Mystic arcanum definitely should /not/ be decoupled from invocations. It's too powerful to bake in AND let you have your invocations too.
But as it stands, it's just an illusion of choice, which is worse than just giving you a feature. Either Mystic Arcanum gets baked in (alongside an invocation reduction) or there's a ton of new invocations that can compete with 6th-9th level spells. I'd prefer the latter, personally, but it's probably not going to happen.
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)
Mystic arcanum definitely should /not/ be decoupled from invocations. It's too powerful to bake in AND let you have your invocations too.
That depends on how many of each there are. 6 or 7 Mystic Arcanum with all 9 Invocations? You're probably right if that's the route they take. Make it 4 Mystic Arcanum and 6 Invocations? A little less so.
Especially looking at what the highest level Invocations are. The 3 that require 15th level or higher are Master of Myriad Forms, which grants unlimited use of a second level spell, Visions of Distant Realms, which grants unlimited use of a 4th level spell, and Witch Sight, which gives a 6th level spell effect as a permanent buff, albeit at 1/4 of the spell's range, so let's call that a 5th level spell. Or you can take an 8th level spell usable once per day. Outside of Witch Sight, I'd take the spell every time. If it was time to change a Mystic Arcanum (say, I get actual spells of the level spell a previous Arcanum duplicates), I'd take a look at Visions of Distant Realms.
All that said, I think the class is pretty close to being OK with some minor changes. Dig out the 2/3 spell progression the 3E Bard had, give it a small number of Mystic Arcanum (enough to have one spell of whatever level a full caster would have of the appropriate level, so a maximum of 3 at a time that automatically upgrade at appropriate levels), a smaller number of Invocations (since they won't be needed to feed Mystic Arcanum, so 6 should be enough), and by all means a better capstone than that horrible Hex Master.
Some minor changes like allowing Pact of the Tome to record additional rituals when found (like the original Invocation boosted one did), a more survivable familiar from Pact of the Chain, and a bit of a boost from Pact of the Blade (like shield proficiency OR a 2 handed weapon) would also be welcome.
Perhaps allowing those low level unlimited casting Invocations to upcast a little might also be in order, but I'm not sure how that would work out, game balance-wise. I don't think unlimited 3rd level castings of False Life would be game breaking on a 10th level character, but not all spells upcast equally.
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.
If you want to feel like making a deal for arcane power, the way you do it is by making it an actual deal -- you gain benefits for doing things your patron wants you to do. 5e is generally hostile to that sort of mechanic, multiple classes really should have substantial behavior requirements and mostly don't. There's nothing about short rest spellcasting that makes it somehow feel more like a deal than long rest.
Mystic arcanum definitely should /not/ be decoupled from invocations. It's too powerful to bake in AND let you have your invocations too.
The basic for baking it in would just be to auto-grant the ones everyone will take (generally one for every level they don't get spell slots, so 1-4) and subtract the same number of invocations. That has no balance implications.
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.
If you want to feel like making a deal for arcane power, the way you do it is by making it an actual deal -- you gain benefits for doing things your patron wants you to do. 5e is generally hostile to that sort of mechanic, multiple classes really should have substantial behavior requirements and mostly don't. There's nothing about short rest spellcasting that makes it somehow feel more like a deal than long rest.
Mystic arcanum definitely should /not/ be decoupled from invocations. It's too powerful to bake in AND let you have your invocations too.
The basic for baking it in would just be to auto-grant the ones everyone will take (generally one for every level they don't get spell slots, so 1-4) and subtract the same number of invocations. That has no balance implications.
I think they need one or two more invocations, but if they decouple Arcanum and Invocations from each other and the total of the two combined is 10, that adds up to one more. The old Warlock had 8, but the new one effectively has 2 baked into every Pact to partially even things out. Still, taking the requisite 4 Mystic Arcanum leaves the new Warlock with only 5 where I feel they should have 6 or 7 - NOT counting the ones baked into the Pacts.
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.
If you want to feel like making a deal for arcane power, the way you do it is by making it an actual deal -- you gain benefits for doing things your patron wants you to do. 5e is generally hostile to that sort of mechanic, multiple classes really should have substantial behavior requirements and mostly don't. There's nothing about short rest spellcasting that makes it somehow feel more like a deal than long rest.
Mystic arcanum definitely should /not/ be decoupled from invocations. It's too powerful to bake in AND let you have your invocations too.
The basic for baking it in would just be to auto-grant the ones everyone will take (generally one for every level they don't get spell slots, so 1-4) and subtract the same number of invocations. That has no balance implications.
I think they need one or two more invocations, but if they decouple Arcanum and Invocations from each other and the total of the two combined is 10, that adds up to one more. The old Warlock had 8, but the new one effectively has 2 baked into every Pact to partially even things out. Still, taking the requisite 4 Mystic Arcanum leaves the new Warlock with only 5 where I feel they should have 6 or 7 - NOT counting the ones baked into the Pacts.
Ya and 6 or 7 is about the suggestion we find.
2 at 2, one at 5,9,15,17,19
Mystic arcanum at 3,7,11,13 with the ability to trade up. Which you do typically at 5,9,15,17
I think they need one or two more invocations, but if they decouple Arcanum and Invocations from each other and the total of the two combined is 10, that adds up to one more.
You can certainly add more invocations, but my point was just that there's no fundamental balance issue, it's just simplifying the thing everyone would do anyway.
17 4 4 4 3 3 2 7 1 at 7th Level, 1 at 8th Level, 1 at 9th Level
18 4 4 4 4 3 3 7
19 4 4 4 4 4 3 7
20 4 4 4 4 4 4 7
I'm thinking of leaving most of the other stuff the same, except there is no longer a Mystic Arcanum Invocation, and the 18th Level Capstone obviously needs some work. It needs to feel like a capstone. Maybe recharging one of the Mystic Arcanum 1x per Long Rest - possibly with the caveat that it can't be used for the 9th level slot. Or alternatively, recharge a single spell slot (NOT Mystic Arcanum) whenever initiative is rolled or a short rest is taken. It might also be able to withstand slowing down the Invocation progression after Level 5 to 1 per 4 class levels instead of every 3, which would have it top out at 6.
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.
That’s not true, what was pointed out was you get to cast more spells. No where have they discussed power. A 5e Warlock is definitely more powerful than the one dnd warlock. It just has its power in shorter burst. It’s noticeable as soon as level 3. 5e Warlock is casting 2nd level spells and the new Warlock isn’t. Spell power comes from spell level not the amount of times you can cast. Which is more powerful: a character that can cast a 1st level spell infinitely or a character with one 9th level spell per day.
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?
If it fixes the way the class plays, yes. It doesn't matter how flavorful the class is - if it feels excruciating to actually play it and you're always lagging behind the rest of the party or you're always starving for resources, then the redesign is due. The new ranger lost their "flavorful" features that chained them to only a few biomes, and became more powerful, more universal, feeling better to play.
Mystic arcanum definitely should /not/ be decoupled from invocations. It's too powerful to bake in AND let you have your invocations too.
Yeah, no. They had mystic arcanums built in in 5e and 8 invocations. They were not over powered. They were pretty well balanced. They are not weaker now but they are not much more powerful either. While other comparably balanced 5e classes have gotten a boost. If you stay steady and everyone boosts ahead of you its not a great place to be.
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?
If it fixes the way the class plays, yes. It doesn't matter how flavorful the class is - if it feels excruciating to actually play it and you're always lagging behind the rest of the party or you're always starving for resources, then the redesign is due. The new ranger lost their "flavorful" features that chained them to only a few biomes, and became more powerful, more universal, feeling better to play.
The ranger still feels like a ranger at least, a more generic ranger concept but a ranger. Though I do think it needs something in that regard, hopefully the sub classes will pull through for it as its not going to get much of a rewrite given how well it polled. I don't think the warlock can say the same. And the class was not excruciating to play, it was the 3rd favorite class, something excruciating to play does not land in the top 3. It wasn't the most powerful class in the game, so that wasn't its draw. It was popular because of how cool it was. If you take out the cool, where does this class land.
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.
If you want to feel like making a deal for arcane power, the way you do it is by making it an actual deal -- you gain benefits for doing things your patron wants you to do. 5e is generally hostile to that sort of mechanic, multiple classes really should have substantial behavior requirements and mostly don't. There's nothing about short rest spellcasting that makes it somehow feel more like a deal than long rest.
Mystic arcanum definitely should /not/ be decoupled from invocations. It's too powerful to bake in AND let you have your invocations too.
The basic for baking it in would just be to auto-grant the ones everyone will take (generally one for every level they don't get spell slots, so 1-4) and subtract the same number of invocations. That has no balance implications.
I think they need one or two more invocations, but if they decouple Arcanum and Invocations from each other and the total of the two combined is 10, that adds up to one more. The old Warlock had 8, but the new one effectively has 2 baked into every Pact to partially even things out. Still, taking the requisite 4 Mystic Arcanum leaves the new Warlock with only 5 where I feel they should have 6 or 7 - NOT counting the ones baked into the Pacts.
Was 8 enough in 5e though?
Before trying to line it up with 5es, you have to decide if 5e landed in the right spot.
Personally I don't think so. I think too muvh of the early game was just taking the core ones, by the time you got to flesh your character out the game was over and even if you went to 20, you were feeling quite a few short from what you want. Like some hard choices are good, but it felt like a few too many of them. I'd of given 5e another 2-3 assuming only small other changes. And while built in ones are fine, if its not something you were going to use or take its not as good as a invocation.
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.
If you want to feel like making a deal for arcane power, the way you do it is by making it an actual deal -- you gain benefits for doing things your patron wants you to do. 5e is generally hostile to that sort of mechanic, multiple classes really should have substantial behavior requirements and mostly don't. There's nothing about short rest spellcasting that makes it somehow feel more like a deal than long rest.
Mystic arcanum definitely should /not/ be decoupled from invocations. It's too powerful to bake in AND let you have your invocations too.
The basic for baking it in would just be to auto-grant the ones everyone will take (generally one for every level they don't get spell slots, so 1-4) and subtract the same number of invocations. That has no balance implications.
I think they need one or two more invocations, but if they decouple Arcanum and Invocations from each other and the total of the two combined is 10, that adds up to one more. The old Warlock had 8, but the new one effectively has 2 baked into every Pact to partially even things out. Still, taking the requisite 4 Mystic Arcanum leaves the new Warlock with only 5 where I feel they should have 6 or 7 - NOT counting the ones baked into the Pacts.
Was 8 enough in 5e though?
Before trying to line it up with 5es, you have to decide if 5e landed in the right spot.
Personally I don't think so. I think too muvh of the early game was just taking the core ones, by the time you got to flesh your character out the game was over and even if you went to 20, you were feeling quite a few short from what you want. Like some hard choices are good, but it felt like a few too many of them. I'd of given 5e another 2-3 assuming only small other changes. And while built in ones are fine, if its not something you were going to use or take its not as good as a invocation.
Well I believe that is also why the pact auto picks are good to be a part. + why I think agonizing blast should just be rollled in. By level you basically are +1 invocation. By level 5 you are +2. My suggestions have you slow down a little after. But the problem was rarely the number of invocations late and by removing the invocation taxes early the flavor early increases.
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?
If it fixes the way the class plays, yes. It doesn't matter how flavorful the class is - if it feels excruciating to actually play it and you're always lagging behind the rest of the party or you're always starving for resources, then the redesign is due. The new ranger lost their "flavorful" features that chained them to only a few biomes, and became more powerful, more universal, feeling better to play.
Many of the changes to Ranger features in Tasha's really just ensured they were useful despite GM Asshattery. When the DM realized that the Ranger basically makes the party immune to environmental hazards in the forest so the campaign leaves it permanently, or doesn't want to balance for the bonuses Favored Enemy gives so that creature type just vanishes from the game. The changes are now useful no matter what the DM does aside from declaring your character dies of a sudden heart attack. Before, they may have been more flavorful, but were either too big or useless, depending on the campaign.
Which is one thing I do understand, since short rests can easily be subject to the same stuff. But when I look at the boosts Sorcerers and Wizards have been given, then compare what happened to the Warlock, especially very early in the game, and I'd probably ask to change any Warlock I played early on to a better spellcaster. I didn't sell my soul to be this much less than the other arcane casters.
The 15th level boons really make the choice to be a Warlock seem like the choice of an easily fooled chump. The Warlock get....a second 4th level spell slot, and an Invocation which they had better use for the 8th level spell via Mystic Arcanum. The Sorcerer gets....8th level spells, and every time they either get a short rest, or even roll for initiative, they regain 4 sorcery points. The Wizard gets....8th level spells, and can transform either 2 first level spells, or a first level and a second level spell into functional cantrips, enabling them to cast them at will, without using a spell slot, until as such time as they can take a down day, and change them for 2 different spells that will act the same way.
You can't just compare the new Warlock to the old one, you also have to compare it to the competition. And boy, is it lacking.
The new ranger lost their "flavorful" features that chained them to only a few biomes, and became more powerful, more universal, feeling better to play.
Many of the changes to Ranger features in Tasha's really just ensured they were useful despite GM Asshattery. When the DM [...] doesn't want to balance for the bonuses Favored Enemy gives so that creature type just vanishes from the game.
Ah yes, the bonuses Favored Enemy gives that a DM needs to balance for. I know them well, of course. But for those of us who don't, could you spell them out?
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?
If it fixes the way the class plays, yes. It doesn't matter how flavorful the class is - if it feels excruciating to actually play it and you're always lagging behind the rest of the party or you're always starving for resources, then the redesign is due. The new ranger lost their "flavorful" features that chained them to only a few biomes, and became more powerful, more universal, feeling better to play.
Many of the changes to Ranger features in Tasha's really just ensured they were useful despite GM Asshattery. When the DM realized that the Ranger basically makes the party immune to environmental hazards in the forest so the campaign leaves it permanently, or doesn't want to balance for the bonuses Favored Enemy gives so that creature type just vanishes from the game. The changes are now useful no matter what the DM does aside from declaring your character dies of a sudden heart attack. Before, they may have been more flavorful, but were either too big or useless, depending on the campaign.
Which is one thing I do understand, since short rests can easily be subject to the same stuff. But when I look at the boosts Sorcerers and Wizards have been given, then compare what happened to the Warlock, especially very early in the game, and I'd probably ask to change any Warlock I played early on to a better spellcaster. I didn't sell my soul to be this much less than the other arcane casters.
The 15th level boons really make the choice to be a Warlock seem like the choice of an easily fooled chump. The Warlock get....a second 4th level spell slot, and an Invocation which they had better use for the 8th level spell via Mystic Arcanum. The Sorcerer gets....8th level spells, and every time they either get a short rest, or even roll for initiative, they regain 4 sorcery points. The Wizard gets....8th level spells, and can transform either 2 first level spells, or a first level and a second level spell into functional cantrips, enabling them to cast them at will, without using a spell slot, until as such time as they can take a down day, and change them for 2 different spells that will act the same way.
You can't just compare the new Warlock to the old one, you also have to compare it to the competition. And boy, is it lacking.
You are forgetting the other invocations at this level. You can trade one of your lower level invocations for permanent true sight at level 15.
So you can have fighters ranged attack (AB+RB) with 2 4th level spells, a 5th level spell, a 6th level spell, a 7th level spell, an 8th level spell, true sight, and you are tome you STILL have 2 more invocations left for whatever and chain/blade you have 1 left.
I've been playing since early editions when those were damage bonuses - and inexperienced/adversarial DMs would often have those creature types vanish from the game world pretty quick if a Ranger was in the party. You'll have to forgive me for slipping back editions every now and again - I skipped 4th almost entirely (after playing with a very, very bad DM who singled me out for homebrew Mommy-May-I attacks that kept me as a viewer rather than a player. Never gamed with him again either). and have an excess of 3.5/Pathfinder play that slips through every now and again, which is made worse by the fact that 5th only accounts for a third of my group's playing, tops.
Currently, bonus to skill checks don't seem like much, but the change to a small amount of bonus damage at least frees up a spell slot or two that would have needed Hunter's Mark, so it's still a small gain. The issue of eliminating environmental challenges almost completely remains - we were run through a Rime of the Frost Maiden game with a Gloom Stalker who had chosen arctic for his terrain. All the issues of winter kind of went away over that.
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.
This one.
Also, as you can change one invocation at each level up, notice that you can upgrade it as the changed invocation, but with the limit that can have only one MA of each level listed as mentioned in the skill.
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.
This one.
Also, as you can change one invocation at each level up, notice that you can upgrade it as the changed invocation, but with the limit that can have only one MA of each level listed as mentioned in the skill.
Ok that makes more sense to me. But I do think you are correct that it needs further clarification as I read it as no matter what spell you choose it is still cast at its lowest level. The table only tells you the maximum spell level you can pick from not the maximum level you cast the chosen spell. So Burning Hands as a 5-6 level pic would still only be cast at 1st level.
But as it stands, it's just an illusion of choice, which is worse than just giving you a feature. Either Mystic Arcanum gets baked in (alongside an invocation reduction) or there's a ton of new invocations that can compete with 6th-9th level spells. I'd prefer the latter, personally, but it's probably not going to happen.
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)
That depends on how many of each there are. 6 or 7 Mystic Arcanum with all 9 Invocations? You're probably right if that's the route they take. Make it 4 Mystic Arcanum and 6 Invocations? A little less so.
Especially looking at what the highest level Invocations are. The 3 that require 15th level or higher are Master of Myriad Forms, which grants unlimited use of a second level spell, Visions of Distant Realms, which grants unlimited use of a 4th level spell, and Witch Sight, which gives a 6th level spell effect as a permanent buff, albeit at 1/4 of the spell's range, so let's call that a 5th level spell. Or you can take an 8th level spell usable once per day. Outside of Witch Sight, I'd take the spell every time. If it was time to change a Mystic Arcanum (say, I get actual spells of the level spell a previous Arcanum duplicates), I'd take a look at Visions of Distant Realms.
All that said, I think the class is pretty close to being OK with some minor changes. Dig out the 2/3 spell progression the 3E Bard had, give it a small number of Mystic Arcanum (enough to have one spell of whatever level a full caster would have of the appropriate level, so a maximum of 3 at a time that automatically upgrade at appropriate levels), a smaller number of Invocations (since they won't be needed to feed Mystic Arcanum, so 6 should be enough), and by all means a better capstone than that horrible Hex Master.
Some minor changes like allowing Pact of the Tome to record additional rituals when found (like the original Invocation boosted one did), a more survivable familiar from Pact of the Chain, and a bit of a boost from Pact of the Blade (like shield proficiency OR a 2 handed weapon) would also be welcome.
Perhaps allowing those low level unlimited casting Invocations to upcast a little might also be in order, but I'm not sure how that would work out, game balance-wise. I don't think unlimited 3rd level castings of False Life would be game breaking on a 10th level character, but not all spells upcast equally.
If you want to feel like making a deal for arcane power, the way you do it is by making it an actual deal -- you gain benefits for doing things your patron wants you to do. 5e is generally hostile to that sort of mechanic, multiple classes really should have substantial behavior requirements and mostly don't. There's nothing about short rest spellcasting that makes it somehow feel more like a deal than long rest.
The basic for baking it in would just be to auto-grant the ones everyone will take (generally one for every level they don't get spell slots, so 1-4) and subtract the same number of invocations. That has no balance implications.
I think they need one or two more invocations, but if they decouple Arcanum and Invocations from each other and the total of the two combined is 10, that adds up to one more. The old Warlock had 8, but the new one effectively has 2 baked into every Pact to partially even things out. Still, taking the requisite 4 Mystic Arcanum leaves the new Warlock with only 5 where I feel they should have 6 or 7 - NOT counting the ones baked into the Pacts.
Ya and 6 or 7 is about the suggestion we find.
2 at 2, one at 5,9,15,17,19
Mystic arcanum at 3,7,11,13 with the ability to trade up. Which you do typically at 5,9,15,17
You can certainly add more invocations, but my point was just that there's no fundamental balance issue, it's just simplifying the thing everyone would do anyway.
Let's try this Warlock spell progression...
Level 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th Invocations Mystic Arcanum
1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
3 2 1 0 0 0 0 2
4 3 1 0 0 0 0 2
5 3 2 0 0 0 0 3 1 at 3rd Level
6 3 2 1 0 0 0 3
7 3 2 2 0 0 0 4 1 at 4th Level
8 3 3 2 0 0 0 4
9 3 3 2 1 0 0 4 1 at 5th Level
10 3 3 2 2 0 0 5
11 3 3 3 2 0 0 5 1 at 5th Level, 1 at 6th Level
12 4 3 3 2 1 0 5
13 4 3 3 2 2 0 6 1 at 6th Level, 1 at 7th Level
14 4 4 3 3 2 0 6
15 4 4 3 3 2 1 6 1 at 7th Level, 1 at 8th Level
16 4 4 4 3 2 2 7
17 4 4 4 3 3 2 7 1 at 7th Level, 1 at 8th Level, 1 at 9th Level
18 4 4 4 4 3 3 7
19 4 4 4 4 4 3 7
20 4 4 4 4 4 4 7
I'm thinking of leaving most of the other stuff the same, except there is no longer a Mystic Arcanum Invocation, and the 18th Level Capstone obviously needs some work. It needs to feel like a capstone. Maybe recharging one of the Mystic Arcanum 1x per Long Rest - possibly with the caveat that it can't be used for the 9th level slot. Or alternatively, recharge a single spell slot (NOT Mystic Arcanum) whenever initiative is rolled or a short rest is taken. It might also be able to withstand slowing down the Invocation progression after Level 5 to 1 per 4 class levels instead of every 3, which would have it top out at 6.
That’s not true, what was pointed out was you get to cast more spells. No where have they discussed power. A 5e Warlock is definitely more powerful than the one dnd warlock. It just has its power in shorter burst. It’s noticeable as soon as level 3. 5e Warlock is casting 2nd level spells and the new Warlock isn’t. Spell power comes from spell level not the amount of times you can cast.
Which is more powerful: a character that can cast a 1st level spell infinitely or a character with one 9th level spell per day.
If it fixes the way the class plays, yes. It doesn't matter how flavorful the class is - if it feels excruciating to actually play it and you're always lagging behind the rest of the party or you're always starving for resources, then the redesign is due. The new ranger lost their "flavorful" features that chained them to only a few biomes, and became more powerful, more universal, feeling better to play.
Yeah, no. They had mystic arcanums built in in 5e and 8 invocations. They were not over powered. They were pretty well balanced. They are not weaker now but they are not much more powerful either. While other comparably balanced 5e classes have gotten a boost. If you stay steady and everyone boosts ahead of you its not a great place to be.
The ranger still feels like a ranger at least, a more generic ranger concept but a ranger. Though I do think it needs something in that regard, hopefully the sub classes will pull through for it as its not going to get much of a rewrite given how well it polled. I don't think the warlock can say the same. And the class was not excruciating to play, it was the 3rd favorite class, something excruciating to play does not land in the top 3. It wasn't the most powerful class in the game, so that wasn't its draw. It was popular because of how cool it was. If you take out the cool, where does this class land.
Was 8 enough in 5e though?
Before trying to line it up with 5es, you have to decide if 5e landed in the right spot.
Personally I don't think so. I think too muvh of the early game was just taking the core ones, by the time you got to flesh your character out the game was over and even if you went to 20, you were feeling quite a few short from what you want. Like some hard choices are good, but it felt like a few too many of them. I'd of given 5e another 2-3 assuming only small other changes. And while built in ones are fine, if its not something you were going to use or take its not as good as a invocation.
Well I believe that is also why the pact auto picks are good to be a part. + why I think agonizing blast should just be rollled in. By level you basically are +1 invocation. By level 5 you are +2. My suggestions have you slow down a little after. But the problem was rarely the number of invocations late and by removing the invocation taxes early the flavor early increases.
Many of the changes to Ranger features in Tasha's really just ensured they were useful despite GM Asshattery. When the DM realized that the Ranger basically makes the party immune to environmental hazards in the forest so the campaign leaves it permanently, or doesn't want to balance for the bonuses Favored Enemy gives so that creature type just vanishes from the game. The changes are now useful no matter what the DM does aside from declaring your character dies of a sudden heart attack. Before, they may have been more flavorful, but were either too big or useless, depending on the campaign.
Which is one thing I do understand, since short rests can easily be subject to the same stuff. But when I look at the boosts Sorcerers and Wizards have been given, then compare what happened to the Warlock, especially very early in the game, and I'd probably ask to change any Warlock I played early on to a better spellcaster. I didn't sell my soul to be this much less than the other arcane casters.
The 15th level boons really make the choice to be a Warlock seem like the choice of an easily fooled chump. The Warlock get....a second 4th level spell slot, and an Invocation which they had better use for the 8th level spell via Mystic Arcanum. The Sorcerer gets....8th level spells, and every time they either get a short rest, or even roll for initiative, they regain 4 sorcery points. The Wizard gets....8th level spells, and can transform either 2 first level spells, or a first level and a second level spell into functional cantrips, enabling them to cast them at will, without using a spell slot, until as such time as they can take a down day, and change them for 2 different spells that will act the same way.
You can't just compare the new Warlock to the old one, you also have to compare it to the competition. And boy, is it lacking.
Ah yes, the bonuses Favored Enemy gives that a DM needs to balance for. I know them well, of course. But for those of us who don't, could you spell them out?
;P
You are forgetting the other invocations at this level. You can trade one of your lower level invocations for permanent true sight at level 15.
So you can have fighters ranged attack (AB+RB) with 2 4th level spells, a 5th level spell, a 6th level spell, a 7th level spell, an 8th level spell, true sight, and you are tome you STILL have 2 more invocations left for whatever and chain/blade you have 1 left.
I've been playing since early editions when those were damage bonuses - and inexperienced/adversarial DMs would often have those creature types vanish from the game world pretty quick if a Ranger was in the party. You'll have to forgive me for slipping back editions every now and again - I skipped 4th almost entirely (after playing with a very, very bad DM who singled me out for homebrew Mommy-May-I attacks that kept me as a viewer rather than a player. Never gamed with him again either). and have an excess of 3.5/Pathfinder play that slips through every now and again, which is made worse by the fact that 5th only accounts for a third of my group's playing, tops.
Currently, bonus to skill checks don't seem like much, but the change to a small amount of bonus damage at least frees up a spell slot or two that would have needed Hunter's Mark, so it's still a small gain. The issue of eliminating environmental challenges almost completely remains - we were run through a Rime of the Frost Maiden game with a Gloom Stalker who had chosen arctic for his terrain. All the issues of winter kind of went away over that.
I noticed you abandoned comparisons to the other arcane casters and went direct to the fighter.
This one.
Also, as you can change one invocation at each level up, notice that you can upgrade it as the changed invocation, but with the limit that can have only one MA of each level listed as mentioned in the skill.
Ok that makes more sense to me. But I do think you are correct that it needs further clarification as I read it as no matter what spell you choose it is still cast at its lowest level. The table only tells you the maximum spell level you can pick from not the maximum level you cast the chosen spell. So Burning Hands as a 5-6 level pic would still only be cast at 1st level.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?