The new warlock design makes the class a half-caster. So, what is the other half? My suggestion is to make the other half the original 5e warlock.
The idea: warlock keeps half caster progression. At level 3, along with a subclass, you gain Pact Magic feature, granting you 2-4 or [Proficiency Bonus] pact magic slots that recharge on long rest, and scale like full casters' slots by level. You can use these to upcast the spells you know as a half-caster, or use patron spells that unlock as soon as the pact spell slot level allows you (for example, a level 9 Fiend warlock can learn and cast level 3 arcane spells normally, but also already knows level 5 spells from the patron spell list and can cast them through pact magic). That way, you essentially get a free version of current iteration of Mystic Arcanum early.
Now, regarding level 6-9 spells. I suggest that Mystic Arcanum feature appears at level 11, and lets you learn one level 6 spell (levels 7 to 9 later on) and cast it using your Pact Magic slot once between long rests. While you don't get to keep upgrading Pact Magic slots to upcast anything to level 9 multiple times per day, that'd be overkill, you still learn four high level spells for free, though their use is limited by your Pact Magic resource. The main reason for this limitation is that three resources - half-caster slots, Pact Magic slots, and Mystic Arcanum all together would be simply too much of a mess to track. Better keep in within two.
Flavor-wise, your half-caster progression represents your own occult studies, and your pact slots - power borrowed from, stolen from, or bestowed by your patron.
The other half of the Warlock half caster is their Invocations. Now then the invocation options need a serious rebalance since some are great and some are terrible, but the new -lock is balanced just fine compared to old-lock and old-lock is just fine as a class compared to other half-casters in 5e.
I had high hopes for the new Warlock, but I feel kinda 'meh' about it.
There' still no incentive to go full Warlock in my opinion.
Pact of the Blade is for dipping. Pact of the Chain is a gimmick. Pact of the Tome is just a worse option than Sorcerers or Wizards. Even if you go full Mystic Arcanum + Book of Shadows you are still a FAR worse caster than Sorcerers and Wizards. Even Bards. AND you've spent 7(!!) Class features to do it.
The Warlock is a worse Jack-of-all-trades than the Bard and a worse half-caster than the Paladin, Ranger and Artificer.
At least they went away form the once per day Invocations. I doubt they are going to make any significant changes no matter what the feedback is. The Warlock remains a one-level dip.
Now that EB scales with Warlock level only, instead of total level, you do have a great reason to single class. Agonizing Blast is no longer an invocation and instead a feature of the book pact, so that frees your invocation selection, and you can choose 9 instead of 8.
Pacts of the chain and blade were also made better, so now they're actually viable, even if still slightly worse than the book one. These two actually do give you a reason to 1 level dip, I guess, but higher levels now offer more than they used to.
So now, Warlock is worse for 1 level dips (except for Rangers or Paladins, for which it is now infinitely better), and more versatile. If you want a Warlock that is blade/chain, you will no longer feel like a caster that picked a sword and suffers for it. Therefore, you might appreciate getting features that are not Mystic Arcanum, and choose to use those invocations in a different way.
If anything, I think this change is better for all Warlocks of all kinds, except the 1 level dips, other than for Ranger and Paladin for which it remains a must have 90% of the time.
Now that EB scales with Warlock level only, instead of total level, you do have a great reason to single class. Agonizing Blast is no longer an invocation and instead a feature of the book pact, so that frees your invocation selection, and you can choose 9 instead of 8.
Pacts of the chain and blade were also made better, so now they're actually viable, even if still slightly worse than the book one. These two actually do give you a reason to 1 level dip, I guess, but higher levels now offer more than they used to.
So now, Warlock is worse for 1 level dips (except for Rangers or Paladins, for which it is now infinitely better), and more versatile. If you want a Warlock that is blade/chain, you will no longer feel like a caster that picked a sword and suffers for it. Therefore, you might appreciate getting features that are not Mystic Arcanum, and choose to use those invocations in a different way.
If anything, I think this change is better for all Warlocks of all kinds, except the 1 level dips, other than for Ranger and Paladin for which it remains a must have 90% of the time.
I could not disagree more. Pure caster warlock (which is most except hex blade) are worse. Less big spells. Mystic arcanum tax. And the fantasy of making a deal for power is kinda undermined when a guy who lives in the woods is as magic as you. And don’t get me started on the guy with the flute.
In my view this rework doesn’t fulfil the fantasy of a warlock, and it also doesn’t fulfil the mechanics either.
Making Pact Slots long rest rather than short rest doesn't fix their other big problem, namely that they're a weird pseudo-progression that doesn't stack with any other spellcasting a character might have. All you would be doing is giving a Warlock and their DM not one, not two, but three different spellcasting progressions to keep track of, on top of any other resource management from their subclass, feats, species and invocations. I'd take the half-caster + MA version over that any day.
My big problem with Warlocks as half-casters is they don't get higher level spells until much, much later. You go from learning potent, 5th level spells at 9th level and delay it until 17th level. Instead, you need to dedicate your limited Invocations to Mystic Arcanums to get a single 5th level slot that you only get to use once per long rest. This wouldn't be so bad if you got substantially more invocations, but instead you ultimately only get one more than the 5e Warlock. So, to keep up with the other casters, you need to dedicate as many invocations as possible just to getting more Mystic Arcanums... a resource that the original Warlock got for free in addition to their invocations. I know that getting access to a reliable pool of useable slots is a large boost to Warlocks, but it comes at the cost of everything that made Warlock such a unique and interesting class.
Making Pact Slots long rest rather than short rest doesn't fix their other big problem, namely that they're a weird pseudo-progression that doesn't stack with any other spellcasting a character might have. All you would be doing is giving a Warlock and their DM not one, not two, but three different spellcasting progressions to keep track of, on top of any other resource management from their subclass, feats, species and invocations. I'd take the half-caster + MA version over that any day.
So what? What’s the problem with Pact Magic not stacking with other Spellcasting?!? Why is it a problem at all. Multiclassing is an optional rule, so if people who wish to take that option have a little more bookkeeping to do, what of it? “Because Multiclassing” is the absolute worst reason for doing away with Pact Magic I can think of.
My big problem with Warlocks as half-casters is they don't get higher level spells until much, much later. You go from learning potent, 5th level spells at 9th level and delay it until 17th level. Instead, you need to dedicate your limited Invocations to Mystic Arcanums to get a single 5th level slot that you only get to use once per long rest. This wouldn't be so bad if you got substantially more invocations, but instead you ultimately only get one more than the 5e Warlock. So, to keep up with the other casters, you need to dedicate as many invocations as possible just to getting more Mystic Arcanums... a resource that the original Warlock got for free in addition to their invocations. I know that getting access to a reliable pool of useable slots is a large boost to Warlocks, but it comes at the cost of everything that made Warlock such a unique and interesting class.
Making Pact Slots long rest rather than short rest doesn't fix their other big problem, namely that they're a weird pseudo-progression that doesn't stack with any other spellcasting a character might have. All you would be doing is giving a Warlock and their DM not one, not two, but three different spellcasting progressions to keep track of, on top of any other resource management from their subclass, feats, species and invocations. I'd take the half-caster + MA version over that any day.
So what? What’s the problem with Pact Magic not stacking with other Spellcasting?!? Why is it a problem at all. Multiclassing is an optional rule, so if people who wish to take that option have a little more bookkeeping to do, what of it? “Because Multiclassing” is the absolute worst reason for doing away with Pact Magic I can think of.
1) As I said in the post you quoted, even without multiclassing this proposal leaves Warlocks and their DMs with three different types of spellcasting to keep track of - regular slots, Pact slots, and Mystic Arcana pseudo-slots.
2) "Because multiclassing" is a valid lens for the designers to take into account when designing the game. They already polled us in 2021 and concluded that feats and multiclassing not only shouldn't go anywhere, but need to be built on even further because of the number of tables actually using these "optional" rules. It's the same reason why feats at 1st level are mandatory even for featless tables now.
My big problem with Warlocks as half-casters is they don't get higher level spells until much, much later. You go from learning potent, 5th level spells at 9th level and delay it until 17th level. Instead, you need to dedicate your limited Invocations to Mystic Arcanums to get a single 5th level slot that you only get to use once per long rest. This wouldn't be so bad if you got substantially more invocations, but instead you ultimately only get one more than the 5e Warlock. So, to keep up with the other casters, you need to dedicate as many invocations as possible just to getting more Mystic Arcanums... a resource that the original Warlock got for free in addition to their invocations. I know that getting access to a reliable pool of useable slots is a large boost to Warlocks, but it comes at the cost of everything that made Warlock such a unique and interesting class.
You don't need "substantially more invocations" because you can trade out the lower level ones anytime you need more Arcana. In fact, all they need is one single invocation more at 3rd level to keep up with full casters in every tier.
Making Pact Slots long rest rather than short rest doesn't fix their other big problem, namely that they're a weird pseudo-progression that doesn't stack with any other spellcasting a character might have. All you would be doing is giving a Warlock and their DM not one, not two, but three different spellcasting progressions to keep track of, on top of any other resource management from their subclass, feats, species and invocations. I'd take the half-caster + MA version over that any day.
So what? What’s the problem with Pact Magic not stacking with other Spellcasting?!? Why is it a problem at all. Multiclassing is an optional rule, so if people who wish to take that option have a little more bookkeeping to do, what of it? “Because Multiclassing” is the absolute worst reason for doing away with Pact Magic I can think of.
Honestly, the fact that Pact Magic doesn't interact with regular spell slots was a part of the appeal to me when multiclassing Warlock/Bard in one long-running campaign. Having just a few spell slots that recharge on a short rest made it a lot easier to keep them handy for utility casting, plus I didn't have to check any special multiclassing tables or do any math to figure out what my spell slots were.
Making Pact Slots long rest rather than short rest doesn't fix their other big problem, namely that they're a weird pseudo-progression that doesn't stack with any other spellcasting a character might have. All you would be doing is giving a Warlock and their DM not one, not two, but three different spellcasting progressions to keep track of, on top of any other resource management from their subclass, feats, species and invocations. I'd take the half-caster + MA version over that any day.
So what? What’s the problem with Pact Magic not stacking with other Spellcasting?!? Why is it a problem at all. Multiclassing is an optional rule, so if people who wish to take that option have a little more bookkeeping to do, what of it? “Because Multiclassing” is the absolute worst reason for doing away with Pact Magic I can think of.
Honestly, the fact that Pact Magic doesn't interact with regular spell slots was a part of the appeal to me when multiclassing Warlock/Bard in one long-running campaign. Having just a few spell slots that recharge on a short rest made it a lot easier to keep them handy for utility casting, plus I didn't have to check any special multiclassing tables or do any math to figure out what my spell slots were.
Making Pact Slots long rest rather than short rest doesn't fix their other big problem, namely that they're a weird pseudo-progression that doesn't stack with any other spellcasting a character might have. All you would be doing is giving a Warlock and their DM not one, not two, but three different spellcasting progressions to keep track of, on top of any other resource management from their subclass, feats, species and invocations. I'd take the half-caster + MA version over that any day.
So what? What’s the problem with Pact Magic not stacking with other Spellcasting?!? Why is it a problem at all. Multiclassing is an optional rule, so if people who wish to take that option have a little more bookkeeping to do, what of it? “Because Multiclassing” is the absolute worst reason for doing away with Pact Magic I can think of.
1) As I said in the post you quoted, even without multiclassing this proposal leaves Warlocks and their DMs with three different types of spellcasting to keep track of - regular slots, Pact slots, and Mystic Arcana pseudo-slots.
2) "Because multiclassing" is a valid lens for the designers to take into account when designing the game. They already polled us in 2021 and concluded that feats and multiclassing not only shouldn't go anywhere, but need to be built on even further because of the number of tables actually using these "optional" rules. It's the same reason why feats at 1st level are mandatory even for featless tables now.
Only if you keep that stupid half-caster progression. If you just stick to Pact Magic slots and Mystic Arcana then it’s only 2, and Mystic Arcana are no more complicated to track than Second Wind, Action Surge, or Indomitable, meaning the Warlock is no more complex than the Eldritch Knight. Honestly.
I didn’t say that Multiclassing wasn’t worth considering, just that it’s not a good reason to get rid of Pact Magic. As others have pointed out, it actually made Multiclassing more interesting for lots of us.
I could not disagree more. Pure caster warlock (which is most except hex blade) are worse. Less big spells. Mystic arcanum tax. And the fantasy of making a deal for power is kinda undermined when a guy who lives in the woods is as magic as you. And don’t get me started on the guy with the flute.
In my view this rework doesn’t fulfil the fantasy of a warlock, and it also doesn’t fulfil the mechanics either.
First off, correction because I missed it earlier: Agonizing Blast is still here, which is sad. Still, if you take the book pact, you don't need it. Anyway...
Pure caster Warlock was never exactly a pure caster. Moreover, we don't yet know what the subclasses have in store for us. But anyway, when it comes to flavour, it's really a subjective matter. For me, making a pact to gain the powers of some greater force does not necessarily mean raining down Fireballs. Definitely not Wish or Sunbeam. Some patrons might offer that, but not all. And why can't a patron offer you a powerful assistant to do your work for you (pact of the chain)?
But even if you do want your Warlock to be a "pure caster" and the flavour is someone who gets magical powers specifically, who said you're any worse? Yes, you'll have fewer spell slots and fewer spells known, but at the same time, you have many free magical powers you can use indefinitely. The ability to always see in the dark, always be able to detect magic around you or even always fly (at level 9!), is much more impressive than one huge burst of sunbeam. Or, if you compared the Warlocks to our flute guy, then the ability to make someone turn into a turtle for an hour, if they fail a save. At the 15th level, you can have Truesight for 30'. That's a different type of magic, which in my opinion fits the theme better. (And furthermore, people have always been complaining about reaching the point where you're actually stronger than your patron, for some subclasses like the Ghinni one.) But then again, that's a subjective matter. If you're dead set on playing a Warlock and firing Sunbeams, the thing is, you can still do it. Just, once a day. But hell, even a Wizard gets a second 6th-level spell slot only at level 19. You're not missing much.
As for whether a guy who made a pact should be stronger than the guy with the flute, we're still talking about a group game so they're at least supposed to look balanced. Next time, maybe make a pact where you lose less than your soul. In general, I'm an advocate of dynamic pacts, which explain why your patron gives you more power. But regardless, the Bard isn't a better caster than the Warlock. Can they have access to higher levelled spells faster? Ah, no. Mystic Arcanum fixes that for you. But even if you think that doesn't really level the field, remember they're limited to exactly two schools of magic, and don't get access to one of the game's most broken spells at level 1. And as for the guy who lives in the woods, their high-level spells have always been a little disappointing to me. And for a player who actually roleplays, playing a Druid should have as much obligation as playing a Warlock does. Druids are supposed to be protectors of nature, so they get their powers solely to protect nature, unlike the Warlock who, depending on the pact, can do whatever he wants. But then once more, we enter the realm of flavour, and this varies a lot.
Warlocks were never intended to keep up with fullcasters in terms of casting because they get powerful, reliable damage with Hex+ED+AB they are meant to play like an arcane Ranger where EB is your magic bow.
A warlock with full caster spell progression would have to lose EB+associated invocations, and all the "at will" invocations, and their Extra Attack with their Pact Weapon to be balanced against other full casters.
One D&D makes this pretty clear by forcing you to choose between invocations & higher spells. So the true choice you can have is:
Warlock with a small number of high level slots, or Warlock with many low level slots. Or play a full caster, Wizard and Cleric can easily be flavoured as making a deal with a supernatural entity for magic power.
The idea: warlock keeps half caster progression. At level 3, along with a subclass, you gain Pact Magic feature, granting you 2-4 or [Proficiency Bonus] pact magic slots that recharge on long rest, and scale like full casters' slots by level.
I didn’t say that Multiclassing wasn’t worth considering, just that it’s not a good reason to get rid of Pact Magic. As others have pointed out, it actually made Multiclassing more interesting for lots of us.
Its not the only reason they got rid of Pact Magic, no (see Crawford's video again.)
The new warlock design makes the class a half-caster. So, what is the other half? My suggestion is to make the other half the original 5e warlock.
The idea: warlock keeps half caster progression. At level 3, along with a subclass, you gain Pact Magic feature, granting you 2-4 or [Proficiency Bonus] pact magic slots that recharge on long rest, and scale like full casters' slots by level. You can use these to upcast the spells you know as a half-caster, or use patron spells that unlock as soon as the pact spell slot level allows you (for example, a level 9 Fiend warlock can learn and cast level 3 arcane spells normally, but also already knows level 5 spells from the patron spell list and can cast them through pact magic). That way, you essentially get a free version of current iteration of Mystic Arcanum early.
Now, regarding level 6-9 spells. I suggest that Mystic Arcanum feature appears at level 11, and lets you learn one level 6 spell (levels 7 to 9 later on) and cast it using your Pact Magic slot once between long rests. While you don't get to keep upgrading Pact Magic slots to upcast anything to level 9 multiple times per day, that'd be overkill, you still learn four high level spells for free, though their use is limited by your Pact Magic resource. The main reason for this limitation is that three resources - half-caster slots, Pact Magic slots, and Mystic Arcanum all together would be simply too much of a mess to track. Better keep in within two.
Flavor-wise, your half-caster progression represents your own occult studies, and your pact slots - power borrowed from, stolen from, or bestowed by your patron.
One thing I liked about the 2014 warlock was that of all the classes it was the one that seemed to use upcasting of spells the most. So giving warlocks that are at base half casters a option to upcast some spells on the fly might also be a interesting option.
At level 3 you gain the pact magic feature. When you cast a spell using one of your spell slots you can use pact magic if you do you calculate the effects of the spell as if you used a spell slot 1 level higher then the spell slot you used. You can use pact magic 2 times, and re gain the uses of your pact magic when you take a long rest.
At level 7 when you use pact magic you calculate the effects of your spell as if you used a spell slot 2 levels higher.
At level 11 you can use pact magic 3 times per day
I will admit that my dislike of the new Warlock is probably more... emotional rather than rational. Mathematically, the New Warlock is probably more powerful with less downsides. But the Warlock was just so unique and different from all the other classes... it felt less like you were a traditional spellcaster and more like you were a unique class with magical abilities that function as spells, but feel different and unique. I think I'd be fine if they went more that direction... Made Warlock feel even less like the other classes to give them their own unique balancing system. But making them just feel like half-casters where the other half is uh... also spellcaster, just kind of makes them feel... bland.
I think the funny thing is, if this was how Warlock was already created in the game, and the original 5e version was proposed as the "fix", I would probably hate it. "You mean you're taking away most of my spell slots and forcing me to take a short rest just to keep up with everyone else in my party?"
I will admit that my dislike of the new Warlock is probably more... emotional rather than rational. Mathematically, the New Warlock is probably more powerful with less downsides. But the Warlock was just so unique and different from all the other classes... it felt less like you were a traditional spellcaster and more like you were a unique class with magical abilities that function as spells, but feel different and unique. I think I'd be fine if they went more that direction... Made Warlock feel even less like the other classes to give them their own unique balancing system. But making them just feel like half-casters where the other half is uh... also spellcaster, just kind of makes them feel... bland.
I think the funny thing is, if this was how Warlock was already created in the game, and the original 5e version was proposed as the "fix", I would probably hate it. "You mean you're taking away most of my spell slots and forcing me to take a short rest just to keep up with everyone else in my party?"
Well, the other half is also spellcaster if you want it to be. Or you can make it an old-school Swordmage/Hexblade (arcane paladin) and lean more into the martial and skill aspects with stuff like LOFO and Devils Sight + Darkness. Caster is the emphasis here in core but we'll likely get more invocations along these lines via splat.
How about this - keep the half-caster spell progression, but allow Pact Magic to upcast a spell to your highest spell level available Proficiency Bonus number of times per day... make it a 3rd level ability that comes on line with your actual Pact. That works flavor-wise, and keeps one of my favorite class features of the original Warlock.
The new warlock design makes the class a half-caster. So, what is the other half? My suggestion is to make the other half the original 5e warlock.
The idea: warlock keeps half caster progression. At level 3, along with a subclass, you gain Pact Magic feature, granting you 2-4 or [Proficiency Bonus] pact magic slots that recharge on long rest, and scale like full casters' slots by level. You can use these to upcast the spells you know as a half-caster, or use patron spells that unlock as soon as the pact spell slot level allows you (for example, a level 9 Fiend warlock can learn and cast level 3 arcane spells normally, but also already knows level 5 spells from the patron spell list and can cast them through pact magic). That way, you essentially get a free version of current iteration of Mystic Arcanum early.
Now, regarding level 6-9 spells. I suggest that Mystic Arcanum feature appears at level 11, and lets you learn one level 6 spell (levels 7 to 9 later on) and cast it using your Pact Magic slot once between long rests. While you don't get to keep upgrading Pact Magic slots to upcast anything to level 9 multiple times per day, that'd be overkill, you still learn four high level spells for free, though their use is limited by your Pact Magic resource. The main reason for this limitation is that three resources - half-caster slots, Pact Magic slots, and Mystic Arcanum all together would be simply too much of a mess to track. Better keep in within two.
Flavor-wise, your half-caster progression represents your own occult studies, and your pact slots - power borrowed from, stolen from, or bestowed by your patron.
The other half of the Warlock half caster is their Invocations. Now then the invocation options need a serious rebalance since some are great and some are terrible, but the new -lock is balanced just fine compared to old-lock and old-lock is just fine as a class compared to other half-casters in 5e.
I had high hopes for the new Warlock, but I feel kinda 'meh' about it.
There' still no incentive to go full Warlock in my opinion.
Pact of the Blade is for dipping. Pact of the Chain is a gimmick. Pact of the Tome is just a worse option than Sorcerers or Wizards. Even if you go full Mystic Arcanum + Book of Shadows you are still a FAR worse caster than Sorcerers and Wizards. Even Bards. AND you've spent 7(!!) Class features to do it.
The Warlock is a worse Jack-of-all-trades than the Bard and a worse half-caster than the Paladin, Ranger and Artificer.
At least they went away form the once per day Invocations. I doubt they are going to make any significant changes no matter what the feedback is. The Warlock remains a one-level dip.
Now that EB scales with Warlock level only, instead of total level, you do have a great reason to single class. Agonizing Blast is no longer an invocation and instead a feature of the book pact, so that frees your invocation selection, and you can choose 9 instead of 8.
Pacts of the chain and blade were also made better, so now they're actually viable, even if still slightly worse than the book one. These two actually do give you a reason to 1 level dip, I guess, but higher levels now offer more than they used to.
So now, Warlock is worse for 1 level dips (except for Rangers or Paladins, for which it is now infinitely better), and more versatile. If you want a Warlock that is blade/chain, you will no longer feel like a caster that picked a sword and suffers for it. Therefore, you might appreciate getting features that are not Mystic Arcanum, and choose to use those invocations in a different way.
If anything, I think this change is better for all Warlocks of all kinds, except the 1 level dips, other than for Ranger and Paladin for which it remains a must have 90% of the time.
Varielky
I could not disagree more. Pure caster warlock (which is most except hex blade) are worse. Less big spells. Mystic arcanum tax. And the fantasy of making a deal for power is kinda undermined when a guy who lives in the woods is as magic as you. And don’t get me started on the guy with the flute.
In my view this rework doesn’t fulfil the fantasy of a warlock, and it also doesn’t fulfil the mechanics either.
Making Pact Slots long rest rather than short rest doesn't fix their other big problem, namely that they're a weird pseudo-progression that doesn't stack with any other spellcasting a character might have. All you would be doing is giving a Warlock and their DM not one, not two, but three different spellcasting progressions to keep track of, on top of any other resource management from their subclass, feats, species and invocations. I'd take the half-caster + MA version over that any day.
My big problem with Warlocks as half-casters is they don't get higher level spells until much, much later. You go from learning potent, 5th level spells at 9th level and delay it until 17th level. Instead, you need to dedicate your limited Invocations to Mystic Arcanums to get a single 5th level slot that you only get to use once per long rest. This wouldn't be so bad if you got substantially more invocations, but instead you ultimately only get one more than the 5e Warlock. So, to keep up with the other casters, you need to dedicate as many invocations as possible just to getting more Mystic Arcanums... a resource that the original Warlock got for free in addition to their invocations. I know that getting access to a reliable pool of useable slots is a large boost to Warlocks, but it comes at the cost of everything that made Warlock such a unique and interesting class.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
So what? What’s the problem with Pact Magic not stacking with other Spellcasting?!? Why is it a problem at all. Multiclassing is an optional rule, so if people who wish to take that option have a little more bookkeeping to do, what of it? “Because Multiclassing” is the absolute worst reason for doing away with Pact Magic I can think of.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Truth. Preach it brothah.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
1) As I said in the post you quoted, even without multiclassing this proposal leaves Warlocks and their DMs with three different types of spellcasting to keep track of - regular slots, Pact slots, and Mystic Arcana pseudo-slots.
2) "Because multiclassing" is a valid lens for the designers to take into account when designing the game. They already polled us in 2021 and concluded that feats and multiclassing not only shouldn't go anywhere, but need to be built on even further because of the number of tables actually using these "optional" rules. It's the same reason why feats at 1st level are mandatory even for featless tables now.
You don't need "substantially more invocations" because you can trade out the lower level ones anytime you need more Arcana. In fact, all they need is one single invocation more at 3rd level to keep up with full casters in every tier.
Honestly, the fact that Pact Magic doesn't interact with regular spell slots was a part of the appeal to me when multiclassing Warlock/Bard in one long-running campaign. Having just a few spell slots that recharge on a short rest made it a lot easier to keep them handy for utility casting, plus I didn't have to check any special multiclassing tables or do any math to figure out what my spell slots were.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Agreed.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
We don't kn
First off, correction because I missed it earlier: Agonizing Blast is still here, which is sad. Still, if you take the book pact, you don't need it. Anyway...
Pure caster Warlock was never exactly a pure caster. Moreover, we don't yet know what the subclasses have in store for us. But anyway, when it comes to flavour, it's really a subjective matter. For me, making a pact to gain the powers of some greater force does not necessarily mean raining down Fireballs. Definitely not Wish or Sunbeam. Some patrons might offer that, but not all. And why can't a patron offer you a powerful assistant to do your work for you (pact of the chain)?
But even if you do want your Warlock to be a "pure caster" and the flavour is someone who gets magical powers specifically, who said you're any worse? Yes, you'll have fewer spell slots and fewer spells known, but at the same time, you have many free magical powers you can use indefinitely. The ability to always see in the dark, always be able to detect magic around you or even always fly (at level 9!), is much more impressive than one huge burst of sunbeam. Or, if you compared the Warlocks to our flute guy, then the ability to make someone turn into a turtle for an hour, if they fail a save. At the 15th level, you can have Truesight for 30'. That's a different type of magic, which in my opinion fits the theme better. (And furthermore, people have always been complaining about reaching the point where you're actually stronger than your patron, for some subclasses like the Ghinni one.) But then again, that's a subjective matter. If you're dead set on playing a Warlock and firing Sunbeams, the thing is, you can still do it. Just, once a day. But hell, even a Wizard gets a second 6th-level spell slot only at level 19. You're not missing much.
As for whether a guy who made a pact should be stronger than the guy with the flute, we're still talking about a group game so they're at least supposed to look balanced. Next time, maybe make a pact where you lose less than your soul. In general, I'm an advocate of dynamic pacts, which explain why your patron gives you more power. But regardless, the Bard isn't a better caster than the Warlock. Can they have access to higher levelled spells faster? Ah, no. Mystic Arcanum fixes that for you. But even if you think that doesn't really level the field, remember they're limited to exactly two schools of magic, and don't get access to one of the game's most broken spells at level 1. And as for the guy who lives in the woods, their high-level spells have always been a little disappointing to me. And for a player who actually roleplays, playing a Druid should have as much obligation as playing a Warlock does. Druids are supposed to be protectors of nature, so they get their powers solely to protect nature, unlike the Warlock who, depending on the pact, can do whatever he wants. But then once more, we enter the realm of flavour, and this varies a lot.
Varielky
Warlocks were never intended to keep up with fullcasters in terms of casting because they get powerful, reliable damage with Hex+ED+AB they are meant to play like an arcane Ranger where EB is your magic bow.
A warlock with full caster spell progression would have to lose EB+associated invocations, and all the "at will" invocations, and their Extra Attack with their Pact Weapon to be balanced against other full casters.
One D&D makes this pretty clear by forcing you to choose between invocations & higher spells. So the true choice you can have is:
Warlock with a small number of high level slots, or Warlock with many low level slots. Or play a full caster, Wizard and Cleric can easily be flavoured as making a deal with a supernatural entity for magic power.
Yeah, that's... what the OP proposed? 🤨
^ bold not mine.
Its not the only reason they got rid of Pact Magic, no (see Crawford's video again.)
One thing I liked about the 2014 warlock was that of all the classes it was the one that seemed to use upcasting of spells the most.
So giving warlocks that are at base half casters a option to upcast some spells on the fly might also be a interesting option.
At level 3 you gain the pact magic feature.
When you cast a spell using one of your spell slots you can use pact magic if you do you calculate the effects of the spell as if you used a spell slot 1 level higher then the spell slot you used.
You can use pact magic 2 times, and re gain the uses of your pact magic when you take a long rest.
At level 7 when you use pact magic you calculate the effects of your spell as if you used a spell slot 2 levels higher.
At level 11 you can use pact magic 3 times per day
At level 17 you can use it 4 times per day.
I will admit that my dislike of the new Warlock is probably more... emotional rather than rational. Mathematically, the New Warlock is probably more powerful with less downsides. But the Warlock was just so unique and different from all the other classes... it felt less like you were a traditional spellcaster and more like you were a unique class with magical abilities that function as spells, but feel different and unique. I think I'd be fine if they went more that direction... Made Warlock feel even less like the other classes to give them their own unique balancing system. But making them just feel like half-casters where the other half is uh... also spellcaster, just kind of makes them feel... bland.
I think the funny thing is, if this was how Warlock was already created in the game, and the original 5e version was proposed as the "fix", I would probably hate it. "You mean you're taking away most of my spell slots and forcing me to take a short rest just to keep up with everyone else in my party?"
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Well, the other half is also spellcaster if you want it to be. Or you can make it an old-school Swordmage/Hexblade (arcane paladin) and lean more into the martial and skill aspects with stuff like LOFO and Devils Sight + Darkness. Caster is the emphasis here in core but we'll likely get more invocations along these lines via splat.
How about this - keep the half-caster spell progression, but allow Pact Magic to upcast a spell to your highest spell level available Proficiency Bonus number of times per day... make it a 3rd level ability that comes on line with your actual Pact. That works flavor-wise, and keeps one of my favorite class features of the original Warlock.