Lilith, at this point your poor reading comprehension has become tedious.
I said that in SOME WAYS the Arcane Trickster was a better WARLOCK, not a better CASTER. A one third caster and a half caster are not that different. The half caster gets level 4 spell slots at level 13, and given that many campaigns end before then they get to that level the biggest difference is that half casters get level 3 slots at level 9, and slots at levels 1 and 2. From levels 3 to 8 they're both mostly relying on level 1 and 2 spells. If I recall correctly the most common level campaigns end at is about level 10, which means the half caster has only been significantly ahead of the one third caster for two levels. A full caster has been doing so for five, or half the campaign, and also gets level 4 and 5 spells. They get three level 4 slots and two level 5 at level 10, which means they have double or triple the casting of Mystic Arcanum, with the flexibility to choose what spells they use rather than being locked into a single choice.
The Rogue is a competent package, and the addition of magic just makes it better. The Warlock is a class built around spellcasting but now has its spellcasting cut in half. In 2014 it was designed to be able to dump a couple of high level spells, recharging on a short rest, then rely on Eldritch Blast with invocations for utility. Now it still has the invocations, which it doesn't need for utility because it has low level spells and spell slots, and Eldritch Blast, but its high level spells are tied to its Mystic Arcanum, of which you get one per level per long rest.
You ASSERTING that something is "patently ridiculous and obviously wrong" does not actually make it so.
The response to the Warlock showed that when people said they wanted more spell slots, what they meant was that they wanted more PACT slots, not to have their ability to access higher level spells cut to almost nothing.
Ad hominem is a logical fallacy, as is the genetic fallacy.
tbh, I'm getting the feeling that the reason Monk UA wasn't too groundbreaking was due to WoTC's fear of people freaking out at extreme changes. Like, there are some weird wording in the UA that kind of suggest to me that they originally had more extreme changes but rolled them back.
Their restraint is killing me. They have a unique chance to fix the game's issues that's been a pain in the arse for years. And they're only half-using it.
Yes. Basically 1D&D started with a hiss and a roar, and is fading out with a whimper.
At this point it's basically 5e errata, and not very good errata either.
The custom backgrounds/level 1 feats are okay, but throwing a +1 on every feat above first level obliviates the reason "half-feats" existed in the first place. Some feats just aren't particularly strong, so you add a +1 stat so it becomes more attractive. You certainly don't do that with a very good feat like War Caster. There has to be some downside to picking a feat over an ASI.
The idea of unified spell lists sounds good, and works for the most part for Wizards, Sorcerers, and Warlocks, Paladins and Clerics, and Druids and Rangers, but then you get the Bard, which in 2014 basically had a hodgepodge of Wizard, Cleric, and Druid spells, mostly support and control, with a handful of damage spells. Making it exclusively one list feels flavorless because it becomes either a better, or worse, Sorcerer, Cleric, or Druid, until it gets access to all lists, at which point your campaign is probably winding down.
It would be fine to switch to a common level growth chart, as long as it felt like you're gaining something cool by staying in that class. For the most part the only class I feel like they've achieved that with is Rogue. In some ways Arcane Trickster is a better Warlock, because it might only be a one-third caster, but it's a one-third caster attached to a competent chassis, whereas Warlock feels like a spellcaster that they somehow felt moved to cut the spellcasting out of. Eldritch Knight would be fairly similar, except for the schools it's locked into (which would probably be removed), and the fact its spellcasting stat is probably the third statistic the player is concerned with. Battlemaster works because its effect stat is also its primary combat stat, so you're improving both as you collect ASIs.
The question of "backwards compatibility" can create a chain that prevents actual innovation in the game. If it's not a "fairly new" take on the game, then why bother? Just release some recommended errata and continue as normal. Certainly nothing in the UA has convinced me that a DM should spend hundreds of dollars replacing the books they've already spent hundreds of dollars on. This isn't Warhammer 40k, where if you want to play in sanctioned events you need the correct models and rules. This is a game created and recreated around gaming tables around the world by people who might have been playing in the same groups for decades. Who, let's face it, may still be playing AD&D if that's their jam.
The biggest competitor to 1D&D is not Pathfinder or Call of Cthulu. It's 5e. A game system that most players are happy enough with, and have probably already house ruled anything they weren't happy with. In that respect WotC are victims of their own success.
But I like that most 4th level feats now grants +1 score. D&D lacks what in other games is skill development, changed by a combination of ability score modifier plus proficiency bonus, which cannot be developed by the character, then we only have the ability score modifier to develop. So the usual feats now correspond to normal skill development at the same time we get some feature, in the other hand we could chose fast skill development getting the ASI for a +2. Getting a +0 from a feat means fall behind in what would be a normal character skill development, so it should be really justified by granting a great (very very great) feature that implied you used all your time associated to that learning part in that feature.
What I don't like at all are those restrictions. Fighting styles tight to a few classes, why cannot be got by anyone, paying the feat? They are not game breaking at all. It would be like requiring to already have spell slots for Magic Initiate, not allowing non-casters to get it. Or all those feats requiring martial weapon proficiency, apparently prohibited for the monk even if some of them fit nicely in the MA set. Let the players to chose what they want to customize and molding their characters from a sub/class template, while they pay the cost and is not game breaking.
As meanwhile seems to be no problem at all to create a Paladin with 1level dip Warlock and do everything only with your Charisma, or having a Cleric with maximized Wisdom and dip 2 level of Ranger to have full Hunter's Mark free usages, also as 1 level monk to get full bonus to unarmored defense. All those class features should be associated to class level instead ability scores.
Both 2014 and 2023UA Warlock get invocations for unlimited casts of a handful of low level spells so that's a wash. The difference is that the 2014 Warlock needs them, because it doesn't have the low level slots to spare on casting low level spells. Meanwhile the 2023UA will be spending most of its invocation slots on Mystic Arcanum, because no invocation compares to the power of a high level spell.
But in return for that their lack of low level slots, 2014 Warlocks have the ability to pump out multiple level 5 spells at level 9, and upcast lower level spells if that's worthwhile. And yes, they're short rest dependent, which is a source of frustration to many Warlock players, but served as a balance on their power. Thematically the idea of a Warlock channeling a lot of power with little control, followed by a period of recovery so they can do it again, is part of their appeal to many players. I suppose their best place is in a party consisting almost exclusively of Warlocks and Monks, because then everyone will be on the same page when it comes to short resting. Monks are worse off than Warlocks in that respect though because they really need short rests, while Warlocks can always fall back on Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast + Invocations.
And yes, I do think that going from access to an admittedly curated list of Arcane spells with full caster progression to half caster progression is having their spellcasting cut in half. One spell a day, which might not actually be of any use to you, doesn't really compensate. It's even fairly easy to pick the spells most people will take with Mystic Arcanum at any level. Level 2, Web. Level 3, Hypnotic Pattern. Level 4, Polymorph. Level 5, Wall of Force. Level 6, Mass Suggestion. Level 7, Simulacrum. Level 8, Dominate Monster. Level 9, Wish. Basically whatever gives you the biggest bang for your buck. As others have pointed out, Mystic Arcanum is the illusion of choice. Firstly the illusion of choosing between an invocation and a Mystic Arcanum, and secondly the illusion of which spell to pick. It's probably a good thing they have low level slots to spend on utility spells like Disguise Self, because even with the way the Pact cantrips provide the former effects of one or two invocations for free (and Pact of the Tome even replaces Agonizing Blast) and WotC having added an extra invocation, that Mystic Arcanum detract from your total means you'll be a couple of invocations down compared to a 2014 Warlock.
Paladins and Rangers are half casters, but are also pretty good martial characters. The 2023UA Warlock is not. Even the Blade Pact Warlock is not a good melee fighter, you'd be better off taking the Spell Sniper feat and using Eldritch Blast in melee. They are a half caster with Vancian higher level spells. I suppose "half caster, half full caster" isn't completely inaccurate.
As for the Rogue, at level 9 Arcane Tricksters get 4 first level slots, and 2 second level slots, compared to the 2023UA Warlock's 4, 3, and 2 third level slots. At level 8 the Arcane Trickster has 4 and 2, while the Warlock has 4 and 3. As I've already said, up until that point they're both largely relying on level 1 and 2 spells, although the Warlock does have the option of levels 1 (although Lessons of the First Ones for Magic Initiate is a much better use of an invocation), 2, 3, and 4 Mystic Arcanum, and of course their once per day use of a patron spell. The Warlock also gets level 2 spells 2 levels earlier than the Arcane Trickster, if we're counting that.
The Warlock, both 2014 and 2023UA, is a better caster than the Arcane Trickster, but the difference is not huge at the levels most people play at. However, as I've also said, I like the Rogue package, but with magic, that the Arcane Trickster provides. With Steady Aim to give automatic advantage a shortbow armed Rogue (alas that High Elves no longer get longbow proficiency) can put out 1d6+3 +2d6 sneak attack up to 80 feet at level 3 (with 0.88 probability of hitting). That's 11.9 average damage compared to Warlock's 1d10+3 Eldritch Blast at level 3 which equates to 5.5 with 0.65 probability of hitting. It scales up to a potential 43.5 at level 20 (38.3 with 0.88 to hit), which of course is completely redundant because 40 damage at level 20 means nothing. Even the Warlock's 4(d10+5)+3d6 (35.9 average with 0.65 to hit and 0.82 probability of hitting with at least one attack to trigger Hex) isn't especially relevant.
As a standalone Arcane Half-Caster I actually quite like the 2023UA Warlock, and initially defended it as such, but it doesn't really feel like a Warlock to me. It's not zany enough.
That is a subjective judgement though. If simply counting spell slots is the criteria for determining spellcasting, neglecting any means of recovery, then the 2023UA Warlock does indeed have more spellslots than the 2014 Warlock. And so does everything else, including the Arcane Trickster.
Although we now have the option of the Arcane school Bard. The same spell list, a charisma caster, medium armor and shields with the Valor college (although that is the weakest of the subclasses offered in the UA), and full caster progression. It's even an "Expert" class. Being a known caster means it's less flexible than a Cleric or Druid, but the Warlock has the same limitation. At level 9 an Arcane Bard would have four level 1, three level 2, three level 3, three level 4, and one level 5 slot. That's 14 spell slots. No freebies, but none are really needed.
If nothing else we're running into the frustrations of having unified spell lists. At least with the Divine and Primal lists we have one full caster and one half caster, Cleric and Paladin for Divine, Druid and Ranger for Primal, but Arcane has Wizard and Sorcerer for full casters, Warlock (currently) for half caster, and Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight for 1/3 casters. And now there's Bard which as a full caster can choose any of them, and from all of them post level 10.
We still have schools, the question is if they want to use them as sublists, or simply grant everything to anyone because else “is not funny” (the Universal arguing making them going back or give).
tbh, I'm getting the feeling that the reason Monk UA wasn't too groundbreaking was due to WoTC's fear of people freaking out at extreme changes. Like, there are some weird wording in the UA that kind of suggest to me that they originally had more extreme changes but rolled them back.
If the player base had accepted extreme changes, it would have been for the Monk. It is and has been the most complained about class in 5e.
We still have schools, the question is if they want to use them as sublists, or simply grant everything to anyone because else “is not funny” (the Universal arguing making them going back or give).
Yes.
Apart from Arcane Trickster (currently) and possibly Eldritch Knight, spell schools are completely unimportant in the game, and really AT and EK could drop their school restriction at level 1 because two spells are hardly going to break the bank. Spell schools could just become fluff without any real game effect.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Lilith, at this point your poor reading comprehension has become tedious.
I said that in SOME WAYS the Arcane Trickster was a better WARLOCK, not a better CASTER. A one third caster and a half caster are not that different. The half caster gets level 4 spell slots at level 13, and given that many campaigns end before then they get to that level the biggest difference is that half casters get level 3 slots at level 9, and slots at levels 1 and 2. From levels 3 to 8 they're both mostly relying on level 1 and 2 spells. If I recall correctly the most common level campaigns end at is about level 10, which means the half caster has only been significantly ahead of the one third caster for two levels. A full caster has been doing so for five, or half the campaign, and also gets level 4 and 5 spells. They get three level 4 slots and two level 5 at level 10, which means they have double or triple the casting of Mystic Arcanum, with the flexibility to choose what spells they use rather than being locked into a single choice.
The Rogue is a competent package, and the addition of magic just makes it better. The Warlock is a class built around spellcasting but now has its spellcasting cut in half. In 2014 it was designed to be able to dump a couple of high level spells, recharging on a short rest, then rely on Eldritch Blast with invocations for utility. Now it still has the invocations, which it doesn't need for utility because it has low level spells and spell slots, and Eldritch Blast, but its high level spells are tied to its Mystic Arcanum, of which you get one per level per long rest.
You ASSERTING that something is "patently ridiculous and obviously wrong" does not actually make it so.
The response to the Warlock showed that when people said they wanted more spell slots, what they meant was that they wanted more PACT slots, not to have their ability to access higher level spells cut to almost nothing.
Ad hominem is a logical fallacy, as is the genetic fallacy.
But I like that most 4th level feats now grants +1 score. D&D lacks what in other games is skill development, changed by a combination of ability score modifier plus proficiency bonus, which cannot be developed by the character, then we only have the ability score modifier to develop. So the usual feats now correspond to normal skill development at the same time we get some feature, in the other hand we could chose fast skill development getting the ASI for a +2. Getting a +0 from a feat means fall behind in what would be a normal character skill development, so it should be really justified by granting a great (very very great) feature that implied you used all your time associated to that learning part in that feature.
What I don't like at all are those restrictions. Fighting styles tight to a few classes, why cannot be got by anyone, paying the feat? They are not game breaking at all. It would be like requiring to already have spell slots for Magic Initiate, not allowing non-casters to get it. Or all those feats requiring martial weapon proficiency, apparently prohibited for the monk even if some of them fit nicely in the MA set. Let the players to chose what they want to customize and molding their characters from a sub/class template, while they pay the cost and is not game breaking.
As meanwhile seems to be no problem at all to create a Paladin with 1level dip Warlock and do everything only with your Charisma, or having a Cleric with maximized Wisdom and dip 2 level of Ranger to have full Hunter's Mark free usages, also as 1 level monk to get full bonus to unarmored defense. All those class features should be associated to class level instead ability scores.
Both 2014 and 2023UA Warlock get invocations for unlimited casts of a handful of low level spells so that's a wash. The difference is that the 2014 Warlock needs them, because it doesn't have the low level slots to spare on casting low level spells. Meanwhile the 2023UA will be spending most of its invocation slots on Mystic Arcanum, because no invocation compares to the power of a high level spell.
But in return for that their lack of low level slots, 2014 Warlocks have the ability to pump out multiple level 5 spells at level 9, and upcast lower level spells if that's worthwhile. And yes, they're short rest dependent, which is a source of frustration to many Warlock players, but served as a balance on their power. Thematically the idea of a Warlock channeling a lot of power with little control, followed by a period of recovery so they can do it again, is part of their appeal to many players. I suppose their best place is in a party consisting almost exclusively of Warlocks and Monks, because then everyone will be on the same page when it comes to short resting. Monks are worse off than Warlocks in that respect though because they really need short rests, while Warlocks can always fall back on Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast + Invocations.
And yes, I do think that going from access to an admittedly curated list of Arcane spells with full caster progression to half caster progression is having their spellcasting cut in half. One spell a day, which might not actually be of any use to you, doesn't really compensate. It's even fairly easy to pick the spells most people will take with Mystic Arcanum at any level. Level 2, Web. Level 3, Hypnotic Pattern. Level 4, Polymorph. Level 5, Wall of Force. Level 6, Mass Suggestion. Level 7, Simulacrum. Level 8, Dominate Monster. Level 9, Wish. Basically whatever gives you the biggest bang for your buck. As others have pointed out, Mystic Arcanum is the illusion of choice. Firstly the illusion of choosing between an invocation and a Mystic Arcanum, and secondly the illusion of which spell to pick. It's probably a good thing they have low level slots to spend on utility spells like Disguise Self, because even with the way the Pact cantrips provide the former effects of one or two invocations for free (and Pact of the Tome even replaces Agonizing Blast) and WotC having added an extra invocation, that Mystic Arcanum detract from your total means you'll be a couple of invocations down compared to a 2014 Warlock.
Paladins and Rangers are half casters, but are also pretty good martial characters. The 2023UA Warlock is not. Even the Blade Pact Warlock is not a good melee fighter, you'd be better off taking the Spell Sniper feat and using Eldritch Blast in melee. They are a half caster with Vancian higher level spells. I suppose "half caster, half full caster" isn't completely inaccurate.
As for the Rogue, at level 9 Arcane Tricksters get 4 first level slots, and 2 second level slots, compared to the 2023UA Warlock's 4, 3, and 2 third level slots. At level 8 the Arcane Trickster has 4 and 2, while the Warlock has 4 and 3. As I've already said, up until that point they're both largely relying on level 1 and 2 spells, although the Warlock does have the option of levels 1 (although Lessons of the First Ones for Magic Initiate is a much better use of an invocation), 2, 3, and 4 Mystic Arcanum, and of course their once per day use of a patron spell. The Warlock also gets level 2 spells 2 levels earlier than the Arcane Trickster, if we're counting that.
The Warlock, both 2014 and 2023UA, is a better caster than the Arcane Trickster, but the difference is not huge at the levels most people play at. However, as I've also said, I like the Rogue package, but with magic, that the Arcane Trickster provides. With Steady Aim to give automatic advantage a shortbow armed Rogue (alas that High Elves no longer get longbow proficiency) can put out 1d6+3 +2d6 sneak attack up to 80 feet at level 3 (with 0.88 probability of hitting). That's 11.9 average damage compared to Warlock's 1d10+3 Eldritch Blast at level 3 which equates to 5.5 with 0.65 probability of hitting. It scales up to a potential 43.5 at level 20 (38.3 with 0.88 to hit), which of course is completely redundant because 40 damage at level 20 means nothing. Even the Warlock's 4(d10+5)+3d6 (35.9 average with 0.65 to hit and 0.82 probability of hitting with at least one attack to trigger Hex) isn't especially relevant.
As a standalone Arcane Half-Caster I actually quite like the 2023UA Warlock, and initially defended it as such, but it doesn't really feel like a Warlock to me. It's not zany enough.
That is a subjective judgement though. If simply counting spell slots is the criteria for determining spellcasting, neglecting any means of recovery, then the 2023UA Warlock does indeed have more spellslots than the 2014 Warlock. And so does everything else, including the Arcane Trickster.
Although we now have the option of the Arcane school Bard. The same spell list, a charisma caster, medium armor and shields with the Valor college (although that is the weakest of the subclasses offered in the UA), and full caster progression. It's even an "Expert" class. Being a known caster means it's less flexible than a Cleric or Druid, but the Warlock has the same limitation. At level 9 an Arcane Bard would have four level 1, three level 2, three level 3, three level 4, and one level 5 slot. That's 14 spell slots. No freebies, but none are really needed.
If nothing else we're running into the frustrations of having unified spell lists. At least with the Divine and Primal lists we have one full caster and one half caster, Cleric and Paladin for Divine, Druid and Ranger for Primal, but Arcane has Wizard and Sorcerer for full casters, Warlock (currently) for half caster, and Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight for 1/3 casters. And now there's Bard which as a full caster can choose any of them, and from all of them post level 10.
We still have schools, the question is if they want to use them as sublists, or simply grant everything to anyone because else “is not funny” (the Universal arguing making them going back or give).
If the player base had accepted extreme changes, it would have been for the Monk. It is and has been the most complained about class in 5e.
Yes.
Apart from Arcane Trickster (currently) and possibly Eldritch Knight, spell schools are completely unimportant in the game, and really AT and EK could drop their school restriction at level 1 because two spells are hardly going to break the bank. Spell schools could just become fluff without any real game effect.