Combat, Paladin rolls 2(d10+5) damage, then d4+5, for 2d10 + d4 +15. Uses glaive.
Warlock, without Hex, rolls 2(d10+d6+6) for 2d10 + 2d6 + 12. Uses longsword two handed.
You seem to be assuming a level 9 paladin has a non-magical weapon, which is not a particularly realistic assumption at level 9, and are ignoring fighting style (not that GWM is particularly good, but it's there). Also, I'm only using stuff that's in the released playtest, and you're not including fighting style in your math.
Paladin is also more sustainable DPR.
How?
Paladin gives, as I showed, 2d10 + 1d4 + 15 a round (at level 9), giving 18 to 39 damage per round. It can use smites to get 2d8 to 4d8 damage per round, but that's not sustainable. It starts doing more damage at level 11, when it gets radiant strikes, for an additional 3 to 24 damage per round, total 21 to 63 damage.
Warlock, at level 9, even if we only use the 2023 rules, is rolling 2d10 + 2d6 +10 per round, between 14 and 42 damage a round. None of which consumes any resources. They could expend a third level slot for a 2d6 Hex which would last for 8 hours, bringing it to 2d10 + 4d6 + 10 per round. Between 16 and 54 damage a round.
So for sustained damage, at level 9, the PAM Paladin averages 28.5 damage a round, and the Bladelock averages 28 damage a round, unless they use Hex which gives an average of 35 damage a round. At level 11 the PAM Paladin is averaging 42 damage a round.
Given the Paladin is meant to be something of a melee specialist, while the Bladelock is a gish, the fact they're so close together should be surprising.
Not really. The strength of the Paladin is only partially in melee damage output. The rest is the ability to really take punishment by not only wearing heavy armor, but the incredible saving throw bonuses granted by their aura. It's hard to take a Paladin down by methods other than massive damage, much more so than a Blade Warlock.
So for sustained damage, at level 9, the PAM Paladin averages 28.5 damage a round, and the Bladelock averages 28 damage a round, unless they use Hex which gives an average of 35 damage a round. At level 11 the PAM Paladin is averaging 42 damage a round.
Yeah, picking level 9 is kinda cherry-picking the best level for the warlock.
Given the Paladin is meant to be something of a melee specialist, while the Bladelock is a gish, the fact they're so close together should be surprising.
The paladin is the cleric equivalent of a gish. The bladelock has nothing equivalent to aura of protection (which is super OP, so...); its main selling point is '1 level 5 spell per short rest'. Which is definitely a nice selling point, but 45 healing per short rest (lay on hands) is also plenty solid. There's also some solid channel divinity options.
That said, I'm not really convinced there's any point in playing version 5.1.
I'd much rather stack PAM, GWM, Hexblade's Curse, Thirsting Blade, Improved Pact Weapon, Lifedrinker, and Spirit Shroud for up to 147 damage a round rather than settle for 54.
Currently the best weapon for the 2023 Bladelock to summon is the double-bladed scimitar. It's not heavy, and it gives you PAM for free.
That gives 5d4 + 3d6 + 15 damage, for between 23 and 53 damage.
...and what happens when you bust? Thoruk didn't say. but actually we don't have to guess because there is already a table for spell scroll mishaps (variant) to crib from: if you fail both the Arcana(INT/WIS/CHA) check to over-cast and the INT/WIS/CHA Save that follows, then there's a d6 table of random mishaps. or maybe you prefer the wild magic surge table. tack on a +2/5/10 to the check DC per successful over-cast (and decide ahead of time whether die roll of 20 is an auto-success (it's not)).
what i like about this (and many of the hit die or whatever recharge mechanisms others have mentioned in the last 40pages) is that the player is in control of whether or not they exceed their pact slot limit. no begging for short rests. perhaps more importantly, less hording of pact slots "just in case" (boring!). this might be less interesting with spell slots instead of pact slots, but it remains a feel-good option to have in the back pocket.
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!
Agreed that 9 5th level spell slots might be overpowered....but it's a very good start and I like that FAR better than what we get in the UA.
Forget the nine 5ths at high levels, even four 5th-level slots at level 9 is pretty busted. And two levels after that they'd not only have that, they'd also have a 6th-level slot on-curve. It also doesn't solve the feels-bad problem whenever you need to use one of those 5ths to cast Shield or Absorb Elements or Earthbind or Misty Step or Vortex Warp etc.
They'd be the most powerful casters at the levels most people play at, while simultaneously feeing bad due to lacking the lower level spell utility except for what they can scrape together via the odd racial, 1/LR feat or invocation. I'd rather have an actual 1-9 progression with much fewer slots at the top end, which is exactly what the proposed half-casting + MA design gives us.
Agreed that 9 5th level spell slots might be overpowered....but it's a very good start and I like that FAR better than what we get in the UA.
Forget the nine 5ths at high levels, even four 5th-level slots at level 9 is pretty busted. And two levels after that they'd not only have that, they'd also have a 6th-level slot on-curve. It also doesn't solve the feels-bad problem whenever you need to use one of those 5ths to cast Shield or Absorb Elements or Earthbind or Misty Step or Vortex Warp etc.
They'd be the most powerful casters at the levels most people play at, while simultaneously feeing bad due to lacking the lower level spell utility except for what they can scrape together via the odd racial, 1/LR feat or invocation. I'd rather have an actual 1-9 progression with much fewer slots at the top end, which is exactly what the proposed half-casting + MA design gives us.
In a non-dysfunctional game, a warlock is already typically getting at least four 5th-level slots at 9th level in the currently published version of the game. You're freaking out over a non-issue.
Agreed that 9 5th level spell slots might be overpowered....but it's a very good start and I like that FAR better than what we get in the UA.
Forget the nine 5ths at high levels, even four 5th-level slots at level 9 is pretty busted. And two levels after that they'd not only have that, they'd also have a 6th-level slot on-curve. It also doesn't solve the feels-bad problem whenever you need to use one of those 5ths to cast Shield or Absorb Elements or Earthbind or Misty Step or Vortex Warp etc.
They'd be the most powerful casters at the levels most people play at, while simultaneously feeing bad due to lacking the lower level spell utility except for what they can scrape together via the odd racial, 1/LR feat or invocation. I'd rather have an actual 1-9 progression with much fewer slots at the top end, which is exactly what the proposed half-casting + MA design gives us.
In a non-dysfunctional game, a warlock is already typically getting at least four 5th-level slots at 9th level in the currently published version of the game. You're freaking out over a non-issue.
because of short rests, sure. but not four in one battle.
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!
Agreed that 9 5th level spell slots might be overpowered....but it's a very good start and I like that FAR better than what we get in the UA.
Forget the nine 5ths at high levels, even four 5th-level slots at level 9 is pretty busted. And two levels after that they'd not only have that, they'd also have a 6th-level slot on-curve. It also doesn't solve the feels-bad problem whenever you need to use one of those 5ths to cast Shield or Absorb Elements or Earthbind or Misty Step or Vortex Warp etc.
They'd be the most powerful casters at the levels most people play at, while simultaneously feeing bad due to lacking the lower level spell utility except for what they can scrape together via the odd racial, 1/LR feat or invocation. I'd rather have an actual 1-9 progression with much fewer slots at the top end, which is exactly what the proposed half-casting + MA design gives us.
In a non-dysfunctional game, a warlock is already typically getting at least four 5th-level slots at 9th level in the currently published version of the game. You're freaking out over a non-issue.
because of short rests, sure. but not four in one battle.
But then they will have shot their load for the whole day and have nothing left but invocations and cantrips for the next 2-5 battles. It would be no different than a Wiz or Sorc shooting their load in a single battle.
Agreed that 9 5th level spell slots might be overpowered....but it's a very good start and I like that FAR better than what we get in the UA.
Forget the nine 5ths at high levels, even four 5th-level slots at level 9 is pretty busted. And two levels after that they'd not only have that, they'd also have a 6th-level slot on-curve. It also doesn't solve the feels-bad problem whenever you need to use one of those 5ths to cast Shield or Absorb Elements or Earthbind or Misty Step or Vortex Warp etc.
They'd be the most powerful casters at the levels most people play at, while simultaneously feeing bad due to lacking the lower level spell utility except for what they can scrape together via the odd racial, 1/LR feat or invocation. I'd rather have an actual 1-9 progression with much fewer slots at the top end, which is exactly what the proposed half-casting + MA design gives us.
In a non-dysfunctional game, a warlock is already typically getting at least four 5th-level slots at 9th level in the currently published version of the game. You're freaking out over a non-issue.
What do you think of my table? The revised one I mean, not the first one. What, if anything, would you adjust?
Alright. I have suggested several times that they should make Pact Magic a long rest feature and simply increase the number of Pact Magic slots to compensate for that. People have said that’s not possible because there would either be too few slots to feel worthwhile, or too many to be balanced on account of them all being max spell level for the character level. I have said that all it takes is finding the Goldilocks zone. I was challenged to find it.
Okay, I decided to take the challenge. But how? I obviously didn’t have time to do it by trial and error. What I needed was a guideline. Then it occurred to me that there already existed the guideline I needed in the Spell Point system! So I started by converting the spell points for a full caster into Pact Magic slots, but I quickly realized that was the express lane to “too many.” Then it occurred to me that since WotC is treating the warlock as a half-caster, I should use the number of Spell Points for a half-caster. But since the biggest complaint I see most people have with them being half-casters is the delay in spell level progression compared to full-casters, so I used the full-caster spell level progression. Here is my hybrid idea for a revised Pact Magic that resets on a long rest. (Notes- Warlocks would still get eldritch blast and hex for free In addition to the cantrips and spells known listed below. Eldritch Invocations and Mystic Arcana would also be in addition to this.)
Sposta’s Long Rest Pact Magic Progression Idea v.1.0.0
Level
Cantrips Known
Spells Known
Spell Slots
Slot Level
1st
2
2
2
1st
2nd
2
3
2
1st
3rd
2
4
2
2nd
4th
2
5
2
2nd
5th
2
6
3
3rd
6th
2
7
3
3rd
7th
2
8
3
4th
8th
2
9
3
4th
9th
2
10
4
5th
10th
3
10
4
5th
11th
3
11
4
5th
12th
3
11
4
5th
13th
3
12
5
5th
14th
4
12
5
5th
15th
4
13
6
5th
16th
4
13
6
5th
17th
4
14
8
5th
18th
4
14
8
5th
19th
4
15
9
5th
20th
4
15
9
5th
That👆should provide a decent starting point towards finding the Goldilocks zone for long rest Pact Magic.
Consider Warlocks are a burst caster, they have a few slots to cast spells over a short rest - unlike a wizard/cleric. Build a table giving warlocks a maximum spell slot level - similar to yours. Skip the number of slots and assign them spell points. The warlock can choose if they need to cast a lower level spell, upcast a spell, etc. However, they have a limited pool that regenerates over a short rest. Some invocations might create more spell points or permit higher level spells, higher CHA might offer more points, or add more known spells, etc. The Warlock spell casting becomes a different table than that of wizard/cleric and includes a trade off - choice in spell levels/slots to use, limits on total number of points.
Agreed that 9 5th level spell slots might be overpowered....but it's a very good start and I like that FAR better than what we get in the UA.
Forget the nine 5ths at high levels, even four 5th-level slots at level 9 is pretty busted. And two levels after that they'd not only have that, they'd also have a 6th-level slot on-curve. It also doesn't solve the feels-bad problem whenever you need to use one of those 5ths to cast Shield or Absorb Elements or Earthbind or Misty Step or Vortex Warp etc.
They'd be the most powerful casters at the levels most people play at, while simultaneously feeing bad due to lacking the lower level spell utility except for what they can scrape together via the odd racial, 1/LR feat or invocation. I'd rather have an actual 1-9 progression with much fewer slots at the top end, which is exactly what the proposed half-casting + MA design gives us.
I have already stated that I would also add an Eldritch Invocation that one could take multiple times that would allow for casting a 1st level spell that doesn’t require an attack roll or saving throw, specifically for utility spell casting. Like rolling Armor of Shadows, Beast Speech, Eldritch Sight, Fiendish Vigor, Mask of Many Faces, and Misty Visions all into one Invocation that opened up the options and allowed it to be taken more than once, and another version locked behind, say, 9th level that did the same for 2nd-level utility spells.
And as for stuff like shield, absorb elements, and misty step, the first two are kinda simultaneously crutches and traps the gobble up spell slots at lower levels for all casters, and at higher levels, there could be invocations with limited uses that cover those as well. Not to mention that not everyone has that “feels bad” problem that you and Yurei have, we just see it as part of the game. It’s just another resource management decision we get to make. Many of us actually like that aspect of the game. Don’t take it away from us. Not everything needs to be optimized all the times.
Alright. I have suggested several times that they should make Pact Magic a long rest feature and simply increase the number of Pact Magic slots to compensate for that. People have said that’s not possible because there would either be too few slots to feel worthwhile, or too many to be balanced on account of them all being max spell level for the character level. I have said that all it takes is finding the Goldilocks zone. I was challenged to find it.
Okay, I decided to take the challenge. But how? I obviously didn’t have time to do it by trial and error. What I needed was a guideline. Then it occurred to me that there already existed the guideline I needed in the Spell Point system! So I started by converting the spell points for a full caster into Pact Magic slots, but I quickly realized that was the express lane to “too many.” Then it occurred to me that since WotC is treating the warlock as a half-caster, I should use the number of Spell Points for a half-caster. But since the biggest complaint I see most people have with them being half-casters is the delay in spell level progression compared to full-casters, so I used the full-caster spell level progression. Here is my hybrid idea for a revised Pact Magic that resets on a long rest. (Notes- Warlocks would still get eldritch blast and hex for free In addition to the cantrips and spells known listed below. Eldritch Invocations and Mystic Arcana would also be in addition to this.)
Sposta’s Long Rest Pact Magic Progression Idea v.1.0.0
Level
Cantrips Known
Spells Known
Spell Slots
Slot Level
1st
2
2
2
1st
2nd
2
3
2
1st
3rd
2
4
2
2nd
4th
2
5
2
2nd
5th
2
6
3
3rd
6th
2
7
3
3rd
7th
2
8
3
4th
8th
2
9
3
4th
9th
2
10
4
5th
10th
3
10
4
5th
11th
3
11
4
5th
12th
3
11
4
5th
13th
3
12
5
5th
14th
4
12
5
5th
15th
4
13
6
5th
16th
4
13
6
5th
17th
4
14
8
5th
18th
4
14
8
5th
19th
4
15
9
5th
20th
4
15
9
5th
That👆should provide a decent starting point towards finding the Goldilocks zone for long rest Pact Magic.
Consider Warlocks are a burst caster, they have a few slots to cast spells over a short rest - unlike a wizard/cleric. Build a table giving warlocks a maximum spell slot level - similar to yours. Skip the number of slots and assign them spell points. The warlock can choose if they need to cast a lower level spell, upcast a spell, etc. However, they have a limited pool that regenerates over a short rest. Some invocations might create more spell points or permit higher level spells, higher CHA might offer more points, or add more known spells, etc. The Warlock spell casting becomes a different table than that of wizard/cleric and includes a trade off - choice in spell levels/slots to use, limits on total number of points.
It’s a thought, but if I had my druthers I would personally prefer to see them give that Spell Points system back to Sorcerers like they had in 3e/3.5. But that’s me.
Agreed that 9 5th level spell slots might be overpowered....but it's a very good start and I like that FAR better than what we get in the UA.
Forget the nine 5ths at high levels, even four 5th-level slots at level 9 is pretty busted. And two levels after that they'd not only have that, they'd also have a 6th-level slot on-curve. It also doesn't solve the feels-bad problem whenever you need to use one of those 5ths to cast Shield or Absorb Elements or Earthbind or Misty Step or Vortex Warp etc.
They'd be the most powerful casters at the levels most people play at, while simultaneously feeing bad due to lacking the lower level spell utility except for what they can scrape together via the odd racial, 1/LR feat or invocation. I'd rather have an actual 1-9 progression with much fewer slots at the top end, which is exactly what the proposed half-casting + MA design gives us.
In a non-dysfunctional game, a warlock is already typically getting at least four 5th-level slots at 9th level in the currently published version of the game. You're freaking out over a non-issue.
What do you think of my table? The revised one I mean, not the first one. What, if anything, would you adjust?
I think your table is fine, but I think the easiest thing to do is just "proficiency bonus slots per short rest," and stick something in the multiclassing rules saying that it's only warlock levels count for it to avoid getting 6 spell slots for a one-level dip.
I like short rests. Every class should have a mix of features that return on short rests and long rests, and it's totally fine for some to get their main feature back on a short rest (monk, warlock, fighter) and some on a long rest (wizard). Does anyone think warlock spellcasting is currently ridiculously OP? Does giving them one or two (never more than two, I checked) more slots per period horribly break things? I do not think so.
Agreed that 9 5th level spell slots might be overpowered....but it's a very good start and I like that FAR better than what we get in the UA.
Forget the nine 5ths at high levels, even four 5th-level slots at level 9 is pretty busted. And two levels after that they'd not only have that, they'd also have a 6th-level slot on-curve. It also doesn't solve the feels-bad problem whenever you need to use one of those 5ths to cast Shield or Absorb Elements or Earthbind or Misty Step or Vortex Warp etc.
They'd be the most powerful casters at the levels most people play at, while simultaneously feeing bad due to lacking the lower level spell utility except for what they can scrape together via the odd racial, 1/LR feat or invocation. I'd rather have an actual 1-9 progression with much fewer slots at the top end, which is exactly what the proposed half-casting + MA design gives us.
In a non-dysfunctional game, a warlock is already typically getting at least four 5th-level slots at 9th level in the currently published version of the game. You're freaking out over a non-issue.
What do you think of my table? The revised one I mean, not the first one. What, if anything, would you adjust?
I think your table is fine, but I think the easiest thing to do is just "proficiency bonus slots per short rest," and stick something in the multiclassing rules saying that it's only warlock levels count for it to avoid getting 6 spell slots for a one-level dip.
I like short rests. Every class should have a mix of features that return on short rests and long rests, and it's totally fine for some to get their main feature back on a short rest (monk, warlock, fighter) and some on a long rest (wizard). Does anyone think warlock spellcasting is currently ridiculously OP? Does giving them one or two (never more than two, I checked) more slots per period horribly break things? I do not think so.
Oh, I agree with you. Although, I would still tie slot numbers to the equivalent Warlock levels instead of directly to PB just to avoid the confusion. I personally think a number of slots equal to single class PB / short rest would be perfect. I also think all classes should have a mix of short rest and long rest features, and I have no problem with some having their main features be short rest dependent and some be long rest dependent.
Unfortunately for us, the community at large and Crawford himself seem to disagree with us on those points. So I’m trying to come up with a table that would keep us Pact Magic appreciatin’ folks happy, while still making the crowd who hate short rests and everything to do with them happy too. Namean?
I like short rests. Every class should have a mix of features that return on short rests and long rests.
That path leads to 4th edition. Which I don't mind to some degree (I liked 4th edition martial characters), but there's a bunch of people who will complain severely.
Agreed that 9 5th level spell slots might be overpowered....but it's a very good start and I like that FAR better than what we get in the UA.
Forget the nine 5ths at high levels, even four 5th-level slots at level 9 is pretty busted. And two levels after that they'd not only have that, they'd also have a 6th-level slot on-curve. It also doesn't solve the feels-bad problem whenever you need to use one of those 5ths to cast Shield or Absorb Elements or Earthbind or Misty Step or Vortex Warp etc.
They'd be the most powerful casters at the levels most people play at, while simultaneously feeing bad due to lacking the lower level spell utility except for what they can scrape together via the odd racial, 1/LR feat or invocation. I'd rather have an actual 1-9 progression with much fewer slots at the top end, which is exactly what the proposed half-casting + MA design gives us.
I have already stated that I would also add an Eldritch Invocation that one could take multiple times that would allow for casting a 1st level spell that doesn’t require an attack roll or saving throw, specifically for utility spell casting. Like rolling Armor of Shadows, Beast Speech, Eldritch Sight, Fiendish Vigor, Mask of Many Faces, and Misty Visions all into one Invocation that opened up the options and allowed it to be taken more than once, and another version locked behind, say, 9th level that did the same for 2nd-level utility spells.
And as for stuff like shield, absorb elements, and misty step, the first two are kinda simultaneously crutches and traps the gobble up spell slots at lower levels for all casters, and at higher levels, there could be invocations with limited uses that cover those as well. Not to mention that not everyone has that “feels bad” problem that you and Yurei have, we just see it as part of the game. It’s just another resource management decision we get to make. Many of us actually like that aspect of the game. Don’t take it away from us. Not everything needs to be optimized all the times.
UA Warlocks need more spells like these (some are more fit for MA) and many other utility or control spells as invocation options.
My suggestion for this was to make 1 invocation that explains that spells marked in certain ways are eligible for the invocation. Give the invocation 3 tiers, once per day, 3 times per day, at will. Eldritch Apprentice/Journeyman/Master. A spell will be tagged with its highest level its capable of achieving so like change self would be tagged with eldritch master. But animate dead might be eldritch apprentice. Have some level guidelines for when spells can be taken like this. Which might be a nerf for some of these. Like EM can only be for spells 2 spell levels below your max warlock casting level. You can still take it for change self t level 1, but it might only give 1 free cast at level 1, 3 when you hit level 3 and become at will when you hit level 5.
It requires some work on the devs side as they have to curate the spell lists. But its not as open ended as like all non attack spells which with supplements might have unintended consequences. But it also kind of fits their mold of not having to worry to much updating spell lists or creating a new invocation for each supplement that fits it. Just like they are determining if its the arcane tag they make a choice of whether it fits this invocation.
Agreed that 9 5th level spell slots might be overpowered....but it's a very good start and I like that FAR better than what we get in the UA.
Forget the nine 5ths at high levels, even four 5th-level slots at level 9 is pretty busted. And two levels after that they'd not only have that, they'd also have a 6th-level slot on-curve. It also doesn't solve the feels-bad problem whenever you need to use one of those 5ths to cast Shield or Absorb Elements or Earthbind or Misty Step or Vortex Warp etc.
They'd be the most powerful casters at the levels most people play at, while simultaneously feeing bad due to lacking the lower level spell utility except for what they can scrape together via the odd racial, 1/LR feat or invocation. I'd rather have an actual 1-9 progression with much fewer slots at the top end, which is exactly what the proposed half-casting + MA design gives us.
In a non-dysfunctional game, a warlock is already typically getting at least four 5th-level slots at 9th level in the currently published version of the game. You're freaking out over a non-issue.
You're not able to nova all four of those slots in a single encounter though. In fact, in a "non-dysfunctional game" as you eloquently put it, you might have to stretch those four slots across multiple encounters rather than getting the other two back after a single one. So I stand by my statement (which is not "freaking out" either.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Not really. The strength of the Paladin is only partially in melee damage output. The rest is the ability to really take punishment by not only wearing heavy armor, but the incredible saving throw bonuses granted by their aura. It's hard to take a Paladin down by methods other than massive damage, much more so than a Blade Warlock.
Yeah, picking level 9 is kinda cherry-picking the best level for the warlock.
The paladin is the cleric equivalent of a gish. The bladelock has nothing equivalent to aura of protection (which is super OP, so...); its main selling point is '1 level 5 spell per short rest'. Which is definitely a nice selling point, but 45 healing per short rest (lay on hands) is also plenty solid. There's also some solid channel divinity options.
That said, I'm not really convinced there's any point in playing version 5.1.
I'd much rather stack PAM, GWM, Hexblade's Curse, Thirsting Blade, Improved Pact Weapon, Lifedrinker, and Spirit Shroud for up to 147 damage a round rather than settle for 54.
Currently the best weapon for the 2023 Bladelock to summon is the double-bladed scimitar. It's not heavy, and it gives you PAM for free.
That gives 5d4 + 3d6 + 15 damage, for between 23 and 53 damage.
i was reading an unrelated thread and spotted something with potential for replacing short rest pact slot recharge...
" - spell slots aren't a hard limit - they're a safe limit. Overcasting is a dangerous option"
...and what happens when you bust? Thoruk didn't say. but actually we don't have to guess because there is already a table for spell scroll mishaps (variant) to crib from: if you fail both the Arcana(INT/WIS/CHA) check to over-cast and the INT/WIS/CHA Save that follows, then there's a d6 table of random mishaps. or maybe you prefer the wild magic surge table. tack on a +2/5/10 to the check DC per successful over-cast (and decide ahead of time whether die roll of 20 is an auto-success (it's not)).
what i like about this (and many of the hit die or whatever recharge mechanisms others have mentioned in the last 40pages) is that the player is in control of whether or not they exceed their pact slot limit. no begging for short rests. perhaps more importantly, less hording of pact slots "just in case" (boring!). this might be less interesting with spell slots instead of pact slots, but it remains a feel-good option to have in the back pocket.
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!
Forget the nine 5ths at high levels, even four 5th-level slots at level 9 is pretty busted. And two levels after that they'd not only have that, they'd also have a 6th-level slot on-curve. It also doesn't solve the feels-bad problem whenever you need to use one of those 5ths to cast Shield or Absorb Elements or Earthbind or Misty Step or Vortex Warp etc.
They'd be the most powerful casters at the levels most people play at, while simultaneously feeing bad due to lacking the lower level spell utility except for what they can scrape together via the odd racial, 1/LR feat or invocation. I'd rather have an actual 1-9 progression with much fewer slots at the top end, which is exactly what the proposed half-casting + MA design gives us.
In a non-dysfunctional game, a warlock is already typically getting at least four 5th-level slots at 9th level in the currently published version of the game. You're freaking out over a non-issue.
because of short rests, sure. but not four in one battle.
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!
But then they will have shot their load for the whole day and have nothing left but invocations and cantrips for the next 2-5 battles. It would be no different than a Wiz or Sorc shooting their load in a single battle.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
What do you think of my table? The revised one I mean, not the first one. What, if anything, would you adjust?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Consider Warlocks are a burst caster, they have a few slots to cast spells over a short rest - unlike a wizard/cleric. Build a table giving warlocks a maximum spell slot level - similar to yours. Skip the number of slots and assign them spell points. The warlock can choose if they need to cast a lower level spell, upcast a spell, etc. However, they have a limited pool that regenerates over a short rest. Some invocations might create more spell points or permit higher level spells, higher CHA might offer more points, or add more known spells, etc. The Warlock spell casting becomes a different table than that of wizard/cleric and includes a trade off - choice in spell levels/slots to use, limits on total number of points.
I have already stated that I would also add an Eldritch Invocation that one could take multiple times that would allow for casting a 1st level spell that doesn’t require an attack roll or saving throw, specifically for utility spell casting. Like rolling Armor of Shadows, Beast Speech, Eldritch Sight, Fiendish Vigor, Mask of Many Faces, and Misty Visions all into one Invocation that opened up the options and allowed it to be taken more than once, and another version locked behind, say, 9th level that did the same for 2nd-level utility spells.
And as for stuff like shield, absorb elements, and misty step, the first two are kinda simultaneously crutches and traps the gobble up spell slots at lower levels for all casters, and at higher levels, there could be invocations with limited uses that cover those as well. Not to mention that not everyone has that “feels bad” problem that you and Yurei have, we just see it as part of the game. It’s just another resource management decision we get to make. Many of us actually like that aspect of the game. Don’t take it away from us. Not everything needs to be optimized all the times.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I think this is a step in the right direction. It still may be more slots than I am comfortable with. I appreciate the work you put into this.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
It’s a thought, but if I had my druthers I would personally prefer to see them give that Spell Points system back to Sorcerers like they had in 3e/3.5. But that’s me.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I think your table is fine, but I think the easiest thing to do is just "proficiency bonus slots per short rest," and stick something in the multiclassing rules saying that it's only warlock levels count for it to avoid getting 6 spell slots for a one-level dip.
I like short rests. Every class should have a mix of features that return on short rests and long rests, and it's totally fine for some to get their main feature back on a short rest (monk, warlock, fighter) and some on a long rest (wizard). Does anyone think warlock spellcasting is currently ridiculously OP? Does giving them one or two (never more than two, I checked) more slots per period horribly break things? I do not think so.
Oh, I agree with you. Although, I would still tie slot numbers to the equivalent Warlock levels instead of directly to PB just to avoid the confusion. I personally think a number of slots equal to single class PB / short rest would be perfect. I also think all classes should have a mix of short rest and long rest features, and I have no problem with some having their main features be short rest dependent and some be long rest dependent.
Unfortunately for us, the community at large and Crawford himself seem to disagree with us on those points. So I’m trying to come up with a table that would keep us Pact Magic appreciatin’ folks happy, while still making the crowd who hate short rests and everything to do with them happy too. Namean?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
That path leads to 4th edition. Which I don't mind to some degree (I liked 4th edition martial characters), but there's a bunch of people who will complain severely.
I agree.
Looking at the old Warlock you had invocations not tied to subclass of: Animate Dead, Bane, Bestow Curse, Compulsion, Confusion, Conjure Elemental, Freedom of Movement, Invisibility, Polymorph, Slow, and Water Breathing that are not included in the UA. Some used spell slots, some did not. Some were limited use. Some had level prerequisites.
UA Warlocks need more spells like these (some are more fit for MA) and many other utility or control spells as invocation options.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
My suggestion for this was to make 1 invocation that explains that spells marked in certain ways are eligible for the invocation. Give the invocation 3 tiers, once per day, 3 times per day, at will. Eldritch Apprentice/Journeyman/Master. A spell will be tagged with its highest level its capable of achieving so like change self would be tagged with eldritch master. But animate dead might be eldritch apprentice. Have some level guidelines for when spells can be taken like this. Which might be a nerf for some of these. Like EM can only be for spells 2 spell levels below your max warlock casting level. You can still take it for change self t level 1, but it might only give 1 free cast at level 1, 3 when you hit level 3 and become at will when you hit level 5.
It requires some work on the devs side as they have to curate the spell lists. But its not as open ended as like all non attack spells which with supplements might have unintended consequences. But it also kind of fits their mold of not having to worry to much updating spell lists or creating a new invocation for each supplement that fits it. Just like they are determining if its the arcane tag they make a choice of whether it fits this invocation.
The super lazy option to be more like 5e is to give characters a once per day ability to recover spells on a short rest.
You're not able to nova all four of those slots in a single encounter though. In fact, in a "non-dysfunctional game" as you eloquently put it, you might have to stretch those four slots across multiple encounters rather than getting the other two back after a single one. So I stand by my statement (which is not "freaking out" either.)