So does no one want all invocations and no spells anymore?
Removing spell slots and "spells prepared" entirely, and making Mystic Arcanum the main method for Warlocks getting to cast spells would be my first choice if I was in charge of Warlock development.
Move Eldritch Invocations to 1st level feature, and add a prerequisite (2nd-level Warlock or Higher) to all currently existing Eldritch Invocation that have no prerequisite.
Scale Mystic Arcanum to go online at Warlock level 1 and 1st level spells.
Remove the restriction of taking 1st through 5th level only once per spell level.
Allow choosing at what spell level(of those available to you at your current Warlock level) you wish to commit a spell as a Mystic Arcanum.
The level as which a spell is committed as a Mystic Arcanum determines the number of times you can cast it per Long Rest.
1st through 5th level utility spell that can't be cast at higher level, infinite times. (Yes there are obviously cases that should be gone over case by case basis, but you get the idea)
1st or 2nd level spell that can be cast at a higher level, 3 times.
3rd or 4th level spell that can be cast at a higher level, 2 times.
5th+ level spells, 1 times.
Allow taking the same spell multiple times as Mystic Arcanum, each time at whatever level you want.
Based on the short rest poll we can see that the most common number of encounters between rests is 1.5 and the most common of encounters per long rest is 3-4. This means that the average number of short rests in a day is 1. Keeping this in mind lets I am going to compare old lock to new lock number of slots and power of slots from level 1-20.
Level 1 Old 1 spell per short rest with assumed 1 rest per day for a total of 2 first level spells per Long rest. Even had the rest poll not been released I would have still only assumed 1 short rest because players only have 1 hit die to recover health with.
Level 1 New 2 first level spells per long rest. Results: Number of spells per long are =, strength of spells are =, flexibility of spells goes to new, they auto have hex and they get both their spells right at the start of the day so they have more flexibility as to when to cast those spells.
Level 2 Old 2 first level spells per short: total 4 per long
Level 2 New 2 Spells per long rest Results: Old is has double the number of spells per day, has the same number available at the start of the day. Old is more versatile, more powerful and has more spells available to cast over the course of the day.
Level 3: Old 2 Second level spells per short rest: total 4 per long. Total spell power 8
Level 3 New 4 First level spells per long rest (1 from pact) Total spell Power 4 Results: Number of spells=, Power of spells Old, Flexibility of casting New.
Level 4: unchanged.
Level 5: Old 2 Third Level spells per short rest: Total 4 per long. Total Spell power 12
Level 5 New 4 first level spells per long rest, 3 second level spells per long rest (1 from pact). Total spell power: 10 Results: Number of spells New lock, Total power of spells Old (By one 3rd level slot, matched with 1 Mystic Arcanum), Flexibility of casting New.
Level 6 Unchanged
Level 7: Old 2 4th level spells per short rest: Total 4 per long. Total Spell power 16
Level 7 New: 4 first level spells, 4 second level spells (1 from pact). Total Spell power 12 Results: Total number of casting New Lock, Total power of Spells Old lock (by 1 fourth level spell, kept up with one mystic arcanum invocation), Flexibility of when to cast New
Level 8, Unchanged
Level 9: Old 2 5th level spells per short rest: Total 4 per long. (Total Spell power 20) Level 9: New 4 first level spells, 3 second level spells, 3 third level spells (1 from pact) (Total spell power 19). Results: Total number of casts new, Total power of spells Old lock (By a first level spell, any invocation will catch up, so all but chain lock who have at least one invocation tax removed are fine), Flexibility of when to cast New.
Level 10: Unchanged
Level 11: Old 3 5th level per short rest 1 6th per long rest: Total 7 spells per long rest. Level 11: New 4 First level, 3 Second Level, 4 third level (1 from pact). Results: Total number of casts New, Total power of spells Old lock By a whopping 6th level+ 5th level + 1 other invocation total power not close, Flexibility of when to cast New lock
Level 12: unchanged
Level 13: Old 3 5th, 1 6th, 1 7th: Total spells per long :8, Total spell power 43 Level 13 New 4 first, 3 second, 3 third, 2 4th (one from pact)= Total spells 12, Total spell power 27 Results: Total number of casts new by 50%, Total power of Spells per long Old by almost double (Need a 6th a 7th and an extra 3rd level at least, invocation tax starting to take its toll, Flexibility of when to cast, still new.
Level 14 unchanged.
Level 15: Old 3 5th per short, 1 6th, 1 7th, 1 8th: Total spells per long 9, total spell power 51
Level 15: New 4 first, 3 second, 3 third, 3 4th (1 from pact): Total spells 13, Total spell power 31. Results: Same as it has been
Level 17: Old 4 5th per short, 1 6th, 1 7th, 1 8th, 1 9th: Total spells per long 12, total spell power: 70 Level 17: New 4 first, 3 second, 3 third, 3 4th, 2 5th (one from Pact): Total spells 15, Total spell power: 41 Results: again very much the same.
Level 19: Old unchanged, New 4 first, 3 second, 3 third, 3 4th, 3 5th (One from pact): Total spells 16, Total spell power 46. Results: Still the same
Level 20: Old gains extra recovery for 4 more 5th: Total spells per long 16, total spell power 90. Level 20: New Unchanged after 19.
Overall results: At earliest levels Warlock flexibility of casting is increased, but total power is decreased. This disparity only grows as the Old Lock gets access to Mystic arcanum. Before level 11 New and old lock are a minor trade off in power. With the new locks power being spread out across more spells and with just a single mystic arcanum needed to keep up and this arcanum is just replacing the previous invocation taxes on warlock pacts except Chain lock. After 11 to keep up New Warlocks will have to give up invocation slots to gain increasingly more and more powerful arcanum
Overall results: At earliest levels Warlock flexibility of casting is increased, but total power is decreased. This disparity only grows as the Old Lock gets access to Mystic arcanum. Before level 11 New and old lock are a minor trade off in power. With the new locks power being spread out across more spells and with just a single mystic arcanum needed to keep up and this arcanum is just replacing the previous invocation taxes on warlock pacts except Chain lock. After 11 to keep up New Warlocks will have to give up invocation slots to gain increasingly more and more powerful arcanum
One of the things to be considered is that some invocations gave a lot of free casting once per day or lots of free casting at will spells as well.
So back to warlock with this. A simple Analysis of each of the pacts.
Starting with Pact of the tome. This one is probably the most functional of all the pacts. It gives 2 ritual spells and 2 cantrips before it just gave 3 cantrips and that was it, you needed to take book of ancient secrets to get ritual spells. In addition, you can recast it in one hour and pick 2 other cantrips and ritual spells. Before changing the cantrips could only happen on level up and you had to find scrolls of ritual spells and copy them into the book to get more ritual spells. In addition at level 5 you get an improved agonizing blast for free. This means that Pact of the Tome warlocks transition well into eldritch blasters with pairings of things like eldritch spear, and repelling blast. Not surprisingly on its own this is just under martials using a bow. A fighter with a long bow can get push on its attack but will also have the archery fighting style for an extra +2 to attack, and both the fighter and the lock will probably pick up spell sniper/ Sharpshooter which are basically the same in this edition.
Pact of the Blade. This one is a little overblown on how good it is. You can only use non-heavy weapons, and you only have proficiency with the pact weapon itself. Yes the build means you only have to worry about charisma but all the damage feats for weapons are tied to strength and dexterity. So first the best weapons are all versatile d10 weapons and second the only feat that keeps you SAD that actually helps you as a melee is Warcaster. Finally, the only feats that actually work with the versatile weapons are the new Weapon Mastery feat, The charger feat, the duel wielder feat (Using a hand-axe since it is a light weapon, but this would mean using your strength or dagger since it is finesse light and would make you MAD anyway). The only invocation to help blade is Life Drinker at 9.
Pact of the Tome is the magical Warlock. If you commit the majority of your invocations to Mystic Arcanum they can be a pseudo-full caster. The Pact automatically giving you the equivalent of Agonizing Blast for all damage cantrips frees up another invocation slot for more Mystic Arcanum.
Blade Pact with a d10 versatile weapon, with Hex and Lifedrinker (and Improved Pact Weapon and Eldritch Smite) can hold its own alongside a polearm master Paladin (thanks, in part, to Paladins getting hit with the nerf bat). Yes, the current feats don't really support any combat character that doesn't fight with strength or dexterity.
Chain Pact... is just there. Are familiars produced by PotC better than familiars found with the Find Familiar spell? If not significantly better you're better off just taking either of the other pacts with the Find Familiar spell as one of those you've chosen.
At this point I think the Celestial Warlock will become the default Warlock, replacing the Hexblade. The Warlock can take any arcane spells, and being able to smite only once a turn, regardless of source, means that the Hexblade's Patron spells will hardly ever get used. Having healing spells on your arcane caster is a solid addition to the group.
For the same reason I think that the Divine Soul will return to being the "best" Sorcerer now its "spells known" problems are being fixed.
Mystic Arcanum goes back to being their own thing but they start at level 2 with a 1st level one and you get one at every level that full casters get new spell levels. 3,5,7, etc. You can pick any spell off the arcane list and can change one MA when you level up for another spell of the same level. We go back to pact magic but make it a long rest to recharge. Then at 3rd level you gain an ability combines to the draw power I suggested and the blood sacrifice I saw on someone else’s post into something new. We make it warlock cantrip since it’s an easy to explain mechanic.
Blood for Power
Casting time 1 minute
range self
components V,M (weapon or improvised weapon that deals slashing or piercing damage)
You expend one hit die in an attempt to gain additional magical power. You attempt to create a spell slot any level equal to or lower than your pact magic spell slots. Roll the Hit Die and if the roll meets or is higher than the spell slot you are attempting to make it coalesces and can be used to cast any spell you have prepared of that level or lower. You may only have one spell slot from this cantrip at one time. While that spell slot exist this cantrip is unavailable to you. Once you have expended it the spell slot vanishes and you may use this cantrip again. The spell slot is also lost when you finish a long rest. Starting at 5th level in warlock if you roll and fail to create your spell slot you may expend a second hit die, roll it and add it to the result. At 11th if you rolled 2 hit dice and the combined result still failed you may roll a third hit die and add it to the result. At 17th if you expended three hit dice and the result still failed you may expend a fourth hit die and you create the spell slot. You may only create spell slots 2x your proficiency bonus per long rest. If you have expended a pact magic slot you may use this cantrip to instead replenish it. Treat it as creating a spell slot of the same level of your pact magic slot except replenishing it doesn’t count against the number of times you can create spell slots per long rest.
This build gives you more uses of magic with Mystic Arcanums from 1st -9th level spells once a day and pact magic that doesn’t require a short rest to recharge. The ability to create new spell slots of lower levels if you want. It balances this by capping the number of new slots to 2x pb and costing a hit die with a chance of failure that increases as you gain more powerful the slot you wish to create which is capped at 5 by your pact magic slots. I can imagine someone being really lucky with the rolls at lvl 20 having 24 5th level pact magic spell slots in one day if they only use the cantrip to recharge. In game I can’t imagine it mattering, but on paper it’s broken.
i'm wholly onboard with the "half-caster that can punch up to full caster progression in limited ways," but i'm way less enthused by "layer in more martial pursuits" at start-up. am i to understand that all locks just begin adventuring life with body-type: athletic mage. is it the heavy black boots and trenchcoats in adolescence that lead to the medium armor aptitude? is there a lot more jogging in the level-0 preparation for locks than there is for sorc and wiz? can we please canonize an early pact with a gym demon or being bit by a radioactive rust monster? just a little crumb of continuity or plausibility! this has been bugging me...
I think some of your disconnect here may lie in how you're choosing to frame this. D&D's default assumption is a quasi-medieval, heroic fantasy world (source: DMG 38). That means the default is... not necessarily athleticism per se, but the characters who pursue the life of adventurer are those that on some level expect to be walking long distances on foot for a lot of their career - certainly at the outset - and getting blades, clubs, claws, fangs and arrows shoved in their faces at some point. Some degree of armor training is not out of the ordinary for such characters, and the ones who don't have that are the ones who have a really damn good reason not to have pursued it - whether that reason is scholarship (wizardry), innate magic (sorcery), or training their bodies to not need any (asceticism). And even for those characters who do next to nothing physically, the lowest their physical stats generally end up being for the most part is an 8, assuming standard array.
This is a long-winded way of saying that for those who choose to pursue warlock...ery? ...having armor training is not all that strange. Most characters in the world should be interested in armor, unless the nature of their profession gets in the way of it. If Bards, Clerics and Druids can find the time for it, why not them? And for Warlocks in particular, who are learning secret shortcuts to arcane power, some of those secrets would feasibly include "here are the cool simpler gestures that let you throw a fireball while wearing scale mail, shhhh."
Now, I wouldn't be against them dropping the medium armor for light armor + shields. Or even getting outright medium armor + shields like clerics do. But I think the current armor proficiencies aren't too outlandish for them either.
oh, i totally get that adventurers are a breed apart, but i'm choosing to see them as a minority. surely these worlds are populated by a majority of peasants and merchants and lords who don't have the constitution of a newly minted player character sorcerer. on the other hand, pre-adventure bards, clerics, and druids are expected to travel (often alone) as part of their job description and therefore have prepared for unsafe roads before level 1. proto-warlocks, though, aren't often advertising their warlockity intent. else they'd get their locky hands slapped at the library when trying to check out the 'for reference only' copy of Flirting With Aberrations for Dummies, right? the really good reason these pre-locks weren't thinking of bush travel is because they're all mild mannered scholars and gardeners and parents and neighbors and unironic corvid collectors all blending into the dusty beige background. riiight until they hit a very tell-tale midlife crisis whereupon they all suddenly become armor-curious and and hit-die-sides comb-over conscious. they're floppy nerds right up until they get the eldrich switch-flip like cordyceps fungus in a carpenter ant. it's just weird. and off topic (sorry).
or is it perhaps not off topic? i feel it's relevant enough to bring up here because it seems like in this thread there's a lot more disagreement than agreement about what a warlock should be. ask ten people, get eleven answers: shadow walker, wizard analog, pact collector, secret sage, arcane archer, eldritch hacker, tortured soul, conduit, communicator, face, expert, diplomat, debtor, slave, student, shyster, tour guide, thief... none of these needs to be the one right answer, but some might be a better fit for other classes and thus set aside for this discussion. i guess i'm just trying to reach past sympathetic understanding to get a more empathetic street-view of common origins for some clarifying context. and if there isn't any, well, then maybe this class is exclusively for the min-max dips and the role players? does anyone really think that, though?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
Overall results: At earliest levels Warlock flexibility of casting is increased, but total power is decreased. This disparity only grows as the Old Lock gets access to Mystic arcanum. Before level 11 New and old lock are a minor trade off in power. With the new locks power being spread out across more spells and with just a single mystic arcanum needed to keep up and this arcanum is just replacing the previous invocation taxes on warlock pacts except Chain lock. After 11 to keep up New Warlocks will have to give up invocation slots to gain increasingly more and more powerful arcanum
One of the things to be considered is that some invocations gave a lot of free casting once per day or lots of free casting at will spells as well.
And many of those exist in old already. The new is giving up some of their invocations for that. If it was just 1 I wouldn't care because blade and tome locks are getting one of their invocation taxes removed. But it isn't, according to rough numbers you have to give up half invocations to keep up at higher levels, which means total invocation strength is down.
At early levels, power is about the same, just distributed differently, at t3 and t4 it is just a raw nerf.
I personally feel like Cleric and Paladin already kind of fit the role of "Simple caster" Divine spells are typically pretty straight forward + the decent health and great armor makes them pretty new player friendly from my experience.
You may be right. But both of them change all of their spells on a long rest, which can mean giving a lot of upfront reading to players so that they know when to prepare what spells. It helps prevent making mistakes, but causes complexity in other ways. I've always been of the opinion that the "spells known" casters should be able to change one of their spells out each long rest, to prevent mistakes without greatly increasing versatility. Paladin is definitely new player-friendly with how simply or complexly it can be played and how it can ease players into spellcasting, but I was thinking more in the full-caster zone. I don't think Cleric is really fundamentally much easier than anything else, at least spellcasting-wise.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Your opinion is well known, but would one easier caster really be so damn tough for ya? I ask that rhetorically, but I know you'll answer it with some gatekeeping stuff about how it attracts murderhobos and asswipes and takes the great wealth that is a part of a book away from good honest D&D players like you to give to people who don't want to play the game the way you do. If you're one thing, it's reliable.
I'm not saying that Warlock has to be a simple caster (I'd actually prefer something more thematically standard to fill that role), I'm saying that just because the 2014 version is pretty easy to mess up doesn't mean the new version has to be just as difficult. I get the desire for a more complex/customizable class, but that can be something other than Warlock. Expanding more on the Modify Spell spell that Wizards got (and preferably moving it to Sorcerers, but eh) could lead into a very interesting system of psuedo-homebrew and individuality.
Here. Let me help you with that.
My opinion is that most people on this forum are tremendously insulting and dismissive towards newbies/new players. They assume new players are fundamentally incompetent, and cannot possibly learn the rules of the game without several months of stripped-down, rules-lite play using the most basic possible option they can be given and being utterly reliant on more experienced players at the table to make all the decisions and handle all the actual gameplay. Or, in short, people on this website tend to assume new players cannot actually play D&D until they've spent several months effectively passively spectating D&D with a noncharacter that has as few choices to make as can be possibly justified within the system.
I find this stance, as stated, insulting and dismissive. New players are perfectly capable of learning the rules of the game and making decisions. They will need a guiding hand at times, to be certain, but they want to play D&D, not be given a cardboard standee of a "character" and told to just roll some d20s whenever a fight breaks out and otherwise stay still, silent, and watchful. No one in my table, when we all played for the first time six-odd years ago, was a single-class fighter. And yet we managed to play D&D without anybody having an aneurism from the sheer impossible complicatedness of it all.
Now. Are there Simpletons, who profess to know how to play just fine and simply don't care for making decisions in their D&D game? Yes. Here's the thing - they have multiple classes dedicated to them already, and Bard back there is devoted to making sure every class is tuned specifically for Simpletons with absolutely no room whatsoever for anyone that wants to engage more thoroughly with the game. Problem the first: you don't need to. Simpletons don't need classes tuned specifically for them because they will, by their nature and desire, ignore whatever their class does anyways and just do whatever it is they're playing the game to do without caring what the rules say. Even then, the barbarian is perfectly suited to the Simpleton "I don't care about story, mechanics, rules or whatever else, I just wanna hit stuff and drink my beer" mode of play. It is, in fact, specifically designed for beer-and-pretzels play. The fighter, even as designed in this most recent UA drop, offers effectively nothing to anyone who's been playing for more than a few months and is a nonfactor nonclass perfect for Simpleton play as well. The sorcerer has also traditionally been a very stripped-down, oversimplified caster with almost no class abilities beyond its known-magic spellcasting, and since you state that Known magic is easier for rookies than Prepared magic you should be all about this, ne?
As for "the complex/customizeable class can be something other than Warlock"...........well hey, that's exactly what Bard said about fighter. His whole thing was "just make another class that can be as complicated as you want instead", except in every other post he made he also campaigned against Wizards doing that. And now he - and you - are pushing to strip all the flexibility and diverse buildcrafting that makes the warlock The Warlock from the class and leave it as tepid, unsatisfying, and unengaging as the fighter?
Why should I clap for joy over that?
My opinion has long been that if y'all are truly so focused on Simple Classes for New Players, then what you should be asking for is the Sidekick classes from TC to get tuned up and turned into Foundation classes. Classes that are numerically/mechanically able to hold their own against average examples of the regular classes, they're not 'weak', but they don't have subclasses, they don't have any features that require making a choice, they have fixed stats and fixed stat progressions, and are completely and entirely on rails from start to finish. Simple, easy, hews to the classic Fighter/Mage/Cleric/Thief archetypes everybody professes to love, and when added to the Basic Rules they allow players who simply cannot be convinced to give a single **** to do exactly that. People who actually need the help, for whichever reason, can use Foundation classes to learn or to play without being pressed; beer-and-pretzels Simpletons can play Foundation classes without having to fire a single neuron, and furthermore everybody will know exactly what to expect from a Foundation class and someone using one so there's no more issues of managing expectations.
But the thing Bard has never acknowledged is that people can bounce off of "too simple" as much as they can "too cawmplukayted". After all, if that wasn't the case why have the ultra-simplified Rules-Lite systems out there that have a one-dimensional resolution mechanic and literally no other rules taken the RPG world by storm and oustered D&D from its throne? There are games that are so simple they're easier to explain to someone than Checkers, and yet they remain niche products. If y'all are so invincibly convinced that Simple Sells and anything that isn't one-dimensional and utterly shallow needs to be made that way, why haven't those games taken off, hm?
i'm wholly onboard with the "half-caster that can punch up to full caster progression in limited ways," but i'm way less enthused by "layer in more martial pursuits" at start-up. am i to understand that all locks just begin adventuring life with body-type: athletic mage. is it the heavy black boots and trenchcoats in adolescence that lead to the medium armor aptitude?
Snip
oh, i totally get that adventurers are a breed apart, but i'm choosing to see them as a minority. surely these worlds are populated by a majority of peasants and merchants and lords who don't have the constitution of a newly minted player character sorcerer. on the other hand, pre-adventure bards, clerics, and druids are expected to travel (often alone) as part of their job description and therefore have prepared for unsafe roads before level 1. proto-warlocks, though, aren't often advertising their warlockity intent.
You know that Fighters also have commoner hit points until they become Fighters, right? Or are you just having fun writing up new silly ways to describe edgy Warlocks? If it's the latter, I guess don't stop on my account.
Overall results: At earliest levels Warlock flexibility of casting is increased, but total power is decreased. This disparity only grows as the Old Lock gets access to Mystic arcanum. Before level 11 New and old lock are a minor trade off in power. With the new locks power being spread out across more spells and with just a single mystic arcanum needed to keep up and this arcanum is just replacing the previous invocation taxes on warlock pacts except Chain lock. After 11 to keep up New Warlocks will have to give up invocation slots to gain increasingly more and more powerful arcanum
One of the things to be considered is that some invocations gave a lot of free casting once per day or lots of free casting at will spells as well.
And many of those exist in old already. The new is giving up some of their invocations for that. If it was just 1 I wouldn't care because blade and tome locks are getting one of their invocation taxes removed. But it isn't, according to rough numbers you have to give up half invocations to keep up at higher levels, which means total invocation strength is down.
At early levels, power is about the same, just distributed differently, at t3 and t4 it is just a raw nerf.
Do not disagree whatsoever. I am not for this warlock. In flavor, mechanics, or power.
Warlocks currently work just fine for what they are. What they are, is an arcane archer. They do that quite well. If you view them as a SPELLCASTER, then they don't really stack up.
Then why are they in the Mage group? Why are they being touted as an equivalent spellcaster to wizards and sorcerers, if in different ways? If they're not supposed to cast spells, why are they being bundled in with the castiest of casty boys?
They are currently a strange quasi caster. They are being standardized as half casters like rangers and paladins. They're bundled as mages out of convenience and lack of somewhere else to put them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Warlocks currently work just fine for what they are. What they are, is an arcane archer. They do that quite well. If you view them as a SPELLCASTER, then they don't really stack up.
Then why are they in the Mage group? Why are they being touted as an equivalent spellcaster to wizards and sorcerers, if in different ways? If they're not supposed to cast spells, why are they being bundled in with the castiest of casty boys?
They are currently a strange quasi caster. They are being standardized as half casters like rangers and paladins. They're bundled as mages out of convenience and lack of somewhere else to put them.
maybe it's because they deal in the side of magic that isn't a recitation from class, isn't asking politely for divine intervention in return for good behavior, and it's not a lucky accident of having a dragon for a handsom postman. this is illicit, taboo, back alley stuff. begged, borrowed, or stolen: of uncertain providence it might be but it's magic none the less. a class about that one weird trick (druids hate it!). a magic class. even if they traded spots with bards for the "experts," they'd still be the magic class of the experts.
so... they're in the magic group because magic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
Honestly, I think the spell changes are terrible. If they wanted to fix the spells available, they could have taken 3 options.
First - add more pact slots to the warlock. I think a decent number would be a single class warlock having pact slots equal to proficiency bonus - aside from level 1, which would stay the same. This fixes the 9 level slog where there are only 2 spell slots available in any combat.
Second - make short rests easier. Have them only take 30 minutes, or even 15 minutes, goes a long ways towards not having a short rest eat up all your time.
Third - what they seem to have done partially, free castings of the spells gained from a subclass. Something more, like a free casting of each spell level, when added to pact magic, would have been better than the half-caster nerf.
Any of the three, or a combination thereof, would be leagues better than half casting.
Fourth - by making the warlock use invocations to replace mystic arcanum we have another net loss. Sure, they technically have one more, and the most common 5th level upgrades to each pact boon is now included for free, but that still leaves the warlock 2 invocations behind where they used to be if they try to recreate the old class feature, and it always felt like you were starved for invocations to begin with. Now you are even worse off.
And lastly, Hex Master....it just seems so...underwhelming. Especially compared to what it replaced, which was regaining all pact slots after 1 minute, once per day.
All I can conclude is that for the most part, there isn't an option low enough on the scale to rate the new warlock. Presuming they make no changes at all to the Monk, it will no longer be the consensus worst class in the game. This new Warlock has been forced onto that dubious throne.
i'm wholly onboard with the "half-caster that can punch up to full caster progression in limited ways," but i'm way less enthused by "layer in more martial pursuits" at start-up. am i to understand that all locks just begin adventuring life with body-type: athletic mage. is it the heavy black boots and trenchcoats in adolescence that lead to the medium armor aptitude?
Snip
oh, i totally get that adventurers are a breed apart, but i'm choosing to see them as a minority. surely these worlds are populated by a majority of peasants and merchants and lords who don't have the constitution of a newly minted player character sorcerer. on the other hand, pre-adventure bards, clerics, and druids are expected to travel (often alone) as part of their job description and therefore have prepared for unsafe roads before level 1. proto-warlocks, though, aren't often advertising their warlockity intent.
You know that Fighters also have commoner hit points until they become Fighters, right? Or are you just having fun writing up new silly ways to describe edgy Warlocks? If it's the latter, I guess don't stop on my account.
you got me: I'm fun in parties.
but are we normalizing fighters taking a scholar background? that sounds silly. i mean, I'm not uninterested in this story but not because it's a standard plausible progression. the scholar (edit: or commoner (i don't mean to move goalposts while i juggle toddlers)) likely didn't put much time in at the gym but the fighter did. it's more than a moniker. the pre-fighter did fighter things until they qualified, at which point they could begin to call themselves a Fighter (if they want). i believe in effort (even unnarrated) leading to proficiency rather than someone checking a box off a list. same with pre-warlock efforts, i would think.
personally I've latched onto a diplomat or merchant background for my next lock. at least then i can say i got in some light walking every day. what's everyone else been doing if not hiding away (scholarishly?) to read forbidden books like the lore suggests up front?
My opinion is that most people on this forum are tremendously insulting and dismissive towards newbies/new players. They assume new players are fundamentally incompetent, and cannot possibly learn the rules of the game without several months of stripped-down, rules-lite play using the most basic possible option they can be given and being utterly reliant on more experienced players at the table to make all the decisions and handle all the actual gameplay. Or, in short, people on this website tend to assume new players cannot actually play D&D until they've spent several months effectively passively spectating D&D with a noncharacter that has as few choices to make as can be possibly justified within the system.
I find this stance, as stated, insulting and dismissive. New players are perfectly capable of learning the rules of the game and making decisions. They will need a guiding hand at times, to be certain, but they want to play D&D, not be given a cardboard standee of a "character" and told to just roll some d20s whenever a fight breaks out and otherwise stay still, silent, and watchful. No one in my table, when we all played for the first time six-odd years ago, was a single-class fighter. And yet we managed to play D&D without anybody having an aneurism from the sheer impossible complicatedness of it all.
We do not "assume that new players are fundamentally incompetent". More accurately, we know that there is a large portion of the D&D player-base that prefers simpler options that don't involve numerous choices and loads of complexity, and that a number of newer players may prefer builds that aren't as confusing when they first start playing the game.
If you look at the data I linked earlier, you will see that the most popular game is also what is arguably the simplest one: The Fighter. Rogue is relatively simple depending on the subclass, and it has an excellent and intriguing concept. It is the second most popular class, followed by Warlock, which is the class we are discussing and the one that has been brought up most whenever we discuss what 5e has for a Simple Caster. Tied for 4th are three other classes, and the Barbarian is one of them.
We are not making claims based-off of nothing. The data here clearly shows that even though some of the simpler classes may be undertuned in terms of power, they prevail in popularity in spite of that. Newer players are more inclined to want simpler, less confusing options. And without any of those options, me and many other people would have likely been turned away from the game.
We do not assume that all new players will use simple options or that all of them will need to. We merely went that choice available for the people who it matters to.
New players are capable of learning the rules and making decisions. It is easier to learn the rules and make more decisions when you have something simple to help you get more accustomed to how frequent and complex those two things are and can be in D&D. Just because your group doesn't like simple classes doesn't mean the information on millions ofdifferent gaming groups can't be different.
Now. Are there Simpletons, who profess to know how to play just fine and simply don't care for making decisions in their D&D game? Yes. Here's the thing - they have multiple classes dedicated to them already, and Bard back there is devoted to making sure every class is tuned specifically for Simpletons with absolutely no room whatsoever for anyone that wants to engage more thoroughly with the game. Problem the first: you don't need to. Simpletons don't need classes tuned specifically for them because they will, by their nature and desire, ignore whatever their class does anyways and just do whatever it is they're playing the game to do without caring what the rules say. Even then, the barbarian is perfectly suited to the Simpleton "I don't care about story, mechanics, rules or whatever else, I just wanna hit stuff and drink my beer" mode of play. It is, in fact, specifically designed for beer-and-pretzels play. The fighter, even as designed in this most recent UA drop, offers effectively nothing to anyone who's been playing for more than a few months and is a nonfactor nonclass perfect for Simpleton play as well. The sorcerer has also traditionally been a very stripped-down, oversimplified caster with almost no class abilities beyond its known-magic spellcasting, and since you state that Known magic is easier for rookies than Prepared magic you should be all about this, ne?
As for "the complex/customizeable class can be something other than Warlock"...........well hey, that's exactly what Bard said about fighter. His whole thing was "just make another class that can be as complicated as you want instead", except in every other post he made he also campaigned against Wizards doing that. And now he - and you - are pushing to strip all the flexibility and diverse buildcrafting that makes the warlock The Warlock from the class and leave it as tepid, unsatisfying, and unengaging as the fighter?
Players who like simplicity should not have to play something complex, and they should still be able to keep up reasonably well with the rest of the party. In other words, power and fun should not be trade-offs for some people. These people will not ignore what their class says, they will just not want to have to understand tons of complicated mechanics from a class they don't understand in order to actually impact gameplay.
I never said Warlock should be simple. I said that, on the contrary, I liked and was okay with the new Warlock. However, what I did point out is that a simple caster is necessary. I always said that another Warrior could be made as complicated as possible instead of Fighter, not that there shouldn't be simple spellcasting options for those who want to be a Mage instead of a Martial.
Also, people's opinions change over time. Fighter may be the single most popular simple class, but I have now realized that Barbarian is strongly liked for a similar reason and that it should preferably remain relatively intact and not become super complex either.
My opinion has long been that if y'all are truly so focused on Simple Classes for New Players, then what you should be asking for is the Sidekick classes from TC to get tuned up and turned into Foundation classes. Classes that are numerically/mechanically able to hold their own against average examples of the regular classes, they're not 'weak', but they don't have subclasses, they don't have any features that require making a choice, they have fixed stats and fixed stat progressions, and are completely and entirely on rails from start to finish. Simple, easy, hews to the classic Fighter/Mage/Cleric/Thief archetypes everybody professes to love, and when added to the Basic Rules they allow players who simply cannot be convinced to give a single **** to do exactly that. People who actually need the help, for whichever reason, can use Foundation classes to learn or to play without being pressed; beer-and-pretzels Simpletons can play Foundation classes without having to fire a single neuron, and furthermore everybody will know exactly what to expect from a Foundation class and someone using one so there's no more issues of managing expectations.
Sidekicks would have to be scaled up to an equal power level as the other classes, if they were to be presented as an equal option. Some more choices would have to be added, because while data shows simple classes are strongly liked and frequently played, the level of simplicity that sidekicks have has too few choices to be an effective or enjoyable building block to more complex options for new players, or to be a fun class for people who like simplicity in general.
After all these changes are made, and the sidekicks are put in the Player's Handbook so that those who enjoy simplicity do not have to pay for more side products or be stuck with options they don't like, these "sidekicks" will effectively be classes. If I recall correctly, adding additional simple classes to the core rules like this is something that you have vehemently argued against previously.
But the thing Bard has never acknowledged is that people can bounce off of "too simple" as much as they can "too cawmplukayted". After all, if that wasn't the case why have the ultra-simplified Rules-Lite systems out there that have a one-dimensional resolution mechanic and literally no other rules taken the RPG world by storm and oustered D&D from its throne? There are games that are so simple they're easier to explain to someone than Checkers, and yet they remain niche products. If y'all are so invincibly convinced that Simple Sells and anything that isn't one-dimensional and utterly shallow needs to be made that way, why haven't those games taken off, hm?
I have acknowledged that people can bounce off too simple. Repeatedly.
My goal is to give everyone options. Whether or not they like simple or complex builds. You may call this a lie and invent statements that I supposedly made about how my goal is to destroy the game and take everything you love in it away from you. However, it is the simple truth of my opinion. You may choose not to believe it and magically read my mind to tell whatever I "really think"; but do realize that nearly everything you've done in your recent posts on this subject is attack a fictional viewpoint that does not relate to anything I have actually said.
You are throwing around words like simpleton to describe those who like simplicity. According to Oxford languages, a Simpleton is "foolish and gullible". According to Merriam Webster, a simpleton is someone who is "lacking in common sense". According to Dictionary.Com, other synonyms for Simpleton include "dolt" and "blockhead".
Let me tell you this: People who like simplicity are not necessarily, and in fact are rarely, blockheads or fools or idiots. When I was new to this game, I loved and played and enjoyed Fighter, and it helped me love and learn D&D and help dozens - or maybe even hundreds - of people out on this very forum. Yes, I liked something simpler. No, that does not make me an idiot, and heaping around insults for those who merely play differently than you do is rude and hurtful.
I am tired of this. It makes me feel like I have to justify the existence of the very thing that allowed me and numerous others to be members of this community here today. Please, at a minimum, try to empathize with and appreciate the different experiences and ways people enjoy the wonderful and expansive game of Dungeons and Dragons.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
I keep seeing people saying they want Warlock to have proficiency bonus numbers of short rest recharge spell slots.
Have you no idea what a character that potentially goes into every fight with six fifth level spell slots would do to game balance (which is already pretty shaky)?
Especially if it's specifically linked to proficiency bonus, which means a two level dip will give full spell slot progression because proficiency bonus scales based on character level, not class level. That is the reason Eldritch Blast is now locked to Warlock levels. It's also why WotC are stopping the use of proficiency bonus as a metering device.
Every full spellcaster, at level 20, has 3 level 5 slots, 2 level 6 and level 7 slots, and 1 level 8 and level 9 slot. Those slots have to last them across an entire adventuring day, although some spellcasters have means to regain spell slots in a limited manner.
The Warlock, currently, has 4 level 5 slots, and potentially 1 each of a 6, 7, 8, and 9 spell which, like the aforementioned full casters, are one use a day. As long as they have a short rest, or one minute to use Eldritch Master, that's always 4 level 5 spell slots.
In the playtest rules, if the Warlock goes all in with mystic arcanum, that becomes 2 + 1MA level 5 slots, 1MA level 6 spell, 1MA level 7 spell, 1MA level 8 spell, and 1MA level 9 spell (or Wish, in other words). The Warlock still has the best damage cantrip in the game, something WotC are unwilling to put on a full caster chassis. They partially committed to it by not making a Warlock a full caster in 2014, and have completely committed to it in 2023 by soft locking Eldritch Blast to the Warlock.
Warlocks, currently, are balanced based on a mechanism that might not occur in every game, or every table, short rests. If they get two short rests a day they're roughly on par with a full caster. If they get more they're more powerful, if they get less they're not. If a player gets short rests after every fight then Warlocks are going to be the most powerful caster on the table after a few battles because their resources are constantly replaced.
That's not going to fly given that Warlocks now get full access to the Arcane spell list. They'd become easily the best caster in the game.
Warlocks aren't going to get full caster progression because they have Eldritch Blast and a variety of invocation options. Abilities that Wizards have to wait until level 15 for, the ability to cast spells on demand, Warlocks get at level 2, for a more limited choice of spells.
Half caster plus Mystic Arcanum gives a pseudo full caster progression, but limits Warlock enough that they can keep their EB and invocations.
What we probably can negotiate on is the number of invocations. We can argue that, thanks to having to commit invocations to Mystic Arcanum in order to keep up with spellcasting, we need more invocations. At least 2, preferably more.
If we got an additional invocation after every two levels, i.e. levels 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, that would give us 11 invocations.
Alternatively, instead of getting 1 invocation at levels 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 we get 2. That would give us 16 invocations total, meaning we could devote 9 to Mystic Arcanum and still have 7 to play with. That one is probably too strong. Perhaps gaining 2 at alternating levels, 7, 11, 15. That would give us 12 total, which is probably just enough.
Hex Master is literal dog crap.
Hex should be another cantrip. Bonus action to cast, concentration for one minute, scaling with Warlock levels, adding 1d6 to 4d6 necrotic damage (Although seriously, why do so many Warlock spells do necrotic damage. It's like WotC think we're bad guys or something) to an attack roll, once per round. Specify that it does not benefit from the Tome's level 5 feature. The "disadvantage on ability checks" is basically worthless, so drop it.
The 18th level feature should be:
Eldritch Master: You can conduct a 1 minute ritual, petitioning your Patron. You regain all used Mystic Arcanum. You must complete a long rest before you can use this feature again.
Of course it supposes that the player will be using Mystic Arcanum, but why wouldn't they be?
i'm wholly onboard with the "half-caster that can punch up to full caster progression in limited ways," but i'm way less enthused by "layer in more martial pursuits" at start-up. am i to understand that all locks just begin adventuring life with body-type: athletic mage. is it the heavy black boots and trenchcoats in adolescence that lead to the medium armor aptitude?
Snip
oh, i totally get that adventurers are a breed apart, but i'm choosing to see them as a minority. surely these worlds are populated by a majority of peasants and merchants and lords who don't have the constitution of a newly minted player character sorcerer. on the other hand, pre-adventure bards, clerics, and druids are expected to travel (often alone) as part of their job description and therefore have prepared for unsafe roads before level 1. proto-warlocks, though, aren't often advertising their warlockity intent.
You know that Fighters also have commoner hit points until they become Fighters, right? Or are you just having fun writing up new silly ways to describe edgy Warlocks? If it's the latter, I guess don't stop on my account.
the pre-fighter did fighter things until they qualified, at which point they could begin to call themselves a Fighter (if they want). i believe in effort (even unnarrated) leading to proficiency rather than someone checking a box off a list. same with pre-warlock efforts, i would think.
So do you think hit dice should be based on background? Or do you think backgrounds should be limited by class? Wouldn't the first basically enforce the second? I can't see a lot of Barbarian players choosing the Frail Baby background with the d6 HD even if you allowed them to.
A Warlock isn't a nerd-ass weakling. Never was. They've had d8 hit dice from the moment they stepped into 5e. An individual Warlock may have never risen from his couch BEFORE becoming a Warlock, but that's irrelevant because being a Warlock means being tougher not only than the average person, but also tougher than the average adventuring Wizard. D&D doesn't have a class concept for "person who can't lift a bowling ball and can't eat anything spicier than white bread or they'll die." (It also doesn't have one for "Barbarian who's too dumb to read," but that's a story for another time.)
Removing spell slots and "spells prepared" entirely, and making Mystic Arcanum the main method for Warlocks getting to cast spells would be my first choice if I was in charge of Warlock development.
Spell slot deep dive.
Based on the short rest poll we can see that the most common number of encounters between rests is 1.5 and the most common of encounters per long rest is 3-4. This means that the average number of short rests in a day is 1. Keeping this in mind lets I am going to compare old lock to new lock number of slots and power of slots from level 1-20.
Level 1 Old
1 spell per short rest with assumed 1 rest per day for a total of 2 first level spells per Long rest. Even had the rest poll not been released I would have still only assumed 1 short rest because players only have 1 hit die to recover health with.
Level 1 New 2 first level spells per long rest.
Results: Number of spells per long are =, strength of spells are =, flexibility of spells goes to new, they auto have hex and they get both their spells right at the start of the day so they have more flexibility as to when to cast those spells.
Level 2 Old 2 first level spells per short: total 4 per long
Level 2 New 2 Spells per long rest
Results: Old is has double the number of spells per day, has the same number available at the start of the day. Old is more versatile, more powerful and has more spells available to cast over the course of the day.
Level 3: Old 2 Second level spells per short rest: total 4 per long. Total spell power 8
Level 3 New 4 First level spells per long rest (1 from pact) Total spell Power 4
Results: Number of spells=, Power of spells Old, Flexibility of casting New.
Level 4: unchanged.
Level 5: Old 2 Third Level spells per short rest: Total 4 per long. Total Spell power 12
Level 5 New 4 first level spells per long rest, 3 second level spells per long rest (1 from pact). Total spell power: 10
Results: Number of spells New lock, Total power of spells Old (By one 3rd level slot, matched with 1 Mystic Arcanum), Flexibility of casting New.
Level 6 Unchanged
Level 7: Old 2 4th level spells per short rest: Total 4 per long. Total Spell power 16
Level 7 New: 4 first level spells, 4 second level spells (1 from pact). Total Spell power 12
Results: Total number of casting New Lock, Total power of Spells Old lock (by 1 fourth level spell, kept up with one mystic arcanum invocation), Flexibility of when to cast New
Level 8, Unchanged
Level 9: Old 2 5th level spells per short rest: Total 4 per long. (Total Spell power 20)
Level 9: New 4 first level spells, 3 second level spells, 3 third level spells (1 from pact) (Total spell power 19).
Results: Total number of casts new, Total power of spells Old lock (By a first level spell, any invocation will catch up, so all but chain lock who have at least one invocation tax removed are fine), Flexibility of when to cast New.
Level 10: Unchanged
Level 11: Old 3 5th level per short rest 1 6th per long rest: Total 7 spells per long rest.
Level 11: New 4 First level, 3 Second Level, 4 third level (1 from pact).
Results: Total number of casts New, Total power of spells Old lock By a whopping 6th level+ 5th level + 1 other invocation total power not close, Flexibility of when to cast New lock
Level 12: unchanged
Level 13: Old 3 5th, 1 6th, 1 7th: Total spells per long :8, Total spell power 43
Level 13 New 4 first, 3 second, 3 third, 2 4th (one from pact)= Total spells 12, Total spell power 27
Results: Total number of casts new by 50%, Total power of Spells per long Old by almost double (Need a 6th a 7th and an extra 3rd level at least, invocation tax starting to take its toll, Flexibility of when to cast, still new.
Level 14 unchanged.
Level 15: Old 3 5th per short, 1 6th, 1 7th, 1 8th: Total spells per long 9, total spell power 51
Level 15: New 4 first, 3 second, 3 third, 3 4th (1 from pact): Total spells 13, Total spell power 31.
Results: Same as it has been
Level 17: Old 4 5th per short, 1 6th, 1 7th, 1 8th, 1 9th: Total spells per long 12, total spell power: 70
Level 17: New 4 first, 3 second, 3 third, 3 4th, 2 5th (one from Pact): Total spells 15, Total spell power: 41
Results: again very much the same.
Level 19: Old unchanged, New 4 first, 3 second, 3 third, 3 4th, 3 5th (One from pact): Total spells 16, Total spell power 46.
Results: Still the same
Level 20: Old gains extra recovery for 4 more 5th: Total spells per long 16, total spell power 90.
Level 20: New Unchanged after 19.
Overall results: At earliest levels Warlock flexibility of casting is increased, but total power is decreased. This disparity only grows as the Old Lock gets access to Mystic arcanum. Before level 11 New and old lock are a minor trade off in power. With the new locks power being spread out across more spells and with just a single mystic arcanum needed to keep up and this arcanum is just replacing the previous invocation taxes on warlock pacts except Chain lock. After 11 to keep up New Warlocks will have to give up invocation slots to gain increasingly more and more powerful arcanum
One of the things to be considered is that some invocations gave a lot of free casting once per day or lots of free casting at will spells as well.
Pact of the Tome is the magical Warlock. If you commit the majority of your invocations to Mystic Arcanum they can be a pseudo-full caster. The Pact automatically giving you the equivalent of Agonizing Blast for all damage cantrips frees up another invocation slot for more Mystic Arcanum.
Blade Pact with a d10 versatile weapon, with Hex and Lifedrinker (and Improved Pact Weapon and Eldritch Smite) can hold its own alongside a polearm master Paladin (thanks, in part, to Paladins getting hit with the nerf bat). Yes, the current feats don't really support any combat character that doesn't fight with strength or dexterity.
Chain Pact... is just there. Are familiars produced by PotC better than familiars found with the Find Familiar spell? If not significantly better you're better off just taking either of the other pacts with the Find Familiar spell as one of those you've chosen.
At this point I think the Celestial Warlock will become the default Warlock, replacing the Hexblade. The Warlock can take any arcane spells, and being able to smite only once a turn, regardless of source, means that the Hexblade's Patron spells will hardly ever get used. Having healing spells on your arcane caster is a solid addition to the group.
For the same reason I think that the Divine Soul will return to being the "best" Sorcerer now its "spells known" problems are being fixed.
I am surprised and really like your proposal.
oh, i totally get that adventurers are a breed apart, but i'm choosing to see them as a minority. surely these worlds are populated by a majority of peasants and merchants and lords who don't have the constitution of a newly minted player character sorcerer. on the other hand, pre-adventure bards, clerics, and druids are expected to travel (often alone) as part of their job description and therefore have prepared for unsafe roads before level 1. proto-warlocks, though, aren't often advertising their warlockity intent. else they'd get their locky hands slapped at the library when trying to check out the 'for reference only' copy of Flirting With Aberrations for Dummies, right? the really good reason these pre-locks weren't thinking of bush travel is because they're all mild mannered scholars and gardeners and parents and neighbors and unironic corvid collectors all blending into the dusty beige background. riiight until they hit a very tell-tale midlife crisis whereupon they all suddenly become armor-curious and and hit-die-sides comb-over conscious. they're floppy nerds right up until they get the eldrich switch-flip like cordyceps fungus in a carpenter ant. it's just weird. and off topic (sorry).
or is it perhaps not off topic? i feel it's relevant enough to bring up here because it seems like in this thread there's a lot more disagreement than agreement about what a warlock should be. ask ten people, get eleven answers: shadow walker, wizard analog, pact collector, secret sage, arcane archer, eldritch hacker, tortured soul, conduit, communicator, face, expert, diplomat, debtor, slave, student, shyster, tour guide, thief... none of these needs to be the one right answer, but some might be a better fit for other classes and thus set aside for this discussion. i guess i'm just trying to reach past sympathetic understanding to get a more empathetic street-view of common origins for some clarifying context. and if there isn't any, well, then maybe this class is exclusively for the min-max dips and the role players? does anyone really think that, though?
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
There's been actual play reports where, no, the chain familiar is far undertuned.
And many of those exist in old already. The new is giving up some of their invocations for that. If it was just 1 I wouldn't care because blade and tome locks are getting one of their invocation taxes removed. But it isn't, according to rough numbers you have to give up half invocations to keep up at higher levels, which means total invocation strength is down.
At early levels, power is about the same, just distributed differently, at t3 and t4 it is just a raw nerf.
You may be right. But both of them change all of their spells on a long rest, which can mean giving a lot of upfront reading to players so that they know when to prepare what spells. It helps prevent making mistakes, but causes complexity in other ways. I've always been of the opinion that the "spells known" casters should be able to change one of their spells out each long rest, to prevent mistakes without greatly increasing versatility. Paladin is definitely new player-friendly with how simply or complexly it can be played and how it can ease players into spellcasting, but I was thinking more in the full-caster zone. I don't think Cleric is really fundamentally much easier than anything else, at least spellcasting-wise.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Here. Let me help you with that.
My opinion is that most people on this forum are tremendously insulting and dismissive towards newbies/new players. They assume new players are fundamentally incompetent, and cannot possibly learn the rules of the game without several months of stripped-down, rules-lite play using the most basic possible option they can be given and being utterly reliant on more experienced players at the table to make all the decisions and handle all the actual gameplay. Or, in short, people on this website tend to assume new players cannot actually play D&D until they've spent several months effectively passively spectating D&D with a noncharacter that has as few choices to make as can be possibly justified within the system.
I find this stance, as stated, insulting and dismissive. New players are perfectly capable of learning the rules of the game and making decisions. They will need a guiding hand at times, to be certain, but they want to play D&D, not be given a cardboard standee of a "character" and told to just roll some d20s whenever a fight breaks out and otherwise stay still, silent, and watchful. No one in my table, when we all played for the first time six-odd years ago, was a single-class fighter. And yet we managed to play D&D without anybody having an aneurism from the sheer impossible complicatedness of it all.
Now. Are there Simpletons, who profess to know how to play just fine and simply don't care for making decisions in their D&D game? Yes. Here's the thing - they have multiple classes dedicated to them already, and Bard back there is devoted to making sure every class is tuned specifically for Simpletons with absolutely no room whatsoever for anyone that wants to engage more thoroughly with the game. Problem the first: you don't need to. Simpletons don't need classes tuned specifically for them because they will, by their nature and desire, ignore whatever their class does anyways and just do whatever it is they're playing the game to do without caring what the rules say. Even then, the barbarian is perfectly suited to the Simpleton "I don't care about story, mechanics, rules or whatever else, I just wanna hit stuff and drink my beer" mode of play. It is, in fact, specifically designed for beer-and-pretzels play. The fighter, even as designed in this most recent UA drop, offers effectively nothing to anyone who's been playing for more than a few months and is a nonfactor nonclass perfect for Simpleton play as well. The sorcerer has also traditionally been a very stripped-down, oversimplified caster with almost no class abilities beyond its known-magic spellcasting, and since you state that Known magic is easier for rookies than Prepared magic you should be all about this, ne?
As for "the complex/customizeable class can be something other than Warlock"...........well hey, that's exactly what Bard said about fighter. His whole thing was "just make another class that can be as complicated as you want instead", except in every other post he made he also campaigned against Wizards doing that. And now he - and you - are pushing to strip all the flexibility and diverse buildcrafting that makes the warlock The Warlock from the class and leave it as tepid, unsatisfying, and unengaging as the fighter?
Why should I clap for joy over that?
My opinion has long been that if y'all are truly so focused on Simple Classes for New Players, then what you should be asking for is the Sidekick classes from TC to get tuned up and turned into Foundation classes. Classes that are numerically/mechanically able to hold their own against average examples of the regular classes, they're not 'weak', but they don't have subclasses, they don't have any features that require making a choice, they have fixed stats and fixed stat progressions, and are completely and entirely on rails from start to finish. Simple, easy, hews to the classic Fighter/Mage/Cleric/Thief archetypes everybody professes to love, and when added to the Basic Rules they allow players who simply cannot be convinced to give a single **** to do exactly that. People who actually need the help, for whichever reason, can use Foundation classes to learn or to play without being pressed; beer-and-pretzels Simpletons can play Foundation classes without having to fire a single neuron, and furthermore everybody will know exactly what to expect from a Foundation class and someone using one so there's no more issues of managing expectations.
But the thing Bard has never acknowledged is that people can bounce off of "too simple" as much as they can "too cawmplukayted". After all, if that wasn't the case why have the ultra-simplified Rules-Lite systems out there that have a one-dimensional resolution mechanic and literally no other rules taken the RPG world by storm and oustered D&D from its throne? There are games that are so simple they're easier to explain to someone than Checkers, and yet they remain niche products. If y'all are so invincibly convinced that Simple Sells and anything that isn't one-dimensional and utterly shallow needs to be made that way, why haven't those games taken off, hm?
Please do not contact or message me.
You know that Fighters also have commoner hit points until they become Fighters, right? Or are you just having fun writing up new silly ways to describe edgy Warlocks? If it's the latter, I guess don't stop on my account.
Do not disagree whatsoever. I am not for this warlock. In flavor, mechanics, or power.
They are currently a strange quasi caster. They are being standardized as half casters like rangers and paladins. They're bundled as mages out of convenience and lack of somewhere else to put them.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
maybe it's because they deal in the side of magic that isn't a recitation from class, isn't asking politely for divine intervention in return for good behavior, and it's not a lucky accident of having a dragon for a handsom postman. this is illicit, taboo, back alley stuff. begged, borrowed, or stolen: of uncertain providence it might be but it's magic none the less. a class about that one weird trick (druids hate it!). a magic class. even if they traded spots with bards for the "experts," they'd still be the magic class of the experts.
so... they're in the magic group because magic.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
Honestly, I think the spell changes are terrible. If they wanted to fix the spells available, they could have taken 3 options.
First - add more pact slots to the warlock. I think a decent number would be a single class warlock having pact slots equal to proficiency bonus - aside from level 1, which would stay the same. This fixes the 9 level slog where there are only 2 spell slots available in any combat.
Second - make short rests easier. Have them only take 30 minutes, or even 15 minutes, goes a long ways towards not having a short rest eat up all your time.
Third - what they seem to have done partially, free castings of the spells gained from a subclass. Something more, like a free casting of each spell level, when added to pact magic, would have been better than the half-caster nerf.
Any of the three, or a combination thereof, would be leagues better than half casting.
Fourth - by making the warlock use invocations to replace mystic arcanum we have another net loss. Sure, they technically have one more, and the most common 5th level upgrades to each pact boon is now included for free, but that still leaves the warlock 2 invocations behind where they used to be if they try to recreate the old class feature, and it always felt like you were starved for invocations to begin with. Now you are even worse off.
And lastly, Hex Master....it just seems so...underwhelming. Especially compared to what it replaced, which was regaining all pact slots after 1 minute, once per day.
All I can conclude is that for the most part, there isn't an option low enough on the scale to rate the new warlock. Presuming they make no changes at all to the Monk, it will no longer be the consensus worst class in the game. This new Warlock has been forced onto that dubious throne.
you got me: I'm fun in parties.
but are we normalizing fighters taking a scholar background? that sounds silly. i mean, I'm not uninterested in this story but not because it's a standard plausible progression. the scholar (edit: or commoner (i don't mean to move goalposts while i juggle toddlers)) likely didn't put much time in at the gym but the fighter did. it's more than a moniker. the pre-fighter did fighter things until they qualified, at which point they could begin to call themselves a Fighter (if they want). i believe in effort (even unnarrated) leading to proficiency rather than someone checking a box off a list. same with pre-warlock efforts, i would think.
personally I've latched onto a diplomat or merchant background for my next lock. at least then i can say i got in some light walking every day. what's everyone else been doing if not hiding away (scholarishly?) to read forbidden books like the lore suggests up front?
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
We do not "assume that new players are fundamentally incompetent". More accurately, we know that there is a large portion of the D&D player-base that prefers simpler options that don't involve numerous choices and loads of complexity, and that a number of newer players may prefer builds that aren't as confusing when they first start playing the game.
If you look at the data I linked earlier, you will see that the most popular game is also what is arguably the simplest one: The Fighter. Rogue is relatively simple depending on the subclass, and it has an excellent and intriguing concept. It is the second most popular class, followed by Warlock, which is the class we are discussing and the one that has been brought up most whenever we discuss what 5e has for a Simple Caster. Tied for 4th are three other classes, and the Barbarian is one of them.
We are not making claims based-off of nothing. The data here clearly shows that even though some of the simpler classes may be undertuned in terms of power, they prevail in popularity in spite of that. Newer players are more inclined to want simpler, less confusing options. And without any of those options, me and many other people would have likely been turned away from the game.
We do not assume that all new players will use simple options or that all of them will need to. We merely went that choice available for the people who it matters to.
New players are capable of learning the rules and making decisions. It is easier to learn the rules and make more decisions when you have something simple to help you get more accustomed to how frequent and complex those two things are and can be in D&D. Just because your group doesn't like simple classes doesn't mean the information on millions of different gaming groups can't be different.
Players who like simplicity should not have to play something complex, and they should still be able to keep up reasonably well with the rest of the party. In other words, power and fun should not be trade-offs for some people. These people will not ignore what their class says, they will just not want to have to understand tons of complicated mechanics from a class they don't understand in order to actually impact gameplay.
I never said Warlock should be simple. I said that, on the contrary, I liked and was okay with the new Warlock. However, what I did point out is that a simple caster is necessary. I always said that another Warrior could be made as complicated as possible instead of Fighter, not that there shouldn't be simple spellcasting options for those who want to be a Mage instead of a Martial.
Also, people's opinions change over time. Fighter may be the single most popular simple class, but I have now realized that Barbarian is strongly liked for a similar reason and that it should preferably remain relatively intact and not become super complex either.
Sidekicks would have to be scaled up to an equal power level as the other classes, if they were to be presented as an equal option. Some more choices would have to be added, because while data shows simple classes are strongly liked and frequently played, the level of simplicity that sidekicks have has too few choices to be an effective or enjoyable building block to more complex options for new players, or to be a fun class for people who like simplicity in general.
After all these changes are made, and the sidekicks are put in the Player's Handbook so that those who enjoy simplicity do not have to pay for more side products or be stuck with options they don't like, these "sidekicks" will effectively be classes. If I recall correctly, adding additional simple classes to the core rules like this is something that you have vehemently argued against previously.
I have acknowledged that people can bounce off too simple. Repeatedly.
My goal is to give everyone options. Whether or not they like simple or complex builds. You may call this a lie and invent statements that I supposedly made about how my goal is to destroy the game and take everything you love in it away from you. However, it is the simple truth of my opinion. You may choose not to believe it and magically read my mind to tell whatever I "really think"; but do realize that nearly everything you've done in your recent posts on this subject is attack a fictional viewpoint that does not relate to anything I have actually said.
You are throwing around words like simpleton to describe those who like simplicity. According to Oxford languages, a Simpleton is "foolish and gullible". According to Merriam Webster, a simpleton is someone who is "lacking in common sense". According to Dictionary.Com, other synonyms for Simpleton include "dolt" and "blockhead".
Let me tell you this: People who like simplicity are not necessarily, and in fact are rarely, blockheads or fools or idiots. When I was new to this game, I loved and played and enjoyed Fighter, and it helped me love and learn D&D and help dozens - or maybe even hundreds - of people out on this very forum. Yes, I liked something simpler. No, that does not make me an idiot, and heaping around insults for those who merely play differently than you do is rude and hurtful.
I am tired of this. It makes me feel like I have to justify the existence of the very thing that allowed me and numerous others to be members of this community here today. Please, at a minimum, try to empathize with and appreciate the different experiences and ways people enjoy the wonderful and expansive game of Dungeons and Dragons.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I keep seeing people saying they want Warlock to have proficiency bonus numbers of short rest recharge spell slots.
Have you no idea what a character that potentially goes into every fight with six fifth level spell slots would do to game balance (which is already pretty shaky)?
Especially if it's specifically linked to proficiency bonus, which means a two level dip will give full spell slot progression because proficiency bonus scales based on character level, not class level. That is the reason Eldritch Blast is now locked to Warlock levels. It's also why WotC are stopping the use of proficiency bonus as a metering device.
Every full spellcaster, at level 20, has 3 level 5 slots, 2 level 6 and level 7 slots, and 1 level 8 and level 9 slot. Those slots have to last them across an entire adventuring day, although some spellcasters have means to regain spell slots in a limited manner.
The Warlock, currently, has 4 level 5 slots, and potentially 1 each of a 6, 7, 8, and 9 spell which, like the aforementioned full casters, are one use a day. As long as they have a short rest, or one minute to use Eldritch Master, that's always 4 level 5 spell slots.
In the playtest rules, if the Warlock goes all in with mystic arcanum, that becomes 2 + 1MA level 5 slots, 1MA level 6 spell, 1MA level 7 spell, 1MA level 8 spell, and 1MA level 9 spell (or Wish, in other words). The Warlock still has the best damage cantrip in the game, something WotC are unwilling to put on a full caster chassis. They partially committed to it by not making a Warlock a full caster in 2014, and have completely committed to it in 2023 by soft locking Eldritch Blast to the Warlock.
Warlocks, currently, are balanced based on a mechanism that might not occur in every game, or every table, short rests. If they get two short rests a day they're roughly on par with a full caster. If they get more they're more powerful, if they get less they're not. If a player gets short rests after every fight then Warlocks are going to be the most powerful caster on the table after a few battles because their resources are constantly replaced.
That's not going to fly given that Warlocks now get full access to the Arcane spell list. They'd become easily the best caster in the game.
Warlocks aren't going to get full caster progression because they have Eldritch Blast and a variety of invocation options. Abilities that Wizards have to wait until level 15 for, the ability to cast spells on demand, Warlocks get at level 2, for a more limited choice of spells.
Half caster plus Mystic Arcanum gives a pseudo full caster progression, but limits Warlock enough that they can keep their EB and invocations.
What we probably can negotiate on is the number of invocations. We can argue that, thanks to having to commit invocations to Mystic Arcanum in order to keep up with spellcasting, we need more invocations. At least 2, preferably more.
If we got an additional invocation after every two levels, i.e. levels 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, that would give us 11 invocations.
Alternatively, instead of getting 1 invocation at levels 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 we get 2. That would give us 16 invocations total, meaning we could devote 9 to Mystic Arcanum and still have 7 to play with. That one is probably too strong. Perhaps gaining 2 at alternating levels, 7, 11, 15. That would give us 12 total, which is probably just enough.
Hex Master is literal dog crap.
Hex should be another cantrip. Bonus action to cast, concentration for one minute, scaling with Warlock levels, adding 1d6 to 4d6 necrotic damage (Although seriously, why do so many Warlock spells do necrotic damage. It's like WotC think we're bad guys or something) to an attack roll, once per round. Specify that it does not benefit from the Tome's level 5 feature. The "disadvantage on ability checks" is basically worthless, so drop it.
The 18th level feature should be:
Eldritch Master: You can conduct a 1 minute ritual, petitioning your Patron. You regain all used Mystic Arcanum. You must complete a long rest before you can use this feature again.
Of course it supposes that the player will be using Mystic Arcanum, but why wouldn't they be?
So do you think hit dice should be based on background? Or do you think backgrounds should be limited by class? Wouldn't the first basically enforce the second? I can't see a lot of Barbarian players choosing the Frail Baby background with the d6 HD even if you allowed them to.
A Warlock isn't a nerd-ass weakling. Never was. They've had d8 hit dice from the moment they stepped into 5e. An individual Warlock may have never risen from his couch BEFORE becoming a Warlock, but that's irrelevant because being a Warlock means being tougher not only than the average person, but also tougher than the average adventuring Wizard. D&D doesn't have a class concept for "person who can't lift a bowling ball and can't eat anything spicier than white bread or they'll die." (It also doesn't have one for "Barbarian who's too dumb to read," but that's a story for another time.)
They could just remove mystic arcanums from invocations. Go back to 8 invocations and give us a misting arcanum for every spell level.