Pact magic was far from game breaking. I think the complaints about coffeelocks was overblown as well.
Generally speaking, I think pact magic was rather weak, but then again, it was supposed to be. Warlock, with EB spam was a fully functional martial character. If you can accept that as fact, then it's easy to see how it would be easy to let spellcasting features turn warlock into something massively overpowered. Pact magic was an interesting concept, that I think left a bit to be desired as a spellcaster. The new warlock as a half caster fixed that problems, but now we're being nerfed back into pact casters. If you remove the 'but muh unique system' complaints, the half caster variant that was presented was flat out mechanically superior in nearly every way to what we had with pact magic.
Pact magic can't be game breaking, if it's inferior.
Half caster didn’t fix anything; it traded quality for quantity and ended up with the worst of both worlds; any casting you could do, someone else could do better, and there are better classes for martial augmented by spells.
Half caster didn’t fix anything; it traded quality for quantity and ended up with the worst of both worlds; any casting you could do, someone else could do better, and there are better classes for martial augmented by spells.
Eh, I'd disagree with the second, at least for arcane spells. This is not to say that the 1DD warlock was good at that role -- just that all the competitors are also kinda bad.
Half caster didn’t fix anything; it traded quality for quantity and ended up with the worst of both worlds; any casting you could do, someone else could do better, and there are better classes for martial augmented by spells.
Eh, I'd disagree with the second, at least for arcane spells. This is not to say that the 1DD warlock was good at that role -- just that all the competitors are also kinda bad.
Oh, compared to Arcane gish they were better for attack rolls, but Ranger, Paladin, Artificer, and Eldritch Knight are all better picks if you want to mostly make attack rolls and also have a few spells
Pact magic was far from game breaking. I think the complaints about coffeelocks was overblown as well.
Generally speaking, I think pact magic was rather weak, but then again, it was supposed to be. Warlock, with EB spam was a fully functional martial character. If you can accept that as fact, then it's easy to see how it would be easy to let spellcasting features turn warlock into something massively overpowered. Pact magic was an interesting concept, that I think left a bit to be desired as a spellcaster. The new warlock as a half caster fixed that problems, but now we're being nerfed back into pact casters. If you remove the 'but muh unique system' complaints, the half caster variant that was presented was flat out mechanically superior in nearly every way to what we had with pact magic.
Pact magic can't be game breaking, if it's inferior.
It wasn't inferior when played with the 2 short rest day as intended. If you actually do the math on a 2 short rest day either using a spell point conversion or per levels of spell slot power, Warlock was clearly designed as an Alt-Full Caster.
People just think it needs a re-design because for some reason about half the tables in the world hate short rests even though they have always been prevalent in campaigns I have played in. The short rest based classes ie Fighter, Warlock & Monk perform much closer to balance with Classes like Paladin, Wizard, Cleric & Druid when played with the intended 2 short rest day.
Because some people really hate the concept of Pact Magic for various reasons and so are bringing out every argument against returning to such a system. Frankly I think the concept is sound, though it would be nice to have a few more spell slots at a time, which I believe they’ve said is what they’re working on.
All they needed to scale properly for a no short rest day was Spell Slots to scale at the rate of proficiency bonus and a once per day 1 minute recharge mechanic. This gets them the same number of spell slots as current level 20 warlock with 2 short rests. This would consistently give them more slots to work with in a battle which then balances things like the "Once per day you may cast this with a pact slot" invocations (though they still aren't great) but more importantly, it gives them roughly equal spells to throw around in a single big combat in a day to what a Wizard or Sorcerer will be tossing out.
Pact magic was far from game breaking. I think the complaints about coffeelocks was overblown as well.
Generally speaking, I think pact magic was rather weak, but then again, it was supposed to be. Warlock, with EB spam was a fully functional martial character. If you can accept that as fact, then it's easy to see how it would be easy to let spellcasting features turn warlock into something massively overpowered. Pact magic was an interesting concept, that I think left a bit to be desired as a spellcaster. The new warlock as a half caster fixed that problems, but now we're being nerfed back into pact casters. If you remove the 'but muh unique system' complaints, the half caster variant that was presented was flat out mechanically superior in nearly every way to what we had with pact magic.
Pact magic can't be game breaking, if it's inferior.
Half caster didn’t fix anything; it traded quality for quantity and ended up with the worst of both worlds; any casting you could do, someone else could do better, and there are better classes for martial augmented by spells.
Yep- Half Casters normally have a strong second half to their identity. Paladin is half cleric and half frontline melee and support magic (Auras, Lay on Hands). Ranger is half druid/pet master and half fighter with all of it's optional roles. 1D&D UA Warlock was half-wizard with no coherent other half a role it could perform well. You could be a Half-Wizard and like 1/4 Fighter but Bladesinger would do it far better. You could be Half-wizard and like 1/4 wizard but you would have less spells per day and less upcasting versatility. Lastly you could be Half-Wizard and 1/4 pet master with far weaker summons/pets than either Druid or Ranger.
Fundamentally they tried to make Warlock half caster and half nothing.
Fundamentally they tried to make Warlock half caster and half nothing.
The other half was supposed to be invocations, but invocations were undertuned enough that your best use for them was to use them to try and be almost as good as a full caster, which is sort of missing the point.
As someone who's played both rangers and paladins, they'd kill for having a "crappy" feature like invocations to cast high level magic 1/day.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Sure, but that’s on top of all the core martial support those classes have; warlock’s core is exclusively EB, which while a nice cantrip is rather underwhelming as the breadth of the class’ performance.
As someone who's played both rangers and paladins, they'd kill for having a "crappy" feature like invocations to cast high level magic 1/day.
really? the paladin would kill for some extra power?
...and this doesn't even catch my attention from the perspective of "paladins are so strong" or even "you chose armor and big sticks, not books and tricks." no. no, instead i'm choosing to focus on the paladin who appears to be shouting out to the cosmos "boy, i sure would like my soul tempted right about now. any takers?"
it's a trap, right? right, asmodeus? it's got to be a trap.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
Yep- Half Casters normally have a strong second half to their identity. Paladin is half cleric and half frontline melee and support magic (Auras, Lay on Hands). Ranger is half druid/pet master and half fighter with all of it's optional roles. 1D&D UA Warlock was half-wizard with no coherent other half a role it could perform well. You could be a Half-Wizard and like 1/4 Fighter but Bladesinger would do it far better. You could be Half-wizard and like 1/4 wizard but you would have less spells per day and less upcasting versatility. Lastly you could be Half-Wizard and 1/4 pet master with far weaker summons/pets than either Druid or Ranger.
Fundamentally they tried to make Warlock half caster and half nothing.
OneD&D Warlock was half-Wizard that could get good AC without magic, boons that gave different playstyle options, with invocations that could give them the strongest cantrip in the game, unlimited access to several utility spells, and could punch above standard half-caster progression with arcanums.
But apparently all of that means totally nothing, because it isn't getting to use top-level spells half a dozen times more than other casters.
My point is: the best use of invocations was to pretend to be a full caster by taking invocations that let you cast high level spells.
But, what if a player doesn't want more spells? What if the attraction to the warlock over another spellcaster class was precisely because it wasn't a master magician, but instead one with a dollop of spellery along with a mixed bag of eldritch tricks?
I liked the idea of how the UA6 Warlock had the opportunity of investing as much - or as little - as they wanted into expanding their magic repertoire. No other class really had that. For every other class in the game, you had to go with what you were given. I truly felt like this was a meaningful and valid choice to make. The arguments I saw where picking any other invocation than mystic arcana was a "false choice" make me go down an ontological rabbit hole. What IS a "best use of invocations"? Isn't it in pursuit of the kind of character you feel you would most enjoy playing? If maximising spell access is the conclusion... shouldn't that make you consider whether what you reaaally want to play isn't a sorcerer or wizard instead? I mean, two fully loaded arcane spellslingin' classes, right there. Ripe for pickin'.
I like to think that there's an ecological class niche for an arcane half-caster plus extra goodies to make them stand out a bit, one that isn't an archetype of another class. Giving the player control over the "How much magic do you want"-dial felt incredibly progressive to me. More of that design philosophy, please!
(Or, you know, like Yurei has suggested at times: making the Warlock completely invocation based)
My point is: the best use of invocations was to pretend to be a full caster by taking invocations that let you cast high level spells.
But, what if a player doesn't want more spells? What if the attraction to the warlock over another spellcaster class was precisely because it wasn't a master magician, but instead one with a dollop of spellery along with a mixed bag of eldritch tricks?
I liked the idea of how the UA6 Warlock had the opportunity of investing as much - or as little - as they wanted into expanding their magic repertoire. No other class really had that. For every other class in the game, you had to go with what you were given. I truly felt like this was a meaningful and valid choice to make. The arguments I saw where picking any other invocation than mystic arcana was a "false choice" make me go down an ontological rabbit hole. What IS a "best use of invocations"? Isn't it in pursuit of the kind of character you feel you would most enjoy playing? If maximising spell access is the conclusion... shouldn't that make you consider whether what you reaaally want to play isn't a sorcerer or wizard instead? I mean, two fully loaded arcane spellslingin' classes, right there. Ripe for pickin'.
I like to think that there's an ecological class niche for an arcane half-caster plus extra goodies to make them stand out a bit, one that isn't an archetype of another class. Giving the player control over the "How much magic do you want"-dial felt incredibly progressive to me. More of that design philosophy, please!
(Or, you know, like Yurei has suggested at times: making the Warlock completely invocation based)
The problem with "I Can't Believe it's Not Magic!"tm is that for all intent and purposes they'd need to create a bunch of new "not-spells" to get the result you want and keep them approximately to scale with real spells to keep the system balanced, so the net result would be them reinventing the wheel when they could- you know- just use actual spells.
The problem with "I Can't Believe it's Not Magic!"tm is that for all intent and purposes they'd need to create a bunch of new "not-spells" to get the result you want and keep them approximately to scale with real spells to keep the system balanced, so the net result would be them reinventing the wheel when they could- you know- just use actual spells.
Well, no. If the point is to have "one use per day" abilities or some such, yeah, no reason not to have them be spells, but for ongoing, at-will, recharge, etc, abilities, spells may not be the right mechanic. There are a ton of creature powers that there's no fundamental reason couldn't be accessible for some PC -- for example, maybe a fiend pact warlock could get the Stenchpower of a hezrou
There are plenty of useful non-spell invocations. Upgrading your Eldritch Blast and Pact Boons, reading any written text, extending your casting range via a party member, gaining a free feat, or turning invisible while not in bright light.
Other than Agonizing Blast, those just don't compare with arcane invocations, and some of those are just bad, like Eyes of the Rune Keeper (I can... do the equivalent of a level 1 ritual. Yay me!).
The "upgrades" to EB are mostly things that can be done with Weapon Masteries already, so there's not a great deal of unique recommendation there. A "free" feat is nice, but mostly just an admission that they couldn't come up with many good original options and wanted to pad their numbers; also it's a free 1st level feat, so I wouldn't expect much from the spread. Reading any written text is already covered under a level 1 ritual. Casting from another creature's space is rather dependent on having spells worth casting. And, finally, Invisibility in shadows takes an action and only lasts until you move or take an action, so no only is the action economy bad, but it's not even a decent stealth aid.
The problem with "I Can't Believe it's Not Magic!"tm is that for all intent and purposes they'd need to create a bunch of new "not-spells" to get the result you want and keep them approximately to scale with real spells to keep the system balanced, so the net result would be them reinventing the wheel when they could- you know- just use actual spells.
Well, no. If the point is to have "one use per day" abilities or some such, yeah, no reason not to have them be spells, but for ongoing, at-will, recharge, etc, abilities, spells may not be the right mechanic. There are a ton of creature powers that there's no fundamental reason couldn't be accessible for some PC -- for example, maybe a fiend pact warlock could get the Stenchpower of a hezrou
Designing singleton powers to stick on monsters is a very different matter from designing a full tool kit of such powers for a PC. It's not impossible, but seems like a lot of trouble for near identical results.
It's not about DPR, it's about actually having meaningful effects. EB almost never needs more range and pushing and pulling are not exactly engaging options either.
Proficiencies are nice, but not worth an Invocation, imo.
You're choosing between arcanums and invocations like this, and your array is still limited by the half casting progression; note that you don't see many Rangers or Paladins playing at being spell slingers.
Exactly how often have you not been able to touch something you wanted to read in a campaign?
You can prepare an ambush from darkness almost as well by just standing still in the darkness, and advantage is not worth spending a whole action to set up.
You can prepare an ambush from darkness almost as well by just standing still in the darkness, and advantage is not worth spending a whole action to set up.
Are you saying True Strike isn't a S tier cantrip... Say it aint so.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Half caster didn’t fix anything; it traded quality for quantity and ended up with the worst of both worlds; any casting you could do, someone else could do better, and there are better classes for martial augmented by spells.
Eh, I'd disagree with the second, at least for arcane spells. This is not to say that the 1DD warlock was good at that role -- just that all the competitors are also kinda bad.
Oh, compared to Arcane gish they were better for attack rolls, but Ranger, Paladin, Artificer, and Eldritch Knight are all better picks if you want to mostly make attack rolls and also have a few spells
It wasn't inferior when played with the 2 short rest day as intended. If you actually do the math on a 2 short rest day either using a spell point conversion or per levels of spell slot power, Warlock was clearly designed as an Alt-Full Caster.
People just think it needs a re-design because for some reason about half the tables in the world hate short rests even though they have always been prevalent in campaigns I have played in. The short rest based classes ie Fighter, Warlock & Monk perform much closer to balance with Classes like Paladin, Wizard, Cleric & Druid when played with the intended 2 short rest day.
All they needed to scale properly for a no short rest day was Spell Slots to scale at the rate of proficiency bonus and a once per day 1 minute recharge mechanic. This gets them the same number of spell slots as current level 20 warlock with 2 short rests. This would consistently give them more slots to work with in a battle which then balances things like the "Once per day you may cast this with a pact slot" invocations (though they still aren't great) but more importantly, it gives them roughly equal spells to throw around in a single big combat in a day to what a Wizard or Sorcerer will be tossing out.
Yep- Half Casters normally have a strong second half to their identity. Paladin is half cleric and half frontline melee and support magic (Auras, Lay on Hands). Ranger is half druid/pet master and half fighter with all of it's optional roles. 1D&D UA Warlock was half-wizard with no coherent other half a role it could perform well. You could be a Half-Wizard and like 1/4 Fighter but Bladesinger would do it far better. You could be Half-wizard and like 1/4 wizard but you would have less spells per day and less upcasting versatility. Lastly you could be Half-Wizard and 1/4 pet master with far weaker summons/pets than either Druid or Ranger.
Fundamentally they tried to make Warlock half caster and half nothing.
The other half was supposed to be invocations, but invocations were undertuned enough that your best use for them was to use them to try and be almost as good as a full caster, which is sort of missing the point.
As someone who's played both rangers and paladins, they'd kill for having a "crappy" feature like invocations to cast high level magic 1/day.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Sure, but that’s on top of all the core martial support those classes have; warlock’s core is exclusively EB, which while a nice cantrip is rather underwhelming as the breadth of the class’ performance.
My point is: the best use of invocations was to pretend to be a full caster by taking invocations that let you cast high level spells.
really? the paladin would kill for some extra power?
...and this doesn't even catch my attention from the perspective of "paladins are so strong" or even "you chose armor and big sticks, not books and tricks." no. no, instead i'm choosing to focus on the paladin who appears to be shouting out to the cosmos "boy, i sure would like my soul tempted right about now. any takers?"
it's a trap, right? right, asmodeus? it's got to be a trap.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
half wizard, half warlock
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
But, what if a player doesn't want more spells? What if the attraction to the warlock over another spellcaster class was precisely because it wasn't a master magician, but instead one with a dollop of spellery along with a mixed bag of eldritch tricks?
I liked the idea of how the UA6 Warlock had the opportunity of investing as much - or as little - as they wanted into expanding their magic repertoire. No other class really had that. For every other class in the game, you had to go with what you were given. I truly felt like this was a meaningful and valid choice to make. The arguments I saw where picking any other invocation than mystic arcana was a "false choice" make me go down an ontological rabbit hole. What IS a "best use of invocations"? Isn't it in pursuit of the kind of character you feel you would most enjoy playing? If maximising spell access is the conclusion... shouldn't that make you consider whether what you reaaally want to play isn't a sorcerer or wizard instead? I mean, two fully loaded arcane spellslingin' classes, right there. Ripe for pickin'.
I like to think that there's an ecological class niche for an arcane half-caster plus extra goodies to make them stand out a bit, one that isn't an archetype of another class. Giving the player control over the "How much magic do you want"-dial felt incredibly progressive to me. More of that design philosophy, please!
(Or, you know, like Yurei has suggested at times: making the Warlock completely invocation based)
Then there should have been better invocations for other purposes.
The problem with "I Can't Believe it's Not Magic!"tm is that for all intent and purposes they'd need to create a bunch of new "not-spells" to get the result you want and keep them approximately to scale with real spells to keep the system balanced, so the net result would be them reinventing the wheel when they could- you know- just use actual spells.
Well, no. If the point is to have "one use per day" abilities or some such, yeah, no reason not to have them be spells, but for ongoing, at-will, recharge, etc, abilities, spells may not be the right mechanic. There are a ton of creature powers that there's no fundamental reason couldn't be accessible for some PC -- for example, maybe a fiend pact warlock could get the Stench power of a hezrou
Other than Agonizing Blast, those just don't compare with arcane invocations, and some of those are just bad, like Eyes of the Rune Keeper (I can... do the equivalent of a level 1 ritual. Yay me!).
The "upgrades" to EB are mostly things that can be done with Weapon Masteries already, so there's not a great deal of unique recommendation there. A "free" feat is nice, but mostly just an admission that they couldn't come up with many good original options and wanted to pad their numbers; also it's a free 1st level feat, so I wouldn't expect much from the spread. Reading any written text is already covered under a level 1 ritual. Casting from another creature's space is rather dependent on having spells worth casting. And, finally, Invisibility in shadows takes an action and only lasts until you move or take an action, so no only is the action economy bad, but it's not even a decent stealth aid.
Designing singleton powers to stick on monsters is a very different matter from designing a full tool kit of such powers for a PC. It's not impossible, but seems like a lot of trouble for near identical results.
It's not about DPR, it's about actually having meaningful effects. EB almost never needs more range and pushing and pulling are not exactly engaging options either.
Proficiencies are nice, but not worth an Invocation, imo.
You're choosing between arcanums and invocations like this, and your array is still limited by the half casting progression; note that you don't see many Rangers or Paladins playing at being spell slingers.
Exactly how often have you not been able to touch something you wanted to read in a campaign?
You can prepare an ambush from darkness almost as well by just standing still in the darkness, and advantage is not worth spending a whole action to set up.
Are you saying True Strike isn't a S tier cantrip... Say it aint so.