I don’t think almost anything will have flat force resistance in 5eR. I believe they are trying to ditch the magical weapons things and replace it with just force. I’m betting a bunch of weapons deal force damage in 5eR. +1 longsword will probably let you choose to deal slashing or force damage. Monsters will barely deal force damage. This is just a hypothesis. So praise me if it turns out to be true, forgive me if it’s wrong.
Agonizing blast is almost pointless on any other cantrip. The only exception is firebolt or sacred flame on a Celestial pact at lvl 6 up. It would give you a 1d10+10 firebolt or a 1d8+10 sacred flame if your Cha is 20, but it’s probably only 18 so they would be +8, which is good on a cantrip damage. It keeps up with Eldritch blast until lvl 11 when you fire 3 blast.
AGONIZING BLAST Prerequisite: At Least One Warlock Cantrip Choose one of your known Warlock cantrips that deals damage. You can add your spellcasting ability modifier to that spell’s damage rolls. (emphasis mine) Whenever you gain a Warlock level, you can change which of your damaging Warlock cantrips benefits from this invocation
I cut it out of the UA7. The language is really confusing. It doesn't say anything about Hitting a monster, only damage rolls and the rolls is plural. My gut tells me this is a mistake. Usually these types of bonuses are based on the number of times you roll a "To HIT Roll" Eldritch Blast has 4 hit rolls one for each force beam. Fire Bolt's damage increases with the caster level but doesn't roll more than once so the damage for a 20 Charisma Warlock with Agonizing Blast for Fire Bolt would be 4d10 + 5 NOT( 1d10 + 5) x 4. The first equation has an average damage of ~27 points of damage the second equation has an average damage of ~46 points of damage. Fire Bolt is usually calculated as one bolt one hit with a damage of 4d10. The first equation. Eldritch Blast is different, it is (1d10) x4, the second equation.
The way it is written now Fire Bolt would get (1d10 +5) x4 damage, Like I said the text is hard for me to understand. The text suggests that the actual damage rolls (plural) would get the ability score modifier. That is usually not the case.
EDIT:
I think they should get rid of Force damage; Bludgeoning damage is already force damage. Why have two of the same types of damage?
Also it's not an odd complaint when you consider that some people consider the warlock play style (as you call it) more or less repetitive.
I'm sorry but quite frankly I hate that complaint.
The melee classes are repetitive as well, and there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, that's he point to the warlock caster class. It gives you far less futzy magic but let's you still do awesome things with it, and never leaves you in the caster lurch of "what do I do?"
Reading these comments makes me feel like people are going to be upset and disappointed with the warlock either way. The opposites are so far from each other.
Just a thought. Might be stupid. What if they made both?
A subclass for a melee class that grants a Pact magic type of access to a couple of short rest slots, a few invocations and low level spells.
Then a full caster warlock with more versatility and complexity.
But both follow the same theme of otherwordly Patrons.
OR
A wild thought. What if Warlock decides with a subclass whether they wanna go full caster or paladin-like 1/2 caster? That effects the spell progress, how many slots they get and how far their spell levels go etc.
Would be quite experimental, but they seem to be experimenting already.
Just got out of my first session of playing new warlock. I cast misty step once, used one with shadows to cast invisibility 3 times. Got in 2 fights, and cast levitate with an invocation to get where i wanted. I cast more spells in that session than every one of the other casters combined and I only spent spent one of my spell slots. At one point I cast guidance and the players asked "doesn't that break invisibility" to which I replied "well yes, but no big I will just cast it again in a bit" To which they responded "Well we don't want you to waste all your spell slots" to which my response was "no worries it doesn't take a slot I can do this as many times as I want as long as I am in dim light or darkness, and since we are underground and going deeper that is pretty easy". They responded "THAT's Awesome, ya hit me with guidance." I got an epic moment without even spending a spell slot.
thanks for reporting back! i wish there was an [active] thread just for playtest experience. something to upvote and sigh wistfully at as i flick rubberbands at people in my life who aren't nearly as interested.
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!
I would like a clarification if Innate Sorcery will work with Booming Blade.
Maybe a clarification it only works with direct damage spells and spells that force a save to take damage/Effect. This should help determine what type of spells this feature will affect.
A wild thought. What if Warlock decides with a subclass whether they wanna go full caster or paladin-like 1/2 caster? That effects the spell progress, how many slots they get and how far their spell levels go etc.
Would be quite experimental, but they seem to be experimenting already.
This is what I THOUGHT they would do when 5e was released and the descriptions of the pacts were out.
Pact of the blade, if it progressed would give you a paladin like half caster. Pact of the time would, if you had progression, give you a unique full caster, and pact of the chain, could if it progressed, give you a beastmaster/minion heavy warlock.
And the pact PATRON would be just flavor.
But no. Patrons are the subclass, and the pacts are f****Ed
Just got out of my first session of playing new warlock. I cast misty step once, used one with shadows to cast invisibility 3 times. Got in 2 fights, and cast levitate with an invocation to get where i wanted. I cast more spells in that session than every one of the other casters combined and I only spent spent one of my spell slots. At one point I cast guidance and the players asked "doesn't that break invisibility" to which I replied "well yes, but no big I will just cast it again in a bit" To which they responded "Well we don't want you to waste all your spell slots" to which my response was "no worries it doesn't take a slot I can do this as many times as I want as long as I am in dim light or darkness, and since we are underground and going deeper that is pretty easy". They responded "THAT's Awesome, ya hit me with guidance." I got an epic moment without even spending a spell slot.
thanks for reporting back! i wish there was an [active] thread just for playtest experience. something to upvote and sigh wistfully at as i flick rubberbands at people in my life who aren't nearly as interested.
Great idea! I tried to make it. Go check it out! :)
I'll post my own memo when I'm done putting the kids to bed.
The issue is the mechanics of the Warlock don't match the class's fantasy.
Then introduce a class that does. Really, if cantrip spam isn't your thing, the sorcerer makes an excellent "sold soul for ungodly power" character.
Part of the problem with cantrip spam in Warlock's case is that it's the same cantrip being spammed. If you could vary the damaging cantrips you use without making it feel like you're actively nerfing yourself for not using EB alone, that would help quite a bit imo.
I kind of think eldritch blast should do nothing on its own. Instead it should be a way to modify existing attack cantrips so they act as split ray cantrips. So at levels 5 , 11, 17 you see the eldritch blast feature which basically is just when casting a attack cantrip with a range greater than X instead of doing 2(3,4) dice of damage it now creates two attacks for one die of damage. And additional effect created by the cantrip other than damage can only be applied once per turn, then maybe scale their cantrips known up so they learn 5-6 attack cantrips over their levels.
I kind of think eldritch blast should do nothing on its own. Instead it should be a way to modify existing attack cantrips so they act as split ray cantrips. So at levels 5 , 11, 17 you see the eldritch blast feature which basically is just when casting a attack cantrip with a range greater than X instead of doing 2(3,4) dice of damage it now creates two attacks for one die of damage. And additional effect created by the cantrip other than damage can only be applied once per turn, then maybe scale their cantrips known up so they learn 5-6 attack cantrips over their levels.
They continue thinking that restricting so much the number of known spells is required. The Sorcerer begins good but later got even less spells known than the Wizard can prepare, which can change at Long Rest. Equates de same caster type for known and prepared and go on, so the Sorcerer to have the same number of "prepared" (that are really known) as the Wizard, but they are fixed.
Damn the prepared currently are not memorized like before, there is no need of that thinking of so much less spells for compensating you can use the one you want with your slots, as prepared are now just the same thing.
They continue thinking that restricting so much the number of known spells is required. The Sorcerer begins good but later got even less spells known than the Wizard can prepare, which can change at Long Rest. Equates de same caster type for known and prepared and go on, so the Sorcerer to have the same number of "prepared" (that are really known) as the Wizard, but they are fixed.
Damn the prepared currently are not memorized like before, there is no need of that thinking of so much less spells for compensating you can use the one you want with your slots, as prepared are now just the same thing.
I think the low number of spells is more justified now that sorc got a major boost in firepower, daily stamina and metamagic. Before it was hard to see why sorc would have so few spells when they were hardly more powerful than some wiz subclasses.
Now the balance seems to have shifted more dramatically. Wizards are the Magical Toolbox with a spell for every occasion and sorcerers are clearly the nr 1 powerhouse with increased spell save dc, more metamagic options, two meta options for a single casting, improved conversion economy and the ability to regain sorc points. Note that sorc point regain transfers directly to more spell slots per LR if needed.
I think all the known casters need a way to swap their known list between levels. once a level has problems in that some tables might level up every session. Another table it might take 10 sessions to level up. I mean crap many can change out their entire list every day, the wizard can swap one in every minute. Let known casters swap one out a day, or at least give them a ritual spell with a cost to swap one. And I don't think the known casters have that much of a power edge over the daily prepare people. Heck in many cases I'd say they are weaker classes than the daily prepare people even if they could daily prepare as well.
I do like the different feel of it, if all casting classes prepare the same you lose uniqueness. But I think you can maintain that while easing up a bit on the known casters fixed lists.
This is what I THOUGHT they would do when 5e was released and the descriptions of the pacts were out.
Pact of the blade, if it progressed would give you a paladin like half caster. Pact of the time would, if you had progression, give you a unique full caster, and pact of the chain, could if it progressed, give you a beastmaster/minion heavy warlock.
And the pact PATRON would be just flavor.
What with Pact Boons now being invocations, will it be easier or harder to add new types of them? Like getting Pact of the Talisman back? Or completely novel ones?
I would love to see a Pact of the Mask for intrigue, infiltration, and expertise. Or a Pact of the Banner for an arcane warlord support type warlock flavour.
This is what I THOUGHT they would do when 5e was released and the descriptions of the pacts were out.
Pact of the blade, if it progressed would give you a paladin like half caster. Pact of the time would, if you had progression, give you a unique full caster, and pact of the chain, could if it progressed, give you a beastmaster/minion heavy warlock.
And the pact PATRON would be just flavor.
What with Pact Boons now being invocations, will it be easier or harder to add new types of them? Like getting Pact of the Talisman back? Or completely novel ones?
I would love to see a Pact of the Mask for intrigue, infiltration, and expertise. Or a Pact of the Banner for an arcane warlord support type warlock flavour.
Probably easier, though they'd all blue underpowered without any support.
Again, pacts should be subclasses with patrons being flavor.
They do it with the genie sorcerer and the elemental monk, can't see why warlock can't do it too...
Hexblade practically votes itself back in through grandfather clause.
But for Tomelocks? Thaumaturgist, maybe? Ritualist? Maybe just "Occultist"?
Chainlock could be... I dunno. Summoner sounds plain. Chainmaster evokes very different imagery. (Bard subclass when?) "Binder" is a bit generic, but sounds pretty cool...
EDIT: You know what would be reaaally cool for the Chainlock features? If they could inherit a temporary invocation from the beastie they conjure up. Summon an imp? You now have fire resistance and can do poison attacks. Got yourself a wee aberration the kind of which nature never intended? Right. Now you can fly with a speed of 5 (ominously drifting) and elicit frightened conditions by turning yourself inside out.
Hexblade practically votes itself back in through grandfather clause.
But for Tomelocks? Thaumaturgist, maybe? Ritualist? Maybe just "Occultist"?
Chainlock could be... I dunno. Summoner sounds plain. Chainmaster evokes very different imagery. (Bard subclass when?) "Binder" is a bit generic, but sounds pretty cool...
EDIT: You know what would be reaaally cool for the Chainlock features? If they could inherit a temporary invocation from the beastie they conjure up. Summon an imp? You now have fire resistance and can do poison attacks. Got yourself a wee aberration the kind of which nature never intended? Right. Now you can fly with a speed of 5 (ominously drifting) and elicit frightened conditions by turning yourself inside out.
Chainlock as a subclass makes me think of the 2nd edition Sha'ir class from the Al-Qadim campaign setting. The 2e version had this weird spellcasting mechanic where the genie familiar had to go steal each spell the Sha'ir wanted to cast from somewhere else. I never actually played one, but it was a fascinatingly unusual mechanic.
Chainlock as a subclass makes me think of the 2nd edition Sha'ir class from the Al-Qadim campaign setting. The 2e version had this weird spellcasting mechanic where the genie familiar had to go steal each spell the Sha'ir wanted to cast from somewhere else. I never actually played one, but it was a fascinatingly unusual mechanic.
Wasn't there literally a Sha'ir subclass planned, but scrapped?
Hang on. I'mma get my sleuthing hat on.
...
Nope! It was me having figments again. There was a "Noble Genie" Warlock sublcass featuring Gens and spell-fetching... buuut it was a 3rd party DMguild book (Xanathar's Lost Notes to Everything Else). Booh! Al-Qadim kits were so flavourful!
Hexblade practically votes itself back in through grandfather clause.
But for Tomelocks? Thaumaturgist, maybe? Ritualist? Maybe just "Occultist"?
Chainlock could be... I dunno. Summoner sounds plain. Chainmaster evokes very different imagery. (Bard subclass when?) "Binder" is a bit generic, but sounds pretty cool...
EDIT: You know what would be reaaally cool for the Chainlock features? If they could inherit a temporary invocation from the beastie they conjure up. Summon an imp? You now have fire resistance and can do poison attacks. Got yourself a wee aberration the kind of which nature never intended? Right. Now you can fly with a speed of 5 (ominously drifting) and elicit frightened conditions by turning yourself inside out.
I want a summoner pact of the chain warlock. What do we get? Essentially the same "find familiar" every other spell caster has access to... AND NO GODDAMNED SUMMONS. OR CONJURES...
I know. That's why I push for the pacts as subclasses. There's just so much more to it than the patrons.
It's a pipe dream much like the idea of more pacts, which I'm with halcyonesse on. I wish there were more, but even if we get them, they're going to be.... Well, half assed.
Hexblade practically votes itself back in through grandfather clause.
But for Tomelocks? Thaumaturgist, maybe? Ritualist? Maybe just "Occultist"?
Chainlock could be... I dunno. Summoner sounds plain. Chainmaster evokes very different imagery. (Bard subclass when?) "Binder" is a bit generic, but sounds pretty cool...
EDIT: You know what would be reaaally cool for the Chainlock features? If they could inherit a temporary invocation from the beastie they conjure up. Summon an imp? You now have fire resistance and can do poison attacks. Got yourself a wee aberration the kind of which nature never intended? Right. Now you can fly with a speed of 5 (ominously drifting) and elicit frightened conditions by turning yourself inside out.
Chainlock as a subclass makes me think of the 2nd edition Sha'ir class from the Al-Qadim campaign setting. The 2e version had this weird spellcasting mechanic where the genie familiar had to go steal each spell the Sha'ir wanted to cast from somewhere else. I never actually played one, but it was a fascinatingly unusual mechanic.
I think you can pretty much get the feel with genie patron and taking the pact of the chain. Yeah unlike the 2e version you don't have access to every spell at the drop of the hat, but I just roleplayed asking my imp for a spell before casting the spell.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I cut it out of the UA7. The language is really confusing. It doesn't say anything about Hitting a monster, only damage rolls and the rolls is plural. My gut tells me this is a mistake. Usually these types of bonuses are based on the number of times you roll a "To HIT Roll" Eldritch Blast has 4 hit rolls one for each force beam. Fire Bolt's damage increases with the caster level but doesn't roll more than once so the damage for a 20 Charisma Warlock with Agonizing Blast for Fire Bolt would be 4d10 + 5 NOT( 1d10 + 5) x 4. The first equation has an average damage of ~27 points of damage the second equation has an average damage of ~46 points of damage. Fire Bolt is usually calculated as one bolt one hit with a damage of 4d10. The first equation. Eldritch Blast is different, it is (1d10) x4, the second equation.
The way it is written now Fire Bolt would get (1d10 +5) x4 damage, Like I said the text is hard for me to understand. The text suggests that the actual damage rolls (plural) would get the ability score modifier. That is usually not the case.
EDIT:
I think they should get rid of Force damage; Bludgeoning damage is already force damage. Why have two of the same types of damage?
I'm sorry but quite frankly I hate that complaint.
The melee classes are repetitive as well, and there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, that's he point to the warlock caster class. It gives you far less futzy magic but let's you still do awesome things with it, and never leaves you in the caster lurch of "what do I do?"
Reading these comments makes me feel like people are going to be upset and disappointed with the warlock either way. The opposites are so far from each other.
Just a thought. Might be stupid. What if they made both?
A subclass for a melee class that grants a Pact magic type of access to a couple of short rest slots, a few invocations and low level spells.
Then a full caster warlock with more versatility and complexity.
But both follow the same theme of otherwordly Patrons.
OR
A wild thought. What if Warlock decides with a subclass whether they wanna go full caster or paladin-like 1/2 caster? That effects the spell progress, how many slots they get and how far their spell levels go etc.
Would be quite experimental, but they seem to be experimenting already.
Finland GMT/UTC +2
thanks for reporting back! i wish there was an [active] thread just for playtest experience. something to upvote and sigh wistfully at as i flick rubberbands at people in my life who aren't nearly as interested.
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!
I would like a clarification if Innate Sorcery will work with Booming Blade.
Maybe a clarification it only works with direct damage spells and spells that force a save to take damage/Effect. This should help determine what type of spells this feature will affect.
This is what I THOUGHT they would do when 5e was released and the descriptions of the pacts were out.
Pact of the blade, if it progressed would give you a paladin like half caster. Pact of the time would, if you had progression, give you a unique full caster, and pact of the chain, could if it progressed, give you a beastmaster/minion heavy warlock.
And the pact PATRON would be just flavor.
But no. Patrons are the subclass, and the pacts are f****Ed
Great idea! I tried to make it. Go check it out! :)
I'll post my own memo when I'm done putting the kids to bed.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/unearthed-arcana/180583-real-life-playtest-memos-no-theorycrafting
Finland GMT/UTC +2
I kind of think eldritch blast should do nothing on its own. Instead it should be a way to modify existing attack cantrips so they act as split ray cantrips. So at levels 5 , 11, 17 you see the eldritch blast feature which basically is just when casting a attack cantrip with a range greater than X instead of doing 2(3,4) dice of damage it now creates two attacks for one die of damage. And additional effect created by the cantrip other than damage can only be applied once per turn, then maybe scale their cantrips known up so they learn 5-6 attack cantrips over their levels.
I like this idea.
Open Metamagic some to others.
They continue thinking that restricting so much the number of known spells is required. The Sorcerer begins good but later got even less spells known than the Wizard can prepare, which can change at Long Rest. Equates de same caster type for known and prepared and go on, so the Sorcerer to have the same number of "prepared" (that are really known) as the Wizard, but they are fixed.
Damn the prepared currently are not memorized like before, there is no need of that thinking of so much less spells for compensating you can use the one you want with your slots, as prepared are now just the same thing.
I think the low number of spells is more justified now that sorc got a major boost in firepower, daily stamina and metamagic. Before it was hard to see why sorc would have so few spells when they were hardly more powerful than some wiz subclasses.
Now the balance seems to have shifted more dramatically. Wizards are the Magical Toolbox with a spell for every occasion and sorcerers are clearly the nr 1 powerhouse with increased spell save dc, more metamagic options, two meta options for a single casting, improved conversion economy and the ability to regain sorc points. Note that sorc point regain transfers directly to more spell slots per LR if needed.
I personally like this direction.
Finland GMT/UTC +2
I think all the known casters need a way to swap their known list between levels. once a level has problems in that some tables might level up every session. Another table it might take 10 sessions to level up. I mean crap many can change out their entire list every day, the wizard can swap one in every minute. Let known casters swap one out a day, or at least give them a ritual spell with a cost to swap one. And I don't think the known casters have that much of a power edge over the daily prepare people. Heck in many cases I'd say they are weaker classes than the daily prepare people even if they could daily prepare as well.
I do like the different feel of it, if all casting classes prepare the same you lose uniqueness. But I think you can maintain that while easing up a bit on the known casters fixed lists.
What with Pact Boons now being invocations, will it be easier or harder to add new types of them? Like getting Pact of the Talisman back? Or completely novel ones?
I would love to see a Pact of the Mask for intrigue, infiltration, and expertise. Or a Pact of the Banner for an arcane warlord support type warlock flavour.
Probably easier, though they'd all blue underpowered without any support.
Again, pacts should be subclasses with patrons being flavor.
They do it with the genie sorcerer and the elemental monk, can't see why warlock can't do it too...
I wonder what we would call those subclasses?
Hexblade practically votes itself back in through grandfather clause.
But for Tomelocks? Thaumaturgist, maybe? Ritualist? Maybe just "Occultist"?
Chainlock could be... I dunno. Summoner sounds plain. Chainmaster evokes very different imagery. (Bard subclass when?) "Binder" is a bit generic, but sounds pretty cool...
EDIT: You know what would be reaaally cool for the Chainlock features? If they could inherit a temporary invocation from the beastie they conjure up. Summon an imp? You now have fire resistance and can do poison attacks. Got yourself a wee aberration the kind of which nature never intended? Right. Now you can fly with a speed of 5 (ominously drifting) and elicit frightened conditions by turning yourself inside out.
Chainlock as a subclass makes me think of the 2nd edition Sha'ir class from the Al-Qadim campaign setting. The 2e version had this weird spellcasting mechanic where the genie familiar had to go steal each spell the Sha'ir wanted to cast from somewhere else. I never actually played one, but it was a fascinatingly unusual mechanic.
Wasn't there literally a Sha'ir subclass planned, but scrapped?
Hang on. I'mma get my sleuthing hat on.
...
Nope! It was me having figments again. There was a "Noble Genie" Warlock sublcass featuring Gens and spell-fetching... buuut it was a 3rd party DMguild book (Xanathar's Lost Notes to Everything Else). Booh! Al-Qadim kits were so flavourful!
I want a summoner pact of the chain warlock. What do we get? Essentially the same "find familiar" every other spell caster has access to... AND NO GODDAMNED SUMMONS. OR CONJURES...
It's beyond a sore point for me at this time ..
I know. That's why I push for the pacts as subclasses. There's just so much more to it than the patrons.
It's a pipe dream much like the idea of more pacts, which I'm with halcyonesse on. I wish there were more, but even if we get them, they're going to be.... Well, half assed.
I think you can pretty much get the feel with genie patron and taking the pact of the chain. Yeah unlike the 2e version you don't have access to every spell at the drop of the hat, but I just roleplayed asking my imp for a spell before casting the spell.