What do you think of the solution that Jeremy Crawford has proposed in his latest video? I mean, the warlock's spell level progression is like a full caster, but he gets fewer spell slots than a full caster.
We would have to see how that is reflected, since I understand that the level of the slots would not go beyond lvl 5.
hmm, I don't think they give him level 6+ spell slots. In theory that's what the Mystic Arcanum is for. I think when he said that the level of the spell slots would scale as a full caster, but would have the same number of spell slots as a half caster, he meant level 1-5 spell slots.
With that progression how do they describe multi classing spell slots? That’s a tough one which is why I believe they avoided this type of new progression. I’m just happy that even though no one a filled out the survey they are already brain storming other ways to fix the problem. Half caster just doesn’t work. Maybe they will figure out good language to make this progression work with multi classing.
I'm not going to try and predict what they mean until they actually release it, but making something that plays nicely with multiclassing seems... hard.
With that progression how do they describe multi classing spell slots? That’s a tough one which is why I believe they avoided this type of new progression. I’m just happy that even though no one a filled out the survey they are already brain storming other ways to fix the problem. Half caster just doesn’t work. Maybe they will figure out good language to make this progression work with multi classing.
Really half caster works perfectly. The problem is not that, but that there are people who don't like it. And that's fine. If a lot of people don't like something, the most wise thing to do is to look for alternatives that a majority may like.
But that doesn't mean the warlock half caster doesn't work. That's a lie. It works very well. I have played it for 9 sessions and it's better than the old warlock. And above all more fun.
A Paladin with Magic Initiate: Primal, Shillelagh, and a club is doing the same damage as a longsword or rapier from level 1, and doesn't require a Warlock dip.
But it takes a feat and get stuck to the quarterstaff weapon, limiting you very much to the possible item loot.
You're right, but I would be fairly surprised if this is still an issue in the upcoming books. If WotC doesn't get the memo that their players are picking signature weapons at level 1 and sticking with them for life, then idk what to even say.
DMs are out here going, "well, I rolled a Staff of Striking, but the player uses a greatsword... Guess it's a Greatsword of Striking now!" Might as well make it official and just decouple effects from form altogether.
Indeed I do the opposite, when in a made adventure a weapon appears, unless is something history related, I roll for the type, preserving the features. Characters must adapt to what comes, like in real life.
I'm not going to try and predict what they mean until they actually release it, but making something that plays nicely with multiclassing seems... hard.
Long as it’s fractional spell casting it’s fine. 1/4, 1/3, or staying 1/2 would be fine. 2/3 and 3/4 casters would also work, but puts us in unseen territory as far as when spells slots are gained and max spell levels at 20. They also could go with all pact slots that don’t count toward multiclass slot progression, but still recharge on long rest. So Aquilotune’s progression, but they don’t count as the Spellcasting feature. So just like 5e multiclassing would give more low level slots and no higher level slots. Unlike 5e this version would give you a more than just two slots and they wouldn’t recharge on short rest. Obvivously these are speculations that could work. I still prefer 1/3 caster + some variation of 5e pact magic with a new recharge system. Giving them Spellcasting and pact magic fits the warlock theme and multi classes just fine. The devs a WotC could figure out the balance. No matter what we know they are listening and hopefully come up with something many people will like. I’m hoping playtest 6 is Monk and new subclasses for the experts.
With that progression how do they describe multi classing spell slots? That’s a tough one which is why I believe they avoided this type of new progression. I’m just happy that even though no one a filled out the survey they are already brain storming other ways to fix the problem. Half caster just doesn’t work. Maybe they will figure out good language to make this progression work with multi classing.
Really half caster works perfectly. The problem is not that, but that there are people who don't like it. And that's fine. If a lot of people don't like something, the most wise thing to do is to look for alternatives that a majority may like.
But that doesn't mean the warlock half caster doesn't work. That's a lie. It works very well. I have played it for 9 sessions and it's better than the old warlock. And above all more fun.
It objectively doesn't if the goal is simply to adapt the current structure of the class. I literally cannot port my casual level 8 Warlock from the current setup to the UA without losing two of my four Invocations to preserve a single 3rd and 4th level spell, out of a pool of 5. You cannot tell me a revision that trashes a non-gimmicked build this badly is not damaging the overall class performance. Yes, you get a handful of additional low level slots. Congratulations! Now, what exactly are you doing with them? Pretending you're an actual combat caster while all the full casters show you up in every way at spellcasting? Being a receptacle for all the situationally useful spells those casters don't want cluttering up their own spell list? Spamming EB exactly the same way you did before the revision? It. Does. Not. Work. Not if the goal is to actually have a casting focused class. Half casting works on Paladins and Rangers because those classes are built on the assumption you'll be primarily making weapon attacks in combat while using spells as a supplement, and the core class features are built to support that. Fighting Styles on both, Paladins have Smite, more than half the Ranger subclasses add additional damage die to weapon attacks, etc. Warlocks have minor riders on EB, but nothing that's going to seriously alter the flow of combat on its own merit. Hex helps a little bit, but being required to tie up your concentration slot just to keep pace is not a solution, it's a handicap.
With that progression how do they describe multi classing spell slots? That’s a tough one which is why I believe they avoided this type of new progression. I’m just happy that even though no one a filled out the survey they are already brain storming other ways to fix the problem. Half caster just doesn’t work. Maybe they will figure out good language to make this progression work with multi classing.
Really half caster works perfectly. The problem is not that, but that there are people who don't like it. And that's fine. If a lot of people don't like something, the most wise thing to do is to look for alternatives that a majority may like.
But that doesn't mean the warlock half caster doesn't work. That's a lie. It works very well. I have played it for 9 sessions and it's better than the old warlock. And above all more fun.
I’m glad you had fun with your half caster warlock, but if they decided that fighters don’t get extra attack at 5th level, I would say that change doesn’t work. Someone could play that version of fighter and love it, but it wouldn’t change my opinion. Clearly you prefer more spells over spell power, but the actual design of 5e combat is burst damage is more important than dpr. In exploration and social situations more powerful spells are more useful than level 1 spells. The sooner you can gain higher level spells the better. The fact that they opened the Warlock up to the full arcane list is the only thing better. Being a half caster is not objectively better.
But it is that the intention is not that you can adapt your warlock of 2014 to the warlock of 2024. In fact, the intention is not that you can do that with any character. I don't know where that idea comes from.
Nor that you can mix the subclasses of 2014 with those of 2024.
The intention is that, if a group wants, they can play with the classes and subclasses of 2014. But not port characters, or mix a class of 2014 and a subclass of 2024 or the other way around. That's never going to be 100% compatible. And it is not the intention.
We must differentiate between what a functional design means and what we would like it to be. Does the new warlock work? Yes. It fulfills the function for which it has been designed without problems.
You don't like it for whatever reason? Perfect. But just because you don't like something doesn't mean it doesn't work or that it's poorly designed. What you have to ask yourself is: what is the intention of this mechanic? Is the intention fulfilled? If so, there is no design problem beyond your personal taste, which has nothing to do with design.
I don't know if creating another version of the caster progression is the right way. I thought one of the reasons they wanted to get rid of Pact Magic was to streamline how many spell slot systems there are in the game.
The half-caster system works fine for giving Warlocks more low level spell slots to play with, as long as they come up with a way to give Warlocks a way to up-cast spells to a level matching the full caster progression. I still think the solution (I've suggested this before) is to introduce a feature that allows Warlock to amplify the effective level of a spell they are casting. Here is a suggestion that could also bring some flavor to the Warlock-Patron interaction:
Patron's Power (3rd-level Warlock Feature)
Sealing the deal with your Patron grants you access to some of your Patron's immense power. You can harness this power to augment your own magical abilities.
(Flavor wise, this could be an ability that the Patron can prevent you from using if they want to, unlike the other Warlock abilities.)
When you cast a spell using a spell slot of 1st, 2nd or 3rd, you can choose to expend a use of this feature to cast the spell at higher level than the spell slot used for casting it.
When you expend a use of Patron's Power feature, the effective level of the cast spell is equal to the original level of the spell slot + 1. This increases to the original level of the spell slot + 2, when you reach the 7th level in the Warlock class.
You can use this feature 3 times per Long Rest.
This would give Warlocks upcasting progression similar to that of full-casters up to 5th level slots.
We must differentiate between what a functional design means and what we would like it to be. Does the new warlock work? Yes. It fulfills the function for which it has been designed without problems.
You don't like it for whatever reason? Perfect. But just because you don't like something doesn't mean it doesn't work or that it's poorly designed. What you have to ask yourself is: what is the intention of this mechanic? Is the intention fulfilled? If so, there is no design problem beyond your personal taste, which has nothing to do with design.
A lot of people complain about the disparity of fighters and spellcasters. If their fix was to basically bring us back to 4e it would be “functional design,” but not functional to players. Half caster warlock isn’t just a revision it’s a reimagining. Having more low level slots in a game were burst damage is more important seems counter productive.
I don't know if creating another version of the caster progression is the right way. I thought one of the reasons they wanted to get rid of Pact Magic was to streamline how many spell slot systems there are in the game.
The half-caster system works fine for giving Warlocks more low level spell slots to play with, as long as they come up with a way to give Warlocks a way to up-cast spells to a level matching the full caster progression. I still think the solution (I've suggested this before) is to introduce a feature that allows Warlock to amplify the effective level of a spell they are casting. Here is a suggestion that could also bring some flavor to the Warlock-Patron interaction:
Patron's Power (3rd-level Warlock Feature)
Sealing the deal with your Patron grants you access to some of your Patron's immense power. You can harness this power to augment your own magical abilities.
(Flavor wise, this could be an ability that the Patron can prevent you from using if they want to, unlike the other Warlock abilities.)
When you cast a spell using a spell slot of 1st, 2nd or 3rd, you can choose to expend a use of this feature to cast the spell at higher level than the spell slot used for casting it.
When you expend a use of Patron's Power feature, the effective level of the cast spell is equal to the original level of the spell slot + 1. This increases to the original level of the spell slot + 2, when you reach the 7th level in the Warlock class.
You can use this feature 3 times per Long Rest.
This would give Warlocks upcasting progression similar to that of full-casters up to 5th level slots.
While this is great for Armor of Agathys it still means you are waiting for more powerful higher level spells.
What do you think of the solution that Jeremy Crawford has proposed in his latest video? I mean, the warlock's spell level progression is like a full caster, but he gets fewer spell slots than a full caster.
We would have to see how that is reflected, since I understand that the level of the slots would not go beyond lvl 5.
I would be ecstatically over the moon for that; that's exactly what I thought they were going to do in the first place, modify pact magic to work better with long rests instead of short rests. I was genuinely stunned that they went with half casting instead in the UA.
While this is great for Armor of Agathys it still means you are waiting for more powerful higher level spells.
Ohh my ******* god I hate this system so goddamn much...
So... maybe make Mystic Arcanums start at 2nd level spells at 3rd Warlock level, and add...
Spells chosen as Mystic Arcanums count as Prepared Spells for you, and you can cast them using spell slots, but do not count towards the maximum number of Prepared Spells.
Ohh but then you run into Invocation tax problem....
Mystic Arcanum competing with invocations is an annoyance.
If they want Mystic Arcanum on a half caster chassis, then you should just get them automatically.
2nd level spell at 3rd level.
3rd level at 5th.
4th level at 7th.
5th level at 9th.
6th level at 11th.
7th level at 13th.
8th level at 15th.
9th level at 17th.
And not compete with invocations, because its a simple fact that if you have a choice between an invocation and a high level spell you will always take the higher level spell. It's an illusion of choice.
Meanwhile, my idea on creating invocations.
Invocations that provide a spell on demand should be limited to level 1 and 2 spells, with a 1 action cast (no reaction or bonus actions, so no shield or misty step). They cannot affect another unit, not to benefit or to harm. Even if they can target another character they can only be used on the caster. They cannot use materials with a cost.
From the Arcane list I think this would cover:
1 Comprehend Languages
1 Detect Magic
1 Disguise Self
1 False Life
1 Jump
1 Longstrider
1 Mage Armor
1 Silent Image
2 Alter Self
2 Darkvision
2 Enhance Ability (Tasha's)
2 Invisibility
2 Levitate
2 Locate Object
2 Nystal's Magic Aura
2 Spider Climb
Level 1 invocations can be taken from level 2 onwards. Level 2 invocations can be take from level 11 onwards. Some, like Enhance Ability, might be a bit strong for an "on demand" spell, but then it is level 11.
Mystic Arcanum competing with invocations is an annoyance.
Yeah there is one too many systems right now in the Warlock chassis. Each eating development and power resources from the other two.
Spell casting with slots
Mystic Arcanum
Eldritch Invocations
One of the three has to go. Ideally one and half. Axe spell casting with slots entirely, and split Mystic Arcanum into Lesser (Low level, at will infinite casts) and Greater (Always scaling to the highest level available to you at your current Warlock level, castable X times per Long Rest). Remove Spells Prepared, and just dramatically increase the maximum number of Eldritch Invocations.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I liked what he said in the video.
My suspect if they do the "progression like a full caster, but less spells" thing it will look like this.
Lvl 1: 2, 1st
Lvl 2: 2, 1st
Lvl 3: 2 1st, 1 2nd
Lvl 4: 2 1st, 2 2nd
Lvl 5: 2 1st, 2 2nd, 1 3rd
Lvl 6: 2 1st, 2 2nd, 2 3rd
Lvl 7: 2 1st, 2 2nd, 2 3rd 1 4th
lvl 8: 2 1st, 2 2nd, 2 3rd, 2 4th
lvl 9: 2 1st, 2 2nd, 2 3rd, 2 4th, 1 5th
lvl 10: 2 1st, 2 2nd, 2 3rd, 2 4th, 2 5th
lvl 11: 2 1st, 2 2nd, 2 3rd, 2 4th, 2 5th, 1 6th
and then just getting a 7th at 13, a 8th at 15 and a 9th at 17.
I could live with that
hmm, I don't think they give him level 6+ spell slots. In theory that's what the Mystic Arcanum is for. I think when he said that the level of the spell slots would scale as a full caster, but would have the same number of spell slots as a half caster, he meant level 1-5 spell slots.
With that progression how do they describe multi classing spell slots? That’s a tough one which is why I believe they avoided this type of new progression. I’m just happy that even though no one a filled out the survey they are already brain storming other ways to fix the problem. Half caster just doesn’t work. Maybe they will figure out good language to make this progression work with multi classing.
I'm not going to try and predict what they mean until they actually release it, but making something that plays nicely with multiclassing seems... hard.
Really half caster works perfectly. The problem is not that, but that there are people who don't like it. And that's fine. If a lot of people don't like something, the most wise thing to do is to look for alternatives that a majority may like.
But that doesn't mean the warlock half caster doesn't work. That's a lie. It works very well. I have played it for 9 sessions and it's better than the old warlock. And above all more fun.
Indeed I do the opposite, when in a made adventure a weapon appears, unless is something history related, I roll for the type, preserving the features. Characters must adapt to what comes, like in real life.
Long as it’s fractional spell casting it’s fine. 1/4, 1/3, or staying 1/2 would be fine. 2/3 and 3/4 casters would also work, but puts us in unseen territory as far as when spells slots are gained and max spell levels at 20. They also could go with all pact slots that don’t count toward multiclass slot progression, but still recharge on long rest. So Aquilotune’s progression, but they don’t count as the Spellcasting feature. So just like 5e multiclassing would give more low level slots and no higher level slots. Unlike 5e this version would give you a more than just two slots and they wouldn’t recharge on short rest. Obvivously these are speculations that could work. I still prefer 1/3 caster + some variation of 5e pact magic with a new recharge system. Giving them Spellcasting and pact magic fits the warlock theme and multi classes just fine. The devs a WotC could figure out the balance. No matter what we know they are listening and hopefully come up with something many people will like. I’m hoping playtest 6 is Monk and new subclasses for the experts.
It objectively doesn't if the goal is simply to adapt the current structure of the class. I literally cannot port my casual level 8 Warlock from the current setup to the UA without losing two of my four Invocations to preserve a single 3rd and 4th level spell, out of a pool of 5. You cannot tell me a revision that trashes a non-gimmicked build this badly is not damaging the overall class performance. Yes, you get a handful of additional low level slots. Congratulations! Now, what exactly are you doing with them? Pretending you're an actual combat caster while all the full casters show you up in every way at spellcasting? Being a receptacle for all the situationally useful spells those casters don't want cluttering up their own spell list? Spamming EB exactly the same way you did before the revision? It. Does. Not. Work. Not if the goal is to actually have a casting focused class. Half casting works on Paladins and Rangers because those classes are built on the assumption you'll be primarily making weapon attacks in combat while using spells as a supplement, and the core class features are built to support that. Fighting Styles on both, Paladins have Smite, more than half the Ranger subclasses add additional damage die to weapon attacks, etc. Warlocks have minor riders on EB, but nothing that's going to seriously alter the flow of combat on its own merit. Hex helps a little bit, but being required to tie up your concentration slot just to keep pace is not a solution, it's a handicap.
I’m glad you had fun with your half caster warlock, but if they decided that fighters don’t get extra attack at 5th level, I would say that change doesn’t work. Someone could play that version of fighter and love it, but it wouldn’t change my opinion. Clearly you prefer more spells over spell power, but the actual design of 5e combat is burst damage is more important than dpr. In exploration and social situations more powerful spells are more useful than level 1 spells. The sooner you can gain higher level spells the better. The fact that they opened the Warlock up to the full arcane list is the only thing better. Being a half caster is not objectively better.
But it is that the intention is not that you can adapt your warlock of 2014 to the warlock of 2024. In fact, the intention is not that you can do that with any character. I don't know where that idea comes from.
Nor that you can mix the subclasses of 2014 with those of 2024.
The intention is that, if a group wants, they can play with the classes and subclasses of 2014. But not port characters, or mix a class of 2014 and a subclass of 2024 or the other way around. That's never going to be 100% compatible. And it is not the intention.
We must differentiate between what a functional design means and what we would like it to be. Does the new warlock work? Yes. It fulfills the function for which it has been designed without problems.
You don't like it for whatever reason? Perfect. But just because you don't like something doesn't mean it doesn't work or that it's poorly designed. What you have to ask yourself is: what is the intention of this mechanic? Is the intention fulfilled? If so, there is no design problem beyond your personal taste, which has nothing to do with design.
I don't know if creating another version of the caster progression is the right way. I thought one of the reasons they wanted to get rid of Pact Magic was to streamline how many spell slot systems there are in the game.
The half-caster system works fine for giving Warlocks more low level spell slots to play with, as long as they come up with a way to give Warlocks a way to up-cast spells to a level matching the full caster progression. I still think the solution (I've suggested this before) is to introduce a feature that allows Warlock to amplify the effective level of a spell they are casting. Here is a suggestion that could also bring some flavor to the Warlock-Patron interaction:
This would give Warlocks upcasting progression similar to that of full-casters up to 5th level slots.
A lot of people complain about the disparity of fighters and spellcasters. If their fix was to basically bring us back to 4e it would be “functional design,” but not functional to players. Half caster warlock isn’t just a revision it’s a reimagining. Having more low level slots in a game were burst damage is more important seems counter productive.
While this is great for Armor of Agathys it still means you are waiting for more powerful higher level spells.
I would be ecstatically over the moon for that; that's exactly what I thought they were going to do in the first place, modify pact magic to work better with long rests instead of short rests. I was genuinely stunned that they went with half casting instead in the UA.
Ohh my ******* god I hate this system so goddamn much...
So... maybe make Mystic Arcanums start at 2nd level spells at 3rd Warlock level, and add...
Ohh but then you run into Invocation tax problem....
Lmao
Mystic Arcanum competing with invocations is an annoyance.
If they want Mystic Arcanum on a half caster chassis, then you should just get them automatically.
2nd level spell at 3rd level.
3rd level at 5th.
4th level at 7th.
5th level at 9th.
6th level at 11th.
7th level at 13th.
8th level at 15th.
9th level at 17th.
And not compete with invocations, because its a simple fact that if you have a choice between an invocation and a high level spell you will always take the higher level spell. It's an illusion of choice.
Meanwhile, my idea on creating invocations.
Invocations that provide a spell on demand should be limited to level 1 and 2 spells, with a 1 action cast (no reaction or bonus actions, so no shield or misty step). They cannot affect another unit, not to benefit or to harm. Even if they can target another character they can only be used on the caster. They cannot use materials with a cost.
From the Arcane list I think this would cover:
1 Comprehend Languages
1 Detect Magic
1 Disguise Self
1 False Life
1 Jump
1 Longstrider
1 Mage Armor
1 Silent Image
2 Alter Self
2 Darkvision
2 Enhance Ability (Tasha's)
2 Invisibility
2 Levitate
2 Locate Object
2 Nystal's Magic Aura
2 Spider Climb
Level 1 invocations can be taken from level 2 onwards. Level 2 invocations can be take from level 11 onwards. Some, like Enhance Ability, might be a bit strong for an "on demand" spell, but then it is level 11.
Yeah there is one too many systems right now in the Warlock chassis. Each eating development and power resources from the other two.
One of the three has to go. Ideally one and half. Axe spell casting with slots entirely, and split Mystic Arcanum into Lesser (Low level, at will infinite casts) and Greater (Always scaling to the highest level available to you at your current Warlock level, castable X times per Long Rest). Remove Spells Prepared, and just dramatically increase the maximum number of Eldritch Invocations.