CAN THIS WORK??? Eldritch Blast does 1D10 damage and has no Spell casting modifier added to its damage. Book Of Shadows you can add your Warlock spellcasting ability modifier to the damage rolls of any cantrip you cast (E. BLAST) that doesn’t already have that modifier added to its damage roll (+3 to +5). Agonizing Blast adds spell casting modifier to the damage rolls of E. Blast.... So. Does this make E. Blast do 1D10+6 to 1D10+10 damage. If so. I can live without casting HEX.
There's an answer to your own question.
It does not say anything about a cantrip getting a damage bonus from another source. Just that the cantrip itself does not have a damage bonus.
The biggest issue with the half caster model: they delayed the warlocks spell progression to level 5 spells by 8 levels unless you spend your invocations on getting access to a spell earlier. But if I'm spending those invocations on one spell I can cast once per day that's just making the warlock a weak wizard not a warlock who's getting to pick things like eldritch sight or ghostly gaze or any of the things that flavored the class before.
See this isn't actually true. We have done the experiments and the math here. At level 5 you would have 1 mystic arcanum the 2 "pact invocations" of your pact that have been rolled into the pact + 2 other invocations at 7 you could have 2 mystic arcanums and still the other part and at 9 you would still ONLY need 2 mystic arcanums and gain another invocation because you are unlocking 3rd level spells naturally at this point making the previous mystic arcanum from a 3rd level spell to a 5th level spell allowing you to have 3 invocations + your 2 "pact" invocations giving you the exact same number of invocations at level 9 as normal and still unlocking those spell. At level 11 you gain another mystic arcanum, which normally you would. You miss out on an invocation at 12, at level 13 you get another mystic arcanum as normal, but you can now recoup the lost invocation at 12 as you trade your previous level 4 for another invocation since you have unlocked 4th level spells at this level. Level 15 you another mystic level 17 you unlock 5th levels and trade the old 5th for a 9nth and get an additional invocation. These higher levels you lose out on a total of 1 invocation, but you don't lose out on invocations or spell progression until level 12 if you are taking mystic arcanum.
Huh? Current level 5 warlock has access to 3rd level spells plus 3 invocations to use on whatever, proposed warlock has level 2 spells and 3 invocations to spend on whatever. If they spend on to get a level 3 spell they're now -1 invocation. At level 7 old warlock gets level 4 spells new still only level 2 spells unless they spend an invocation to get that level 4 spells they want. Now they're either -2 invocations or -1 if they drop their level 3 spell choice. At level 9 old warlock has level 5 spells new warlock has level 3 spells so you either drop your level 4 spell to stay at -1 invocation or you keep it and you're -2 invocations. The variety of spells you have from level 3 and 4 at this point is also lower (between 1-3 depending on how many invocations you have tied up compared to 4-5 for the old warlock without any invocations tied up).
Old warlock also got 8 invocations plus 4 arcanum. New gets 9 invocations, so if you spend 4 on the arcanum options that is a net of -3 invocations.
It does not say anything about a cantrip getting a damage bonus from another source. Just that the cantrip itself does not have a damage bonus.
It doesn't have to. The Tome doesn't care where or how a cantrip has spell mod applied to its damage, only that it is. If you're a Tomelock, you don't need/want Agonizing Blast because they explicitly do not stack.
The biggest issue with the half caster model: they delayed the warlocks spell progression to level 5 spells by 8 levels unless you spend your invocations on getting access to a spell earlier. But if I'm spending those invocations on one spell I can cast once per day that's just making the warlock a weak wizard not a warlock who's getting to pick things like eldritch sight or ghostly gaze or any of the things that flavored the class before.
See this isn't actually true. We have done the experiments and the math here. At level 5 you would have 1 mystic arcanum the 2 "pact invocations" of your pact that have been rolled into the pact + 2 other invocations at 7 you could have 2 mystic arcanums and still the other part and at 9 you would still ONLY need 2 mystic arcanums and gain another invocation because you are unlocking 3rd level spells naturally at this point making the previous mystic arcanum from a 3rd level spell to a 5th level spell allowing you to have 3 invocations + your 2 "pact" invocations giving you the exact same number of invocations at level 9 as normal and still unlocking those spell. At level 11 you gain another mystic arcanum, which normally you would. You miss out on an invocation at 12, at level 13 you get another mystic arcanum as normal, but you can now recoup the lost invocation at 12 as you trade your previous level 4 for another invocation since you have unlocked 4th level spells at this level. Level 15 you another mystic level 17 you unlock 5th levels and trade the old 5th for a 9nth and get an additional invocation. These higher levels you lose out on a total of 1 invocation, but you don't lose out on invocations or spell progression until level 12 if you are taking mystic arcanum.
Huh? Current level 5 warlock has access to 3rd level spells plus 3 invocations to use on whatever, proposed warlock has level 2 spells and 3 invocations to spend on whatever. If they spend on to get a level 3 spell they're now -1 invocation. At level 7 old warlock gets level 4 spells new still only level 2 spells unless they spend an invocation to get that level 4 spells they want. Now they're either -2 invocations or -1 if they drop their level 3 spell choice. At level 9 old warlock has level 5 spells new warlock has level 3 spells so you either drop your level 4 spell to stay at -1 invocation or you keep it and you're -2 invocations. The variety of spells you have from level 3 and 4 at this point is also lower (between 1-3 depending on how many invocations you have tied up compared to 4-5 for the old warlock without any invocations tied up).
You have 3 invocations to spend on what ever. Now old warlock wants to be able to attack a second time with his pact of the blade now he only has 2 invocations to spend on what ever and 2 3rd level slots. New warlock Has 3 invocations to spend on what ever. if they use one to spend to get a third level spell they have 2 invocations to spend on what ever, they got the extra attack for free at level 5 as part of their pact. At 5 the new warlock has 2 invocations, extra attack, gets to add their charisma to the damage they do with their pact weapon regardless of their subclass a 3rd level slots 2 second level slots and 4 first level slots + a free casting of one of their patron spells. Old warlock has 2 invocation extra attack and 2 3rd level slots, and still needs to waste either a subclass to get medium armor, a feat and still needs a decent strength or dex score unless they are one very specific subclass or needs to take armor of shadows invocation, that is worth more than an invocation right there.
You are counting the "mystic arcanum tax" but aren't counting the "pact upgrade tax". So, again, they are about equivalent.
Chain lock gets investment of the chain master by default at level 1 and gets voice of the chain master by default at level 5.
Tome Lock gets Book of Ancient secrets at level 1 and gets Agonizing blast at level 5, again without using their invocation slots.
if you are going to count mystic arcanum as a tax on new lock you need to count this as taxes on old lock.
Warlocks as Half-casters works fine. Warlock + Hex + EB == Ranger + longbow + Hunter's Mark, and Warlock + Pact of the Blade == Ranger + rapier. If they bring back the Eldritch Smite Invocation then Warlock + Pact of the Blade would be almost identical to a Paladin.
Warlocks always have played like a half-caster, now they are just making that design explicit.
Remember, the DnDOne material is for the new Player's Handbook.
Until such time as they redo Xanathar's, everything there, like Eldritch Smite, is part of the rules for Warlock, just remembering to switch your Pact and Patron levels from 1 to 3 and vice versa.
You have 3 invocations to spend on what ever. Now old warlock wants to be able to attack a second time with his pact of the blade now he only has 2 invocations to spend on what ever and 2 3rd level slots. New warlock Has 3 invocations to spend on what ever. if they use one to spend to get a third level spell they have 2 invocations to spend on what ever, they got the extra attack for free at level 5 as part of their pact. At 5 the new warlock has 2 invocations, extra attack, gets to add their charisma to the damage they do with their pact weapon regardless of their subclass a 3rd level slots 2 second level slots and 4 first level slots + a free casting of one of their patron spells. Old warlock has 2 invocation extra attack and 2 3rd level slots, and still needs to waste either a subclass to get medium armor, a feat and still needs a decent strength or dex score unless they are one very specific subclass, that is worth more than an invocation right there.
You are counting the "mystic arcanum tax" but aren't counting the "pact upgrade tax". So, again, they are about equivalent.
Chain lock gets investment of the chain master by default at level 1 and gets voice of the chain master by default at level 5.
Tome Lock gets Book of Ancient secrets at level 1 and gets Agonizing blast at level 5, again without using their invocation slots.
if you are going to count mystic arcanum as a tax on new lock you need to count this as taxes on old lock.
Ahh. You're right I was not thinking of those other features..... I withdraw the bulk of my complaint.
Look, y'all can keep arguing with me that every single D&D table that's ever played a game of D&D always gets thirty-seven short rests every adventuring day and only an evil vicious murder-hearted DM who hates their table, their players, and the very concept of fun itself would deny someone eighty-three short rests a day, or you can accept the widely held and supported assertion that short rests are not widely or commonly used and short rest-dependent classes often feel constrained and undertuned as a result. Warlocks do not need to be a short rest class. Frankly nothing needs to be a short rest class; short rests should be for recovering HP via hit dice in times of great need or unusual time freedom, not enabling entire freaking classes to function on otherwise shoestring ability budgets.
Half-castering the class is a good start. Now we need to tune everything else up to match that good start.
How about one short rest. 1. Just 1. And instead of 2 pact magic slots maxing at 3, they get max of 6. And then instead of 8 (9 in the UA) invocations they get 12 with a bunch of invocations that give spells that require no spell slot that you can use for all the utility, control, buff, debuff, and combat options to choose from. Like the 12 spells they already offer via invocations. More versatility on the invocation side and just a few more slots that, as you put it before, to use up on all those scaling spells you think warlocks are only allowed to use or the D&D police will bust down their doors and take them to nerd jail.
I really don't understand this ridiculous insistence that "all you need to do to fix the Warlock is give them moar pact slots and then make them recharge on a long rest!"
Excuse me: that's exactly what they did. Half-casters have more spell slots than Pact Magic, and those slots recharge on a long rest. What else is there to do?
A because its not the same. B Pact magic was unique. C it allowed interesting Multiclassing. D It did need expansion of slots or other ways to regen slots. E making a half caster still leaves out what the other half is. If you're not a Blade Pact what are you doing? You're just a crappy caster. Other half casters have their martial abilities. New Warlocks don't.
The argument is I think keep them short rest but give them a couple more pact slots.
That's a garbage argument because it doesn't solve a single goddamn thing, and the people who say "but my table is better than yours and we always get thirteen short rests every adventuring day!" are the exception, not the rule. Short rests don't exist, and continuing to make warlocks critically over-reliant on short rests means warlocks will continue to basically not have any actual spellcasting. There is no reason for it other than nostalgia, and nostalgia's a terrible reason to do anything.
I mean short rest do exist. They are literally in the book. 6 to 8 medium to hard encounters in a day. 2 short rests in a day. Game healing is designed into the short rest. Spell healing was an emergency. You are supposed to get your HP back in a short rest. That is what it is for, what the it was designed around. Its in all the books.
Hey, I'm trying to have a calm, real dialogue. Asking you to maybe, just maybe, cut back on the cutting hyperbole.
Because I seriously cannot envision a campaign in which, over the course of anywhere between 10-20 levels, the characters are never, ever able to afford a short rest. Do the characters not have access to things like Leomund's tiny hut? Does every single foe they encounter have dispel magic or antimagic capabilities?
And I have yet to see these assertions widely made or assumed to be the norm.
If the party is traveling from Module City to the Horrible Ruins of Evildom and have a random encounter that ends up using a lot of resources (spells, healing, etc.) - isn't it reasonable to take a short rest to recover hit dice, fighters can get action surge back, warlocks get their spells back? Because if they encounter something else two hours later, they're fewked without it.
And again: I don't believe in having nice, sanded down edges for the characters. I also don't support the idea of a campaign world that's so dangerous that literally no place, no time is ever, ever safe for even an hour.
Look.
Short rests are inherently, fundamentally, a waste of time. They actively feel bad. It's not about safe or unsafe, it's about giving up time you could actually be doing something useful with instead. Short resting is sitting around doing faff-all for an entire hour while whatever it is you were trying to do that resulted in you wanting/needing a short rest gets worse. Are there times where taking that hour to do faff-all isn't going to kill you? Of course. That doesn't stop short rests from feeling like a terrible waste of time and opportunity, like you're just giving up an hour to no benefit. The fact that certain classes need short rests to function well is a WEAKNESS, not a strength. Trying to forcefully cling to warlocks being cripplingly SuperHyperMegaUltra-overdependent on short rests because PaCt MaGiC iS uNiQuE!1! is bad for the class.
It means you don't have enough resources to do what you need to do without constantly having to beg your party to stop adventuring and sit on their ***** for an hour because you need some time to go take a powder, and eventually you're going to get sick of demanding short rests and/or your party is going to start resenting you for constantly interrupting their game with Powder Breaks. Especially if you're a Tome or Chain warlock that rarely needs the actual HP recovery and are forcing the party to constantly sit around Not Adventuring, Not Playing D&D, solely so you can cast half the spells you could otherwise cast if you were a proper spellcaster.
Why do people keep insisting this is a positive thing for warlocks, that warlocks should be restricted to two whole ass spells a day unless they can successfully bully, browbeat, bamboozle or beg their team into letting them take many multiple multitudinous powder breaks throughout the day?
Because no one is saying they should be restricted to two spells per day? Give them more Pact Slots. and like I've said before the game is designed around 2 short rests per long rest.
I mean short rest do exist. They are literally in the book. 6 to 8 medium to hard encounters in a day. 2 short rests in a day. Game healing is designed into the short rest. Spell healing was an emergency. You are supposed to get your HP back in a short rest. That is what it is for, what the it was designed around. Its in all the books.
Because no one is saying they should be restricted to two spells per day? Give them more Pact Slots. and like I've said before the game is designed around 2 short rests per long rest.
They suggest that, but say nothing about how many encounters should occur between those short rests. That's equally important because they can contribute to short-rest-classes like Warlock and Monk feeling un-fun just as much as encounters per long rest can for the long rest classes. It's non-guidance.
The argument is I think keep them short rest but give them a couple more pact slots.
That's a garbage argument because it doesn't solve a single goddamn thing, and the people who say "but my table is better than yours and we always get thirteen short rests every adventuring day!" are the exception, not the rule. Short rests don't exist, and continuing to make warlocks critically over-reliant on short rests means warlocks will continue to basically not have any actual spellcasting. There is no reason for it other than nostalgia, and nostalgia's a terrible reason to do anything.
Uhh… dude (gender neutral usage), the campaign we’re in together literally just took a short rest. Like, just. And it isn’t the first one for the adventuring day either, because ArwensDaughter’s character is all outta hit dice. You can’t tell me that short rests don’t exist when your character’s party just benefited from one. Just.
Hey, I'm trying to have a calm, real dialogue. Asking you to maybe, just maybe, cut back on the cutting hyperbole.
Because I seriously cannot envision a campaign in which, over the course of anywhere between 10-20 levels, the characters are never, ever able to afford a short rest. Do the characters not have access to things like Leomund's tiny hut? Does every single foe they encounter have dispel magic or antimagic capabilities?
And I have yet to see these assertions widely made or assumed to be the norm.
If the party is traveling from Module City to the Horrible Ruins of Evildom and have a random encounter that ends up using a lot of resources (spells, healing, etc.) - isn't it reasonable to take a short rest to recover hit dice, fighters can get action surge back, warlocks get their spells back? Because if they encounter something else two hours later, they're fewked without it.
And again: I don't believe in having nice, sanded down edges for the characters. I also don't support the idea of a campaign world that's so dangerous that literally no place, no time is ever, ever safe for even an hour.
Look.
Short rests are inherently, fundamentally, a waste of time. They actively feel bad….
It's not about safe or unsafe, it's about giving up time you could actually be doing something useful with instead. Short resting is sitting around doing faff-all for an entire hour while whatever it is you were trying to do that resulted in you wanting/needing a short rest gets worse. Are there times where taking that hour to do faff-all isn't going to kill you? Of course. That doesn't stop short rests from feeling like a terrible waste of time and opportunity, like you're just giving up an hour to no benefit. The fact that certain classes need short rests to function well is a WEAKNESS, not a strength. Trying to forcefully cling to warlocks being cripplingly SuperHyperMegaUltra-overdependent on short rests because PaCt MaGiC iS uNiQuE!1! is bad for the class.
It means you don't have enough resources to do what you need to do without constantly having to beg your party to stop adventuring and sit on their ***** for an hour because you need some time to go take a powder, and eventually you're going to get sick of demanding short rests and/or your party is going to start resenting you for constantly interrupting their game with Powder Breaks. Especially if you're a Tome or Chain warlock that rarely needs the actual HP recovery and are forcing the party to constantly sit around Not Adventuring, Not Playing D&D, solely so you can cast half the spells you could otherwise cast if you were a proper spellcaster.
Why do people keep insisting this is a positive thing for warlocks, that warlocks should be restricted to two whole ass spells a day unless they can successfully bully, browbeat, bamboozle or beg their team into letting them take many multiple multitudinous powder breaks throughout the day?
That sounds like all your baggage. Short rests don’t feel bad to me. You may dislike them, but that’s a you thing, not an everybody thing, and certainly not a me thing.
Uhh… dude (gender neutral usage), the campaign we’re in together literally just took a short rest. Like, just. And it isn’t the first one for the adventuring day either, because ArwensDaughter’s character is all outta hit dice. You can’t tell me that short rests don’t exist when your character’s party just benefited from one. Just.
Short rests can be valuable without primary class resources being based on them. Secondary ones (like Channel Divinity and Action Surge) are fine. Hit Dice/Healing Surges, also fine. Pact slots and maybe ki, less so.
The argument is I think keep them short rest but give them a couple more pact slots.
That's a garbage argument because it doesn't solve a single goddamn thing, and the people who say "but my table is better than yours and we always get thirteen short rests every adventuring day!" are the exception, not the rule. Short rests don't exist, and continuing to make warlocks critically over-reliant on short rests means warlocks will continue to basically not have any actual spellcasting. There is no reason for it other than nostalgia, and nostalgia's a terrible reason to do anything.
Uhh… dude (gender neutral usage), the campaign we’re in together literally just took a short rest. Like, just. And it isn’t the first one for the adventuring day either, because ArwensDaughter’s character is all outta hit dice. You can’t tell me that short rests don’t exist when your character’s party just benefited from one. Just.
Short rests can be valuable without primary class resources being based on them. Secondary ones (like Channel Divinity and Action Surge) are fine. Hit Dice/Healing Surges, also fine. Pact slots and maybe ki, less so.
I made no mention of anything having anything to do with class features resetting on a short rest whatsoever. Yurei stated that short rests “never happen,” and I simply called them out on the fact they their character just took one. (Like, JUST.) Then I pointed out that it wasn’t the first short rest we had taken that adventuring day, but actually the 2nd, or maybe even the 3rd (I don’t really remember). So clearly short rests happen.
In future I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t chop out the relevant parts of a discussion I’m having with someone else and then make strawmen about things I hadn’t actually commented on. If you wanna debate me on something, debate me on what I actually write.
The argument is I think keep them short rest but give them a couple more pact slots.
That's a garbage argument because it doesn't solve a single goddamn thing, and the people who say "but my table is better than yours and we always get thirteen short rests every adventuring day!" are the exception, not the rule. Short rests don't exist, and continuing to make warlocks critically over-reliant on short rests means warlocks will continue to basically not have any actual spellcasting. There is no reason for it other than nostalgia, and nostalgia's a terrible reason to do anything.
Uhh… dude (gender neutral usage), the campaign we’re in together literally just took a short rest. Like, just. And it isn’t the first one for the adventuring day either, because ArwensDaughter’s character is all outta hit dice. You can’t tell me that short rests don’t exist when your character’s party just benefited from one. Just.
Short rests can be valuable without primary class resources being based on them. Secondary ones (like Channel Divinity and Action Surge) are fine. Hit Dice/Healing Surges, also fine. Pact slots and maybe ki, less so.
I made no mention of anything having anything to do with class features resetting on a short rest whatsoever. Yurei stated that short rests “never happen,” and I simply called them out on the fact they their character just took one. (Like, JUST.) Then I pointed out that it wasn’t the first short rest we had taken that adventuring day, but actually the 2nd, or maybe even the 3rd (I don’t really remember). So clearly short rests happen.
In future I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t chop out the relevant parts of a discussion I’m having with someone else and then make strawmen about things I hadn’t actually commented on. If you wanna debate me on something, debate me on what I actually write.
Will you relax? I never said you didn't think short rests are valuable. I was saying Yurei's underlying point is valid - classes with primary resources that are short-rest based have caused a lot of problems in 5e when they end up mixed in with long rest classes. The designers wanting to move away from that is a good thing. They've now done that with Warlock Pact Slots, and I expect them to do that again with Monks and ki, i mean spirit. I furthermore think that remains true regardless of whether groups have lots of short rests, none at all, or anything in between. Consistent expectations are good for design.
And as an aside, if you don't want people commenting on your discussions with other people, that's what DMs are for; this is a discussion forum.
The argument is I think keep them short rest but give them a couple more pact slots.
That's a garbage argument because it doesn't solve a single goddamn thing, and the people who say "but my table is better than yours and we always get thirteen short rests every adventuring day!" are the exception, not the rule. Short rests don't exist, and continuing to make warlocks critically over-reliant on short rests means warlocks will continue to basically not have any actual spellcasting. There is no reason for it other than nostalgia, and nostalgia's a terrible reason to do anything.
Uhh… dude (gender neutral usage), the campaign we’re in together literally just took a short rest. Like, just. And it isn’t the first one for the adventuring day either, because ArwensDaughter’s character is all outta hit dice. You can’t tell me that short rests don’t exist when your character’s party just benefited from one. Just.
Short rests can be valuable without primary class resources being based on them. Secondary ones (like Channel Divinity and Action Surge) are fine. Hit Dice/Healing Surges, also fine. Pact slots and maybe ki, less so.
I made no mention of anything having anything to do with class features resetting on a short rest whatsoever. Yurei stated that short rests “never happen,” and I simply called them out on the fact they their character just took one. (Like, JUST.) Then I pointed out that it wasn’t the first short rest we had taken that adventuring day, but actually the 2nd, or maybe even the 3rd (I don’t really remember). So clearly short rests happen.
In future I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t chop out the relevant parts of a discussion I’m having with someone else and then make strawmen about things I hadn’t actually commented on. If you wanna debate me on something, debate me on what I actually write.
Will you relax? I never said you didn't think short rests are valuable. I was saying Yurei's underlying point is valid - classes with primary resources that are short-rest based have caused a lot of problems in 5e when they end up mixed in with long rest classes. The designers wanting to move away from that is a good thing. They've now done that with Warlock Pact Slots, and I expect them to do that again with Monks and ki, i mean spirit. I furthermore think that remains true regardless of whether groups have lots of short rests, none at all, or anything in between. Consistent expectations are good for design.
And as an aside, if you don't want people commenting on your discussions with other people, that's what DMs are for; this is a discussion forum.
First off, let’s get one thing clear right off the bat. I never said not to comment on my discussions with other people. I simple asked you that if you’re going to comment on my posts to restrict yourself to what an actually write. Essentially, don’t put words in my proverbial mouth. And here you are yet again putting words in my proverbial mouth. For the second time I’ll ask you to refrain from that, it’s a nasty habit.
Second, if I weren’t relaxed I’d be using what Spock would refer to as “colorful metaphors.” As I am not, clearly I’m not worked up. Trust and believe, if I get worked up it will become readily apparent.
Now, as to Yurei’s point, I disagree. I personally don’t see any problem with short rest dependent classes mixing with long rest dependent classes. It’s not a problem for me personally, nor at the tables at which I play. Do the short rest classes occasionally have to make their resources stretch because they don’t get a second short rest in a day? Yes, absolutely. Do the long rest dependent classes have to occasionally make their resources stretch because there’s no time to, as Yurei would put it “faff off” for 8 hours and only have time for another short rest? Yes, absolutely. So it all comes out in a wash in the long run.
In addition, they could make warlocks a long rest class and still keep them as having fewer slots that automatically scale to max level as they do now. Simply triple their number of slots and make them recharge on a long rest. Fin. Fix the spells so that more of them upgrade when upcast. Add more utility spells to the list of Eldritch Invocations. Don’t just make them sad, pathetic half-casters with nothing else going for them, it’s undignified.
Finally, my dear friend Yurei is prone to excessive bouts of extreme hyperbole. It was that hyperbole I was commenting on, not their underlying point. Notice, I hadn’t contradicted their point, just called them out on a fib and some “exaggerated truths.” Basically, I was just keeping them honest. I wasn’t arguing against their underlying point, so your supporting it “against” me is both useless, and unnecessary. It was their blatant exaggerations I was refuting, nothing more.
The biggest issue with the half caster model: they delayed the warlocks spell progression to level 5 spells by 8 levels unless you spend your invocations on getting access to a spell earlier. But if I'm spending those invocations on one spell I can cast once per day that's just making the warlock a weak wizard not a warlock who's getting to pick things like eldritch sight or ghostly gaze or any of the things that flavored the class before.
See this isn't actually true. We have done the experiments and the math here. At level 5 you would have 1 mystic arcanum the 2 "pact invocations" of your pact that have been rolled into the pact + 2 other invocations at 7 you could have 2 mystic arcanums and still the other part and at 9 you would still ONLY need 2 mystic arcanums and gain another invocation because you are unlocking 3rd level spells naturally at this point making the previous mystic arcanum from a 3rd level spell to a 5th level spell allowing you to have 3 invocations + your 2 "pact" invocations giving you the exact same number of invocations at level 9 as normal and still unlocking those spell. At level 11 you gain another mystic arcanum, which normally you would. You miss out on an invocation at 12, at level 13 you get another mystic arcanum as normal, but you can now recoup the lost invocation at 12 as you trade your previous level 4 for another invocation since you have unlocked 4th level spells at this level. Level 15 you another mystic level 17 you unlock 5th levels and trade the old 5th for a 9nth and get an additional invocation. These higher levels you lose out on a total of 1 invocation, but you don't lose out on invocations or spell progression until level 12 if you are taking mystic arcanum.
Huh? Current level 5 warlock has access to 3rd level spells plus 3 invocations to use on whatever, proposed warlock has level 2 spells and 3 invocations to spend on whatever. If they spend on to get a level 3 spell they're now -1 invocation. At level 7 old warlock gets level 4 spells new still only level 2 spells unless they spend an invocation to get that level 4 spells they want. Now they're either -2 invocations or -1 if they drop their level 3 spell choice. At level 9 old warlock has level 5 spells new warlock has level 3 spells so you either drop your level 4 spell to stay at -1 invocation or you keep it and you're -2 invocations. The variety of spells you have from level 3 and 4 at this point is also lower (between 1-3 depending on how many invocations you have tied up compared to 4-5 for the old warlock without any invocations tied up).
You have 3 invocations to spend on what ever. Now old warlock wants to be able to attack a second time with his pact of the blade now he only has 2 invocations to spend on what ever and 2 3rd level slots. New warlock Has 3 invocations to spend on what ever. if they use one to spend to get a third level spell they have 2 invocations to spend on what ever, they got the extra attack for free at level 5 as part of their pact. At 5 the new warlock has 2 invocations, extra attack, gets to add their charisma to the damage they do with their pact weapon regardless of their subclass a 3rd level slots 2 second level slots and 4 first level slots + a free casting of one of their patron spells. Old warlock has 2 invocation extra attack and 2 3rd level slots, and still needs to waste either a subclass to get medium armor, a feat and still needs a decent strength or dex score unless they are one very specific subclass or needs to take armor of shadows invocation, that is worth more than an invocation right there.
You are counting the "mystic arcanum tax" but aren't counting the "pact upgrade tax". So, again, they are about equivalent.
Chain lock gets investment of the chain master by default at level 1 and gets voice of the chain master by default at level 5.
Tome Lock gets Book of Ancient secrets at level 1 and gets Agonizing blast at level 5, again without using their invocation slots.
if you are going to count mystic arcanum as a tax on new lock you need to count this as taxes on old lock.
That math still doesn't work out for me. I've got a Pact of the Chain Warlock, and I've currently taken one invocation for it (Investiture); you can also pretty much treat Agonizing Blast as mandatory for Chain Pacts as well. I'd still need to take both to get the same base attack damage from EB and less utility than I'm currently getting from my Sprite familiar, and now I'm left with 7 options and am then told I need to earmark over half of them just to get the same range of spell options I had as a base class feature in 5e, which would leave me with 6 wildcard Invocations. And instead I get half-caster progression on my spell levels, meaning a whole 9 spell slots from 1-3 to my name at level 10, as opposed to what will typically be at least 4, if not 6 effective level 5 slots. Don't try to tell me this warm and wet feeling on my head is rain.
As much as some insist, short rest are a fundamental part of the adventure narrative. Even if there were no mechanical effect, in my games they would exist. In fact, I can't conceive of an adventure game in which the characters don't stop for a moment to rest. I've always done it that way, since I started playing D&D at the age of 8. At that time there were neither short rest nor long rest. But obviously, out of pure common sense, the adventurers slept, ate, and took a moment to sit and talk to each other, etc...
Beyond that, one thing must be clear: Pact magic is not coming back. The warlock fixes will be being a half caster. Don't spend time and energy claiming pact magic back because that's not going to happen.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It does not say anything about a cantrip getting a damage bonus from another source. Just that the cantrip itself does not have a damage bonus.
Huh? Current level 5 warlock has access to 3rd level spells plus 3 invocations to use on whatever, proposed warlock has level 2 spells and 3 invocations to spend on whatever. If they spend on to get a level 3 spell they're now -1 invocation. At level 7 old warlock gets level 4 spells new still only level 2 spells unless they spend an invocation to get that level 4 spells they want. Now they're either -2 invocations or -1 if they drop their level 3 spell choice. At level 9 old warlock has level 5 spells new warlock has level 3 spells so you either drop your level 4 spell to stay at -1 invocation or you keep it and you're -2 invocations. The variety of spells you have from level 3 and 4 at this point is also lower (between 1-3 depending on how many invocations you have tied up compared to 4-5 for the old warlock without any invocations tied up).
Old warlock also got 8 invocations plus 4 arcanum. New gets 9 invocations, so if you spend 4 on the arcanum options that is a net of -3 invocations.
It doesn't have to. The Tome doesn't care where or how a cantrip has spell mod applied to its damage, only that it is. If you're a Tomelock, you don't need/want Agonizing Blast because they explicitly do not stack.
Please do not contact or message me.
You have 3 invocations to spend on what ever. Now old warlock wants to be able to attack a second time with his pact of the blade now he only has 2 invocations to spend on what ever and 2 3rd level slots. New warlock Has 3 invocations to spend on what ever. if they use one to spend to get a third level spell they have 2 invocations to spend on what ever, they got the extra attack for free at level 5 as part of their pact. At 5 the new warlock has 2 invocations, extra attack, gets to add their charisma to the damage they do with their pact weapon regardless of their subclass a 3rd level slots 2 second level slots and 4 first level slots + a free casting of one of their patron spells. Old warlock has 2 invocation extra attack and 2 3rd level slots, and still needs to waste either a subclass to get medium armor, a feat and still needs a decent strength or dex score unless they are one very specific subclass or needs to take armor of shadows invocation, that is worth more than an invocation right there.
You are counting the "mystic arcanum tax" but aren't counting the "pact upgrade tax". So, again, they are about equivalent.
Chain lock gets investment of the chain master by default at level 1 and gets voice of the chain master by default at level 5.
Tome Lock gets Book of Ancient secrets at level 1 and gets Agonizing blast at level 5, again without using their invocation slots.
if you are going to count mystic arcanum as a tax on new lock you need to count this as taxes on old lock.
Remember, the DnDOne material is for the new Player's Handbook.
Until such time as they redo Xanathar's, everything there, like Eldritch Smite, is part of the rules for Warlock, just remembering to switch your Pact and Patron levels from 1 to 3 and vice versa.
Ahh. You're right I was not thinking of those other features..... I withdraw the bulk of my complaint.
How about one short rest. 1. Just 1. And instead of 2 pact magic slots maxing at 3, they get max of 6. And then instead of 8 (9 in the UA) invocations they get 12 with a bunch of invocations that give spells that require no spell slot that you can use for all the utility, control, buff, debuff, and combat options to choose from. Like the 12 spells they already offer via invocations. More versatility on the invocation side and just a few more slots that, as you put it before, to use up on all those scaling spells you think warlocks are only allowed to use or the D&D police will bust down their doors and take them to nerd jail.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
A because its not the same. B Pact magic was unique. C it allowed interesting Multiclassing. D It did need expansion of slots or other ways to regen slots. E making a half caster still leaves out what the other half is. If you're not a Blade Pact what are you doing? You're just a crappy caster. Other half casters have their martial abilities. New Warlocks don't.
I mean short rest do exist. They are literally in the book. 6 to 8 medium to hard encounters in a day. 2 short rests in a day. Game healing is designed into the short rest. Spell healing was an emergency. You are supposed to get your HP back in a short rest. That is what it is for, what the it was designed around. Its in all the books.
Because no one is saying they should be restricted to two spells per day? Give them more Pact Slots. and like I've said before the game is designed around 2 short rests per long rest.
They suggest that, but say nothing about how many encounters should occur between those short rests. That's equally important because they can contribute to short-rest-classes like Warlock and Monk feeling un-fun just as much as encounters per long rest can for the long rest classes. It's non-guidance.
Uhh… dude (gender neutral usage), the campaign we’re in together literally just took a short rest. Like, just. And it isn’t the first one for the adventuring day either, because ArwensDaughter’s character is all outta hit dice. You can’t tell me that short rests don’t exist when your character’s party just benefited from one. Just.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
That sounds like all your baggage. Short rests don’t feel bad to me. You may dislike them, but that’s a you thing, not an everybody thing, and certainly not a me thing.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Well, if you find a way to add a bonus that is not a warlock spellcasting ability modifier, good for you. Hex works exactly like that.
Short rests can be valuable without primary class resources being based on them. Secondary ones (like Channel Divinity and Action Surge) are fine. Hit Dice/Healing Surges, also fine. Pact slots and maybe ki, less so.
I made no mention of anything having anything to do with class features resetting on a short rest whatsoever. Yurei stated that short rests “never happen,” and I simply called them out on the fact they their character just took one. (Like, JUST.) Then I pointed out that it wasn’t the first short rest we had taken that adventuring day, but actually the 2nd, or maybe even the 3rd (I don’t really remember). So clearly short rests happen.
In future I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t chop out the relevant parts of a discussion I’m having with someone else and then make strawmen about things I hadn’t actually commented on. If you wanna debate me on something, debate me on what I actually write.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Will you relax? I never said you didn't think short rests are valuable. I was saying Yurei's underlying point is valid - classes with primary resources that are short-rest based have caused a lot of problems in 5e when they end up mixed in with long rest classes. The designers wanting to move away from that is a good thing. They've now done that with Warlock Pact Slots, and I expect them to do that again with Monks and ki, i mean spirit. I furthermore think that remains true regardless of whether groups have lots of short rests, none at all, or anything in between. Consistent expectations are good for design.
And as an aside, if you don't want people commenting on your discussions with other people, that's what DMs are for; this is a discussion forum.
First off, let’s get one thing clear right off the bat. I never said not to comment on my discussions with other people. I simple asked you that if you’re going to comment on my posts to restrict yourself to what an actually write. Essentially, don’t put words in my proverbial mouth. And here you are yet again putting words in my proverbial mouth. For the second time I’ll ask you to refrain from that, it’s a nasty habit.
Second, if I weren’t relaxed I’d be using what Spock would refer to as “colorful metaphors.” As I am not, clearly I’m not worked up. Trust and believe, if I get worked up it will become readily apparent.
Now, as to Yurei’s point, I disagree. I personally don’t see any problem with short rest dependent classes mixing with long rest dependent classes. It’s not a problem for me personally, nor at the tables at which I play. Do the short rest classes occasionally have to make their resources stretch because they don’t get a second short rest in a day? Yes, absolutely. Do the long rest dependent classes have to occasionally make their resources stretch because there’s no time to, as Yurei would put it “faff off” for 8 hours and only have time for another short rest? Yes, absolutely. So it all comes out in a wash in the long run.
In addition, they could make warlocks a long rest class and still keep them as having fewer slots that automatically scale to max level as they do now. Simply triple their number of slots and make them recharge on a long rest. Fin. Fix the spells so that more of them upgrade when upcast. Add more utility spells to the list of Eldritch Invocations. Don’t just make them sad, pathetic half-casters with nothing else going for them, it’s undignified.
Finally, my dear friend Yurei is prone to excessive bouts of extreme hyperbole. It was that hyperbole I was commenting on, not their underlying point. Notice, I hadn’t contradicted their point, just called them out on a fib and some “exaggerated truths.” Basically, I was just keeping them honest. I wasn’t arguing against their underlying point, so your supporting it “against” me is both useless, and unnecessary. It was their blatant exaggerations I was refuting, nothing more.
Have I made things clear enough yet?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
That math still doesn't work out for me. I've got a Pact of the Chain Warlock, and I've currently taken one invocation for it (Investiture); you can also pretty much treat Agonizing Blast as mandatory for Chain Pacts as well. I'd still need to take both to get the same base attack damage from EB and less utility than I'm currently getting from my Sprite familiar, and now I'm left with 7 options and am then told I need to earmark over half of them just to get the same range of spell options I had as a base class feature in 5e, which would leave me with 6 wildcard Invocations. And instead I get half-caster progression on my spell levels, meaning a whole 9 spell slots from 1-3 to my name at level 10, as opposed to what will typically be at least 4, if not 6 effective level 5 slots. Don't try to tell me this warm and wet feeling on my head is rain.
As much as some insist, short rest are a fundamental part of the adventure narrative. Even if there were no mechanical effect, in my games they would exist. In fact, I can't conceive of an adventure game in which the characters don't stop for a moment to rest. I've always done it that way, since I started playing D&D at the age of 8. At that time there were neither short rest nor long rest. But obviously, out of pure common sense, the adventurers slept, ate, and took a moment to sit and talk to each other, etc...
Beyond that, one thing must be clear: Pact magic is not coming back. The warlock fixes will be being a half caster. Don't spend time and energy claiming pact magic back because that's not going to happen.