5= 3.5 DPR, range 2-12
1 attack with advantage vs AC11 has 75% to hit with 2d6 greatsword, average damage math (3.5 *2)*.75= 5.25 DPR, range 2-12
1 attack vs AC11 has 50% chance to hit with 1d12 lance, average damage math (6.5)*.5= 3.25 DPR, range 1-12
1 attack vs AC11 has 50% chance to hit with 1d6+3 shortsword with attribute bonus to damage, average damage math (3.5 +3)*.5= 3.25 DPR, range 4-9
The result is more attacks with the same total damage is less then the same damage with one attack roll because there are more misses, while more dice on the damage roll increases damage because the minimum rises while the max stays the same, However it reduces the chances of max damage because it requires that you roll will with 2 dice instead of 1. So Average damage is used for multiple damage dice however when you add "to hit" advantage for two tries on one attack is way better than do attacks at half damage. That's said, static bonus add to max and min but tend to have a smaller scale.
You're forgetting to add the damage if you have multiple attacks and only one attack hits to your average:
from your example:
2 attacks vs AC11 with 50% EACH to hit 1d6 short sword. 1/4 (1/2*1/2) chance to hit 2x , avg damage = 7 1/4 (1/2*1/2) chance of hitting someone with the first attack, but not the second, average damage = 3.5 1/4 (1/2*1/2) chance of hitting someone with the second attack, but not the first, average damage = 3.5 1/4 (1/2*1/2) chance of missing with both attacks, average damage = 0 average damage any time you make two attacks with a 1d6 short sword: (7+3.5+3.5+0)/4 = 3.5 avg damage, on par w/ greatsword as best avg damage. BUT that also means having two attacks with weaker damage each is more consistent in terms of damage output. w/ greatsword, you have a 50/50 chance of doing 0 damage, but with two short swords, you have only a 1/4 chance of doing no damage. Which means, say if combat only lasts three rounds, the person with the greatsword might have a 1/2*1/2*1/2=1/8 chance of doing absolutely nothing (which is fairly likely!), but the person with the short swords has a 1/4*1/4*1/4=1/64 chance of doing absolutely nothing.
If you look up 5 post higher you will see I did that. The point of the post you quote here is to show that you essentially have a 1 in 3 chance at the same damage rolling 2 attacks with half the damage the average damage is lower even if more consistent.
1 attack a 2 damage: on success = 2, on failure = 0 , average = 1.. but 1 is not a possible role its ether 2 or 0 so if you only get 1 attack your DPR will be 0 or 2 50% of the time so a DPR of 1 is NEVER correct round to round, when you have an odd number of rounds in a total battle, and sometimes when you have and even number of rounds in a battle with an even split of hits and misses making the "standard DPR with % hit" highly in accurate. I show above, that it is only right about 3% of the time with single or multiple attacks meaning its wrong more 97% more than it is right in actual play and DPR. In actual play the DPR in combat will be lower 50% or more on enemies that are 50% to hit because you roll to hit with Zero sum but also you on hit you have then opportunity to roll low damage in a bit of double jeopardy on going low. On a Zero sum miss, there is not chance of rolling higher damage which makes DPR higher than actual damage consistently.
2 attacks a 1 damage: two success = 2, one success and one failure = 1, two misses = 0 , all are possible so your DPR will be 1-2 30% chance of each. the assumption is that you have a 60% chance of getting DPR1 which leads to better consistency of damage however, more rolls to hit means more chance at Zero sum loss. When you look up 5 posts higher 5/13 attacks have no chance of actually achieving DPR with % to hit, 6 have a small chance of getting DPR, only 2 are definitively higher. That is caused by the Zero sum of misses. More attack rolls slowly increase Zero sum impact lowering DPR in actual play just a little for every dice you role to hit … On the other hand, while this means multiple attacks as a rule mean lower damage than single attacks with the same damage, it also provides more opportunities for minimal damage through multiple attacks.
What does that tells us? It tells us what we all new already. 1. Single power full attacks against low AC targets with excessive HP will have higher actual DPR vs Multiple attacks against the same target because they have less lose in Zero sum damage out put. 2. Single powerful attacks vs multiple High AC lower health enemies will result in a lower actual DPR due to damage over flow on individual targets voiding the advantage it has on zero sum,if they have the same "to hit" as multiple attack vs the same opponents which will maintain a higher Low end damage (below DPR) by getting a few hits each round.
That said comparing Polearm master to Greatweapon Master is not just number of hit vs static damage bonus for the same attack, as Greatweapon master reduces "to hit" which dramatically increases Zero sum misses. So Greatweapon Master is only better than Polearm master when the great weapon master is attacking targets that are so low AC that they almost never miss with their current attack bonus so that it just becomes a MAX damage race. Which it pretty uncommon, however the Belt of Storm Giant strength allows for a 27 strength where as far as I know Dex is capped at 22 with the tome allowing strength characters a rare opportunity to cut that disparity by 2 at max levels. Why bring this up on a Wizards vs Warlocks thread? People who are strangely in the side of "more attacks is better" seem to largely come from having to argue the value of polearm master of vs great weapon master where the "to hit" difference it the real reason to argue for polearm master... But wizards and warlocks generally have the same "to hit" so comparable damage spell with more or less hits are measured only by that mark. Their is one time when a Warlock is better in battle and that's if they get a Rod of the Pact Keeper III and a Wand of war mage III … but then not because they have a "better spell" but because they are the only caster class that has a chance to get a +6 bonus to hit with spell attacks with official items. But what GM is giving those out so freely?
The lack of inflection in text means that a reader of any post adds their own inflection as they "verbalize" it in their head. I write long and repetitive in an effort to be clear and avoid my intent from being skewed or inverted. I am also bad at examples. It is common for people to skim my posts pull out the idea they think I mean or want to argue against or focus on my bad example instead of the point I am actually trying to make. I apologies for the confusion my failure to be clear and concise creates.
If you can name one REALLY god spell that only warlocks have, then i will be impressed
Eldritch Blast.
Also the benefit of Warlock isn't the spells they have (other than Eldritch blast), but how their spell slots work, and their eldritch invocations and pact bonuses
If the adventures you take part it are all front loaded one encounter or several within minutes of each other then the warlocks pool of spell power will be less effective than another casters. If on the other hand you have travel time in between, even twice a day and you have the foresight to have a mount or carriage allowing you to benefit from shortrest whilst something else does the walking then the spell pool starts seeming quite nice, at tier 3 levels, it becomes obvious that if you chose your spells poorly then you will have problems making a difference. (like any class that has a finite selection to draw from). The advantage on the spell slots is they are all of the maximum level you are capable of casting, so warlocks will hopefully load heavy on spells that have an increased effect with spell level.
The nature of the question and the statement following, should be addressed, if you are attempting to measure which is better / adds more to a group, then dont judge on spells alone. The subclasses of both classes offer as much or more to the class than spell selection ever could! In many cases the subclasses encourage gravitating to sets of spells, not the other way around.
I will mention that an issue with warlocks is that players can become bored of them more easily, especially when coming to play them after a full caster class. There is a tendency to use the same cantrip and spells on repeat compared to having spells of radically different levels and sometimes inability to cast what you wish because of slot restriction which the warlock doesnt experience.
In summation, I would add that a warlock spell that celestial warlocks of good alignment can get, which wizards do not, that every player would agree is a good spell is cure wounds, and the healing light in addition makes that particular warlock novel, a challenge if you are the sole healer and delightful to play if you usually play the healer, but fancy a change without going to far out of your comfort zone.
Regardless of your preferences, have fun but beware, for moon druids never sleep.
I will mention that an issue with warlocks is that players can become bored of them more easily, especially when coming to play them after a full caster class. There is a tendency to use the same cantrip and spells on repeat compared to having spells of radically different levels and sometimes inability to cast what you wish because of slot restriction which the warlock doesnt experience.
Ironically I've played a few Warlocks and I'm playing my first Wizard and I feel limited/cramped with the things that I'm used to being able to do as a Warlock that I can't do as a Wizard. I'm sure that once I adapt I'll be fine, but it's new for me and I'm still struggling to adjust to only having spells instead of having spells plus Eldritch Invocations and the Warlock Pact.
I will mention that an issue with warlocks is that players can become bored of them more easily, especially when coming to play them after a full caster class. There is a tendency to use the same cantrip and spells on repeat compared to having spells of radically different levels and sometimes inability to cast what you wish because of slot restriction which the warlock doesnt experience.
Ironically I've played a few Warlocks and I'm playing my first Wizard and I feel limited/cramped with the things that I'm used to being able to do as a Warlock that I can't do as a Wizard. I'm sure that once I adapt I'll be fine, but it's new for me and I'm still struggling to adjust to only having spells instead of having spells plus Eldritch Invocations and the Warlock Pact.
Yep, I really feel like its the Eldritch Invocations that make warlocks fun to play. They are so very customizable to other classes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The lack of inflection in text means that a reader of any post adds their own inflection as they "verbalize" it in their head. I write long and repetitive in an effort to be clear and avoid my intent from being skewed or inverted. I am also bad at examples. It is common for people to skim my posts pull out the idea they think I mean or want to argue against or focus on my bad example instead of the point I am actually trying to make. I apologies for the confusion my failure to be clear and concise creates.
Warlocks and Wizards aren't similar classes and are not meant to be compared. Warlocks are more like Rangers that use the spell list as a utility kit and have different RP options.
Eldritch Blast is a bigger bow with unlimited ammo.
If you want to play a Wizard, play a Wizard. If you want to RP as a Warlock but be mechanically a Wizard, do so. I imagine there are demons willing to eat your soul regardless of the class field on your character sheet.
Warlocks and Wizards aren't similar classes and are not meant to be compared. Warlocks are more like Rangers that use the spell list as a utility kit and have different RP options.
Eldritch Blast is a bigger bow with unlimited ammo.
If you want to play a Wizard, play a Wizard. If you want to RP as a Warlock but be mechanically a Wizard, do so. I imagine there are demons willing to eat your soul regardless of the class field on your character sheet.
...there're prolly great old ones happy to scrape out your sanity, as well, I imagine....
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM: Are you sure?
Wizard: Yes. I cast the Wish spell and I wish that everybody loves me!
DM: You transform into an irresistible, magnificent feast. It was so great, all who participated in devouring you tell of the joy they felt with tears in their eyes and all who hear the tale only feel sorrow that they weren't there to eat.
A lore bard can do the same thing with magic initiate at level 6. Face it warlocks are just failed bard. Bards who wanted more and ended up getting less.
Oh look, another Warlock hater, trolling the Warlock forum.
Cute.
Eldritch Blast is the BEST cantrip in the game. 1d10 Force damage. Warlocks only. Two attacks at level 5. Three at 11. Four at 17. Add Charisma mod to each hit with an Invocation. That's 4d10+20 force damage, if you're keeping track.
Armor of Agathys; the Wizard in my group was ANGRY when he found out this was a Warlock-only spell.
Hunger of Hadar is amazing control: 20 foot radius blindness, difficult terrain, no-save cold damage, save for half acid damage. Warlocks only.
And that's without looking at the books....
DICE FALL, EVERYONE ROCKS!
Armor of Agathys, Arms of Hadar, and Hunger of Hadar are all great Warlock exclusive spells.
DM: Are you sure?
Wizard: Yes. I cast the Wish spell and I wish that everybody loves me!
DM: You transform into an irresistible, magnificent feast. It was so great, all who participated in devouring you tell of the joy they felt with tears in their eyes and all who hear the tale only feel sorrow that they weren't there to eat.
I have now been reconvinced that the classes are all balanced
Elliott Neve
I have played both a Wizard and a Warlock in 5e. With 2nd and 3rd (3.5) I favored the wizard, and my group didn't use the 3.5 version of the Warlock. Both classes are powerful and have a great deal of RP potential. Personally, I love the customization of the Warlock. But I also love how the Wizard can have a different selection of spells every day.
That said, they each have a different style of play.
Fierna is the best Duchess of Hell
I think wizards are better than warlocks
No, this is mathematically false. Dividing damage over multiple attacks does NOT lower overall damage output at all. It makes zero difference.
Proof:
1 attack, 9 damage on hit, 50% chance to hit. Average damage 4.5 per attack.
3 attacks, 3 damage per hit, 50% chance to hit. Average damage 1.5 per attack, 4.5 average per 3 attacks.
It's the same. 1s and 20s don't make any difference to the above math.
The only difference is the split up attacks can target multiple creatures so over time the multiple attacks will yield a higher effective damage output as less damage will be useless overkill damage. It's a small but real benefit.
Warlocks are strictly less powerful than Wizards, any other interpretation is mistaken.
That does not mean that Warlocks are a bad class, most classes are less powerful than Wizards, but then that is a D&D fact going back to it's creation, and everyone kind of knows that don't they?
Most of the Warlocks unique spells (of which they get disappointingly few) are very low level spells. You can simply go Warlock 1, Wizard 19 and have a 9th level slot Armor of Agathys and be MORE durable than the Warlock is... FAR more durable as a matter of fact since you can then cast an 8th level Armor of Agathys, and then a 7th level Armor of Agathys, and so on and so forth.
Also a wizards arcane recovery can be used every short rest, so they can also regain spell slots after a short rest, although they likely won't need too because they have so many slots.
The best thing a Warlock can do to help their extremely low amount of slots is create or find magic items to use charges to cast spells that recharge daily. A staff of Fireballs goes a long way for a Warlock.
My personal preference is multiclassing a Hexblade warlock with a full caster class. This way you get the extra attack, higher spell slot Armor of Agathys, Eldritch Smite (for which you will have a lot more spell slots), etc.. Cleric is my favourite choice here because most of clerics best spells are all 5th level and lower, so missing out on the higher level spells is not a big deal. Warlock 5 / Cleric 15 is a really good very versatile character IMO. If you make the cleric a war cleric then you can sometimes get three attacks a round like that.
you don't do .5 on dice. When you roll a miss you get 0 when you roll a hit you get at least 1. The average is a decent guide but not true reflection of damage. You often see this when you have an average damage lower than the minimum damage of hit for example:
Greatsword GWM 2d6+10+3str at 50% (just using your number) = 10 average DPR... the problem with that is GWM can't do less than 15 damage on hit. So your trying to say over the course of a battle you hit for 15-25 half the time and you miss for 0 half the time and it equals 10 average DPR... but in a 3 round fight you will likely never have a DPR of 10 because if you attack 3 times:
miss 0, miss 0, miss 0 = DPR 0 <--DPR 10 not possible, possible low damage 25%
miss 0, miss 0, hit 15-25 = DPR 5-9 <--DPR 10 not possible, possible low damage 25%
miss 0, hit 15-25, hit 15-25 = DPR 10-17 <--DPR 10 will only has a 12.5% chance, "Average DPR" 3% high damage 22%
hit 15-25, hit 15-25, hit 15-25 = DPR 15-25 <--DPR 10 not possible, possible high damage 25%
So in the same 3 round battle, with 4 possible out comes you have a total of about 3% chance of a 10 DPR round. Lower is > at 50% and higher is second at 47%.
More attacks means more rolls which makes wider variation. eldritch blast at level 17, with 4 blasts, +5 agonizing blast "average DPR at 50%" = 4d10+20 ->42*.5=21 DPR
miss 0, miss 0, miss 0, miss 0 / miss 0, miss 0, miss 0, miss 0 / miss 0, miss 0, miss 0, miss 0 = DPR 0 <--DPR 21 not possible , 7.69% lower damage
miss 0, miss 0, miss 0, miss 0 / miss 0, miss 0, miss 0, miss 0 / miss 0, miss 0, miss 0, hit 6-15= DPR2-5 <--DPR 21 not possible , 7.69% lower damage
miss 0, miss 0, miss 0, miss 0 / miss 0, miss 0, miss 0, miss 0, / miss 0, miss 0, hit 6-15, hit 6-15= DPR4-10 <--DPR 21 not possible , 7.69% lower damage
miss 0, miss 0, miss 0, miss 0 / miss 0, miss 0, miss 0, miss 0 / miss 0, hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15= DPR6-15 <--DPR 21 not possible , 7.69% lower damage
miss 0, miss 0, miss 0, miss 0 / miss 0, miss 0, miss 0, miss 0 / hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15= DPR8-20 <--DPR 21 not possible , 7.69% lower damage
miss 0, miss 0, miss 0, miss 0 / miss 0, miss 0, miss 0, hit 6-15 / hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15= DPR10-25 <--DPR 21 possible @ 0.48%, 4.32% Lower & 1.92% Higher damage
miss 0, miss 0, miss 0, miss 0 / miss 0, miss 0, hit 6-15, hit 6-15 / hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15= DPR12-30 <--DPR 21 possible @ 0.40%, 3.60% Lower & 3.60% Higher damage
miss 0, miss 0, miss 0, miss 0 / miss 0, hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15 / hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15= DPR14-35 <--DPR 21 possible @ 0.35%, 2.45% Lower & 4.90% Higher damage
miss 0, miss 0, miss 0, miss 0 / hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15 / hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15= DPR16-40 <--DPR 21 possible @ 0.31%, 1.55% Lower & 5.89% Higher damage
miss 0, miss 0, miss 0, hit 6-15 / hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15 / hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15= DPR18-45 <--DPR 21 possible @ 0.27%, 0.81% Lower & 6.48% Higher damage
miss 0, miss 0, hit 6-15, hit 6-15 / hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15 / hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15= DPR20-50 <--DPR 21 possible @ 0.25%, 0.25% Lower & 7.25% Higher damage
miss 0, hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15 / hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15 / hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15= DPR22-55 <-DPR 21 not possible , 7.69% higher damage
hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15 / hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15 / hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15, hit 6-15= DPR24-60 <--DPR 21 not possible , 7.69% higher damage
With more attacks the % of getting "Average DPR" goes down to 2.06%
The chance of lower than average damage goes UP to 51.42%
The chance of higher than average goes down to 45.42%
Now I lost 1.1% due to rounding to the hundredths place but that is spreed between them an not enough to change the out come. The reason more rolls creates lower damage is because of the 0 sum return on a miss has a greater impact than the minimum/maximum damage. When your use Average damage x average % to hit you negate the zero sum effect of rolling more times and having more misses.
1. An AoE spell will hit more targets with than 4 if those targets are available without addition roles and 0 sum loss. They also don't have to worry about damage waste from killing a target because the damage is not divided among targets they all take the same.The means that Scorching Ray and eldritch blast provide inferior damage to multiple targets when compared to spells like fireball because they are capped by the number of bolts/rays which causes a damage limit from which overkill damage becomes waste and 0 sum misses drag down the damage below what you would expect from the false "average damage".
2. Do to need multiple successful hits on the same target eldritch blast does inferior damage to high damage single target spells like Toll the Dead or Drconic Origin Sorcerers with firebolt. That is why Agonizing Blast is handy but not broken.
I use average damage too because I don't have a more accurate or easy number to get a base line but it does not let you compare damage from Eldritch blast and scorching ray to AoEs or single target spells. It my give you 3% idea... which is better than 0.... but not much.
So if Eldritch blast is inferior damage why use it? Well Eldritch blast may not do the most damaging spell but an AoE on your friends can count toward your Parties lose as much as enemy damage or your damage on your enemies counts toward your victory. It also has the ability to focus damage on a single target or spread to multiple enemies in opposite direction of 120ft without hitting your allies. This makes it the best one size fits all UTILITY damage spell in the game. Scorching ray might be better... before Eldritch invocations with scaling damage through additional rays well beyond 4... but with eldritch invocations more damage, slow effects, pull effects, push effects, extreme long range, and I am sure I missed something the Warlock class got a utility cantrip then the designers doubled down giving a TON of extra utility. Warlocks needed the utility because spell selection and spell slots are so limited. ... But a Wizard doesn't need Eldritch blast because the can take scorching ray and fire ball then up cast them with excessive spell slots destroying Warlock damage dreams.... If your playing a Warlock with eldritch blast and assuming you have the most damaging spell in the game your not just wrong your missing the point of the spell design. I would in no way say eldritch blast is over rated. If anything its highly under rated by people who don't see where it gets its real strength and are disappointed because they never seem to keep the damage they were thinking they would get with that false "average damage to hit" metric.Warlocks are not as powerful as Wizards but they have some awesome flexibility options and are hands down the most versatile class in D&D. I am playing a warlock scout right now despite know wizards are the power house I am in no way disappointed with warlocks. In fact, I would say its favorite class because you can just bend them in so many ways. I have an "arcane archer warlock", a warlock tank, a warlock ritual caster with a familiar scout all on standby in case my current warlock dies.
The lack of inflection in text means that a reader of any post adds their own inflection as they "verbalize" it in their head. I write long and repetitive in an effort to be clear and avoid my intent from being skewed or inverted. I am also bad at examples. It is common for people to skim my posts pull out the idea they think I mean or want to argue against or focus on my bad example instead of the point I am actually trying to make. I apologies for the confusion my failure to be clear and concise creates.
Right warlocks are not power. They are utility. Comparing Warlocks to Wizards for damage means you largely miss the point class. Its the kind of thing power games that only care about damage do. That kind of player takes scorching ray instead of hold person because they don't see the value in the utility hold person provides for escaping and/or the massively large amount of damage that will be inflicted because of them by their party ... because they didn't inflict the damage, they didn't get the 50 damage crit, so its not a damage spell to them.
The lack of inflection in text means that a reader of any post adds their own inflection as they "verbalize" it in their head. I write long and repetitive in an effort to be clear and avoid my intent from being skewed or inverted. I am also bad at examples. It is common for people to skim my posts pull out the idea they think I mean or want to argue against or focus on my bad example instead of the point I am actually trying to make. I apologies for the confusion my failure to be clear and concise creates.
You would spend an 8th or 7th level spell on Armor of Agathys? Academic arguments are one thing, but I think those spell slots could probably be used for spells focused on ending/manipulating the fight or (depending on your school) focused on protecting the whole party.
Warlocks recover their spell slots after every short rest. Wizards can use arcane recovery once a day, after a short rest.
Yes, Wish is prolly the most powerful spell in the game. Wizards get it. I don't care whatever other spells you have, if you're sitting in an area that's been hit with silence, you've been paralyzed b/c something snuck up/hit you, or are in an anti-magic field, etc., it doesn't matter. So, get off your high horse, and give some credit to the other classes. (I'm not actually upset, it just sounded funny in my head).
Seriously, very few spells/actions may be exceptions to this: all your power means nothing if the dice disagree with you.
DM: Are you sure?
Wizard: Yes. I cast the Wish spell and I wish that everybody loves me!
DM: You transform into an irresistible, magnificent feast. It was so great, all who participated in devouring you tell of the joy they felt with tears in their eyes and all who hear the tale only feel sorrow that they weren't there to eat.
Another way to look at it is this:
2 attacks vs AC11 with 50% EACH to hit 1d6 short sword, the average chance to hit twice is 25%, so the average damage math (3.5 *2)*.25= 1.75 DPR , range 2-12
1 attack vs AC11 has 50% chance to hit with 2d6 greatsword, average damage math (3.5 *2)*.5= 3.5 DPR, range 2-12
1 attack with advantage vs AC11 has 75% to hit with 2d6 greatsword, average damage math (3.5 *2)*.75= 5.25 DPR, range 2-12
1 attack vs AC11 has 50% chance to hit with 1d12 lance, average damage math (6.5)*.5= 3.25 DPR, range 1-12
1 attack vs AC11 has 50% chance to hit with 1d6+3 shortsword with attribute bonus to damage, average damage math (3.5 +3)*.5= 3.25 DPR, range 4-9
The result is more attacks with the same total damage is less then the same damage with one attack roll because there are more misses, while more dice on the damage roll increases damage because the minimum rises while the max stays the same, However it reduces the chances of max damage because it requires that you roll will with 2 dice instead of 1. So Average damage is used for multiple damage dice however when you add "to hit" advantage for two tries on one attack is way better than do attacks at half damage. That's said, static bonus add to max and min but tend to have a smaller scale.
The lack of inflection in text means that a reader of any post adds their own inflection as they "verbalize" it in their head. I write long and repetitive in an effort to be clear and avoid my intent from being skewed or inverted. I am also bad at examples. It is common for people to skim my posts pull out the idea they think I mean or want to argue against or focus on my bad example instead of the point I am actually trying to make. I apologies for the confusion my failure to be clear and concise creates.
You're forgetting to add the damage if you have multiple attacks and only one attack hits to your average:
from your example:
2 attacks vs AC11 with 50% EACH to hit 1d6 short sword.
1/4 (1/2*1/2) chance to hit 2x , avg damage = 7
1/4 (1/2*1/2) chance of hitting someone with the first attack, but not the second, average damage = 3.5
1/4 (1/2*1/2) chance of hitting someone with the second attack, but not the first, average damage = 3.5
1/4 (1/2*1/2) chance of missing with both attacks, average damage = 0
average damage any time you make two attacks with a 1d6 short sword:
(7+3.5+3.5+0)/4 = 3.5 avg damage, on par w/ greatsword as best avg damage.
BUT that also means having two attacks with weaker damage each is more consistent in terms of damage output. w/ greatsword, you have a 50/50 chance of doing 0 damage, but with two short swords, you have only a 1/4 chance of doing no damage. Which means, say if combat only lasts three rounds, the person with the greatsword might have a 1/2*1/2*1/2=1/8 chance of doing absolutely nothing (which is fairly likely!), but the person with the short swords has a 1/4*1/4*1/4=1/64 chance of doing absolutely nothing.
If you look up 5 post higher you will see I did that. The point of the post you quote here is to show that you essentially have a 1 in 3 chance at the same damage rolling 2 attacks with half the damage the average damage is lower even if more consistent.
1 attack a 2 damage: on success = 2, on failure = 0 , average = 1.. but 1 is not a possible role its ether 2 or 0 so if you only get 1 attack your DPR will be 0 or 2 50% of the time so a DPR of 1 is NEVER correct round to round, when you have an odd number of rounds in a total battle, and sometimes when you have and even number of rounds in a battle with an even split of hits and misses making the "standard DPR with % hit" highly in accurate. I show above, that it is only right about 3% of the time with single or multiple attacks meaning its wrong more 97% more than it is right in actual play and DPR. In actual play the DPR in combat will be lower 50% or more on enemies that are 50% to hit because you roll to hit with Zero sum but also you on hit you have then opportunity to roll low damage in a bit of double jeopardy on going low. On a Zero sum miss, there is not chance of rolling higher damage which makes DPR higher than actual damage consistently.
2 attacks a 1 damage: two success = 2, one success and one failure = 1, two misses = 0 , all are possible so your DPR will be 1-2 30% chance of each. the assumption is that you have a 60% chance of getting DPR1 which leads to better consistency of damage however, more rolls to hit means more chance at Zero sum loss. When you look up 5 posts higher 5/13 attacks have no chance of actually achieving DPR with % to hit, 6 have a small chance of getting DPR, only 2 are definitively higher. That is caused by the Zero sum of misses. More attack rolls slowly increase Zero sum impact lowering DPR in actual play just a little for every dice you role to hit … On the other hand, while this means multiple attacks as a rule mean lower damage than single attacks with the same damage, it also provides more opportunities for minimal damage through multiple attacks.
What does that tells us? It tells us what we all new already. 1. Single power full attacks against low AC targets with excessive HP will have higher actual DPR vs Multiple attacks against the same target because they have less lose in Zero sum damage out put. 2. Single powerful attacks vs multiple High AC lower health enemies will result in a lower actual DPR due to damage over flow on individual targets voiding the advantage it has on zero sum, if they have the same "to hit" as multiple attack vs the same opponents which will maintain a higher Low end damage (below DPR) by getting a few hits each round.
That said comparing Polearm master to Greatweapon Master is not just number of hit vs static damage bonus for the same attack, as Greatweapon master reduces "to hit" which dramatically increases Zero sum misses. So Greatweapon Master is only better than Polearm master when the great weapon master is attacking targets that are so low AC that they almost never miss with their current attack bonus so that it just becomes a MAX damage race. Which it pretty uncommon, however the Belt of Storm Giant strength allows for a 27 strength where as far as I know Dex is capped at 22 with the tome allowing strength characters a rare opportunity to cut that disparity by 2 at max levels. Why bring this up on a Wizards vs Warlocks thread? People who are strangely in the side of "more attacks is better" seem to largely come from having to argue the value of polearm master of vs great weapon master where the "to hit" difference it the real reason to argue for polearm master... But wizards and warlocks generally have the same "to hit" so comparable damage spell with more or less hits are measured only by that mark. Their is one time when a Warlock is better in battle and that's if they get a Rod of the Pact Keeper III and a Wand of war mage III … but then not because they have a "better spell" but because they are the only caster class that has a chance to get a +6 bonus to hit with spell attacks with official items. But what GM is giving those out so freely?
The lack of inflection in text means that a reader of any post adds their own inflection as they "verbalize" it in their head. I write long and repetitive in an effort to be clear and avoid my intent from being skewed or inverted. I am also bad at examples. It is common for people to skim my posts pull out the idea they think I mean or want to argue against or focus on my bad example instead of the point I am actually trying to make. I apologies for the confusion my failure to be clear and concise creates.
Eldritch Blast.
Also the benefit of Warlock isn't the spells they have (other than Eldritch blast), but how their spell slots work, and their eldritch invocations and pact bonuses
If the adventures you take part it are all front loaded one encounter or several within minutes of each other then the warlocks pool of spell power will be less effective than another casters. If on the other hand you have travel time in between, even twice a day and you have the foresight to have a mount or carriage allowing you to benefit from shortrest whilst something else does the walking then the spell pool starts seeming quite nice, at tier 3 levels, it becomes obvious that if you chose your spells poorly then you will have problems making a difference. (like any class that has a finite selection to draw from). The advantage on the spell slots is they are all of the maximum level you are capable of casting, so warlocks will hopefully load heavy on spells that have an increased effect with spell level.
The nature of the question and the statement following, should be addressed, if you are attempting to measure which is better / adds more to a group, then dont judge on spells alone. The subclasses of both classes offer as much or more to the class than spell selection ever could! In many cases the subclasses encourage gravitating to sets of spells, not the other way around.
I will mention that an issue with warlocks is that players can become bored of them more easily, especially when coming to play them after a full caster class. There is a tendency to use the same cantrip and spells on repeat compared to having spells of radically different levels and sometimes inability to cast what you wish because of slot restriction which the warlock doesnt experience.
In summation, I would add that a warlock spell that celestial warlocks of good alignment can get, which wizards do not, that every player would agree is a good spell is cure wounds, and the healing light in addition makes that particular warlock novel, a challenge if you are the sole healer and delightful to play if you usually play the healer, but fancy a change without going to far out of your comfort zone.
Regardless of your preferences, have fun but beware, for moon druids never sleep.
Ironically I've played a few Warlocks and I'm playing my first Wizard and I feel limited/cramped with the things that I'm used to being able to do as a Warlock that I can't do as a Wizard. I'm sure that once I adapt I'll be fine, but it's new for me and I'm still struggling to adjust to only having spells instead of having spells plus Eldritch Invocations and the Warlock Pact.
Professional computer geek
Yep, I really feel like its the Eldritch Invocations that make warlocks fun to play. They are so very customizable to other classes.
The lack of inflection in text means that a reader of any post adds their own inflection as they "verbalize" it in their head. I write long and repetitive in an effort to be clear and avoid my intent from being skewed or inverted. I am also bad at examples. It is common for people to skim my posts pull out the idea they think I mean or want to argue against or focus on my bad example instead of the point I am actually trying to make. I apologies for the confusion my failure to be clear and concise creates.
Warlocks and Wizards aren't similar classes and are not meant to be compared. Warlocks are more like Rangers that use the spell list as a utility kit and have different RP options.
Eldritch Blast is a bigger bow with unlimited ammo.
If you want to play a Wizard, play a Wizard. If you want to RP as a Warlock but be mechanically a Wizard, do so. I imagine there are demons willing to eat your soul regardless of the class field on your character sheet.
...there're prolly great old ones happy to scrape out your sanity, as well, I imagine....
DM: Are you sure?
Wizard: Yes. I cast the Wish spell and I wish that everybody loves me!
DM: You transform into an irresistible, magnificent feast. It was so great, all who participated in devouring you tell of the joy they felt with tears in their eyes and all who hear the tale only feel sorrow that they weren't there to eat.
A lore bard can do the same thing with magic initiate at level 6. Face it warlocks are just failed bard. Bards who wanted more and ended up getting less.