It would be a major issue if you were a squishy caster like a Wizard or Sorcerer. Druids have better defenses because they're meant to be mid-range casters, not way over in the back. Like I said, strictly speaking Firebolt has stronger stats, but in terms of play Druids don't need many super long range attacks because they're not going to be standing 60-90 ft back for the entire fight.
The reason you need long range attacks isn't because you plan to stay a long distance behind the rest of the party, it's because the enemy is at long range. If you have an outdoor encounter starting at 100', a first level wizard has a bunch of spell options, or they can use a crossbow, light. A first level druid has zero damaging options beyond 60' and only two non-damaging options (entangle and fog cloud) that are not not particularly good against ranged foes who are often well dispersed.
And exactly how many 1st tier campaigns have you been in that featured the D&D equivalent of sniper duels? Also, check XGtE; Druids can learn Frostbite, so they've got a 60 ft range damaging cantrip option. This is literally something WotC has recognized and patched.
Edit: misread part of your post, but the first part is still the most relevant. Actual long-range engagements are rare, and at worst you are losing one turn of damage that the enemy is probably also losing.
And exactly how many 1st tier campaigns have you been in that featured the D&D equivalent of sniper duels?
In a recent campaign I was in we got attacked by a manticore while outdoors and, due to the general lack of good ranged options in the party, only survived due to some creative hiding.
And exactly how many 1st tier campaigns have you been in that featured the D&D equivalent of sniper duels?
In a recent campaign I was in we got attacked by a manticore while outdoors and, due to the general lack of good ranged options in the party, only survived due to some creative hiding.
I'm not saying it never happens, but honestly if no one in the party had any good ranged options and the DM just had the thing sniping from 100 ft in the air the whole time, that's more a flag on the play of the DM tossing that encounter at you.
And exactly how many 1st tier campaigns have you been in that featured the D&D equivalent of sniper duels?
In a recent campaign I was in we got attacked by a manticore while outdoors and, due to the general lack of good ranged options in the party, only survived due to some creative hiding.
I'm not saying it never happens, but honestly if no one in the party had any good ranged options and the DM just had the thing sniping from 100 ft in the air the whole time, that's more a flag on the play of the DM tossing that encounter at you.
Why? not every fight has to be winnable. Some of the best story moments come from when the party has to flee.
I do want to note something about druid and wild shape. With all the new options to use wild shape in these new playtests the druid as a whole has a greater incentive for restng to recover wild shapes than ever. Of course they only recover 1 now as well so the short rest isn't as potent for them. Which is also why I think the 1 recovery is what we will see with Warlock. Still making monk the odd man out the most I feel.
Depends on Circle, Circle of the Land can almost entirely ignore wild shape charges and it is just 1 charge, most druids would want all charges back which is long rest.
Personally I think long rest is just too convenient, it should be the same as short rest but required once a day to avoid a level of exhaustion and then another type of rest, say called "downtime", is required to fully recover everything but can only be done in safe locations, like towns, inns or what not. Of course a lot of how things are recovered would need to change so it wouldn't be a small change but the type of change I think is needed, else wise just drop short/long rest and just have "rest" which recovers everything, since balancing around the current form of short rest just isn't feasible.
Circle of land in the new playtest has a really strong use of Wild Shape with land's aid AND all druids get wild resurgence. Putting bigger restrictions are long rests is really the way to encourage short rests. There is a cant do it more than once in 24 hours restriction, but there may need to be another restriction.
I'm not saying it never happens, but honestly if no one in the party had any good ranged options and the DM just had the thing sniping from 100 ft in the air the whole time, that's more a flag on the play of the DM tossing that encounter at you.
It was either random or pregenerated (he was running a remix of Dragon Heist) and I don't think anyone realized before the situation came up just how weak the party's ranged options were at the time. The general point, though, is that ranged combats happen -- its normal tactics for a bandit, goblin, or scout, all of which are perfectly reasonable tier 1 enemies -- and a 30' range is a pretty major liability in such fights.
I'm not saying it never happens, but honestly if no one in the party had any good ranged options and the DM just had the thing sniping from 100 ft in the air the whole time, that's more a flag on the play of the DM tossing that encounter at you.
It was either random or pregenerated (he was running a remix of Dragon Heist) and I don't think anyone realized before the situation came up just how weak the party's ranged options were at the time. The general point, though, is that ranged combats happen -- its normal tactics for a bandit, goblin, or scout, all of which are perfectly reasonable tier 1 enemies -- and a 30' range is a pretty major liability in such fights.
Like I said, though, Druids have Frostbite with a 60' range. If you're concerned about stand-off battles, just take Frostbite as one of your first two and save Produce Flame for your 4th level cantrip (or take both at the start, I just personally prefer to have at least one utility or fun cantrip).
And exactly how many 1st tier campaigns have you been in that featured the D&D equivalent of sniper duels?
In a recent campaign I was in we got attacked by a manticore while outdoors and, due to the general lack of good ranged options in the party, only survived due to some creative hiding.
I'm not saying it never happens, but honestly if no one in the party had any good ranged options and the DM just had the thing sniping from 100 ft in the air the whole time, that's more a flag on the play of the DM tossing that encounter at you.
Why? not every fight has to be winnable. Some of the best story moments come from when the party has to flee.
Fair, but given that we're talking about how much hardship druids face from not having a 100'+ range cantrip, I assume one of the premises of such a discussion is that the goal of these hypothetical fights is to win by defeating the enemy units.
Bard is a full caster with D8 hit die, options for armor proficiency and class features far more powerful/impactful than invocations. Yet no one calls for the removal of Bardic Inspiration/Magical Secrets in return for full casting.
Druid is a full caster with D8 hit die, options for armor proficiency and class features arguably as strong and versatile as invocations. Yet no one calls for the removal of Wild Shape in return for full casting.
Sorcerer is a full caster with arguably the best saving throw proficiency for a caster and a class feature far more powerful/impactful than invocations in metamagic/font of magic. Yet no one calls for the removal of metamagic in return for full casting.
And I don't know a single Pact Magic advocate that says Warlock should get full casting with a straight face. Pact Magic is GOOD and DIFFERENT and needs to stay. It just needs a few minor tweaks and it would be fine.
Bard has a more limited spell list which is balanced by its class features - no Mage Armour, no Absorb Elements, no Shield -> this is made up for with d8 hit die and light armour proficiency - extremely limited damage spell options -> this is made up for with extra weapon proficiencies - has known spells that cannot be changed on a LR greatly reducing versatility -> this is made up for with Bardic Inspiration and VM/DW that have broad applicability
Sorcerer has much more limited spells known which is balanced by it's one class feature - no Ritual casting - known spells that cannot be changed on a LR - fewer spells known These are all balanced by greater flexibility with the spells they do know thanks to metamagic. If you turned Sorcerer into a preparation caster with ritual casting you would absolutely need to remove metamagic.
Druid has a weak spell list which is balanced by it's class features - no mage Armour, no Shield -> balanced by d8 hit die, light armour + shield proficiency - no access to teleportation, save-or-suck spells, invisibility, the best control spells or blasting spells -> balanced by being a preparation caster with all spells known and a huge diverse spell list - the WORST damage cantrips in the game -> tons of out-of-combat utility from WS
Cleric has a tiny spell list which balances its class features
Warlocks list is just as limited if not more so. So I'm not seeing the argument here.
Like I said, though, Druids have Frostbite with a 60' range. If you're concerned about stand-off battles, just take Frostbite as one of your first two and save Produce Flame for your 4th level cantrip (or take both at the start, I just personally prefer to have at least one utility or fun cantrip).
Sorry but no. Do not take Frostbite, never take Frostbite, never cast Frostbite, you'd be more productive taking the Dodge action than casting that horrible, horrible spell.
Frostbite is a save not an attack roll and does 0 damage on a successful save and it's the worst saving throw of all - Constitution. This means you typically have only a ~40% chance that your Frostbite does anything at all with no way to improve those odds.
Pretty sure your math is off on those odds, at least in terms of actual application. CON is one of the highest saves on average, but it’s not evenly distributed, and most ranged attackers aren’t going to have high CON scores or bonus to save.
Pretty sure your math is off on those odds, at least in terms of actual application. CON is one of the highest saves on average, but it’s not evenly distributed, and most ranged attackers aren’t going to have high CON scores or bonus to save.
Then show some contradictory math. My number is are based on here: https://www.blogofholding.com/?p=7338 Even ranged attackers generally have good CON save (for concentration if casters, for HP for non-casters). There is a grand total of 12 published monsters from any book of CR 10+ with a con save of less than +3, and only 400 (i.e. ~33%) of CR 1-10 with a con save of less than +3
A +3 save by tier 3 is not a significant score; by that point your spell DC should be at least 17 if you’re a dedicated caster. And on that point, could someone kindly clarify what parameters we’re talking in? The original point seemed to be regarding tier 1 play, but anymore it feels like the goalposts get moved every time I respond. Or, really, we could just drop this because we’ve gotten rather off topic.
frostbite is pretty terrible regardless of tier; 1d6 per tier, con save, with a not particularly important rider. The best ranged tier 1 cantrip for a druid is pretty clearly magic stone, it's just that you want to replace it after tier 1.
The thing is without MCing there is nothing else to really replace it with. Magic Stone is your tier 1 cantrip, and after that you just try your best to never have to use cantrips in combat ever, you rely entirely on concentration spells instead. But yes this is only one point of several that I made w.r.t. caster balance.
To clarify the other point "Warlocks also have limited spell lists and they aren't full casters" That is because Warlocks get several things that balance them : 1) they get the best attack cantrip in the game which deals comparative damage to a martial character using weapons 2) d8 hit die, light armour, and weapon proficiencies -> compensates for lack of Shield and Mage Armour (though the latter is available via an invocation) 3) Invocations
If this has already been mentioned by other people before, then I'm sorry for repeating it.
BUT!
Comparing the Warlock UA5 class progression traits with, say, any other half-caster makes me go "Hmmm". If we take away any trait that isn't also covered by the Invocations/Cantrips/Spells table, as well as traits that everyone gets (ie Feat/Ability Increase, Archetype stuff, Capstone), a Warlock only has... three traits.
Remove all the other traits from their class table, and it looks downright empty. (Why do they list Eldritch Invocation both in text AND in table? Does any other class do something like that?)
Compare with an Artificer? Invocations feel sorta-kinda equivalent to Infused Items. Close enough, anyway. Same number of spells and cantrips. Same number of Ability Increases. But Artificers have nine traits. Four of which are also provided before level 10.
Don't you feel like the Warlock could use a few fun and flavourful abilities to fill out their class progression? Especially one or two before level 10? Maybe an Otherworldly Aura that grant them advantage on Intimidation checks a few times per day? Or a lesser curse that forces a disadvantage on another creature's skill check or attack roll, recharging on a short rest? Just a few tricks to give them flavour and out of combat options.
If this has already been mentioned by other people before, then I'm sorry for repeating it.
BUT!
Comparing the Warlock UA5 class progression traits with, say, any other half-caster makes me go "Hmmm". If we take away any trait that isn't also covered by the Invocations/Cantrips/Spells table, as well as traits that everyone gets (ie Feat/Ability Increase, Archetype stuff, Capstone), a Warlock only has... three traits.
Remove all the other traits from their class table, and it looks downright empty. (Why do they list Eldritch Invocation both in text AND in table? Does any other class do something like that?)
Compare with an Artificer? Invocations feel sorta-kinda equivalent to Infused Items. Close enough, anyway. Same number of spells and cantrips. Same number of Ability Increases. But Artificers have nine traits. Four of which are also provided before level 10.
Don't you feel like the Warlock could use a few fun and flavourful abilities to fill out their class progression? Especially one or two before level 10? Maybe an Otherworldly Aura that grant them advantage on Intimidation checks a few times per day? Or a lesser curse that forces a disadvantage on another creature's skill check or attack roll, recharging on a short rest? Just a few tricks to give them flavour and out of combat options.
Or, you know, something like that :)
IMO that should be the role of Invocations. Some in the invocations are as powerful as artificer whole class features : e.g. the Chain Master's at will Dominate Monster at level 15, or Life Drinker, or Extra Attack, or Agonizing Blast. The problem is that a lot of invocations just aren't very good.
Invocations shouldn't be equivalent to an Infused item they should be the equivalent of a class feature, and there should be a generic one for "Increase my spellcasting" so that Warlocks can choose to be more spell-castery or more half-castery.
They list invocations on the table so it doesn't look too empty. They did that with other classes in the UA's as well, so Warlock is not unique in that regard. I do think invocations can be much better than Artificer infusions so I wouldn't compare them. Getting a bag of holding vs Repelling Blast, Agonizing Blast, Armor of Shadows, Ascendent Step, or Lifedrinker, etc.. aren't quite equivalent. There are some good infusions, but I don't necessarily think you can compare the two.
I absolutely see these arguments, and they're very fair. I suppose I value utility/RP a lot higher than combat prowess in that sense?
I feel like this circles back to what's been discussed any number of times (with varying degrees of consensus), ought the Warlock explore the invocation aspect of its class even further?
How would you feel about a greater number of invocations, but at the same time splitting them into combat and non-combat invocations? Getting an allotment of each? Or, perhaps that would just make some players frustrated instead. Also, the distinction might be tough to draw in some/many cases. Hmms.
What about a few Either/Or options along the class progression? Like how the Cleric and Druid's Blessed Strikes/Elemental Fury gives them options on the direction they want to go? How about making some of the Pact-keyed invocations basic class features instead of invocations? At level 9 you automatically get Favour of the Chain Master/Gift of the Protector/Lifedrinker depending on your pact choice? ... buuuut yeah, I can totally see how some players would balk at being forced into one of those if it wouldn't match their character concept (Just look at people arguing against getting Hex for free).
Considering how much everyone has complained about Hex, I'd stick with just more invocations and/or more impactful invocations. I've never taken more than 5 levels of warlock on a character because there just aren't enough invocations I want in order to keep going. For for those first 5 levels the invocations are great.
Considering how much everyone has complained about Hex, I'd stick with just more invocations and/or more impactful invocations. I've never taken more than 5 levels of warlock on a character because there just aren't enough invocations I want in order to keep going. For for those first 5 levels the invocations are great.
I think a big part of that is how poorly the invocations scale up. If the level restricted invocations were better I think it would be less of an issue.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
And exactly how many 1st tier campaigns have you been in that featured the D&D equivalent of sniper duels?
Also, check XGtE; Druids can learn Frostbite, so they've got a 60 ft range damaging cantrip option. This is literally something WotC has recognized and patched.Edit: misread part of your post, but the first part is still the most relevant. Actual long-range engagements are rare, and at worst you are losing one turn of damage that the enemy is probably also losing.
In a recent campaign I was in we got attacked by a manticore while outdoors and, due to the general lack of good ranged options in the party, only survived due to some creative hiding.
I'm not saying it never happens, but honestly if no one in the party had any good ranged options and the DM just had the thing sniping from 100 ft in the air the whole time, that's more a flag on the play of the DM tossing that encounter at you.
Why? not every fight has to be winnable. Some of the best story moments come from when the party has to flee.
Circle of land in the new playtest has a really strong use of Wild Shape with land's aid AND all druids get wild resurgence. Putting bigger restrictions are long rests is really the way to encourage short rests. There is a cant do it more than once in 24 hours restriction, but there may need to be another restriction.
It was either random or pregenerated (he was running a remix of Dragon Heist) and I don't think anyone realized before the situation came up just how weak the party's ranged options were at the time. The general point, though, is that ranged combats happen -- its normal tactics for a bandit, goblin, or scout, all of which are perfectly reasonable tier 1 enemies -- and a 30' range is a pretty major liability in such fights.
Like I said, though, Druids have Frostbite with a 60' range. If you're concerned about stand-off battles, just take Frostbite as one of your first two and save Produce Flame for your 4th level cantrip (or take both at the start, I just personally prefer to have at least one utility or fun cantrip).
Fair, but given that we're talking about how much hardship druids face from not having a 100'+ range cantrip, I assume one of the premises of such a discussion is that the goal of these hypothetical fights is to win by defeating the enemy units.
Warlocks list is just as limited if not more so. So I'm not seeing the argument here.
Sorry but no. Do not take Frostbite, never take Frostbite, never cast Frostbite, you'd be more productive taking the Dodge action than casting that horrible, horrible spell.
Frostbite is a save not an attack roll and does 0 damage on a successful save and it's the worst saving throw of all - Constitution. This means you typically have only a ~40% chance that your Frostbite does anything at all with no way to improve those odds.
Pretty sure your math is off on those odds, at least in terms of actual application. CON is one of the highest saves on average, but it’s not evenly distributed, and most ranged attackers aren’t going to have high CON scores or bonus to save.
Then show some contradictory math. My number is are based on here: https://www.blogofholding.com/?p=7338 Even ranged attackers generally have good CON save (for concentration if casters, for HP for non-casters). There is a grand total of 12 published monsters from any book of CR 10+ with a con save of less than +3, and only 400 (i.e. ~33%) of CR 1-10 with a con save of less than +3
A +3 save by tier 3 is not a significant score; by that point your spell DC should be at least 17 if you’re a dedicated caster. And on that point, could someone kindly clarify what parameters we’re talking in? The original point seemed to be regarding tier 1 play, but anymore it feels like the goalposts get moved every time I respond. Or, really, we could just drop this because we’ve gotten rather off topic.
frostbite is pretty terrible regardless of tier; 1d6 per tier, con save, with a not particularly important rider. The best ranged tier 1 cantrip for a druid is pretty clearly magic stone, it's just that you want to replace it after tier 1.
The thing is without MCing there is nothing else to really replace it with. Magic Stone is your tier 1 cantrip, and after that you just try your best to never have to use cantrips in combat ever, you rely entirely on concentration spells instead. But yes this is only one point of several that I made w.r.t. caster balance.
To clarify the other point "Warlocks also have limited spell lists and they aren't full casters" That is because Warlocks get several things that balance them :
1) they get the best attack cantrip in the game which deals comparative damage to a martial character using weapons
2) d8 hit die, light armour, and weapon proficiencies -> compensates for lack of Shield and Mage Armour (though the latter is available via an invocation)
3) Invocations
If this has already been mentioned by other people before, then I'm sorry for repeating it.
BUT!
Comparing the Warlock UA5 class progression traits with, say, any other half-caster makes me go "Hmmm". If we take away any trait that isn't also covered by the Invocations/Cantrips/Spells table, as well as traits that everyone gets (ie Feat/Ability Increase, Archetype stuff, Capstone), a Warlock only has... three traits.
Level 1 Pact Boon, level 11 Contact Patron, and level 18 Hex Master.
Remove all the other traits from their class table, and it looks downright empty. (Why do they list Eldritch Invocation both in text AND in table? Does any other class do something like that?)
Compare with an Artificer? Invocations feel sorta-kinda equivalent to Infused Items. Close enough, anyway. Same number of spells and cantrips. Same number of Ability Increases. But Artificers have nine traits. Four of which are also provided before level 10.
Don't you feel like the Warlock could use a few fun and flavourful abilities to fill out their class progression? Especially one or two before level 10? Maybe an Otherworldly Aura that grant them advantage on Intimidation checks a few times per day? Or a lesser curse that forces a disadvantage on another creature's skill check or attack roll, recharging on a short rest? Just a few tricks to give them flavour and out of combat options.
Or, you know, something like that :)
IMO that should be the role of Invocations. Some in the invocations are as powerful as artificer whole class features : e.g. the Chain Master's at will Dominate Monster at level 15, or Life Drinker, or Extra Attack, or Agonizing Blast. The problem is that a lot of invocations just aren't very good.
Invocations shouldn't be equivalent to an Infused item they should be the equivalent of a class feature, and there should be a generic one for "Increase my spellcasting" so that Warlocks can choose to be more spell-castery or more half-castery.
They list invocations on the table so it doesn't look too empty. They did that with other classes in the UA's as well, so Warlock is not unique in that regard. I do think invocations can be much better than Artificer infusions so I wouldn't compare them. Getting a bag of holding vs Repelling Blast, Agonizing Blast, Armor of Shadows, Ascendent Step, or Lifedrinker, etc.. aren't quite equivalent. There are some good infusions, but I don't necessarily think you can compare the two.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I absolutely see these arguments, and they're very fair. I suppose I value utility/RP a lot higher than combat prowess in that sense?
I feel like this circles back to what's been discussed any number of times (with varying degrees of consensus), ought the Warlock explore the invocation aspect of its class even further?
How would you feel about a greater number of invocations, but at the same time splitting them into combat and non-combat invocations? Getting an allotment of each? Or, perhaps that would just make some players frustrated instead. Also, the distinction might be tough to draw in some/many cases. Hmms.
What about a few Either/Or options along the class progression? Like how the Cleric and Druid's Blessed Strikes/Elemental Fury gives them options on the direction they want to go? How about making some of the Pact-keyed invocations basic class features instead of invocations? At level 9 you automatically get Favour of the Chain Master/Gift of the Protector/Lifedrinker depending on your pact choice? ... buuuut yeah, I can totally see how some players would balk at being forced into one of those if it wouldn't match their character concept (Just look at people arguing against getting Hex for free).
Hey, isn't game design tough? :D
Considering how much everyone has complained about Hex, I'd stick with just more invocations and/or more impactful invocations. I've never taken more than 5 levels of warlock on a character because there just aren't enough invocations I want in order to keep going. For for those first 5 levels the invocations are great.
I think a big part of that is how poorly the invocations scale up. If the level restricted invocations were better I think it would be less of an issue.