They can't cast an infinite number of spells at one time. They can't maintain concentration on more than one spell at a time.
If you cannot understand why a nearly infinite number of spell slots is broken, I will not respond to you anymore.
That's because it isn't.
First up is the law of diminished returns. It's possible to have more spell slots than you can feasibly cast in a day. Second, you're trading off power to do this. Being able to cast more spells at lower levels is all well and good, but you're nickel-and-diming when others are casting spells both more impressive and more useful. And third, there is a real limit to how many spell slots you can use at a given time. You aren't spending more than 1/turn, you can only concentrate on 1 spell at a time, and most combat scenarios are over in 3 turns.
The only point to even attempt this is to show you can, and that's only if the DM lets you. I wouldn't allow a rejected playtest species from 7 years ago, and I sure as heck wouldn't allow 8 short rests to everyone else's long rest. A bonus action is something a player can take when it's their turn. Generally speaking, when combat isn't taking place, the players naturally share time and nobody dominates a scene. I'm not about to let someone dominate the scene by taking a bunch of turns in a row because that isn't fair to everyone else.
Does this one person handle all the watch shifts that night? Do others take turns, and this one person participates in a conversation with everyone else? Neither of those sit right with me; as a player or DM.
And if a player honestly wanted to fight me on this, well, there are ways of strongly encouraging a long rest.
They can't cast an infinite number of spells at one time. They can't maintain concentration on more than one spell at a time.
If you cannot understand why a nearly infinite number of spell slots is broken, I will not respond to you anymore.
That's because it isn't.
First up is the law of diminished returns. It's possible to have more spell slots than you can feasibly cast in a day. Second, you're trading off power to do this. Being able to cast more spells at lower levels is all well and good, but you're nickel-and-diming when others are casting spells both more impressive and more useful. And third, there is a real limit to how many spell slots you can use at a given time. You aren't spending more than 1/turn, you can only concentrate on 1 spell at a time, and most combat scenarios are over in 3 turns.
The only point to even attempt this is to show you can, and that's only if the DM lets you. I wouldn't allow a rejected playtest species from 7 years ago, and I sure as heck wouldn't allow 8 short rests to everyone else's long rest. A bonus action is something a player can take when it's their turn. Generally speaking, when combat isn't taking place, the players naturally share time and nobody dominates a scene. I'm not about to let someone dominate the scene by taking a bunch of turns in a row because that isn't fair to everyone else.
Does this one person handle all the watch shifts that night? Do others take turns, and this one person participates in a conversation with everyone else? Neither of those sit right with me; as a player or DM.
And if a player honestly wanted to fight me on this, well, there are ways of strongly encouraging a long rest.
Imagine running a dungeon crawl where your pcs had unlimited healing - easily attainable via magic initiate if you already have infinite spell slots. Imagine running a stealth mission where the pcs can cast sleep whenever a guard sees them. Higher levels spells are powerful, but a 2-3 level delay is well worth it (at most levels of the build).
They can't cast an infinite number of spells at one time. They can't maintain concentration on more than one spell at a time.
If you cannot understand why a nearly infinite number of spell slots is broken, I will not respond to you anymore.
That's because it isn't.
First up is the law of diminished returns. It's possible to have more spell slots than you can feasibly cast in a day. Second, you're trading off power to do this. Being able to cast more spells at lower levels is all well and good, but you're nickel-and-diming when others are casting spells both more impressive and more useful. And third, there is a real limit to how many spell slots you can use at a given time. You aren't spending more than 1/turn, you can only concentrate on 1 spell at a time, and most combat scenarios are over in 3 turns.
The only point to even attempt this is to show you can, and that's only if the DM lets you. I wouldn't allow a rejected playtest species from 7 years ago, and I sure as heck wouldn't allow 8 short rests to everyone else's long rest. A bonus action is something a player can take when it's their turn. Generally speaking, when combat isn't taking place, the players naturally share time and nobody dominates a scene. I'm not about to let someone dominate the scene by taking a bunch of turns in a row because that isn't fair to everyone else.
Does this one person handle all the watch shifts that night? Do others take turns, and this one person participates in a conversation with everyone else? Neither of those sit right with me; as a player or DM.
And if a player honestly wanted to fight me on this, well, there are ways of strongly encouraging a long rest.
Imagine running a dungeon crawl where your pcs had unlimited healing - easily attainable via magic initiate if you already have infinite spell slots. Imagine running a stealth mission where the pcs can cast sleep whenever a guard sees them. Higher levels spells are powerful, but a 2-3 level delay is well worth it (at most levels of the build).
I don't have to because I won't tolerate that nonsense at my tables. I'm not giving someone 8 turns to do something while everyone else is asleep. And even if I were, do you have any idea how long it would take for someone to have functionally "infinite" spell slots? The DM can do everything the players can, and then more. If you think you can cheese a dungeon with "infinite" healing, I'll just hit you with more damage. I'll make sure I have magical defense that a Sleep spell isn't going to work against, and I can always employ NPCs it won't work on.
I had one player ask if they could do it; with the Book of the Moon eldritch invocation. We had a conversation, like adults, and we came to an understanding that it would be a bad idea.
They can't cast an infinite number of spells at one time. They can't maintain concentration on more than one spell at a time.
If you cannot understand why a nearly infinite number of spell slots is broken, I will not respond to you anymore.
That's because it isn't.
First up is the law of diminished returns. It's possible to have more spell slots than you can feasibly cast in a day. Second, you're trading off power to do this. Being able to cast more spells at lower levels is all well and good, but you're nickel-and-diming when others are casting spells both more impressive and more useful. And third, there is a real limit to how many spell slots you can use at a given time. You aren't spending more than 1/turn, you can only concentrate on 1 spell at a time, and most combat scenarios are over in 3 turns.
The only point to even attempt this is to show you can, and that's only if the DM lets you. I wouldn't allow a rejected playtest species from 7 years ago, and I sure as heck wouldn't allow 8 short rests to everyone else's long rest. A bonus action is something a player can take when it's their turn. Generally speaking, when combat isn't taking place, the players naturally share time and nobody dominates a scene. I'm not about to let someone dominate the scene by taking a bunch of turns in a row because that isn't fair to everyone else.
Does this one person handle all the watch shifts that night? Do others take turns, and this one person participates in a conversation with everyone else? Neither of those sit right with me; as a player or DM.
And if a player honestly wanted to fight me on this, well, there are ways of strongly encouraging a long rest.
Imagine running a dungeon crawl where your pcs had unlimited healing - easily attainable via magic initiate if you already have infinite spell slots. Imagine running a stealth mission where the pcs can cast sleep whenever a guard sees them. Higher levels spells are powerful, but a 2-3 level delay is well worth it (at most levels of the build).
I don't have to because I won't tolerate that nonsense at my tables. I'm not giving someone 8 turns to do something while everyone else is asleep. And even if I were, do you have any idea how long it would take for someone to have functionally "infinite" spell slots? The DM can do everything the players can, and then more. If you think you can cheese a dungeon with "infinite" healing, I'll just hit you with more damage. I'll make sure I have magical defense that a Sleep spell isn't going to work against, and I can always employ NPCs it won't work on.
I had one player ask if they could do it; with the Book of the Moon eldritch invocation. We had a conversation, like adults, and we came to an understanding that it would be a bad idea.
Please read the whole conversation before interjecting. I agree that you can prevent it, but I was replying to someone who said it wasn't powerful even without counteraction.
It's mostly fine as long as the rest of the party needs long rests. Go ahead and do your thing, but everybody else is going to sit still for 8 hours while you keep watch since you don't need to rest.
That just lets them short rest 8 times.
And?
What was your original point?
It doesn't matter if the PC can recharge everything on a short rest if the rest of the party needs a long rest. Go ahead and short rest several times, the party isn't moving.
If a PC in my game decided this would be a good time to lone wolf, then they would just have to deal with the consequences.
You are misunderstanding how a coffeelock works. Sorcerers are able to turn spell slots into sorcery points and turn those sorcery points into temporary spell slots that last until you long rest. Warlocks get spell slots back every short rest. Therefore, every short rest you are able to turn your warlock spell slots into sorcerer spell slots that last until you long rest, which you ideally never do. 8 short rests gives them many spell slots.
Really? I'm arguing that this build is broken, and you are arguing that you wouldn't really allow it as a DM.
And no, upping the damage on all the monsters because of one pc is not a valid solution. (neither is doing ridiculous things to target that player IMO)
Really? I'm arguing that this build is broken, and you are arguing that you wouldn't really allow it as a DM.
And no, upping the damage on all the monsters because of one pc is not a valid solution. (neither is doing ridiculous things to target that player IMO)
I think you need to follow your own advice, because you haven't read the entire thread. I already gave you three reasons why I disagree with your assessment, and you even didn't bother to address any of them. Instead, you posed a hypothetical.
And I'm going to disagree with you once more. If you think a character build is overpowered, then it's perfectly legitimate for the DM to throw something overpowered at the party. You aren't entitled to run roughshod over anything.
Really? I'm arguing that this build is broken, and you are arguing that you wouldn't really allow it as a DM.
And no, upping the damage on all the monsters because of one pc is not a valid solution. (neither is doing ridiculous things to target that player IMO)
I think you need to follow your own advice, because you haven't read the entire thread. I already gave you three reasons why I disagree with your assessment, and you even didn't bother to address any of them. Instead, you posed a hypothetical.
And I'm going to disagree with you once more. If you think a character build is overpowered, then it's perfectly legitimate for the DM to throw something overpowered at the party. You aren't entitled to run roughshod over anything.
First up is the law of diminished returns. It's possible to have more spell slots than you can feasibly cast in a day. Second, you're trading off power to do this. Being able to cast more spells at lower levels is all well and good, but you're nickel-and-diming when others are casting spells both more impressive and more useful. And third, there is a real limit to how many spell slots you can use at a given time. You aren't spending more than 1/turn, you can only concentrate on 1 spell at a time, and most combat scenarios are over in 3 turns.
"...unlimited healing..." Additionally, 6-8 encounters per day is the expected amount.
While you are trading power for this, at level 8 you can make 16 level 3 spell slots per day. If you get a single week of downtime, that is 112 spell slots, with 5 regenerating every night while adventuring.
"...unlimited healing..." Also, that's a lot of fireball if you have 6-8 encounters per day.
My hypothetical explained two of those.
Also, you essentially just claimed in your post that it is completely justified for a DM to throw a tarrasque at a level 1 party because one pc has a +20 sword of slaying.
Really? I'm arguing that this build is broken, and you are arguing that you wouldn't really allow it as a DM.
And no, upping the damage on all the monsters because of one pc is not a valid solution. (neither is doing ridiculous things to target that player IMO)
I think you need to follow your own advice, because you haven't read the entire thread. I already gave you three reasons why I disagree with your assessment, and you even didn't bother to address any of them. Instead, you posed a hypothetical.
And I'm going to disagree with you once more. If you think a character build is overpowered, then it's perfectly legitimate for the DM to throw something overpowered at the party. You aren't entitled to run roughshod over anything.
First up is the law of diminished returns. It's possible to have more spell slots than you can feasibly cast in a day. Second, you're trading off power to do this. Being able to cast more spells at lower levels is all well and good, but you're nickel-and-diming when others are casting spells both more impressive and more useful. And third, there is a real limit to how many spell slots you can use at a given time. You aren't spending more than 1/turn, you can only concentrate on 1 spell at a time, and most combat scenarios are over in 3 turns.
"...unlimited healing..." Additionally, 6-8 encounters per day is the expected amount.
While you are trading power for this, at level 8 you can make 16 level 3 spell slots per day. If you get a single week of downtime, that is 112 spell slots, with 5 regenerating every night while adventuring.
"...unlimited healing..." Also, that's a lot of fireball if you have 6-8 encounters per day.
My hypothetical explained two of those.
Also, you essentially just claimed in your post that it is completely justified for a DM to throw a tarrasque at a level 1 party because one pc has a +20 sword of slaying.
Nope.
Not only have you cited outdated information, but you've cited it incorrectly. The assumption made in the 2014 DMG is not that 6-8 encounters per day is the expected amount; Medium-to-Hard or otherwise. Each party has a daily budget, which doesn't need to be met, and that budget can be met in so many encounters. It can also be met in as little as 3. People need to actually read the rules thoroughly for themselves and not trust YouTubers who routinely get things wrong.
Are you sure your math is correct? A level 2 warlock only has 2 level 1 spell slots, which convert into 4 Sorcery Points. Personally, I think having the points is better than the slots, because they also fuel Metamagic, but whatever. Taking 8 short rests is 32 Sorcery Points in total, and it's 5 Sorcery Points per level 3 spell slot. By my math, that's only 6 level 3 spell slots; not 16. [redacted]
Fireball isn't the be-all end-all of spellcasting, and I've already addressed your claim about encounters.
1. A quick google search found this from the old dmg. I don't really know what youtubers you are referring to, and I don't watch their videos.
Assuming typical adventuring conditions and average luck, most adventuring parties can handle about six to eight medium or hard encounters in a day. If the adventure has more easy encounters, the adventurers can get through more. If it has more deadly encounters, they can handle fewer.
2. Firstly, it is required to convert to spell slots because "You can’t have more Sorcery Points than the number shown in the table for your level." Secondly I was referring to short resting the whole day.
3. Fireball is not the best, but it's pretty good. At level 8, you will be doing 28 dpr to many targets, compared to spells like blight that do 36 damage twice per day.
None of what you're describing looks overpowered. Quite frankly, I find it boring; or at least basic. By saying something is overpowered, it means one of two things:
One character dwarfs other characters in power
The DM has difficulty challenging the character and the party they're in
The DM has tools besides throwing a kaiju at an adventuring party. Not everything is a nail to be hammered down.
If you have harder encounters, they are likely to be longer and the amount of rounds of combat should be comparable to having more encounters.
Your math doesn't even come close. Even if no sorcery points are wasted, 4 times 18 is 72. 72/5 =/= 16. The actual math is as follows: Short rest 1st time and convert 2 level 2 spell slots into 4 sorcery points. Short rest again, convert one spell slot to points (wasting one point), make a level 3 spell slot, and convert the other level 2 slot to 2 points. Short rest the 3rd time and use both slots and the leftover points to make a level 3 spell slot. This means 2/3 short rests produce a spell slot, or 16/24. Also, what fundamental question are you talking about?
Damage is more useful in about 80 - 90% of cases than those spells.
If you can't show your math, I cannot trust you. You can't just multiply and divide, because there are limits you aren't accounting for, and you shouldn't just assume a more difficult combat is going to last more rounds.
When you said level 8, I assumed you meant a level 8 sorcerer with a maximum of 8 sorcery points because you never gave any additional information. If you meant a level 8 character (Warlock 2, Sorcerer 6), then I'm not seeing how this can be done in any straightforward way. Let's assume everything is fresh; full spell slots and sorcery points. You convert 5/6 sorcery points for a level 3 slot, and then cycle the pact slots for a second one. But now you're tapped out. Take a short rest, cycle the pact slots for a level 2 slot, and have 1 sorcery point remaining. You can repeat that, with each cycle producing either a level 2 slot or a level 3 slot, but you aren't making 16 in 24 hours. You probably don't even have 24 hours because stuff takes time; every new spell slot is a bonus action, and that adds up. I'm getting 13 level 3 slots (16 total) and 11 level 2 slots (14 total), which I think is still way more than you've been selling this as.
And while I appreciate your passion, this is also an insane exercise: both what you're attempting to justify and this discussion. You haven't convinced me you know what you're talking about because you keep dismissing the actual rules of the game. A character can only cast and use spell slots so often. You rely on outdated information to inform your opinions. You pull numbers out of thin air.
And you abandon talking points when called out on them; conceding those arguments in the process.
All of these self-inflicted wounds damage your credibility.
If you can't show your math, I cannot trust you. You can't just multiply and divide, because there are limits you aren't accounting for, and you shouldn't just assume a more difficult combat is going to last more rounds.
When you said level 8, I assumed you meant a level 8 sorcerer with a maximum of 8 sorcery points because you never gave any additional information. If you meant a level 8 character (Warlock 2, Sorcerer 6), then I'm not seeing how this can be done in any straightforward way. Let's assume everything is fresh; full spell slots and sorcery points. You convert 5/6 sorcery points for a level 3 slot, and then cycle the pact slots for a second one. But now you're tapped out. Take a short rest, cycle the pact slots for a level 2 slot, and have 1 sorcery point remaining. You can repeat that, with each cycle producing either a level 2 slot or a level 3 slot, but you aren't making 16 in 24 hours. You probably don't even have 24 hours because stuff takes time; every new spell slot is a bonus action, and that adds up. I'm getting 13 level 3 slots (16 total) and 11 level 2 slots (14 total), which I think is still way more than you've been selling this as.
And while I appreciate your passion, this is also an insane exercise: both what you're attempting to justify and this discussion. You haven't convinced me you know what you're talking about because you keep dismissing the actual rules of the game. A character can only cast and use spell slots so often. You rely on outdated information to inform your opinions. You pull numbers out of thin air.
And you abandon talking points when called out on them; conceding those arguments in the process.
All of these self-inflicted wounds damage your credibility.
There are limits I did account for. The multiplying and dividing showed the absolute maximum, which is below the amount you said you would get. I did show my math. On average, stronger monsters have more health and ac and will last longer. That is a fact.
I am referring to a Warlock 3 Sorcerer 5. They are completely out of spell slots and sorcery points. Now reread my previous post for the math.
"You rely on outdated information to inform your opinions. You pull numbers out of thin air." That makes no sense. Am I using outdated information, or making it up? Regardless, even if the numbers are now half of what they were, that's about ten rounds of combat (3 or 4 times 3 rounds per). That is more than the 5 level 4 or 3 spell slots of a level 8 sorcerer. Also, you can convert the spell slots back into sorcery points for metamagic.
Please state what relevant and significant points I have abandoned so I can disprove them.
Okay, a Warlock 3/Sorcerer 5 is interesting because (a) you never specified that anywhere and (b) you're wasting a Sorcery Point every time because you can only bank 5 points at once. And since I refuse to go through the steps to see to optimize that conversion, we're done.
I'm not doing your work for you, and you can scroll back through the conversations to see where you gave up. I'm done.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Infinite. rules
I don't understand. You made a mistake and I corrected you. Why deny it?
They can't cast an infinite number of spells at one time. They can't maintain concentration on more than one spell at a time.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
If you cannot understand why a nearly infinite number of spell slots is broken, I will not respond to you anymore.
If you allow that in your game and don't know how to deal with it, it's your own fault.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Howdy y'all!
I think a lot of this thread is not only overlooking RAW but also RAI. Of course, your DM gets final say, so dang.
Game On, Siblings!
Jack
That's because it isn't.
First up is the law of diminished returns. It's possible to have more spell slots than you can feasibly cast in a day. Second, you're trading off power to do this. Being able to cast more spells at lower levels is all well and good, but you're nickel-and-diming when others are casting spells both more impressive and more useful. And third, there is a real limit to how many spell slots you can use at a given time. You aren't spending more than 1/turn, you can only concentrate on 1 spell at a time, and most combat scenarios are over in 3 turns.
The only point to even attempt this is to show you can, and that's only if the DM lets you. I wouldn't allow a rejected playtest species from 7 years ago, and I sure as heck wouldn't allow 8 short rests to everyone else's long rest. A bonus action is something a player can take when it's their turn. Generally speaking, when combat isn't taking place, the players naturally share time and nobody dominates a scene. I'm not about to let someone dominate the scene by taking a bunch of turns in a row because that isn't fair to everyone else.
Does this one person handle all the watch shifts that night? Do others take turns, and this one person participates in a conversation with everyone else? Neither of those sit right with me; as a player or DM.
And if a player honestly wanted to fight me on this, well, there are ways of strongly encouraging a long rest.
Imagine running a dungeon crawl where your pcs had unlimited healing - easily attainable via magic initiate if you already have infinite spell slots. Imagine running a stealth mission where the pcs can cast sleep whenever a guard sees them. Higher levels spells are powerful, but a 2-3 level delay is well worth it (at most levels of the build).
I don't have to because I won't tolerate that nonsense at my tables. I'm not giving someone 8 turns to do something while everyone else is asleep. And even if I were, do you have any idea how long it would take for someone to have functionally "infinite" spell slots? The DM can do everything the players can, and then more. If you think you can cheese a dungeon with "infinite" healing, I'll just hit you with more damage. I'll make sure I have magical defense that a Sleep spell isn't going to work against, and I can always employ NPCs it won't work on.
I had one player ask if they could do it; with the Book of the Moon eldritch invocation. We had a conversation, like adults, and we came to an understanding that it would be a bad idea.
Thanks for all of your feedback. Just for reference, my DM enjoys having crazy overpowered builds because it can alter the story in funny ways.
Please read the whole conversation before interjecting. I agree that you can prevent it, but I was replying to someone who said it wasn't powerful even without counteraction.
I did read the whole conversation before I contributed to a public discussion.
Really? I'm arguing that this build is broken, and you are arguing that you wouldn't really allow it as a DM.
And no, upping the damage on all the monsters because of one pc is not a valid solution. (neither is doing ridiculous things to target that player IMO)
I think you need to follow your own advice, because you haven't read the entire thread. I already gave you three reasons why I disagree with your assessment, and you even didn't bother to address any of them. Instead, you posed a hypothetical.
And I'm going to disagree with you once more. If you think a character build is overpowered, then it's perfectly legitimate for the DM to throw something overpowered at the party. You aren't entitled to run roughshod over anything.
My hypothetical explained two of those.
Also, you essentially just claimed in your post that it is completely justified for a DM to throw a tarrasque at a level 1 party because one pc has a +20 sword of slaying.
1. A quick google search found this from the old dmg. I don't really know what youtubers you are referring to, and I don't watch their videos.
2. Firstly, it is required to convert to spell slots because "You can’t have more Sorcery Points than the number shown in the table for your level." Secondly I was referring to short resting the whole day.
3. Fireball is not the best, but it's pretty good. At level 8, you will be doing 28 dpr to many targets, compared to spells like blight that do 36 damage twice per day.
Anything else?
None of what you're describing looks overpowered. Quite frankly, I find it boring; or at least basic. By saying something is overpowered, it means one of two things:
The DM has tools besides throwing a kaiju at an adventuring party. Not everything is a nail to be hammered down.
If you can't show your math, I cannot trust you. You can't just multiply and divide, because there are limits you aren't accounting for, and you shouldn't just assume a more difficult combat is going to last more rounds.
When you said level 8, I assumed you meant a level 8 sorcerer with a maximum of 8 sorcery points because you never gave any additional information. If you meant a level 8 character (Warlock 2, Sorcerer 6), then I'm not seeing how this can be done in any straightforward way. Let's assume everything is fresh; full spell slots and sorcery points. You convert 5/6 sorcery points for a level 3 slot, and then cycle the pact slots for a second one. But now you're tapped out. Take a short rest, cycle the pact slots for a level 2 slot, and have 1 sorcery point remaining. You can repeat that, with each cycle producing either a level 2 slot or a level 3 slot, but you aren't making 16 in 24 hours. You probably don't even have 24 hours because stuff takes time; every new spell slot is a bonus action, and that adds up. I'm getting 13 level 3 slots (16 total) and 11 level 2 slots (14 total), which I think is still way more than you've been selling this as.
And while I appreciate your passion, this is also an insane exercise: both what you're attempting to justify and this discussion. You haven't convinced me you know what you're talking about because you keep dismissing the actual rules of the game. A character can only cast and use spell slots so often. You rely on outdated information to inform your opinions. You pull numbers out of thin air.
And you abandon talking points when called out on them; conceding those arguments in the process.
All of these self-inflicted wounds damage your credibility.
There are limits I did account for. The multiplying and dividing showed the absolute maximum, which is below the amount you said you would get. I did show my math. On average, stronger monsters have more health and ac and will last longer. That is a fact.
I am referring to a Warlock 3 Sorcerer 5. They are completely out of spell slots and sorcery points. Now reread my previous post for the math.
"You rely on outdated information to inform your opinions. You pull numbers out of thin air." That makes no sense. Am I using outdated information, or making it up? Regardless, even if the numbers are now half of what they were, that's about ten rounds of combat (3 or 4 times 3 rounds per). That is more than the 5 level 4 or 3 spell slots of a level 8 sorcerer. Also, you can convert the spell slots back into sorcery points for metamagic.
Please state what relevant and significant points I have abandoned so I can disprove them.
Okay, a Warlock 3/Sorcerer 5 is interesting because (a) you never specified that anywhere and (b) you're wasting a Sorcery Point every time because you can only bank 5 points at once. And since I refuse to go through the steps to see to optimize that conversion, we're done.
I'm not doing your work for you, and you can scroll back through the conversations to see where you gave up. I'm done.