Nobody wants Eldritch Master as a low-level ability, nor is seriously proposing it. Short rest people mostly just want to sneer and be all superior at tables where time exists.
I've seriously proposed it multiple times in this thread. You just don't want to see the wide range of options and changes people suggested and are willing to accept.
I am going only based off what WotC has said on the subject at about the 4 minute mark of the Player's Handbook Playtest 5 UA video. Number of spell slots and being tied to Short Rests was the main point of dissatisfaction with the Warlock. They even use Yurei's example of not using Short Rests as one of the stated issues players are having.
I'm not saying they said it was a complaint, I'm saying the argument that the majority of players want to ditch short rest mechanics is not accurate. A number sure, a decent amount even. But majority? I doubt that.
No you haven't. You've instead proposed that people should stop complaining about short rests being bad pacing-breaking immersion-killing nuisances and Play The Game As Intended, at which point unmodified Pact Magic becomes overtuned because players get unlimited at-will short rests that are 100% safe, uninterruptible, and never allow the opposing forces the chance to *also* benefit from the time the players are giving up.
Yes, I'd want more short rest mechanics too if short rests defied time, reason and logic to grant me unlimited daily resources.
But, for arcane domain we already have here 2 full casters, Sorcerer and Wizard, there is need that all of them to be full-casters, how many more we need?
I find this argument really silly. It's literally called the Mages group. Yes, everyone in it should be a full caster, just like every class in the Priests group should be priestly and every class in the Experts groups should be experts at things
Or, to put it another way... in the Warrior group we already have two full melee classes, Fighter and Barbarian, how many more we need?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The bard and the sorcerer aren't the same but they follow some very similar lines due to being full casters. Core elements can define a class fairly strongly even if there are other things that make some level of distinction. The core element of the new warlock is a half caster, to try and pretend that isn't true is so far more off base than what you claim we are doing that it is insane. Are there features that make it different than the ranger. Sure, but the paladin is different form the ranger and the artificer is different as well but they are all half casters. No matter what though the core element of half caster hangs heavily on all of them including the new warlock.
If all you care about for a class is its core then sure, we won't see eye to eye. But I would argue you're not playtesting correctly if that's truly your approach.
My issue with the half-ass-caster solution is that not only does it remove a uniquely Warlock mechanic, it, and the new Mystic Arcanum, just give Warlocks a worse version of something that other classes get.
They also get BETTER versions of things other classes get, like attack cantrips, and combat familiars / gishing with their casting stat, and armor on an Arcane class. This is a design concept known as a "tradeoff."
Because it's not Wizards of the Coast's job to make sure every class is equally playable if an individual table is going to houserule out literally half of the core rest mechanics?
If your GM is going to make a houserule that fundamentally breaks a bunch of classes, your GM can fix it.
The rules should be intuitive to the way people play the game, not the other way around. It's very easy to point at the book and demand that every table should be getting 2 short rests every single adventuring day, but the reality is that that is not how many, likely even most, people play the game. And even if your table is one of the unicorns that does, that still doesn't account for the devs continuing to design spells that don't work nearly as well with pact magic as they do with the spellcasting everyone else uses. Demanding that they continue to support multiple spellcasting systems equally for the next 10 years with the wheels already falling off is unrealistic.
But, for arcane domain we already have here 2 full casters, Sorcerer and Wizard, there is need that all of them to be full-casters, how many more we need?
I find this argument really silly. It's literally called the Mages group. Yes, everyone in it should be a full caster, just like every class in the Priests group should be priestly and every class in the Experts groups should be experts at things
Or, to put it another way... in the Warrior group we already have two full melee classes, Fighter and Barbarian, how many more we need?
Then the Paladin should be a full-caster, because is a Priest. Think on Warlock like the arcane Paladin.
My issue with the half-ass-caster solution is that not only does it remove a uniquely Warlock mechanic, it, and the new Mystic Arcanum, just give Warlocks a worse version of something that other classes get.
They also get BETTER versions of things other classes get, like attack cantrips, and combat familiars / gishing with their casting stat, and armor on an Arcane class. This is a design concept known as a "tradeoff."
That's the point. Feels more like I want to get everything with no sacrifice, like other classes must. The example of a full-caster with Hexblade is a perfect example of something not fair at all if letting the Warlock to be a full-caster combining new and old options.
The new Warlock can be an excellent caster with the Pact of the Tome and getting all the possible Arcanum invocations, at that cost, of course. And also get unique and selectable abilities.
I find this argument really silly. It's literally called the Mages group. Yes, everyone in it should be a full caster, just like every class in the Priests group should be priestly and every class in the Experts groups should be experts at things
Group names are not indicative of mechanics. The playtest warlock is just as much a mage as a paladin is a priest.
Classes should invite distinctive playstyles, but because being a full caster takes up so much of your budget for cool stuff, in practice two full casters with the same spell list will play pretty much the same; there's some room for being distinctive with casting styles, but the wizard and sorcerer are already highly redundant with one another, we don't particularly need the micro-distinction of yet a third class that does pretty much the same thing as the other two.
Short rest based spellcasting was distinctive, but it was also highly broken in ways that are not straightforward to fix (it's not impossible, but involves a complete new spell list). In addition, anything that doesn't use the standard spellcasting level slots will play poorly with multiclassing.
The bard and the sorcerer aren't the same but they follow some very similar lines due to being full casters. Core elements can define a class fairly strongly even if there are other things that make some level of distinction. The core element of the new warlock is a half caster, to try and pretend that isn't true is so far more off base than what you claim we are doing that it is insane. Are there features that make it different than the ranger. Sure, but the paladin is different form the ranger and the artificer is different as well but they are all half casters. No matter what though the core element of half caster hangs heavily on all of them including the new warlock.
If all you care about for a class is its core then sure, we won't see eye to eye. But I would argue you're not playtesting correctly if that's truly your approach.
Thank you, sort of. Your playing wrong sure, back at you I guess.. But I don't mind if people disagree with me. Though I wouldn't say the core is all I care about, but it has a strong influence on how the class feels in play. And I think the feel of a class is as important as its mechanical balance. And while balance may not be perfect in 5e, I have never seen someone feel like they could not contribute substantially to the game overall based on their class choice. Sure the 8 charisma barbarian was not helping much during delicate negotiations. But overall they did enough in the campaign to feel good. So once balance is roughly good, but sure can be improved, that is where the feel of the class imo takes the front of what is important. The 1/2 caster model effects how the warlock feels in play quite a bit. Some seem to like that, and have at it. In our limited testing so far,(1 session at 7th level) that was not the experience, it just felt like a crappy caster. Whether its more mechanically balanced or not didn't matter, it just felt like a crappy caster to the player and for me as the DM it seemed that way from the outside.
But, for arcane domain we already have here 2 full casters, Sorcerer and Wizard, there is need that all of them to be full-casters, how many more we need?
I find this argument really silly. It's literally called the Mages group. Yes, everyone in it should be a full caster, just like every class in the Priests group should be priestly and every class in the Experts groups should be experts at things
Or, to put it another way... in the Warrior group we already have two full melee classes, Fighter and Barbarian, how many more we need?
Then the Paladin should be a full-caster, because is a Priest
No, paladin should be a full priest, because it's in the Priests group
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
No you haven't. You've instead proposed that people should stop complaining about short rests being bad pacing-breaking immersion-killing nuisances and Play The Game As Intended, at which point unmodified Pact Magic becomes overtuned because players get unlimited at-will short rests that are 100% safe, uninterruptible, and never allow the opposing forces the chance to *also* benefit from the time the players are giving up.
Yes, I'd want more short rest mechanics too if short rests defied time, reason and logic to grant me unlimited daily resources.
I literally have put it forth as an idea multiple times in this thread. No one is arguing what you are claiming.
I literally have put it forth as an idea multiple times in this thread. No one is arguing what you are claiming.
You were one of the people most stridently insisting, at the start of this thread, that there couldn't ever possibly be a valid reason players couldn't short rest whenever and wherever they wanted and tables/DMs who thought otherwise were wrong bad 'dysfunctional' tables/DMs that weren't playing the game properly and didn't deserve consideration.
What else does that possibly mean, other than arguing that short rests are an unlimited at-will resource players can punch for free without worry or concern in any way at any point they're not actively in initiative?
At which point yeah, I'd try and make my spellcasting short rest too. Because "short rest" means "at will" and anything tied to a short is for all practical purposes free.
Though I wouldn't say the core is all I care about, but it has a strong influence on how the class feels in play. And I think the feel of a class is as important as its mechanical balance. And while balance may not be perfect in 5e, I have never seen someone feel like they could not contribute substantially to the game overall based on their class choice. Sure the 8 charisma barbarian was not helping much during delicate negotiations. But overall they did enough in the campaign to feel good. So once balance is roughly good, but sure can be improved, that is where the feel of the class imo takes the front of what is important. The 1/2 caster model effects how the warlock feels in play quite a bit. Some seem to like that, and have at it. In our limited testing so far,(1 session at 7th level) that was not the experience, it just felt like a crappy caster. Whether its more mechanically balanced or not didn't matter, it just felt like a crappy caster to the player and for me as the DM it seemed that way from the outside.
1) The stuff outside the class core has a strong influence on the feel of the class too. No feature exemplifies that more thoroughly than Mystic Arcanum, which sharply differentiates the Warlock from every other half-caster in the game.
2) "Can you still contribute" is not a useful bar, especially now when they have the chance to redesign the game more drastically than simple errata would allow. A Monk with no ki can contribute to lots of things, that doesn't mean their resource mechanic doesn't need a major overhaul, and the same applies to Pact Magic.
From what I can tell from nearly a thousand posts on the matter and being actively outright ordered to stop arguing against the destruction of the UA warlock?
People want completely, utterly, absolutely unmodified Pact Magic, down to being on the same page number and with the same page layout as it was in the release 5e book, and anyone who disagrees or anyone who gives the extremely common feedback that warlocks don't have enough spellcasting...can go sit and spin because they don't deserve warlocks Anyone playing at a table where short rests aren't an at-will unlimited resource is "dysfunctional" and therefore also doesn't deserve warlocks, and the only people who're allowed to give feedback on the new design are people who unabashedly adore the R5e warlock entirely as it is and are willing to go to bat for Wizards making absolutely zero changes to the class. People willing to fiercely resist any/all attempts to update, modernize, or improve the warlock, until no such attempt is ultimately successful. Because that totally worked out for the R5e sorcerer.
Cool. I'll remember that, that only people who hate One D&D are allowed to give feedback on the One D&D process.
And people wonder why I accuse the playerbase of attempting to sabotage the playtest efforts...
I've never seen someone as hell bent on refusing to actually read through any of the suggestions and just attack their own strawman repeatedly. I'm in awe.
One suggestion I at least was in favor of was MA being a baseline feature that matches fullcaster progression rather than an invocation. I agree that making it an invocation is functionally illusion of choice, because your choice at least in core would be "either pick the highest MA you can every time, or suck compared to every other warlock that did."
Also, Chain Pact needs a buff. Have it give Gaze of Two Minds for free as the level 5 bump and make it work on the familiar.
I literally have put it forth as an idea multiple times in this thread. No one is arguing what you are claiming.
You were one of the people most stridently insisting, at the start of this thread, that there couldn't ever possibly be a valid reason players couldn't short rest whenever and wherever they wanted and tables/DMs who thought otherwise were wrong bad 'dysfunctional' tables/DMs that weren't playing the game properly and didn't deserve consideration.
What else does that possibly mean, other than arguing that short rests are an unlimited at-will resource players can punch for free without worry or concern in any way at any point they're not actively in initiative?
At which point yeah, I'd try and make my spellcasting short rest too. Because "short rest" means "at will" and anything tied to a short is for all practical purposes free.
Though I wouldn't say the core is all I care about, but it has a strong influence on how the class feels in play. And I think the feel of a class is as important as its mechanical balance. And while balance may not be perfect in 5e, I have never seen someone feel like they could not contribute substantially to the game overall based on their class choice. Sure the 8 charisma barbarian was not helping much during delicate negotiations. But overall they did enough in the campaign to feel good. So once balance is roughly good, but sure can be improved, that is where the feel of the class imo takes the front of what is important. The 1/2 caster model effects how the warlock feels in play quite a bit. Some seem to like that, and have at it. In our limited testing so far,(1 session at 7th level) that was not the experience, it just felt like a crappy caster. Whether its more mechanically balanced or not didn't matter, it just felt like a crappy caster to the player and for me as the DM it seemed that way from the outside.
1) The stuff outside the class core has a strong influence on the feel of the class too. No feature exemplifies that more thoroughly than Mystic Arcanum, which sharply differentiates the Warlock from every other half-caster in the game.
2) "Can you still contribute" is not a useful bar, especially now when they have the chance to redesign the game more drastically than simple errata would allow. A Monk with no ki can contribute to lots of things, that doesn't mean their resource mechanic doesn't need a major overhaul, and the same applies to Pact Magic.
1) sure other things influence its feel. But the current 1e warlock did not feel like a warlock to the player, they felt like a bad caster.
2) I think it is pretty clear I was not talking about providing any level of contribution.
One suggestion I at least was in favor of was MA being a baseline feature that matches fullcaster progression rather than an invocation. I agree that making it an invocation is functionally illusion of choice, because your choice at least in core would be "either pick the highest MA you can every time, or suck compared to every other warlock that did."
Also, Chain Pact needs a buff. Have it give Gaze of Two Minds for free as the level 5 bump and make it work on the familiar.
I am for MA being baseline OR a massive buff to invocations to make others compete with Mystic Arcanum. But personally I would love to see AB rolled into EB ESPECIALLY if EB is going to be warlock locked AND the whole reason for some of the changes is EB is a trade off. I feel if we are going to remove the invocation taxes and invocations have mostly minor upgrades than doing something like
2, 2 invocations
3 mystic arcanum
5 Invocation
7 Mystic arcanum
9 Invocation
11 Mystic Arcanum
13 Invocation (bumping the level 15 ones down to level 13 requirment)
15 Mystic Arcanum
17 Invocation
would work really well. You would have no invocation taxes at all, and by level 5 you would still have 3, but none of the Pact specific stuff is eating up your invocations and neither is Agonizing blast or Mystic arcanum.
I think the reason people don't like the goth ranger analogy is not because it is nonsense, but because it actually works to encapsulate the problems people have with the new warlock. Yeah its not 100% a ranger, that isn't the argument, everyone knows that. But too much of the warlocks identity was lost into the half caster mold, changing from a entirely unique if maybe not perfectly balanced class into something that is far more generic.
It's no more generic than it was before; the new warlock still absolutely has a distinctive play style. It's just not the same play style as the 2014 warlock.
It does have a problem with illusion of choice, as a lot of options are just better than anything else. For example, if I'm building a tomelock, I would say the following invocations are nearly locked in:
9: Gift of the Protectors, retrain MA(3) to MA(5) (free invocations: 2)
11: Mystic Arcanum (6) (free invocations: 2)
13: retrain MA (4) to MA(7) (free invocations: 3)
15: MA (8) (free invocations: 3)
17: retrain MA (5) to MA(9) (free invocations: 4)
Bladelock is pretty similar, though replace Gift of the Protectors with Thirsting Blade and you probably don't retrain out of agonizing blast, since pact weapons are melee only the odds of a ranged attack not being useful is pretty much zero.
I literally have put it forth as an idea multiple times in this thread. No one is arguing what you are claiming.
You were one of the people most stridently insisting, at the start of this thread, that there couldn't ever possibly be a valid reason players couldn't short rest whenever and wherever they wanted and tables/DMs who thought otherwise were wrong bad 'dysfunctional' tables/DMs that weren't playing the game properly and didn't deserve consideration.
What else does that possibly mean, other than arguing that short rests are an unlimited at-will resource players can punch for free without worry or concern in any way at any point they're not actively in initiative?
At which point yeah, I'd try and make my spellcasting short rest too. Because "short rest" means "at will" and anything tied to a short is for all practical purposes free.
i am absolutely certain that NO ONE in this thread has said that short tests should be unlimited. I have seen virtually every single participant say that short tests should be available enough times to warrant them being a feature. I have seen virtually everyone say there are times that short rests are not available and should not be due to time constraints. The ONLY person dealing with absolutes here is you. Saying that there are never good times for short tests.
There are good times and bad times. There are times they should be allowed and times it should cost them if they do it. It’s balance. Moderation. Being reasonable. Setting stakes but also not entirely nerfing a series of classes.
I remember some people referencing something like dysfunctional tables but that was in relation to these absolute never able to short rest how dare you ask scenarios. Which frankly is fair in my view. The same can be said of those with infinite short rests. Both sides can be not good and the best answer can be in the middle. But even then if everyone is down to play the game in a way that others feel is dysfunctional, that’s fine. But this never short resting this is NOT the game as intended. And classes as a whole should be balanced around reasonable assumptions. If tables deviate that is fine but then they need to balance the classes To be fair afterwards. The same is true of if you have weapons something like durability, or have spellcasters a chance spells would explode. It can be fun for a while but it would be frustrating for those using it. It could feel very unfairly Punishing and turn people Off a class.
Honestly at this point I really think you are trolling. You ignore literally everything that even slightly goes against you and then accuse the other side of the same absolutism that you have shown every post.
you have valid feedback to give (assuming this isn’t trolling) but it is so hard to take any of your points seriously when you throw out these insane situations that do not reflect reality as examples (I am not referring to how your table plays. I am referring to your absolute idea that if you are for short rests it is “abuse” and we must mean we want infinite resources). I am not even asking you to change your views. But please can we keep this somewhat grounded without these fictional examples. We can disagree with you with being these wicked gatekeeping demons and the other things you seem to blanket accuse everyone of. Let’s keep this reasonable.
Hell it’s clear a sizeable number of people like some form of idea of this. Have this halfcaster style of warlock be an alternate version. Have them choose between halfcaster and pact magic. Or make it a new class overall in some form. It feels very artificer like in its current form anyway
I've seriously proposed it multiple times in this thread. You just don't want to see the wide range of options and changes people suggested and are willing to accept.
I'm not saying they said it was a complaint, I'm saying the argument that the majority of players want to ditch short rest mechanics is not accurate. A number sure, a decent amount even. But majority? I doubt that.
No you haven't. You've instead proposed that people should stop complaining about short rests being bad pacing-breaking immersion-killing nuisances and Play The Game As Intended, at which point unmodified Pact Magic becomes overtuned because players get unlimited at-will short rests that are 100% safe, uninterruptible, and never allow the opposing forces the chance to *also* benefit from the time the players are giving up.
Yes, I'd want more short rest mechanics too if short rests defied time, reason and logic to grant me unlimited daily resources.
Please do not contact or message me.
I find this argument really silly. It's literally called the Mages group. Yes, everyone in it should be a full caster, just like every class in the Priests group should be priestly and every class in the Experts groups should be experts at things
Or, to put it another way... in the Warrior group we already have two full melee classes, Fighter and Barbarian, how many more we need?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
If all you care about for a class is its core then sure, we won't see eye to eye. But I would argue you're not playtesting correctly if that's truly your approach.
They also get BETTER versions of things other classes get, like attack cantrips, and combat familiars / gishing with their casting stat, and armor on an Arcane class. This is a design concept known as a "tradeoff."
The rules should be intuitive to the way people play the game, not the other way around. It's very easy to point at the book and demand that every table should be getting 2 short rests every single adventuring day, but the reality is that that is not how many, likely even most, people play the game. And even if your table is one of the unicorns that does, that still doesn't account for the devs continuing to design spells that don't work nearly as well with pact magic as they do with the spellcasting everyone else uses. Demanding that they continue to support multiple spellcasting systems equally for the next 10 years with the wheels already falling off is unrealistic.
Then the Paladin should be a full-caster, because is a Priest. Think on Warlock like the arcane Paladin.
That's the point. Feels more like I want to get everything with no sacrifice, like other classes must. The example of a full-caster with Hexblade is a perfect example of something not fair at all if letting the Warlock to be a full-caster combining new and old options.
The new Warlock can be an excellent caster with the Pact of the Tome and getting all the possible Arcanum invocations, at that cost, of course. And also get unique and selectable abilities.
Also - every current Mage class can cast up to 9th level spells.
Group names are not indicative of mechanics. The playtest warlock is just as much a mage as a paladin is a priest.
Classes should invite distinctive playstyles, but because being a full caster takes up so much of your budget for cool stuff, in practice two full casters with the same spell list will play pretty much the same; there's some room for being distinctive with casting styles, but the wizard and sorcerer are already highly redundant with one another, we don't particularly need the micro-distinction of yet a third class that does pretty much the same thing as the other two.
Short rest based spellcasting was distinctive, but it was also highly broken in ways that are not straightforward to fix (it's not impossible, but involves a complete new spell list). In addition, anything that doesn't use the standard spellcasting level slots will play poorly with multiclassing.
Thank you, sort of. Your playing wrong sure, back at you I guess.. But I don't mind if people disagree with me. Though I wouldn't say the core is all I care about, but it has a strong influence on how the class feels in play. And I think the feel of a class is as important as its mechanical balance. And while balance may not be perfect in 5e, I have never seen someone feel like they could not contribute substantially to the game overall based on their class choice. Sure the 8 charisma barbarian was not helping much during delicate negotiations. But overall they did enough in the campaign to feel good. So once balance is roughly good, but sure can be improved, that is where the feel of the class imo takes the front of what is important. The 1/2 caster model effects how the warlock feels in play quite a bit. Some seem to like that, and have at it. In our limited testing so far,(1 session at 7th level) that was not the experience, it just felt like a crappy caster. Whether its more mechanically balanced or not didn't matter, it just felt like a crappy caster to the player and for me as the DM it seemed that way from the outside.
No, paladin should be a full priest, because it's in the Priests group
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I literally have put it forth as an idea multiple times in this thread. No one is arguing what you are claiming.
You were one of the people most stridently insisting, at the start of this thread, that there couldn't ever possibly be a valid reason players couldn't short rest whenever and wherever they wanted and tables/DMs who thought otherwise were wrong bad 'dysfunctional' tables/DMs that weren't playing the game properly and didn't deserve consideration.
What else does that possibly mean, other than arguing that short rests are an unlimited at-will resource players can punch for free without worry or concern in any way at any point they're not actively in initiative?
At which point yeah, I'd try and make my spellcasting short rest too. Because "short rest" means "at will" and anything tied to a short is for all practical purposes free.
Please do not contact or message me.
1) The stuff outside the class core has a strong influence on the feel of the class too. No feature exemplifies that more thoroughly than Mystic Arcanum, which sharply differentiates the Warlock from every other half-caster in the game.
2) "Can you still contribute" is not a useful bar, especially now when they have the chance to redesign the game more drastically than simple errata would allow. A Monk with no ki can contribute to lots of things, that doesn't mean their resource mechanic doesn't need a major overhaul, and the same applies to Pact Magic.
I've never seen someone as hell bent on refusing to actually read through any of the suggestions and just attack their own strawman repeatedly. I'm in awe.
One suggestion I at least was in favor of was MA being a baseline feature that matches fullcaster progression rather than an invocation. I agree that making it an invocation is functionally illusion of choice, because your choice at least in core would be "either pick the highest MA you can every time, or suck compared to every other warlock that did."
Also, Chain Pact needs a buff. Have it give Gaze of Two Minds for free as the level 5 bump and make it work on the familiar.
I did no such thing.
1) sure other things influence its feel. But the current 1e warlock did not feel like a warlock to the player, they felt like a bad caster.
2) I think it is pretty clear I was not talking about providing any level of contribution.
I am for MA being baseline OR a massive buff to invocations to make others compete with Mystic Arcanum. But personally I would love to see AB rolled into EB ESPECIALLY if EB is going to be warlock locked AND the whole reason for some of the changes is EB is a trade off. I feel if we are going to remove the invocation taxes and invocations have mostly minor upgrades than doing something like
2, 2 invocations
3 mystic arcanum
5 Invocation
7 Mystic arcanum
9 Invocation
11 Mystic Arcanum
13 Invocation (bumping the level 15 ones down to level 13 requirment)
15 Mystic Arcanum
17 Invocation
would work really well. You would have no invocation taxes at all, and by level 5 you would still have 3, but none of the Pact specific stuff is eating up your invocations and neither is Agonizing blast or Mystic arcanum.
It's no more generic than it was before; the new warlock still absolutely has a distinctive play style. It's just not the same play style as the 2014 warlock.
It does have a problem with illusion of choice, as a lot of options are just better than anything else. For example, if I'm building a tomelock, I would say the following invocations are nearly locked in:
Bladelock is pretty similar, though replace Gift of the Protectors with Thirsting Blade and you probably don't retrain out of agonizing blast, since pact weapons are melee only the odds of a ranged attack not being useful is pretty much zero.
i am absolutely certain that NO ONE in this thread has said that short tests should be unlimited. I have seen virtually every single participant say that short tests should be available enough times to warrant them being a feature. I have seen virtually everyone say there are times that short rests are not available and should not be due to time constraints. The ONLY person dealing with absolutes here is you. Saying that there are never good times for short tests.
There are good times and bad times. There are times they should be allowed and times it should cost them if they do it. It’s balance. Moderation. Being reasonable. Setting stakes but also not entirely nerfing a series of classes.
I remember some people referencing something like dysfunctional tables but that was in relation to these absolute never able to short rest how dare you ask scenarios. Which frankly is fair in my view. The same can be said of those with infinite short rests. Both sides can be not good and the best answer can be in the middle. But even then if everyone is down to play the game in a way that others feel is dysfunctional, that’s fine. But this never short resting this is NOT the game as intended. And classes as a whole should be balanced around reasonable assumptions. If tables deviate that is fine but then they need to balance the classes To be fair afterwards. The same is true of if you have weapons something like durability, or have spellcasters a chance spells would explode. It can be fun for a while but it would be frustrating for those using it. It could feel very unfairly Punishing and turn people Off a class.
Honestly at this point I really think you are trolling. You ignore literally everything that even slightly goes against you and then accuse the other side of the same absolutism that you have shown every post.
you have valid feedback to give (assuming this isn’t trolling) but it is so hard to take any of your points seriously when you throw out these insane situations that do not reflect reality as examples (I am not referring to how your table plays. I am referring to your absolute idea that if you are for short rests it is “abuse” and we must mean we want infinite resources). I am not even asking you to change your views. But please can we keep this somewhat grounded without these fictional examples. We can disagree with you with being these wicked gatekeeping demons and the other things you seem to blanket accuse everyone of. Let’s keep this reasonable.
Hell it’s clear a sizeable number of people like some form of idea of this. Have this halfcaster style of warlock be an alternate version. Have them choose between halfcaster and pact magic. Or make it a new class overall in some form. It feels very artificer like in its current form anyway