A wizard can nova 1 5th, 3 4th and 3 3rd. 4 5th really is not more powerful than that. Especially since you can only have one concentration spell up at a time.
I honestly disagree with that. Spell scaling by level is not linear, for the same reason that an upcast Burning Hands doesn't really compete with a Fireball of the same level, so the novas are not equivalent.
Moreover, it doesn't address the second issue that I raised (the dissonance between pact slots and lower-level utility spells) - even if they somehow magically balanced pact slots perfectly so that lacking the latter felt perfectly compensated for at the outset, splat creep would eventually dismantle that. Because the reality about low level slots, is that there will always be cool stuff created for them as an edition goes on - if for no other reason than that cool stuff will always be made available for Eldritch Knights, Arcane Tricksters, Paladins, Rangers etc. Keeping Pact Magic autoscaling will mean it keeps missing out on this design, just like it did in 5e.
You can disagree with it, but I don't think you'd be right. There are some spell levels where spells jump ridiculously in power, the difference between 3rd and 5th isn't one of those spots in combat. For damage 8d6 vs 8d8, that is 8 damage per target, its not massive. For crowd control is hold monster really that much better than hypnotic pattern or fear. 5th and 3rd has a couple spells which I fully expect to get a rewrite, like if wall of force does not give a save this time around i will be shocked, and I expect a save every round on fear/hypnotic pattern. but otherwise the gap is pretty small. Is a wizard going with animate objects and tossing 6 fireballs, 3 upcast to 4 really worse of than a warlock going with animate object and 3 cones of cold. I kind of doubt it. In fact assuming the fight lasted more than 4 rounds the wizard is better off imo. Out of combat 5th is where the arcane spells starts popping off with some really big effects like teleportation circle etc. But somehow I don't think that is a issue for having 4 of them.
As for the 2nd point, its not a issue, its a feature. You sometimes have to use a pact slot on a "weaker" spell when it fits the situation. If people can't bring themselves to do that, don't play the warlock. Leave us warlock fans one dang class that has a different feel to its spellcasting.
The problem is a bunch of warlock fans complained they wanted to cast more spells. That means WotC has to find a way to balance that by their standard. I’ve come up with a bunch of different ways that feel unique and fun by my standard, but that’s not going to matter to WotC unless a bunch of players also voiced that same opinion. Which isn’t going to happen. We all have very different opinions on how to fix it and in that variance is people who love the new half caster version. What we will end up with in the final print I have no clue. These forums are a small sample size and I’ve seen so many different opinions here I can’t imagine the variety of opinions that will get posted in the play test survey. Then WotC will run with what they believe will satisfy the most people without breaking the game they want to design.
The thing is those of us who don't like the goth ranger model would be happier with any of your options than the 1/2 magic model. We all have different ideas on the best fix sure. My hope is that even if 1/2 the fans like the 1/2 magic, if the other 1/2 hate it, it will be enough to get them off this track. If the warlock tracks at a 5 out of 10, i don't think they will stick with it. It is like they chose the worst possible solution, homogenization of the one unique caster class.
The one key ingredient is that it has to be different from the other spellcasters and not use traditional Spellcasting. The half-caster was "the worst possible solution" for folks in my camp. We would "be happier with any [other] options." That's the essence of the Waock to us. Not Pact Magic in particular, just that it be different from the rest of the crowd. That's it. Do some folks like Pact Magic? Absolutely, sure. But what’s the one unifying sentiment among all the people who dislike the direction 1DD is taking with the Warlock? That,👆right there.
As for the 2nd point, its not a issue, its a feature. You sometimes have to use a pact slot on a "weaker" spell when it fits the situation. If people can't bring themselves to do that, don't play the warlock. Leave us warlock fans one dang class that has a different feel to its spellcasting.
As a Warlock fan, please don't speak for me. I happen to like the direction WotC has taken. It certainly isn't perfect, but I don't want to go back to 5e Pact Magic.
The ranger and paladin are right there for you to play. You took an oath to a eldritch beings ideals. We had one different class, you don't like it play the ones they are modeling this crap show after.
You don't get to tell me what I get to play. I get that you are very passionate about this, but you only get to decide/speak on things for yourself and no one else.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
A wizard can nova 1 5th, 3 4th and 3 3rd. 4 5th really is not more powerful than that. Especially since you can only have one concentration spell up at a time.
I honestly disagree with that. Spell scaling by level is not linear, for the same reason that an upcast Burning Hands doesn't really compete with a Fireball of the same level, so the novas are not equivalent.
Moreover, it doesn't address the second issue that I raised (the dissonance between pact slots and lower-level utility spells) - even if they somehow magically balanced pact slots perfectly so that lacking the latter felt perfectly compensated for at the outset, splat creep would eventually dismantle that. Because the reality about low level slots, is that there will always be cool stuff created for them as an edition goes on - if for no other reason than that cool stuff will always be made available for Eldritch Knights, Arcane Tricksters, Paladins, Rangers etc. Keeping Pact Magic autoscaling will mean it keeps missing out on this design, just like it did in 5e.
You can disagree with it, but I don't think you'd be right. There are some spell levels where spells jump ridiculously in power, the difference between 3rd and 5th isn't one of those spots in combat. For damage 8d6 vs 8d8, that is 8 damage per target, its not massive. For crowd control is hold monster really that much better than hypnotic pattern or fear. 5th and 3rd has a couple spells which I fully expect to get a rewrite, like if wall of force does not give a save this time around i will be shocked, and I expect a save every round on fear/hypnotic pattern. but otherwise the gap is pretty small. Is a wizard going with animate objects and tossing 6 fireballs, 3 upcast to 4 really worse of than a warlock going with animate object and 3 cones of cold. I kind of doubt it. In fact assuming the fight lasted more than 4 rounds the wizard is better off imo. Out of combat 5th is where the arcane spells starts popping off with some really big effects like teleportation circle etc. But somehow I don't think that is a issue for having 4 of them.
As for the 2nd point, its not a issue, its a feature. You sometimes have to use a pact slot on a "weaker" spell when it fits the situation. If people can't bring themselves to do that, don't play the warlock. Leave us warlock fans one dang class that has a different feel to its spellcasting.
The problem is a bunch of warlock fans complained they wanted to cast more spells. That means WotC has to find a way to balance that by their standard. I’ve come up with a bunch of different ways that feel unique and fun by my standard, but that’s not going to matter to WotC unless a bunch of players also voiced that same opinion. Which isn’t going to happen. We all have very different opinions on how to fix it and in that variance is people who love the new half caster version. What we will end up with in the final print I have no clue. These forums are a small sample size and I’ve seen so many different opinions here I can’t imagine the variety of opinions that will get posted in the play test survey. Then WotC will run with what they believe will satisfy the most people without breaking the game they want to design.
The thing is those of us who don't like the goth ranger model would be happier with any of your options than the 1/2 magic model. We all have different ideas on the best fix sure. My hope is that even if 1/2 the fans like the 1/2 magic, if the other 1/2 hate it, it will be enough to get them off this track. If the warlock tracks at a 5 out of 10, i don't think they will stick with it. It is like they chose the worst possible solution, homogenization of the one unique caster class.
The one key ingredient is that it has to be different from the other spellcasters and not use traditional Spellcasting. The half-caster was "the worst possible solution" for folks in my camp. We would "be happier with any [other] options." That's the essence of the Waock to us. Not Pact Magic in particular, just that it be different from the rest of the crowd. That's it. Do some folks like Pact Magic? Absolutely, sure. But what’s the one unifying sentiment among all the people who dislike the direction 1DD is taking with the Warlock? That,👆right there.
WotC has stated that revised edition PHB will be backwards compatible. which means you could have a 5E full-caster short-rest pact-magic lock at the same table as a UA/5RE half-caster-progression spell-slinger lock. but, surely they're not going to split the class in two so thoroughly, right? they're probably going to get plenty of feedback for this and then put pact magic right back in the UAs to follow. they'll have to address short rest dependency some other way. #keepwarlocksweird
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!
WotC has stated that revised edition PHB will be backwards compatible. which means you could have a 5E full-caster short-rest pact-magic lock at the same table as a UA/5RE half-caster-progression spell-slinger lock.
Backwards compatible means "the game will still work", not that they actually expect people to do that.
WotC has stated that revised edition PHB will be backwards compatible. which means you could have a 5E full-caster short-rest pact-magic lock at the same table as a UA/5RE half-caster-progression spell-slinger lock. but, surely they're not going to split the class in two so thoroughly, right? they're probably going to get plenty of feedback for this and then put pact magic right back in the UAs to follow. they'll have to address short rest dependency some other way. #keepwarlocksweird
I wonder how the older and new versions of invocation will play at the table or would DM's lock the player to invocation list by version.
BESEECH PATRON: After a Warlock casts their final spell slot, they may enter the Dazed condition until the end of their next turn and roll a d6. On a 5-6, they regain a spell slot. This would represent the Warlock attempting to persuade their patron to give them more power while in some form of trance or possessed state. Usable once per long rest.
I quite like this. I would also have them levitate an inch or two above the ground while they do it.
Actually, wait. If it can only trigger on your last slot, then you don't need to limit it much. I'd limit it to X/long rest and let them do it any time they use a slot to cast. Push the numbers so that if they manage to get it every time they try it, they're slightly ahead of other casters, but of course it won't work every time.
A wizard can nova 1 5th, 3 4th and 3 3rd. 4 5th really is not more powerful than that. Especially since you can only have one concentration spell up at a time.
I honestly disagree with that. Spell scaling by level is not linear, for the same reason that an upcast Burning Hands doesn't really compete with a Fireball of the same level, so the novas are not equivalent.
Moreover, it doesn't address the second issue that I raised (the dissonance between pact slots and lower-level utility spells) - even if they somehow magically balanced pact slots perfectly so that lacking the latter felt perfectly compensated for at the outset, splat creep would eventually dismantle that. Because the reality about low level slots, is that there will always be cool stuff created for them as an edition goes on - if for no other reason than that cool stuff will always be made available for Eldritch Knights, Arcane Tricksters, Paladins, Rangers etc. Keeping Pact Magic autoscaling will mean it keeps missing out on this design, just like it did in 5e.
You can disagree with it, but I don't think you'd be right. There are some spell levels where spells jump ridiculously in power, the difference between 3rd and 5th isn't one of those spots in combat. For damage 8d6 vs 8d8, that is 8 damage per target, its not massive. For crowd control is hold monster really that much better than hypnotic pattern or fear. 5th and 3rd has a couple spells which I fully expect to get a rewrite, like if wall of force does not give a save this time around i will be shocked, and I expect a save every round on fear/hypnotic pattern. but otherwise the gap is pretty small. Is a wizard going with animate objects and tossing 6 fireballs, 3 upcast to 4 really worse of than a warlock going with animate object and 3 cones of cold. I kind of doubt it. In fact assuming the fight lasted more than 4 rounds the wizard is better off imo. Out of combat 5th is where the arcane spells starts popping off with some really big effects like teleportation circle etc. But somehow I don't think that is a issue for having 4 of them.
As for the 2nd point, its not a issue, its a feature. You sometimes have to use a pact slot on a "weaker" spell when it fits the situation. If people can't bring themselves to do that, don't play the warlock. Leave us warlock fans one dang class that has a different feel to its spellcasting.
The problem is a bunch of warlock fans complained they wanted to cast more spells. That means WotC has to find a way to balance that by their standard. I’ve come up with a bunch of different ways that feel unique and fun by my standard, but that’s not going to matter to WotC unless a bunch of players also voiced that same opinion. Which isn’t going to happen. We all have very different opinions on how to fix it and in that variance is people who love the new half caster version. What we will end up with in the final print I have no clue. These forums are a small sample size and I’ve seen so many different opinions here I can’t imagine the variety of opinions that will get posted in the play test survey. Then WotC will run with what they believe will satisfy the most people without breaking the game they want to design.
The thing is those of us who don't like the goth ranger model would be happier with any of your options than the 1/2 magic model. We all have different ideas on the best fix sure. My hope is that even if 1/2 the fans like the 1/2 magic, if the other 1/2 hate it, it will be enough to get them off this track. If the warlock tracks at a 5 out of 10, i don't think they will stick with it. It is like they chose the worst possible solution, homogenization of the one unique caster class.
The one key ingredient is that it has to be different from the other spellcasters and not use traditional Spellcasting. The half-caster was "the worst possible solution" for folks in my camp. We would "be happier with any [other] options." That's the essence of the Waock to us. Not Pact Magic in particular, just that it be different from the rest of the crowd. That's it. Do some folks like Pact Magic? Absolutely, sure. But what’s the one unifying sentiment among all the people who dislike the direction 1DD is taking with the Warlock? That,👆right there.
WotC has stated that revised edition PHB will be backwards compatible. which means you could have a 5E full-caster short-rest pact-magic lock at the same table as a UA/5RE half-caster-progression spell-slinger lock. but, surely they're not going to split the class in two so thoroughly, right? they're probably going to get plenty of feedback for this and then put pact magic right back in the UAs to follow. they'll have to address short rest dependency some other way. #keepwarlocksweird
When they say “backwards compatible” they mean that the new player options will still work with the old adventure and monsters and stuff, not that they will be compatible with the older player options.
Calling Walocks a "half-caster" in this iteration is misleading. Saying it is a "dark paladin" or "grim/gloom ranger" is either disingenuous, bad faith argument, or comes from a place of honest ignorance. No other Half-caster gets access to 9th level spells or can have a 5th level spell at 9 or a 3rd level at 5. Yes you have to use your invocations, guess what. Other classes dont HAVE invocations....Saying new warlock doesn't feel good to play, ok, saying it weaker, fine. I have literally shown that at level 11+ that it is very true, by almost every metric. Before, it is debatable, the power has shifted not reduced. Again that comes back to feel.
And if you say warlock "feels" like a ranger, only if you purposefully built it that way.
These hyperboles on both ends of this debate, doesnt do your arguments any favors. You need to acknowledge the merits and the demerits of both to have a meaningful conversation. Otherwise you are just shouting into the wind guys.
I personally, would not want to see pact magic as a long rest feature. The short rest nature of it is what makes it unique and interesting. I'd rather have what they provided than a long rest pact magic.
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.
A wizard can nova 1 5th, 3 4th and 3 3rd. 4 5th really is not more powerful than that. Especially since you can only have one concentration spell up at a time.
I honestly disagree with that. Spell scaling by level is not linear, for the same reason that an upcast Burning Hands doesn't really compete with a Fireball of the same level, so the novas are not equivalent.
Moreover, it doesn't address the second issue that I raised (the dissonance between pact slots and lower-level utility spells) - even if they somehow magically balanced pact slots perfectly so that lacking the latter felt perfectly compensated for at the outset, splat creep would eventually dismantle that. Because the reality about low level slots, is that there will always be cool stuff created for them as an edition goes on - if for no other reason than that cool stuff will always be made available for Eldritch Knights, Arcane Tricksters, Paladins, Rangers etc. Keeping Pact Magic autoscaling will mean it keeps missing out on this design, just like it did in 5e.
You can disagree with it, but I don't think you'd be right. There are some spell levels where spells jump ridiculously in power, the difference between 3rd and 5th isn't one of those spots in combat. For damage 8d6 vs 8d8, that is 8 damage per target, its not massive. For crowd control is hold monster really that much better than hypnotic pattern or fear. 5th and 3rd has a couple spells which I fully expect to get a rewrite, like if wall of force does not give a save this time around i will be shocked, and I expect a save every round on fear/hypnotic pattern. but otherwise the gap is pretty small. Is a wizard going with animate objects and tossing 6 fireballs, 3 upcast to 4 really worse of than a warlock going with animate object and 3 cones of cold. I kind of doubt it. In fact assuming the fight lasted more than 4 rounds the wizard is better off imo. Out of combat 5th is where the arcane spells starts popping off with some really big effects like teleportation circle etc. But somehow I don't think that is a issue for having 4 of them.
As for the 2nd point, its not a issue, its a feature. You sometimes have to use a pact slot on a "weaker" spell when it fits the situation. If people can't bring themselves to do that, don't play the warlock. Leave us warlock fans one dang class that has a different feel to its spellcasting.
The problem is a bunch of warlock fans complained they wanted to cast more spells. That means WotC has to find a way to balance that by their standard. I’ve come up with a bunch of different ways that feel unique and fun by my standard, but that’s not going to matter to WotC unless a bunch of players also voiced that same opinion. Which isn’t going to happen. We all have very different opinions on how to fix it and in that variance is people who love the new half caster version. What we will end up with in the final print I have no clue. These forums are a small sample size and I’ve seen so many different opinions here I can’t imagine the variety of opinions that will get posted in the play test survey. Then WotC will run with what they believe will satisfy the most people without breaking the game they want to design.
The thing is those of us who don't like the goth ranger model would be happier with any of your options than the 1/2 magic model. We all have different ideas on the best fix sure. My hope is that even if 1/2 the fans like the 1/2 magic, if the other 1/2 hate it, it will be enough to get them off this track. If the warlock tracks at a 5 out of 10, i don't think they will stick with it. It is like they chose the worst possible solution, homogenization of the one unique caster class.
The one key ingredient is that it has to be different from the other spellcasters and not use traditional Spellcasting. The half-caster was "the worst possible solution" for folks in my camp. We would "be happier with any [other] options." That's the essence of the Waock to us. Not Pact Magic in particular, just that it be different from the rest of the crowd. That's it. Do some folks like Pact Magic? Absolutely, sure. But what’s the one unifying sentiment among all the people who dislike the direction 1DD is taking with the Warlock? That,👆right there.
WotC has stated that revised edition PHB will be backwards compatible. which means you could have a 5E full-caster short-rest pact-magic lock at the same table as a UA/5RE half-caster-progression spell-slinger lock. but, surely they're not going to split the class in two so thoroughly, right? they're probably going to get plenty of feedback for this and then put pact magic right back in the UAs to follow. they'll have to address short rest dependency some other way. #keepwarlocksweird
When they say “backwards compatible” they mean that the new player options will still work with the old adventure and monsters and stuff, not that they will be compatible with the older player options.
are old adventures known for being edition gated? adjust a few monster stat blocks seems too basic to say out loud, but maybe that is what they meant. easy add for a bullet-point list of promises. also, people theorycraft with 'legacy' race heritage characters every day so i don't think it's outlandish to expect min/max appropriation of same-edition class powers. then again, if they do continue down the new-lock path, maybe it holds some promise for creative branching. maybe we'll get those 'complete' class handbooks again. i'm a sucker for those.
whatever. i'd just rather see a little less focus on charts of wizard slots and a little more theorycrafting on short-rest 'fixes' that enable pact magic. personal preference.
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!
Yes. Most adventures require conversion, and often quite extensive conversion, to work with a different edition of the game, at least for the major jumps (AD&D, 3.x, 4e, 5e).
A wizard can nova 1 5th, 3 4th and 3 3rd. 4 5th really is not more powerful than that. Especially since you can only have one concentration spell up at a time.
I honestly disagree with that. Spell scaling by level is not linear, for the same reason that an upcast Burning Hands doesn't really compete with a Fireball of the same level, so the novas are not equivalent.
Moreover, it doesn't address the second issue that I raised (the dissonance between pact slots and lower-level utility spells) - even if they somehow magically balanced pact slots perfectly so that lacking the latter felt perfectly compensated for at the outset, splat creep would eventually dismantle that. Because the reality about low level slots, is that there will always be cool stuff created for them as an edition goes on - if for no other reason than that cool stuff will always be made available for Eldritch Knights, Arcane Tricksters, Paladins, Rangers etc. Keeping Pact Magic autoscaling will mean it keeps missing out on this design, just like it did in 5e.
You can disagree with it, but I don't think you'd be right. There are some spell levels where spells jump ridiculously in power, the difference between 3rd and 5th isn't one of those spots in combat. For damage 8d6 vs 8d8, that is 8 damage per target, its not massive. For crowd control is hold monster really that much better than hypnotic pattern or fear. 5th and 3rd has a couple spells which I fully expect to get a rewrite, like if wall of force does not give a save this time around i will be shocked, and I expect a save every round on fear/hypnotic pattern. but otherwise the gap is pretty small. Is a wizard going with animate objects and tossing 6 fireballs, 3 upcast to 4 really worse of than a warlock going with animate object and 3 cones of cold. I kind of doubt it. In fact assuming the fight lasted more than 4 rounds the wizard is better off imo. Out of combat 5th is where the arcane spells starts popping off with some really big effects like teleportation circle etc. But somehow I don't think that is a issue for having 4 of them.
As for the 2nd point, its not a issue, its a feature. You sometimes have to use a pact slot on a "weaker" spell when it fits the situation. If people can't bring themselves to do that, don't play the warlock. Leave us warlock fans one dang class that has a different feel to its spellcasting.
The problem is a bunch of warlock fans complained they wanted to cast more spells. That means WotC has to find a way to balance that by their standard. I’ve come up with a bunch of different ways that feel unique and fun by my standard, but that’s not going to matter to WotC unless a bunch of players also voiced that same opinion. Which isn’t going to happen. We all have very different opinions on how to fix it and in that variance is people who love the new half caster version. What we will end up with in the final print I have no clue. These forums are a small sample size and I’ve seen so many different opinions here I can’t imagine the variety of opinions that will get posted in the play test survey. Then WotC will run with what they believe will satisfy the most people without breaking the game they want to design.
The thing is those of us who don't like the goth ranger model would be happier with any of your options than the 1/2 magic model. We all have different ideas on the best fix sure. My hope is that even if 1/2 the fans like the 1/2 magic, if the other 1/2 hate it, it will be enough to get them off this track. If the warlock tracks at a 5 out of 10, i don't think they will stick with it. It is like they chose the worst possible solution, homogenization of the one unique caster class.
The one key ingredient is that it has to be different from the other spellcasters and not use traditional Spellcasting. The half-caster was "the worst possible solution" for folks in my camp. We would "be happier with any [other] options." That's the essence of the Waock to us. Not Pact Magic in particular, just that it be different from the rest of the crowd. That's it. Do some folks like Pact Magic? Absolutely, sure. But what’s the one unifying sentiment among all the people who dislike the direction 1DD is taking with the Warlock? That,👆right there.
WotC has stated that revised edition PHB will be backwards compatible. which means you could have a 5E full-caster short-rest pact-magic lock at the same table as a UA/5RE half-caster-progression spell-slinger lock. but, surely they're not going to split the class in two so thoroughly, right? they're probably going to get plenty of feedback for this and then put pact magic right back in the UAs to follow. they'll have to address short rest dependency some other way. #keepwarlocksweird
When they say “backwards compatible” they mean that the new player options will still work with the old adventure and monsters and stuff, not that they will be compatible with the older player options.
are old adventures known for being edition gated? adjust a few monster stat blocks seems too basic to say out loud, but maybe that is what they meant. easy add for a bullet-point list of promises. also, people theorycraft with 'legacy' race heritage characters every day so i don't think it's outlandish to expect min/max appropriation of same-edition class powers. then again, if they do continue down the new-lock path, maybe it holds some promise for creative branching. maybe we'll get those 'complete' class handbooks again. i'm a sucker for those.
whatever. i'd just rather see a little less focus on charts of wizard slots and a little more theorycrafting on short-rest 'fixes' that enable pact magic. personal preference.
When I wrote “old adventures” I was referring to what are now the “current adventures.” Usually when an edition change happens the power levels of things change and monster statblocks and even stuff like saving throws for traps and the relative power of spells goes right out the window. So they’re promising that the R5e stuff that comes out in ‘24 will still work with the adventures they are publishing now.
A wizard can nova 1 5th, 3 4th and 3 3rd. 4 5th really is not more powerful than that. Especially since you can only have one concentration spell up at a time.
I honestly disagree with that. Spell scaling by level is not linear, for the same reason that an upcast Burning Hands doesn't really compete with a Fireball of the same level, so the novas are not equivalent.
Moreover, it doesn't address the second issue that I raised (the dissonance between pact slots and lower-level utility spells) - even if they somehow magically balanced pact slots perfectly so that lacking the latter felt perfectly compensated for at the outset, splat creep would eventually dismantle that. Because the reality about low level slots, is that there will always be cool stuff created for them as an edition goes on - if for no other reason than that cool stuff will always be made available for Eldritch Knights, Arcane Tricksters, Paladins, Rangers etc. Keeping Pact Magic autoscaling will mean it keeps missing out on this design, just like it did in 5e.
You can disagree with it, but I don't think you'd be right. There are some spell levels where spells jump ridiculously in power, the difference between 3rd and 5th isn't one of those spots in combat. For damage 8d6 vs 8d8, that is 8 damage per target, its not massive. For crowd control is hold monster really that much better than hypnotic pattern or fear. 5th and 3rd has a couple spells which I fully expect to get a rewrite, like if wall of force does not give a save this time around i will be shocked, and I expect a save every round on fear/hypnotic pattern. but otherwise the gap is pretty small. Is a wizard going with animate objects and tossing 6 fireballs, 3 upcast to 4 really worse of than a warlock going with animate object and 3 cones of cold. I kind of doubt it. In fact assuming the fight lasted more than 4 rounds the wizard is better off imo. Out of combat 5th is where the arcane spells starts popping off with some really big effects like teleportation circle etc. But somehow I don't think that is a issue for having 4 of them.
As for the 2nd point, its not a issue, its a feature. You sometimes have to use a pact slot on a "weaker" spell when it fits the situation. If people can't bring themselves to do that, don't play the warlock. Leave us warlock fans one dang class that has a different feel to its spellcasting.
The problem is a bunch of warlock fans complained they wanted to cast more spells. That means WotC has to find a way to balance that by their standard. I’ve come up with a bunch of different ways that feel unique and fun by my standard, but that’s not going to matter to WotC unless a bunch of players also voiced that same opinion. Which isn’t going to happen. We all have very different opinions on how to fix it and in that variance is people who love the new half caster version. What we will end up with in the final print I have no clue. These forums are a small sample size and I’ve seen so many different opinions here I can’t imagine the variety of opinions that will get posted in the play test survey. Then WotC will run with what they believe will satisfy the most people without breaking the game they want to design.
The thing is those of us who don't like the goth ranger model would be happier with any of your options than the 1/2 magic model. We all have different ideas on the best fix sure. My hope is that even if 1/2 the fans like the 1/2 magic, if the other 1/2 hate it, it will be enough to get them off this track. If the warlock tracks at a 5 out of 10, i don't think they will stick with it. It is like they chose the worst possible solution, homogenization of the one unique caster class.
The one key ingredient is that it has to be different from the other spellcasters and not use traditional Spellcasting. The half-caster was "the worst possible solution" for folks in my camp. We would "be happier with any [other] options." That's the essence of the Waock to us. Not Pact Magic in particular, just that it be different from the rest of the crowd. That's it. Do some folks like Pact Magic? Absolutely, sure. But what’s the one unifying sentiment among all the people who dislike the direction 1DD is taking with the Warlock? That,👆right there.
WotC has stated that revised edition PHB will be backwards compatible. which means you could have a 5E full-caster short-rest pact-magic lock at the same table as a UA/5RE half-caster-progression spell-slinger lock. but, surely they're not going to split the class in two so thoroughly, right? they're probably going to get plenty of feedback for this and then put pact magic right back in the UAs to follow. they'll have to address short rest dependency some other way. #keepwarlocksweird
When they say “backwards compatible” they mean that the new player options will still work with the old adventure and monsters and stuff, not that they will be compatible with the older player options.
are old adventures known for being edition gated? adjust a few monster stat blocks seems too basic to say out loud, but maybe that is what they meant. easy add for a bullet-point list of promises. also, people theorycraft with 'legacy' race heritage characters every day so i don't think it's outlandish to expect min/max appropriation of same-edition class powers. then again, if they do continue down the new-lock path, maybe it holds some promise for creative branching. maybe we'll get those 'complete' class handbooks again. i'm a sucker for those.
whatever. i'd just rather see a little less focus on charts of wizard slots and a little more theorycrafting on short-rest 'fixes' that enable pact magic. personal preference.
When I wrote “old adventures” I was referring to what are now the “current adventures.” Usually when an edition change happens the power levels of things change and monster statblocks and even stuff like saving throws for traps and the relative power of spells goes right out the window. So they’re promising that the R5e stuff that comes out in ‘24 will still work with the adventures they are publishing now.
There's still a chance that they mean for tables to allow players to choose from either class set(5eR or 5E14). Just like with tasha's ranger.
Theoretically they will maintain a similar balance scope.
Practically they will probably reduce effectiveness of 2014 classes via spell change and rules changes.
There's a compatibility poll if people are interested.
They are not going to allow a table where one Paladin can smite three times a turn, and another can only smite once, nor a Hexblade that can put out 150 damage a turn, and a Warlock that barely hits 50.
This is for the new and updated Player's Handbook, which means it will replace the 2014 Player's Handbook, which contains the basic rules that allow you to play each race and class, and which the following sourcebooks are built on. That also means, until similarly updated, sourcebooks will be "compatible" with the Handbook, with various features adjusted to match the new format (such as subclass at level 3, subclass features at levels 6, 10, and 14).
Books are expensive to write and produce, so we can't expect WotC and Hasbro to update everything at once. It'll basically be the Player's Handbook, probably a new Dungeon Master's Guide, with Monsters of the Multiverse filling the role of the Monster Manual. Everything else being restricted to online pdfs and errata until they can justify new books.
I can't wait to play at a table where two players are playing two editions of the same class.
Yes, they've said they're keeping the CR of monsters the same, and I think it's safe to assume that the DC for skills and saves will be the same (the same as they are now, that is. They're higher than they used to be). Certain adventures feature spells. Like for example Strahd uses Scrying, I think. My guess is that maintaining the functionality of these instances will not be a priority.
They are not going to allow a table where one Paladin can smite three times a turn, and another can only smite once, nor a Hexblade that can put out 150 damage a turn, and a Warlock that barely hits 50.
This is for the new and updated Player's Handbook, which means it will replace the 2014 Player's Handbook, which contains the basic rules that allow you to play each race and class, and which the following sourcebooks are built on. That also means, until similarly updated, sourcebooks will be "compatible" with the Handbook, with various features adjusted to match the new format (such as subclass at level 3, subclass features at levels 6, 10, and 14).
Books are expensive to write and produce, so we can't expect WotC and Hasbro to update everything at once. It'll basically be the Player's Handbook, probably a new Dungeon Master's Guide, with Monsters of the Multiverse filling the role of the Monster Manual. Everything else being restricted to online pdfs and errata until they can justify new books.
While I mostly agree with you, they've already committed to a new Monster Manual in 2024 with new illustrations etc. It won't just be MPMM.
Calling Walocks a "half-caster" in this iteration is misleading. Saying it is a "dark paladin" or "grim/gloom ranger" is either disingenuous, bad faith argument, or comes from a place of honest ignorance. No other Half-caster gets access to 9th level spells or can have a 5th level spell at 9 or a 3rd level at 5. Yes you have to use your invocations, guess what. Other classes dont HAVE invocations....Saying new warlock doesn't feel good to play, ok, saying it weaker, fine. I have literally shown that at level 11+ that it is very true, by almost every metric. Before, it is debatable, the power has shifted not reduced. Again that comes back to feel.
And if you say warlock "feels" like a ranger, only if you purposefully built it that way.
These hyperboles on both ends of this debate, doesnt do your arguments any favors. You need to acknowledge the merits and the demerits of both to have a meaningful conversation. Otherwise you are just shouting into the wind guys.
A compromise I would accept is to decouple MA from invocations and make it a feature again, then have it go back all the way to 2nd-level spells at 3rd. I'd even be open to letting the Warlock pick {perma-upcast-low-level-spell} as their MA instead of a high level spell. Warlocks should be good at summoning I'd say, e.g. a Fiendlock using Summon Fiend.
They are not going to allow a table where one Paladin can smite three times a turn, and another can only smite once, nor a Hexblade that can put out 150 damage a turn, and a Warlock that barely hits 50.
Why not? You can have that kind of disparity now, if one player has done a build optimized within an inch of its life and another could not care less what their DPR is
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Calling Walocks a "half-caster" in this iteration is misleading. Saying it is a "dark paladin" or "grim/gloom ranger" is either disingenuous, bad faith argument, or comes from a place of honest ignorance. No other Half-caster gets access to 9th level spells or can have a 5th level spell at 9 or a 3rd level at 5. Yes you have to use your invocations, guess what. Other classes dont HAVE invocations....Saying new warlock doesn't feel good to play, ok, saying it weaker, fine. I have literally shown that at level 11+ that it is very true, by almost every metric. Before, it is debatable, the power has shifted not reduced. Again that comes back to feel.
And if you say warlock "feels" like a ranger, only if you purposefully built it that way.
These hyperboles on both ends of this debate, doesnt do your arguments any favors. You need to acknowledge the merits and the demerits of both to have a meaningful conversation. Otherwise you are just shouting into the wind guys.
You should have seen the 3rd Edition boards when they made the changes for 3.5 Ranger. Cries of "WilderRogue" were all over the place.
My own issue is I want to see a style of casting that is unique to the class, while being on par with the competition of Sorcerers and Wizards. What the playtest version of Warlock looks like is the deal with the devil as interpreted by an adversarial DM - you lose your soul, AND also don't get the promised power. Just work for it instead, you'll be better off and more powerful at every level of play.
While the initial Warlock from 3rd Edition didn't really get any spells, Eldritch Blast had a die per 2 character levels, and invocations could make blasts, cones, and chain effects, and never ran out. It was a lower upper power level, but it was at 100% ALL THE TIME. Perhaps they could add some of that back in - or, like the sorcerer, if they return to pact magic, restore one pact slot (if not full) every time the initiative die is rolled.
A compromise I would accept is to decouple MA from invocations and make it a feature again, then have it go back all the way to 2nd-level spells at 3rd.
How about just giving a certain base number (because high level ones are no-brainers, but low levels are actually an interesting decision for how to use your arcanum). Something like
Levels 3, 7, 11, and 15: gain Mystic Arcanum
Levels 5, 9, 13, and 17: gain Retrain Arcanum (replace an existing arcanum with a new one).
That means you always have the option of arcanum for every level where you don't have spell slots. You can take more, and I can imagine deciding to do so, but those are the ones you'd be foolish not to take.
A compromise I would accept is to decouple MA from invocations and make it a feature again, then have it go back all the way to 2nd-level spells at 3rd.
How about just giving a certain base number (because high level ones are no-brainers, but low levels are actually an interesting decision for how to use your arcanum). Something like
Levels 3, 7, 11, and 15: gain Mystic Arcanum
Levels 5, 9, 13, and 17: gain Retrain Arcanum (replace an existing arcanum with a new one).
That means you always have the option of arcanum for every level where you don't have spell slots. You can take more, and I can imagine deciding to do so, but those are the ones you'd be foolish not to take.
You don't need the second bullet if Arcanum can be swapped every level (like they can in the current UA) - just bake that into the feature. It would apply to both these Arcana and the ones you can get via invocations. Otherwise I like the idea.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The one key ingredient is that it has to be different from the other spellcasters and not use traditional Spellcasting. The half-caster was "the worst possible solution" for folks in my camp. We would "be happier with any [other] options." That's the essence of the Waock to us. Not Pact Magic in particular, just that it be different from the rest of the crowd. That's it. Do some folks like Pact Magic? Absolutely, sure. But what’s the one unifying sentiment among all the people who dislike the direction 1DD is taking with the Warlock? That,👆right there.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
You don't get to tell me what I get to play. I get that you are very passionate about this, but you only get to decide/speak on things for yourself and no one else.
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
WotC has stated that revised edition PHB will be backwards compatible. which means you could have a 5E full-caster short-rest pact-magic lock at the same table as a UA/5RE half-caster-progression spell-slinger lock. but, surely they're not going to split the class in two so thoroughly, right? they're probably going to get plenty of feedback for this and then put pact magic right back in the UAs to follow. they'll have to address short rest dependency some other way. #keepwarlocksweird
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!
Backwards compatible means "the game will still work", not that they actually expect people to do that.
I wonder how the older and new versions of invocation will play at the table or would DM's lock the player to invocation list by version.
I quite like this. I would also have them levitate an inch or two above the ground while they do it.
Actually, wait. If it can only trigger on your last slot, then you don't need to limit it much. I'd limit it to X/long rest and let them do it any time they use a slot to cast. Push the numbers so that if they manage to get it every time they try it, they're slightly ahead of other casters, but of course it won't work every time.
When they say “backwards compatible” they mean that the new player options will still work with the old adventure and monsters and stuff, not that they will be compatible with the older player options.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Calling Walocks a "half-caster" in this iteration is misleading. Saying it is a "dark paladin" or "grim/gloom ranger" is either disingenuous, bad faith argument, or comes from a place of honest ignorance. No other Half-caster gets access to 9th level spells or can have a 5th level spell at 9 or a 3rd level at 5. Yes you have to use your invocations, guess what. Other classes dont HAVE invocations....Saying new warlock doesn't feel good to play, ok, saying it weaker, fine. I have literally shown that at level 11+ that it is very true, by almost every metric. Before, it is debatable, the power has shifted not reduced. Again that comes back to feel.
And if you say warlock "feels" like a ranger, only if you purposefully built it that way.
These hyperboles on both ends of this debate, doesnt do your arguments any favors. You need to acknowledge the merits and the demerits of both to have a meaningful conversation. Otherwise you are just shouting into the wind guys.
I personally, would not want to see pact magic as a long rest feature. The short rest nature of it is what makes it unique and interesting. I'd rather have what they provided than a long rest pact magic.
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
are old adventures known for being edition gated? adjust a few monster stat blocks seems too basic to say out loud, but maybe that is what they meant. easy add for a bullet-point list of promises. also, people theorycraft with 'legacy'
raceheritage characters every day so i don't think it's outlandish to expect min/max appropriation of same-edition class powers. then again, if they do continue down the new-lock path, maybe it holds some promise for creative branching. maybe we'll get those 'complete' class handbooks again. i'm a sucker for those.whatever. i'd just rather see a little less focus on charts of wizard slots and a little more theorycrafting on short-rest 'fixes' that enable pact magic. personal preference.
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!
Yes. Most adventures require conversion, and often quite extensive conversion, to work with a different edition of the game, at least for the major jumps (AD&D, 3.x, 4e, 5e).
When I wrote “old adventures” I was referring to what are now the “current adventures.” Usually when an edition change happens the power levels of things change and monster statblocks and even stuff like saving throws for traps and the relative power of spells goes right out the window. So they’re promising that the R5e stuff that comes out in ‘24 will still work with the adventures they are publishing now.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
There's still a chance that they mean for tables to allow players to choose from either class set(5eR or 5E14). Just like with tasha's ranger.
Theoretically they will maintain a similar balance scope.
Practically they will probably reduce effectiveness of 2014 classes via spell change and rules changes.
There's a compatibility poll if people are interested.
They are not going to allow a table where one Paladin can smite three times a turn, and another can only smite once, nor a Hexblade that can put out 150 damage a turn, and a Warlock that barely hits 50.
This is for the new and updated Player's Handbook, which means it will replace the 2014 Player's Handbook, which contains the basic rules that allow you to play each race and class, and which the following sourcebooks are built on. That also means, until similarly updated, sourcebooks will be "compatible" with the Handbook, with various features adjusted to match the new format (such as subclass at level 3, subclass features at levels 6, 10, and 14).
Books are expensive to write and produce, so we can't expect WotC and Hasbro to update everything at once. It'll basically be the Player's Handbook, probably a new Dungeon Master's Guide, with Monsters of the Multiverse filling the role of the Monster Manual. Everything else being restricted to online pdfs and errata until they can justify new books.
I can't wait to play at a table where two players are playing two editions of the same class.
Yes, they've said they're keeping the CR of monsters the same, and I think it's safe to assume that the DC for skills and saves will be the same (the same as they are now, that is. They're higher than they used to be). Certain adventures feature spells. Like for example Strahd uses Scrying, I think. My guess is that maintaining the functionality of these instances will not be a priority.
While I mostly agree with you, they've already committed to a new Monster Manual in 2024 with new illustrations etc. It won't just be MPMM.
A compromise I would accept is to decouple MA from invocations and make it a feature again, then have it go back all the way to 2nd-level spells at 3rd. I'd even be open to letting the Warlock pick {perma-upcast-low-level-spell} as their MA instead of a high level spell. Warlocks should be good at summoning I'd say, e.g. a Fiendlock using Summon Fiend.
Why not? You can have that kind of disparity now, if one player has done a build optimized within an inch of its life and another could not care less what their DPR is
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You should have seen the 3rd Edition boards when they made the changes for 3.5 Ranger. Cries of "WilderRogue" were all over the place.
My own issue is I want to see a style of casting that is unique to the class, while being on par with the competition of Sorcerers and Wizards. What the playtest version of Warlock looks like is the deal with the devil as interpreted by an adversarial DM - you lose your soul, AND also don't get the promised power. Just work for it instead, you'll be better off and more powerful at every level of play.
While the initial Warlock from 3rd Edition didn't really get any spells, Eldritch Blast had a die per 2 character levels, and invocations could make blasts, cones, and chain effects, and never ran out. It was a lower upper power level, but it was at 100% ALL THE TIME. Perhaps they could add some of that back in - or, like the sorcerer, if they return to pact magic, restore one pact slot (if not full) every time the initiative die is rolled.
How about just giving a certain base number (because high level ones are no-brainers, but low levels are actually an interesting decision for how to use your arcanum). Something like
That means you always have the option of arcanum for every level where you don't have spell slots. You can take more, and I can imagine deciding to do so, but those are the ones you'd be foolish not to take.
You don't need the second bullet if Arcanum can be swapped every level (like they can in the current UA) - just bake that into the feature. It would apply to both these Arcana and the ones you can get via invocations. Otherwise I like the idea.