The base class is objectively a half-caster. The fact that you can spend about half your invocations (at any level, not just final tally) for the premium upgrade doesn't change that.
It doesn't change the base chassis, but that's a banal observation, because every class is more than its base chassis. You're supposed to evaluate the whole package - that's why they include the whole thing instead of just previewing one feature.
Exactly, calling warlocks "gloom rangers" and the like is like saying there is no difference between a Bard and sorcerer because they are both full casters that use charisma.
It is so obviously incorrect and wildly off base that I can't even begin to have a conversation about what the new lock IS. But reducing it to just its base chasis with no look at how any of its features interact with its play is reductive beyond belief.
It objectively does function like a half caster: you only get up to 5th level spells via core class progression and they take about twice as long.
The thing that makes it not function like a half caster is the existence of Mystic Arcanum, which basically is a complete second 'caster tree' stacked on top of its regular caster framework, and instead of having large numbers of weak spells, it has small numbers of strong spells. Honestly, they could delete the spells entirely (just give them mystic arcanum) and it would still fit in the mage group.
It does function like one. All half casters are half casters but X, for warlocks the X is invocations and their pact boon. One invocation can lead them to more spell power but they are still mostly acting like half casters.
The base class is objectively a half-caster. The fact that you can spend about half your invocations (at any level, not just final tally) for the premium upgrade doesn't change that.
It doesn't change the base chassis, but that's a banal observation, because every class is more than its base chassis. You're supposed to evaluate the whole package - that's why they include the whole thing instead of just previewing one feature.
Exactly, calling warlocks "gloom rangers" and the like is like saying there is no difference between a Bard and sorcerer because they are both full casters that use charisma.
It is so obviously incorrect and wildly off base that I can't even begin to have a conversation about what the new lock IS. But reducing it to just its base chasis with no look at how any of its features interact with its play is reductive beyond belief.
The bard and the sorcerer aren't the same but they follow some very similar lines due to being full casters. Core elements can define a class fairly strongly even if there are other things that make some level of distinction. The core element of the new warlock is a half caster, to try and pretend that isn't true is so far more off base than what you claim we are doing that it is insane. Are there features that make it different than the ranger. Sure, but the paladin is different form the ranger and the artificer is different as well but they are all half casters. No matter what though the core element of half caster hangs heavily on all of them including the new warlock.
It objectively does function like a half caster: you only get up to 5th level spells via core class progression and they take about twice as long.
The thing that makes it not function like a half caster is the existence of Mystic Arcanum, which basically is a complete second 'caster tree' stacked on top of its regular caster framework, and instead of having large numbers of weak spells, it has small numbers of strong spells. Honestly, they could delete the spells entirely (just give them mystic arcanum) and it would still fit in the mage group.
The base class is objectively a half-caster. The fact that you can spend about half your invocations (at any level, not just final tally) for the premium upgrade doesn't change that.
But, as said, it doesn't FUNCTION like one. It doesn't behave like one. The other half casters have a very distinct style that the warlock doesnt follow. The strength of a single cast will stay with the full casters, its spell DC will stay with the full casters and at the same time its ranged at will damage will match that of an archery based fighter. This is in addition to the pact boons and the other half of those invocations.
My opinion on that is the other invocations aren't strong enough to compete. The old "at will" invocations which were very needed utility on the Old warlock now feel like novelties on the new, for flavor and RP nothing more.
It functions exactly like one: you're primarily reliant on making basic attack rolls, with a small handful of spells for additional effects. It's slightly more ability score focused, but for all that people moan about MAD classes, you can arrange a point buy so you have 16 STR/DEX, 16 CHA/WIS, and 12 CON without even dumping a stat below 10. Baseline DC performance is identical, the +1 ticks at level 4 and 8 are nice but net to +10% performance, so hardly world-shaking, and the others can split the difference on their stats to two 18's at 8, closing the gap to +5%. The alleged difference is nominal, not transformative. Also, as I've gone over before, the pact boons are significantly under-tuned, and there's still enough required invocations that you basically have to pick between MA and the actual interesting options. You're a half caster, quarter ranged attacker, quarter mish-mash of underpowered options.
It objectively does function like a half caster: you only get up to 5th level spells via core class progression and they take about twice as long.
The thing that makes it not function like a half caster is the existence of Mystic Arcanum, which basically is a complete second 'caster tree' stacked on top of its regular caster framework, and instead of having large numbers of weak spells, it has small numbers of strong spells. Honestly, they could delete the spells entirely (just give them mystic arcanum) and it would still fit in the mage group.
The base class is objectively a half-caster. The fact that you can spend about half your invocations (at any level, not just final tally) for the premium upgrade doesn't change that.
But, as said, it doesn't FUNCTION like one. It doesn't behave like one. The other half casters have a very distinct style that the warlock doesnt follow. The strength of a single cast will stay with the full casters, its spell DC will stay with the full casters and at the same time its ranged at will damage will match that of an archery based fighter. This is in addition to the pact boons and the other half of those invocations.
My opinion on that is the other invocations aren't strong enough to compete. The old "at will" invocations which were very needed utility on the Old warlock now feel like novelties on the new, for flavor and RP nothing more.
It functions exactly like one: you're primarily reliant on making basic attack rolls, with a small handful of spells for additional effects. It's slightly more ability score focused, but for all that people moan about MAD classes, you can arrange a point buy so you have 16 STR/DEX, 16 CHA/WIS, and 12 CON without even dumping a stat below 10. Baseline DC performance is identical, the +1 ticks at level 4 and 8 are nice but net to +10% performance, so hardly world-shaking, and the others can split the difference on their stats to two 18's at 8, closing the gap to +5%. The alleged difference is nominal, not transformative. Also, as I've gone over before, the pact boons are significantly under-tuned, and there's still enough required invocations that you basically have to pick between MA and the actual interesting options. You're a half caster, quarter ranged attacker, quarter mish-mash of underpowered options.
So the Old Pact magic warlock was a half-caster? Because it did that same thing because it didn't have a lot of spell slots.
The base class is objectively a half-caster. The fact that you can spend about half your invocations (at any level, not just final tally) for the premium upgrade doesn't change that.
It doesn't change the base chassis, but that's a banal observation, because every class is more than its base chassis. You're supposed to evaluate the whole package - that's why they include the whole thing instead of just previewing one feature.
Exactly, calling warlocks "gloom rangers" and the like is like saying there is no difference between a Bard and sorcerer because they are both full casters that use charisma.
It is so obviously incorrect and wildly off base that I can't even begin to have a conversation about what the new lock IS. But reducing it to just its base chasis with no look at how any of its features interact with its play is reductive beyond belief.
The bard and the sorcerer aren't the same but they follow some very similar lines due to being full casters. Core elements can define a class fairly strongly even if there are other things that make some level of distinction. The core element of the new warlock is a half caster, to try and pretend that isn't true is so far more off base than what you claim we are doing that it is insane. Are there features that make it different than the ranger. Sure, but the paladin is different form the ranger and the artificer is different as well but they are all half casters. No matter what though the core element of half caster hangs heavily on all of them including the new warlock.
Except the way you guys are treating the half casters and the way you are talking about them does not at all match with what the new Warlock is doing.
The big negative the big core element that hangs on Half casters is that they do not get access to certain spells until very late in their career and they NEVER get access to the most powerful spells at all. This is demonstrably NOT TRUE for the Warlock. These features do more than just make them different from ranger or Paladin in the ways that they are different from each other, it makes them break the fundamental rules and restrictions Half-casters are typically born with. The core elements of Half caster isn't on this Warlock because of how Mystic arcanum breaks those fundamental core elements. This is such a radical departure from the Ranger, Paladin and Artificer pattern that lumping it in with those "half casters" is a massive disservice to what this class is doing.
My issue with the half-ass-caster solution is that not only does it remove a uniquely Warlock mechanic, it, and the new Mystic Arcanum, just give Warlocks a worse version of something that other classes get.
Just get rid of the half-caster solution completely and go full ham on Eldritch Invocations and expand the Mystic Arcanum system.
All I asked from people was could we stop the hyperbole and have real conversations, apparently the answer every time I have asked it is a resounding NO!!.We love living in our world of hyperbole and strawmen that we can argue against.
So have at it. Enjoy.
You didn't ask that you said you are liars or idiots. Why should anyone respond nicely to that.
And no its not a hyperbole anyways.
Yes I did all the way back in post #924. And calling new lock "gloom ranger" is obvious hyperbole. This has been your constant response.
Edit: by the way, I never called anyone a lair, I said people were being disingenuous, insincere, not lying, but not conducting arguments with good faith. Reframing things in a misleading way rather than talking about the actual merits or demerits of the changes and the system. Similarly I did not call anyone an idiot, I said that if these obviously false/misleading/hyperbolic statements were being said with true belief than the person holding these easily verifiably incorrect beliefs hadn't done enough work with the new warlock to know. I know that actually playing the new warlock and new rangers side by side would show that it is more than a "goth ranger" because I have done so and they were wildly different. I even put effort into making the warlock MORE ranger with things like Magic initiate primal and taking beast speech but they were fundamentally very different. Being wrong doesn't make someone stupid, it just makes them wrong. Holding arguments in bad faith doesn't make some one a liar. It simply makes their arguments non-constructive.
In 2014 Warlock gained full caster power, but sacrificed flexibility with limited spell slots and a limited spell list.
However it filled in for some of that flexibility with low level spells that could be used on demand, and higher level spells that could be used once per long rest.
The 2023 has retained that attempt to fill in flexibility with invocations, but it has taken away the full caster power. That makes the whole thing pointless.
It seems to me that if the goal is to keep Warlock playing as it did in 2014, but with more casting, we should keep the Pact casting with Mystic Arcanum for sixth level and higher spells, but instead of Pact magic giving you two spells at highest level it instead gives you two of the highest level, and two at a level lower.
For example at level 9, where the current Warlock gets two level 5 slots, it would instead get two level 5 slots and two level 4 slots.
The price paid would be losing invocations that give you once per day spells. You would have to take them as known spells and cast them using slots. Maybe fewer invocations overall.
We would retain a mix of invocations that allow casing level one and two spells on demand, plus weird features like cloak of flies.
I like the new Warlock. I missed the arcane half-caster, and now the Artificer is an Expertise class (also good). Has full access to arcane spell list.
Another good thing is binding some abilities to Warlock level instead character level, to avoid the typical only 1-2 levels multi-class to get many advantages. Now if you want to be a better combatant Sorcerer, you have to get 5 Pact Blade Warlock levels to get the extra attack, and not only one. The only one that continues is for "Charisma fighters", that only requires 1 level to use their CHA instead STR/DEX, but I see hard to avoid, as they get the extra attack with their main class.
This Warlock is a half-caster, with much flexibility, can be from a good combatant with Pact Blade and related invocations, to a good caster with Pact of the Tome and repeated Mystic Arcanum, or any point in the middle as you choose you pact, patron and invocations.
And of course, now normalized getting back the spell slots after long rest.
I like the new Warlock. I missed the arcane half-caster, and now the Artificer is an Expertise class (also good). Has full access to arcane spell list.
Another good thing is binding some abilities to Warlock level instead character level, to avoid the typical only 1-2 levels multi-class to get many advantages. Now if you want to be a better combatant Sorcerer, you have to get 5 Pact Blade Warlock levels to get the extra attack, and not only one. The only one that continues is for "Charisma fighters", that only requires 1 level to use their CHA instead STR/DEX, but I see hard to avoid, as they get the extra attack with their main class.
This Warlock is a half-caster, with much flexibility, can be from a good combatant with Pact Blade and related invocations, to a good caster with Pact of the Tome and repeated Mystic Arcanum, or any point in the middle as you choose you pact, patron and invocations.
And of course, now normalized getting back the spell slots after long rest.
It's great everyone cares so much. Nice to see a lot of discussion. However ...
Won't it be fun to try something new when this is all done? ;)
It'll be interesting to see the fleshed out versions of classes with the schools and class choices across the whole range of levels. My feeling is everyone will still be able to find something they like to play.
All of the minute discussion about combat abilities just seems pointless. Who cares if someone can do something your characters can't, or does more damage, or some class features aren't available anymore. Try something new maybe? Try the characters you think are so much stronger if that is what makes you happy playing the game.
A good DM balances a lot of differences out, provides options for everyone, designs campaigns and situations with challenging terrain, NPCs, other ephemeral circumstances, etc. to the point that all of this talking in the void about absolute stats just has no relevance to the game itself. Why don't we talk about roleplay options? Or exploration and investigation abilities for a while? ;)
And if you don't like something, just do some Homebrew and change it. Simple. Done.
I like the new Warlock. I missed the arcane half-caster, and now the Artificer is an Expertise class (also good). Has full access to arcane spell list.
Another good thing is binding some abilities to Warlock level instead character level, to avoid the typical only 1-2 levels multi-class to get many advantages. Now if you want to be a better combatant Sorcerer, you have to get 5 Pact Blade Warlock levels to get the extra attack, and not only one. The only one that continues is for "Charisma fighters", that only requires 1 level to use their CHA instead STR/DEX, but I see hard to avoid, as they get the extra attack with their main class.
This Warlock is a half-caster, with much flexibility, can be from a good combatant with Pact Blade and related invocations, to a good caster with Pact of the Tome and repeated Mystic Arcanum, or any point in the middle as you choose you pact, patron and invocations.
And of course, now normalized getting back the spell slots after long rest.
It's great everyone cares so much. Nice to see a lot of discussion. However ...
Won't it be fun to try something new when this is all done? ;)
It'll be interesting to see the fleshed out versions of classes with the schools and class choices across the whole range of levels. My feeling is everyone will still be able to find something they like to play.
All of the minute discussion about combat abilities just seems pointless. Who cares if someone can do something your characters can't, or does more damage, or some class features aren't available anymore. Try something new maybe? Try the characters you think are so much stronger if that is what makes you happy playing the game.
A good DM balances a lot of differences out, provides options for everyone, designs campaigns and situations with challenging terrain, NPCs, other ephemeral circumstances, etc. to the point that all of this talking in the void about absolute stats just has no relevance to the game itself. Why don't we talk about roleplay options? Or exploration and investigation abilities for a while? ;)
And if you don't like something, just do some Homebrew and change it. Simple. Done.
Totally agree. Any option should be feasible within its purpose. What gameplay and rules should focus is in to avoid imbalance, as an unbalanced game is boring (test and confirmed by own experience).
Some examples could be:
- Unlimited resources: any source for this should be banned from game. That's why I have limited to 2 short rests between long rests, and added a 10 minutes healing rest to roll hit dice (using the DMG cure wounds rules), that is the time required also for, after the combat, ritual casting detect magic, or cast prayer of healing, then decide after rolling the hit dice if casting it or not (saving the slot). The healing rests are not limited. Also this allows not to flush down the toilet the 1 hour effects (like false life) only because some want to heal their wounds.
- Excessive difference: and if not justified, then worse. A clear example is divine smite critical, has everything as advantage, and does a damage maybe not justifiable compared to others. If we compare, the difference in damage dice made with this compared with another party member could be excessive, more if we compare it with skill specialization, as is not like one is going o roll with a -2 and the specialized one with a +15. So that huge difference with no need to sacrifice anything in any kind of specialization is not justified for me, is an unbalancing factor. Seems that the new critical system is going to fix this, also useful to avoid the 1-2 rounds boss combats, when you see this, you know there is imbalance there (in this case limiting the divine smite to 1 per round also helps).
And, for the sake of fun, do not reduce all to combat, is a RPG. For this I take some actions:
- Try to give more life to NPC and the world itself. They react to player actions and everything evolves around that.
- Experience points based on missions: if some missions involves foes, completing it gives you the experience of adding all the involved "pieces". So if you are hired by a faction to end the war against other, you could, instead killing everything in the other faction, use your socials to reach a truce, getting experience like if you killed them. Instead killing the Manticore, you could make it to flee, instead killing the Dragon, you could offer something it to move to another location or not causing more problems. So this rewards adaptability instead only rewarding your capability of raze over everything.
Ahh, the No True Half-Caster fallacy. Don't see that one too often
Please tell me which half caster gets to cast wish. Or even a single 3rd level spell at level 5.
Seriously, treating this as something it ISNT rather than discussing what it IS doesn't help. It doesnt create greater understanding it doesnt create constructive feed back.
No half-caster gets access to spells at the levels the new warlock does. And those half casters still have less features even after people spend features on invocations.
Dont like it that is fine, but it isn't a ranger or a paladin. If your calling it this you are either purposefully disingenuous and purposefully working within hyperbole rather than wanting to have an honest straight forward discussion or B. You have no clue what you are talking about and either never played ranger, or haven't tried this lock at all. Your opinion is literally worthless, because you are arguing from a place of sheer ignorance.
Would an artificer also not be a half caster? I’m not arguing that the UA warlock isn’t different but they do have the exact same spellcasting progression as Rangers, Paladins, and Artificers so calling them half casters isn’t too far off the mark.
If a warlock chooses not to use Mystic Arcanum invocations at all would you call them half casters then?
Invocations is a class feature not part of the spellcasting feature so counting it as part of their “caster” designation isn’t completely accurate. They are kind of Half-caster+
And people refer to them as half casters because for multiclassing you take half your level (rounded up) to determine spell slots and the spell progression table. Not what spell you might have access to with a class feature option you can choose to use on something else.
I like the new Warlock. I missed the arcane half-caster, and now the Artificer is an Expertise class (also good). Has full access to arcane spell list.
Another good thing is binding some abilities to Warlock level instead character level, to avoid the typical only 1-2 levels multi-class to get many advantages. Now if you want to be a better combatant Sorcerer, you have to get 5 Pact Blade Warlock levels to get the extra attack, and not only one. The only one that continues is for "Charisma fighters", that only requires 1 level to use their CHA instead STR/DEX, but I see hard to avoid, as they get the extra attack with their main class.
This Warlock is a half-caster, with much flexibility, can be from a good combatant with Pact Blade and related invocations, to a good caster with Pact of the Tome and repeated Mystic Arcanum, or any point in the middle as you choose you pact, patron and invocations.
And of course, now normalized getting back the spell slots after long rest.
It's great everyone cares so much. Nice to see a lot of discussion. However ...
Won't it be fun to try something new when this is all done? ;)
It'll be interesting to see the fleshed out versions of classes with the schools and class choices across the whole range of levels. My feeling is everyone will still be able to find something they like to play.
All of the minute discussion about combat abilities just seems pointless. Who cares if someone can do something your characters can't, or does more damage, or some class features aren't available anymore. Try something new maybe? Try the characters you think are so much stronger if that is what makes you happy playing the game.
A good DM balances a lot of differences out, provides options for everyone, designs campaigns and situations with challenging terrain, NPCs, other ephemeral circumstances, etc. to the point that all of this talking in the void about absolute stats just has no relevance to the game itself. Why don't we talk about roleplay options? Or exploration and investigation abilities for a while? ;)
And if you don't like something, just do some Homebrew and change it. Simple. Done.
So lets make the whole system classless and let us pick features from whatever class we want. Deal?
Ahh, the No True Half-Caster fallacy. Don't see that one too often
Please tell me which half caster gets to cast wish. Or even a single 3rd level spell at level 5.
Seriously, treating this as something it ISNT rather than discussing what it IS doesn't help. It doesnt create greater understanding it doesnt create constructive feed back.
No half-caster gets access to spells at the levels the new warlock does. And those half casters still have less features even after people spend features on invocations.
Dont like it that is fine, but it isn't a ranger or a paladin. If your calling it this you are either purposefully disingenuous and purposefully working within hyperbole rather than wanting to have an honest straight forward discussion or B. You have no clue what you are talking about and either never played ranger, or haven't tried this lock at all. Your opinion is literally worthless, because you are arguing from a place of sheer ignorance.
Exactly, calling warlocks "gloom rangers" and the like is like saying there is no difference between a Bard and sorcerer because they are both full casters that use charisma.
Here's the thing. You say you want a "nuanced conversation", but then you direct your energy toward... this. You complain that one person's analogy is nonsense, and then you respond with your own nonsense analogy rather than just ignoring them (or Ignoring them) if you don't think they're actually contributing to the discussion
UA warlocks are half-casters. They use the same spell slot table as other half-casters, and they count half their levels toward spell progression in a multi-class. You may feel that the add-ons make it an interesting and viable half-caster, one that has a different "style" than other half-casters -- which, y'know, I would hope so, since it's a different class and all -- but it's hard to take your arguments seriously while you keep denying what is clearly written in the rules
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)
From what I can tell from nearly a thousand posts on the matter and being actively outright ordered to stop arguing against the destruction of the UA warlock?
People want completely, utterly, absolutely unmodified Pact Magic, down to being on the same page number and with the same page layout as it was in the release 5e book, and anyone who disagrees or anyone who gives the extremely common feedback that warlocks don't have enough spellcasting...can go sit and spin because they don't deserve warlocks Anyone playing at a table where short rests aren't an at-will unlimited resource is "dysfunctional" and therefore also doesn't deserve warlocks, and the only people who're allowed to give feedback on the new design are people who unabashedly adore the R5e warlock entirely as it is and are willing to go to bat for Wizards making absolutely zero changes to the class. People willing to fiercely resist any/all attempts to update, modernize, or improve the warlock, until no such attempt is ultimately successful. Because that totally worked out for the R5e sorcerer.
Cool. I'll remember that, that only people who hate One D&D are allowed to give feedback on the One D&D process.
And people wonder why I accuse the playerbase of attempting to sabotage the playtest efforts...
From what I can tell from nearly a thousand posts on the matter and being actively outright ordered to stop arguing against the destruction of the UA warlock?
People want completely, utterly, absolutely unmodified Pact Magic, down to being on the same page number and with the same page layout as it was in the release 5e book, and anyone who disagrees or anyone who gives the extremely common feedback that warlocks don't have enough spellcasting...can go sit and spin because they don't deserve warlocks Anyone playing at a table where short rests aren't an at-will unlimited resource is "dysfunctional" and therefore also doesn't deserve warlocks, and the only people who're allowed to give feedback on the new design are people who unabashedly adore the R5e warlock entirely as it is and are willing to go to bat for Wizards making absolutely zero changes to the class. People willing to fiercely resist any/all attempts to update, modernize, or improve the warlock, until no such attempt is ultimately successful. Because that totally worked out for the R5e sorcerer.
Cool. I'll remember that, that only people who hate One D&D are allowed to give feedback on the One D&D process.
And people wonder why I accuse the playerbase of attempting to sabotage the playtest efforts...
I don’t know how you can say this with any seriousness when there have been multiple posts in this thread posing ideas on how to make warlocks a long rest recovery pact magic class. I believe, though I haven’t counted, that there are more of us wanting to give input on how to accomplish this than those who are as you describe it.
You even directly quoted and in your response asked me what I was willing to give up to get pact magic and I responded with my opinion on how it could be done with warlock as a LR caster. But I don’t think you responded to my answering your questions.
Now, I didn’t expect you to respond due to the shear size of this thread, but then you posted this?
ImaSposta even has a rework of how to make Warlocks different while keep pact magic but I guess you can’t be bothered to look at it when saying everyone who doesn’t think this UA warlock is perfect, wants the old 5E Warlock unchanged.
From what I can tell from nearly a thousand posts on the matter and being actively outright ordered to stop arguing against the destruction of the UA warlock?
People want completely, utterly, absolutely unmodified Pact Magic, down to being on the same page number and with the same page layout as it was in the release 5e book, and anyone who disagrees or anyone who gives the extremely common feedback that warlocks don't have enough spellcasting...can go sit and spin because they don't deserve warlocks Anyone playing at a table where short rests aren't an at-will unlimited resource is "dysfunctional" and therefore also doesn't deserve warlocks, and the only people who're allowed to give feedback on the new design are people who unabashedly adore the R5e warlock entirely as it is and are willing to go to bat for Wizards making absolutely zero changes to the class. People willing to fiercely resist any/all attempts to update, modernize, or improve the warlock, until no such attempt is ultimately successful. Because that totally worked out for the R5e sorcerer.
Cool. I'll remember that, that only people who hate One D&D are allowed to give feedback on the One D&D process.
And people wonder why I accuse the playerbase of attempting to sabotage the playtest efforts...
I don’t know how you can say this with any seriousness when there have been multiple posts in this thread posing ideas on how to make warlocks a long rest recovery pact magic class. I believe, though I haven’t counted, that there are more of us wanting to give input on how to accomplish this than those who are as you describe it.
You even directly quoted and in your response asked me what I was willing to give up to get pact magic and I responded with my opinion on how it could be done with warlock as a LR caster. But I don’t think you responded to my answering your questions.
Now, I didn’t expect you to respond due to the shear size of this thread, but then you posted this?
ImaSposta even has a rework of how to make Warlocks different while keep pact magic but I guess you can’t be bothered to look at it when saying everyone who doesn’t think this UA warlock is perfect, wants the old 5E Warlock unchanged.
I'll even say that there are some good things with the changes, even though I hate the overall results.
Being able to use Invocations for additional Mystic Arcanum would be a good change if Mystic Arcanum as a class feature hadn't been rolled entirely into using Invocations in order to buy them.
Adding the almost always purchased LvL 5 feature for each pact into the pact itself is a net positive. I've never seen a single class Warlock with Pact of the Tome NOT take the Invocation for ritual casting, even in a Strixhaven campaign where the other 3 party members were all full casters (Bard, Cleric, and Druid). I've never seen a Pact of the Blade Warlock not take the second attack at level 5 unless they multiclassed before being able to take the ability.
The fact that spellcasting changed means that they understand the Warlock is starved for spell slots, especially from levels 5 through 10. The issue is how they addressed it.
Currently, as it looks, I'd much rather play the revised Bard then the current Warlock, especially at the levels of play where the overwhelming majority of campaigns I have been in tend to go (over by lvl 13). As a Bard, I get more spells (albeit from a more limited list), AND more non-magical class features for when I am not slinging spells. Maybe I'd take the Warlock dip and the College of Swords Bard and STILL do the Hexblade act better than the Hexblade. But I can't see playing a single class Warlock as designed by One D&D.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Exactly, calling warlocks "gloom rangers" and the like is like saying there is no difference between a Bard and sorcerer because they are both full casters that use charisma.
It is so obviously incorrect and wildly off base that I can't even begin to have a conversation about what the new lock IS. But reducing it to just its base chasis with no look at how any of its features interact with its play is reductive beyond belief.
It does function like one. All half casters are half casters but X, for warlocks the X is invocations and their pact boon. One invocation can lead them to more spell power but they are still mostly acting like half casters.
The bard and the sorcerer aren't the same but they follow some very similar lines due to being full casters. Core elements can define a class fairly strongly even if there are other things that make some level of distinction. The core element of the new warlock is a half caster, to try and pretend that isn't true is so far more off base than what you claim we are doing that it is insane. Are there features that make it different than the ranger. Sure, but the paladin is different form the ranger and the artificer is different as well but they are all half casters. No matter what though the core element of half caster hangs heavily on all of them including the new warlock.
It functions exactly like one: you're primarily reliant on making basic attack rolls, with a small handful of spells for additional effects. It's slightly more ability score focused, but for all that people moan about MAD classes, you can arrange a point buy so you have 16 STR/DEX, 16 CHA/WIS, and 12 CON without even dumping a stat below 10. Baseline DC performance is identical, the +1 ticks at level 4 and 8 are nice but net to +10% performance, so hardly world-shaking, and the others can split the difference on their stats to two 18's at 8, closing the gap to +5%. The alleged difference is nominal, not transformative. Also, as I've gone over before, the pact boons are significantly under-tuned, and there's still enough required invocations that you basically have to pick between MA and the actual interesting options. You're a half caster, quarter ranged attacker, quarter mish-mash of underpowered options.
So the Old Pact magic warlock was a half-caster? Because it did that same thing because it didn't have a lot of spell slots.
Except the way you guys are treating the half casters and the way you are talking about them does not at all match with what the new Warlock is doing.
The big negative the big core element that hangs on Half casters is that they do not get access to certain spells until very late in their career and they NEVER get access to the most powerful spells at all. This is demonstrably NOT TRUE for the Warlock. These features do more than just make them different from ranger or Paladin in the ways that they are different from each other, it makes them break the fundamental rules and restrictions Half-casters are typically born with. The core elements of Half caster isn't on this Warlock because of how Mystic arcanum breaks those fundamental core elements. This is such a radical departure from the Ranger, Paladin and Artificer pattern that lumping it in with those "half casters" is a massive disservice to what this class is doing.
My issue with the half-ass-caster solution is that not only does it remove a uniquely Warlock mechanic, it, and the new Mystic Arcanum, just give Warlocks a worse version of something that other classes get.
Just get rid of the half-caster solution completely and go full ham on Eldritch Invocations and expand the Mystic Arcanum system.
Yes I did all the way back in post #924. And calling new lock "gloom ranger" is obvious hyperbole. This has been your constant response.
Edit: by the way, I never called anyone a lair, I said people were being disingenuous, insincere, not lying, but not conducting arguments with good faith. Reframing things in a misleading way rather than talking about the actual merits or demerits of the changes and the system. Similarly I did not call anyone an idiot, I said that if these obviously false/misleading/hyperbolic statements were being said with true belief than the person holding these easily verifiably incorrect beliefs hadn't done enough work with the new warlock to know. I know that actually playing the new warlock and new rangers side by side would show that it is more than a "goth ranger" because I have done so and they were wildly different. I even put effort into making the warlock MORE ranger with things like Magic initiate primal and taking beast speech but they were fundamentally very different. Being wrong doesn't make someone stupid, it just makes them wrong. Holding arguments in bad faith doesn't make some one a liar. It simply makes their arguments non-constructive.
Just like the last.... 20 + pages.
Okay. I've been thinking on the matter.
In 2014 Warlock gained full caster power, but sacrificed flexibility with limited spell slots and a limited spell list.
However it filled in for some of that flexibility with low level spells that could be used on demand, and higher level spells that could be used once per long rest.
The 2023 has retained that attempt to fill in flexibility with invocations, but it has taken away the full caster power. That makes the whole thing pointless.
It seems to me that if the goal is to keep Warlock playing as it did in 2014, but with more casting, we should keep the Pact casting with Mystic Arcanum for sixth level and higher spells, but instead of Pact magic giving you two spells at highest level it instead gives you two of the highest level, and two at a level lower.
For example at level 9, where the current Warlock gets two level 5 slots, it would instead get two level 5 slots and two level 4 slots.
The price paid would be losing invocations that give you once per day spells. You would have to take them as known spells and cast them using slots. Maybe fewer invocations overall.
We would retain a mix of invocations that allow casing level one and two spells on demand, plus weird features like cloak of flies.
I like the new Warlock. I missed the arcane half-caster, and now the Artificer is an Expertise class (also good). Has full access to arcane spell list.
Another good thing is binding some abilities to Warlock level instead character level, to avoid the typical only 1-2 levels multi-class to get many advantages. Now if you want to be a better combatant Sorcerer, you have to get 5 Pact Blade Warlock levels to get the extra attack, and not only one. The only one that continues is for "Charisma fighters", that only requires 1 level to use their CHA instead STR/DEX, but I see hard to avoid, as they get the extra attack with their main class.
This Warlock is a half-caster, with much flexibility, can be from a good combatant with Pact Blade and related invocations, to a good caster with Pact of the Tome and repeated Mystic Arcanum, or any point in the middle as you choose you pact, patron and invocations.
And of course, now normalized getting back the spell slots after long rest.
It's great everyone cares so much. Nice to see a lot of discussion. However ...
Won't it be fun to try something new when this is all done? ;)
It'll be interesting to see the fleshed out versions of classes with the schools and class choices across the whole range of levels. My feeling is everyone will still be able to find something they like to play.
All of the minute discussion about combat abilities just seems pointless. Who cares if someone can do something your characters can't, or does more damage, or some class features aren't available anymore. Try something new maybe? Try the characters you think are so much stronger if that is what makes you happy playing the game.
A good DM balances a lot of differences out, provides options for everyone, designs campaigns and situations with challenging terrain, NPCs, other ephemeral circumstances, etc. to the point that all of this talking in the void about absolute stats just has no relevance to the game itself. Why don't we talk about roleplay options? Or exploration and investigation abilities for a while? ;)
And if you don't like something, just do some Homebrew and change it. Simple. Done.
Totally agree. Any option should be feasible within its purpose. What gameplay and rules should focus is in to avoid imbalance, as an unbalanced game is boring (test and confirmed by own experience).
Some examples could be:
- Unlimited resources: any source for this should be banned from game. That's why I have limited to 2 short rests between long rests, and added a 10 minutes healing rest to roll hit dice (using the DMG cure wounds rules), that is the time required also for, after the combat, ritual casting detect magic, or cast prayer of healing, then decide after rolling the hit dice if casting it or not (saving the slot). The healing rests are not limited. Also this allows not to flush down the toilet the 1 hour effects (like false life) only because some want to heal their wounds.
- Excessive difference: and if not justified, then worse. A clear example is divine smite critical, has everything as advantage, and does a damage maybe not justifiable compared to others. If we compare, the difference in damage dice made with this compared with another party member could be excessive, more if we compare it with skill specialization, as is not like one is going o roll with a -2 and the specialized one with a +15. So that huge difference with no need to sacrifice anything in any kind of specialization is not justified for me, is an unbalancing factor. Seems that the new critical system is going to fix this, also useful to avoid the 1-2 rounds boss combats, when you see this, you know there is imbalance there (in this case limiting the divine smite to 1 per round also helps).
And, for the sake of fun, do not reduce all to combat, is a RPG. For this I take some actions:
- Try to give more life to NPC and the world itself. They react to player actions and everything evolves around that.
- Experience points based on missions: if some missions involves foes, completing it gives you the experience of adding all the involved "pieces". So if you are hired by a faction to end the war against other, you could, instead killing everything in the other faction, use your socials to reach a truce, getting experience like if you killed them. Instead killing the Manticore, you could make it to flee, instead killing the Dragon, you could offer something it to move to another location or not causing more problems. So this rewards adaptability instead only rewarding your capability of raze over everything.
Would an artificer also not be a half caster? I’m not arguing that the UA warlock isn’t different but they do have the exact same spellcasting progression as Rangers, Paladins, and Artificers so calling them half casters isn’t too far off the mark.
If a warlock chooses not to use Mystic Arcanum invocations at all would you call them half casters then?
Invocations is a class feature not part of the spellcasting feature so counting it as part of their “caster” designation isn’t completely accurate. They are kind of Half-caster+
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
And people refer to them as half casters because for multiclassing you take half your level (rounded up) to determine spell slots and the spell progression table. Not what spell you might have access to with a class feature option you can choose to use on something else.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
So lets make the whole system classless and let us pick features from whatever class we want. Deal?
This seems to be moving towards Yurei-ness…
Here's the thing. You say you want a "nuanced conversation", but then you direct your energy toward... this. You complain that one person's analogy is nonsense, and then you respond with your own nonsense analogy rather than just ignoring them (or Ignoring them) if you don't think they're actually contributing to the discussion
UA warlocks are half-casters. They use the same spell slot table as other half-casters, and they count half their levels toward spell progression in a multi-class. You may feel that the add-ons make it an interesting and viable half-caster, one that has a different "style" than other half-casters -- which, y'know, I would hope so, since it's a different class and all -- but it's hard to take your arguments seriously while you keep denying what is clearly written in the rules
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)
So.
From what I can tell from nearly a thousand posts on the matter and being actively outright ordered to stop arguing against the destruction of the UA warlock?
People want completely, utterly, absolutely unmodified Pact Magic, down to being on the same page number and with the same page layout as it was in the release 5e book, and anyone who disagrees or anyone who gives the extremely common feedback that warlocks don't have enough spellcasting...can go sit and spin because they don't deserve warlocks Anyone playing at a table where short rests aren't an at-will unlimited resource is "dysfunctional" and therefore also doesn't deserve warlocks, and the only people who're allowed to give feedback on the new design are people who unabashedly adore the R5e warlock entirely as it is and are willing to go to bat for Wizards making absolutely zero changes to the class. People willing to fiercely resist any/all attempts to update, modernize, or improve the warlock, until no such attempt is ultimately successful. Because that totally worked out for the R5e sorcerer.
Cool. I'll remember that, that only people who hate One D&D are allowed to give feedback on the One D&D process.
And people wonder why I accuse the playerbase of attempting to sabotage the playtest efforts...
Please do not contact or message me.
I don’t know how you can say this with any seriousness when there have been multiple posts in this thread posing ideas on how to make warlocks a long rest recovery pact magic class. I believe, though I haven’t counted, that there are more of us wanting to give input on how to accomplish this than those who are as you describe it.
You even directly quoted and in your response asked me what I was willing to give up to get pact magic and I responded with my opinion on how it could be done with warlock as a LR caster. But I don’t think you responded to my answering your questions.
Now, I didn’t expect you to respond due to the shear size of this thread, but then you posted this?
ImaSposta even has a rework of how to make Warlocks different while keep pact magic but I guess you can’t be bothered to look at it when saying everyone who doesn’t think this UA warlock is perfect, wants the old 5E Warlock unchanged.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I'll even say that there are some good things with the changes, even though I hate the overall results.
Being able to use Invocations for additional Mystic Arcanum would be a good change if Mystic Arcanum as a class feature hadn't been rolled entirely into using Invocations in order to buy them.
Adding the almost always purchased LvL 5 feature for each pact into the pact itself is a net positive. I've never seen a single class Warlock with Pact of the Tome NOT take the Invocation for ritual casting, even in a Strixhaven campaign where the other 3 party members were all full casters (Bard, Cleric, and Druid). I've never seen a Pact of the Blade Warlock not take the second attack at level 5 unless they multiclassed before being able to take the ability.
The fact that spellcasting changed means that they understand the Warlock is starved for spell slots, especially from levels 5 through 10. The issue is how they addressed it.
Currently, as it looks, I'd much rather play the revised Bard then the current Warlock, especially at the levels of play where the overwhelming majority of campaigns I have been in tend to go (over by lvl 13). As a Bard, I get more spells (albeit from a more limited list), AND more non-magical class features for when I am not slinging spells. Maybe I'd take the Warlock dip and the College of Swords Bard and STILL do the Hexblade act better than the Hexblade. But I can't see playing a single class Warlock as designed by One D&D.