Is anyone else gratified that warlock has been saved in the newest play test? It went from being the balanced class it was in 5e, to the watered down half-caster abomination in onednd, back to being a good class. Any one else agree?
More invocations, a one-minute version of Arcane Recovery, and the option to have several pacts, plus most of Hexblade’s goodies on Pact of the Blade? Dope.
Also: Patron spells become learned, automatically. Lovely.
It’s effectively a net +1 to invocations, but that’s fine by me.
I was relieved to see the half-caster nonsense gone. I understand why they did it and what they were going for, but never reaching level 3-5 spells until the very end of a campaign (if you're lucky) felt like a devastating blow to the identity of the class. It's not quite as drastic as I'd have liked, but definitely better than the UA5 version.
The change to the Pact of the Blade is fantastic. Finally feels like a melee warlock can compete with Eldritch Blasters.
I too was relieved to see the return of Pact Magic. I feel like Magical Cunning is going to have a really positive impact in the viability of the class in those situations where a short rest isn't feasible. Pact of the Blade is finally viable without having to be an Hexblade (which I think is a terrible subclass). The capstone still fells a little underwhelming, but all in all this is a very solid improvement over the 2014 Warlock.
I especially appreciate the changes to Great Old One patron, which is my favorite one besides the evergreen Fiend. Go Cthulhu, go!
I am glad the change was reverted, and I am happy with some of the changes (once per day spell slot recovery), and unsure on others (general balancing and removal of the choice of casting stat. Not a fan of how warlocks are so much more of a dip class now. Please make eldritch blast scale off warlock level….)
but I think this was just a lazy way to deal with a problem that’s still there. The huge gap between the second and third spell slot. They just need to move the third spell slot to 6th or 7th level and keep this recovery and the base kit will be good.
Still based on CHA-only spell casting. Not interested.
I won’t disagree that 5e warlock is still better, but this is a huge step forward from completely killing warlock.
Not what I am saying. I am saying that having Warlocks based solely on casting with Charisma scores limits the number of archetypal characters you can play with a Warlock. Want to play a wise old witch with a faerie pact or a a scholarly occultist with a eldritch god pact? That would suggest Wisdom or Intelligence as the prerequisite. In the previous playtest, they gave the opportunity to play interesting archetypes like this. Now, again, you can’t.
So, the 5e warlock is rubbish to me and so is this new one. Not interested.
Still based on CHA-only spell casting. Not interested.
I won’t disagree that 5e warlock is still better, but this is a huge step forward from completely killing warlock.
Not what I am saying. I am saying that having Warlocks based solely on casting with Charisma scores limits the number of archetypal characters you can play with a Warlock. Want to play a wise old witch with a faerie pact or a a scholarly occultist with a eldritch god pact? That would suggest Wisdom or Intelligence as the prerequisite. In the previous playtest, they gave the opportunity to play interesting archetypes like this. Now, again, you can’t.
So, the 5e warlock is rubbish to me and so is this new one. Not interested.
you see that is inherently flawed logic because stats are not mandatory for roleplay
plus you can always invest in wisdom outside the warlock class
that sort of roleplay is locked by stats logic is rubbish to me(no intention to be rude)
if i say something inflammatory the intention is not to trigger an emotional response and the fact that it does so is purely accidental and I sincerely apologise if it does
Still based on CHA-only spell casting. Not interested.
I won’t disagree that 5e warlock is still better, but this is a huge step forward from completely killing warlock.
Not what I am saying. I am saying that having Warlocks based solely on casting with Charisma scores limits the number of archetypal characters you can play with a Warlock. Want to play a wise old witch with a faerie pact or a a scholarly occultist with a eldritch god pact? That would suggest Wisdom or Intelligence as the prerequisite. In the previous playtest, they gave the opportunity to play interesting archetypes like this. Now, again, you can’t.
So, the 5e warlock is rubbish to me and so is this new one. Not interested.
you see that is inherently flawed logic because stats are not mandatory for roleplay
plus you can always invest in wisdom outside the warlock class
that sort of roleplay is locked by stats logic is rubbish to me(no intention to be rude)
That is a very patronising argument and not helpful at all. D&D works on the basis of statistical enticements to pick certain Attributes and Abilities that suit and combine well with others. It is why having certain abilities that allow you to switch bonuses from one particular Attribute to another is seen as a benefit.
You aren’t the ‘Role-player of the Year’,you are just failing to recognise that there is no substantial benefit for the Warlock Class to have a high Intelligence even though the Class description says they are ’seekers of knowledge’. Yes, you are rude, but more importantly, ignoring the point.
The thing for me is the stats mean something and they should mean something. Any time I make a character with Low intelligence I play them as not knowing a whole lot and potentially having learning disabilities. If they have low wisdom I purposefully play them as a character that is gullible and a little naive. Low Charisma they are rude and crass. Low Strength I will make them not very big looking and scrawny. low dex....... a little uncoordinated and clumbsy..... I never played one with low con... would have to make them a sickly creature though.
Is anyone else gratified that warlock has been saved in the newest play test? It went from being the balanced class it was in 5e, to the watered down half-caster abomination in onednd, back to being a good class. Any one else agree?
No, I do not agree with progress being held back by pact magic.
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 thing for me is the stats mean something and they should mean something. Any time I make a character with Low intelligence I play them as not knowing a whole lot and potentially having learning disabilities. If they have low wisdom I purposefully play them as a character that is gullible and a little naive. Low Charisma they are rude and crass. Low Strength I will make them not very big looking and scrawny. low dex....... a little uncoordinated and clumbsy..... I never played one with low con... would have to make them a sickly creature though.
Would you play a Wizard with low Intelligence, a Rogue with low Dexterity or a Druid with low Wisdom? Outside of comedy, the choices of Ability scores are influenced by how effective characters are in play. Roleplaying Ability scores is fine, but it doesn’t address the point that there is no mechanical advantage in playing a bookworm, Occultist Warlock as suggested in the text if you prioritise Intelligence over Charisma. You may get a few skill bonuses as with all Classes, but you will be a less effective caster. Characters like Faust or Lovecraftian occultists, which would be great characters to play are not catered for effectively when prioritising Charisma - a trait these characters palpably lack in literature.
Either way, it is a moot point now. WotC have already apparently decided on how they want the Warlock to go in the playtest report, and I’m choosing to move on from D&D now, and play an alternative.
The thing for me is the stats mean something and they should mean something. Any time I make a character with Low intelligence I play them as not knowing a whole lot and potentially having learning disabilities. If they have low wisdom I purposefully play them as a character that is gullible and a little naive. Low Charisma they are rude and crass. Low Strength I will make them not very big looking and scrawny. low dex....... a little uncoordinated and clumbsy..... I never played one with low con... would have to make them a sickly creature though.
Would you play a Wizard with low Intelligence, a Rogue with low Dexterity or a Druid with low Wisdom? Outside of comedy, the choices of Ability scores are influenced by how effective characters are in play. Roleplaying Ability scores is fine, but it doesn’t address the point that there is no mechanical advantage in playing a bookworm, Occultist Warlock as suggested in the text if you prioritise Intelligence over Charisma. You may get a few skill bonuses as with all Classes, but you will be a less effective caster. Characters like Faust or Lovecraftian occultists, which would be great characters to play are not catered for effectively when prioritising Charisma - a trait these characters palpably lack in literature.
Either way, it is a moot point now. WotC have already apparently decided on how they want the Warlock to go in the playtest report, and I’m choosing to move on from D&D now, and play an alternative.
Wizard...maybe. There's a lot of really solid spells that a wizard can take that don't care about your ability modifier. You're locked into a limited spell list if you go that route, but you can build a functional low intelligence wizard. you're limited, but still functional.
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 thing for me is the stats mean something and they should mean something. Any time I make a character with Low intelligence I play them as not knowing a whole lot and potentially having learning disabilities. If they have low wisdom I purposefully play them as a character that is gullible and a little naive. Low Charisma they are rude and crass. Low Strength I will make them not very big looking and scrawny. low dex....... a little uncoordinated and clumbsy..... I never played one with low con... would have to make them a sickly creature though.
Would you play a Wizard with low Intelligence, a Rogue with low Dexterity or a Druid with low Wisdom? Outside of comedy, the choices of Ability scores are influenced by how effective characters are in play. Roleplaying Ability scores is fine, but it doesn’t address the point that there is no mechanical advantage in playing a bookworm, Occultist Warlock as suggested in the text if you prioritise Intelligence over Charisma. You may get a few skill bonuses as with all Classes, but you will be a less effective caster. Characters like Faust or Lovecraftian occultists, which would be great characters to play are not catered for effectively when prioritising Charisma - a trait these characters palpably lack in literature.
Either way, it is a moot point now. WotC have already apparently decided on how they want the Warlock to go in the playtest report, and I’m choosing to move on from D&D now, and play an alternative.
I have played a wizard with Low intellect. It was a strength based abjuration wizard that used a lot of buff and utility spells. It was a lot of fun. Same with Rogue, you just have to use a finesse or ranged weapon for sneak attack, you don't actually have to use dex. Multi-classed the rogue into fighter for good armor, but still yes.
It may not be common, and it may not be "optimal" but there are definitely ways to do it. And a class have a preferred doesn't mean the attributes are moot either. That has existed in Class based RPG's for a very long time.
The thing for me is the stats mean something and they should mean something. Any time I make a character with Low intelligence I play them as not knowing a whole lot and potentially having learning disabilities. If they have low wisdom I purposefully play them as a character that is gullible and a little naive. Low Charisma they are rude and crass. Low Strength I will make them not very big looking and scrawny. low dex....... a little uncoordinated and clumbsy..... I never played one with low con... would have to make them a sickly creature though.
Would you play a Wizard with low Intelligence, a Rogue with low Dexterity or a Druid with low Wisdom? Outside of comedy, the choices of Ability scores are influenced by how effective characters are in play. Roleplaying Ability scores is fine, but it doesn’t address the point that there is no mechanical advantage in playing a bookworm, Occultist Warlock as suggested in the text if you prioritise Intelligence over Charisma. You may get a few skill bonuses as with all Classes, but you will be a less effective caster. Characters like Faust or Lovecraftian occultists, which would be great characters to play are not catered for effectively when prioritising Charisma - a trait these characters palpably lack in literature.
Either way, it is a moot point now. WotC have already apparently decided on how they want the Warlock to go in the playtest report, and I’m choosing to move on from D&D now, and play an alternative.
Wizard...maybe. There's a lot of really solid spells that a wizard can take that don't care about your ability modifier. You're locked into a limited spell list if you go that route, but you can build a functional low intelligence wizard. you're limited, but still functional.
Should be noted that they also removed the link from spells prepared and intellect making it even more viable.
Is anyone else gratified that warlock has been saved in the newest play test? It went from being the balanced class it was in 5e, to the watered down half-caster abomination in onednd, back to being a good class. Any one else agree?
More invocations, a one-minute version of Arcane Recovery, and the option to have several pacts, plus most of Hexblade’s goodies on Pact of the Blade? Dope.
Also: Patron spells become learned, automatically. Lovely.
It’s effectively a net +1 to invocations, but that’s fine by me.
I was relieved to see the half-caster nonsense gone. I understand why they did it and what they were going for, but never reaching level 3-5 spells until the very end of a campaign (if you're lucky) felt like a devastating blow to the identity of the class. It's not quite as drastic as I'd have liked, but definitely better than the UA5 version.
The change to the Pact of the Blade is fantastic. Finally feels like a melee warlock can compete with Eldritch Blasters.
I too was relieved to see the return of Pact Magic. I feel like Magical Cunning is going to have a really positive impact in the viability of the class in those situations where a short rest isn't feasible. Pact of the Blade is finally viable without having to be an Hexblade (which I think is a terrible subclass). The capstone still fells a little underwhelming, but all in all this is a very solid improvement over the 2014 Warlock.
I especially appreciate the changes to Great Old One patron, which is my favorite one besides the evergreen Fiend. Go Cthulhu, go!
Vegan. Punk. Metal. Queer. Comics. Videogames.
Warlock enthusiast.
Still based on CHA-only spell casting. Not interested.
I am glad the change was reverted, and I am happy with some of the changes (once per day spell slot recovery), and unsure on others (general balancing and removal of the choice of casting stat. Not a fan of how warlocks are so much more of a dip class now. Please make eldritch blast scale off warlock level….)
but I think this was just a lazy way to deal with a problem that’s still there. The huge gap between the second and third spell slot. They just need to move the third spell slot to 6th or 7th level and keep this recovery and the base kit will be good.
I won’t disagree that 5e warlock is still better, but this is a huge step forward from completely killing warlock.
Not what I am saying. I am saying that having Warlocks based solely on casting with Charisma scores limits the number of archetypal characters you can play with a Warlock. Want to play a wise old witch with a faerie pact or a a scholarly occultist with a eldritch god pact? That would suggest Wisdom or Intelligence as the prerequisite. In the previous playtest, they gave the opportunity to play interesting archetypes like this. Now, again, you can’t.
So, the 5e warlock is rubbish to me and so is this new one. Not interested.
you see that is inherently flawed logic because stats are not mandatory for roleplay
plus you can always invest in wisdom outside the warlock class
that sort of roleplay is locked by stats logic is rubbish to me(no intention to be rude)
if i say something inflammatory the intention is not to trigger an emotional response and the fact that it does so is purely accidental and I sincerely apologise if it does
That is a very patronising argument and not helpful at all. D&D works on the basis of statistical enticements to pick certain Attributes and Abilities that suit and combine well with others. It is why having certain abilities that allow you to switch bonuses from one particular Attribute to another is seen as a benefit.
You aren’t the ‘Role-player of the Year’,you are just failing to recognise that there is no substantial benefit for the Warlock Class to have a high Intelligence even though the Class description says they are ’seekers of knowledge’. Yes, you are rude, but more importantly, ignoring the point.
The thing for me is the stats mean something and they should mean something. Any time I make a character with Low intelligence I play them as not knowing a whole lot and potentially having learning disabilities. If they have low wisdom I purposefully play them as a character that is gullible and a little naive. Low Charisma they are rude and crass. Low Strength I will make them not very big looking and scrawny. low dex....... a little uncoordinated and clumbsy..... I never played one with low con... would have to make them a sickly creature though.
No, I do not agree with progress being held back by pact magic.
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
Would you play a Wizard with low Intelligence, a Rogue with low Dexterity or a Druid with low Wisdom? Outside of comedy, the choices of Ability scores are influenced by how effective characters are in play. Roleplaying Ability scores is fine, but it doesn’t address the point that there is no mechanical advantage in playing a bookworm, Occultist Warlock as suggested in the text if you prioritise Intelligence over Charisma. You may get a few skill bonuses as with all Classes, but you will be a less effective caster. Characters like Faust or Lovecraftian occultists, which would be great characters to play are not catered for effectively when prioritising Charisma - a trait these characters palpably lack in literature.
Either way, it is a moot point now. WotC have already apparently decided on how they want the Warlock to go in the playtest report, and I’m choosing to move on from D&D now, and play an alternative.
Wizard...maybe. There's a lot of really solid spells that a wizard can take that don't care about your ability modifier. You're locked into a limited spell list if you go that route, but you can build a functional low intelligence wizard. you're limited, but still functional.
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
I have played a wizard with Low intellect. It was a strength based abjuration wizard that used a lot of buff and utility spells. It was a lot of fun. Same with Rogue, you just have to use a finesse or ranged weapon for sneak attack, you don't actually have to use dex. Multi-classed the rogue into fighter for good armor, but still yes.
It may not be common, and it may not be "optimal" but there are definitely ways to do it. And a class have a preferred doesn't mean the attributes are moot either. That has existed in Class based RPG's for a very long time.
Should be noted that they also removed the link from spells prepared and intellect making it even more viable.
The Great Old One looks awesome.