To add to the short rest argument thing. The "if you have 10 minutes you have an hour" the proper term is "if you have 10 minutes you PROBABLY have an hour". "If you have an hour you MIGHT have 8 hours"
So if you have 10 minutes it is an 85% chance you have an hour. If you have an hour you have like a 65% chance to have 8. If you have 8 there is a 90% you have 16.
So if you have 10 minutes, 85% you have time for short, 55% for long IF it has already been nearly a day, under 50% if it hasn't.
This is all a rough estimate. The actual odds are much lower for the long rest thing because the short rest is based on rolling every 20 minutes for a random encounter on a 1 on a d20.
So the actual numbers for a long rest would be around 30% because the chances change exponentially. 8% if it hasn't been 16 hours since you took one.
Assuming you are using a random encounter instead of more a breathing world where you are making decision based on the activities of the enemies in the keep or whatever I'm not sure what you are saying makes sense. In the sense that yeah you generally should have a hour as 3 rolls most likely wont pull a 1 on a 20, sure. But the odds are still 1/6th that for it happening in your 10 minute short rest. Instead of rolling 3 1d20s since most random encounters are based on a hour and 18-20 means there is one, and if there was one in the hour I'd roll a d6 and on a 6 it was during the 10 minute short rest. Either way the math is basically the same except for the possibility for multiple random encounters. In the 1 every 20 minutes method, though it would be very rare.
Using your math a hour would have 3 shots at 1 in 20. So roughly 85%. in a 10 minute short rest its 1 in 40. As its a 50% chance in that 1 in 20 to be during your 10 minutes vs the other 10 minutes of the 20 minutes. If you say one result is a 15% chance of failure one is a 2.5% chance of failure, are they close, sort of 12.5% difference isn't massive across 100%, but it practice that difference is pretty huge. Across 2 short rests you'd like see a 1 hour rest interrupted every couple days assuming you were always in a place with a 20 minute random encounter threat level. You will go weeks with a 10 minute short rest before one is interrupted, again assuming you are constantly in a threat area with a 20 minute random encounter. I don't use random encounters much and many of those encounters would not necessarily interrupt a rest. So this one in 20 once per 20 minutes idea seems weird to me. But I guess it can work in something like a keep to decide if some guards happen to wonder in. I generally just make a judgement call based on time of day, what room they are in etc.
This is assuming the hour rest default
Was arguing against the old addage if you have 10 minutes you have an hour. And if you have an hour for a short rest you have 8 for a long. It just isnt true.
Also, sorry, but I am laughing at the belief that random encounter rolling doesn't simulate a living breathing world. Cause and effect is a very funny thing, and the players aren't going to know the cause to every effect. Just because it technically is random, in a game sense, doesnt mean it is random in the world or narrative.
Legend of vox season one has a perfect example with the pee bucket. Whether that happened on purpose to get them past the door or it was the result of a random encounter roll the narative is the same.
Have it be known, I love old warlock. I like the new one too and think it will be more consistent with a similar play style. My fight right now is there is a lot of bad faith arguments on both sides and I am not going to let the idea that old warlock always sucked stand, it didn't always suck, it could be cool at the right table.
This reminds me a lot of the ranger discussions. Ranger hasn't lost any portion of it's playstyle it has gain table consistency.
Same with the warlock
Old warlock is casting 1 concentration spell and then spamming eldritch blast and keeping an emergency spell in their back pocket in fights. After they have spent their second (later 3rd) spell they are hoping to find a place to short rest, sometimes they can, sometimes they are just stuck. Outside of fights they are casting problem solving spells IF they assume they can get a short rest or will have at least one spell for the next encounter. New warlock is able to do the out of casting more often. And their in combat game plan is the exact same, but without the inconsistency of will I be able to rest. The biggest issue is the slot and strength loss at level 2 and 3.
No, the biggest issue is the loss of full caster progression and high level spells as a core feature, not something you have to pay for build-wise. I've seen effective Rangers in play, and they don't feel like casters at all. It's a martial class who uses a small rotation of spells. That is not a "Mage" class, which is allegedly what Warlock is supposed to be. Spin it however you want, having to drop about half your Invocations to get something close to the same performance you got as a base class feature in the previous iteration is a massive rip-off, and forces you to choose between having an actual caster and having the flexibility to customize your build.
I think one more invocation at 3rd level, + Mystic Arcanum (2nd) being available starting at that level, will put this design over the top. You'll feel very different than the other casters, but still have the ability to keep up with full casters at every level. And you'll still only need 4 MA to have spells of every level by the end, leaving you with 6 invocations to allocate as you choose over your career.
Things I have said and will reiterate. I think a few small changes would help this warlock and those that love warlocks in general (me being one of them) are as follows.
1. An extra invocation at 3.
2. Mystic arcanum starting at 3.
3. Mystic arcanum becoming real slots that you can upcast with.
4. More invocations to modify eldritch blast and hex.
5. Better hex, and invocations for it.
6. Old armor of agathys available on invocations.
7. Level adjustments for some invocations like the chain one.
8. Rolling agonizing blast into eldritch blast now that it is an unavoidable key part of the class. No other "martial" or "part martial" has to wait till level 2 to add their ability score to their primary attack.
#1 & #2 agreed.
#3 I wouldn't want them to be actual slots. But I wouldn't mind letting you pick an upcast version of a specific spell as your arcanum. So for your 6th-level spell Arcanum you could pick Summon Fey upcast to 6th level in lieu of a 6th-level spell for example, but as with any other MA that's the only thing you can use it on.
#4 will likely show up in splatbooks, no need for them to go whole hog in core.
#5 I actually think hex is fine, it's the capstone that sucks.
Not sure what you mean with #6 and #7. #8 is fine as-is, a 1d10+Cha cantrip at 1st level isn't necessary.
#3 if spell casting warlock wasn't so reliant on mystic arcanum starting as early as 3 I might be ok, but we are talking about more than just the 1 6, 7, 8, and 9 spell. By the current rules there is no way to upcast a spell without using a spell slot. Mystic arcanum being used for a lower level spell upcast to that level doesn't work. If you are OK with that just make it a normal spell slot. The idea that some one using one of their prepared spells for invisibility and then taking mystic arcanum invisibility at level 3 is just silly and dumb
Don't do this.
#5 no it's not, even before it wasn't worth the concentration. Now it isn't worth either the concentration or slot. No one in their right mind is casting this above first level.
#6 armor of agathys used to be a warlock exclusive and worked well with their scaling slots it is now not exclusive and doesn't work well with warlock. I say make it an invocation instead of a spell and replace armor of shadows with it. "Once per long rest as an action gain 5 temporary hit points that lasts one hour, as long as you have these temporary hit points whenever you take damage from a melee strike the creature that struck you takes 5 cold damage, this invocation scales by 5 temp hp and damage at warlock level 3,5, 7,9" something along those lines.
7. Chain lock 9th level invocation is too high, bring it down and give the enemy a save and longer duration. Otherworldly leap is a ridiculous level 9 invocation, there is no reason for it to be that high. This is play test, this is the opportunity to make garbage invocations more interesting, like they did with gaze of two minds. So don't give me "it's fine".
8 if they are going to make lock a half caster dont half-ass it and give 2 out of 3 invocations "martial" abilities or make them wait for their "martial power" till level 5. If this is the route they are taking they need to embrace it. Eldritch blast scaling with lock levels only, but not having agonizing blast by default while also making them a half caster is a weak half measure, it isnt what is NEEDED, I don't NEED anything. It is about what feels good and what is right.
It didn’t suck for me and a lot of people. Yes it could be painful to blow strong spell slots on lower levelled spells but this power fantasy is one of the things that set warlocks apart. Invocations being the second thing (though i really wish they dialed these up a bit). Warlock is by far my favourite class, with its problems.
I would agree nothing guarantees you short rests. But also nothing guarantees you have anything in this game. Wizards aren’t guaranteed scrolls to learn spells, or teleportation circles. Soul knife rogues can come against psychic immune creatures. Lots of classes have times when their features don’t work. If a class has a feature made impossible to work consistently that is a failure of the DM. if someone has a warlock in their game and then refuses to allow any short tests for a long time, that is not fun and not as intended.
pact magic needed work. 100%. But whatever it turns into does need to capture something similar to the power fantasy. Ie spell levels equal to a full caster with invocations. Whether that’s full caster, limited but powerful spells. Some lower level spells but mostly high level spells. Spell points. Whatever. Honestly I get the feeling we are after the same thing to some extent.
Without scrolls, wizards still get to learn two spells each level, which gives them more than any arcane spellcaster. Creatures immune to psychic damage are pretty uncommon, and even then soulknife has other means to harm them, just not as convenient. But warlock loses their spellcasting any time there's an assault or dungeon crawl in progress, or when time is of the essence. Which is actually most of the time. Unless your DM agrees that all guards deaf and never, ever patrol or wonder why there's sounds of battle coming from the next hall.
Having two spell slots has never been a "power fantasy" to me. You can't afford to spend it on direct damage anyway, you need to heard them and squeeze all you can from your two measly spell slots. Other spellcasters shoot lightnings and arcane missiles left and right, and you just spam Eldritch Blast and hold on to your two spell slots until something important comes up. If it does. That's what JC was talking about in the video. I played two warlocks - Great Old One tomelock and a Hexblade - and I have no desire to ever return to this in 5e, both times it was a big letdown.
And if you really want to cast a powerful spell a couple of times, the Mystic Arcanum invocation achieves just that, you can change the spell every time you level up.
So, tomelocks and chainlocks can go eff themselves?
Tomelocks and chainlocks get to actually cast more than two spells while still spamming Eldritch Blast for most of the damage. Chainlocks' familiars got better.
No, the biggest issue is the loss of full caster progression and high level spells as a core feature, not something you have to pay for build-wise. I've seen effective Rangers in play, and they don't feel like casters at all. It's a martial class who uses a small rotation of spells. That is not a "Mage" class, which is allegedly what Warlock is supposed to be. Spin it however you want, having to drop about half your Invocations to get something close to the same performance you got as a base class feature in the previous iteration is a massive rip-off, and forces you to choose between having an actual caster and having the flexibility to customize your build.
Try actually building it and playing it. This is just screaming I didnt try. I have done side by side builds, new has more spells known, more slots and just as many if not more build options.
No, the biggest issue is the loss of full caster progression and high level spells as a core feature, not something you have to pay for build-wise. I've seen effective Rangers in play, and they don't feel like casters at all. It's a martial class who uses a small rotation of spells. That is not a "Mage" class, which is allegedly what Warlock is supposed to be. Spin it however you want, having to drop about half your Invocations to get something close to the same performance you got as a base class feature in the previous iteration is a massive rip-off, and forces you to choose between having an actual caster and having the flexibility to customize your build.
Try actually building it and playing it. This is just screaming I didnt try.
Again I say -- if you want a warlock that casts spells like a wizard, just re-flavor a wizard to say your magic comes from a pact
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)
The core function of a warlock was never being a primary spellcaster -- it was the ability to do high sustained dpr with eldritch blast spam. It still does that just fine.
That might be how people play it because they can't see past "EB is the optimal cantrip", but I'm sorry, that's an absolutely pitiful "core function" for a character in a role-playing game
No wonder people aren't satisfied playing warlocks, if that's what they've been told it's supposed to be
Well, then tell us what it's supposed to be then. Because to me, if no one but the chosen ones can figure out a way to play the class that is both efficient and fun, the class design is wrong.
No, the biggest issue is the loss of full caster progression and high level spells as a core feature, not something you have to pay for build-wise. I've seen effective Rangers in play, and they don't feel like casters at all. It's a martial class who uses a small rotation of spells. That is not a "Mage" class, which is allegedly what Warlock is supposed to be. Spin it however you want, having to drop about half your Invocations to get something close to the same performance you got as a base class feature in the previous iteration is a massive rip-off, and forces you to choose between having an actual caster and having the flexibility to customize your build.
Try actually building it and playing it. This is just screaming I didnt try. I have done side by side builds, new has more spells known, more slots and just as many if not more build options.
I did take a look at it. As I've said, burning most if not all of my invocations just to get the same spell range I had as a default class feature does not appeal to me.
No, the biggest issue is the loss of full caster progression and high level spells as a core feature, not something you have to pay for build-wise. I've seen effective Rangers in play, and they don't feel like casters at all. It's a martial class who uses a small rotation of spells. That is not a "Mage" class, which is allegedly what Warlock is supposed to be. Spin it however you want, having to drop about half your Invocations to get something close to the same performance you got as a base class feature in the previous iteration is a massive rip-off, and forces you to choose between having an actual caster and having the flexibility to customize your build.
Try actually building it and playing it. This is just screaming I didnt try.
Again I say -- if you want a warlock that casts spells like a wizard, just re-flavor a wizard to say your magic comes from a pact
I don't want them to cast spells like a Wizard; nor do I want them to cast spells like a Ranger. I want them to be a Warlock.
No, the biggest issue is the loss of full caster progression and high level spells as a core feature, not something you have to pay for build-wise. I've seen effective Rangers in play, and they don't feel like casters at all. It's a martial class who uses a small rotation of spells. That is not a "Mage" class, which is allegedly what Warlock is supposed to be. Spin it however you want, having to drop about half your Invocations to get something close to the same performance you got as a base class feature in the previous iteration is a massive rip-off, and forces you to choose between having an actual caster and having the flexibility to customize your build.
Try actually building it and playing it. This is just screaming I didnt try. I have done side by side builds, new has more spells known, more slots and just as many if not more build options.
I did take a look at it. As I've said, burning most if not all of my invocations just to get the same spell range I had as a default class feature does not appeal to me.
No, the biggest issue is the loss of full caster progression and high level spells as a core feature, not something you have to pay for build-wise. I've seen effective Rangers in play, and they don't feel like casters at all. It's a martial class who uses a small rotation of spells. That is not a "Mage" class, which is allegedly what Warlock is supposed to be. Spin it however you want, having to drop about half your Invocations to get something close to the same performance you got as a base class feature in the previous iteration is a massive rip-off, and forces you to choose between having an actual caster and having the flexibility to customize your build.
Try actually building it and playing it. This is just screaming I didnt try.
Again I say -- if you want a warlock that casts spells like a wizard, just re-flavor a wizard to say your magic comes from a pact
I don't want them to cast spells like a Wizard; nor do I want them to cast spells like a Ranger. I want them to be a Warlock.
You took a look at it you didnt try it because otherwise you wouldn't be saying what you are. You dont burn all your invocation slots. Bad faith arguments after bad faith argument that doesn't accurately portray what the new warlock is capable of at all.
Paladins dont get full casting like his full casting priest brethren but he is still a priest.
I don't want them to cast spells like a Wizard; nor do I want them to cast spells like a Ranger. I want them to be a Warlock.
This. I already know how half casting works. I've been playing this game for years now. It's not an adequate replacement for pact magic.
This isnt a true half caster though the belief that it works like ranger or pally is a sign of not trying it. It is not a replacement for pact magic either though. So that is true, but pact magic was table dependent and thus problematic. But still half right.
No, the biggest issue is the loss of full caster progression and high level spells as a core feature, not something you have to pay for build-wise. I've seen effective Rangers in play, and they don't feel like casters at all. It's a martial class who uses a small rotation of spells. That is not a "Mage" class, which is allegedly what Warlock is supposed to be. Spin it however you want, having to drop about half your Invocations to get something close to the same performance you got as a base class feature in the previous iteration is a massive rip-off, and forces you to choose between having an actual caster and having the flexibility to customize your build.
Try actually building it and playing it. This is just screaming I didnt try. I have done side by side builds, new has more spells known, more slots and just as many if not more build options.
I did take a look at it. As I've said, burning most if not all of my invocations just to get the same spell range I had as a default class feature does not appeal to me.
No, the biggest issue is the loss of full caster progression and high level spells as a core feature, not something you have to pay for build-wise. I've seen effective Rangers in play, and they don't feel like casters at all. It's a martial class who uses a small rotation of spells. That is not a "Mage" class, which is allegedly what Warlock is supposed to be. Spin it however you want, having to drop about half your Invocations to get something close to the same performance you got as a base class feature in the previous iteration is a massive rip-off, and forces you to choose between having an actual caster and having the flexibility to customize your build.
Try actually building it and playing it. This is just screaming I didnt try.
Again I say -- if you want a warlock that casts spells like a wizard, just re-flavor a wizard to say your magic comes from a pact
I don't want them to cast spells like a Wizard; nor do I want them to cast spells like a Ranger. I want them to be a Warlock.
You took a look at it you didnt try it because otherwise you wouldn't be saying what you are. You dont burn all your invocation slots. Bad faith arguments after bad faith argument that doesn't accurately portray what the new warlock is capable of at all.
Paladins dont get full casting like his full casting priest brethren but he is still a priest.
Paladins also get a lot more martial support, and Channel Divinity, as well as list prepping. And calling my argument bad faith just because I came to a different conclusion than you did is itself a bad faith argument. With my current build, I have access to Shadow of Moil, Banishment, Mask of Many Faces, and Misty Visions at level 8, in addition to AB and Investiture for core support. At level 9 I'll have Dominate Person and another Invocation to play with. Under the new setup at that level I'm forced to choose between Shadow of Moil or Banishment, my familiar is only good for poking enemies a few times before dying in combat, and I have to spend the upcoming Invocation to get Dominate Person, which also means my familiar remains ineffective until at least level 11, at which point I'd then missing out on getting a 6th level spell when I normally would, so regardless of what I pick I'm losing something I already had. But please, tell me more about how I can maintain my same build under this new setup, instead of getting massively nerfed on spell power and invocation flexibility.
Edit: Oh, and let's not forget that I'll only have up to 2nd level spells under the new setup, unless I want to drop yet another Invocation. So I'd be losing out on stuff like Enemies Abound, Major Image, and Hypnotic Pattern.
No, the biggest issue is the loss of full caster progression and high level spells as a core feature, not something you have to pay for build-wise. I've seen effective Rangers in play, and they don't feel like casters at all. It's a martial class who uses a small rotation of spells. That is not a "Mage" class, which is allegedly what Warlock is supposed to be. Spin it however you want, having to drop about half your Invocations to get something close to the same performance you got as a base class feature in the previous iteration is a massive rip-off, and forces you to choose between having an actual caster and having the flexibility to customize your build.
Try actually building it and playing it. This is just screaming I didnt try. I have done side by side builds, new has more spells known, more slots and just as many if not more build options.
I did take a look at it. As I've said, burning most if not all of my invocations just to get the same spell range I had as a default class feature does not appeal to me.
No, the biggest issue is the loss of full caster progression and high level spells as a core feature, not something you have to pay for build-wise. I've seen effective Rangers in play, and they don't feel like casters at all. It's a martial class who uses a small rotation of spells. That is not a "Mage" class, which is allegedly what Warlock is supposed to be. Spin it however you want, having to drop about half your Invocations to get something close to the same performance you got as a base class feature in the previous iteration is a massive rip-off, and forces you to choose between having an actual caster and having the flexibility to customize your build.
Try actually building it and playing it. This is just screaming I didnt try.
Again I say -- if you want a warlock that casts spells like a wizard, just re-flavor a wizard to say your magic comes from a pact
I don't want them to cast spells like a Wizard; nor do I want them to cast spells like a Ranger. I want them to be a Warlock.
You took a look at it you didnt try it because otherwise you wouldn't be saying what you are. You dont burn all your invocation slots. Bad faith arguments after bad faith argument that doesn't accurately portray what the new warlock is capable of at all.
Paladins dont get full casting like his full casting priest brethren but he is still a priest.
Paladins also get a lot more martial support, and Channel Divinity, as well as list prepping. And calling my argument bad faith just because I came to a different conclusion than you did is itself a bad faith argument. With my current build, I have access to Shadow of Moil, Banishment, Mask of Many Faces, and Misty Visions at level 8, in addition to AB and Investiture for core support. At level 9 I'll have Dominate Person and another Invocation to play with. Under the new setup at that level I'm forced to choose between Shadow of Moil or Banishment, my familiar is only good for poking enemies a few times before dying in combat, and I have to spend the upcoming Invocation to get Dominate Person, which also means my familiar remains ineffective until at least level 11, at which point I'd then missing out on getting a 6th level spell when I normally would, so regardless of what I pick I'm losing something I already had. But please, tell me more about how I can maintain my same build under this new setup, instead of getting massively nerfed on spell power and invocation flexibility.
This is a perfect example of the bad faith. Completely miss representing the new lock because you haven't tried.
The new familiar is just as survivable if not more so than the old. The sprite breaks invisibility on attack, it needs to wait a full round to turn invisible again. The new one doesn't break on attack, because of this BOTH will be out of reach of melee when they are visible. New one just has more health.
2. You aren't casting both shadow of moil and banishment, so clearly one of them is more valuable.
3. You do NOT have to take mystic arcanum at 9 to get a 5th level spell. You took it at 5 and can trade the 3rd level arcanum for the 5th level one. There is no delay for the 9th level invocation.
4. You have first level slots you can have silent image or disguise self as a spell and cast it when you need it, you are not needing them both 5 times a day. Take the one you need most, enjoy the free voice of the chain and you still get ab. Investment is also built in, you dont need it to command your guy.
At 8 invocations AB, mystic arcanum 3rd, mystic arcanum 4th (shadow of moil), misty visions. You prep disguise self and have 4 first level slots to cast it with.
At 9 you grab the chain invocation and the 3rd mystic arcanum becomes a 5th because you don't need the third anymore.
In addition you still voice of the chain on top of it.
Edit: at this point I almost want you to send me your character so I can rebuild it under the new one and do a play by post for a single adventure. To see how they compare. It isn't one to one, but you miss representing the new lock.
Playing warlocks as EB + hex spammers is a really, really unimaginative and boring style of play.
It's also quite clearly what the class was designed to do. It's still more interesting than a barbarian.
Look, they were never going to give warlocks full spellcasting, so it's just a question of how they arrange to gimp it. In 5e it was by having two spells, in One D&D it's by being a half caster.
No, the biggest issue is the loss of full caster progression and high level spells as a core feature, not something you have to pay for build-wise. I've seen effective Rangers in play, and they don't feel like casters at all. It's a martial class who uses a small rotation of spells. That is not a "Mage" class, which is allegedly what Warlock is supposed to be. Spin it however you want, having to drop about half your Invocations to get something close to the same performance you got as a base class feature in the previous iteration is a massive rip-off, and forces you to choose between having an actual caster and having the flexibility to customize your build.
Try actually building it and playing it. This is just screaming I didnt try. I have done side by side builds, new has more spells known, more slots and just as many if not more build options.
I did take a look at it. As I've said, burning most if not all of my invocations just to get the same spell range I had as a default class feature does not appeal to me.
No, the biggest issue is the loss of full caster progression and high level spells as a core feature, not something you have to pay for build-wise. I've seen effective Rangers in play, and they don't feel like casters at all. It's a martial class who uses a small rotation of spells. That is not a "Mage" class, which is allegedly what Warlock is supposed to be. Spin it however you want, having to drop about half your Invocations to get something close to the same performance you got as a base class feature in the previous iteration is a massive rip-off, and forces you to choose between having an actual caster and having the flexibility to customize your build.
Try actually building it and playing it. This is just screaming I didnt try.
Again I say -- if you want a warlock that casts spells like a wizard, just re-flavor a wizard to say your magic comes from a pact
I don't want them to cast spells like a Wizard; nor do I want them to cast spells like a Ranger. I want them to be a Warlock.
You took a look at it you didnt try it because otherwise you wouldn't be saying what you are. You dont burn all your invocation slots. Bad faith arguments after bad faith argument that doesn't accurately portray what the new warlock is capable of at all.
Paladins dont get full casting like his full casting priest brethren but he is still a priest.
Paladins also get a lot more martial support, and Channel Divinity, as well as list prepping. And calling my argument bad faith just because I came to a different conclusion than you did is itself a bad faith argument. With my current build, I have access to Shadow of Moil, Banishment, Mask of Many Faces, and Misty Visions at level 8, in addition to AB and Investiture for core support. At level 9 I'll have Dominate Person and another Invocation to play with. Under the new setup at that level I'm forced to choose between Shadow of Moil or Banishment, my familiar is only good for poking enemies a few times before dying in combat, and I have to spend the upcoming Invocation to get Dominate Person, which also means my familiar remains ineffective until at least level 11, at which point I'd then missing out on getting a 6th level spell when I normally would, so regardless of what I pick I'm losing something I already had. But please, tell me more about how I can maintain my same build under this new setup, instead of getting massively nerfed on spell power and invocation flexibility.
This is a perfect example of the bad faith. Completely miss representing the new lock because you haven't tried.
The new familiar is just as survivable if not more so than the old. The sprite breaks invisibility on attack, it needs to wait a full round to turn invisible again. The new one doesn't break on attack, because of this BOTH will be out of reach of melee when they are visible. New one just has more health.
2. You aren't casting both shadow of moil and banishment, so clearly one of them is more valuable.
3. You do NOT have to take mystic arcanum at 9 to get a 5th level spell. You took it at 5 and can trade the 3rd level arcanum for the 5th level one. There is no delay for the 9th level invocation.
4. You have first level slots you can have silent image or disguise self as a spell and cast it when you need it, you are not needing them both 5 times a day. Take the one you need most, enjoy the free voice of the chain and you still get ab. Investment is also built in, you dont need it to command your guy.
At 8 invocations AB, mystic arcanum 3rd, mystic arcanum 4th (shadow of moil), misty visions. You prep disguise self and have 4 first level slots to cast it with.
At 9 you grab the chain invocation and the 3rd mystic arcanum becomes a 5th because you don't need the third anymore.
In addition you still voice of the chain on top of it.
In point of fact, I do need Mask of Many faces for this character, as well as Misty Visions. And sprites don't wait a full round to reup their invisibility, since they use a reaction to attack off my bonus action and have their own place in the initiative. Which also means my sprite can attack every round, while your familiar is forced to alternate actions between invisibility and attacking. And while I obviously cannot use both Banishment and Moil at the same time, I have in point of fact used them both in the same combat. First tossed a Banishment at the boss to see if I could either make them take a breather or burn an LR if they had one at the opening, and then when I saw their AC, popped Moil to help ensure my attacks got through. And regardless of when I take Mystic Arcanum, it still throws off the rest of my Invocation progression, and that's a single 3rd level spell, whereas I currently have at least three in the rotation.
Also, Voice of the Chain is the equivalent of floor mats here, not a selling point.
🐂💩. 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.
Not going to lie, you seem to be the only one whining and screaming.
Any class can get mucked up with bad choices (I mean a Champion Fighter is hard to do that on I admit). The real issue is that to have distinguishable classes you need distinguishable features. Wizards and their vast spell lists and spell book vs sorcerers smaller lists but more versatility with points and metamagic. Bards had their bardic inspiration and access to all the spell lists. Clerics had channel divinity. Druids had wild shapes. Even half casters like the Ranger and Druid had spells to supplement their martial powers along with some unique magic. Warlocks were about how they had a few shots that scaled as you leveled, some big grenade spells at high level, and invocations that gave some free casting or supplemented other options.
Now they removed some of the more unique things. Half caster so you'll never be as good as any full caster, mystic arcanum now are an invocation tax removing customization if you want higher level spells. At most you get to choose your spell casting ability score.
Not at all the lead point but pact magic also really helped make some unique multiclass options. Hexadins had a rapidly refreshing source of smites, Sorlocks had a rapidly refreshing source of points, even bards, fighters got something. Now you'll see a lot of level dips for blade pact for any charisma or wisdom class to be less MAD. Or a free familiar for wizards and artificers. But a lot of the interesting mechanics of putting pact magic in other classes is gone too.
They did improve somethings. The pacts are a bit better but I still think they missed the mark in some areas.
No, the biggest issue is the loss of full caster progression and high level spells as a core feature, not something you have to pay for build-wise. I've seen effective Rangers in play, and they don't feel like casters at all. It's a martial class who uses a small rotation of spells. That is not a "Mage" class, which is allegedly what Warlock is supposed to be. Spin it however you want, having to drop about half your Invocations to get something close to the same performance you got as a base class feature in the previous iteration is a massive rip-off, and forces you to choose between having an actual caster and having the flexibility to customize your build.
Try actually building it and playing it. This is just screaming I didnt try. I have done side by side builds, new has more spells known, more slots and just as many if not more build options.
I did take a look at it. As I've said, burning most if not all of my invocations just to get the same spell range I had as a default class feature does not appeal to me.
No, the biggest issue is the loss of full caster progression and high level spells as a core feature, not something you have to pay for build-wise. I've seen effective Rangers in play, and they don't feel like casters at all. It's a martial class who uses a small rotation of spells. That is not a "Mage" class, which is allegedly what Warlock is supposed to be. Spin it however you want, having to drop about half your Invocations to get something close to the same performance you got as a base class feature in the previous iteration is a massive rip-off, and forces you to choose between having an actual caster and having the flexibility to customize your build.
Try actually building it and playing it. This is just screaming I didnt try.
Again I say -- if you want a warlock that casts spells like a wizard, just re-flavor a wizard to say your magic comes from a pact
I don't want them to cast spells like a Wizard; nor do I want them to cast spells like a Ranger. I want them to be a Warlock.
You took a look at it you didnt try it because otherwise you wouldn't be saying what you are. You dont burn all your invocation slots. Bad faith arguments after bad faith argument that doesn't accurately portray what the new warlock is capable of at all.
Paladins dont get full casting like his full casting priest brethren but he is still a priest.
Paladins also get a lot more martial support, and Channel Divinity, as well as list prepping. And calling my argument bad faith just because I came to a different conclusion than you did is itself a bad faith argument. With my current build, I have access to Shadow of Moil, Banishment, Mask of Many Faces, and Misty Visions at level 8, in addition to AB and Investiture for core support. At level 9 I'll have Dominate Person and another Invocation to play with. Under the new setup at that level I'm forced to choose between Shadow of Moil or Banishment, my familiar is only good for poking enemies a few times before dying in combat, and I have to spend the upcoming Invocation to get Dominate Person, which also means my familiar remains ineffective until at least level 11, at which point I'd then missing out on getting a 6th level spell when I normally would, so regardless of what I pick I'm losing something I already had. But please, tell me more about how I can maintain my same build under this new setup, instead of getting massively nerfed on spell power and invocation flexibility.
This is a perfect example of the bad faith. Completely miss representing the new lock because you haven't tried.
The new familiar is just as survivable if not more so than the old. The sprite breaks invisibility on attack, it needs to wait a full round to turn invisible again. The new one doesn't break on attack, because of this BOTH will be out of reach of melee when they are visible. New one just has more health.
2. You aren't casting both shadow of moil and banishment, so clearly one of them is more valuable.
3. You do NOT have to take mystic arcanum at 9 to get a 5th level spell. You took it at 5 and can trade the 3rd level arcanum for the 5th level one. There is no delay for the 9th level invocation.
4. You have first level slots you can have silent image or disguise self as a spell and cast it when you need it, you are not needing them both 5 times a day. Take the one you need most, enjoy the free voice of the chain and you still get ab. Investment is also built in, you dont need it to command your guy.
At 8 invocations AB, mystic arcanum 3rd, mystic arcanum 4th (shadow of moil), misty visions. You prep disguise self and have 4 first level slots to cast it with.
At 9 you grab the chain invocation and the 3rd mystic arcanum becomes a 5th because you don't need the third anymore.
In addition you still voice of the chain on top of it.
In point of fact, I do need Mask of Many faces for this character, as well as Misty Visions. And sprites don't wait a full round to reup their invisibility, since they use a reaction to attack off my bonus action and have their own place in the initiative. Which also means my sprite can attack every round, while your familiar is forced to alternate actions between invisibility and attacking. And while I obviously cannot use both Banishment and Moil at the same time, I have in point of fact used them both in the same combat. First tossed a Banishment at the boss to see if I could either make them take a breather or burn an LR if they had one at the opening, and then when I saw their AC, popped Moil to help ensure my attacks got through. And regardless of when I take Mystic Arcanum, it still throws off the rest of my Invocation progression, and that's a single 3rd level spell, whereas I currently have at least three in the rotation.
Also, Voice of the Chain is the equivalent of floor mats here, not a selling point.
Ok so you dont know how investment of the chain master works. You use your bonus action to command it to take the attack action WHICH IT TAKES ON ITS TURN. it has to wait a full round to turn invisible again.
And you are going to need to explain exactly what you are doing with mask of many faces that you think you need more than 4 castings a day of it.
And as far as your Banishment use. There are single target first and second level spells that can accomplish the same feat ESPECIALLY now that banishment allows repeat saves.
And what are you doing in the second combat that you didnt have time to short rest for.
No, the biggest issue is the loss of full caster progression and high level spells as a core feature, not something you have to pay for build-wise. I've seen effective Rangers in play, and they don't feel like casters at all. It's a martial class who uses a small rotation of spells. That is not a "Mage" class, which is allegedly what Warlock is supposed to be. Spin it however you want, having to drop about half your Invocations to get something close to the same performance you got as a base class feature in the previous iteration is a massive rip-off, and forces you to choose between having an actual caster and having the flexibility to customize your build.
Try actually building it and playing it. This is just screaming I didnt try. I have done side by side builds, new has more spells known, more slots and just as many if not more build options.
I did take a look at it. As I've said, burning most if not all of my invocations just to get the same spell range I had as a default class feature does not appeal to me.
No, the biggest issue is the loss of full caster progression and high level spells as a core feature, not something you have to pay for build-wise. I've seen effective Rangers in play, and they don't feel like casters at all. It's a martial class who uses a small rotation of spells. That is not a "Mage" class, which is allegedly what Warlock is supposed to be. Spin it however you want, having to drop about half your Invocations to get something close to the same performance you got as a base class feature in the previous iteration is a massive rip-off, and forces you to choose between having an actual caster and having the flexibility to customize your build.
Try actually building it and playing it. This is just screaming I didnt try.
Again I say -- if you want a warlock that casts spells like a wizard, just re-flavor a wizard to say your magic comes from a pact
I don't want them to cast spells like a Wizard; nor do I want them to cast spells like a Ranger. I want them to be a Warlock.
You took a look at it you didnt try it because otherwise you wouldn't be saying what you are. You dont burn all your invocation slots. Bad faith arguments after bad faith argument that doesn't accurately portray what the new warlock is capable of at all.
Paladins dont get full casting like his full casting priest brethren but he is still a priest.
Paladins also get a lot more martial support, and Channel Divinity, as well as list prepping. And calling my argument bad faith just because I came to a different conclusion than you did is itself a bad faith argument. With my current build, I have access to Shadow of Moil, Banishment, Mask of Many Faces, and Misty Visions at level 8, in addition to AB and Investiture for core support. At level 9 I'll have Dominate Person and another Invocation to play with. Under the new setup at that level I'm forced to choose between Shadow of Moil or Banishment, my familiar is only good for poking enemies a few times before dying in combat, and I have to spend the upcoming Invocation to get Dominate Person, which also means my familiar remains ineffective until at least level 11, at which point I'd then missing out on getting a 6th level spell when I normally would, so regardless of what I pick I'm losing something I already had. But please, tell me more about how I can maintain my same build under this new setup, instead of getting massively nerfed on spell power and invocation flexibility.
This is a perfect example of the bad faith. Completely miss representing the new lock because you haven't tried.
The new familiar is just as survivable if not more so than the old. The sprite breaks invisibility on attack, it needs to wait a full round to turn invisible again. The new one doesn't break on attack, because of this BOTH will be out of reach of melee when they are visible. New one just has more health.
2. You aren't casting both shadow of moil and banishment, so clearly one of them is more valuable.
3. You do NOT have to take mystic arcanum at 9 to get a 5th level spell. You took it at 5 and can trade the 3rd level arcanum for the 5th level one. There is no delay for the 9th level invocation.
4. You have first level slots you can have silent image or disguise self as a spell and cast it when you need it, you are not needing them both 5 times a day. Take the one you need most, enjoy the free voice of the chain and you still get ab. Investment is also built in, you dont need it to command your guy.
At 8 invocations AB, mystic arcanum 3rd, mystic arcanum 4th (shadow of moil), misty visions. You prep disguise self and have 4 first level slots to cast it with.
At 9 you grab the chain invocation and the 3rd mystic arcanum becomes a 5th because you don't need the third anymore.
In addition you still voice of the chain on top of it.
In point of fact, I do need Mask of Many faces for this character, as well as Misty Visions. And sprites don't wait a full round to reup their invisibility, since they use a reaction to attack off my bonus action and have their own place in the initiative. Which also means my sprite can attack every round, while your familiar is forced to alternate actions between invisibility and attacking. And while I obviously cannot use both Banishment and Moil at the same time, I have in point of fact used them both in the same combat. First tossed a Banishment at the boss to see if I could either make them take a breather or burn an LR if they had one at the opening, and then when I saw their AC, popped Moil to help ensure my attacks got through. And regardless of when I take Mystic Arcanum, it still throws off the rest of my Invocation progression, and that's a single 3rd level spell, whereas I currently have at least three in the rotation.
Also, Voice of the Chain is the equivalent of floor mats here, not a selling point.
Ok so you dont know how investment of the chain master works. You use your bonus action to command it to take the attack action WHICH IT TAKES ON ITS TURN. it has to wait a full round to turn invisible again.
And you are going to need to explain exactly what you are doing with mask of many faces that you think you need more than 4 castings a day of it.
Base Chain has the Warlock use their Attack action to allow the Familiar to immediately take theirs as a reaction. Therefore the obvious application of Investment is to upgrade your ability to order the attack to only using a Bonus Action instead of a full Action. It's an upgrade, therefore it should logically interact with the preexisting parameters of how the familiar attacks, which is as a reaction in response to your command. We're getting into the weeds of interpreting RAI from a somewhat ambiguous text, but I can't find any official ruling or similar statement that this interpretation is wrong.
And obviously I'm using Mask of Many Faces full time. What kind of Feylock illusionist walks around showing their mundane face to everyone? Obviously this isn't a super optimized pick, but again the point is that Invocations should be left open to flexible customizations like this, not having to be relegated to getting limited access to something the class already had as a core feature.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is assuming the hour rest default
Was arguing against the old addage if you have 10 minutes you have an hour. And if you have an hour for a short rest you have 8 for a long. It just isnt true.
Also, sorry, but I am laughing at the belief that random encounter rolling doesn't simulate a living breathing world. Cause and effect is a very funny thing, and the players aren't going to know the cause to every effect. Just because it technically is random, in a game sense, doesnt mean it is random in the world or narrative.
Legend of vox season one has a perfect example with the pee bucket. Whether that happened on purpose to get them past the door or it was the result of a random encounter roll the narative is the same.
Have it be known, I love old warlock. I like the new one too and think it will be more consistent with a similar play style. My fight right now is there is a lot of bad faith arguments on both sides and I am not going to let the idea that old warlock always sucked stand, it didn't always suck, it could be cool at the right table.
This reminds me a lot of the ranger discussions. Ranger hasn't lost any portion of it's playstyle it has gain table consistency.
Same with the warlock
Old warlock is casting 1 concentration spell and then spamming eldritch blast and keeping an emergency spell in their back pocket in fights. After they have spent their second (later 3rd) spell they are hoping to find a place to short rest, sometimes they can, sometimes they are just stuck. Outside of fights they are casting problem solving spells IF they assume they can get a short rest or will have at least one spell for the next encounter. New warlock is able to do the out of casting more often. And their in combat game plan is the exact same, but without the inconsistency of will I be able to rest. The biggest issue is the slot and strength loss at level 2 and 3.
No, the biggest issue is the loss of full caster progression and high level spells as a core feature, not something you have to pay for build-wise. I've seen effective Rangers in play, and they don't feel like casters at all. It's a martial class who uses a small rotation of spells. That is not a "Mage" class, which is allegedly what Warlock is supposed to be. Spin it however you want, having to drop about half your Invocations to get something close to the same performance you got as a base class feature in the previous iteration is a massive rip-off, and forces you to choose between having an actual caster and having the flexibility to customize your build.
I think one more invocation at 3rd level, + Mystic Arcanum (2nd) being available starting at that level, will put this design over the top. You'll feel very different than the other casters, but still have the ability to keep up with full casters at every level. And you'll still only need 4 MA to have spells of every level by the end, leaving you with 6 invocations to allocate as you choose over your career.
#3 if spell casting warlock wasn't so reliant on mystic arcanum starting as early as 3 I might be ok, but we are talking about more than just the 1 6, 7, 8, and 9 spell. By the current rules there is no way to upcast a spell without using a spell slot. Mystic arcanum being used for a lower level spell upcast to that level doesn't work. If you are OK with that just make it a normal spell slot. The idea that some one using one of their prepared spells for invisibility and then taking mystic arcanum invisibility at level 3 is just silly and dumb
Don't do this.
#5 no it's not, even before it wasn't worth the concentration. Now it isn't worth either the concentration or slot. No one in their right mind is casting this above first level.
#6 armor of agathys used to be a warlock exclusive and worked well with their scaling slots it is now not exclusive and doesn't work well with warlock. I say make it an invocation instead of a spell and replace armor of shadows with it. "Once per long rest as an action gain 5 temporary hit points that lasts one hour, as long as you have these temporary hit points whenever you take damage from a melee strike the creature that struck you takes 5 cold damage, this invocation scales by 5 temp hp and damage at warlock level 3,5, 7,9" something along those lines.
7. Chain lock 9th level invocation is too high, bring it down and give the enemy a save and longer duration. Otherworldly leap is a ridiculous level 9 invocation, there is no reason for it to be that high. This is play test, this is the opportunity to make garbage invocations more interesting, like they did with gaze of two minds. So don't give me "it's fine".
8 if they are going to make lock a half caster dont half-ass it and give 2 out of 3 invocations "martial" abilities or make them wait for their "martial power" till level 5. If this is the route they are taking they need to embrace it. Eldritch blast scaling with lock levels only, but not having agonizing blast by default while also making them a half caster is a weak half measure, it isnt what is NEEDED, I don't NEED anything. It is about what feels good and what is right.
Without scrolls, wizards still get to learn two spells each level, which gives them more than any arcane spellcaster. Creatures immune to psychic damage are pretty uncommon, and even then soulknife has other means to harm them, just not as convenient. But warlock loses their spellcasting any time there's an assault or dungeon crawl in progress, or when time is of the essence. Which is actually most of the time. Unless your DM agrees that all guards deaf and never, ever patrol or wonder why there's sounds of battle coming from the next hall.
Having two spell slots has never been a "power fantasy" to me. You can't afford to spend it on direct damage anyway, you need to heard them and squeeze all you can from your two measly spell slots. Other spellcasters shoot lightnings and arcane missiles left and right, and you just spam Eldritch Blast and hold on to your two spell slots until something important comes up. If it does. That's what JC was talking about in the video. I played two warlocks - Great Old One tomelock and a Hexblade - and I have no desire to ever return to this in 5e, both times it was a big letdown.
And if you really want to cast a powerful spell a couple of times, the Mystic Arcanum invocation achieves just that, you can change the spell every time you level up.
Tomelocks and chainlocks get to actually cast more than two spells while still spamming Eldritch Blast for most of the damage. Chainlocks' familiars got better.
Try actually building it and playing it. This is just screaming I didnt try. I have done side by side builds, new has more spells known, more slots and just as many if not more build options.
Again I say -- if you want a warlock that casts spells like a wizard, just re-flavor a wizard to say your magic comes from a pact
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)
Well, then tell us what it's supposed to be then. Because to me, if no one but the chosen ones can figure out a way to play the class that is both efficient and fun, the class design is wrong.
I did take a look at it. As I've said, burning most if not all of my invocations just to get the same spell range I had as a default class feature does not appeal to me.
I don't want them to cast spells like a Wizard; nor do I want them to cast spells like a Ranger. I want them to be a Warlock.
You took a look at it you didnt try it because otherwise you wouldn't be saying what you are. You dont burn all your invocation slots. Bad faith arguments after bad faith argument that doesn't accurately portray what the new warlock is capable of at all.
Paladins dont get full casting like his full casting priest brethren but he is still a priest.
This. I already know how half casting works. I've been playing this game for years now. It's not an adequate replacement for pact magic.
This isnt a true half caster though the belief that it works like ranger or pally is a sign of not trying it. It is not a replacement for pact magic either though. So that is true, but pact magic was table dependent and thus problematic. But still half right.
Paladins also get a lot more martial support, and Channel Divinity, as well as list prepping. And calling my argument bad faith just because I came to a different conclusion than you did is itself a bad faith argument. With my current build, I have access to Shadow of Moil, Banishment, Mask of Many Faces, and Misty Visions at level 8, in addition to AB and Investiture for core support. At level 9 I'll have Dominate Person and another Invocation to play with. Under the new setup at that level I'm forced to choose between Shadow of Moil or Banishment, my familiar is only good for poking enemies a few times before dying in combat, and I have to spend the upcoming Invocation to get Dominate Person, which also means my familiar remains ineffective until at least level 11, at which point I'd then missing out on getting a 6th level spell when I normally would, so regardless of what I pick I'm losing something I already had. But please, tell me more about how I can maintain my same build under this new setup, instead of getting massively nerfed on spell power and invocation flexibility.
Edit: Oh, and let's not forget that I'll only have up to 2nd level spells under the new setup, unless I want to drop yet another Invocation. So I'd be losing out on stuff like Enemies Abound, Major Image, and Hypnotic Pattern.
Playing warlocks as EB + hex spammers is a really, really unimaginative and boring style of play.
This is a perfect example of the bad faith. Completely miss representing the new lock because you haven't tried.
The new familiar is just as survivable if not more so than the old. The sprite breaks invisibility on attack, it needs to wait a full round to turn invisible again. The new one doesn't break on attack, because of this BOTH will be out of reach of melee when they are visible. New one just has more health.
2. You aren't casting both shadow of moil and banishment, so clearly one of them is more valuable.
3. You do NOT have to take mystic arcanum at 9 to get a 5th level spell. You took it at 5 and can trade the 3rd level arcanum for the 5th level one. There is no delay for the 9th level invocation.
4. You have first level slots you can have silent image or disguise self as a spell and cast it when you need it, you are not needing them both 5 times a day. Take the one you need most, enjoy the free voice of the chain and you still get ab. Investment is also built in, you dont need it to command your guy.
At 8 invocations AB, mystic arcanum 3rd, mystic arcanum 4th (shadow of moil), misty visions. You prep disguise self and have 4 first level slots to cast it with.
At 9 you grab the chain invocation and the 3rd mystic arcanum becomes a 5th because you don't need the third anymore.
In addition you still voice of the chain on top of it.
Edit: at this point I almost want you to send me your character so I can rebuild it under the new one and do a play by post for a single adventure. To see how they compare. It isn't one to one, but you miss representing the new lock.
It's also quite clearly what the class was designed to do. It's still more interesting than a barbarian.
Look, they were never going to give warlocks full spellcasting, so it's just a question of how they arrange to gimp it. In 5e it was by having two spells, in One D&D it's by being a half caster.
In point of fact, I do need Mask of Many faces for this character, as well as Misty Visions. And sprites don't wait a full round to reup their invisibility, since they use a reaction to attack off my bonus action and have their own place in the initiative. Which also means my sprite can attack every round, while your familiar is forced to alternate actions between invisibility and attacking. And while I obviously cannot use both Banishment and Moil at the same time, I have in point of fact used them both in the same combat. First tossed a Banishment at the boss to see if I could either make them take a breather or burn an LR if they had one at the opening, and then when I saw their AC, popped Moil to help ensure my attacks got through. And regardless of when I take Mystic Arcanum, it still throws off the rest of my Invocation progression, and that's a single 3rd level spell, whereas I currently have at least three in the rotation.
Also, Voice of the Chain is the equivalent of floor mats here, not a selling point.
Not going to lie, you seem to be the only one whining and screaming.
Any class can get mucked up with bad choices (I mean a Champion Fighter is hard to do that on I admit). The real issue is that to have distinguishable classes you need distinguishable features. Wizards and their vast spell lists and spell book vs sorcerers smaller lists but more versatility with points and metamagic. Bards had their bardic inspiration and access to all the spell lists. Clerics had channel divinity. Druids had wild shapes. Even half casters like the Ranger and Druid had spells to supplement their martial powers along with some unique magic. Warlocks were about how they had a few shots that scaled as you leveled, some big grenade spells at high level, and invocations that gave some free casting or supplemented other options.
Now they removed some of the more unique things. Half caster so you'll never be as good as any full caster, mystic arcanum now are an invocation tax removing customization if you want higher level spells. At most you get to choose your spell casting ability score.
Not at all the lead point but pact magic also really helped make some unique multiclass options. Hexadins had a rapidly refreshing source of smites, Sorlocks had a rapidly refreshing source of points, even bards, fighters got something. Now you'll see a lot of level dips for blade pact for any charisma or wisdom class to be less MAD. Or a free familiar for wizards and artificers. But a lot of the interesting mechanics of putting pact magic in other classes is gone too.
They did improve somethings. The pacts are a bit better but I still think they missed the mark in some areas.
Ok so you dont know how investment of the chain master works. You use your bonus action to command it to take the attack action WHICH IT TAKES ON ITS TURN. it has to wait a full round to turn invisible again.
And you are going to need to explain exactly what you are doing with mask of many faces that you think you need more than 4 castings a day of it.
And as far as your Banishment use. There are single target first and second level spells that can accomplish the same feat ESPECIALLY now that banishment allows repeat saves.
And what are you doing in the second combat that you didnt have time to short rest for.
Base Chain has the Warlock use their Attack action to allow the Familiar to immediately take theirs as a reaction. Therefore the obvious application of Investment is to upgrade your ability to order the attack to only using a Bonus Action instead of a full Action. It's an upgrade, therefore it should logically interact with the preexisting parameters of how the familiar attacks, which is as a reaction in response to your command. We're getting into the weeds of interpreting RAI from a somewhat ambiguous text, but I can't find any official ruling or similar statement that this interpretation is wrong.
And obviously I'm using Mask of Many Faces full time. What kind of Feylock illusionist walks around showing their mundane face to everyone? Obviously this isn't a super optimized pick, but again the point is that Invocations should be left open to flexible customizations like this, not having to be relegated to getting limited access to something the class already had as a core feature.