I dont know if this is the right thread for this question tbh, but does anyone have a solid idea for keeping the general vibe of pact magic, but changing it to a long rest recharge instead of short rests? Personally I like the uniqueness of how the warlocks spell slots work, but I dont enjoy the very different relationship warlocks have to short rests compared to the rest of the party.
I dont know if this is the right thread for this question tbh, but does anyone have a solid idea for keeping the general vibe of pact magic, but changing it to a long rest recharge instead of short rests? Personally I like the uniqueness of how the warlocks spell slots work, but I dont enjoy the very different relationship warlocks have to short rests compared to the rest of the party.
The easiest way of doing this would be to take the current pact slots and just turn them into per Long Rest. You would then slightly increase the total number of Pact Slots and MAYBE give them Eldrich Master back at a lower level (and shorter recharge time.)
I always felt it was weird the way the UA is done if they are doing some experimenting. Instead of one version of the class change, they could just put in the same UA various versions of the same class to better assess what we like from each one and meld it into one and, from there, make adjustments. This would have solved so much back and forth and gotten more precise data on the one class.
Also, believe the same progression of the Subclasses was better since u get most of them earlier and would see more use for them to be more important. Back compatibility was no issue as you only needed to say this 6 lvl ability; now go to 7 or whatever. It felt like they just broke some to add a piece of a feature in the empty spots to say they are changes. I could accept if they added Features from subclasses that felt they needed to be on the base class and make a whole new Feature for the subclass.
This was so thoroughly disappointing. All the most interesting changes, they scrapped. And for what? Just to appease the conservatives? To play it safe and keep selling what they know sells? For backwards compatibility? But what's the point in buying this half-assed band-aid product? What's the point of this playtest if they just scrap the changes at first sight of disagreement and regress to 2014 version?
I haven't seen anything but overwhelming praise for warlock's freedom to choose primary ability. Why scrap that? It is clear WotC goes against the community's wishes when they want to. Same goes to standartized subclass progression. I just don't get it anymore. The whole thing's shaping out to be another Tasha's and nothing more.
I dont know if this is the right thread for this question tbh, but does anyone have a solid idea for keeping the general vibe of pact magic, but changing it to a long rest recharge instead of short rests?
Depends on what you consider to be the general vibe of pact magic, which is not something I think there's even general agreement about how to define.
I always felt it was weird the way the UA is done, if they are doing some experimenting then instead of one version of the class change, they could just put in the same UA various versions of the same class to better assess what we like from each one and just meld it into one and from there do adjustments. This would have solved so much back and forth and gotten more precise data on the one class.
Considering that the Warlock featured the most radical changes of any class, the Devs should have put it out in the very first packet, and planned on showing at least 3 versions in the playtest, refining each time.
How about pact slots, and you can petition your patron for a recharge a number of times equal to 1/2 your proficiency bonus rounded up times per day or something like that.
I always felt it was weird the way the UA is done, if they are doing some experimenting then instead of one version of the class change, they could just put in the same UA various versions of the same class to better assess what we like from each one and just meld it into one and from there do adjustments. This would have solved so much back and forth and gotten more precise data on the one class.
Considering that the Warlock featured the most radical changes of any class, the Devs should have put it out in the very first packet, and planned on showing at least 3 versions in the playtest, refining each time.
I always felt it was weird the way the UA is done, if they are doing some experimenting then instead of one version of the class change, they could just put in the same UA various versions of the same class to better assess what we like from each one and just meld it into one and from there do adjustments. This would have solved so much back and forth and gotten more precise data on the one class.
Considering that the Warlock featured the most radical changes of any class, the Devs should have put it out in the very first packet, and planned on showing at least 3 versions in the playtest, refining each time.
Don't leave out the monk on that list.
The monk wasn't changed radically. It just suffered under every single simplification made to the new rules, so maybe it is fair to say that the monk NEEDED to have radical changes made to it.
It just suffered under every single simplification made to the new rules
Honestly the Monks were in such a bad place in general that I don't even think the simplification even hurt it. Heck, some of the earlier simplifications would have IMPROVED them had they not immediately abandoned them. (Like the Grap rules).
tbh, I'm scared that WoTC is going to see all the bad feedback, shrug, and not even attempt to fix it. It needs a redesign from the ground up! I personally think I made pretty good homebrew fixes for the 2014 version and even I don't think it's perfect,
I always felt it was weird the way the UA is done, if they are doing some experimenting then instead of one version of the class change, they could just put in the same UA various versions of the same class to better assess what we like from each one and just meld it into one and from there do adjustments. This would have solved so much back and forth and gotten more precise data on the one class.
Considering that the Warlock featured the most radical changes of any class, the Devs should have put it out in the very first packet, and planned on showing at least 3 versions in the playtest, refining each time.
Don't leave out the monk on that list.
The monk wasn't changed radically. It just suffered under every single simplification made to the new rules, so maybe it is fair to say that the monk NEEDED to have radical changes made to it.
At this point, with the all going back, it would just be better to make all changes on features optional, like in Tasha, and everyone gets to build their class with different options at certain lvls. That will make people who wanna keep originals as is and those who want a more complex or different class to have their cup of tea
Also, disclaimer, for the ppl that don't want that much change, you can keep old classes and use them. They will not go away but don't stop ppl from getting new revamped classes. They are not gotta stop the old ones from working but consider them as multiplying them or being from different multiverses and that's that.
Also, disclaimer, for the ppl that don't want that much change, you can keep old classes and use them. They will not go away but don't stop ppl from getting new revamped classes. They are not gotta stop the old ones from working but consider them as multiplying them or being from different multiverses and that's that.
I wish it were that easy.
The problem is that they plan to unify everything on to the website, I can play paper just fine, but if you use the site, you will PROBABLY be forced to do the new version.
Considering most people prefer the site because of its ease of use, it creates an awkward situation.
I mean look at what Tasha's did. The "pick and choose ability scores" has made it a bit of a cluster to sit and dig up old physical books (because class descriptions are rewritten) to find out what the original stat bonuses were...
It's just not.... not going to work like you'd think.
Also, disclaimer, for the ppl that don't want that much change, you can keep old classes and use them. They will not go away but don't stop ppl from getting new revamped classes. They are not gotta stop the old ones from working but consider them as multiplying them or being from different multiverses and that's that.
Disclaimer for the people upset at the rollbacks: WotC are the ones who decided to use an open polling method of product testing for the changes. They wanted to know what kind of responses they would receive. Please don't gatekeep the polls just because they're not going your way; WotC is polling the entire player base, not just the people actively pushing for major changes.
Also, disclaimer, for the ppl that don't want that much change, you can keep old classes and use them. They will not go away but don't stop ppl from getting new revamped classes. They are not gotta stop the old ones from working but consider them as multiplying them or being from different multiverses and that's that.
Disclaimer for the people upset at the rollbacks: WotC are the ones who decided to use an open polling method of product testing for the changes. They wanted to know what kind of responses they would receive. Please don't gatekeep the polls just because they're not going your way; WotC is polling the entire player base, not just the people actively pushing for major changes.
I just said the same but looking at the group that doesn't want change.
Also, disclaimer, for the ppl that don't want that much change, you can keep old classes and use them. They will not go away but don't stop ppl from getting new revamped classes. They are not gotta stop the old ones from working but consider them as multiplying them or being from different multiverses and that's that.
I wish it were that easy.
The problem is that they plan to unify everything on to the website, I can play paper just fine, but if you use the site, you will PROBABLY be forced to do the new version.
Considering most people prefer the site because of its ease of use, it creates an awkward situation.
I mean look at what Tasha's did. The "pick and choose ability scores" has made it a bit of a cluster to sit and dig up old physical books (because class descriptions are rewritten) to find out what the original stat bonuses were...
It's just not.... not going to work like you'd think.
A tag of Legacy content helps... I'm just lying to myself I know but don't I can only hope T_T
Also, disclaimer, for the ppl that don't want that much change, you can keep old classes and use them. They will not go away but don't stop ppl from getting new revamped classes. They are not gotta stop the old ones from working but consider them as multiplying them or being from different multiverses and that's that.
Disclaimer for the people upset at the rollbacks: WotC are the ones who decided to use an open polling method of product testing for the changes. They wanted to know what kind of responses they would receive. Please don't gatekeep the polls just because they're not going your way; WotC is polling the entire player base, not just the people actively pushing for major changes.
I just said the same but looking at the group that doesn't want change.
They're not gatekeeping the polls, they're just using them. Telling people not to contribute if they're not saying what you want is a whole different matter.
This is completely disappointing, while some changes I didn't like or need a lot of work, knowing that they will only give us minor changes is very disappointing.
And for those who blame others, I'm sorry to tell you that after thinking about it coldly I start to think that they are just an excuse, their scapegoat so that the players get more angry with those who say with them than with those who profit from them. D&D.
Why do I say it? Well, I think that from the beginning they already planned to launch a version 5.5 with minor changes, the UA would help them to polish some details but in reality it will help them to design version 6 in the future. for accepting big changes without complaining much so as NOT TO REPEAT WHAT WAS IN 5.5, blaming us that it is our fault that now they are only minor changes.)
Why do I think this? because of some reactions here, because apparently there would NOT be enough time for more testing and changes, but mainly because of the bad image and setbacks they had with the attempt to replace the 5th edition and many other setbacks they had in which the opinion of some consumers or potential consumers was made, even though they backtracked on the actions that caused the scandal.
WotC can’t make Radical changes if 30% of the player base hates them. Why because they fear a 3.5 to 4e split. Even if you say you hate the way a thing is now they know you are still playing it. If they change something and players hate it they might not switch to next edition. Main reason they are only doing 5eR instead of a full 6e. Should we be moving to 6e, yes. Can WotC afford to move to 6e now, no. Most of the changes in 5eR will feel like errata. The reworks of some subclasses will feel good as well. New Berserker Barb and Elements Monk are good changes. Cunning Strikes is a fun mechanic. Flaw is it highlights how similar mechanics are missing from other non caster classes. If we were moving to a true 6e they would be able to rework all classes to have an active choice each turn in combat. But for now we have to stay in 5e because 5e is making them so much money it would be foolish to leave it now.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I dont know if this is the right thread for this question tbh, but does anyone have a solid idea for keeping the general vibe of pact magic, but changing it to a long rest recharge instead of short rests? Personally I like the uniqueness of how the warlocks spell slots work, but I dont enjoy the very different relationship warlocks have to short rests compared to the rest of the party.
The easiest way of doing this would be to take the current pact slots and just turn them into per Long Rest. You would then slightly increase the total number of Pact Slots and MAYBE give them Eldrich Master back at a lower level (and shorter recharge time.)
Honestly what I am expecting is similar to what others have said. Recover 1 per short rest.
1 cast at 1, 2 at 2-4, 3 at 5 to 8. 4 at 9 to 12. 5 at 13 to 16. 6 at 17 to 20.
Stronger with no rests, about even with 1 a little less with 2 or more. But reliability is up.
Edit: could possible jump to 3 at 3vand 4 at 5, 5 at 10 then finally 6 at 13 and then at 17 get the ability to recover 2 per short rest.
I always felt it was weird the way the UA is done if they are doing some experimenting. Instead of one version of the class change, they could just put in the same UA various versions of the same class to better assess what we like from each one and meld it into one and, from there, make adjustments. This would have solved so much back and forth and gotten more precise data on the one class.
Also, believe the same progression of the Subclasses was better since u get most of them earlier and would see more use for them to be more important. Back compatibility was no issue as you only needed to say this 6 lvl ability; now go to 7 or whatever. It felt like they just broke some to add a piece of a feature in the empty spots to say they are changes. I could accept if they added Features from subclasses that felt they needed to be on the base class and make a whole new Feature for the subclass.
This was so thoroughly disappointing. All the most interesting changes, they scrapped. And for what? Just to appease the conservatives? To play it safe and keep selling what they know sells? For backwards compatibility? But what's the point in buying this half-assed band-aid product? What's the point of this playtest if they just scrap the changes at first sight of disagreement and regress to 2014 version?
I haven't seen anything but overwhelming praise for warlock's freedom to choose primary ability. Why scrap that? It is clear WotC goes against the community's wishes when they want to. Same goes to standartized subclass progression. I just don't get it anymore. The whole thing's shaping out to be another Tasha's and nothing more.
Depends on what you consider to be the general vibe of pact magic, which is not something I think there's even general agreement about how to define.
Considering that the Warlock featured the most radical changes of any class, the Devs should have put it out in the very first packet, and planned on showing at least 3 versions in the playtest, refining each time.
How about pact slots, and you can petition your patron for a recharge a number of times equal to 1/2 your proficiency bonus rounded up times per day or something like that.
Don't leave out the monk on that list.
The monk wasn't changed radically. It just suffered under every single simplification made to the new rules, so maybe it is fair to say that the monk NEEDED to have radical changes made to it.
Honestly the Monks were in such a bad place in general that I don't even think the simplification even hurt it. Heck, some of the earlier simplifications would have IMPROVED them had they not immediately abandoned them. (Like the Grap rules).
tbh, I'm scared that WoTC is going to see all the bad feedback, shrug, and not even attempt to fix it. It needs a redesign from the ground up! I personally think I made pretty good homebrew fixes for the 2014 version and even I don't think it's perfect,
At this point, with the all going back, it would just be better to make all changes on features optional, like in Tasha, and everyone gets to build their class with different options at certain lvls. That will make people who wanna keep originals as is and those who want a more complex or different class to have their cup of tea
Also, disclaimer, for the ppl that don't want that much change, you can keep old classes and use them. They will not go away but don't stop ppl from getting new revamped classes. They are not gotta stop the old ones from working but consider them as multiplying them or being from different multiverses and that's that.
I wish it were that easy.
The problem is that they plan to unify everything on to the website, I can play paper just fine, but if you use the site, you will PROBABLY be forced to do the new version.
Considering most people prefer the site because of its ease of use, it creates an awkward situation.
I mean look at what Tasha's did. The "pick and choose ability scores" has made it a bit of a cluster to sit and dig up old physical books (because class descriptions are rewritten) to find out what the original stat bonuses were...
It's just not.... not going to work like you'd think.
Disclaimer for the people upset at the rollbacks: WotC are the ones who decided to use an open polling method of product testing for the changes. They wanted to know what kind of responses they would receive. Please don't gatekeep the polls just because they're not going your way; WotC is polling the entire player base, not just the people actively pushing for major changes.
I just said the same but looking at the group that doesn't want change.
A tag of Legacy content helps... I'm just lying to myself I know but don't I can only hope T_T
They're not gatekeeping the polls, they're just using them. Telling people not to contribute if they're not saying what you want is a whole different matter.
This is completely disappointing, while some changes I didn't like or need a lot of work, knowing that they will only give us minor changes is very disappointing.
And for those who blame others, I'm sorry to tell you that after thinking about it coldly I start to think that they are just an excuse, their scapegoat so that the players get more angry with those who say with them than with those who profit from them. D&D.
Why do I say it? Well, I think that from the beginning they already planned to launch a version 5.5 with minor changes, the UA would help them to polish some details but in reality it will help them to design version 6 in the future. for accepting big changes without complaining much so as NOT TO REPEAT WHAT WAS IN 5.5, blaming us that it is our fault that now they are only minor changes.)
Why do I think this? because of some reactions here, because apparently there would NOT be enough time for more testing and changes, but mainly because of the bad image and setbacks they had with the attempt to replace the 5th edition and many other setbacks they had in which the opinion of some consumers or potential consumers was made, even though they backtracked on the actions that caused the scandal.
WotC can’t make Radical changes if 30% of the player base hates them. Why because they fear a 3.5 to 4e split. Even if you say you hate the way a thing is now they know you are still playing it. If they change something and players hate it they might not switch to next edition. Main reason they are only doing 5eR instead of a full 6e. Should we be moving to 6e, yes. Can WotC afford to move to 6e now, no. Most of the changes in 5eR will feel like errata. The reworks of some subclasses will feel good as well. New Berserker Barb and Elements Monk are good changes. Cunning Strikes is a fun mechanic. Flaw is it highlights how similar mechanics are missing from other non caster classes. If we were moving to a true 6e they would be able to rework all classes to have an active choice each turn in combat. But for now we have to stay in 5e because 5e is making them so much money it would be foolish to leave it now.