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.
I wouldn't declare Pact Magic dead just yet, or declare half casting the end state. They've rolled back several other systemic changes across the UA. Part of the purpose is to see which radical changes take and which don't.
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.
Well, it is clear that a fundamental part of the changes in D&D One (and even before) is to change the features that recharge in short rest, so that they start to recharge in long rest. In fact, I am surprised that the Short Rest mechanical concept is still in the rules. Although there are reasons not to eliminate it completely.
In any case, I find it very, very difficult for WoTC to maintain a class whose features are reloaded in short rest. My impression is that this is the red line of the warlock. Anything else can be modified, deleted, or changed. But in my opinion WoTC is in no way going back to Pact Magic.
I understand WoTC is arguing that if someone wants to play Pact Magic, they can play the 2014 warlock. But the 2024 warlock will be a half caster, and the class has to be adjusted around that during playtest. That is why I think that instead of continuing to get caught up in the discussion of whether pact magic is yes, or pact magic is not, we should be aware that pact magic is not coming back, and try to think about solving the warlock's problems knowing that it is a half caster .
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.
You wouldn't take investiture with the new Warlock. It is already built into the new pact. Investiture allows the familiar to use your spell DC. The new pact familiar doesn't have anything that uses the spell dc, but does use your spell attack. The old investiture allows your familiar to attack a bonus action. The new familiar is already built in way to attack with your less used reaction keeping your bonus action free. So investiture gave you 2 things. 1 The ability to attack and 2 the ability to land debuffs easier. There are no debuffs by default (an issue I agree exists and needs fixing) but the ability to attack is built in.
Agonizing blast is the same for both so you are taking investment and agonizing blast, now you only need to take agonizing blast since investment is built in so that saves you 1 by level 2. At 5 you get voice of the chain built in but if you want spells you need to use your one on mystic arcanum. This leaves you with voice, agonizing, investment and 1 more invocation + your 3rd level slot. vs before you would have no invocations left if you took those 3. at 7 you are even, at 9 you are even because you are trading an arcanum. at 11 you are behind 1, at 13 you are even. at 15 you fall behind, at 17 you end down 1 invocation.
Here I built a level 7 Warlock real quick. Pact of the chain. Feylock is my favorite lock so I will summon a "pact familiar" Sprite.... now my sprite isn't quite as good, but it does 5 psychic damage on a hit with my spell attack, it rolls at advantage because invisible and can move away after it attacks because its invisibility does not break on attack. I have a 4th level Polymorph slot, a 3rd level Fear slot, agonizing blast and still 1 other invocation I can do what I want with so lets take Beast speech for flavor because why not or repelling blast... eldritch mind from a past book, I have options. I also have 3 second level slots and 4 first level slots so I can cast a grand total of 9 spells per day, not including my free cast of one of my auto prepared fey spells, most likely using it on phantasmal force, but Calm emotions to suppress charm or fear effects in my allies is an option as well making the total number of spells able to be cast per day to 10. I still have voice of the chain master so I can still communicate from anywhere and my little sprite body has proficiency in every skill and tool for what ever I may need and I still have an additional 7 more spells that I can prepare. So lets go shield to go with my medium armor, invisibility, detect magic that I can cast as a ritual, misty step, Levitate, Comprehend languages (ritual), Silent image
vs old archfey lock. I have 2 4th level slots that recover on a short rest. Need to take agonizing blast, investment of the chain master, voice of the chain master and sculpt flesh so I can have polymorph once per day and 8 spells known. Probably greater invis, dimension door, Fear, Fly, Invisibility, Counter spell, Dispel magic, hex. Depending on the table and the current adventure I can get 1 short rest in a day, 2 short rests in a day or 3 in a day. They may or may not come at intervals that are useful to me. Average scenario casting 6 vs 10 +ritual casting. The strength of 2 casts will likely be of the same strength as each other leaving 4 casts vs 8 casts, the 4 casts will be used on 3rd and 4th level spells in about equal order so if we are to add that together 7+7 is 14. the 8 casts will be 4 first and 4 second so 8+4 is 12. There may be times in the old where I would love to cast a spell but don't have a slot for it. unlikely to happen with good management with the new. Both have a breadth of options to deal with just about any scenario. The thing I am missing on new lock at 7... counter spell. I am likely to take less damage with new lock thanks to shield and stronger armor, unless we are fighting a spell caster where counter spell would be the difference between damage and no damage.
It isn't a clear cut one is better or worse for me. The new one has more options for me. It isn't perfect and needs work, but the invocations are not as locked up as you say. I had more options on invocations with the new than I did the old.
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.
You wouldn't take investiture with the new Warlock. It is already built into the new pact. Investiture allows the familiar to use your spell DC. The new pact familiar doesn't have anything that uses the spell dc, but does use your spell attack. The old investiture allows your familiar to attack a bonus action. The new familiar is already built in way to attack with your less used reaction keeping your bonus action free. So investiture gave you 2 things. 1 The ability to attack and 2 the ability to land debuffs easier. There are no debuffs by default (an issue I agree exists and needs fixing) but the ability to attack is built in.
Agonizing blast is the same for both so you are taking investment and agonizing blast, now you only need to take agonizing blast since investment is built in so that saves you 1 by level 2. At 5 you get voice of the chain built in but if you want spells you need to use your one on mystic arcanum. This leaves you with voice, agonizing, investment and 1 more invocation + your 3rd level slot. vs before you would have no invocations left if you took those 3. at 7 you are even, at 9 you are even because you are trading an arcanum. at 11 you are behind 1, at 13 you are even. at 15 you fall behind, at 17 you end down 1 invocation.
Here I built a level 7 Warlock real quick. Pact of the chain. Feylock is my favorite lock so I will summon a "pact familiar" Sprite.... now my sprite isn't quite as good, but it does 5 psychic damage on a hit with my spell attack, it rolls at advantage because invisible and can move away after it attacks because its invisibility does not break on attack. I have a 4th level Polymorph slot, a 3rd level Fear slot, agonizing blast and still 1 other invocation I can do what I want with so lets take Beast speech for flavor because why not or repelling blast... eldritch mind from a past book, I have options. I also have 3 second level slots and 4 first level slots so I can cast a grand total of 9 spells per day, not including my free cast of one of my auto prepared fey spells, most likely using it on phantasmal force, but Calm emotions to suppress charm or fear effects in my allies is an option as well making the total number of spells able to be cast per day to 10. I still have voice of the chain master so I can still communicate from anywhere and my little sprite body has proficiency in every skill and tool for what ever I may need and I still have an additional 7 more spells that I can prepare. So lets go shield to go with my medium armor, invisibility, detect magic that I can cast as a ritual, misty step, Levitate, Comprehend languages (ritual), Silent image
vs old archfey lock. I have 2 4th level slots that recover on a short rest. Need to take agonizing blast, investment of the chain master, voice of the chain master and sculpt flesh so I can have polymorph once per day and 8 spells known. Probably greater invis, dimension door, Fear, Fly, Invisibility, Counter spell, Dispel magic, hex. Depending on the table and the current adventure I can get 1 short rest in a day, 2 short rests in a day or 3 in a day. They may or may not come at intervals that are useful to me. Average scenario casting 6 vs 10 +ritual casting. The strength of 2 casts will likely be of the same strength as each other leaving 4 casts vs 6 casts. There may be times in the old where I would love to cast a spell but don't have a slot for it. unlikely to happen with good management with the new. Both have a breadth of options to deal with just about any scenario. The thing I am missing on new lock at 7... counter spell. I am likely to take less damage with new lock thanks to shield and stronger armor, unless we are fighting a spell caster where counter spell would be the difference between damage and no damage.
It isn't a clear cut one is better or worse for me. The new one has more options for me. It isn't perfect and needs work, but the invocations are not as locked up as you say. I had more options on invocations with the new than I did the old.
With a real Sprite familiar, I could have it attack at a distance to inflict the poisoned condition for 1 minute. Invisibility economy is worse; you need to alternate between attacking and cloaking, while I could do both in a single round. And this generic template can only attack in melee, and needs to take an invocation to inflict charmed for 1 round. The familiar is still too fragile to last long in close combat, and now you have to hope that one solid AoO doesn't take your familiar out of the game if you try to have it attack semi-regularly. If you like it, good for you, but they took a balanced ranged debuff platform and turned it into a mediocre "let's see how many times I can do something before my familiar goes 'splat'" bot.
Edit PS- Voice is nice, but it's not a priority Invocation imo. The "I invisibly scout the whole dungeon via my familiar" bit has a massive list of counters, and it's not engaging for the rest of the party.
Well, it is clear that a fundamental part of the changes in D&D One (and even before) is to change the features that recharge in short rest, so that they start to recharge in long rest. In fact, I am surprised that the Short Rest mechanical concept is still in the rules. Although there are reasons not to eliminate it completely.
In any case, I find it very, very difficult for WoTC to maintain a class whose features are reloaded in short rest. My impression is that this is the red line of the warlock. Anything else can be modified, deleted, or changed. But in my opinion WoTC is in no way going back to Pact Magic.
I understand WoTC is arguing that if someone wants to play Pact Magic, they can play the 2014 warlock. But the 2024 warlock will be a half caster, and the class has to be adjusted around that during playtest. That is why I think that instead of continuing to get caught up in the discussion of whether pact magic is yes, or pact magic is not, we should be aware that pact magic is not coming back, and try to think about solving the warlock's problems knowing that it is a half caster .
They could simply convert Pact Magic to a long rest feature instead of butchering the class completely.
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.
You wouldn't take investiture with the new Warlock. It is already built into the new pact. Investiture allows the familiar to use your spell DC. The new pact familiar doesn't have anything that uses the spell dc, but does use your spell attack. The old investiture allows your familiar to attack a bonus action. The new familiar is already built in way to attack with your less used reaction keeping your bonus action free. So investiture gave you 2 things. 1 The ability to attack and 2 the ability to land debuffs easier. There are no debuffs by default (an issue I agree exists and needs fixing) but the ability to attack is built in.
Agonizing blast is the same for both so you are taking investment and agonizing blast, now you only need to take agonizing blast since investment is built in so that saves you 1 by level 2. At 5 you get voice of the chain built in but if you want spells you need to use your one on mystic arcanum. This leaves you with voice, agonizing, investment and 1 more invocation + your 3rd level slot. vs before you would have no invocations left if you took those 3. at 7 you are even, at 9 you are even because you are trading an arcanum. at 11 you are behind 1, at 13 you are even. at 15 you fall behind, at 17 you end down 1 invocation.
Here I built a level 7 Warlock real quick. Pact of the chain. Feylock is my favorite lock so I will summon a "pact familiar" Sprite.... now my sprite isn't quite as good, but it does 5 psychic damage on a hit with my spell attack, it rolls at advantage because invisible and can move away after it attacks because its invisibility does not break on attack. I have a 4th level Polymorph slot, a 3rd level Fear slot, agonizing blast and still 1 other invocation I can do what I want with so lets take Beast speech for flavor because why not or repelling blast... eldritch mind from a past book, I have options. I also have 3 second level slots and 4 first level slots so I can cast a grand total of 9 spells per day, not including my free cast of one of my auto prepared fey spells, most likely using it on phantasmal force, but Calm emotions to suppress charm or fear effects in my allies is an option as well making the total number of spells able to be cast per day to 10. I still have voice of the chain master so I can still communicate from anywhere and my little sprite body has proficiency in every skill and tool for what ever I may need and I still have an additional 7 more spells that I can prepare. So lets go shield to go with my medium armor, invisibility, detect magic that I can cast as a ritual, misty step, Levitate, Comprehend languages (ritual), Silent image
vs old archfey lock. I have 2 4th level slots that recover on a short rest. Need to take agonizing blast, investment of the chain master, voice of the chain master and sculpt flesh so I can have polymorph once per day and 8 spells known. Probably greater invis, dimension door, Fear, Fly, Invisibility, Counter spell, Dispel magic, hex. Depending on the table and the current adventure I can get 1 short rest in a day, 2 short rests in a day or 3 in a day. They may or may not come at intervals that are useful to me. Average scenario casting 6 vs 10 +ritual casting. The strength of 2 casts will likely be of the same strength as each other leaving 4 casts vs 6 casts. There may be times in the old where I would love to cast a spell but don't have a slot for it. unlikely to happen with good management with the new. Both have a breadth of options to deal with just about any scenario. The thing I am missing on new lock at 7... counter spell. I am likely to take less damage with new lock thanks to shield and stronger armor, unless we are fighting a spell caster where counter spell would be the difference between damage and no damage.
It isn't a clear cut one is better or worse for me. The new one has more options for me. It isn't perfect and needs work, but the invocations are not as locked up as you say. I had more options on invocations with the new than I did the old.
With a real Sprite familiar, I could have it attack at a distance to inflict the poisoned condition for 1 minute. Invisibility economy is worse; you need to alternate between attacking and cloaking, while I could do both in a single round. And this generic template can only attack in melee, and needs to take an invocation to inflict charmed for 1 round. The familiar is still too fragile to last long in close combat, and now you have to hope that one solid AoO doesn't take your familiar out of the game if you try to have it attack semi-regularly. If you like it, good for you, but they took a balanced ranged debuff platform and turned it into a mediocre "let's see how many times I can do something before my familiar goes 'splat'" bot.
Edit PS- Voice is nice, but it's not a priority Invocation imo. The "I invisibly scout the whole dungeon via my familiar" bit has a massive list of counters, and it's not engaging for the rest of the party.
Note, you get voice in the new whether you want it or not so it is apart of the power budget, theoretically you don't NEED the higher level spells with mystic arcanum over the other invocations either, but as you saw even if you didn't take voice on the old one the new one could match any invocation you took instead of voice AND STILL HAVE VOICE. I 100% agree that the debuff needs to be much earlier and probably more built into the familiar, I also agree that it is still too frail, but that isn't an issue with baseline design. An opponent needs to be able to see the target to AoO the fact that the invisibility does not break the attack means the familiar CAN move away without provoking an attack of opportunity. If we were to extend this to 9 the mystic arcanum giving me fear becomes a mystic arcanum giving me wall of force and then I get a 9th chain invocation at the same time you the other has caught up on the number of invocations that I had at 7, and that debuff happens on hit with no save. Yours happens on hit with a con save, sure they use your save but con is the best save on monsters, and once the charm is being introduced there is no need to move away it can't attack either you or the sprite. The fiend option gives the poison, no save and then still gets to move away without an AoO because it is still invisible.
Hmm, maybe take one minute of concentration to trigger a reset of your Pact slots ability mod times a day? Within the controllable sphere of stats, that would be three times at level 1 with a typical build, and shouldn't hit 5 before level 8. Full casters at that level have 12 slots total, so at the standard 2 slots that brings you in slightly behind on net slots at 10, but with higher performance slots. It starts to bottom out at level 9, but then at 11 you're up to 15 again, which with an Arcanum as a class feature is equal to a full caster. The math could probably use a little tweaking, but this seems like the right neighborhood, especially if you account for the lack of a second 6th and 7th slot as a counterpoint.
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.
You wouldn't take investiture with the new Warlock. It is already built into the new pact. Investiture allows the familiar to use your spell DC. The new pact familiar doesn't have anything that uses the spell dc, but does use your spell attack. The old investiture allows your familiar to attack a bonus action. The new familiar is already built in way to attack with your less used reaction keeping your bonus action free. So investiture gave you 2 things. 1 The ability to attack and 2 the ability to land debuffs easier. There are no debuffs by default (an issue I agree exists and needs fixing) but the ability to attack is built in.
Agonizing blast is the same for both so you are taking investment and agonizing blast, now you only need to take agonizing blast since investment is built in so that saves you 1 by level 2. At 5 you get voice of the chain built in but if you want spells you need to use your one on mystic arcanum. This leaves you with voice, agonizing, investment and 1 more invocation + your 3rd level slot. vs before you would have no invocations left if you took those 3. at 7 you are even, at 9 you are even because you are trading an arcanum. at 11 you are behind 1, at 13 you are even. at 15 you fall behind, at 17 you end down 1 invocation.
Here I built a level 7 Warlock real quick. Pact of the chain. Feylock is my favorite lock so I will summon a "pact familiar" Sprite.... now my sprite isn't quite as good, but it does 5 psychic damage on a hit with my spell attack, it rolls at advantage because invisible and can move away after it attacks because its invisibility does not break on attack. I have a 4th level Polymorph slot, a 3rd level Fear slot, agonizing blast and still 1 other invocation I can do what I want with so lets take Beast speech for flavor because why not or repelling blast... eldritch mind from a past book, I have options. I also have 3 second level slots and 4 first level slots so I can cast a grand total of 9 spells per day, not including my free cast of one of my auto prepared fey spells, most likely using it on phantasmal force, but Calm emotions to suppress charm or fear effects in my allies is an option as well making the total number of spells able to be cast per day to 10. I still have voice of the chain master so I can still communicate from anywhere and my little sprite body has proficiency in every skill and tool for what ever I may need and I still have an additional 7 more spells that I can prepare. So lets go shield to go with my medium armor, invisibility, detect magic that I can cast as a ritual, misty step, Levitate, Comprehend languages (ritual), Silent image
vs old archfey lock. I have 2 4th level slots that recover on a short rest. Need to take agonizing blast, investment of the chain master, voice of the chain master and sculpt flesh so I can have polymorph once per day and 8 spells known. Probably greater invis, dimension door, Fear, Fly, Invisibility, Counter spell, Dispel magic, hex. Depending on the table and the current adventure I can get 1 short rest in a day, 2 short rests in a day or 3 in a day. They may or may not come at intervals that are useful to me. Average scenario casting 6 vs 10 +ritual casting. The strength of 2 casts will likely be of the same strength as each other leaving 4 casts vs 6 casts. There may be times in the old where I would love to cast a spell but don't have a slot for it. unlikely to happen with good management with the new. Both have a breadth of options to deal with just about any scenario. The thing I am missing on new lock at 7... counter spell. I am likely to take less damage with new lock thanks to shield and stronger armor, unless we are fighting a spell caster where counter spell would be the difference between damage and no damage.
It isn't a clear cut one is better or worse for me. The new one has more options for me. It isn't perfect and needs work, but the invocations are not as locked up as you say. I had more options on invocations with the new than I did the old.
With a real Sprite familiar, I could have it attack at a distance to inflict the poisoned condition for 1 minute. Invisibility economy is worse; you need to alternate between attacking and cloaking, while I could do both in a single round. And this generic template can only attack in melee, and needs to take an invocation to inflict charmed for 1 round. The familiar is still too fragile to last long in close combat, and now you have to hope that one solid AoO doesn't take your familiar out of the game if you try to have it attack semi-regularly. If you like it, good for you, but they took a balanced ranged debuff platform and turned it into a mediocre "let's see how many times I can do something before my familiar goes 'splat'" bot.
Edit PS- Voice is nice, but it's not a priority Invocation imo. The "I invisibly scout the whole dungeon via my familiar" bit has a massive list of counters, and it's not engaging for the rest of the party.
Note, you get voice in the new whether you want it or not so it is apart of the power budget, theoretically you don't NEED the higher level spells with mystic arcanum over the other invocations either, but as you saw even if you didn't take voice on the old one the new one could match any invocation you took instead of voice AND STILL HAVE VOICE. I 100% agree that the debuff needs to be much earlier and probably more built into the familiar, I also agree that it is still too frail, but that isn't an issue with baseline design. An opponent needs to be able to see the target to AoO the fact that the invisibility does not break the attack means the familiar CAN move away without provoking an attack of opportunity. If we were to extend this to 9 the mystic arcanum giving me fear becomes a mystic arcanum giving me wall of force and then I get a 9th chain invocation at the same time you the other has caught up on the number of invocations that I had at 7, and that debuff happens on hit with no save. Yours happens on hit with a con save, sure they use your save but con is the best save on monsters, and once the charm is being introduced there is no need to move away it can't attack either you or the sprite. The fiend option gives the poison, no save and then still gets to move away without an AoO because it is still invisible.
My bad on AoO's, but the action economy part still stands. You have to alternate actions between hiding and attacking, which means a full round of your familiar having to stay within movement range of combat while completely visible (end of turn after they attack and invisibility ends to start of their next turn). Basically the familiar sucks as an attack platform of any kind now, and it's way too easy for an enemy to take a potshot at them while they won't even have invisibility to hide them. A sprite is good because they're already at standoff range and don't have to sit through a whole rotation in the open after they've made their shot and lost their invisibility. People go on and on about CON saves, but in my experience for all that "it's the most common save", there's enough variety of enemies and save mods that you're not locked out by it, and this is a bonus action so it costs little to take the shot and wait for the die to come up low. Plus my poison lasts for a full minute, with an outside chance to render them unconscious. More effective, more viable, more flavor.
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.
You wouldn't take investiture with the new Warlock. It is already built into the new pact. Investiture allows the familiar to use your spell DC. The new pact familiar doesn't have anything that uses the spell dc, but does use your spell attack. The old investiture allows your familiar to attack a bonus action. The new familiar is already built in way to attack with your less used reaction keeping your bonus action free. So investiture gave you 2 things. 1 The ability to attack and 2 the ability to land debuffs easier. There are no debuffs by default (an issue I agree exists and needs fixing) but the ability to attack is built in.
Agonizing blast is the same for both so you are taking investment and agonizing blast, now you only need to take agonizing blast since investment is built in so that saves you 1 by level 2. At 5 you get voice of the chain built in but if you want spells you need to use your one on mystic arcanum. This leaves you with voice, agonizing, investment and 1 more invocation + your 3rd level slot. vs before you would have no invocations left if you took those 3. at 7 you are even, at 9 you are even because you are trading an arcanum. at 11 you are behind 1, at 13 you are even. at 15 you fall behind, at 17 you end down 1 invocation.
Here I built a level 7 Warlock real quick. Pact of the chain. Feylock is my favorite lock so I will summon a "pact familiar" Sprite.... now my sprite isn't quite as good, but it does 5 psychic damage on a hit with my spell attack, it rolls at advantage because invisible and can move away after it attacks because its invisibility does not break on attack. I have a 4th level Polymorph slot, a 3rd level Fear slot, agonizing blast and still 1 other invocation I can do what I want with so lets take Beast speech for flavor because why not or repelling blast... eldritch mind from a past book, I have options. I also have 3 second level slots and 4 first level slots so I can cast a grand total of 9 spells per day, not including my free cast of one of my auto prepared fey spells, most likely using it on phantasmal force, but Calm emotions to suppress charm or fear effects in my allies is an option as well making the total number of spells able to be cast per day to 10. I still have voice of the chain master so I can still communicate from anywhere and my little sprite body has proficiency in every skill and tool for what ever I may need and I still have an additional 7 more spells that I can prepare. So lets go shield to go with my medium armor, invisibility, detect magic that I can cast as a ritual, misty step, Levitate, Comprehend languages (ritual), Silent image
vs old archfey lock. I have 2 4th level slots that recover on a short rest. Need to take agonizing blast, investment of the chain master, voice of the chain master and sculpt flesh so I can have polymorph once per day and 8 spells known. Probably greater invis, dimension door, Fear, Fly, Invisibility, Counter spell, Dispel magic, hex. Depending on the table and the current adventure I can get 1 short rest in a day, 2 short rests in a day or 3 in a day. They may or may not come at intervals that are useful to me. Average scenario casting 6 vs 10 +ritual casting. The strength of 2 casts will likely be of the same strength as each other leaving 4 casts vs 6 casts. There may be times in the old where I would love to cast a spell but don't have a slot for it. unlikely to happen with good management with the new. Both have a breadth of options to deal with just about any scenario. The thing I am missing on new lock at 7... counter spell. I am likely to take less damage with new lock thanks to shield and stronger armor, unless we are fighting a spell caster where counter spell would be the difference between damage and no damage.
It isn't a clear cut one is better or worse for me. The new one has more options for me. It isn't perfect and needs work, but the invocations are not as locked up as you say. I had more options on invocations with the new than I did the old.
With a real Sprite familiar, I could have it attack at a distance to inflict the poisoned condition for 1 minute. Invisibility economy is worse; you need to alternate between attacking and cloaking, while I could do both in a single round. And this generic template can only attack in melee, and needs to take an invocation to inflict charmed for 1 round. The familiar is still too fragile to last long in close combat, and now you have to hope that one solid AoO doesn't take your familiar out of the game if you try to have it attack semi-regularly. If you like it, good for you, but they took a balanced ranged debuff platform and turned it into a mediocre "let's see how many times I can do something before my familiar goes 'splat'" bot.
Edit PS- Voice is nice, but it's not a priority Invocation imo. The "I invisibly scout the whole dungeon via my familiar" bit has a massive list of counters, and it's not engaging for the rest of the party.
Note, you get voice in the new whether you want it or not so it is apart of the power budget, theoretically you don't NEED the higher level spells with mystic arcanum over the other invocations either, but as you saw even if you didn't take voice on the old one the new one could match any invocation you took instead of voice AND STILL HAVE VOICE. I 100% agree that the debuff needs to be much earlier and probably more built into the familiar, I also agree that it is still too frail, but that isn't an issue with baseline design. An opponent needs to be able to see the target to AoO the fact that the invisibility does not break the attack means the familiar CAN move away without provoking an attack of opportunity. If we were to extend this to 9 the mystic arcanum giving me fear becomes a mystic arcanum giving me wall of force and then I get a 9th chain invocation at the same time you the other has caught up on the number of invocations that I had at 7, and that debuff happens on hit with no save. Yours happens on hit with a con save, sure they use your save but con is the best save on monsters, and once the charm is being introduced there is no need to move away it can't attack either you or the sprite. The fiend option gives the poison, no save and then still gets to move away without an AoO because it is still invisible.
My bad on AoO's, but the action economy part still stands. You have to alternate ctions between hiding and attacking, which means a full round of your familiar having to stay within movement range of combat while completely visible (end of turn after they attack and invisibility ends to start of their next turn). Basically the familiar sucks as an attack platform of any kind now, and it's way too easy for an enemy to take a potshot at them while they won't even have invisibility to hide them. A sprite is good because they're already at standoff range and don't have to sit through a whole rotation in the open after they've made their shot and lost their invisibility. People go on and on about CON saves, but in my experience for all that "it's the most common save", there's enough variety of enemies and save mods that you're not locked out by it, and this is a bonus action so it costs little to take the shot and wait for the die to come up low. Plus my poison lasts for a full minute, with an outside chance to render them unconscious. More effective, more viable, more flavor.
Remember the new familiar is using your reaction not your bonus action, so your bonus action is still available for other things like moving hex. The damage of the sprite currently is always 1, while the new familiar is doing significantly more damage at an average of 2+half warlock level so at 7 that is 5 and at 9 that is 6. In addition the current sprite breaks invisibility on attack. if it wants to be invisible it ALSO takes an action to turn invisible again meaning it also has to alternate between the 2 and with less health and the same AC it is more likely to die if the enemy has ranged attacks. Finally, needing to hit and needing a con save with a worse attack bonus is still worse odds than simply needing to hit with the warlocks spell attack. So even if the new sprite was attacking half as often its damage and odds of landing its effect are still better, you are right duration is better, but reliability is worse, and I do not believe I would call poison more flavorful than Charm for a fey creature.
Edit: to be clear I 100% believe chain familiar needs help, it needs the effects way earlier than level 9, they need more health scaling, they need higher ability scores in intellect and dex in my opinion.
Well, it is clear that a fundamental part of the changes in D&D One (and even before) is to change the features that recharge in short rest, so that they start to recharge in long rest. In fact, I am surprised that the Short Rest mechanical concept is still in the rules. Although there are reasons not to eliminate it completely.
In any case, I find it very, very difficult for WoTC to maintain a class whose features are reloaded in short rest. My impression is that this is the red line of the warlock. Anything else can be modified, deleted, or changed. But in my opinion WoTC is in no way going back to Pact Magic.
I understand WoTC is arguing that if someone wants to play Pact Magic, they can play the 2014 warlock. But the 2024 warlock will be a half caster, and the class has to be adjusted around that during playtest. That is why I think that instead of continuing to get caught up in the discussion of whether pact magic is yes, or pact magic is not, we should be aware that pact magic is not coming back, and try to think about solving the warlock's problems knowing that it is a half caster .
They could simply convert Pact Magic to a long rest feature instead of butchering the class completely.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't get it. How were they going to do that?
That is, I understand that you probably mean that they give more spell slots, but that these are recharged in long rest. However, I didn't quite see how you could do that and make it work. Let's say they give you 1 more spell slot. That would be little. Let's say your spell slots are doubled. So at low levels it could be balanced, but at level 11 it would be too many.
You have to understand that the design of the 2014 warlock was based on the fact that its spell slots recharged on short rest. So, at 11th level, you had 3 level 5 spell slots per short rest. But if you only have 3 for long rest, your magic is testimonial. And if you have, I don't know, 6. It's too much since its level is very high. And adjusting that is very difficult. Are 4 per long rest enough? And 5 are many or few?
I honestly don't see a way to make that work. Remember that we're talking about level 5 spell slots starting at level 9. And that's the problem. Having few makes your magic testimonial. But having many makes you excessively powerful since they are very high level. in 2014 version was adjusted by giving little for short rest. But in long rest it is very difficult, impossible in my opinion, to adjust that satisfactorily.
The good: love the changes to Pact Boons and the idea of warlocks getting to cast more spells.
The bad: the way warlocks get to cast more spells is implemented.
Being a half caster doesn't work. I don't believe Invocations and Pact Boons are enough to justify this change, so I came up with a rewrite that gets rid of spell slots altogether, and replaces the warlock's spellcasting system with one similar to that of Way of Four Elements Monk Chi casting:
Added a column to the Warlock table called "Mystic Arcanum Maximum Level", that shows the maximum level of the spells they can learn.
Warlocks get a number of Eldritch Power points equal to 2 * their Warlock level, that recharge when they finish a long rest.
Casting spells costs a number of Eldritch Power points equal to 1 + the level at which the spell is cast, up to a maximum of 5th level, or the level shown in the "Mystic Arcanum Maximum Level" column on the Warlock table, which ever is lower.
The level of learning "prepared spells" caps out at 5th level spells at Warlock level 9.
So the result is that Warlocks still get to cast roughly the same number of spells at comparable levels as they did before, but they have the flexibility to cast more lower level spells if they want to.
I also split the Mystic Arcanum invocation into Lesser and Greater Mystic Arcanum invocations, to further give Warlocks some flexibility for casting lower level spells.
Okay, well. That's ok. But the D&D magic system is based on spell slots. Vancian magic, which is becoming less and less Vancian, is inherent in D&D. I'm not saying that your design is bad (in Midnight for D&D 3.5 there was a similar system, and it worked), the problem is that it doesn't fit the Vancian D&D system.
They could simply convert Pact Magic to a long rest feature instead of butchering the class completely.
What was butchered, was a comatose geezer that took a nap at every opportunity, and had a double-barrel shotgun of spells that shot only twice. An arcane gish is born in its stead, and it's beautiful and solid already in its first iteration. Yeah, I'll miss having access to leveled spells as soon as all the full spellcasters, but I sure won't miss short rest dependency and having to abandon low level spells because burning one of your two 5th level slots on a 2nd level spell felt insufferable. Pact Magic didn't work. It just didn't, and no amount of crutches could save that stillborn mechanic. Good riddance.
Okay, well. That's ok. But the D&D magic system is based on spell slots. Vancian magic, which is becoming less and less Vancian, is inherent in D&D. I'm not saying that your design is bad (in Midnight for D&D 3.5 there was a similar system, and it worked), the problem is that it doesn't fit the Vancian D&D system.
It is already directly implemented in 5e with the Way of the Four Elements Monk. The D&D magic system hasn't really been truly Vancian ever since it moved onto the Spell Slot system, from preparing a certain number of spell casts each morning.
Well, it is clear that a fundamental part of the changes in D&D One (and even before) is to change the features that recharge in short rest, so that they start to recharge in long rest. In fact, I am surprised that the Short Rest mechanical concept is still in the rules. Although there are reasons not to eliminate it completely.
In any case, I find it very, very difficult for WoTC to maintain a class whose features are reloaded in short rest. My impression is that this is the red line of the warlock. Anything else can be modified, deleted, or changed. But in my opinion WoTC is in no way going back to Pact Magic.
I understand WoTC is arguing that if someone wants to play Pact Magic, they can play the 2014 warlock. But the 2024 warlock will be a half caster, and the class has to be adjusted around that during playtest. That is why I think that instead of continuing to get caught up in the discussion of whether pact magic is yes, or pact magic is not, we should be aware that pact magic is not coming back, and try to think about solving the warlock's problems knowing that it is a half caster .
They could simply convert Pact Magic to a long rest feature instead of butchering the class completely.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't get it. How were they going to do that?
That is, I understand that you probably mean that they give more spell slots, but that these are recharged in long rest. However, I didn't quite see how you could do that and make it work. Let's say they give you 1 more spell slot. That would be little. Let's say your spell slots are doubled. So at low levels it could be balanced, but at level 11 it would be too many.
You have to understand that the design of the 2014 warlock was based on the fact that its spell slots recharged on short rest. So, at 11th level, you had 3 level 5 spell slots per short rest. But if you only have 3 for long rest, your magic is testimonial. And if you have, I don't know, 6. It's too much since its level is very high. And adjusting that is very difficult. Are 4 per long rest enough? And 5 are many or few?
I honestly don't see a way to make that work. Remember that we're talking about level 5 spell slots starting at level 9. And that's the problem. Having few makes your magic testimonial. But having many makes you excessively powerful since they are very high level. in 2014 version was adjusted by giving little for short rest. But in long rest it is very difficult, impossible in my opinion, to adjust that satisfactorily.
Simplest way I've seen suggested is similar to what they did with the new Channel Divinity/Nature. Give them a set number that recharge completely after a Long Rest, and recharge partially on a Short Rest. Figuring out the numbers would take a little work, but I think it could be done. I keep seeing people talk about their party never wanting to take Short Rests, but I've never experienced that unless the DM was actively putting us in situations where taking the time for one was impossible(and that's been rare). I would rather see WotC make Short Rests more important for more classes than move away from them altogether.
Okay, well. That's ok. But the D&D magic system is based on spell slots. Vancian magic, which is becoming less and less Vancian, is inherent in D&D. I'm not saying that your design is bad (in Midnight for D&D 3.5 there was a similar system, and it worked), the problem is that it doesn't fit the Vancian D&D system.
It is already directly implemented in 5e with the Way of the Four Elements Monk. The D&D magic system hasn't really been truly Vancian ever since it moved onto the Spell Slot system, from preparing a certain number of spell casts each morning.
Yes, and it's also true that the Vancian magic system doesn't necessarily have to involve spell slots. However, that is the Vancian magic interpretation that D&D has done since its inception, and it is very difficult to change it. Basically because it is something as established as the D20.
And don't get me wrong. I don't dislike a point magic system. I'm just saying I don't think they're going to go that way. In fact I am sure that the warlock half caster has come to stay, and that nothing is going to change that. Things can be done within that, yes. But they're not going to create a new magic system, they're not going back to pact magic, and they're not going to remove spell slots. IMO.
Okay, well. That's ok. But the D&D magic system is based on spell slots. Vancian magic, which is becoming less and less Vancian, is inherent in D&D. I'm not saying that your design is bad (in Midnight for D&D 3.5 there was a similar system, and it worked), the problem is that it doesn't fit the Vancian D&D system.
It is already directly implemented in 5e with the Way of the Four Elements Monk. The D&D magic system hasn't really been truly Vancian ever since it moved onto the Spell Slot system, from preparing a certain number of spell casts each morning.
Yes, and it's also true that the Vancian magic system doesn't necessarily have to involve spell slots. However, that is the Vancian magic interpretation that D&D has done since its inception, and it is very difficult to change it. Basically because it is something as established as the D20.
And don't get me wrong. I don't dislike a point magic system. I'm just saying I don't think they're going to go that way. In fact I am sure that the warlock half caster has come to stay, and that nothing is going to change that. Things can be done within that, yes. But they're not going to create a new magic system, they're not going back to pact magic, and they're not going to remove spell slots. IMO.
I'm fine either way, as long as Warlock spells such as Armor of Agathys get the "source: warlock" tag and are scaled properly for the new suggested spell slot progression.
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.
Question. How exactly do you know it isn’t coming back? I am not married to the idea of it but I am also not going to be unhappy if it returns in a better state. frankly I think warlocks should be fullcasters and be done with it, or keep pact magic but get spell slots as per proficiency bonus. This doesn’t feel like this needs this… drastic an overhaul. If we need to tighten it up so their spell slots don’t work with other classes features then so be it.
Making them a half caster is just so unsatisfying from a mechanical and lore perspective. Sell my soul for the same magic as a guy in the woods, and less magic than a guy who plays the flute? And what is the other half of the half caster? Rangers are fighters to a degree, however you build them? Paladins get all the armour and fighting abilities. Outside of being a cantrip bot, why play a warlock when you could re flavour a paladin?
Well, it is clear that a fundamental part of the changes in D&D One (and even before) is to change the features that recharge in short rest, so that they start to recharge in long rest. In fact, I am surprised that the Short Rest mechanical concept is still in the rules. Although there are reasons not to eliminate it completely.
In any case, I find it very, very difficult for WoTC to maintain a class whose features are reloaded in short rest. My impression is that this is the red line of the warlock. Anything else can be modified, deleted, or changed. But in my opinion WoTC is in no way going back to Pact Magic.
I understand WoTC is arguing that if someone wants to play Pact Magic, they can play the 2014 warlock. But the 2024 warlock will be a half caster, and the class has to be adjusted around that during playtest. That is why I think that instead of continuing to get caught up in the discussion of whether pact magic is yes, or pact magic is not, we should be aware that pact magic is not coming back, and try to think about solving the warlock's problems knowing that it is a half caster .
They could simply convert Pact Magic to a long rest feature instead of butchering the class completely.
This is very correct. You could regain a spell slot when you roll initiative, or if you’re not in combat for an hour straight you could get one slot back.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I wouldn't declare Pact Magic dead just yet, or declare half casting the end state. They've rolled back several other systemic changes across the UA. Part of the purpose is to see which radical changes take and which don't.
Dear God I hope you’re wrong about that.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Well, it is clear that a fundamental part of the changes in D&D One (and even before) is to change the features that recharge in short rest, so that they start to recharge in long rest. In fact, I am surprised that the Short Rest mechanical concept is still in the rules. Although there are reasons not to eliminate it completely.
In any case, I find it very, very difficult for WoTC to maintain a class whose features are reloaded in short rest. My impression is that this is the red line of the warlock. Anything else can be modified, deleted, or changed. But in my opinion WoTC is in no way going back to Pact Magic.
I understand WoTC is arguing that if someone wants to play Pact Magic, they can play the 2014 warlock. But the 2024 warlock will be a half caster, and the class has to be adjusted around that during playtest. That is why I think that instead of continuing to get caught up in the discussion of whether pact magic is yes, or pact magic is not, we should be aware that pact magic is not coming back, and try to think about solving the warlock's problems knowing that it is a half caster .
You wouldn't take investiture with the new Warlock. It is already built into the new pact. Investiture allows the familiar to use your spell DC. The new pact familiar doesn't have anything that uses the spell dc, but does use your spell attack. The old investiture allows your familiar to attack a bonus action. The new familiar is already built in way to attack with your less used reaction keeping your bonus action free. So investiture gave you 2 things. 1 The ability to attack and 2 the ability to land debuffs easier. There are no debuffs by default (an issue I agree exists and needs fixing) but the ability to attack is built in.
Agonizing blast is the same for both so you are taking investment and agonizing blast, now you only need to take agonizing blast since investment is built in so that saves you 1 by level 2. At 5 you get voice of the chain built in but if you want spells you need to use your one on mystic arcanum. This leaves you with voice, agonizing, investment and 1 more invocation + your 3rd level slot. vs before you would have no invocations left if you took those 3. at 7 you are even, at 9 you are even because you are trading an arcanum. at 11 you are behind 1, at 13 you are even. at 15 you fall behind, at 17 you end down 1 invocation.
Here I built a level 7 Warlock real quick. Pact of the chain. Feylock is my favorite lock so I will summon a "pact familiar" Sprite.... now my sprite isn't quite as good, but it does 5 psychic damage on a hit with my spell attack, it rolls at advantage because invisible and can move away after it attacks because its invisibility does not break on attack. I have a 4th level Polymorph slot, a 3rd level Fear slot, agonizing blast and still 1 other invocation I can do what I want with so lets take Beast speech for flavor because why not or repelling blast... eldritch mind from a past book, I have options.
I also have 3 second level slots and 4 first level slots so I can cast a grand total of 9 spells per day, not including my free cast of one of my auto prepared fey spells, most likely using it on phantasmal force, but Calm emotions to suppress charm or fear effects in my allies is an option as well making the total number of spells able to be cast per day to 10. I still have voice of the chain master so I can still communicate from anywhere and my little sprite body has proficiency in every skill and tool for what ever I may need and I still have an additional 7 more spells that I can prepare. So lets go shield to go with my medium armor, invisibility, detect magic that I can cast as a ritual, misty step, Levitate, Comprehend languages (ritual), Silent image
vs old archfey lock. I have 2 4th level slots that recover on a short rest. Need to take agonizing blast, investment of the chain master, voice of the chain master and sculpt flesh so I can have polymorph once per day and 8 spells known. Probably greater invis, dimension door, Fear, Fly, Invisibility, Counter spell, Dispel magic, hex. Depending on the table and the current adventure I can get 1 short rest in a day, 2 short rests in a day or 3 in a day. They may or may not come at intervals that are useful to me. Average scenario casting 6 vs 10 +ritual casting. The strength of 2 casts will likely be of the same strength as each other leaving 4 casts vs 8 casts, the 4 casts will be used on 3rd and 4th level spells in about equal order so if we are to add that together 7+7 is 14. the 8 casts will be 4 first and 4 second so 8+4 is 12. There may be times in the old where I would love to cast a spell but don't have a slot for it. unlikely to happen with good management with the new. Both have a breadth of options to deal with just about any scenario. The thing I am missing on new lock at 7... counter spell. I am likely to take less damage with new lock thanks to shield and stronger armor, unless we are fighting a spell caster where counter spell would be the difference between damage and no damage.
It isn't a clear cut one is better or worse for me. The new one has more options for me. It isn't perfect and needs work, but the invocations are not as locked up as you say. I had more options on invocations with the new than I did the old.
With a real Sprite familiar, I could have it attack at a distance to inflict the poisoned condition for 1 minute. Invisibility economy is worse; you need to alternate between attacking and cloaking, while I could do both in a single round. And this generic template can only attack in melee, and needs to take an invocation to inflict charmed for 1 round. The familiar is still too fragile to last long in close combat, and now you have to hope that one solid AoO doesn't take your familiar out of the game if you try to have it attack semi-regularly. If you like it, good for you, but they took a balanced ranged debuff platform and turned it into a mediocre "let's see how many times I can do something before my familiar goes 'splat'" bot.
Edit PS- Voice is nice, but it's not a priority Invocation imo. The "I invisibly scout the whole dungeon via my familiar" bit has a massive list of counters, and it's not engaging for the rest of the party.
They could simply convert Pact Magic to a long rest feature instead of butchering the class completely.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Note, you get voice in the new whether you want it or not so it is apart of the power budget, theoretically you don't NEED the higher level spells with mystic arcanum over the other invocations either, but as you saw even if you didn't take voice on the old one the new one could match any invocation you took instead of voice AND STILL HAVE VOICE. I 100% agree that the debuff needs to be much earlier and probably more built into the familiar, I also agree that it is still too frail, but that isn't an issue with baseline design. An opponent needs to be able to see the target to AoO the fact that the invisibility does not break the attack means the familiar CAN move away without provoking an attack of opportunity. If we were to extend this to 9 the mystic arcanum giving me fear becomes a mystic arcanum giving me wall of force and then I get a 9th chain invocation at the same time you the other has caught up on the number of invocations that I had at 7, and that debuff happens on hit with no save. Yours happens on hit with a con save, sure they use your save but con is the best save on monsters, and once the charm is being introduced there is no need to move away it can't attack either you or the sprite. The fiend option gives the poison, no save and then still gets to move away without an AoO because it is still invisible.
Hmm, maybe take one minute of concentration to trigger a reset of your Pact slots ability mod times a day? Within the controllable sphere of stats, that would be three times at level 1 with a typical build, and shouldn't hit 5 before level 8. Full casters at that level have 12 slots total, so at the standard 2 slots that brings you in slightly behind on net slots at 10, but with higher performance slots. It starts to bottom out at level 9, but then at 11 you're up to 15 again, which with an Arcanum as a class feature is equal to a full caster. The math could probably use a little tweaking, but this seems like the right neighborhood, especially if you account for the lack of a second 6th and 7th slot as a counterpoint.
My bad on AoO's, but the action economy part still stands. You have to alternate actions between hiding and attacking, which means a full round of your familiar having to stay within movement range of combat while completely visible (end of turn after they attack and invisibility ends to start of their next turn). Basically the familiar sucks as an attack platform of any kind now, and it's way too easy for an enemy to take a potshot at them while they won't even have invisibility to hide them. A sprite is good because they're already at standoff range and don't have to sit through a whole rotation in the open after they've made their shot and lost their invisibility. People go on and on about CON saves, but in my experience for all that "it's the most common save", there's enough variety of enemies and save mods that you're not locked out by it, and this is a bonus action so it costs little to take the shot and wait for the die to come up low. Plus my poison lasts for a full minute, with an outside chance to render them unconscious. More effective, more viable, more flavor.
Remember the new familiar is using your reaction not your bonus action, so your bonus action is still available for other things like moving hex. The damage of the sprite currently is always 1, while the new familiar is doing significantly more damage at an average of 2+half warlock level so at 7 that is 5 and at 9 that is 6. In addition the current sprite breaks invisibility on attack. if it wants to be invisible it ALSO takes an action to turn invisible again meaning it also has to alternate between the 2 and with less health and the same AC it is more likely to die if the enemy has ranged attacks. Finally, needing to hit and needing a con save with a worse attack bonus is still worse odds than simply needing to hit with the warlocks spell attack. So even if the new sprite was attacking half as often its damage and odds of landing its effect are still better, you are right duration is better, but reliability is worse, and I do not believe I would call poison more flavorful than Charm for a fey creature.
Edit: to be clear I 100% believe chain familiar needs help, it needs the effects way earlier than level 9, they need more health scaling, they need higher ability scores in intellect and dex in my opinion.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't get it. How were they going to do that?
That is, I understand that you probably mean that they give more spell slots, but that these are recharged in long rest. However, I didn't quite see how you could do that and make it work. Let's say they give you 1 more spell slot. That would be little. Let's say your spell slots are doubled. So at low levels it could be balanced, but at level 11 it would be too many.
You have to understand that the design of the 2014 warlock was based on the fact that its spell slots recharged on short rest. So, at 11th level, you had 3 level 5 spell slots per short rest. But if you only have 3 for long rest, your magic is testimonial. And if you have, I don't know, 6. It's too much since its level is very high. And adjusting that is very difficult. Are 4 per long rest enough? And 5 are many or few?
I honestly don't see a way to make that work. Remember that we're talking about level 5 spell slots starting at level 9. And that's the problem. Having few makes your magic testimonial. But having many makes you excessively powerful since they are very high level. in 2014 version was adjusted by giving little for short rest. But in long rest it is very difficult, impossible in my opinion, to adjust that satisfactorily.
The good: love the changes to Pact Boons and the idea of warlocks getting to cast more spells.
The bad: the way warlocks get to cast more spells is implemented.
Being a half caster doesn't work. I don't believe Invocations and Pact Boons are enough to justify this change, so I came up with a rewrite that gets rid of spell slots altogether, and replaces the warlock's spellcasting system with one similar to that of Way of Four Elements Monk Chi casting:
So the result is that Warlocks still get to cast roughly the same number of spells at comparable levels as they did before, but they have the flexibility to cast more lower level spells if they want to.
I also split the Mystic Arcanum invocation into Lesser and Greater Mystic Arcanum invocations, to further give Warlocks some flexibility for casting lower level spells.
Okay, well. That's ok. But the D&D magic system is based on spell slots. Vancian magic, which is becoming less and less Vancian, is inherent in D&D. I'm not saying that your design is bad (in Midnight for D&D 3.5 there was a similar system, and it worked), the problem is that it doesn't fit the Vancian D&D system.
What was butchered, was a comatose geezer that took a nap at every opportunity, and had a double-barrel shotgun of spells that shot only twice. An arcane gish is born in its stead, and it's beautiful and solid already in its first iteration. Yeah, I'll miss having access to leveled spells as soon as all the full spellcasters, but I sure won't miss short rest dependency and having to abandon low level spells because burning one of your two 5th level slots on a 2nd level spell felt insufferable. Pact Magic didn't work. It just didn't, and no amount of crutches could save that stillborn mechanic. Good riddance.
It is already directly implemented in 5e with the Way of the Four Elements Monk. The D&D magic system hasn't really been truly Vancian ever since it moved onto the Spell Slot system, from preparing a certain number of spell casts each morning.
Simplest way I've seen suggested is similar to what they did with the new Channel Divinity/Nature. Give them a set number that recharge completely after a Long Rest, and recharge partially on a Short Rest. Figuring out the numbers would take a little work, but I think it could be done. I keep seeing people talk about their party never wanting to take Short Rests, but I've never experienced that unless the DM was actively putting us in situations where taking the time for one was impossible(and that's been rare). I would rather see WotC make Short Rests more important for more classes than move away from them altogether.
Yes, and it's also true that the Vancian magic system doesn't necessarily have to involve spell slots. However, that is the Vancian magic interpretation that D&D has done since its inception, and it is very difficult to change it. Basically because it is something as established as the D20.
And don't get me wrong. I don't dislike a point magic system. I'm just saying I don't think they're going to go that way. In fact I am sure that the warlock half caster has come to stay, and that nothing is going to change that. Things can be done within that, yes. But they're not going to create a new magic system, they're not going back to pact magic, and they're not going to remove spell slots. IMO.
I'm fine either way, as long as Warlock spells such as Armor of Agathys get the "source: warlock" tag and are scaled properly for the new suggested spell slot progression.
Question. How exactly do you know it isn’t coming back? I am not married to the idea of it but I am also not going to be unhappy if it returns in a better state.
frankly I think warlocks should be fullcasters and be done with it, or keep pact magic but get spell slots as per proficiency bonus. This doesn’t feel like this needs this… drastic an overhaul. If we need to tighten it up so their spell slots don’t work with other classes features then so be it.
Making them a half caster is just so unsatisfying from a mechanical and lore perspective. Sell my soul for the same magic as a guy in the woods, and less magic than a guy who plays the flute? And what is the other half of the half caster? Rangers are fighters to a degree, however you build them? Paladins get all the armour and fighting abilities. Outside of being a cantrip bot, why play a warlock when you could re flavour a paladin?
This is very correct. You could regain a spell slot when you roll initiative, or if you’re not in combat for an hour straight you could get one slot back.