In this case, what do you think could be that hypothetical midpoint between pact magic and the half caster system? I've been thinking about it and I can't find a satisfactory model that could satisfy both lovers of the warlock halfcaster and those nostalgic for pact magic.
Remove Spellcasting, remove Pact Magic. Add Pact Spellcasting: "[The default text for "you can cast the spells you can cast.] You get your spells from Mystic Arcanum and/or Magical Obscura." Now, half the casting invocations are MA, giving you one powerful-for-the-level-at-which-you-can-get-it spell that recharges on a short rest, and the other half are MO, giving you two or more weaker spells that you can cast, or one spell you can cast multiple times, per long rest. Fix it yourself! Lol.
Pineapple, pepperoni and jalapenos is the top tier pizza topping choice.
And I don't think I understand your Mystic Obscurua idea. If you are suggesting no spell casting and its all picked through invocations some short rest, some long rest mechanics, it could work if the warlock got something like a invocation at every level.
The first Warlock class in 3rd edition didn't get ANY spells, just eldritch blast and invocations, plus a second set of invocations that were specific to eldritch blast. Most invocations were only capable of mimicking low level spells, but they had no limit on how many times per day they could be cast, and the eldritch blast boosts could add rider effects (like dispelling a spell on the target) or change the effect of the blast, such as to a cone or a chain effect, enabling eldritch blast to hit multiple targets. However, eldritch blast back then did 1d6 per 2 levels of the Warlock, so it was never going to compete directly with the mainline blasting magic - the gimmick was being able to spam it without limit, something no other spellcasting class had at the time.
The class identity was that they had a notably lower ceiling than traditional casters, but were at 100% ALL THE TIME. And I think a similar idea was what the 5th edition warlock was going for - a lower ceiling than the sorcerer and wizard, but a higher floor. Which might get to the core point of my dislike over the changes in the playtest - they reduce both the ceiling AND the floor the Warlock operates between.
Yeah, I wasn't sure if they were advocating for 3e warlock of something different. 5e I vastly preferred it felt more like a dude who gained powerful magics from a researching things man was not meant to know, the kind of warlock you see in like every other fiction while still being tied to D&D style mechanics. But the 3e one was fun once they had enough levels to feel like eldritch blast was something to write home about. Early levels felt rough to me.
And I kind of agree with you, the new warlock had both ends drop out on them. It isn't my primary complaint as I think 5E design is such that everyone is solid, some are just more solid than others. Which I was not going for a animal farm reference as my intent was more its like a 10-20% swing not 100% of 3e, but whatever. My feeling is they lost both ends of their uniqueness. Ending up feeling far more generic than before. They lost their pact magic,(their magic uniqueness) they lost mystic arcanums, and they have to use 1/2 their invocations to get the arcanums back so they lose about1/2 of their invocation so they lost a lot of their invocation customization uniqueness and they didn't fix any of the dud invocations except gaze of two minds which quite frankly now is broken, and they unnecessarily nerfed repelling blast which is one of the few reasons eldritch blast worked as their go to, meh damage does not cut it. Being the one dude who could shove a gargantuan being was awesome and did not break the game. The size limits put into various martial moves had nothing to do with balance, it was because during 4e people complained that it felt too magical for a 200 lb dude to shove a 50 ton monster. But who cares if the dude who sold his soul for magical power can do it. Let them. And if they have the right angle on them, let them pop them into the air.
Great those are written with more clarity, that doesn't mean that the lack of clarity has changed it so far. If they wanted it changed it would have been specific about it. It has been said already, if you can cast hex as a 5th level spell at 18, then there is nothing stopping someone taking Bestow Curse at level 5 and casting it as a 9th level spell right then and there. The wording is the same about being able to cast them without expending a spell slot.
Do not fall for the fallacy of the "rules don't say I can't", just because the rules don't say you can't doesn't mean you can.
Not, the level is indicated just in the table. At greater levels, you can upgrade it (as you can change an invocation by another) to get it at the new indicated level in the table. That is really written, so is RAW. But using the base level if not specified, is a consensus to fix some glitches in old manuals, as they could omit or simply forget about writing it.
Also, how can be so sure for a 100%? If they wanted to fix it, then it should be a paragraph in already published content saying it, then would not be need to specify on each description they intentionally want to apply. I mean they are in time to set it as RAW, but didn't, and instead they are more clear on each description.
Probably asking on Twitter could clarify, as not fixing it by rule could be unintentional, but not sure if will respond.
The table indicates what level SPELL you can pick. It says nothing about what level you CAST that spell at. The table is simply a limiter of the list you can pick from.
"Choose one spell from the Arcane spell list that has a level for which you qualify, as shown on the Mystic Arcanum table. Look for your Warlock level on the table to see the maximum level that the spell can have. You can cast the chosen spell once without expending a Spell Slot."
It says nothing about casting the spell at its base level, it simply talks about what list of spells you can pick from and the table is the highest level spell you can pick from.
Solid case of "rules don't say I can't." They have clarified multiple times even with tasha's that any time you get a spell that you can cast without using a spell slot that spell is always cast at its base level.
They have a whole rules glossary where they are changing every little rule and even re-wording how two-weapon fighting/the light property works. If they intended to change how casting spells without a spell slot worked it would be in the rule glossary and it would have been a highlight. It isn't, and the rule hasn't changed.
So one great thing I have noticed is what the auto prep spells do is often either give you most everything you need for combat or provide good flavor. At 5 with the Fiend lock you have Hex, EB, Burning Hands, Command, Suggestion and Scorching ray. If Fiend warlocks could add their casting stat to some of these blasting spells it might be a bit better, but for the most part you only need a couple extra combat options and you are good to go.
Fey Lock was even better with Sleep, Faerie fire, Phantasmal force and Calm emotions. Combine those with Hex and EB(AB) and then Mystic arcanum and you have all you will ever need in a combat day auto prepared. Everything else can just be flavor.
Fiend Blasting spells compared to EB at their levels
Burning hands 3d6 AoE average damage 10.5 per target vs EB+AB single target at level 3, 5.5+3=8.5 at level 4 9.5 at level 5 19. burning hands is a good pick up in the early levels, but becomes out of date later unless there is weakness to fire or many many targets grouped together. (if this spell scaled 2d6 per level instead of 1d6 this could stay relevant)
Scorching ray 2d6*3=21 up to 3 targets with 3 attacks. This one is almost immediately overshadowed by EB+AB, needs help.
Blight SINGLE TARGET, Average 36 damage targeting Con Save, 18 on a successful save: At 13 EB+AB does 31.5 if all rays hit. This is an aweful use of a 4th level slot to MAYBE do a fraction more damage that DOESN'T scale with hex. This is for Targeting plants only, so flavor pick up at 13. Against a magical plant the damage is 64 or 32 on a successful save that was rolled at disadvantage. Worthy use. So situational auto prepared spell.... count me in honestly.
Wall of Fire 22.5 AOE area denial damage, EB+AB is still doing 31.5, but if you picked up repelling blast, even at 13 this is still definitely doable and a go to. These last few have made me consider that if Elemental Adept wasn't so trash this would could work even though Warlock is getting them late.
Flame strike 28 AoE cylinder....... this is a joke. EB+AB at 17th level 37 average damage if all hit
Insect Plague 22 AoE area Denial.... This is the same as Wall of fire, but a worse saving throw targeted and a higher level slot 4 levels later on this character.... Ok so it was doing fine until 5th level spells actually, which I am surprised at honestly.
I don’t think there is a thing in the world that you can get everyone to agree on. Someone will always dislike something. And forums like this one tend to attract players who are passionate about the hobby. But they are a small fraction of the community which is why WotC relies on the surveys instead of forum threads/polls. JC even said it in on of the 1D&D interviews with Todd that on forums you get maybe a hundred voices where the surveys they get thousands or tens of thousands.
So, yes there are some in this thread who don’t want change and some that like the UA and some that like some things and not others.
But if everyone in this thread trashed this entire UA in the survey it will probably amount to 1% of the responses WotC receives. So I don’t think anyone here will be ruining the next edition/revision.
So maybe the tension, aggravation, and vitriol needs to be brought down a notch on all sides.
Loki and Balder from Norse Mythology. Everyone in the world wept for Balder, except Loki. So Balder stayed dead. This is what will happen to WotC’s bad ideas.
To be fair, "these spells are bad" is more a case of "well, they should be fixed" rather than "change the Fiend to not have them".
The problem is they work pretty well for a person with normal caster progression, it is hard to fix them so they aren't over powered for normal progression but solid for 1/2 progression.
Maybe some sort of free up casting, like if all spells were cast at +1 spell level to the level used maybe it might of sort of work. The non scaling spells would be left out but those are generally there for utility not spell power.
The problem is they work pretty well for a person with normal caster progression, it is hard to fix them so they aren't over powered for normal progression but solid for 1/2 progression.
Well, scorching ray is kinda bad no matter what progression you're using.
I think the general intent is that the warlock will use spell slots for utility spells and mystic arcanum for their big blasting spells, but that doesn't work well with the fiend unless they just change the fiend to grant mystic arcanum.
Wall of Fire 22.5 AOE area denial damage, EB+AB is still doing 31.5, but if you picked up repelling blast, even at 13 this is still definitely doable and a go to. These last few have made me consider that if Elemental Adept wasn't so trash this would could work even though Warlock is getting them late.
Flame strike 28 AoE cylinder....... this is a joke. EB+AB at 17th level 37 average damage if all hit
Insect Plague 22 AoE area Denial.... This is the same as Wall of fire, but a worse saving throw targeted and a higher level slot 4 levels later on this character.... Ok so it was doing fine until 5th level spells actually, which I am surprised at honestly.
Math just called and it's begging you to stop dragging its name through the mud like this
All flame strike needs is three targets within a 10-foot radius -- there's room for 12 in its AoE, even 16 with a generous DM -- and it's guaranteed to do more average damage than your auto-hitting EBs even if all three targets make their saving throws
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)
Wall of Fire 22.5 AOE area denial damage, EB+AB is still doing 31.5, but if you picked up repelling blast, even at 13 this is still definitely doable and a go to. These last few have made me consider that if Elemental Adept wasn't so trash this would could work even though Warlock is getting them late.
Flame strike 28 AoE cylinder....... this is a joke. EB+AB at 17th level 37 average damage if all hit
Insect Plague 22 AoE area Denial.... This is the same as Wall of fire, but a worse saving throw targeted and a higher level slot 4 levels later on this character.... Ok so it was doing fine until 5th level spells actually, which I am surprised at honestly.
Math just called and it's begging you to stop dragging its name through the mud like this
All flame strike needs is three targets within a 10-foot radius -- there's room for 12 in its AoE, even 16 with a generous DM -- and it's guaranteed to do more average damage than your auto-hitting EBs even if all three targets make their saving throws
Yes, but this is a 5th level spell. And splitting up damage is less valuable than focus damage AND EB is at will.
If the situation arises yes flame strike will be a good use of an action, but with fireball doing the same damage in about the same area 8 levels ealier for the warlock this isnt good as an auto prepared spell or as a 5th level spell in general.
Heck the multi targets was why I gave the nod to burning hands and wall of fire. Not because burning hands did 1 more damage to a single target.
I was keeping it simple.
At 17 I am extremely unlikely to use a 5th level slot for flame strike when an upcast wall of fire would be better for the long run. It is also going to be extremely rare that I use my 1 free cast from fiend on it over, again, wall of fire.
Wall of Fire 22.5 AOE area denial damage, EB+AB is still doing 31.5, but if you picked up repelling blast, even at 13 this is still definitely doable and a go to. These last few have made me consider that if Elemental Adept wasn't so trash this would could work even though Warlock is getting them late.
Flame strike 28 AoE cylinder....... this is a joke. EB+AB at 17th level 37 average damage if all hit
Insect Plague 22 AoE area Denial.... This is the same as Wall of fire, but a worse saving throw targeted and a higher level slot 4 levels later on this character.... Ok so it was doing fine until 5th level spells actually, which I am surprised at honestly.
Math just called and it's begging you to stop dragging its name through the mud like this
All flame strike needs is three targets within a 10-foot radius -- there's room for 12 in its AoE, even 16 with a generous DM -- and it's guaranteed to do more average damage than your auto-hitting EBs even if all three targets make their saving throws
I'm pretty sure he is aware of that. The issue he is pointing out is one target likely will be hit for just as much if not more with some riders like a shove etc added on. Your one 5th level slot at 17th level needs to outpace EB by a bit more than if you hit enough targets it does a bit more damage than your round after round non buffed damage.
I suspect the easiest way to make a attack spells work is by giving them easy access to bonus action spellcasting -- sure, a 4th level spell is pretty underwhelming at 13th level, but a 4th level spell plus eldritch blast is not.
To be fair, "these spells are bad" is more a case of "well, they should be fixed" rather than "change the Fiend to not have them".
The problem is they work pretty well for a person with normal caster progression, it is hard to fix them so they aren't over powered for normal progression but solid for 1/2 progression.
Maybe some sort of free up casting, like if all spells were cast at +1 spell level to the level used maybe it might of sort of work. The non scaling spells would be left out but those are generally there for utility not spell power.
This depends on the spell, flame strike is a 5th level spell with the impact of a 3rd level spell.
Insect Plague I just compared to one that was 1 level LOWER and it's only advantage being an entire level highef spell slot. Is its range.
I think scorching ray is ok at the level it is gained, both on a full caster AND half-caster frame, but if fiend had a way to add their cha to fire damage then it would be very solid option for them their entire career as a suped up EB.
If flame strike did like 5d6 of each damage or 4d10 of each damage it would be solid. If you could MOVE the insect plague or something with it, great.
Wall of Fire 22.5 AOE area denial damage, EB+AB is still doing 31.5, but if you picked up repelling blast, even at 13 this is still definitely doable and a go to. These last few have made me consider that if Elemental Adept wasn't so trash this would could work even though Warlock is getting them late.
Flame strike 28 AoE cylinder....... this is a joke. EB+AB at 17th level 37 average damage if all hit
Insect Plague 22 AoE area Denial.... This is the same as Wall of fire, but a worse saving throw targeted and a higher level slot 4 levels later on this character.... Ok so it was doing fine until 5th level spells actually, which I am surprised at honestly.
Math just called and it's begging you to stop dragging its name through the mud like this
All flame strike needs is three targets within a 10-foot radius -- there's room for 12 in its AoE, even 16 with a generous DM -- and it's guaranteed to do more average damage than your auto-hitting EBs even if all three targets make their saving throws
Yes, but this is a 5th level spell. And splitting up damage is less valuable than focus damage AND EB is at will.
If the situation arises yes flame strike will be a good use of an action, but with fireball doing the same damage in about the same area 8 levels ealier for the warlock this isnt good as an auto prepared spell or as a 5th level spell in general.
If you want to compare apples to oranges and then claim apples are worse because they make bad mimosas, you do you, boo
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)
Alright, I really should stop expecting nuanced constructive conversation online.
One side.
"Short rests dont exist, old warlock sucked"
Other side
"New warlock is just a crappy ranger/paladin"
Any nuanced conversation about features or invocations or ACTUAL playstyles between old and new. nope. Just these pure black and white hyperbolic strawmen everywhere.
All I asked from people was could we stop the hyperbole and have real conversations, apparently the answer every time I have asked it is a resounding NO!!.We love living in our world of hyperbole and strawmen that we can argue against.
So have at it. Enjoy.
I think this is wrong. I think that being an arcane ranger/paladin is cool. i think that an arcane half-caster was necessary. I'm not convinced that it should have been the warlock, but I am equally not convinced that they got this wrong. Warlock's currently my favorite class. I like the unique mechanics. I also find it flawed, and this iteration fixes my major complaints about single class warlocks.
That said, I found the old short rest design interesting. it's probably best that it's removed and replaced with this (when I am being honest), but I will still lament the loss.
That said, there's a fair bit I do not like about the new design as well. I dislike the pact boon coming before the actual patron, but I understand it. It makes sense, even if I don't LIKE it. I don't like how abusable it will make single dips, and that I think is the biggest problem with putting the pact boon first. A one level dip will make half casters SAD without a major hit to their spell progression. I don't think that's good. if you want to be using cha/wis/int for your melee gish attacks, you should have to invest three levels of warlock.
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.
To be fair, "these spells are bad" is more a case of "well, they should be fixed" rather than "change the Fiend to not have them".
The problem is they work pretty well for a person with normal caster progression, it is hard to fix them so they aren't over powered for normal progression but solid for 1/2 progression.
Maybe some sort of free up casting, like if all spells were cast at +1 spell level to the level used maybe it might of sort of work. The non scaling spells would be left out but those are generally there for utility not spell power.
This depends on the spell, flame strike is a 5th level spell with the impact of a 3rd level spell.
Insect Plague I just compared to one that was 1 level LOWER and it's only advantage being an entire level highef spell slot. Is its range.
I think scorching ray is ok at the level it is gained, both on a full caster AND half-caster frame, but if fiend had a way to add their cha to fire damage then it would be very solid option for them their entire career as a suped up EB.
If flame strike did like 5d6 of each damage or 4d10 of each damage it would be solid. If you could MOVE the insect plague or something with it, great.
Fair enough, I felt they seemed a bit underwhelming generally. How I see it is repelling blast does the heavy lifting to make wall of fire and insect plague work at those levels where as I think the spells should feel legit on their own for that level. Other powers and tactics should push a spell above their level.
That said, there's a fair bit I do not like about the new design as well. I dislike the pact boon coming before the actual patron, but I understand it. It makes sense, even if I don't LIKE it. I don't like how abusable it will make single dips, and that I think is the biggest problem with putting the pact boon first.
I'm fine it comes at level 1, I'd just name it something else like arcane discoveries. Let the level 1-2 abilities represent your push into the arcane before a pact is made. Your taste of the arcane power that hooks you.
For the dip issues, I think they need to re-look at multi classing overall. Like how heavy armor does not transfer over in 5e, I'd tag some abilities as core class abilities. Instead of having the start with that class requirement, I'd change it (including heavy armor) as you need more( maybe equal) levels in that class to access the core class abilities. So pact boon you don't get it in a Warlock/paladin build unless your build is 11 warlock/9 paladin. If you ever switch to paladin in the forefront you lose the abilities and get the paladins core class instead.
I like the idea of simply making Mystic Arcanum a feature instead of an invocation choice, using that to stay on curve 1-20, and keeping the half-casting. How about this for an updated class table? (Sorry, not experienced with making tables on this site, so its copy-pasted from elsewhere.)
Wall of Fire 22.5 AOE area denial damage, EB+AB is still doing 31.5, but if you picked up repelling blast, even at 13 this is still definitely doable and a go to. These last few have made me consider that if Elemental Adept wasn't so trash this would could work even though Warlock is getting them late.
Flame strike 28 AoE cylinder....... this is a joke. EB+AB at 17th level 37 average damage if all hit
Insect Plague 22 AoE area Denial.... This is the same as Wall of fire, but a worse saving throw targeted and a higher level slot 4 levels later on this character.... Ok so it was doing fine until 5th level spells actually, which I am surprised at honestly.
Math just called and it's begging you to stop dragging its name through the mud like this
All flame strike needs is three targets within a 10-foot radius -- there's room for 12 in its AoE, even 16 with a generous DM -- and it's guaranteed to do more average damage than your auto-hitting EBs even if all three targets make their saving throws
Yes, but this is a 5th level spell. And splitting up damage is less valuable than focus damage AND EB is at will.
If the situation arises yes flame strike will be a good use of an action, but with fireball doing the same damage in about the same area 8 levels ealier for the warlock this isnt good as an auto prepared spell or as a 5th level spell in general.
If you want to compare apples to oranges and then claim apples are worse because they make bad mimosas, you do you, boo
So fireball and flame strike aren't both AoE damage spells that have about the same area effect size that do the same amount of damage with flame strike just costing a much more precious resource?
Seems pretty apples to apples to me.
I would love to hear why you think flame strike is worth 2 whole spell levels over fireball and about how RADICALLY different they are to be called an apples to oranges comparison.
To be fair, "these spells are bad" is more a case of "well, they should be fixed" rather than "change the Fiend to not have them".
The problem is they work pretty well for a person with normal caster progression, it is hard to fix them so they aren't over powered for normal progression but solid for 1/2 progression.
Maybe some sort of free up casting, like if all spells were cast at +1 spell level to the level used maybe it might of sort of work. The non scaling spells would be left out but those are generally there for utility not spell power.
This depends on the spell, flame strike is a 5th level spell with the impact of a 3rd level spell.
Insect Plague I just compared to one that was 1 level LOWER and it's only advantage being an entire level highef spell slot. Is its range.
I think scorching ray is ok at the level it is gained, both on a full caster AND half-caster frame, but if fiend had a way to add their cha to fire damage then it would be very solid option for them their entire career as a suped up EB.
If flame strike did like 5d6 of each damage or 4d10 of each damage it would be solid. If you could MOVE the insect plague or something with it, great.
Fair enough, I felt they seemed a bit underwhelming generally. How I see it is repelling blast does the heavy lifting to make wall of fire and insect plague work at those levels where as I think the spells should feel legit on their own for that level. Other powers and tactics should push a spell above their level.
I think strategies and their availability need to be taken into account. With the shove action, repelling blast and now the new push mastery forced movement is widely available.
If wall of fire was super good on its own and then you could add this forced movement thing on top and the entire party has easy access to forced movement than this spell and those like it become the premier spells in the game overshadowing all other strategies.
This is why I gave the nod to Blight. It is extremely situational, but it does have a niche where it becomes the best option.
I don't want one spell to always be the best option. This is why some spells need a tone down and others need a bump up, but this is also why the strategies+ their ease of use and availability of the strategy need to be taken into account.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yeah, I wasn't sure if they were advocating for 3e warlock of something different. 5e I vastly preferred it felt more like a dude who gained powerful magics from a researching things man was not meant to know, the kind of warlock you see in like every other fiction while still being tied to D&D style mechanics. But the 3e one was fun once they had enough levels to feel like eldritch blast was something to write home about. Early levels felt rough to me.
And I kind of agree with you, the new warlock had both ends drop out on them. It isn't my primary complaint as I think 5E design is such that everyone is solid, some are just more solid than others. Which I was not going for a animal farm reference as my intent was more its like a 10-20% swing not 100% of 3e, but whatever. My feeling is they lost both ends of their uniqueness. Ending up feeling far more generic than before. They lost their pact magic,(their magic uniqueness) they lost mystic arcanums, and they have to use 1/2 their invocations to get the arcanums back so they lose about1/2 of their invocation so they lost a lot of their invocation customization uniqueness and they didn't fix any of the dud invocations except gaze of two minds which quite frankly now is broken, and they unnecessarily nerfed repelling blast which is one of the few reasons eldritch blast worked as their go to, meh damage does not cut it. Being the one dude who could shove a gargantuan being was awesome and did not break the game. The size limits put into various martial moves had nothing to do with balance, it was because during 4e people complained that it felt too magical for a 200 lb dude to shove a 50 ton monster. But who cares if the dude who sold his soul for magical power can do it. Let them. And if they have the right angle on them, let them pop them into the air.
The table indicates what level SPELL you can pick. It says nothing about what level you CAST that spell at. The table is simply a limiter of the list you can pick from.
"Choose one spell from the Arcane spell list that has a level for which you qualify, as shown on the Mystic Arcanum table. Look for your Warlock level on the table to see the maximum level that the spell can have. You can cast the chosen spell once without expending a Spell Slot."
It says nothing about casting the spell at its base level, it simply talks about what list of spells you can pick from and the table is the highest level spell you can pick from.
Solid case of "rules don't say I can't." They have clarified multiple times even with tasha's that any time you get a spell that you can cast without using a spell slot that spell is always cast at its base level.
They have a whole rules glossary where they are changing every little rule and even re-wording how two-weapon fighting/the light property works. If they intended to change how casting spells without a spell slot worked it would be in the rule glossary and it would have been a highlight. It isn't, and the rule hasn't changed.
So one great thing I have noticed is what the auto prep spells do is often either give you most everything you need for combat or provide good flavor. At 5 with the Fiend lock you have Hex, EB, Burning Hands, Command, Suggestion and Scorching ray. If Fiend warlocks could add their casting stat to some of these blasting spells it might be a bit better, but for the most part you only need a couple extra combat options and you are good to go.
Fey Lock was even better with Sleep, Faerie fire, Phantasmal force and Calm emotions. Combine those with Hex and EB(AB) and then Mystic arcanum and you have all you will ever need in a combat day auto prepared. Everything else can just be flavor.
Fiend Blasting spells compared to EB at their levels
Burning hands 3d6 AoE average damage 10.5 per target vs EB+AB single target at level 3, 5.5+3=8.5 at level 4 9.5 at level 5 19. burning hands is a good pick up in the early levels, but becomes out of date later unless there is weakness to fire or many many targets grouped together. (if this spell scaled 2d6 per level instead of 1d6 this could stay relevant)
Scorching ray 2d6*3=21 up to 3 targets with 3 attacks. This one is almost immediately overshadowed by EB+AB, needs help.
Blight SINGLE TARGET, Average 36 damage targeting Con Save, 18 on a successful save: At 13 EB+AB does 31.5 if all rays hit. This is an aweful use of a 4th level slot to MAYBE do a fraction more damage that DOESN'T scale with hex. This is for Targeting plants only, so flavor pick up at 13. Against a magical plant the damage is 64 or 32 on a successful save that was rolled at disadvantage. Worthy use. So situational auto prepared spell.... count me in honestly.
Wall of Fire 22.5 AOE area denial damage, EB+AB is still doing 31.5, but if you picked up repelling blast, even at 13 this is still definitely doable and a go to. These last few have made me consider that if Elemental Adept wasn't so trash this would could work even though Warlock is getting them late.
Flame strike 28 AoE cylinder....... this is a joke. EB+AB at 17th level 37 average damage if all hit
Insect Plague 22 AoE area Denial.... This is the same as Wall of fire, but a worse saving throw targeted and a higher level slot 4 levels later on this character....
Ok so it was doing fine until 5th level spells actually, which I am surprised at honestly.
Loki and Balder from Norse Mythology. Everyone in the world wept for Balder, except Loki. So Balder stayed dead. This is what will happen to WotC’s bad ideas.
To be fair, "these spells are bad" is more a case of "well, they should be fixed" rather than "change the Fiend to not have them".
The problem is they work pretty well for a person with normal caster progression, it is hard to fix them so they aren't over powered for normal progression but solid for 1/2 progression.
Maybe some sort of free up casting, like if all spells were cast at +1 spell level to the level used maybe it might of sort of work. The non scaling spells would be left out but those are generally there for utility not spell power.
Well, scorching ray is kinda bad no matter what progression you're using.
I think the general intent is that the warlock will use spell slots for utility spells and mystic arcanum for their big blasting spells, but that doesn't work well with the fiend unless they just change the fiend to grant mystic arcanum.
Math just called and it's begging you to stop dragging its name through the mud like this
All flame strike needs is three targets within a 10-foot radius -- there's room for 12 in its AoE, even 16 with a generous DM -- and it's guaranteed to do more average damage than your auto-hitting EBs even if all three targets make their saving throws
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)
Yes, but this is a 5th level spell. And splitting up damage is less valuable than focus damage AND EB is at will.
If the situation arises yes flame strike will be a good use of an action, but with fireball doing the same damage in about the same area 8 levels ealier for the warlock this isnt good as an auto prepared spell or as a 5th level spell in general.
Heck the multi targets was why I gave the nod to burning hands and wall of fire. Not because burning hands did 1 more damage to a single target.
I was keeping it simple.
At 17 I am extremely unlikely to use a 5th level slot for flame strike when an upcast wall of fire would be better for the long run. It is also going to be extremely rare that I use my 1 free cast from fiend on it over, again, wall of fire.
I'm pretty sure he is aware of that. The issue he is pointing out is one target likely will be hit for just as much if not more with some riders like a shove etc added on. Your one 5th level slot at 17th level needs to outpace EB by a bit more than if you hit enough targets it does a bit more damage than your round after round non buffed damage.
I suspect the easiest way to make a attack spells work is by giving them easy access to bonus action spellcasting -- sure, a 4th level spell is pretty underwhelming at 13th level, but a 4th level spell plus eldritch blast is not.
This depends on the spell, flame strike is a 5th level spell with the impact of a 3rd level spell.
Insect Plague I just compared to one that was 1 level LOWER and it's only advantage being an entire level highef spell slot. Is its range.
I think scorching ray is ok at the level it is gained, both on a full caster AND half-caster frame, but if fiend had a way to add their cha to fire damage then it would be very solid option for them their entire career as a suped up EB.
If flame strike did like 5d6 of each damage or 4d10 of each damage it would be solid. If you could MOVE the insect plague or something with it, great.
If you want to compare apples to oranges and then claim apples are worse because they make bad mimosas, you do you, boo
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 think this is wrong. I think that being an arcane ranger/paladin is cool. i think that an arcane half-caster was necessary. I'm not convinced that it should have been the warlock, but I am equally not convinced that they got this wrong. Warlock's currently my favorite class. I like the unique mechanics. I also find it flawed, and this iteration fixes my major complaints about single class warlocks.
That said, I found the old short rest design interesting. it's probably best that it's removed and replaced with this (when I am being honest), but I will still lament the loss.
That said, there's a fair bit I do not like about the new design as well. I dislike the pact boon coming before the actual patron, but I understand it. It makes sense, even if I don't LIKE it. I don't like how abusable it will make single dips, and that I think is the biggest problem with putting the pact boon first. A one level dip will make half casters SAD without a major hit to their spell progression. I don't think that's good. if you want to be using cha/wis/int for your melee gish attacks, you should have to invest three levels of warlock.
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
Fair enough, I felt they seemed a bit underwhelming generally. How I see it is repelling blast does the heavy lifting to make wall of fire and insect plague work at those levels where as I think the spells should feel legit on their own for that level. Other powers and tactics should push a spell above their level.
I'm fine it comes at level 1, I'd just name it something else like arcane discoveries. Let the level 1-2 abilities represent your push into the arcane before a pact is made. Your taste of the arcane power that hooks you.
For the dip issues, I think they need to re-look at multi classing overall. Like how heavy armor does not transfer over in 5e, I'd tag some abilities as core class abilities. Instead of having the start with that class requirement, I'd change it (including heavy armor) as you need more( maybe equal) levels in that class to access the core class abilities. So pact boon you don't get it in a Warlock/paladin build unless your build is 11 warlock/9 paladin. If you ever switch to paladin in the forefront you lose the abilities and get the paladins core class instead.
I like the idea of simply making Mystic Arcanum a feature instead of an invocation choice, using that to stay on curve 1-20, and keeping the half-casting. How about this for an updated class table? (Sorry, not experienced with making tables on this site, so its copy-pasted from elsewhere.)
Level
Prof Bonus
Class Features
Invocations
Cantrips
Prepared Spells
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
1st
+2
Pact Boon, Spellcasting
-
2
2
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2nd
+2
Eldritch Invocations
2
2
3
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3rd
+2
Warlock Subclass, Mystic Arcanum (2nd)
2
2
4
3
M
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4th
+2
Feat
2
3
5
3
M
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5th
+3
Eldritch Invocation, Mystic Arcanum (3rd)
3
3
6
4
2+M
M
-
-
-
-
-
-
6th
+3
Subclass Feature
3
3
6
4
2+M
M
-
-
-
-
-
-
7th
+3
Eldritch Invocation, Mystic Arcanum (4th)
4
3
7
4
3+M
M
M
-
-
-
-
-
8th
+3
Feat
4
3
7
4
3+M
M
M
-
-
-
-
-
9th
+4
Eldritch Invocation, Mystic Arcanum (5th)
5
3
9
4
3+M
2+M
M
M
-
-
-
-
10th
+4
Subclass Feature
5
4
9
4
3+M
2+M
M
M
-
-
-
-
11th
+4
Contact Patron, Eldritch Invocation, Mystic Arcanum (6th)
6
4
10
4
3+M
3+M
M
M
M
-
-
-
12th
+4
Feat
6
4
10
4
3+M
3+M
M
M
M
-
-
-
13th
+5
Eldritch Invocation, Mystic Arcanum (7th)
7
4
11
4
3+M
3+M
1+M
M
M
M
-
-
14th
+5
Subclass Feature
7
4
11
4
3+M
3+M
1+M
M
M
M
-
-
15th
+5
Eldritch Invocation
8
4
12
4
3+M
3+M
2+M
M
M
M
M
-
16th
+5
Feat
8
4
12
4
3+M
3+M
2+M
M
M
M
M
-
17th
+6
Eldritch Invocation
9
4
14
4
3+M
3+M
2+M
1+M
M
M
M
M
18th
+6
Hex Master
9
4
14
4
3+M
3+M
2+M
1+M
M
M
M
M
19th
+6
Feat
9
4
15
4
3+M
3+M
2+M
2+M
M
M
M
M
20th
+6
Epic Boon
9
4
15
4
3+M
3+M
2+M
2+M
M
M
M
M
Ideally the Mystic Arcanum would be spell slots (so you can use them for upcasting) but I'm fine with them as slotless 1/LR spells too.
EDIT: Is there a tutorial for making class tables here that I can look at to make this easier to read?
So fireball and flame strike aren't both AoE damage spells that have about the same area effect size that do the same amount of damage with flame strike just costing a much more precious resource?
Seems pretty apples to apples to me.
I would love to hear why you think flame strike is worth 2 whole spell levels over fireball and about how RADICALLY different they are to be called an apples to oranges comparison.
I think strategies and their availability need to be taken into account. With the shove action, repelling blast and now the new push mastery forced movement is widely available.
If wall of fire was super good on its own and then you could add this forced movement thing on top and the entire party has easy access to forced movement than this spell and those like it become the premier spells in the game overshadowing all other strategies.
This is why I gave the nod to Blight. It is extremely situational, but it does have a niche where it becomes the best option.
I don't want one spell to always be the best option. This is why some spells need a tone down and others need a bump up, but this is also why the strategies+ their ease of use and availability of the strategy need to be taken into account.