I think it would be better if Mystic Arcanum wasn’t an Invocation. It should be a separate feature that you get at levels 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 17. And the spells can be chosen from the Arcane, Primal, or Divine spell lists. And that free casting of a patron spell should be once per short rest.
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.
^ bold not mine.
If that option weren’t on the table for discussion, then why did the OP include it in the poll?
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.)
You really do have the absolute worst habit of putting words in my mouth and making strawman arguments against things I never said. I didn’t say it was the only reason, I said it was the worst reason. Again, if you want to debate me, debate me on what I actually say.
And I frankly don’t give a 💩 what Crawford has to say in his video. I disagree with Crawford quite a bit on a great many points. This is just another.
And again, I’m all for changing Pact Magic to being a long rest feature and fiddling with Invocations and Mystic Arcana to rebalance things. My point is that they should fix Pact Magic, not get rid of it entirely. You have yet to put forth a single compelling argument against that point. Your only argument against it has been because you don’t like that idea, which is a nonargument. So until you come up with one, don’t just keep rehashing the same tired points I’ve already shot down several times over, and don’t just keep saying you don’t like that idea. Think about it and then get back to me.
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 can agree with this part of your post, just not the rest of it.
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.
This is exactly how I feel. Warlock as half-caster just makes zero sense to me
If you want to scrap short rests as their main refresh mechanic, then give warlock more spell and spell-like options as Invocations and Arcanum, balancing whether they should be at will, 1/day or even PB/day on Invocations locked behind higher levels if you want some more variety
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
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.
Agonizing Blast is still an Invocation and the Book of Shadows is available if you pick Pact of the Tome.
Pact of the Blade got some of the Hex Blade features it should’ve had from the beginning. There’s still no reason to go Blade Warlock beyond level one. Extra Attack at 5 you say? Paladins and Rangers already get Extra Attack and so does Sword College Bards.
The Warlock has always been a bit weird, but now it’s all over the place.
If that option weren’t on the table for discussion, then why did the OP include it in the poll?
Where did I say that option wasn't on the table? Who is putting words in whose mouth now? 🤔
I'm saying I was responding specifically to the OP's "idea" which entailed keeping all three forms of casting in the class, and listing a downside of that that doesn't depend on multiclassing being a thing. Obviously, not doing that (by sticking with 5e design or proceeding with the UA design) are options.
And again, I’m all for changing Pact Magic to being a long rest feature and fiddling with Invocations and Mystic Arcana to rebalance things. My point is that they should fix Pact Magic, not get rid of it entirely. You have yet to put forth a single compelling argument against that point. Your only argument against it has been because you don’t like that idea, which is a nonargument. So until you come up with one, don’t just keep rehashing the same tired points I’ve already shot down several times over, and don’t just keep saying you don’t like that idea. Think about it and then get back to me.
You have yet to "shoot down" anything. As for "compelling," we don't care about each other's opinions, remember? To paraphrase yourself, this is just one more example of that.
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.
That’s unlikely considering we hardly got any new Invocations since 2014
The caster part is a let down. You can go full Mystic Arcanum and still be behind in spellslots despite using 7 Class Features to get there.
There’s just not a lot of reasons outside of flavor to go Blade Lock. Going EB+AG/BoS is a better option for both damage and survival. Blade Lock is only relevant for a one level dip for Rangers and Paladins.
That’s unlikely considering we hardly got any new Invocations since 2014
Between Xanathars and Tasha's we got 20 more - how is that "hardly any?"
I'm with Agilemind on this, Warlocks shouldn't be both casters on par with Sorcerer/Wizard, martials on par with Paladin and pet classes on par with BM Ranger, all before subclass. Their versatility comes at a cost of raw power, and even then they can still get 9th level spells.
That’s unlikely considering we hardly got any new Invocations since 2014
Between Xanathars and Tasha's we got 20 more - how is that "hardly any?"
I'm with Agilemind on this, Warlocks shouldn't be both casters on par with Sorcerer/Wizard, martials on par with Paladin and pet classes on par with BM Ranger, all before subclass. Their versatility comes at a cost of raw power, and even then they can still get 9th level spells.
Yeah that’s my bad. Major brainfart.
I sorry, but what is the point of going full Mystic Arcanum then if you’re clearly still a subpar caster? Because you can go Pact of the Blade and be a worse Paladin/Ranger in combat while doing it? Bladesinger says hello… Swords Bard says hello…
There’s no versatility here because you are either or. You can spend 7 Invocations to keep up with spellprogression (but lose out on spellslots) and lose all your versatility while getting what? Medium Armor and a D8 for HP? Meanwhile Sorcerers have Metamagic and Wizards have a ginormous spellbook and the possibility to reinvent spells. It’s an illusion of choice.
If that option weren’t on the table for discussion, then why did the OP include it in the poll?
Where did I say that option wasn't on the table? Who is putting words in whose mouth now? 🤔
I'm saying I was responding specifically to the OP's "idea" which entailed keeping all three forms of casting in the class, and listing a downside of that that doesn't depend on multiclassing being a thing. Obviously, not doing that (by sticking with 5e design or proceeding with the UA design) are options.
And again, I’m all for changing Pact Magic to being a long rest feature and fiddling with Invocations and Mystic Arcana to rebalance things. My point is that they should fix Pact Magic, not get rid of it entirely. You have yet to put forth a single compelling argument against that point. Your only argument against it has been because you don’t like that idea, which is a nonargument. So until you come up with one, don’t just keep rehashing the same tired points I’ve already shot down several times over, and don’t just keep saying you don’t like that idea. Think about it and then get back to me.
You have yet to "shoot down" anything. As for "compelling," we don't care about each other's opinions, remember? To paraphrase yourself, this is just one more example of that.
So now I have to agree with Crawford in order to care about the final product? That makes no sense.
And yes, in the last thread I countered every single argument you put forth against my proposal except when you stated that you just didn’t like the idea. Every. Single. One.
So now I have to agree with Crawford in order to care about the final product? That makes no sense.
And yes, in the last thread I countered every single argument you put forth against my proposal except when you stated that you just didn’t like the idea. Every. Single. One.
I didn't say you "had to agree with him" either (look, more words in my mouth, how ironic.) I said not caring what he says, regardless of your agreement or disagreement with it, is a bad strategy. I may not agree with everything Erik Mona or Jason Buhlman have to say about Pathfinder, but I care about what they say because what they say informs me on the reason why they do things.
And no, your last "counter" in the previous thread was merely that you don't care about my opinion on Pact Magic. As scintillating as that was, we left agreeing to disagree, which was fine by me.
I sorry, but what is the point of going full Mystic Arcanum then if you’re clearly still a subpar caster? Because you can go Pact of the Blade and be a worse Paladin/Ranger in combat while doing it? Bladesinger says hello… Swords Bard says hello…
There’s no versatility here because you are either or. You can spend 7 Invocations to keep up with spellprogression (but lose out on spellslots) and lose all your versatility while getting what? Medium Armor and a D8 for HP? Meanwhile Sorcerers have Metamagic and Wizards have a ginormous spellbook and the possibility to reinvent spells. It’s an illusion of choice.
If you truly think access to 9th level spells makes you a "subpar caster" then we'll just have to stop here.
Also, you only need to spend 4 invocations to keep up with spell progression, not 7.
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.
When half is crap and the other part is crap it doesn't somehow become good.
And again, I’m all for changing Pact Magic to being a long rest feature and fiddling with Invocations and Mystic Arcana to rebalance things. My point is that they should fix Pact Magic, not get rid of it entirely. You have yet to put forth a single compelling argument against that point. Your only argument against it has been because you don’t like that idea, which is a nonargument. So until you come up with one, don’t just keep rehashing the same tired points I’ve already shot down several times over, and don’t just keep saying you don’t like that idea. Think about it and then get back to me.
I'm in the I could accept that as a compromise but short rests were such a cool concept. I always felt like a full caster as a warlock as I found getting short rests pretty easy. I did this weird thing where I spoke up and asked to take one, if others were hesitant I just said if we get into another fight I'd like to bring in another fear spell if possible to make the fight easier and unless there was some kind of time emergency in which case I was not asking anyways people would agree. I especially loved them in downtime. When I hit level 11 as a Dao Genie lock we hat a bit of time, I chain cast walls of stone across a week fortifying the small town we had been staying in by giving it a fairly substantial stone wall encircling it. Went back with stone shapes to put in stairs, and a craftsman to make a working gate. As a long rest caster that kind off flexibility is off the table.
I can take the occasional hit here and there when we have some kind of running battles trying to smash through as many encounters as possible while a 10 minute spell is being sustained or something for the narrative freedom to spam spells with short rests when we aren't.
So now I have to agree with Crawford in order to care about the final product? That makes no sense.
And yes, in the last thread I countered every single argument you put forth against my proposal except when you stated that you just didn’t like the idea. Every. Single. One.
I didn't say you "had to agree with him" either (look, more words in my mouth, how ironic.) I said not caring what he says, regardless of your agreement or disagreement with it, is a bad strategy. I may not agree with everything Erik Mona or Jason Buhlman have to say about Pathfinder, but I care about what they say because what they say informs me on the reason why they do things.
And no, your last "counter" in the previous thread was merely that you don't care about my opinion on Pact Magic. As scintillating as that was, we left agreeing to disagree, which was fine by me.
Oh, I can understand what he has to say without caring about it.
And that’s because the last argument you made was that you “don’t like” Pact Magic, which is as I said, not an argument. Give ma an actual argument against Pact Magic other than your feels and I’ll gladly rebut it, just as I did with every other legitimate argument you tried to make against it.
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.
When half is crap and the other part is crap it doesn't somehow become good.
What are you talking about? One D&D hexblade is an AC tank (Blur / Mirror Image + Shield + medium armour), with decent melee (if Pact of the Blade) + ranged damage (1d10+5 at range is the best any character can do with up cast Hex out doing Hunter's Mark for damage) plus decent utility as well.
Consider: 5th level
Sword + Board Paladin: AC 18+2 = 20, 1d8+7 on a hit + 2d8 1/turn for a 1st level spell slot = 20.5 * 0.65 DPR = 13 DPR Blade Warlock : AC 17 +2 = 19 + 5 = 24, 1d8+5 on a hit + 2d6 1/turn = 11 DPR
So spending 1 spell per round, Bladelock has +4 AC vs -2 DPR over a sword & board paladin....
Oh, I can understand what he has to say without caring about it.
And that’s because the last argument you made was that you “don’t like” Pact Magic, which is as I said, not an argument. Give ma an actual argument against Pact Magic other than your feels and I’ll gladly rebut it, just as I did with every other legitimate argument you tried to make against it.
I gave several and you haven't rebutted a single one.
- Multiclassing issues with Pact slots, your response was "optional rule!" I replied it was a popular optional rule and therefore they have a good reason to account for it in their design.
- Three casting progressions in one class, your response was "no more difficult than Action Surge!" which is blatantly false.
- One of only two classes in the game with a short-rest based primary resource is a common point of dissatisfaction, your response... Actually, I don't think you even answered that one, beyond "I don't care about Crawford!" You know, the guy with actual play data from more tables than your own.
Now I'm sure you'll cry persecution again about putting words in your mouth despite you turning around and doing the same to me three times now.
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.
When half is crap and the other part is crap it doesn't somehow become good.
What are you talking about? One D&D hexblade is an AC tank (Blur / Mirror Image + Shield + medium armour), with decent melee (if Pact of the Blade) + ranged damage (1d10+5 at range is the best any character can do with up cast Hex out doing Hunter's Mark for damage) plus decent utility as well.
Consider: 5th level
Sword + Board Paladin: AC 18+2 = 20, 1d8+7 on a hit + 2d8 1/turn for a 1st level spell slot = 20.5 * 0.65 DPR = 13 DPR Blade Warlock : AC 17 +2 = 19 + 5 = 24, 1d8+5 on a hit + 2d6 1/turn = 11 DPR
So spending 1 spell per round, Bladelock has +4 AC vs -2 DPR over a sword & board paladin....
For two fights tops at that level given how crap 1/2 caster progression is and all your spells are going just to get your defense up. Meanwhile the paladin is spending their spells on beating the living crap out of the enemies as their base defense is solid, or if they want shield of faith on themselves for a 22 AC for 10 minutes And then you are just a crap fighter with a invocation trick or two while the paladin will unless they are going crazy on smites continue to have options and in a couple levels be providing one of the best features in the game.
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.
So trade out low level versatility for higher level spells? Invocations was the way Warlocks fleshed out their spellcasting to supplement their Pact slots. If they are going to have Mystic Arcanum as Invocations then, yes, we need substantially more invocations to flesh them out.
Pact Magic slots, because they are limited and scale, are the big "boom" spells that scale up in power (higher spell slot).
Mystic Arcanum are "pick a good spell", that may or may not scale (like Hypnotic Pattern) you can use once a day. Could be damage, could be debuff, etc.
Invocations are for the spells in between. And we need more options to choose from. Unique invocations or ones that grant spells. And some, like Armor or Shadows or Beast Speech, can be at will. Some can be PB or casting Mod/LR. Maybe even once per LR, but those are covered by MA.
For this thread, my vote would be none of the above. It would be Pact Magic (with 1 or 2 more spell slots added) per Long Rest. And a lot more Invocations to choose from with 12-ish Invocations learned, including MA Invocations as they are in the UA, or one added at 3rd level for a second level spell.
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.
When half is crap and the other part is crap it doesn't somehow become good.
What are you talking about? One D&D hexblade is an AC tank (Blur / Mirror Image + Shield + medium armour), with decent melee (if Pact of the Blade) + ranged damage (1d10+5 at range is the best any character can do with up cast Hex out doing Hunter's Mark for damage) plus decent utility as well.
Consider: 5th level
Sword + Board Paladin: AC 18+2 = 20, 1d8+7 on a hit + 2d8 1/turn for a 1st level spell slot = 20.5 * 0.65 DPR = 13 DPR Blade Warlock : AC 17 +2 = 19 + 5 = 24, 1d8+5 on a hit + 2d6 1/turn = 11 DPR
So spending 1 spell per round, Bladelock has +4 AC vs -2 DPR over a sword & board paladin....
For two fights tops at that level given how crap 1/2 caster progression is and all your spells are going just to get your defense up. Meanwhile the paladin is spending their spells on beating the living crap out of the enemies as their base defense is solid, or if they want shield of faith on themselves for a 22 AC for 10 minutes And then you are just a crap fighter with a invocation trick or two while the paladin will unless they are going crazy on smites continue to have options and in a couple levels be providing one of the best features in the game.
LOL That was with them using the same number of slots. You can't say Warlock will run out of slots faster than Paladin b/c they spend 1/round on defense and have longer-term damage buff from Hex whereas Paladin is spending 1/round on offense while having longer-term defense buff in Shield of Faith (which is only 10mins vs 1+ hours for Hex).
PS, the Aura of Protection is so overrated. Consider the One D&D version of Resistance (a cantrip available at level 1) provides on average 2.5 bonus to a save in the same radius, while most Paladin AoP are a +2 to +3. If everyone in the party takes Magic Initiate to get Resistance as their level 1 feat, the party as a whole will be better protected from that than from the Paladin's Aura when they get it at 7th level.
Oh, I can understand what he has to say without caring about it.
And that’s because the last argument you made was that you “don’t like” Pact Magic, which is as I said, not an argument. Give ma an actual argument against Pact Magic other than your feels and I’ll gladly rebut it, just as I did with every other legitimate argument you tried to make against it.
I gave several and you haven't rebutted a single one.
- Multiclassing issues with Pact slots, your response was "optional rule!" I replied it was a popular optional rule and therefore they have a good reason to account for it in their design.
- Three casting progressions in one class, your response was "no more difficult than Action Surge!" which is blatantly false.
- One of only two classes in the game with a short-rest based primary resource is a common point of dissatisfaction, your response... Actually, I don't think you even answered that one, beyond "I don't care about Crawford!" You know, the guy with actual play data from more tables than your own.
Now I'm sure you'll cry persecution again about putting words in your mouth despite you turning around and doing the same to me three times now.
Your argument regarding Multiclassing was that Pact Magic slots don’t stack with Spell Slots. My rebuttal was that that is more of an argument for keeping Pact Magic than it is for getting rid of it because it leads to more interesting multiclass options.
You argued that having them be a half-caster and having Pact Magic and Mystic Arcana was three separate things to track. My rebuttal was to simply not make them half-casters at all, and then it’s only two things to track, Pact Magic and Mystic Arcana. And I cited all of the Fighter features, not just Action Surge, in addition to the Eldritch Knight’s half-caster progression, and when all combined then no, Pact Magic + Mystic Arcana is not any more difficult to track. (You left out more than half of my rebuttal, be accurate.)
As for your argument about Pact Magic being a short rest feature…. My rebuttal was to make Pact Magic a long rest feature. That solves that. (As to my statement about not caring about Crawford, that was in regards to his opinions, which are irrelevant to the discussion we’re having.)
You forgot one. You also argued once that Pact Magic doesn’t give enough slots to satisfy players. My rebuttal to that one was to simply increase the number of Pact Magic slots.
So, now that I have (yet again) effectively rebutted all of your arguments, I’ll (yet again) ask you to either come up with something new, or stop arguing against me.
I think it would be better if Mystic Arcanum wasn’t an Invocation. It should be a separate feature that you get at levels 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 17. And the spells can be chosen from the Arcane, Primal, or Divine spell lists. And that free casting of a patron spell should be once per short rest.
If that option weren’t on the table for discussion, then why did the OP include it in the poll?
You really do have the absolute worst habit of putting words in my mouth and making strawman arguments against things I never said. I didn’t say it was the only reason, I said it was the worst reason. Again, if you want to debate me, debate me on what I actually say.
And I frankly don’t give a 💩 what Crawford has to say in his video. I disagree with Crawford quite a bit on a great many points. This is just another.
And again, I’m all for changing Pact Magic to being a long rest feature and fiddling with Invocations and Mystic Arcana to rebalance things. My point is that they should fix Pact Magic, not get rid of it entirely. You have yet to put forth a single compelling argument against that point. Your only argument against it has been because you don’t like that idea, which is a nonargument. So until you come up with one, don’t just keep rehashing the same tired points I’ve already shot down several times over, and don’t just keep saying you don’t like that idea. Think about it and then get back to me.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I can agree with this part of your post, just not the rest of it.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
This is exactly how I feel. Warlock as half-caster just makes zero sense to me
If you want to scrap short rests as their main refresh mechanic, then give warlock more spell and spell-like options as Invocations and Arcanum, balancing whether they should be at will, 1/day or even PB/day on Invocations locked behind higher levels if you want some more variety
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Agonizing Blast is still an Invocation and the Book of Shadows is available if you pick Pact of the Tome.
Pact of the Blade got some of the Hex Blade features it should’ve had from the beginning. There’s still no reason to go Blade Warlock beyond level one. Extra Attack at 5 you say? Paladins and Rangers already get Extra Attack and so does Sword College Bards.
The Warlock has always been a bit weird, but now it’s all over the place.
Where did I say that option wasn't on the table? Who is putting words in whose mouth now? 🤔
I'm saying I was responding specifically to the OP's "idea" which entailed keeping all three forms of casting in the class, and listing a downside of that that doesn't depend on multiclassing being a thing. Obviously, not doing that (by sticking with 5e design or proceeding with the UA design) are options.
That seems like a great way to end up disaffected with the final product, but you do you.
You have yet to "shoot down" anything. As for "compelling," we don't care about each other's opinions, remember? To paraphrase yourself, this is just one more example of that.
That’s unlikely considering we hardly got any new Invocations since 2014
The caster part is a let down. You can go full Mystic Arcanum and still be behind in spellslots despite using 7 Class Features to get there.
There’s just not a lot of reasons outside of flavor to go Blade Lock. Going EB+AG/BoS is a better option for both damage and survival. Blade Lock is only relevant for a one level dip for Rangers and Paladins.
Between Xanathars and Tasha's we got 20 more - how is that "hardly any?"
I'm with Agilemind on this, Warlocks shouldn't be both casters on par with Sorcerer/Wizard, martials on par with Paladin and pet classes on par with BM Ranger, all before subclass. Their versatility comes at a cost of raw power, and even then they can still get 9th level spells.
Yeah that’s my bad. Major brainfart.
I sorry, but what is the point of going full Mystic Arcanum then if you’re clearly still a subpar caster? Because you can go Pact of the Blade and be a worse Paladin/Ranger in combat while doing it? Bladesinger says hello… Swords Bard says hello…
There’s no versatility here because you are either or. You can spend 7 Invocations to keep up with spellprogression (but lose out on spellslots) and lose all your versatility while getting what? Medium Armor and a D8 for HP? Meanwhile Sorcerers have Metamagic and Wizards have a ginormous spellbook and the possibility to reinvent spells. It’s an illusion of choice.
So now I have to agree with Crawford in order to care about the final product? That makes no sense.
And yes, in the last thread I countered every single argument you put forth against my proposal except when you stated that you just didn’t like the idea. Every. Single. One.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I didn't say you "had to agree with him" either (look, more words in my mouth, how ironic.) I said not caring what he says, regardless of your agreement or disagreement with it, is a bad strategy. I may not agree with everything Erik Mona or Jason Buhlman have to say about Pathfinder, but I care about what they say because what they say informs me on the reason why they do things.
And no, your last "counter" in the previous thread was merely that you don't care about my opinion on Pact Magic. As scintillating as that was, we left agreeing to disagree, which was fine by me.
All good.
If you truly think access to 9th level spells makes you a "subpar caster" then we'll just have to stop here.
Also, you only need to spend 4 invocations to keep up with spell progression, not 7.
When half is crap and the other part is crap it doesn't somehow become good.
I'm in the I could accept that as a compromise but short rests were such a cool concept. I always felt like a full caster as a warlock as I found getting short rests pretty easy. I did this weird thing where I spoke up and asked to take one, if others were hesitant I just said if we get into another fight I'd like to bring in another fear spell if possible to make the fight easier and unless there was some kind of time emergency in which case I was not asking anyways people would agree. I especially loved them in downtime. When I hit level 11 as a Dao Genie lock we hat a bit of time, I chain cast walls of stone across a week fortifying the small town we had been staying in by giving it a fairly substantial stone wall encircling it. Went back with stone shapes to put in stairs, and a craftsman to make a working gate. As a long rest caster that kind off flexibility is off the table.
I can take the occasional hit here and there when we have some kind of running battles trying to smash through as many encounters as possible while a 10 minute spell is being sustained or something for the narrative freedom to spam spells with short rests when we aren't.
Oh, I can understand what he has to say without caring about it.
And that’s because the last argument you made was that you “don’t like” Pact Magic, which is as I said, not an argument. Give ma an actual argument against Pact Magic other than your feels and I’ll gladly rebut it, just as I did with every other legitimate argument you tried to make against it.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
What are you talking about? One D&D hexblade is an AC tank (Blur / Mirror Image + Shield + medium armour), with decent melee (if Pact of the Blade) + ranged damage (1d10+5 at range is the best any character can do with up cast Hex out doing Hunter's Mark for damage) plus decent utility as well.
Consider: 5th level
Sword + Board Paladin: AC 18+2 = 20, 1d8+7 on a hit + 2d8 1/turn for a 1st level spell slot = 20.5 * 0.65 DPR = 13 DPR
Blade Warlock : AC 17 +2 = 19 + 5 = 24, 1d8+5 on a hit + 2d6 1/turn = 11 DPR
So spending 1 spell per round, Bladelock has +4 AC vs -2 DPR over a sword & board paladin....
I gave several and you haven't rebutted a single one.
- Multiclassing issues with Pact slots, your response was "optional rule!" I replied it was a popular optional rule and therefore they have a good reason to account for it in their design.
- Three casting progressions in one class, your response was "no more difficult than Action Surge!" which is blatantly false.
- One of only two classes in the game with a short-rest based primary resource is a common point of dissatisfaction, your response... Actually, I don't think you even answered that one, beyond "I don't care about Crawford!" You know, the guy with actual play data from more tables than your own.
Now I'm sure you'll cry persecution again about putting words in your mouth despite you turning around and doing the same to me three times now.
For two fights tops at that level given how crap 1/2 caster progression is and all your spells are going just to get your defense up. Meanwhile the paladin is spending their spells on beating the living crap out of the enemies as their base defense is solid, or if they want shield of faith on themselves for a 22 AC for 10 minutes And then you are just a crap fighter with a invocation trick or two while the paladin will unless they are going crazy on smites continue to have options and in a couple levels be providing one of the best features in the game.
So trade out low level versatility for higher level spells? Invocations was the way Warlocks fleshed out their spellcasting to supplement their Pact slots. If they are going to have Mystic Arcanum as Invocations then, yes, we need substantially more invocations to flesh them out.
Pact Magic slots, because they are limited and scale, are the big "boom" spells that scale up in power (higher spell slot).
Mystic Arcanum are "pick a good spell", that may or may not scale (like Hypnotic Pattern) you can use once a day. Could be damage, could be debuff, etc.
Invocations are for the spells in between. And we need more options to choose from. Unique invocations or ones that grant spells. And some, like Armor or Shadows or Beast Speech, can be at will. Some can be PB or casting Mod/LR. Maybe even once per LR, but those are covered by MA.
For this thread, my vote would be none of the above. It would be Pact Magic (with 1 or 2 more spell slots added) per Long Rest. And a lot more Invocations to choose from with 12-ish Invocations learned, including MA Invocations as they are in the UA, or one added at 3rd level for a second level spell.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
LOL That was with them using the same number of slots. You can't say Warlock will run out of slots faster than Paladin b/c they spend 1/round on defense and have longer-term damage buff from Hex whereas Paladin is spending 1/round on offense while having longer-term defense buff in Shield of Faith (which is only 10mins vs 1+ hours for Hex).
PS, the Aura of Protection is so overrated. Consider the One D&D version of Resistance (a cantrip available at level 1) provides on average 2.5 bonus to a save in the same radius, while most Paladin AoP are a +2 to +3. If everyone in the party takes Magic Initiate to get Resistance as their level 1 feat, the party as a whole will be better protected from that than from the Paladin's Aura when they get it at 7th level.
Your argument regarding Multiclassing was that Pact Magic slots don’t stack with Spell Slots. My rebuttal was that that is more of an argument for keeping Pact Magic than it is for getting rid of it because it leads to more interesting multiclass options.
You argued that having them be a half-caster and having Pact Magic and Mystic Arcana was three separate things to track. My rebuttal was to simply not make them half-casters at all, and then it’s only two things to track, Pact Magic and Mystic Arcana. And I cited all of the Fighter features, not just Action Surge, in addition to the Eldritch Knight’s half-caster progression, and when all combined then no, Pact Magic + Mystic Arcana is not any more difficult to track. (You left out more than half of my rebuttal, be accurate.)
As for your argument about Pact Magic being a short rest feature…. My rebuttal was to make Pact Magic a long rest feature. That solves that. (As to my statement about not caring about Crawford, that was in regards to his opinions, which are irrelevant to the discussion we’re having.)
You forgot one. You also argued once that Pact Magic doesn’t give enough slots to satisfy players. My rebuttal to that one was to simply increase the number of Pact Magic slots.
So, now that I have (yet again) effectively rebutted all of your arguments, I’ll (yet again) ask you to either come up with something new, or stop arguing against me.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting