What if hex got the bestow curse treatment and lost the use of concentration when you cast it with a 3rd level slot or higher.
It needs a no concentration fix somehow. Hex is now a warlock feature if people stop using it like at level 5 because they have better tings to concentrate on its not really feeling like a warlock feature, A higher slot would be one way, assuming the 1/2 caster spell progression 9th level seems pretty late for it to come online though.
It isnt worth the concentration now at level 5. But it is worth the spell slot. If you are a blasty lock now and are using your slots on non-concentration spells hex is effectively a free spell you cast kill a rat and then short rest to have the spell up as you go through the day.
With new lock this would be similar at 5. The first level cast would be worth the slot and you could save your higher slots for your blasting even if hex is still poor for concentration. At 9 + no concentration on the upcast makes it worth the slot.
If bigger slots are for misty step, mirror image, MA fireball, shatter. Than you aren't worried too much about the concentration, but that is a playstyle.
I worry about slot efficiency more than concentration efficiency because different playstyles and flavors exist.
I still disagree, although not as strongly as I did before.
I still disagree just as much. He is a white room optimizer and I've never argued the balance is off with the class. All he looks at is power, and builds. If that was the issue people had with the new warlock this would have been over a while ago. Like he multiple times went over the full arcane list. Is that a buff sure, is that a good thing though. I kind of doubt it, unique lists are good. If the arcane list was trimmed down by half and the other 1/2 got divided up among the mage classes as class exclusives I'd be fine with it. But the full arcane list with some class abilities disguised as spells in your unique pile. Nah, that is worse. He liked adding medium armor saying it was the step in the right direction. For optimization sure, for a warlock no. If they wanted to add some defense mage armor at will invocation should have been baked in with some methods to beef it up, that would feel like a warlock, not every warlock in medium armor. Almost all his points were like that. Sure there are good things with the new pacts for example, but he thinks everything is numbers, and its not.
One thing I will say that the deep optimization dive didn't cover is what attracts someone just taking a quick look at the class to play it. That decision won't be made after spending a few hours to crunch a bunch of numbers, it's going to be made in a few minutes after a quick surface level comparison between this and other casters.
Basically, What pops off the page and yells "Play ME! And not the sorcerer in your next game." This playtest version doesn't have that.
Great those are written with more clarity, that doesn't mean that the lack of clarity has changed it so far. If they wanted it changed it would have been specific about it. It has been said already, if you can cast hex as a 5th level spell at 18, then there is nothing stopping someone taking Bestow Curse at level 5 and casting it as a 9th level spell right then and there. The wording is the same about being able to cast them without expending a spell slot.
Do not fall for the fallacy of the "rules don't say I can't", just because the rules don't say you can't doesn't mean you can.
Not, the level is indicated just in the table. At greater levels, you can upgrade it (as you can change an invocation by another) to get it at the new indicated level in the table. That is really written, so is RAW. But using the base level if not specified, is a consensus to fix some glitches in old manuals, as they could omit or simply forget about writing it.
Also, how can be so sure for a 100%? If they wanted to fix it, then it should be a paragraph in already published content saying it, then would not be need to specify on each description they intentionally want to apply. I mean they are in time to set it as RAW, but didn't, and instead they are more clear on each description.
Probably asking on Twitter could clarify, as not fixing it by rule could be unintentional, but not sure if will respond.
The table indicates what level SPELL you can pick. It says nothing about what level you CAST that spell at. The table is simply a limiter of the list you can pick from.
"Choose one spell from the Arcane spell list that has a level for which you qualify, as shown on the Mystic Arcanum table. Look for your Warlock level on the table to see the maximum level that the spell can have. You can cast the chosen spell once without expending a Spell Slot."
It says nothing about casting the spell at its base level, it simply talks about what list of spells you can pick from and the table is the highest level spell you can pick from.
Solid case of "rules don't say I can't." They have clarified multiple times even with tasha's that any time you get a spell that you can cast without using a spell slot that spell is always cast at its base level.
They have a whole rules glossary where they are changing every little rule and even re-wording how two-weapon fighting/the light property works. If they intended to change how casting spells without a spell slot worked it would be in the rule glossary and it would have been a highlight. It isn't, and the rule hasn't changed.
The level of the spell is the level you cast. If you cast Fireball using a 5th level slot, it is a level 5 spell, even for counterspell it. If there is an exception, is indicated, like in Globe of Invulneravility.
Also, MA does not grant the spell, only gives you to replicate the effect at the level indicated at the table when acquired the invocation. Notice that you can't use your own slots to cast it. I.e. if you were multiclass with Wizard, you couldn't write into your spellbook, as is not one of your prepared spells.
Then we can see that is all indicated at the rules.
I think sometimes the problem is really how each one interpret the rules.
Unfortunately you are incorrect and Aquilontune is correct. It’s like you didn’t even read the Mystic Arcanum invocation. It clearly says you pick a spell for which you qualify on the table. you cast that spell one time without a slot. so at 5-6 you can choose one 3rd level spell and cast it (as a 3rd level spell) without a slot per long rest the feature says nothing about upcasting
Hi, sure?
Fey Touched
Source: Tasha's Cauldron of Everything
Your exposure to the Feywild's magic has changed you, granting you the following benefits:
Increase your Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
You learn the Misty Step spell and one 1st-level spell of your choice. The 1st-level spell must be from the Divination or Enchantment school of magic. You can cast each of these spells without expending a spell slot. Once you cast either of these spells in this way, you can't cast that spell in this way again until you finish a long rest. You can also cast these spells using spell slots you have of the appropriate level. The spells' spellcasting ability is the ability increased by this feat.
If it was that case, what the need to specify it? Learn instead choose, even then specified later.
Then, maybe would be the intention, but then it needs to be better written. One thing I learnt about D&D is not assuming anything or can pollute the rules. An example is with Magic Missile, making only 1 damage roll, while probably many people (me included) were rolling one die per missile, but if we read it carefully not assuming anything, it is true that is only 1 roll.
So yes, I have read MA, precisely only read, not assuming from single words, but from the whole sentence. I think is a mistake doing that (assuming from single words), we read "spell", and automatically we assume all the ideas we have around the "spell" word and apply, not getting the whole.
Great those are written with more clarity, that doesn't mean that the lack of clarity has changed it so far. If they wanted it changed it would have been specific about it. It has been said already, if you can cast hex as a 5th level spell at 18, then there is nothing stopping someone taking Bestow Curse at level 5 and casting it as a 9th level spell right then and there. The wording is the same about being able to cast them without expending a spell slot.
Do not fall for the fallacy of the "rules don't say I can't", just because the rules don't say you can't doesn't mean you can.
Not, the level is indicated just in the table. At greater levels, you can upgrade it (as you can change an invocation by another) to get it at the new indicated level in the table. That is really written, so is RAW. But using the base level if not specified, is a consensus to fix some glitches in old manuals, as they could omit or simply forget about writing it.
Also, how can be so sure for a 100%? If they wanted to fix it, then it should be a paragraph in already published content saying it, then would not be need to specify on each description they intentionally want to apply. I mean they are in time to set it as RAW, but didn't, and instead they are more clear on each description.
Probably asking on Twitter could clarify, as not fixing it by rule could be unintentional, but not sure if will respond.
The table indicates what level SPELL you can pick. It says nothing about what level you CAST that spell at. The table is simply a limiter of the list you can pick from.
"Choose one spell from the Arcane spell list that has a level for which you qualify, as shown on the Mystic Arcanum table. Look for your Warlock level on the table to see the maximum level that the spell can have. You can cast the chosen spell once without expending a Spell Slot."
It says nothing about casting the spell at its base level, it simply talks about what list of spells you can pick from and the table is the highest level spell you can pick from.
Solid case of "rules don't say I can't." They have clarified multiple times even with tasha's that any time you get a spell that you can cast without using a spell slot that spell is always cast at its base level.
They have a whole rules glossary where they are changing every little rule and even re-wording how two-weapon fighting/the light property works. If they intended to change how casting spells without a spell slot worked it would be in the rule glossary and it would have been a highlight. It isn't, and the rule hasn't changed.
The level of the spell is the level you cast. If you cast Fireball using a 5th level slot, it is a level 5 spell, even for counterspell it. If there is an exception, is indicated, like in Globe of Invulneravility.
Also, MA does not grant the spell, only gives you to replicate the effect at the level indicated at the table when acquired the invocation. Notice that you can't use your own slots to cast it. I.e. if you were multiclass with Wizard, you couldn't write into your spellbook, as is not one of your prepared spells.
Then we can see that is all indicated at the rules.
I think sometimes the problem is really how each one interpret the rules.
Unfortunately you are incorrect and Aquilontune is correct. It’s like you didn’t even read the Mystic Arcanum invocation. It clearly says you pick a spell for which you qualify on the table. you cast that spell one time without a slot. so at 5-6 you can choose one 3rd level spell and cast it (as a 3rd level spell) without a slot per long rest the feature says nothing about upcasting
Hi, sure?
Fey Touched
Source: Tasha's Cauldron of Everything
Your exposure to the Feywild's magic has changed you, granting you the following benefits:
Increase your Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
You learn the Misty Step spell and one 1st-level spell of your choice. The 1st-level spell must be from the Divination or Enchantment school of magic. You can cast each of these spells without expending a spell slot. Once you cast either of these spells in this way, you can't cast that spell in this way again until you finish a long rest. You can also cast these spells using spell slots you have of the appropriate level. The spells' spellcasting ability is the ability increased by this feat.
If it was that case, what the need to specify it? Learn instead choose, even then specified later.
Then, maybe would be the intention, but then it needs to be better written. One thing I learnt about D&D is not assuming anything or can pollute the rules. An example is with Magic Missile, making only 1 damage roll, while probably many people (me included) were rolling one die per missile, but if we read it carefully not assuming anything, it is true that is only 1 roll.
So yes, I have read MA, precisely only read, not assuming from single words, but from the whole sentence. I think is a mistake doing that (assuming from single words), we read "spell", and automatically we assume all the ideas we have around the spell and apply, not getting the whole.
Not sure what your point is with Fey Touched, but here's the actual rule. Since it hasn't been replaced in 1D&D, the assumption is we use the 5e rule.
When a spellcaster casts a spell using a slot that is of a higher level than the spell, the spell assumes the higher level for that casting.
So, upcasting is really only something that you do when you cast with spell slots. If there's a feature that doesn't use spell slots, there's no way for you to upcast it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
So this is a 1/3 caster with pact magic. At 1st level they get Spellcasting 1/3 caster. At 2nd they get pact magic, but instead of a short rest recharge a warlock gets a cantrip called draw power with a 1 minute cast time that regains all pact slots. You may use this cantrip 2 times between long rest without suffering I’ll affects. Each time you use it more than twice without taking a long rest you only regain one pact slot per casting and you take 1d8 x number of times used since last long rest necrotic damage that can’t be reduce by any means and your max hp is reduced by this amount as well. MA returns to a separate feature and isn’t a part of invocations. Invocations return to eight. Dropped the additional pact slot gained at 11th to account for having Spellcasting as well. This build shows Warlocks have there own power, Spellcasting, and gain or steal some power from otherworldly beings, pact magic.
That's just flat-out better than the 2014 warlock, which is not the objective.
I believe that is the objective. To improve the game and classes that weren’t living up to expectations. 5e Warlock while not hated like the Ranger was clearly failing to live up to peoples expectations. The problem is the 1/2 caster way they attempted to fix it moved two far from the base they established in 5e and kills something many players loved about the Warlock. Also the 1/2 caster the presented is flat-out worse than than the 2014 warlock, which is not the objective. The major problems of the 5e Warlock was reliance on short rest, and a lack of spell slots. My design is a step in the right direction to appease all warlock players. This was my second draft of this design and I already see that at level 2 when I gave pact magic it should have only been one slot for balance. 2 pact magic slots shouldn’t be a thing until 3rd or 5th level I’m not sure which. Also I’m not crapping on the One DND warlock design. It has some gold in it. I love the different Spellcasting modifier options. I even agree with their choices for which pact has access to which modifiers. I love the changes to eldritch blast, but dislike the changes to hex. But under my design the changes to hex aren’t that bad. Also Hexer invocation should do what Hex master does and under my design you bring back eldritch master. I know my design isn’t perfect. I’m not a designer. I’m a DM/player. I enjoy playing with design, so I through ideas out until something sticks. I really like this and enjoy constructive criticism, but what you gave wasn’t constructive. It’s just your opinion of what you think WotC objective is. Now maybe you have insight into the design goals that we don’t.
Having a spell known as a Mystic Arcanum is a spell that is cast without a spell slot, which means it is always cast at its base level.
Something like Fey Touched gives you a spell that can be cast without a spell slot, which means that it is cast at its base level, but it can also be cast with a spell slot, which means it takes the level of the slot cast. That is specifically written in its rules.
Mystic Arcanum does not have that qualifier. If you take a spell as a Mystic Arcanum it can only be cast via the rules for Mystic Arcanum, not via spell slots, and thus cannot be upcast.
Nice little "rules don't say I can't therefore I can logic". Just like nothing in the rules says the halfling cant fly without magic. There is nothing in the rules that says it can.
You are still working with that assumption here. "Nothing in the rules that says I can't upcast the spells I know that I can cast without a spell slot to max level". Cool there is also nothing that says you can.
Guess what. There is also nothing in the rules that says "you cant upcast the spells that you can cast without a slot that aren't 'known to you'." In fact the only difference between gaining a spell you can cast once per day and having a spell KNOWN that you can cast once per day, is the spell known can be cast again USING spell slots. So there is a difference, just no difference in how the "cast without a spell slot" works.
The only way to upcast is spending a spell slot. If your table can upcast hex to 5th level with hexmaster because the rules don't say you can't. Than you should have no issue with me upcasting mystic arcanum to 9th level at level 5 because there is nothing in the rules that says I can't. Same with fiendish vigor, why do I have to wait to upcast it, clearly I can upcast it to 9 at level 2. Just like it doesn't say you can't upcast it, it also doesn't say I can't upcast it past the level I have slots.
The rules don't say I can't is a long standing DnD Fallacy. Stop.
So this is a 1/3 caster with pact magic. At 1st level they get Spellcasting 1/3 caster. At 2nd they get pact magic, but instead of a short rest recharge a warlock gets a cantrip called draw power with a 1 minute cast time that regains all pact slots. You may use this cantrip 2 times between long rest without suffering I’ll affects. Each time you use it more than twice without taking a long rest you only regain one pact slot per casting and you take 1d8 x number of times used since last long rest necrotic damage that can’t be reduce by any means and your max hp is reduced by this amount as well. MA returns to a separate feature and isn’t a part of invocations. Invocations return to eight. Dropped the additional pact slot gained at 11th to account for having Spellcasting as well. This build shows Warlocks have there own power, Spellcasting, and gain or steal some power from otherworldly beings, pact magic.
That's just flat-out better than the 2014 warlock, which is not the objective.
I believe that is the objective. To improve the game and classes that weren’t living up to expectations. 5e Warlock while not hated like the Ranger was clearly failing to live up to peoples expectations. The problem is the 1/2 caster way they attempted to fix it moved two far from the base they established in 5e and kills something many players loved about the Warlock. Also the 1/2 caster the presented is flat-out worse than than the 2014 warlock, which is not the objective. The major problems of the 5e Warlock was reliance on short rest, and a lack of spell slots. My design is a step in the right direction to appease all warlock players. This was my second draft of this design and I already see that at level 2 when I gave pact magic it should have only been one slot for balance. 2 pact magic slots shouldn’t be a thing until 3rd or 5th level I’m not sure which. Also I’m not crapping on the One DND warlock design. It has some gold in it. I love the different Spellcasting modifier options. I even agree with their choices for which pact has access to which modifiers. I love the changes to eldritch blast, but dislike the changes to hex. But under my design the changes to hex aren’t that bad. Also Hexer invocation should do what Hex master does and under my design you bring back eldritch master. I know my design isn’t perfect. I’m not a designer. I’m a DM/player. I enjoy playing with design, so I through ideas out until something sticks. I really like this and enjoy constructive criticism, but what you gave wasn’t constructive. It’s just your opinion of what you think WotC objective is. Now maybe you have insight into the design goals that we don’t.
The goal is for it to live up to expectations and be fun, not to change the overall power level. Your suggestion is a pure power level buff, and as has been pointed out the current change isn't an overall power level nerf.
Great those are written with more clarity, that doesn't mean that the lack of clarity has changed it so far. If they wanted it changed it would have been specific about it. It has been said already, if you can cast hex as a 5th level spell at 18, then there is nothing stopping someone taking Bestow Curse at level 5 and casting it as a 9th level spell right then and there. The wording is the same about being able to cast them without expending a spell slot.
Do not fall for the fallacy of the "rules don't say I can't", just because the rules don't say you can't doesn't mean you can.
Not, the level is indicated just in the table. At greater levels, you can upgrade it (as you can change an invocation by another) to get it at the new indicated level in the table. That is really written, so is RAW. But using the base level if not specified, is a consensus to fix some glitches in old manuals, as they could omit or simply forget about writing it.
Also, how can be so sure for a 100%? If they wanted to fix it, then it should be a paragraph in already published content saying it, then would not be need to specify on each description they intentionally want to apply. I mean they are in time to set it as RAW, but didn't, and instead they are more clear on each description.
Probably asking on Twitter could clarify, as not fixing it by rule could be unintentional, but not sure if will respond.
The table indicates what level SPELL you can pick. It says nothing about what level you CAST that spell at. The table is simply a limiter of the list you can pick from.
"Choose one spell from the Arcane spell list that has a level for which you qualify, as shown on the Mystic Arcanum table. Look for your Warlock level on the table to see the maximum level that the spell can have. You can cast the chosen spell once without expending a Spell Slot."
It says nothing about casting the spell at its base level, it simply talks about what list of spells you can pick from and the table is the highest level spell you can pick from.
Solid case of "rules don't say I can't." They have clarified multiple times even with tasha's that any time you get a spell that you can cast without using a spell slot that spell is always cast at its base level.
They have a whole rules glossary where they are changing every little rule and even re-wording how two-weapon fighting/the light property works. If they intended to change how casting spells without a spell slot worked it would be in the rule glossary and it would have been a highlight. It isn't, and the rule hasn't changed.
The level of the spell is the level you cast. If you cast Fireball using a 5th level slot, it is a level 5 spell, even for counterspell it. If there is an exception, is indicated, like in Globe of Invulneravility.
Also, MA does not grant the spell, only gives you to replicate the effect at the level indicated at the table when acquired the invocation. Notice that you can't use your own slots to cast it. I.e. if you were multiclass with Wizard, you couldn't write into your spellbook, as is not one of your prepared spells.
Then we can see that is all indicated at the rules.
I think sometimes the problem is really how each one interpret the rules.
Unfortunately you are incorrect and Aquilontune is correct. It’s like you didn’t even read the Mystic Arcanum invocation. It clearly says you pick a spell for which you qualify on the table. you cast that spell one time without a slot. so at 5-6 you can choose one 3rd level spell and cast it (as a 3rd level spell) without a slot per long rest the feature says nothing about upcasting
Hi, sure?
Fey Touched
Source: Tasha's Cauldron of Everything
Your exposure to the Feywild's magic has changed you, granting you the following benefits:
Increase your Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
You learn the Misty Step spell and one 1st-level spell of your choice. The 1st-level spell must be from the Divination or Enchantment school of magic. You can cast each of these spells without expending a spell slot. Once you cast either of these spells in this way, you can't cast that spell in this way again until you finish a long rest. You can also cast these spells using spell slots you have of the appropriate level. The spells' spellcasting ability is the ability increased by this feat.
If it was that case, what the need to specify it? Learn instead choose, even then specified later.
Then, maybe would be the intention, but then it needs to be better written. One thing I learnt about D&D is not assuming anything or can pollute the rules. An example is with Magic Missile, making only 1 damage roll, while probably many people (me included) were rolling one die per missile, but if we read it carefully not assuming anything, it is true that is only 1 roll.
So yes, I have read MA, precisely only read, not assuming from single words, but from the whole sentence. I think is a mistake doing that (assuming from single words), we read "spell", and automatically we assume all the ideas we have around the "spell" word and apply, not getting the whole.
Maybe I am misunderstanding what you were saying in your initial post. I apologize, if I did.
Are you saying:
1. At warlock level 5-6 you choose up to a 3rd level spell and can cast it once per long rest at 3rd level. So, if you decided to choose Burning Hands, which is a 1st level spell, you cast it at 3rd level. And same for the other MA if you choose the higher options at the appropriate levels (you could use your 17+ level MA to pick Fireball and cast it at 9th level. Or...
2. At warlock level 5-6 you can choose up to a 3rd level spell and cast it once per long rest at 3rd level. And the next day you can choose a different spell, up to 3rd level, and cast it once per long rest, etc. Choosing a different spell each day since it doesn't say you learn the spell you just choose it? Or...
3. As #2, but when you reach the 7th-8th level range you now choose up to a 4th level spell without the need to take MA a second time? Or...
4. None of the Above. Explain your version. Or...
5. All of the above.
Edit: Also, JC has said that if it isn't in the playtest document, we default to the current 5E rules.
There is no description of Wish in the UA, even though the UA Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard have access to it. So you use the 2014 PHB rules for the spell. But the spell may be changed when they do put it out in a UA or the new 2024 PHB, so Sorcerers, with Arcane Apotheosis, could possibly not be as broken as they are with the 2014 Wish spell.
I still disagree just as much. He is a white room optimizer and I've never argued the balance is off with the class. All he looks at is power, and builds. If that was the issue people had with the new warlock this would have been over a while ago. Like he multiple times went over the full arcane list. Is that a buff sure, is that a good thing though. I kind of doubt it, unique lists are good. If the arcane list was trimmed down by half and the other 1/2 got divided up among the mage classes as class exclusives I'd be fine with it. But the full arcane list with some class abilities disguised as spells in your unique pile. Nah, that is worse. He liked adding medium armor saying it was the step in the right direction. For optimization sure, for a warlock no. If they wanted to add some defense mage armor at will invocation should have been baked in with some methods to beef it up, that would feel like a warlock, not every warlock in medium armor. Almost all his points were like that. Sure there are good things with the new pacts for example, but he thinks everything is numbers, and its not.
So basically your disagreement is based on fluff and your subjective impression on the class.
One thing I will say that the deep optimization dive didn't cover is what attracts someone just taking a quick look at the class to play it. That decision won't be made after spending a few hours to crunch a bunch of numbers, it's going to be made in a few minutes after a quick surface level comparison between this and other casters.
Basically, What pops off the page and yells "Play ME! And not the sorcerer in your next game." This playtest version doesn't have that.
It does have it, because I wanna play it. If you wanna play an unusual edgy caster who makes the pact with an eldritch entity, the warlock is for you. If a person wants to play a warlock, they'll pick a warlock. People don't usually pick a class purely for the mechanics of certain features, they usually do it to play a role in a role-playing game.
I still disagree just as much. He is a white room optimizer and I've never argued the balance is off with the class. All he looks at is power, and builds. If that was the issue people had with the new warlock this would have been over a while ago. Like he multiple times went over the full arcane list. Is that a buff sure, is that a good thing though. I kind of doubt it, unique lists are good. If the arcane list was trimmed down by half and the other 1/2 got divided up among the mage classes as class exclusives I'd be fine with it. But the full arcane list with some class abilities disguised as spells in your unique pile. Nah, that is worse. He liked adding medium armor saying it was the step in the right direction. For optimization sure, for a warlock no. If they wanted to add some defense mage armor at will invocation should have been baked in with some methods to beef it up, that would feel like a warlock, not every warlock in medium armor. Almost all his points were like that. Sure there are good things with the new pacts for example, but he thinks everything is numbers, and its not.
So basically your disagreement is based on fluff and your subjective impression on the class.
so basically it's fine for one class to be thrown into the volcano of objective utility? medium armor on one mage (with laser beams and your choice of flying pet or magic blade) so the others may be spared?
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!
I'd certainly play it. An arcane half caster is something that has interested me for a long time. Now, I have one. yes, I saw what treeantmonk said about it not being a half caster, and while he makes some solid point, it's a half caster chassis with some ability to pick higher level spells via class features, but those are choices and not cooked in. Perhaps paladins and rangers need something similar for divine and primal.
While there are things I don't like about this warlock, mechanically it checks blocks for me that the current warlock doesn't. I think it's not perfect and I think it's still open to 1 level dip abuse, particularly for gishes, objectively I think they likely made wise design decisions here.
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.
I still disagree just as much. He is a white room optimizer and I've never argued the balance is off with the class. All he looks at is power, and builds. If that was the issue people had with the new warlock this would have been over a while ago. Like he multiple times went over the full arcane list. Is that a buff sure, is that a good thing though. I kind of doubt it, unique lists are good. If the arcane list was trimmed down by half and the other 1/2 got divided up among the mage classes as class exclusives I'd be fine with it. But the full arcane list with some class abilities disguised as spells in your unique pile. Nah, that is worse. He liked adding medium armor saying it was the step in the right direction. For optimization sure, for a warlock no. If they wanted to add some defense mage armor at will invocation should have been baked in with some methods to beef it up, that would feel like a warlock, not every warlock in medium armor. Almost all his points were like that. Sure there are good things with the new pacts for example, but he thinks everything is numbers, and its not.
So basically your disagreement is based on fluff and your subjective impression on the class.
so basically it's fine for one class to be thrown into the volcano of objective utility? medium armor on one mage (with laser beams and your choice of flying pet or magic blade) so the others may be spared?
When elimination of short rest requirements is an obvious design goal...yes.
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.
I still disagree just as much. He is a white room optimizer and I've never argued the balance is off with the class. All he looks at is power, and builds. If that was the issue people had with the new warlock this would have been over a while ago. Like he multiple times went over the full arcane list. Is that a buff sure, is that a good thing though. I kind of doubt it, unique lists are good. If the arcane list was trimmed down by half and the other 1/2 got divided up among the mage classes as class exclusives I'd be fine with it. But the full arcane list with some class abilities disguised as spells in your unique pile. Nah, that is worse. He liked adding medium armor saying it was the step in the right direction. For optimization sure, for a warlock no. If they wanted to add some defense mage armor at will invocation should have been baked in with some methods to beef it up, that would feel like a warlock, not every warlock in medium armor. Almost all his points were like that. Sure there are good things with the new pacts for example, but he thinks everything is numbers, and its not.
So basically your disagreement is based on fluff and your subjective impression on the class.
One thing I will say that the deep optimization dive didn't cover is what attracts someone just taking a quick look at the class to play it. That decision won't be made after spending a few hours to crunch a bunch of numbers, it's going to be made in a few minutes after a quick surface level comparison between this and other casters.
Basically, What pops off the page and yells "Play ME! And not the sorcerer in your next game." This playtest version doesn't have that.
It does have it, because I wanna play it. If you wanna play an unusual edgy caster who makes the pact with an eldritch entity, the warlock is for you. If a person wants to play a warlock, they'll pick a warlock. People don't usually pick a class purely for the mechanics of certain features, they usually do it to play a role in a role-playing game.
To some degree, mechanics should reinforce fluff and fluff should reinforce mechanics. And the problem is this one does not do that. It may be a edgy caster but it does not feel like a warlock, hence my various goth ranger comparisons from before which some liken to hyperbole. It does not feel like a person who made a deal for arcane power. This warlock if people want to play a warlock they will just play a sorcerer or wizard and give a back story about learning magic from a demon. If they want to play this class its not to be a warlock, someone who made pacts with insane beings for power its because they wanted to play a edgy half caster with more caster options.
I still disagree just as much. He is a white room optimizer and I've never argued the balance is off with the class. All he looks at is power, and builds. If that was the issue people had with the new warlock this would have been over a while ago. Like he multiple times went over the full arcane list. Is that a buff sure, is that a good thing though. I kind of doubt it, unique lists are good. If the arcane list was trimmed down by half and the other 1/2 got divided up among the mage classes as class exclusives I'd be fine with it. But the full arcane list with some class abilities disguised as spells in your unique pile. Nah, that is worse. He liked adding medium armor saying it was the step in the right direction. For optimization sure, for a warlock no. If they wanted to add some defense mage armor at will invocation should have been baked in with some methods to beef it up, that would feel like a warlock, not every warlock in medium armor. Almost all his points were like that. Sure there are good things with the new pacts for example, but he thinks everything is numbers, and its not.
So basically your disagreement is based on fluff and your subjective impression on the class.
One thing I will say that the deep optimization dive didn't cover is what attracts someone just taking a quick look at the class to play it. That decision won't be made after spending a few hours to crunch a bunch of numbers, it's going to be made in a few minutes after a quick surface level comparison between this and other casters.
Basically, What pops off the page and yells "Play ME! And not the sorcerer in your next game." This playtest version doesn't have that.
It does have it, because I wanna play it. If you wanna play an unusual edgy caster who makes the pact with an eldritch entity, the warlock is for you. If a person wants to play a warlock, they'll pick a warlock. People don't usually pick a class purely for the mechanics of certain features, they usually do it to play a role in a role-playing game.
To some degree, mechanics should reinforce fluff and fluff should reinforce mechanics. And the problem is this one does not do that. It may be a edgy caster but it does not feel like a warlock, hence my various goth ranger comparisons from before which some liken to hyperbole. It does not feel like a person who made a deal for arcane power. This warlock if people want to play a warlock they will just play a sorcerer or wizard and give a back story about learning magic from a demon. If they want to play this class its not to be a warlock, someone who made pacts with insane beings for power its because they wanted to play a edgy half caster with more caster options.
I am curious how this doesn't feel like making a deal for power. Your pact gives you free spells that you cast for free.
Invocations ESPECIALLY Mystic Arcanum feel like a quick deal for power. You get access to "magic you shouldn't have" early. That absolutely inform flavor and mechanics. Full casters have always had more casting, because they didn't take short cuts to the power.
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.
I still disagree just as much. He is a white room optimizer and I've never argued the balance is off with the class. All he looks at is power, and builds. If that was the issue people had with the new warlock this would have been over a while ago. Like he multiple times went over the full arcane list. Is that a buff sure, is that a good thing though. I kind of doubt it, unique lists are good. If the arcane list was trimmed down by half and the other 1/2 got divided up among the mage classes as class exclusives I'd be fine with it. But the full arcane list with some class abilities disguised as spells in your unique pile. Nah, that is worse. He liked adding medium armor saying it was the step in the right direction. For optimization sure, for a warlock no. If they wanted to add some defense mage armor at will invocation should have been baked in with some methods to beef it up, that would feel like a warlock, not every warlock in medium armor. Almost all his points were like that. Sure there are good things with the new pacts for example, but he thinks everything is numbers, and its not.
So basically your disagreement is based on fluff and your subjective impression on the class.
One thing I will say that the deep optimization dive didn't cover is what attracts someone just taking a quick look at the class to play it. That decision won't be made after spending a few hours to crunch a bunch of numbers, it's going to be made in a few minutes after a quick surface level comparison between this and other casters.
Basically, What pops off the page and yells "Play ME! And not the sorcerer in your next game." This playtest version doesn't have that.
It does have it, because I wanna play it. If you wanna play an unusual edgy caster who makes the pact with an eldritch entity, the warlock is for you. If a person wants to play a warlock, they'll pick a warlock. People don't usually pick a class purely for the mechanics of certain features, they usually do it to play a role in a role-playing game.
To some degree, mechanics should reinforce fluff and fluff should reinforce mechanics. And the problem is this one does not do that. It may be a edgy caster but it does not feel like a warlock, hence my various goth ranger comparisons from before which some liken to hyperbole. It does not feel like a person who made a deal for arcane power. This warlock if people want to play a warlock they will just play a sorcerer or wizard and give a back story about learning magic from a demon. If they want to play this class its not to be a warlock, someone who made pacts with insane beings for power its because they wanted to play a edgy half caster with more caster options.
I am curious how this doesn't feel like making a deal for power. Your pact gives you free spells that you cast for free.
Invocations ESPECIALLY Mystic Arcanum feel like a quick deal for power. You get access to "magic you shouldn't have" early. That absolutely inform flavor and mechanics. Full casters have always had more casting, because they didn't take short cuts to the power.
A "Short-cut" shouldn't feel obviously behind the guy who put in the work, otherwise it isn't a short-cut. I understand game balance prevents it from being ahead of the alternative, but game balance should also keep it from being too far behind it as well.
I think in large part, Mystic Arcanum needs to be baked into the class and decoupled from Invocations. At higher levels they are so much more than almost any other option that not taking a Mystic Arcanum with your Invocation looks not just suboptimal, but near crippling. A false choice is basically no choice at all.
And of a minor note, I think Lessons of the First Ones should be repeatable, subject to the limitations of Feats.
I still disagree just as much. He is a white room optimizer and I've never argued the balance is off with the class. All he looks at is power, and builds. If that was the issue people had with the new warlock this would have been over a while ago. Like he multiple times went over the full arcane list. Is that a buff sure, is that a good thing though. I kind of doubt it, unique lists are good. If the arcane list was trimmed down by half and the other 1/2 got divided up among the mage classes as class exclusives I'd be fine with it. But the full arcane list with some class abilities disguised as spells in your unique pile. Nah, that is worse. He liked adding medium armor saying it was the step in the right direction. For optimization sure, for a warlock no. If they wanted to add some defense mage armor at will invocation should have been baked in with some methods to beef it up, that would feel like a warlock, not every warlock in medium armor. Almost all his points were like that. Sure there are good things with the new pacts for example, but he thinks everything is numbers, and its not.
So basically your disagreement is based on fluff and your subjective impression on the class.
One thing I will say that the deep optimization dive didn't cover is what attracts someone just taking a quick look at the class to play it. That decision won't be made after spending a few hours to crunch a bunch of numbers, it's going to be made in a few minutes after a quick surface level comparison between this and other casters.
Basically, What pops off the page and yells "Play ME! And not the sorcerer in your next game." This playtest version doesn't have that.
It does have it, because I wanna play it. If you wanna play an unusual edgy caster who makes the pact with an eldritch entity, the warlock is for you. If a person wants to play a warlock, they'll pick a warlock. People don't usually pick a class purely for the mechanics of certain features, they usually do it to play a role in a role-playing game.
To some degree, mechanics should reinforce fluff and fluff should reinforce mechanics. And the problem is this one does not do that. It may be a edgy caster but it does not feel like a warlock, hence my various goth ranger comparisons from before which some liken to hyperbole. It does not feel like a person who made a deal for arcane power. This warlock if people want to play a warlock they will just play a sorcerer or wizard and give a back story about learning magic from a demon. If they want to play this class its not to be a warlock, someone who made pacts with insane beings for power its because they wanted to play a edgy half caster with more caster options.
I am curious how this doesn't feel like making a deal for power. Your pact gives you free spells that you cast for free.
Invocations ESPECIALLY Mystic Arcanum feel like a quick deal for power. You get access to "magic you shouldn't have" early. That absolutely inform flavor and mechanics. Full casters have always had more casting, because they didn't take short cuts to the power.
A "Short-cut" shouldn't feel obviously behind the guy who put in the work, otherwise it isn't a short-cut. I understand game balance prevents it from being ahead of the alternative, but game balance should also keep it from being too far behind it as well.
I think in large part, Mystic Arcanum needs to be baked into the class and decoupled from Invocations. At higher levels they are so much more than almost any other option that not taking a Mystic Arcanum with your Invocation looks not just suboptimal, but near crippling. A false choice is basically no choice at all.
And of a minor note, I think Lessons of the First Ones should be repeatable, subject to the limitations of Feats.
I can agree with this. Same with agonizing blast to me.
With mystic arcanum obviously I wouldn't call it "obviously behind".
Mystic arcanum definitely should /not/ be decoupled from invocations. It's too powerful to bake in AND let you have your invocations too.
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.
Tasha
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It isnt worth the concentration now at level 5. But it is worth the spell slot. If you are a blasty lock now and are using your slots on non-concentration spells hex is effectively a free spell you cast kill a rat and then short rest to have the spell up as you go through the day.
With new lock this would be similar at 5. The first level cast would be worth the slot and you could save your higher slots for your blasting even if hex is still poor for concentration. At 9 + no concentration on the upcast makes it worth the slot.
If bigger slots are for misty step, mirror image, MA fireball, shatter. Than you aren't worried too much about the concentration, but that is a playstyle.
I worry about slot efficiency more than concentration efficiency because different playstyles and flavors exist.
One thing I will say that the deep optimization dive didn't cover is what attracts someone just taking a quick look at the class to play it. That decision won't be made after spending a few hours to crunch a bunch of numbers, it's going to be made in a few minutes after a quick surface level comparison between this and other casters.
Basically, What pops off the page and yells "Play ME! And not the sorcerer in your next game." This playtest version doesn't have that.
Hi, sure?
If it was that case, what the need to specify it? Learn instead choose, even then specified later.
Then, maybe would be the intention, but then it needs to be better written. One thing I learnt about D&D is not assuming anything or can pollute the rules. An example is with Magic Missile, making only 1 damage roll, while probably many people (me included) were rolling one die per missile, but if we read it carefully not assuming anything, it is true that is only 1 roll.
So yes, I have read MA, precisely only read, not assuming from single words, but from the whole sentence. I think is a mistake doing that (assuming from single words), we read "spell", and automatically we assume all the ideas we have around the "spell" word and apply, not getting the whole.
Not sure what your point is with Fey Touched, but here's the actual rule. Since it hasn't been replaced in 1D&D, the assumption is we use the 5e rule.
So, upcasting is really only something that you do when you cast with spell slots. If there's a feature that doesn't use spell slots, there's no way for you to upcast it.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
@Quar1on to emphasize the difference.
I believe that is the objective. To improve the game and classes that weren’t living up to expectations. 5e Warlock while not hated like the Ranger was clearly failing to live up to peoples expectations. The problem is the 1/2 caster way they attempted to fix it moved two far from the base they established in 5e and kills something many players loved about the Warlock. Also the 1/2 caster the presented is flat-out worse than than the 2014 warlock, which is not the objective. The major problems of the 5e Warlock was reliance on short rest, and a lack of spell slots. My design is a step in the right direction to appease all warlock players. This was my second draft of this design and I already see that at level 2 when I gave pact magic it should have only been one slot for balance. 2 pact magic slots shouldn’t be a thing until 3rd or 5th level I’m not sure which. Also I’m not crapping on the One DND warlock design. It has some gold in it. I love the different Spellcasting modifier options. I even agree with their choices for which pact has access to which modifiers. I love the changes to eldritch blast, but dislike the changes to hex. But under my design the changes to hex aren’t that bad. Also Hexer invocation should do what Hex master does and under my design you bring back eldritch master. I know my design isn’t perfect. I’m not a designer. I’m a DM/player. I enjoy playing with design, so I through ideas out until something sticks. I really like this and enjoy constructive criticism, but what you gave wasn’t constructive. It’s just your opinion of what you think WotC objective is. Now maybe you have insight into the design goals that we don’t.
Having a spell known as a Mystic Arcanum is a spell that is cast without a spell slot, which means it is always cast at its base level.
Something like Fey Touched gives you a spell that can be cast without a spell slot, which means that it is cast at its base level, but it can also be cast with a spell slot, which means it takes the level of the slot cast. That is specifically written in its rules.
Mystic Arcanum does not have that qualifier. If you take a spell as a Mystic Arcanum it can only be cast via the rules for Mystic Arcanum, not via spell slots, and thus cannot be upcast.
Nice little "rules don't say I can't therefore I can logic". Just like nothing in the rules says the halfling cant fly without magic. There is nothing in the rules that says it can.
You are still working with that assumption here. "Nothing in the rules that says I can't upcast the spells I know that I can cast without a spell slot to max level". Cool there is also nothing that says you can.
Guess what. There is also nothing in the rules that says "you cant upcast the spells that you can cast without a slot that aren't 'known to you'." In fact the only difference between gaining a spell you can cast once per day and having a spell KNOWN that you can cast once per day, is the spell known can be cast again USING spell slots. So there is a difference, just no difference in how the "cast without a spell slot" works.
The only way to upcast is spending a spell slot. If your table can upcast hex to 5th level with hexmaster because the rules don't say you can't. Than you should have no issue with me upcasting mystic arcanum to 9th level at level 5 because there is nothing in the rules that says I can't. Same with fiendish vigor, why do I have to wait to upcast it, clearly I can upcast it to 9 at level 2. Just like it doesn't say you can't upcast it, it also doesn't say I can't upcast it past the level I have slots.
The rules don't say I can't is a long standing DnD Fallacy. Stop.
The goal is for it to live up to expectations and be fun, not to change the overall power level. Your suggestion is a pure power level buff, and as has been pointed out the current change isn't an overall power level nerf.
Maybe I am misunderstanding what you were saying in your initial post. I apologize, if I did.
Are you saying:
1. At warlock level 5-6 you choose up to a 3rd level spell and can cast it once per long rest at 3rd level. So, if you decided to choose Burning Hands, which is a 1st level spell, you cast it at 3rd level. And same for the other MA if you choose the higher options at the appropriate levels (you could use your 17+ level MA to pick Fireball and cast it at 9th level. Or...
2. At warlock level 5-6 you can choose up to a 3rd level spell and cast it once per long rest at 3rd level. And the next day you can choose a different spell, up to 3rd level, and cast it once per long rest, etc. Choosing a different spell each day since it doesn't say you learn the spell you just choose it? Or...
3. As #2, but when you reach the 7th-8th level range you now choose up to a 4th level spell without the need to take MA a second time? Or...
4. None of the Above. Explain your version. Or...
5. All of the above.
Edit: Also, JC has said that if it isn't in the playtest document, we default to the current 5E rules.
There is no description of Wish in the UA, even though the UA Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard have access to it. So you use the 2014 PHB rules for the spell. But the spell may be changed when they do put it out in a UA or the new 2024 PHB, so Sorcerers, with Arcane Apotheosis, could possibly not be as broken as they are with the 2014 Wish spell.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
So basically your disagreement is based on fluff and your subjective impression on the class.
It does have it, because I wanna play it. If you wanna play an unusual edgy caster who makes the pact with an eldritch entity, the warlock is for you. If a person wants to play a warlock, they'll pick a warlock. People don't usually pick a class purely for the mechanics of certain features, they usually do it to play a role in a role-playing game.
so basically it's fine for one class to be thrown into the volcano of objective utility? medium armor on one mage (with laser beams and your choice of flying pet or magic blade) so the others may be spared?
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!
I'd certainly play it. An arcane half caster is something that has interested me for a long time. Now, I have one. yes, I saw what treeantmonk said about it not being a half caster, and while he makes some solid point, it's a half caster chassis with some ability to pick higher level spells via class features, but those are choices and not cooked in. Perhaps paladins and rangers need something similar for divine and primal.
While there are things I don't like about this warlock, mechanically it checks blocks for me that the current warlock doesn't. I think it's not perfect and I think it's still open to 1 level dip abuse, particularly for gishes, objectively I think they likely made wise design decisions here.
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
When elimination of short rest requirements is an obvious design goal...yes.
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
To some degree, mechanics should reinforce fluff and fluff should reinforce mechanics. And the problem is this one does not do that. It may be a edgy caster but it does not feel like a warlock, hence my various goth ranger comparisons from before which some liken to hyperbole. It does not feel like a person who made a deal for arcane power. This warlock if people want to play a warlock they will just play a sorcerer or wizard and give a back story about learning magic from a demon. If they want to play this class its not to be a warlock, someone who made pacts with insane beings for power its because they wanted to play a edgy half caster with more caster options.
I am curious how this doesn't feel like making a deal for power. Your pact gives you free spells that you cast for free.
Invocations ESPECIALLY Mystic Arcanum feel like a quick deal for power. You get access to "magic you shouldn't have" early. That absolutely inform flavor and mechanics. Full casters have always had more casting, because they didn't take short cuts to the power.
youre not wrong.
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
A "Short-cut" shouldn't feel obviously behind the guy who put in the work, otherwise it isn't a short-cut. I understand game balance prevents it from being ahead of the alternative, but game balance should also keep it from being too far behind it as well.
I think in large part, Mystic Arcanum needs to be baked into the class and decoupled from Invocations. At higher levels they are so much more than almost any other option that not taking a Mystic Arcanum with your Invocation looks not just suboptimal, but near crippling. A false choice is basically no choice at all.
And of a minor note, I think Lessons of the First Ones should be repeatable, subject to the limitations of Feats.
I can agree with this. Same with agonizing blast to me.
With mystic arcanum obviously I wouldn't call it "obviously behind".
Mystic arcanum definitely should /not/ be decoupled from invocations. It's too powerful to bake in AND let you have your invocations too.
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