That feels irrelevant, Kaynadin. Wizards wouldn't be treating that feedback seriously if it was just a minor, ignorable percentage of feedback. We don't have the concrete data, no; instead we have to trust that Wizards wouldn't be trying (and failing) to solve this problem if it wasn't a problem. Saying "we don't know the real numbers so we should just ignore the point" isn't a good solve. Obviously enough people consider it a problem that Wizards is treating it as one. Why should we ignore that?
I mean the real problem seems to be that warlock lovers just want warlock to be straight up more powerful despite it already being at its power budget. So here's my question to you, what would you give up from the warlock in order to have more spellslots? - Pact Boons? - EB? - Invocations? - Mystic Arcanums?
That feels irrelevant, Kaynadin. Wizards wouldn't be treating that feedback seriously if it was just a minor, ignorable percentage of feedback. We don't have the concrete data, no; instead we have to trust that Wizards wouldn't be trying (and failing) to solve this problem if it wasn't a problem. Saying "we don't know the real numbers so we should just ignore the point" isn't a good solve. Obviously enough people consider it a problem that Wizards is treating it as one. Why should we ignore that?
I mean the real problem seems to be that warlock lovers just want warlock to be straight up more powerful despite it already being at its power budget. So here's my question to you, what would you give up from the warlock in order to have more spellslots? - Pact Boons? - EB? - Invocations? - Mystic Arcanums?
Mystic arcanums I'd drop for more invocations and better pact boons.
As a warlock I don't see why I should have access to level 6 or above spells like every other class. Otherwise just make all spell casters one class again, and rename it "magic users". Cause between the complaints about how the sorcerer sucks, the wizard wants everyone's abilities, and the warlock hasn't got enough magic, it feels like everyone wants these classes to be the same anyhow.
Edit: except the bard. The designers want it to straight up be EVERY class, lie some goddamned Mary sue.
Edit 2: that could moment about the bard class is strictly about the class and the designer's choices, and not bard players and totally in jest. Don't permaban me because I spoke out against the Favored One of the classes...
So rather than continue to pick apart my personal games and tell me I'm a horrible player/DM/person for them because I'm the only one willing to share anecdotes about my experiences with this issue, how 'bout we focus on the part everybody constantly ignores? The part I've never seen any of the "the 2014 warlock is perfect and beautiful and amazing and if they touch so much as a hair on its head I'll RIOT UNTIL THE END OF TIME!" crowd address:
Wizards has repeatedly stated, both during AND before the One D&D playtest cycle, that the most consistent piece of feedback they get about warlocks from their data collection and player surveys is that warlock players feel like they don't have enough spellcasting, and that they can't freely cast their Pact Magic spells because they have so few of them they feel like they HAVE to hoard them for The Right Moment.
Not one single person who keeps pushing for the warlock to remain entirely unmodified has addressed this claim, beyond some flippant "well if they just sucked less they wouldn't have a problem" nonsense. This is not just a That Dumb Ghost ***** problem. This is a whole game problem. Many, many, many players have had these same concerns, and yet proponents of the dumb stupid failed short-rest-max-slots thing have never once addressed that issue. They simply tear down anyone else attempting to do so.
'Magical Cunning' is a bad ******* joke and everyone who read the document knows it. Regaining ONE pact slot ONCE per day, but only if you spend your normal two slots profligately and wastefully and empty your tank. At which point you won't be using Magical Cunning, you'll be begging your table for an unneeded and utterly unnecessary short rest. It is not a solution.
Y'all hard vetoed the first solution, which was to give them half-casting instead and let warlocks lean more on their Invocations. This second "solution" is a lame-ass joke and will also be vetoed. So what's the third option here? How do you fix the most consistent feedback Wizards has gotten for warlocks since the edition's inception without changing Pact Magic, which is the sole and entire problem?
first, half-caster failed because it looked like a wizard but didn't compare well to wizards. invocations didn't rise to the occasion (but why would they when you have 1st- and 2nd-level spell slots?) and spell level bumps were too spread out (especially at 7 - 12).
second, Magical Cunning is not a joke, although once-per-day and "only if you're empty" isn't great. as others have pointed out, channel divinity is a good model: 2 uses, regain 1 on short rest or all on a long rest. done.
third, how do you 'fix' the most consistent feedback: "more spellcasting, please"? rituals. rituals that up-cast. more variety and faster rituals for out-of-combat casting of Warlock spells. rituals that take up only the amount of time you'd consume during a short restapplying herbs and mundane bandages.
Oh trust me Xukuri, I hate the fact that Wizards is giving up all its game design responsibilities to the squawking, mindless Internet morasses that has no god damned clue how to design a game. That whole apocryphal Henry Ford thing: "If I'd asked people what they wanted, they would've said faster horses." I wouldn't trust most of the people on this forum to design a holiday greeting card, let alone a complex TTRPG. And yet here we are, with Wizards abdicating its responsibility and forfeiting its paid expertise in favor of the squawking mindless Internet morass. It's maddening. This game could be so much better if Wizards threw their goddamn feedback surveys right in the ******* bin and designed their game.
I mean the real problem seems to be that warlock lovers just want warlock to be straight up more powerful despite it already being at its power budget. So here's my question to you, what would you give up from the warlock in order to have more spellslots? - Pact Boons? - EB? - Invocations? - Mystic Arcanums?
Easy.
I'd give up complete and utter reliance on short rest recharge and the supposed "Advantage" it brings.
I'm honestly not entirely opposed to the "double Pact slot count, only regain 1 on SR" theory. That would allow warlocks to still be "The Short Rest" class without making them cripplingly over-reliant on a mechanic not everybody does or can use. I think it's a quick, messy fix, but it's at least a fix. And it doesn't rely on the dumb stupid "if you have no Pact Magic slots remaining..." language Wizards is ******* OBSESSED with; you're allowed to actually get a recharge while keeping a spell or two in the tank for when the DM drops the Demogorgon on you during your afternoon gonad-powdering session.
Also? Here's the thing: I'd be perfectly willing to give up Mystic Arcanums completely. I don't think they're necessary, at least not as a core class feature. I don't even think they're anymuch good. I'd rather have expanded Invocations and improved base casting, and relegate Mystic Arcanums to an Invocation you take if you want to. Then again, I also consider Pact Magic to be something that could easily be relegated to Invocations and taken as the player desires.
So rather than continue to pick apart my personal games and tell me I'm a horrible player/DM/person for them because I'm the only one willing to share anecdotes about my experiences with this issue, how 'bout we focus on the part everybody constantly ignores? The part I've never seen any of the "the 2014 warlock is perfect and beautiful and amazing and if they touch so much as a hair on its head I'll RIOT UNTIL THE END OF TIME!" crowd address:
You don't get to complain that people pick apart your personal games if you use anecdotes from your games to justify you opinion.
That feels irrelevant, Kaynadin. Wizards wouldn't be treating that feedback seriously if it was just a minor, ignorable percentage of feedback. We don't have the concrete data, no; instead we have to trust that Wizards wouldn't be trying (and failing) to solve this problem if it wasn't a problem. Saying "we don't know the real numbers so we should just ignore the point" isn't a good solve. Obviously enough people consider it a problem that Wizards is treating it as one. Why should we ignore that?
It could be that yes, there is a problem for X% of players. WotC would obviously like it if they could solve that problem for the X% while not introducing a new problem for Y% that makes Y>X or (X+Y)> previous X. Because of the varying play styles and need to be backwards compatible with existing materials and rules we may be be at a point where the best they can do is to shave a little bit off of the pool of players in the X percent while leaving most with the existing problem. How significant an issue is that? We have no idea because we lack the data to tell us how large X is to begin with. I think we do need to assume, based on their rollback, that the previous attempted fix made Y>X or X+Y higher than the previous X value.
second, Magical Cunning is not a joke, although once-per-day and "only if you're empty" isn't great. as others have pointed out, channel divinity is a good model: 2 uses, regain 1 on short rest or all on a long rest. done.
Oh, shoot! I totally misinterpreted you on this bit earlier in the thread.
In this proposal, having two base uses of Magical Cunning, and then regaining a use of it on short rest (ie the new Channel model, as you said), would go a long way of making sure the warlock can at least get one emergency slot back with a minute of fumbling about.
Though, if the feature also drops the "only while empty" clause, it is basically just asking to increase spell slots by one (or two at 11+) across the board... Hmm.
Pact Magic proper comes online at 3rd level, with the same spell-level guideline but capped at two slots. The Warlock also gets regular half-caster spell slot progression.
Pact Magic slots can only be used for Warlock spells/features (to prevent multiclass shenanigans, and also because flavour).
Upon finishing a short rest, the Warlock can expend spell slots with a level equal to their Pact Magic slot to regain one Pact Magic slot. Finishing a long rest restores both Pact Magic slots (along with regular spell slots).
Thus, you give the Warlock more spell slots, retain their 1st-to-5th-level Pact Magic progression, while balancing how often the Warlock can regain their Pact Magic slots.
Honestly, this sounds good to me. Going to put it in the feedback thingy.
That feels irrelevant, Kaynadin. Wizards wouldn't be treating that feedback seriously if it was just a minor, ignorable percentage of feedback. We don't have the concrete data, no; instead we have to trust that Wizards wouldn't be trying (and failing) to solve this problem if it wasn't a problem. Saying "we don't know the real numbers so we should just ignore the point" isn't a good solve. Obviously enough people consider it a problem that Wizards is treating it as one. Why should we ignore that?
I mean the real problem seems to be that warlock lovers just want warlock to be straight up more powerful despite it already being at its power budget. So here's my question to you, what would you give up from the warlock in order to have more spellslots? - Pact Boons? - EB? - Invocations? - Mystic Arcanums?
Mystic arcanums I'd drop for more invocations and better pact boons.
As a warlock I don't see why I should have access to level 6 or above spells like every other class. Otherwise just make all spell casters one class again, and rename it "magic users". Cause between the complaints about how the sorcerer sucks, the wizard wants everyone's abilities, and the warlock hasn't got enough magic, it feels like everyone wants these classes to be the same anyhow.
Edit: except the bard. The designers want it to straight up be EVERY class, lie some goddamned Mary sue.
Edit 2: that could moment about the bard class is strictly about the class and the designer's choices, and not bard players and totally in jest. Don't permaban me because I spoke out against the Favored One of the classes...
I really liked the idea of Mystic Arcanum becoming Invocations, some Warlocks would rather choose other Invocations that better suited their play style(like loading up on pact-specific Invocations, for example). My beef with it was we lost four Mystic Arcanum spells without getting 4 extra Invocation slots to compensate. Even when you factored in that each of the UA5 Pact Boons included about an Invocation's worth of extra oomph, we ended up being shortchanged compared to 2014.
So rather than continue to pick apart my personal games and tell me I'm a horrible player/DM/person for them because I'm the only one willing to share anecdotes about my experiences with this issue, how 'bout we focus on the part everybody constantly ignores? The part I've never seen any of the "the 2014 warlock is perfect and beautiful and amazing and if they touch so much as a hair on its head I'll RIOT UNTIL THE END OF TIME!" crowd address:
Wizards has repeatedly stated, both during AND before the One D&D playtest cycle, that the most consistent piece of feedback they get about warlocks from their data collection and player surveys is that warlock players feel like they don't have enough spellcasting, and that they can't freely cast their Pact Magic spells because they have so few of them they feel like they HAVE to hoard them for The Right Moment.
Not one single person who keeps pushing for the warlock to remain entirely unmodified has addressed this claim, beyond some flippant "well if they just sucked less they wouldn't have a problem" nonsense. This is not just a That Dumb Ghost ***** problem. This is a whole game problem. Many, many, many players have had these same concerns, and yet proponents of the dumb stupid failed short-rest-max-slots thing have never once addressed that issue. They simply tear down anyone else attempting to do so.
'Magical Cunning' is a bad ******* joke and everyone who read the document knows it. Regaining ONE pact slot ONCE per day, but only if you spend your normal two slots profligately and wastefully and empty your tank. At which point you won't be using Magical Cunning, you'll be begging your table for an unneeded and utterly unnecessary short rest. It is not a solution.
Y'all hard vetoed the first solution, which was to give them half-casting instead and let warlocks lean more on their Invocations. This second "solution" is a lame-ass joke and will also be vetoed. So what's the third option here? How do you fix the most consistent feedback Wizards has gotten for warlocks since the edition's inception without changing Pact Magic, which is the sole and entire problem?
Alright. Hang on. That HAS been addressed. Multiple times. We can say that we want the core identity of a class to remain the same (ie the short rest mechanic) and also say that we needed more spells. Th e idea was great, the balancing wasn’t. Add one more spell slot earlier. Get them to the 3 spells level around 7. That would solve a lot of the problems that have been raised.
you get to cast more spells. Using one out of combat is less risky. And it feels like the warlock we love. I can say the warlock needed more spell slots or more ability to cast spells and it not mean we need a full on rework.
Genuinely, can we have a discussion on this. What is the problem with short rests when you don’t have a specific deadline? IE we know a cultist is doing a ritual. By the end of the day it’s done. Doomsday. We have that day to prepare and invade. You get past the first encounter and everyone’s bloodied. You have a few hours before the end. Why would it not make sense for you to spend the time to find a moment to bandage? I am not saying t stop time. I am saying barricade a door, create illusions, use resources to by the time. Hell if they just rested in the open the dm is absolutely fair game to interrupt.
I think this is where you and the rest of the community seem to differ. We are NOT advocating for just stopping time. We are not advocating for people to be able to take short tests at all times.
what we are saying is that they can fit into an adventuring day. There are times they should be disallowed, times they should have consequences, and times they should be easy to take. Your travelling, have a random encounter in the morning but know you may have more to do on the road. Why would you not pause and bandage? How would you know you won’t find more trouble. Most people would stop and do first aid if someone got injured, even in tense situations.
can’t we agree there there is a middle ground here. That players shouldn’t just be able to stop time and heal whenever. But that there should be times where short tests make sense, both narratively and mechanically?
Pact Magic proper comes online at 3rd level, with the same spell-level guideline but capped at two slots. The Warlock also gets regular half-caster spell slot progression.
Pact Magic slots can only be used for Warlock spells/features (to prevent multiclass shenanigans, and also because flavour).
Upon finishing a short rest, the Warlock can expend spell slots with a level equal to their Pact Magic slot to regain one Pact Magic slot. Finishing a long rest restores both Pact Magic slots (along with regular spell slots).
Thus, you give the Warlock more spell slots, retain their 1st-to-5th-level Pact Magic progression, while balancing how often the Warlock can regain their Pact Magic slots.
This sounds like a great idea to me as well. Curious though, would you still keep the limitations of the Warlock spell list on the non-pact spells? Would you keep the Arcana slots basically as listed?
A lot of the useful low level level spells for Warlock maintain that use due to scaling. The Playtest 5 version fixed this by giving them access to the full arcane list (along with introducing new problems that don't need to be gotten into) would you keep the segregated Warlock list under this version or throw in a full suite of additional spells?
Well it would still mean that at level 9 you get to cast 6 level 5 spells in the span of 5 minutes.
That would also mean that Sorcerers multiclassing into Warlock would get to refill their Sorcery points ridiculously fast.
Hmm. Yeah, that IS a pickle. Those sorcerers always throws a monkey into the gears...
Easiest solution? The one that sorcerers will hate? Have pact magic be "special" and not mix with other sources of magic power. Oil and water. Cats and dogs. Tomatoes and whipped cream. It would completely gut the Coffeelock meta. But, uhm, how do I put this diplomatically? I might not be very upset to see it go? :)
But yeah, you're right. Poke one piece of the jenga tower, and everything starts to wobble.
Game design is hard, you guys! Can't we have someone else do it? :)
We were trying to do exactly that. But everything the game designers proposed to actually solve these problems got shouted down in Design By Committee before they could even begin to iterate on it.
At this point I'm holding out for Tasha 2.0: Unchained where they can reintroduce the stuff that would actually work like Wild Shape Templates and Spellcasting Warlocks as optional rules once the marauding Corebarians have pillaged the countryside and moved on. Maybe then 5e can actually, like, evolve.
Hmm. Yeah, that IS a pickle. Those sorcerers always throws a monkey into the gears...
Easiest solution? The one that sorcerers will hate? Have pact magic be "special" and not mix with other sources of magic power. Oil and water. Cats and dogs. Tomatoes and whipped cream. It would completely gut the Coffeelock meta. But, uhm, how do I put this diplomatically? I might not be very upset to see it go? :)
But yeah, you're right. Poke one piece of the jenga tower, and everything starts to wobble.
Game design is hard, you guys! Can't we have someone else do it? :)
We were trying to do exactly that. But everything the game designers proposed to actually solve these problems got shouted down in Design By Committee before they could even begin to iterate on it.
At this point I'm holding out for Tasha 2.0: Unchained where they can reintroduce the stuff that would actually work like Wild Shape Templates and Spellcasting Warlocks as optional rules once the marauding Corebarians have pillaged the countryside and moved on. Maybe then 5e can actually, like, evolve.
This might be a super-mega-controversial take, but maybe they should just design the game, make the changes they want to make, and let the chips fall where they may.
I know they probably want to avoid another 4e situation, but still.
You're preaching to the choir here. It's not meant to be.
I'll take whatever scraps of true innovation I can get, like the Rogue update.
This might be a super-mega-controversial take, but maybe they should just design the game, make the changes they want to make, and let the chips fall where they may.
The problem wasn't backwards compatibility though. Both UA Warlocks could be made to work with the existing material without too much trouble. The problem was and continues to be finding the fun while also solving the Warlock problems Crawford laid out from their survey feedback. Retreating to 2014 with a bandaid recovery is the safe option, and sadly may be the only one we end up having time for.
The problem wasn't backwards compatibility though. Both UA Warlocks could be made to work with the existing material without too much trouble. The problem was and continues to be finding the fun while also solving the Warlock problems Crawford laid out from their survey feedback. Retreating to 2014 with a bandaid recovery is the safe option, and sadly may be the only one we end up having time for.
Oh I hate myself for this.
It's like jurei said when he quoted Henry Ford. People don't know they want cars, they think they just want faster horses.
I want a new edition but the ideas floated here basically turn the warlock into another caster like all the others. I don't like the ideas proposed from the developers either because of not in this play test, in others they seem to rely on 3.5 for inspiration if anything, and are chasing bigger and more complex things to add to what's already bloated from 7 or more books, most of which rehash or do the same to as the playtest does. It doesn't help that all the modules and settings are old existing material as well.
We need an automobile instead of new equipment for an already fully barded and encumbered horse. We don't need a new horse either, we need an automobile.
The problem wasn't backwards compatibility though. Both UA Warlocks could be made to work with the existing material without too much trouble. The problem was and continues to be finding the fun while also solving the Warlock problems Crawford laid out from their survey feedback. Retreating to 2014 with a bandaid recovery is the safe option, and sadly may be the only one we end up having time for.
Oh I hate myself for this.
It's like jurei said when he quoted Henry Ford. People don't know they want cars, they think they just want faster horses.
I want a new edition but the ideas floated here basically turn the warlock into another caster like all the others. I don't like the ideas proposed from the developers either because of not in this play test, in others they seem to rely on 3.5 for inspiration if anything, and are chasing bigger and more complex things to add to what's already bloated from 7 or more books, most of which rehash or do the same to as the playtest does. It doesn't help that all the modules and settings are old existing material as well.
We need an automobile instead of new equipment for an already fully barded and encumbered horse. We don't need a new horse either, we need an automobile.
Then you have to switch to another game. WotC isn’t going to build you an automobile while everyone is still buying horses. Every true edition change they have to deal with people who refuse to switch. The closer they keep 5eR to 5e the better their profit margins.
Pact Magic proper comes online at 3rd level, with the same spell-level guideline but capped at two slots. The Warlock also gets regular half-caster spell slot progression.
Pact Magic slots can only be used for Warlock spells/features (to prevent multiclass shenanigans, and also because flavour).
Upon finishing a short rest, the Warlock can expend spell slots with a level equal to their Pact Magic slot to regain one Pact Magic slot. Finishing a long rest restores both Pact Magic slots (along with regular spell slots).
Thus, you give the Warlock more spell slots, retain their 1st-to-5th-level Pact Magic progression, while balancing how often the Warlock can regain their Pact Magic slots.
Spending an equal number of spells lot levels to recharge a pack slot is really expensive on half-caster budget. I'd prefer if you just got back a pack slot on a short rest half your proficiency bonus times per long rest.
Spending an equal number of spells lot levels to recharge a pack slot is really expensive on half-caster budget. I'd prefer if you just got back a pack slot on a short rest half your proficiency bonus times per long rest.
You know, that's one of the parts that I actually like about Lilith's Model: Making meaningful choices. You don't HAVE to convert your half-caster slots. You still have those two pact slots floating up at your highest spell level. But you have the -option- to refresh them... at a cost. Then you have to ask yourself, would you rather be able to use more low-level slots of various effects, or trade them in for a big spell?
It'll be an adjustment period for warlock players used to the old pact model, getting used to not upcasting everything they do all the time, but in the end there's the reward of more flexibility and resource control.
(Still, I'm partial to my own model. I think it's awesome. But many things can be awesome at the same time. :) )
Spending an equal number of spells lot levels to recharge a pack slot is really expensive on half-caster budget. I'd prefer if you just got back a pack slot on a short rest half your proficiency bonus times per long rest.
You know, that's one of the parts that I actually like about Lilith's Model: Making meaningful choices. You don't HAVE to convert your half-caster slots. You still have those two pact slots floating up at your highest spell level. But you have the -option- to refresh them... at a cost. Then you have to ask yourself, would you rather be able to use more low-level slots of various effects, or trade them in for a big spell?
It'll be an adjustment period for warlock players used to the old pact model, getting used to not upcasting everything they do all the time, but in the end there's the reward of more flexibility and resource control.
(Still, I'm partial to my own model. I think it's awesome. But many things can be awesome at the same time. :) )
The problem with the suggestion is that is just a sorc without meta magic and instead with invocations.
(At level 3 with tome the half caster with 2 slots of second level and 1 extra first from tome has 4 first and 2 second. The suggestion to trade first level slots for second.... that is just font of magic. We already have that class)
I mean the real problem seems to be that warlock lovers just want warlock to be straight up more powerful despite it already being at its power budget. So here's my question to you, what would you give up from the warlock in order to have more spellslots?
- Pact Boons?
- EB?
- Invocations?
- Mystic Arcanums?
Mystic arcanums I'd drop for more invocations and better pact boons.
As a warlock I don't see why I should have access to level 6 or above spells like every other class. Otherwise just make all spell casters one class again, and rename it "magic users". Cause between the complaints about how the sorcerer sucks, the wizard wants everyone's abilities, and the warlock hasn't got enough magic, it feels like everyone wants these classes to be the same anyhow.
Edit: except the bard. The designers want it to straight up be EVERY class, lie some goddamned Mary sue.
Edit 2: that could moment about the bard class is strictly about the class and the designer's choices, and not bard players and totally in jest. Don't permaban me because I spoke out against the Favored One of the classes...
first, half-caster failed because it looked like a wizard but didn't compare well to wizards. invocations didn't rise to the occasion (but why would they when you have 1st- and 2nd-level spell slots?) and spell level bumps were too spread out (especially at 7 - 12).
second, Magical Cunning is not a joke, although once-per-day and "only if you're empty" isn't great. as others have pointed out, channel divinity is a good model: 2 uses, regain 1 on short rest or all on a long rest. done.
third, how do you 'fix' the most consistent feedback: "more spellcasting, please"? rituals. rituals that up-cast. more variety and faster rituals for out-of-combat casting of Warlock spells. rituals that take up only the amount of time you'd consume
during a short restapplying herbs and mundane bandages.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!
Oh trust me Xukuri, I hate the fact that Wizards is giving up all its game design responsibilities to the squawking, mindless Internet morasses that has no god damned clue how to design a game. That whole apocryphal Henry Ford thing: "If I'd asked people what they wanted, they would've said faster horses." I wouldn't trust most of the people on this forum to design a holiday greeting card, let alone a complex TTRPG. And yet here we are, with Wizards abdicating its responsibility and forfeiting its paid expertise in favor of the squawking mindless Internet morass. It's maddening. This game could be so much better if Wizards threw their goddamn feedback surveys right in the ******* bin and designed their game.
EDIT::
Easy.
I'd give up complete and utter reliance on short rest recharge and the supposed "Advantage" it brings.
I'm honestly not entirely opposed to the "double Pact slot count, only regain 1 on SR" theory. That would allow warlocks to still be "The Short Rest" class without making them cripplingly over-reliant on a mechanic not everybody does or can use. I think it's a quick, messy fix, but it's at least a fix. And it doesn't rely on the dumb stupid "if you have no Pact Magic slots remaining..." language Wizards is ******* OBSESSED with; you're allowed to actually get a recharge while keeping a spell or two in the tank for when the DM drops the Demogorgon on you during your afternoon gonad-powdering session.
Also? Here's the thing: I'd be perfectly willing to give up Mystic Arcanums completely. I don't think they're necessary, at least not as a core class feature. I don't even think they're anymuch good. I'd rather have expanded Invocations and improved base casting, and relegate Mystic Arcanums to an Invocation you take if you want to. Then again, I also consider Pact Magic to be something that could easily be relegated to Invocations and taken as the player desires.
Please do not contact or message me.
You don't get to complain that people pick apart your personal games if you use anecdotes from your games to justify you opinion.
It could be that yes, there is a problem for X% of players. WotC would obviously like it if they could solve that problem for the X% while not introducing a new problem for Y% that makes Y>X or (X+Y)> previous X. Because of the varying play styles and need to be backwards compatible with existing materials and rules we may be be at a point where the best they can do is to shave a little bit off of the pool of players in the X percent while leaving most with the existing problem. How significant an issue is that? We have no idea because we lack the data to tell us how large X is to begin with. I think we do need to assume, based on their rollback, that the previous attempted fix made Y>X or X+Y higher than the previous X value.
Oh, shoot! I totally misinterpreted you on this bit earlier in the thread.
In this proposal, having two base uses of Magical Cunning, and then regaining a use of it on short rest (ie the new Channel model, as you said), would go a long way of making sure the warlock can at least get one emergency slot back with a minute of fumbling about.
Though, if the feature also drops the "only while empty" clause, it is basically just asking to increase spell slots by one (or two at 11+) across the board... Hmm.
Honestly, this sounds good to me. Going to put it in the feedback thingy.
I can’t remember what’s supposed to go here.
I really liked the idea of Mystic Arcanum becoming Invocations, some Warlocks would rather choose other Invocations that better suited their play style(like loading up on pact-specific Invocations, for example). My beef with it was we lost four Mystic Arcanum spells without getting 4 extra Invocation slots to compensate. Even when you factored in that each of the UA5 Pact Boons included about an Invocation's worth of extra oomph, we ended up being shortchanged compared to 2014.
Alright. Hang on. That HAS been addressed. Multiple times. We can say that we want the core identity of a class to remain the same (ie the short rest mechanic) and also say that we needed more spells. Th e idea was great, the balancing wasn’t. Add one more spell slot earlier. Get them to the 3 spells level around 7. That would solve a lot of the problems that have been raised.
you get to cast more spells. Using one out of combat is less risky. And it feels like the warlock we love. I can say the warlock needed more spell slots or more ability to cast spells and it not mean we need a full on rework.
Genuinely, can we have a discussion on this. What is the problem with short rests when you don’t have a specific deadline? IE we know a cultist is doing a ritual. By the end of the day it’s done. Doomsday. We have that day to prepare and invade. You get past the first encounter and everyone’s bloodied. You have a few hours before the end. Why would it not make sense for you to spend the time to find a moment to bandage? I am not saying t stop time. I am saying barricade a door, create illusions, use resources to by the time. Hell if they just rested in the open the dm is absolutely fair game to interrupt.
I think this is where you and the rest of the community seem to differ. We are NOT advocating for just stopping time. We are not advocating for people to be able to take short tests at all times.
what we are saying is that they can fit into an adventuring day. There are times they should be disallowed, times they should have consequences, and times they should be easy to take. Your travelling, have a random encounter in the morning but know you may have more to do on the road. Why would you not pause and bandage? How would you know you won’t find more trouble. Most people would stop and do first aid if someone got injured, even in tense situations.
can’t we agree there there is a middle ground here. That players shouldn’t just be able to stop time and heal whenever. But that there should be times where short tests make sense, both narratively and mechanically?
This sounds like a great idea to me as well. Curious though, would you still keep the limitations of the Warlock spell list on the non-pact spells? Would you keep the Arcana slots basically as listed?
A lot of the useful low level level spells for Warlock maintain that use due to scaling. The Playtest 5 version fixed this by giving them access to the full arcane list (along with introducing new problems that don't need to be gotten into) would you keep the segregated Warlock list under this version or throw in a full suite of additional spells?
We were trying to do exactly that. But everything the game designers proposed to actually solve these problems got shouted down in Design By Committee before they could even begin to iterate on it.
At this point I'm holding out for Tasha 2.0: Unchained where they can reintroduce the stuff that would actually work like Wild Shape Templates and Spellcasting Warlocks as optional rules once the marauding Corebarians have pillaged the countryside and moved on. Maybe then 5e can actually, like, evolve.
You're preaching to the choir here. It's not meant to be.
I'll take whatever scraps of true innovation I can get, like the Rogue update.
Not really all that controversial. ;)
The problem wasn't backwards compatibility though. Both UA Warlocks could be made to work with the existing material without too much trouble. The problem was and continues to be finding the fun while also solving the Warlock problems Crawford laid out from their survey feedback. Retreating to 2014 with a bandaid recovery is the safe option, and sadly may be the only one we end up having time for.
Oh I hate myself for this.
It's like jurei said when he quoted Henry Ford. People don't know they want cars, they think they just want faster horses.
I want a new edition but the ideas floated here basically turn the warlock into another caster like all the others. I don't like the ideas proposed from the developers either because of not in this play test, in others they seem to rely on 3.5 for inspiration if anything, and are chasing bigger and more complex things to add to what's already bloated from 7 or more books, most of which rehash or do the same to as the playtest does. It doesn't help that all the modules and settings are old existing material as well.
We need an automobile instead of new equipment for an already fully barded and encumbered horse. We don't need a new horse either, we need an automobile.
Then you have to switch to another game. WotC isn’t going to build you an automobile while everyone is still buying horses. Every true edition change they have to deal with people who refuse to switch. The closer they keep 5eR to 5e the better their profit margins.
Don't misgender her.
Spending an equal number of spells lot levels to recharge a pack slot is really expensive on half-caster budget. I'd prefer if you just got back a pack slot on a short rest half your proficiency bonus times per long rest.
You know, that's one of the parts that I actually like about Lilith's Model: Making meaningful choices. You don't HAVE to convert your half-caster slots. You still have those two pact slots floating up at your highest spell level. But you have the -option- to refresh them... at a cost. Then you have to ask yourself, would you rather be able to use more low-level slots of various effects, or trade them in for a big spell?
It'll be an adjustment period for warlock players used to the old pact model, getting used to not upcasting everything they do all the time, but in the end there's the reward of more flexibility and resource control.
(Still, I'm partial to my own model. I think it's awesome. But many things can be awesome at the same time. :) )
The problem with the suggestion is that is just a sorc without meta magic and instead with invocations.
(At level 3 with tome the half caster with 2 slots of second level and 1 extra first from tome has 4 first and 2 second. The suggestion to trade first level slots for second.... that is just font of magic. We already have that class)