So the class is fine, except for its core mechanics?
That’s a little disingenuous. The core mechanic numbers needed work. A few more spell slots.
All classes could do with a few extra options. That isn’t a unique thing for warlocks. Hence new spells and feats being released. Saying a few new utility spells for invocations isn’t saying it doesn’t work. Or that the feature is bad. It’s saying that more options could be fun. That doesn’t mean it’s broken.
let’s not lump a few suggested improvements with “the core concept isn’t ok”.
Barbarian rage is a fun ability that is overall good, but could do with some tweaks to make it better. That doesn’t mean the concept is bad. It means it could be better
Adding a few more spell slots is slapping a band-aid on a broken arm. I understand wanting to make Warlock magic feel different from other casters, but the fundamental ways that Pact Magic did that, in my experience, resulted in a less fun play experience than any other caster I have ever played. I felt like I had more magic playing an Arcane Trickster Rogue than I did as a Warlock. The way PHB Warlock was designed, unless your party basically one-shot an encounter, you were going to be spending most of your turns casting Eldritch Blast. Getting an extra spell slot means one less turn of spamming Eldritch Blast per encounter. So now instead of doing it 6 times, I'm doing it 5! Woohoo!
I agree that more options is fun. Which is why I've come to really like the UA Warlock, because having options available to you on your turn other than "I guess I use Eldritch Blast" is fun.
The way PHB Warlock was designed, unless your party basically one-shot an encounter, you were going to be spending most of your turns casting Eldritch Blast.
The last warlock I played was Undead/Pact of the Tome, and I had plenty of options each combat aside from EB, which I didn't even bother taking Agonizing Blast for because it wasn't a priority
Really, these arguments seem to have mostly devolved into "the way I played warlocks in 5e is obviously the way everyone played warlocks in 5e, therefore the changes are [insert opinion here]"
I agree that more options is fun. Which is why I've come to really like the UA Warlock, because having options available to you on your turn other than "I guess I use Eldritch Blast" is fun.
if your idea of options on a warlock is "more spell slots", then just play a wizard or sorc and reflavor your magic as coming from a pact with some entity
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Adding a few more spell slots is slapping a band-aid on a broken arm. I understand wanting to make Warlock magic feel different from other casters, but the fundamental ways that Pact Magic did that, in my experience, resulted in a less fun play experience than any other caster I have ever played. I felt like I had more magic playing an Arcane Trickster Rogue than I did as a Warlock. The way PHB Warlock was designed, unless your party basically one-shot an encounter, you were going to be spending most of your turns casting Eldritch Blast. Getting an extra spell slot means one less turn of spamming Eldritch Blast per encounter. So now instead of doing it 6 times, I'm doing it 5! Woohoo!
I agree that more options is fun. Which is why I've come to really like the UA Warlock, because having options available to you on your turn other than "I guess I use Eldritch Blast" is fun.
Whereas I've found the PHB (+XGTE) version of the warlock to be more fun than any other caster I've played. And I never felt like an eldritch blast automaton.
Unless your combats are routinely going more than 5 rounds, the warlock (with any patron) should have plenty to do in 2-4 rounds of combat. That's not a guarantee that you'll always be super impactful - dice rolls and other factors sometimes mean that you don't contribute as much.
I've shared before that just using blur and blink in tandem, two spells not usually associated with warlocks, provided a lot of fun for my warlock as well as reducing the number of successful hits the enemy made. Did it guarantee that I was maximizing my damage dice every turn? Nope. But there's more to the game than just maxing out dice rolls.
The way PHB Warlock was designed, unless your party basically one-shot an encounter, you were going to be spending most of your turns casting Eldritch Blast.
The last warlock I played was Undead/Pact of the Tome, and I had plenty of options each combat aside from EB, which I didn't even bother taking Agonizing Blast for because it wasn't a priority
I'm not saying it's impossible to make a good/fun build with the current Warlock - but it is 100% possible to make one that isn't fun. This is bad design. In the UA they mentioned getting a lot of feedback on wanting more magic for the Warlock, which suggests that most people are building Warlocks that weren't as fun as they could have been. If that's the case, the class is badly designed.
Now, sure, you could probably accidentally make a build for any class that isn't fun. But it seems to be a very common circumstance with the PHB Warlock (hence all the feedback), which suggests an issue with the design. Maybe calling it bad is an oversimplification. Perhaps unintuitive is a better word? But my main point is, having played both versions of the Warlock, I preferred the new one. And hey guess what. That in no way erases the PHB Warlock from existence. If you like it, you can still play it. But for those of us who want to enjoy the class but struggle to with the old mechanics, this new option seems like a good step in the right direction.
Someone asked, if Warlocks are half-casters, what is the other half?
Well, a Paladin is a half-Fighter half-Cleric, a Ranger is a half-Fighter half Druid, and a Warlock is a half-Wizard half Sorcerer.
If you choose to expend all your invocations as mystic arcanum, you can have more spellcasting in a day than a Wizard. That while wearing medium armor, and having cantrips out the wazoo. Celestial Tomelock looks nice.
On the other hand you can eschew mystic arcanum altogether and take on demand invocations. Alternatively you can mix them up.
If you play a human Celestial Warlock, take Pact of the Tome, and Lessons of the First Ones, you can take all three Magic Initiates for a total of 12 cantrips plus Eldritch Blast and your Pact cantrip at level 3.
You can’t just say a warlock is a combination of a caster and a caster and get half caster. Warlocks don’t get any of the metamagics or abilities to change spells. They don’t get to burn a resource to get new spells. They don’t get the wizards ability to change or learn new spells quickly they don’t learn as many spells per level. in fact they get less spell slots than both even with arcanum. And none of them pack the same punch. The only thing that gives them an edge really is POTB and eldritch blast.
And sure they can have all the cantrips but… why? We have eldritch blast? Sure a different damage type is nice but why would you ever need 12 cantrips? That’s such a huge cost for so little benefit.
and mystic arcanum aren’t free. They used to be but we lose the customisability we had before to get the same thing we had before? That isn’t an upgrade that’s paying to remain neutral.
I am genuinely curious to see at what point this new warlock gets more spells than a wizard in a day though? Especially in light of arcane recovery.
In raw numbers. If you use your 9 invocations for Mystic Arcanum you get 24 slot equivalents a day. Sure, the Wizard gets Arcane Recovery, and you can add in Spell Mastery and Signature Spells too if you like. The Wizard does get more spellcasting, but it has 22 slots in comparison. The Warlock does get one free cast from its Patron Spell list too.
So if your character devotes themselves solely to magic, like a tomelock that doesn't even need to take Agonizing Blast past level 5, and also gets two level 1 ritual spells they can change on an hour's downtime, they do have roughly the same casting as a full caster, along with being a medium armored d8 chassis. Also, of course, the Warlock now has a vastly expanded spell list, being able to draw upon the entire Arcane list. You aren't neutral, you're paying to get far better options. For example there was one Warlock subclass that could get Wish. Now all of them can. There were two that could get Fireball, now all have that option.
That said, I wouldn't take the level 1 Mystic Arcanum. I'd take Lessons of the First Ones for Magic Initiate for a level 1 spell I can recast and two cantrips.
Over a typical adventuring day, would players really notice a difference between 24 spell slots and 22? I think it unlikely. Although the Wizard can ritual cast from its spellbook, the Warlock can ritual cast any known spells with the ritual tag, and tomelock gets another couple added.
Warlock is only a "half caster" if you want it to be. It's more of a two-thirds/three-quarters caster, unless you want to go all in on mystic arcanum. As it stands you really only need four arcanum for 6, 7, 8, and 9 level spells. That leaves five to customize your character.
Someone asked, if Warlocks are half-casters, what is the other half?
Well, a Paladin is a half-Fighter half-Cleric, a Ranger is a half-Fighter half Druid, and a Warlock is a half-Wizard half Sorcerer.
If you choose to expend all your invocations as mystic arcanum, you can have more spellcasting in a day than a Wizard. That while wearing medium armor, and having cantrips out the wazoo. Celestial Tomelock looks nice.
On the other hand you can eschew mystic arcanum altogether and take on demand invocations. Alternatively you can mix them up.
If you play a human Celestial Warlock, take Pact of the Tome, and Lessons of the First Ones, you can take all three Magic Initiates for a total of 12 cantrips plus Eldritch Blast and your Pact cantrip at level 3.
You can’t just say a warlock is a combination of a caster and a caster and get half caster. Warlocks don’t get any of the metamagics or abilities to change spells. They don’t get to burn a resource to get new spells. They don’t get the wizards ability to change or learn new spells quickly they don’t learn as many spells per level. in fact they get less spell slots than both even with arcanum. And none of them pack the same punch. The only thing that gives them an edge really is POTB and eldritch blast.
And sure they can have all the cantrips but… why? We have eldritch blast? Sure a different damage type is nice but why would you ever need 12 cantrips? That’s such a huge cost for so little benefit.
and mystic arcanum aren’t free. They used to be but we lose the customisability we had before to get the same thing we had before? That isn’t an upgrade that’s paying to remain neutral.
I am genuinely curious to see at what point this new warlock gets more spells than a wizard in a day though? Especially in light of arcane recovery.
In raw numbers. If you use your 9 invocations for Mystic Arcanum you get 24 slot equivalents a day. Sure, the Wizard gets Arcane Recovery, and you can add in Spell Mastery and Signature Spells too if you like. The Wizard does get more spellcasting, but it has 22 slots in comparison. The Warlock does get one free cast from its Patron Spell list too.
So if your character devotes themselves solely to magic, like a tomelock that doesn't even need to take Agonizing Blast past level 5, and also gets two level 1 ritual spells they can change on an hour's downtime, they do have roughly the same casting as a full caster, along with being a medium armored d8 chassis. Also, of course, the Warlock now has a vastly expanded spell list, being able to draw upon the entire Arcane list. You aren't neutral, you're paying to get far better options. For example there was one Warlock subclass that could get Wish. Now all of them can. There were two that could get Fireball, now all have that option.
That said, I wouldn't take the level 1 Mystic Arcanum. I'd take Lessons of the First Ones for Magic Initiate for a level 1 spell I can recast and two cantrips.
Over a typical adventuring day, would players really notice a difference between 24 spell slots and 22? I think it unlikely. Although the Wizard can ritual cast from its spellbook, the Warlock can ritual cast any known spells with the ritual tag, and tomelock gets another couple added.
Warlock is only a "half caster" if you want it to be. It's more of a two-thirds/three-quarters caster, unless you want to go all in on mystic arcanum. As it stands you really only need four arcanum for 6, 7, 8, and 9 level spells. That leaves five to customize your character.
Just throwing it out there. If you are blowing all 9 of your invocations, the thing that is now supposed to be the defining feature of the warlock, to only just match the wizard if we ignore all of their features then why do that full stop? Because mystic arcanum aren’t spell slots. They are a single spell use. We can’t choose the spell when we cast it, it’s locked. Wizards could have multiple options for each. So could sorcerers. So we are getting worse flexibility full stop.
we have to compare all features to all features. Because mystic arcanum aren’t spell slots. So they matter as much as signature spell etc. they really aren’t a full caster as they are now. Just look at how many higher level spells the other casters get compared to warlocks.
the actual benefits for playing a warlock and specing into full caster mode vs playing a wizard or sorcerer now are nill. The other classes get more flexibility. More slots over all. More recovery of spells. More ways to modify spells. More higher level spells. More higher level spell options. Hell just look at sorcerers just getting wish…. The only thing we get is POTB and eldritch blast
I think what you mean is it’s only a half caster if you don’t build specifically in order to be a worse full caster. Sure. Take the four arcanum and have less invocations to customise your character than you did in the past. And you are no stronger than you were.
If you don’t like it, do play the effing class. Leave it the hell alone for those of us who do like it. All it really needed was a boost to the number of spell slots, a little more variety in the utility spells they could take as Eldritch Invocations, and the same thing every other caster in the game needs which is for the spells to be rewritten to get better when upcast.
So the class is fine, except for its core mechanics?
There’s a difference between needing an adjustment and needing a complete overhaul.
What if you gained more pact slots as you level but recharge on long rest. Then have an ability similar to Arcane Recovery at 2nd level where you regain 1 pact slot on a short rest and can’t do it again until a long rest. And it goes to 2 pact slots at level 5, 3 pact slots at level 11, etc. something along those lines.
I would think most tables take at least one short rest and balancing the number recovered on warlock level would be easier than the SR full regained slots so tables that don’t take many aren’t screwed and the ones that take a lot of SR aren’t OP.
If we are trying to come up with alternative systems where we keep the old Pact Magic progression I could also make a suggestion.
There are other classes that have features that give you a recourse back when you roll initative though this are usually higher level abilities. But you could do something similar for a warlock keep the 2014 PHB progression and regain 1 spell slot when you roll initiative.
The way PHB Warlock was designed, unless your party basically one-shot an encounter, you were going to be spending most of your turns casting Eldritch Blast.
The last warlock I played was Undead/Pact of the Tome, and I had plenty of options each combat aside from EB, which I didn't even bother taking Agonizing Blast for because it wasn't a priority
I'm not saying it's impossible to make a good/fun build with the current Warlock - but it is 100% possible to make one that isn't fun. This is bad design. In the UA they mentioned getting a lot of feedback on wanting more magic for the Warlock, which suggests that most people are building Warlocks that weren't as fun as they could have been. If that's the case, the class is badly designed.
Now, sure, you could probably accidentally make a build for any class that isn't fun. But it seems to be a very common circumstance with the PHB Warlock (hence all the feedback), which suggests an issue with the design. Maybe calling it bad is an oversimplification. Perhaps unintuitive is a better word? But my main point is, having played both versions of the Warlock, I preferred the new one. And hey guess what. That in no way erases the PHB Warlock from existence. If you like it, you can still play it. But for those of us who want to enjoy the class but struggle to with the old mechanics, this new option seems like a good step in the right direction.
No, what it suggests is that people were going into Warlock expecting it to be something it wasn’t intended to be. It suggests that they had no clue what they were getting into, probably because they never actually read the mechanics until after they started playing. It suggests ignorance on the part of the players more than anything. It’s like buying a sports car without actually checking it out first, and then complaining it doesn’t have enough cargo space.
No, what it suggests is that people were going into Warlock expecting it to be something it wasn’t intended to be. It suggests that they had no clue what they were getting into, probably because they never actually read the mechanics until after they started playing. It suggests ignorance on the part of the players more than anything. It’s like buying a sports car without actually checking it out first, and then complaining it doesn’t have enough cargo space.
In my experience, it's more akin to buying a sportscar that you researched and then it breaks down as soon as the warranty expires. If people are going into Warlock expecting it to be something it isn't, that's an issue with how the class is being presented to them. Again, if this is something common happening to the Warlock, more so than other classes, it's an issue with the class - not the players. The idea that players should have to meticulously research every facet of the game before playing is absurd. I should be able to say "hey, the concept of this class sounds fun" and play it and have a good time because the classes should be designed to be fun no matter which options you choose.
EDIT: Nobody blamed players for saying Ranger sucked. The class was badly designed. The fantasy of the class fulfills a certain role in the party, and the class did a poor job of actually fulfilling that role in practice.
No, what it suggests is that people were going into Warlock expecting it to be something it wasn’t intended to be. It suggests that they had no clue what they were getting into, probably because they never actually read the mechanics until after they started playing. It suggests ignorance on the part of the players more than anything. It’s like buying a sports car without actually checking it out first, and then complaining it doesn’t have enough cargo space.
In my experience, it's more akin to buying a sportscar that you researched and then it breaks down as soon as the warranty expires. If people are going into Warlock expecting it to be something it isn't, that's an issue with how the class is being presented to them. Again, if this is something common happening to the Warlock, more so than other classes, it's an issue with the class - not the players. The idea that players should have to meticulously research every facet of the game before playing is absurd. I should be able to say "hey, the concept of this class sounds fun" and play it and have a good time because the classes should be designed to be fun no matter which options you choose.
EDIT: Nobody blamed players for saying Ranger sucked. The class was badly designed. The fantasy of the class fulfills a certain role in the party, and the class did a poor job of actually fulfilling that role in practice.
🐂💩. It doesn’t take “meticulously research[ing] every facet of the game” to realize that Pact Magic is different than Spellcasting. It takes one look at the Warlock progression chart, and reading the basic 1st level features for the class. That’s it. All it takes is what I expect from every single player at every table, to at least know how their own Goddamned character works. The fact that so many players completely gloss over that stuff has nothing to do with “bad game design,” and absolutely everything to do with players not even investing the barest minimum into learning how their character works. So yeah, I blame the players for that.
🐂💩. It doesn’t take “meticulously research[ing] every facet of the game” to realize that Pact Magic is different than Spellcasting. It takes one look at the Warlock progression chart, and reading the basic 1st level features for the class. That’s it. All it takes is what I expect from every single player at every table, to at least know how their own Goddamned character works. The fact that so many players completely gloss over that stuff has nothing to do with “bad game design,” and absolutely everything to do with players not even investing the barest minimum into learning how their character works. So yeah, I blame the players for that.
You sound like a real joy to play with...
Before I played Warlock, I did read the class. I understood how it was supposed to work. And my issue with it was that as neat as it sounded on paper, in practice it wound up not being fun to actually play. Warlocks are people who sell their souls or make other bargains in exchange for power, and at no point playing the PHB Warlock did I ever really feel like I was getting a soul's worth of power. If you have a different experience, that's great for you, but it doesn't give you the right to act like I somehow play wrong. If you like the old Warlock, it's not going anywhere, but having actually played both I found the UA version did a better job of meeting the fantasy of what the class purports to be. So instead of whining about change, screaming "old Warlock was perfect except for all of the things that were wrong with it" why not actually give the new version a chance and actually compare the two? Because simply reading the UA Warlock in the document did nothing to make me excited for it. Actually playing it was a complete 180 and was one of the most fun experiences I've had in the game. And if it turns out you don't like it, nobody's going to make you use it, even if it is the final release.
🐂💩. It doesn’t take “meticulously research[ing] every facet of the game” to realize that Pact Magic is different than Spellcasting. It takes one look at the Warlock progression chart, and reading the basic 1st level features for the class. That’s it. All it takes is what I expect from every single player at every table, to at least know how their own Goddamned character works. The fact that so many players completely gloss over that stuff has nothing to do with “bad game design,” and absolutely everything to do with players not even investing the barest minimum into learning how their character works. So yeah, I blame the players for that.
You sound like a real joy to play with...
Before I played Warlock, I did read the class. I understood how it was supposed to work. And my issue with it was that as neat as it sounded on paper, in practice it wound up not being fun to actually play. Warlocks are people who sell their souls or make other bargains in exchange for power, and at no point playing the PHB Warlock did I ever really feel like I was getting a soul's worth of power. If you have a different experience, that's great for you, but it doesn't give you the right to act like I somehow play wrong. If you like the old Warlock, it's not going anywhere, but having actually played both I found the UA version did a better job of meeting the fantasy of what the class purports to be. So instead of whining about change, screaming "old Warlock was perfect except for all of the things that were wrong with it" why not actually give the new version a chance and actually compare the two? Because simply reading the UA Warlock in the document did nothing to make me excited for it. Actually playing it was a complete 180 and was one of the most fun experiences I've had in the game. And if it turns out you don't like it, nobody's going to make you use it, even if it is the final release.
First off, who’s whining and screaming?!? If you can’t take a little simple disagreement then maybe the internet isn’t the right environment for you. Just sayin’.
Second, I never said the old warlock was perfect. Does it need some work? Yes, clearly. Does it need to be completely overhauled? No.
Finally, I don’t need to play the new version of the Warlock to know I don’t like it. What I liked about the old Warlock was that it didn’t have the same leveled spell slots as every other spellcaster in the game. So the simple fact that the new Warlock uses the same leveled spell slots as every other caster is an automatic harm no for me. I liked it because it was different, so the fact that it’s now gonna be samesame is what I don’t like.
My issue is if this does make it into the final release as it is, it is a chance to rework the warlock to be what people who enjoy it want it to be lost.
It becomes something that isn’t what the majority of people (not all) who play warlocks enjoyed. No one is saying it was perfect. This half caster thing feels like something that should be a different class. And more power to that if it’s fun.
I really want this to be the chance to make the warlock a better version of a warlock, rather than just make it an off brand ranger. With a few invocations.
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.
Don't disagree with this but the hour is what hangs people up. I look it like when I go on a long hike, do I sometimes stop for an hour sure but that is more for aesthetics, we got to the top of half dome, we made it to lake X I'm going to enjoy it. But when I stop for a short rest, its usually 5-10 minutes, of me eating some jerky, drinking some water while sitting on a rock and then I get back to hiking.
🐂💩. It doesn’t take “meticulously research[ing] every facet of the game” to realize that Pact Magic is different than Spellcasting. It takes one look at the Warlock progression chart, and reading the basic 1st level features for the class. That’s it. All it takes is what I expect from every single player at every table, to at least know how their own Goddamned character works. The fact that so many players completely gloss over that stuff has nothing to do with “bad game design,” and absolutely everything to do with players not even investing the barest minimum into learning how their character works. So yeah, I blame the players for that.
You sound like a real joy to play with...
Before I played Warlock, I did read the class. I understood how it was supposed to work. And my issue with it was that as neat as it sounded on paper, in practice it wound up not being fun to actually play. Warlocks are people who sell their souls or make other bargains in exchange for power, and at no point playing the PHB Warlock did I ever really feel like I was getting a soul's worth of power. If you have a different experience, that's great for you, but it doesn't give you the right to act like I somehow play wrong. If you like the old Warlock, it's not going anywhere, but having actually played both I found the UA version did a better job of meeting the fantasy of what the class purports to be. So instead of whining about change, screaming "old Warlock was perfect except for all of the things that were wrong with it" why not actually give the new version a chance and actually compare the two? Because simply reading the UA Warlock in the document did nothing to make me excited for it. Actually playing it was a complete 180 and was one of the most fun experiences I've had in the game. And if it turns out you don't like it, nobody's going to make you use it, even if it is the final release.
First off, who’s whining and screaming?!? If you can’t take a little simple disagreement then maybe the internet isn’t the right environment for you. Just sayin’.
Second, I never said the old warlock was perfect. Does it need some work? Yes, clearly. Does it need to be completely overhauled? No.
Finally, I don’t need to play the new version of the Warlock to know I don’t like it. What I liked about the old Warlock was that it didn’t have the same leveled spell slots as every other spellcaster in the game. So the simple fact that the new Warlock uses the same leveled spell slots as every other caster is an automatic harm no for me. I liked it because it was different, so the fact that it’s now gonna be samesame is what I don’t like.
"First off, who’s whining and screaming?!?" they said, gratuitously punctuationly.
Again, nobody is going to force you to use the new Warlock. If you like the old one, it isn't going anywhere. But these changes, in my opinion at least, make the class more accessible to people and harder to muck up with bad spell/invocation choices - which is what I appreciate about it. If they can release another version that is closer to the original, but still isn't riddled with trap options, and actually meets the power fantasy that the class is meant to represent, then great, I'll probably like that too. But for now, I prefer the new UA version (which could certainly still use some tweaks as well, don't get me wrong), and that's the last I'm going to say about it here, since you (and most everyone else) seem to have already made up your mind(s) about it.
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.
I get it a small group of people want to play a goth ranger, but gloom stalker exists. don't wreck it for the warlock players.
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.
Don't disagree with this but the hour is what hangs people up. I look it like when I go on a long hike, do I sometimes stop for an hour sure but that is more for aesthetics, we got to the top of half dome, we made it to lake X I'm going to enjoy it. But when I stop for a short rest, its usually 5-10 minutes, of me eating some jerky, drinking some water while sitting on a rock and then I get back to hiking.
This seems like a weird counter. Does your DM actually make you wait a full hour in real time or something? Unless there's a planned or random encounter during that time, a short rest eats up maybe 5 minutes of table time.
I like that a short rest costs something without being too costly. An hour feels right; it's literally a fraction of the time of a long rest but a good number of classes get something back for the time resting.
If you don’t like it, do play the effing class. Leave it the hell alone for those of us who do like it. All it really needed was a boost to the number of spell slots, a little more variety in the utility spells they could take as Eldritch Invocations, and the same thing every other caster in the game needs which is for the spells to be rewritten to get better when upcast.
So the class is fine, except for its core mechanics?
That’s a little disingenuous. The core mechanic numbers needed work. A few more spell slots.
All classes could do with a few extra options. That isn’t a unique thing for warlocks. Hence new spells and feats being released. Saying a few new utility spells for invocations isn’t saying it doesn’t work. Or that the feature is bad. It’s saying that more options could be fun. That doesn’t mean it’s broken.
let’s not lump a few suggested improvements with “the core concept isn’t ok”.
Barbarian rage is a fun ability that is overall good, but could do with some tweaks to make it better. That doesn’t mean the concept is bad. It means it could be better
I'll steal the name form a earlier post, just make one invocation lesser mystic arcanum. You pick a spell from the arcane list that you could case levels 1-5, and can cast it once per day without using a slot. Make it repeatable but maybe let people take level 1/2 spells more than once. Instead of having 23 invocations covering various spells just one invocation that is flexible and repeatable.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Adding a few more spell slots is slapping a band-aid on a broken arm. I understand wanting to make Warlock magic feel different from other casters, but the fundamental ways that Pact Magic did that, in my experience, resulted in a less fun play experience than any other caster I have ever played. I felt like I had more magic playing an Arcane Trickster Rogue than I did as a Warlock. The way PHB Warlock was designed, unless your party basically one-shot an encounter, you were going to be spending most of your turns casting Eldritch Blast. Getting an extra spell slot means one less turn of spamming Eldritch Blast per encounter. So now instead of doing it 6 times, I'm doing it 5! Woohoo!
I agree that more options is fun. Which is why I've come to really like the UA Warlock, because having options available to you on your turn other than "I guess I use Eldritch Blast" is fun.
The last warlock I played was Undead/Pact of the Tome, and I had plenty of options each combat aside from EB, which I didn't even bother taking Agonizing Blast for because it wasn't a priority
Really, these arguments seem to have mostly devolved into "the way I played warlocks in 5e is obviously the way everyone played warlocks in 5e, therefore the changes are [insert opinion here]"
if your idea of options on a warlock is "more spell slots", then just play a wizard or sorc and reflavor your magic as coming from a pact with some entity
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Whereas I've found the PHB (+XGTE) version of the warlock to be more fun than any other caster I've played. And I never felt like an eldritch blast automaton.
Unless your combats are routinely going more than 5 rounds, the warlock (with any patron) should have plenty to do in 2-4 rounds of combat. That's not a guarantee that you'll always be super impactful - dice rolls and other factors sometimes mean that you don't contribute as much.
I've shared before that just using blur and blink in tandem, two spells not usually associated with warlocks, provided a lot of fun for my warlock as well as reducing the number of successful hits the enemy made. Did it guarantee that I was maximizing my damage dice every turn? Nope. But there's more to the game than just maxing out dice rolls.
I'm not saying it's impossible to make a good/fun build with the current Warlock - but it is 100% possible to make one that isn't fun. This is bad design. In the UA they mentioned getting a lot of feedback on wanting more magic for the Warlock, which suggests that most people are building Warlocks that weren't as fun as they could have been. If that's the case, the class is badly designed.
Now, sure, you could probably accidentally make a build for any class that isn't fun. But it seems to be a very common circumstance with the PHB Warlock (hence all the feedback), which suggests an issue with the design. Maybe calling it bad is an oversimplification. Perhaps unintuitive is a better word? But my main point is, having played both versions of the Warlock, I preferred the new one. And hey guess what. That in no way erases the PHB Warlock from existence. If you like it, you can still play it. But for those of us who want to enjoy the class but struggle to with the old mechanics, this new option seems like a good step in the right direction.
In raw numbers. If you use your 9 invocations for Mystic Arcanum you get 24 slot equivalents a day. Sure, the Wizard gets Arcane Recovery, and you can add in Spell Mastery and Signature Spells too if you like. The Wizard does get more spellcasting, but it has 22 slots in comparison. The Warlock does get one free cast from its Patron Spell list too.
So if your character devotes themselves solely to magic, like a tomelock that doesn't even need to take Agonizing Blast past level 5, and also gets two level 1 ritual spells they can change on an hour's downtime, they do have roughly the same casting as a full caster, along with being a medium armored d8 chassis. Also, of course, the Warlock now has a vastly expanded spell list, being able to draw upon the entire Arcane list. You aren't neutral, you're paying to get far better options. For example there was one Warlock subclass that could get Wish. Now all of them can. There were two that could get Fireball, now all have that option.
That said, I wouldn't take the level 1 Mystic Arcanum. I'd take Lessons of the First Ones for Magic Initiate for a level 1 spell I can recast and two cantrips.
Over a typical adventuring day, would players really notice a difference between 24 spell slots and 22? I think it unlikely. Although the Wizard can ritual cast from its spellbook, the Warlock can ritual cast any known spells with the ritual tag, and tomelock gets another couple added.
Warlock is only a "half caster" if you want it to be. It's more of a two-thirds/three-quarters caster, unless you want to go all in on mystic arcanum. As it stands you really only need four arcanum for 6, 7, 8, and 9 level spells. That leaves five to customize your character.
Just throwing it out there. If you are blowing all 9 of your invocations, the thing that is now supposed to be the defining feature of the warlock, to only just match the wizard if we ignore all of their features then why do that full stop? Because mystic arcanum aren’t spell slots. They are a single spell use. We can’t choose the spell when we cast it, it’s locked. Wizards could have multiple options for each. So could sorcerers. So we are getting worse flexibility full stop.
we have to compare all features to all features. Because mystic arcanum aren’t spell slots. So they matter as much as signature spell etc. they really aren’t a full caster as they are now. Just look at how many higher level spells the other casters get compared to warlocks.
the actual benefits for playing a warlock and specing into full caster mode vs playing a wizard or sorcerer now are nill. The other classes get more flexibility. More slots over all. More recovery of spells. More ways to modify spells. More higher level spells. More higher level spell options. Hell just look at sorcerers just getting wish…. The only thing we get is POTB and eldritch blast
I think what you mean is it’s only a half caster if you don’t build specifically in order to be a worse full caster. Sure. Take the four arcanum and have less invocations to customise your character than you did in the past. And you are no stronger than you were.
There’s a difference between needing an adjustment and needing a complete overhaul.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
If we are trying to come up with alternative systems where we keep the old Pact Magic progression I could also make a suggestion.
There are other classes that have features that give you a recourse back when you roll initative though this are usually higher level abilities.
But you could do something similar for a warlock keep the 2014 PHB progression and regain 1 spell slot when you roll initiative.
Warlock was never a rival of Sorcerer or Wizard as a spellcaster. Warlock is a rival or Ranger or Paladin.
No, what it suggests is that people were going into Warlock expecting it to be something it wasn’t intended to be. It suggests that they had no clue what they were getting into, probably because they never actually read the mechanics until after they started playing. It suggests ignorance on the part of the players more than anything. It’s like buying a sports car without actually checking it out first, and then complaining it doesn’t have enough cargo space.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
In my experience, it's more akin to buying a sportscar that you researched and then it breaks down as soon as the warranty expires. If people are going into Warlock expecting it to be something it isn't, that's an issue with how the class is being presented to them. Again, if this is something common happening to the Warlock, more so than other classes, it's an issue with the class - not the players. The idea that players should have to meticulously research every facet of the game before playing is absurd. I should be able to say "hey, the concept of this class sounds fun" and play it and have a good time because the classes should be designed to be fun no matter which options you choose.
EDIT: Nobody blamed players for saying Ranger sucked. The class was badly designed. The fantasy of the class fulfills a certain role in the party, and the class did a poor job of actually fulfilling that role in practice.
🐂💩. It doesn’t take “meticulously research[ing] every facet of the game” to realize that Pact Magic is different than Spellcasting. It takes one look at the Warlock progression chart, and reading the basic 1st level features for the class. That’s it. All it takes is what I expect from every single player at every table, to at least know how their own Goddamned character works. The fact that so many players completely gloss over that stuff has nothing to do with “bad game design,” and absolutely everything to do with players not even investing the barest minimum into learning how their character works. So yeah, I blame the players for that.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
You sound like a real joy to play with...
Before I played Warlock, I did read the class. I understood how it was supposed to work. And my issue with it was that as neat as it sounded on paper, in practice it wound up not being fun to actually play. Warlocks are people who sell their souls or make other bargains in exchange for power, and at no point playing the PHB Warlock did I ever really feel like I was getting a soul's worth of power. If you have a different experience, that's great for you, but it doesn't give you the right to act like I somehow play wrong. If you like the old Warlock, it's not going anywhere, but having actually played both I found the UA version did a better job of meeting the fantasy of what the class purports to be. So instead of whining about change, screaming "old Warlock was perfect except for all of the things that were wrong with it" why not actually give the new version a chance and actually compare the two? Because simply reading the UA Warlock in the document did nothing to make me excited for it. Actually playing it was a complete 180 and was one of the most fun experiences I've had in the game. And if it turns out you don't like it, nobody's going to make you use it, even if it is the final release.
First off, who’s whining and screaming?!? If you can’t take a little simple disagreement then maybe the internet isn’t the right environment for you. Just sayin’.
Second, I never said the old warlock was perfect. Does it need some work? Yes, clearly. Does it need to be completely overhauled? No.
Finally, I don’t need to play the new version of the Warlock to know I don’t like it. What I liked about the old Warlock was that it didn’t have the same leveled spell slots as every other spellcaster in the game. So the simple fact that the new Warlock uses the same leveled spell slots as every other caster is an automatic harm no for me. I liked it because it was different, so the fact that it’s now gonna be samesame is what I don’t like.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
My issue is if this does make it into the final release as it is, it is a chance to rework the warlock to be what people who enjoy it want it to be lost.
It becomes something that isn’t what the majority of people (not all) who play warlocks enjoyed. No one is saying it was perfect. This half caster thing feels like something that should be a different class. And more power to that if it’s fun.
I really want this to be the chance to make the warlock a better version of a warlock, rather than just make it an off brand ranger. With a few invocations.
Don't disagree with this but the hour is what hangs people up. I look it like when I go on a long hike, do I sometimes stop for an hour sure but that is more for aesthetics, we got to the top of half dome, we made it to lake X I'm going to enjoy it. But when I stop for a short rest, its usually 5-10 minutes, of me eating some jerky, drinking some water while sitting on a rock and then I get back to hiking.
"First off, who’s whining and screaming?!?" they said, gratuitously punctuationly.
Again, nobody is going to force you to use the new Warlock. If you like the old one, it isn't going anywhere. But these changes, in my opinion at least, make the class more accessible to people and harder to muck up with bad spell/invocation choices - which is what I appreciate about it. If they can release another version that is closer to the original, but still isn't riddled with trap options, and actually meets the power fantasy that the class is meant to represent, then great, I'll probably like that too. But for now, I prefer the new UA version (which could certainly still use some tweaks as well, don't get me wrong), and that's the last I'm going to say about it here, since you (and most everyone else) seem to have already made up your mind(s) about it.
I get it a small group of people want to play a goth ranger, but gloom stalker exists. don't wreck it for the warlock players.
This seems like a weird counter. Does your DM actually make you wait a full hour in real time or something? Unless there's a planned or random encounter during that time, a short rest eats up maybe 5 minutes of table time.
I like that a short rest costs something without being too costly. An hour feels right; it's literally a fraction of the time of a long rest but a good number of classes get something back for the time resting.
I'll steal the name form a earlier post, just make one invocation lesser mystic arcanum. You pick a spell from the arcane list that you could case levels 1-5, and can cast it once per day without using a slot. Make it repeatable but maybe let people take level 1/2 spells more than once. Instead of having 23 invocations covering various spells just one invocation that is flexible and repeatable.