And if someone wants an entirely crunch-free, narrative only Story For The Ages, the best way to get it is to read a book.
No, a book is entirely non-interactive. You can have role play with no crunch and it is still distinct from reading a book because an RP is interactive and more akin to a writers room where you and your friends are creatively inventing a story together. I mean if you just watch children playing together in the wilds in a playground that is exactly what they are doing. I played all kinds of ways with friends with basically no rules or "crunch" when I was a kid. It's not a "game" but it's still a fun social experience that is clearly distinct from passively reading a book or watching TV.
Though I do have a theory that most D&D "content" is aimed at crunch-only folks (and they are the ones in the forums) because those people are the people craving content because they don't have the opportunity to play for real.
We will have to agree to disagree, because I absolutely disagree. If I wanted to play a game where I just manipulated dice rolls to get a gold star for "git gud" I'd play a hack-and-slash videogame. There is absolutely no reason for me to want to play with any other person, or any other person to want to play with me in order to do that. And TBH, I kind of wouldn't mind if WotC releases an AI to run the monsters for their VTT because I don't want this kind of person at my table.
And if someone wants an entirely crunch-free, narrative only Story For The Ages, the best way to get it is to read a book.
People like to piss all over "crunchy' folks, constantly shame them and call them all sorts of terrible names, but tabletop RPGs are at their best when narrative and mechanics align to make an experience that is both a story - with narrative structure, character growth, conflict resolution, and the like - and a game - with rules, win states and loss states, and ways to chase the former and avoid the latter - at the same time. Nothing else can match the ability of a TTRPG to be both a freeform rolling story that reacts to what the players do no matter what that turns out to be and also a game that challenges the players to achieve victory in the face of adversity. Video games can't, novels can't. People who reject all forms of crunch in favor of a Rules-Free Narrative Experience are missing the point just as much if not more so than people who don't care about all the fluffy roleplaying and just want to roll dice and slay monsters.
I'll buy you a calculator so you can make the numbers go up....
I hate that this argument is happening.
Yurei, you're right. More people are interested in crunch right now than they are in the role play. That was the one of the big points I've been making about the general tonal shift of the community and the UA's.
The original 5e, however, was a huge correction towards role play. It's mechanics were simplified dramatically, the dmg is all about world building and story telling, and the monsters are pretty damned easy to kill so that storytelling and role playing take center stage.
That's 5e. You don't have to optimize crap because it's not designed for crunchy players and the difficulty is minimal. It's d&d for storytellers.
The PREVIOUS D&D, 3.5 (we don't talk about 4), and pathfinder is the crunchiest. Where combat mechanics and bonuses stack to the point where combat takes 6 hours and your DM can't keep up when it comes to anything worthwhile for you to face because things break to easily. Nevertheless, because of how broken things are and how God like you quickly get, it's not even final fantasy. It's smash bros/Mario cart.
The gritty, "you're gonna die" version was AD&D.
They all have their audiences.
But Yurei, you're a fan of Mario cart playing final fantasy and acting like it's dark souls.
I also wonder if it would be too sloppy to tack on spell slots as riders to other Invocations. We already have something like this with the new version of Pact of the Tome, which includes a single traditional first level spell slot in addition to the other features of the invocation. Could we possibly take some lesser invocations and juice them by adding a bonus spell slot?
Can you elaborate?
I'm all in favor of clauses that state, "you cannot take level 3 if you did not take level 2"
But adding a spell slot to an existing bad invocation just means you take it for a slot and you get the crappy thing whether you want it or not... like a U2 album.. (though some players may be too young for that reference)
I also wonder if it would be too sloppy to tack on spell slots as riders to other Invocations. We already have something like this with the new version of Pact of the Tome, which includes a single traditional first level spell slot in addition to the other features of the invocation. Could we possibly take some lesser invocations and juice them by adding a bonus spell slot?
Can you elaborate?
I'm all in favor of clauses that state, "you cannot take level 3 if you did not take level 2"
But adding a spell slot to an existing bad invocation just means you take it for a slot and you get the crappy thing whether you want it or not... like a U2 album.. (though some players may be too young for that reference)
Yeah, that's kind of what I had in mind. But look at the new version of Pact of the Tome in the UA... it adds a new feature where you get a single level 1 spell slot that functions like normal, instead of recharging on a short rest. So I wonder if it's possible to have invocations that just give bonus spell slots, and the level of the spell slot gained is determined by the invocation and isn't something that you have to build up gradually. Like... it might be possible to take a high level invocation that gives you a 3rd level spell slot in addition to something lesser... like advantage to resist poison or something. But you don't necessarily need to have taken other invocations that grant spell slots. It might even be possible to have one that doesn't do anything but give you a collection of spell slots.
I also wonder if it would be too sloppy to tack on spell slots as riders to other Invocations. We already have something like this with the new version of Pact of the Tome, which includes a single traditional first level spell slot in addition to the other features of the invocation. Could we possibly take some lesser invocations and juice them by adding a bonus spell slot?
Can you elaborate?
I'm all in favor of clauses that state, "you cannot take level 3 if you did not take level 2"
But adding a spell slot to an existing bad invocation just means you take it for a slot and you get the crappy thing whether you want it or not... like a U2 album.. (though some players may be too young for that reference)
Yeah, that's kind of what I had in mind. But look at the new version of Pact of the Tome in the UA... it adds a new feature where you get a single level 1 spell slot that functions like normal, instead of recharging on a short rest. So I wonder if it's possible to have invocations that just give bonus spell slots, and the level of the spell slot gained is determined by the invocation and isn't something that you have to build up gradually. Like... it might be possible to take a high level invocation that gives you a 3rd level spell slot in addition to something lesser... like advantage to resist poison or something. But you don't necessarily need to have taken other invocations that grant spell slots. It might even be possible to have one that doesn't do anything but give you a collection of spell slots.
I mean I suggested the pact boons level a while back, but since that kinda got little traction. Because then if that scales up, you got a melee and a spell flavor of warlock and you have the chain and the talisman as well.
Then you can have less invocations and keep them more appropriate for any warlock flavor.
Right now though this is all assuming you just do everything as an invocation.
I also wonder if it would be too sloppy to tack on spell slots as riders to other Invocations. We already have something like this with the new version of Pact of the Tome, which includes a single traditional first level spell slot in addition to the other features of the invocation. Could we possibly take some lesser invocations and juice them by adding a bonus spell slot?
Can you elaborate?
I'm all in favor of clauses that state, "you cannot take level 3 if you did not take level 2"
But adding a spell slot to an existing bad invocation just means you take it for a slot and you get the crappy thing whether you want it or not... like a U2 album.. (though some players may be too young for that reference)
Yeah, that's kind of what I had in mind. But look at the new version of Pact of the Tome in the UA... it adds a new feature where you get a single level 1 spell slot that functions like normal, instead of recharging on a short rest. So I wonder if it's possible to have invocations that just give bonus spell slots, and the level of the spell slot gained is determined by the invocation and isn't something that you have to build up gradually. Like... it might be possible to take a high level invocation that gives you a 3rd level spell slot in addition to something lesser... like advantage to resist poison or something. But you don't necessarily need to have taken other invocations that grant spell slots. It might even be possible to have one that doesn't do anything but give you a collection of spell slots.
invocations that give spell slots alongside their other use. so one way this might manifest is that Mask of Many Faces invocation goes from "cast disguise self at will without expending a slot" to "you now have access to two1st-level spell slots and know the disguise self spell." and then you might combine that with another two slots from Misty Visions and another two from Armor of Shadows, stitching together a piecemeal long-rest utility caster. but, what have you gained? you already have pact slots (it's too late in the game for that to change again), and now you can cast some warlock spells more frequently: Expeditious Retreat and Charm Person or Cause Fear? utility of a sort. why is this better than a single 'ritual casting' invocation that lets you pick a few not-normally-ritual spells? do warlocks need more things to cast in combat?
you'd like to extrapolate this up to higher spell levels, i know, but i'm focused on the start. wouldn't this sort of thing just open up other casters to multiclass 2 levels of warlock and grab four more spell slots (plus pact casting, plus a boon)? and similarly a warlock in search of spell slots would find many if they went a' multiclassin' about as well. the more i think about it, the less convinced i am that 'low level utility spell slots' are worth the trouble. i've said it before and i'll say it again: 4e gave everyone a pile of things to cast every round and 4e flopped. similar classes playing similarly loses a lot of replayability. flatten all the bumps and warts and what's left isn't memorable.
I did it this way to keep it simple for multi classing and to use a preexisting table. If you take all the invocations you would have slots equal to 1/3 caster or 7th level Wizard. I originally did it with 1 level per invocation but that consumed too many invocations to even be fun. I intentionally made it so you don’t have to take them in order or you could swap out for a better one. I’m sure there is probably better language for all of this.
Awakened Power
prerequisite: 3rd level Warlock Your patron awakens powers within you giving access to spell slots similar to a Wizard. You count as having 1 level in the Wizard class for calculating spell slots only. Spell Slots. The Wizard table shows how many Spell Slots you have to cast your spells of 1st level and higher. To cast one of these spells, you must expend a slot of the spell’s level or higher. You regain all expended Spell Slots when you finish a Long Rest.
Awakened Power Improvement prerequisite: 5th level Warlock, Awakened power Your Patron Awakens more of your power. You gain an additional level in wizard only for calculating spell slots.
Awakened Power Improvement 2 prerequisite: 9th level Warlock, Awakened power Your Patron Awakens more of your power. You gain 2 additional levels in wizard only for calculating spell slots.
Awakened Power Improvement 3 prerequisite: 18th level Warlock, Awakened power Your Patron Awakens more of your power. You gain 3 additional levels in wizard only for calculating spell slots.
Just MC into Sorcerer.
i mean, that's the crux of it. when multiclass is the best tool in the toolbox, it's going to get used a lot.
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 also wonder if it would be too sloppy to tack on spell slots as riders to other Invocations. We already have something like this with the new version of Pact of the Tome, which includes a single traditional first level spell slot in addition to the other features of the invocation. Could we possibly take some lesser invocations and juice them by adding a bonus spell slot?
Can you elaborate?
I'm all in favor of clauses that state, "you cannot take level 3 if you did not take level 2"
But adding a spell slot to an existing bad invocation just means you take it for a slot and you get the crappy thing whether you want it or not... like a U2 album.. (though some players may be too young for that reference)
Yeah, that's kind of what I had in mind. But look at the new version of Pact of the Tome in the UA... it adds a new feature where you get a single level 1 spell slot that functions like normal, instead of recharging on a short rest. So I wonder if it's possible to have invocations that just give bonus spell slots, and the level of the spell slot gained is determined by the invocation and isn't something that you have to build up gradually. Like... it might be possible to take a high level invocation that gives you a 3rd level spell slot in addition to something lesser... like advantage to resist poison or something. But you don't necessarily need to have taken other invocations that grant spell slots. It might even be possible to have one that doesn't do anything but give you a collection of spell slots.
invocations that give spell slots alongside their other use. so one way this might manifest is that Mask of Many Faces invocation goes from "cast disguise self at will without expending a slot" to "you now have access to two1st-level spell slots and know the disguise self spell." and then you might combine that with another two slots from Misty Visions and another two from Armor of Shadows, stitching together a piecemeal long-rest utility caster. but, what have you gained? you already have pact slots (it's too late in the game for that to change again), and now you can cast some warlock spells more frequently: Expeditious Retreat and Charm Person or Cause Fear? utility of a sort. why is this better than a single 'ritual casting' invocation that lets you pick a few not-normally-ritual spells? do warlocks need more things to cast in combat?
you'd like to extrapolate this up to higher spell levels, i know, but i'm focused on the start. wouldn't this sort of thing just open up other casters to multiclass 2 levels of warlock and grab four more spell slots (plus pact casting, plus a boon)? and similarly a warlock in search of spell slots would find many if they went a' multiclassin' about as well. the more i think about it, the less convinced i am that 'low level utility spell slots' are worth the trouble. i've said it before and i'll say it again: 4e gave everyone a pile of things to cast every round and 4e flopped. similar classes playing similarly loses a lot of replayability. flatten all the bumps and warts and what's left isn't memorable.
I did it this way to keep it simple for multi classing and to use a preexisting table. If you take all the invocations you would have slots equal to 1/3 caster or 7th level Wizard. I originally did it with 1 level per invocation but that consumed too many invocations to even be fun. I intentionally made it so you don’t have to take them in order or you could swap out for a better one. I’m sure there is probably better language for all of this.
Awakened Power
prerequisite: 3rd level Warlock Your patron awakens powers within you giving access to spell slots similar to a Wizard. You count as having 1 level in the Wizard class for calculating spell slots only. Spell Slots. The Wizard table shows how many Spell Slots you have to cast your spells of 1st level and higher. To cast one of these spells, you must expend a slot of the spell’s level or higher. You regain all expended Spell Slots when you finish a Long Rest.
Awakened Power Improvement prerequisite: 5th level Warlock, Awakened power Your Patron Awakens more of your power. You gain an additional level in wizard only for calculating spell slots.
Awakened Power Improvement 2 prerequisite: 9th level Warlock, Awakened power Your Patron Awakens more of your power. You gain 2 additional levels in wizard only for calculating spell slots.
Awakened Power Improvement 3 prerequisite: 18th level Warlock, Awakened power Your Patron Awakens more of your power. You gain 3 additional levels in wizard only for calculating spell slots.
Just MC into Sorcerer.
i mean, that's the crux of it. when multiclass is the best tool in the toolbox, it's going to get used a lot.
Ritual cast is fine but it takes up one of your learned spells and you have to cast it.. repeatedly.
That's why some spells, like detect magic, which is awesome to always have on, (or disguise self), are just better for invocations than others (identify, for example).
A combat invocation is a bit weird but there's the one that gives you the armor spell, so... basically if an attack spell were an invocation. It would be a round about way of making it a cantrip, and you'd use an invocation instead of a learned cantrip space in your spell book.
I don't mind bumps. There should be some imbalances. Just not some so great it breaks the game or.leads to a false sense of choice.
Beyond that, I want people to have flexibility and fun with the simplest set of rules I can get away with (so I don't have to track 90 million little rules details), while having enough restrictions on what they can do that there's at least a bit of challenge or randomness to it.
Which is the answer to the whole "well don't design a game with combat mechanics" and "go read a book".
I love stories and my game shop tried selling me on an RPG without any dice and with the assumption of "always hits".
I don't want that any more than I want super crunch. It removes the randomness and the back and forth between success and failure that makes stories great. It doesn't inspire problem solving or the fear of death it's just bland...
Bland is definitely the vibe I got reading the rule books for 4.
I don't think that's a threat here, but we still need to keep an eye on the power creep.
Seems like a better option would be invocations that thematically “level up”. Take your at-wills, Mask of Many Faces for example. At-will cast Disguise Self, but at a certain point you get access to a once per day usage of Seeming. Master of Myriad Forms? Nets a once per day use of Polymorph. Invocations that scale would absolutely be a game changer and require more meaningful choices.
I did it this way to keep it simple for multi classing and to use a preexisting table. If you take all the invocations you would have slots equal to 1/3 caster or 7th level Wizard. I originally did it with 1 level per invocation but that consumed too many invocations to even be fun. I intentionally made it so you don’t have to take them in order or you could swap out for a better one. I’m sure there is probably better language for all of this.
Awakened Power prerequisite: 3rd level Warlock Your patron awakens powers within you giving access to spell slots similar to a Wizard. You count as having 1 level in the Wizard class for calculating spell slots only. Spell Slots. The Wizard table shows how many Spell Slots you have to cast your spells of 1st level and higher. To cast one of these spells, you must expend a slot of the spell’s level or higher. You regain all expended Spell Slots when you finish a Long Rest.
Awakened Power Improvement prerequisite: 5th level Warlock, Awakened power Your Patron Awakens more of your power. You gain an additional level in wizard only for calculating spell slots.
Awakened Power Improvement 2 prerequisite: 9th level Warlock, Awakened power Your Patron Awakens more of your power. You gain 2 additional levels in wizard only for calculating spell slots.
Awakened Power Improvement 3 prerequisite: 18th level Warlock, Awakened power Your Patron Awakens more of your power. You gain 3 additional levels in wizard only for calculating spell slots.
If I am understanding this correctly, the first Awakened Power Improvement seems quite underwhelming, and would only be an invocation tax to get to Awakened Power Improvement 2. As written, Awakened Power would give the Warlock two first level spell slots (a decent deal), while Awakened Power Improvement would only provide one additional first level slot, making it far less powerful than the original Invocation. Awakened Power Improvement 2 would then give them a total of four first level slots and three second level slots (also decent) and Awakened Power 3 would provide them three third level slots and one fourth level slot (quite nice).
So, did you make a mistake in how you worded Awakened Power Improvement, or did you not realize how underwhelming it would be?
They give spell caster levels so the first improvement is literally as strong as the Awakened Power. If you want you could skip it and just take API2 at 9th, but that would only give you slots as a 3rd level caster. Honestly the the thing that makes it seem weak is the power of the later two since they give you 2 and 3 caster levels all at once. The reason I did them this way was to give people the option of how they wanted to invest in gaining spell slots and to allow additional slots at lower levels without becoming a heavy invocation tax. Originally I designed it as seven invocations each giving you 1 level toward spell slot progression. That was horrible design. The alternative is to make each improvement the same but that moves the levels you get them, meaning you only get one improvement during the games know sweet spot of 1-10.
Awaken Power 3rd level 1 Spellcasting level for slots
Awaken Power 2 7th level. 2 Spellcasting levels for slots
Awaken Power 3 12th level. 2 Spellcasting levels for slots
Awaken Power 4 18th level 2 Spellcasting levels for slots
I think the chance of multi-classing just to stock up on low-level spell slots would have to be a consideration. I think any feature that grants these spell slots should at least have a level limitation of 3. Overall, though, I think I still prefer to just have invocations that grant spell slots and nothing else. If I were to create it, I think I would do it this way...
Spell Versatility - Prerequisite: 3rd level
You gain two level 1 spell slots and one level 2 spell slot. These spell slots recover after completing a Long Rest.
Then, at 7th level you can take one that gives you one level 3 and one level 2 slot, then at 9th level you get one 4th level, one 3rd level, and one second level.
At that point you would still have less slots than a dedicated caster, but enough slots for utility casting. At that point your Pact slots are 5th level, and you can access higher level spells through Mystic Arcanums. And each higher level invocation doesn't necessarily require that you take the lower level invocation... just that your Warlock level is high enough. So anyone who just wants a little extra versatility with their low level spells might just go for the first invocation... someone might even drop the low level invocations and just prioritize whichever one gives them higher spell slots. But I think the main thing I prefer is ideas that lean into the customizability of Warlocks.
Seems like a better option would be invocations that thematically “level up”. Take your at-wills, Mask of Many Faces for example. At-will cast Disguise Self, but at a certain point you get access to a once per day usage of Seeming. Master of Myriad Forms? Nets a once per day use of Polymorph. Invocations that scale would absolutely be a game changer and require more meaningful choices.
I like this as well, but I'd add the warlock level clause to prevent the multiclass. Then pacts can also be invocations with little fanfare, though, I have a feeling if you did pact boons as invocations that level up as well, you'd end up being a fool to not take all three (or 4).
I think any extra "low level slots" a warlock gets should NEVER go above second level. 3rd level and above spells aren't really "low level". And the idea that any full caster is using an ACTION to cast a first or second level spell. If they are doing it one of a few things has happened. 1. The fight is easy and they don't want to waste a more powerful spell (In this case the warlock is just going to EB) 2. The spell is uniquely appropriate to the fight and makes it easy (Warlock should just cast it as well then) 3. The day has gone on really long and they have already used all of their high level slots (In this case, the likelihood of a second short rest occurring skyrockets, so while the full caster is using 2nd level spells the lock is likely still using 4th).
As far as magical cunning goes. if the thought is it doesn't do much because you can just take a short rest and get your slots back than your game is probably not struggling with short rests to begin with and you are regularly getting 2 short rests or more in which Warlocks were already balanced and fine without any additional buffs with 2 short rests in 2014. If the issue is that their is only 1 or 2 big fights a day and then a long rest, than again the table should really use the Gritty Realism rest rules as that is what they are designed for. The table isn't just nerfing warlocks in this case, they are buffing every full caster and nerfing every martial to a substantial degree.
Create an invocation that allows a Warlock to convert one of their high-level pact magic slots into a few lower-level spell slots.
Create an invocation that allows a Warlock to ask their patron to grant them a casting of a low-level spell at-will, similar Eldrich Sight. Instead of depending upon a specific invocation of one spell, allow the warlock to decide which spell, perhaps resets when you gain a level? The low-level spell at-will might be linked to the patron spells too.
Perhaps your warlock does not want to be disgused or altered but would value detecting and protecting, etc.
This whole argument seems off to me. If you want a combination of high and low level slots play a full caster. That is what they are designed for. Warlock has unique mechanics in that they don't get low level spell slots in exchange for always being able to cast 1-2 high level slots per combat. If that isn't the kind of mechanic you like then don't play Warlock? It's like playing a Rogue and complaining that they don't get Extra Attack. That's a fundamental part of their class design and class balance.
This whole argument seems off to me. If you want a combination of high and low level slots play a full caster. That is what they are designed for. Warlock has unique mechanics in that they don't get low level spell slots in exchange for always being able to cast 1-2 high level slots per combat. If that isn't the kind of mechanic you like then don't play Warlock? It's like playing a Rogue and complaining that they don't get Extra Attack. That's a fundamental part of their class design and class balance.
Hey now, as a rogue player we don't need an "extra attack". We need AC.
I mean our class salivates at the thought of getting that sweet sweet +1 to Ac when we upgrade from leather...
This whole argument seems off to me. If you want a combination of high and low level slots play a full caster. That is what they are designed for. Warlock has unique mechanics in that they don't get low level spell slots in exchange for always being able to cast 1-2 high level slots per combat. If that isn't the kind of mechanic you like then don't play Warlock? It's like playing a Rogue and complaining that they don't get Extra Attack. That's a fundamental part of their class design and class balance.
Tossing around a few high level “f*** that guy” spells before needing a break is jarring and for some really antithetical to the supposed Faustian bargain aspect. It’s not an absolute dealbreaker, but when it comes to the modularity of the class as a whole, the occultist vibe feels a bit lost in translation. JC even admitted that Warlock is the “odd-duck” of all the classes. There needs to be some measure of balance to the idea of scamming forbidden secrets from the multiverse that doesn’t just come with dropping a nuke and taking a nap.
That being said…the Lessons invocation opens up a new avenue of magical dicking around. As some have pointed out, you could use it to nab Magic Initiate, Fey Touched, Shadow Touched, Gift of the X Dragon, etc. this SCREAMS occultist and was possibly one of the better ideas they went with. Don’t get me wrong, I liked the revised warlock, it felt a little closer to what I imagined. But then I saw the recent version, had a bit of time to think on it, and now I have a lvl 10 Fiendlock sitting in my back pocket with damn near the magical versatility of a full caster just by selecting feats and a few invocations. Here’s the list
Invocations:
L1: Pact of the Tome - C: Sorcerous Burst, Mage Hand, Produce Flame; R: Detect Magic, Identify +1 1st lvl slot
L2: Pact of the Chain- Find Familiar (Imp), Devil Sight
L5: Agonizing Blast(Eldritch Blast?), Investment of the Chain Master
L7: Lessons of the First ones: Fey Touched - Misty Step, Bane
L9: Otherworldly Leap
Feats:
L4: Rune Shaper - Comprehend Languages, Entangle, Fog Cloud
L8: Shadow Touched - Invisibility, Disguise Self
Is it a bit cheesy? Yes, yes it is. Does it work? Yes it does.
That one invocation changed the game. The invocation at level one changed the game. We’re quite possibly closer to the idealized warlock than we think, but there still needs to be some tweaks.
Pact of the Chain needs a definitive power boost. Playing clever is all well and good, but there needs to be better balance and greater variety for the familiar options. Imp is still king, and that should be addressed in a meaningful way. They touched on various types of familiars with the Pact Familiar spell from the previous version, and having a couple options for each type was a splendid idea. Two fiends, two undead, two fey, etc. But basing them on monster manual creatures was a bit of a gaffe. Things like Invisibility and/or shapechanging should be standard on all the warlock familiars. Attacks should be balanced on each of them, with the damage type being dependent on the creature type. Rider effects like Poison or something else would be best relegated to Investment. And there should be no penalty for summoning a “basic” familiar. Just add invisibility and a bonus to attack and damage rolls. But I’m just spitballing.
I'll buy you a calculator so you can make the numbers go up....
How kind of you.
I hate that this argument is happening.
So does everyone else.
Yurei, you're right. More people are interested in crunch right now than they are in the role play. That was the one of the big points I've been making about the general tonal shift of the community and the UA's.
What tonal shift? People have been talking about the mechanics of D&D since D&D existed. You're the one with this weird idea that people had rejected any sort of mechanical systems in 5e prior to the One D&D "test" cycle.
The original 5e, however, was a huge correction towards role play. It's mechanics were simplified dramatically, the dmg is all about world building and story telling, and the monsters are pretty damned easy to kill so that storytelling and role playing take center stage.
The 2014 5e Dungeon Master's Guide is widely held to be the worst DMG in the history of the game. There has been pushback against the oversimplification of many of D&D's mechanics since the 2014 books were released - see the practically weekly, if not daily, threads about Better Melee that resulted in the Weapon Mastery system in some of the UA docs. The monsters are easy to kill for people who know how to play D&D. CR was tuned for players who didn't know what optimal decisions are and who never do anything but use their class's basic at-will resource - either The Attack Action or their basic damaging cantrip - every turn. J-Craw has stated such openly; CR errs on the side of heavily favoring the PCs because D&D was trying to idiot-proof combat, not because "storytelling and roleplaying can take center stage." If your combats aren't part of your storytelling and roleplaying, I question why you're using this system at all.
That's 5e. You don't have to optimize crap because it's not designed for crunchy players and the difficulty is minimal. It's d&d for storytellers.
You keep dismissing crunchy players as obviously hating 'story'. Why? It's a well known fact amongst much of the playerbase that the players most invested in learning the mechanics, figuring out their characters, and engaging with the mechanical systems of the game are also the players most likely to invest heavily into their roleplaying. because they're invested in D&D. People who can't be assed to figure out even basic mechanics, who just want to yabber with their buddies and occasionally chuck a d6 for shits and giggs, are much less likely to be Invested In Roleplay because they aren't invested in the game in the first place.
The PREVIOUS D&D, 3.5 (we don't talk about 4), and pathfinder is the crunchiest. Where combat mechanics and bonuses stack to the point where combat takes 6 hours and your DM can't keep up when it comes to anything worthwhile for you to face because things break to easily. Nevertheless, because of how broken things are and how God like you quickly get, it's not even final fantasy. It's smash bros/Mario cart.
No, Fourth Edition was the previous edition of D&D. The fact that you don't like it doesn't mean you get to unexist it. 4e, from what I've gathered since taking up the hobby 'bout five years ago, did a lot of things right and was an excellent game. It just wasn't enough of a D&D game for D&D players to accept it as D&D.
Your stance on combat proves you're not very good at it and don't understand it. Combat should be fast, frenetic, and ideally slightly panicked. If your combat takes six hours to play, you designed it poorly. Stacking fifty different largely-inconsequential modifiers isn't what any "combat junkie" is after; a true combat plyaer is one that wants to make interesting decisions in combat. Has nothing to do with Power Level or counting bonuses. We want awesome fights that we talk about later, where clever play and epic luck can sway the tides of ferocious battle.
The gritty, "you're gonna die" version was AD&D.
They all have their audiences.
They do. Interesting how you're willing to admit the game has a diverse audience here, but insist everywhere else that the game is narrowly focused solely on Amateur Thespians trying to present a play with/for their friends and crunchy folks can get bent.
But Yurei, you're a fan of Mario cart playing final fantasy and acting like it's dark souls.
Chill.....
You don't know me. You don't know my games. You don't know how I play, yet you disparage me - not my words, me - constantly. Which, whatever. I'm used to people disparaging me. But kindly follow your own advice, if you would? If you're going to constantly accuse me of being an absolutely awful player and an even worse person because I disagree with your views on game design, maybe just kindly don't.
There needs to be some measure of balance to the idea of scamming forbidden secrets from the multiverse that doesn’t just come with dropping a nuke and taking a nap.
Huh? It makes perfect sense to me: You uncover secret magics you barely understand, granted to you by a mysterious patron. You unleash the raw eldritch horror, feeling the strange alien magic rip through you, using your body as a channel, a connection between something far larger and greater than you. Are you truly in control? Can you tell? As the spell completes you feel the magic fade, leaving a hole in your soul where it has burned through you. You gasp, regaining control of yourself after the burst of power, wondering whether one day you will be powerful to wield that magic yourself, as exhaustion seeps into your bones numbing you to the lingering tingle that ties you to this strange entity.
There needs to be some measure of balance to the idea of scamming forbidden secrets from the multiverse that doesn’t just come with dropping a nuke and taking a nap.
Huh? It makes perfect sense to me: You uncover secret magics you barely understand, granted to you by a mysterious patron. You unleash the raw eldritch horror, feeling the strange alien magic rip through you, using your body as a channel, a connection between something far larger and greater than you. Are you truly in control? Can you tell? As the spell completes you feel the magic fade, leaving a hole in your soul where it has burned through you. You gasp, regaining control of yourself after the burst of power, wondering whether one day you will be powerful to wield that magic yourself, as exhaustion seeps into your bones numbing you to the lingering tingle that ties you to this strange entity.
Agile... that's how you get possessed you know. And brain worms from another dimension.
No, a book is entirely non-interactive. You can have role play with no crunch and it is still distinct from reading a book because an RP is interactive and more akin to a writers room where you and your friends are creatively inventing a story together. I mean if you just watch children playing together in the wilds in a playground that is exactly what they are doing. I played all kinds of ways with friends with basically no rules or "crunch" when I was a kid. It's not a "game" but it's still a fun social experience that is clearly distinct from passively reading a book or watching TV.
Though I do have a theory that most D&D "content" is aimed at crunch-only folks (and they are the ones in the forums) because those people are the people craving content because they don't have the opportunity to play for real.
I'll buy you a calculator so you can make the numbers go up....
I hate that this argument is happening.
Yurei, you're right. More people are interested in crunch right now than they are in the role play. That was the one of the big points I've been making about the general tonal shift of the community and the UA's.
The original 5e, however, was a huge correction towards role play. It's mechanics were simplified dramatically, the dmg is all about world building and story telling, and the monsters are pretty damned easy to kill so that storytelling and role playing take center stage.
That's 5e. You don't have to optimize crap because it's not designed for crunchy players and the difficulty is minimal. It's d&d for storytellers.
The PREVIOUS D&D, 3.5 (we don't talk about 4), and pathfinder is the crunchiest. Where combat mechanics and bonuses stack to the point where combat takes 6 hours and your DM can't keep up when it comes to anything worthwhile for you to face because things break to easily. Nevertheless, because of how broken things are and how God like you quickly get, it's not even final fantasy. It's smash bros/Mario cart.
The gritty, "you're gonna die" version was AD&D.
They all have their audiences.
But Yurei, you're a fan of Mario cart playing final fantasy and acting like it's dark souls.
Chill.....
Can you elaborate?
I'm all in favor of clauses that state, "you cannot take level 3 if you did not take level 2"
But adding a spell slot to an existing bad invocation just means you take it for a slot and you get the crappy thing whether you want it or not... like a U2 album.. (though some players may be too young for that reference)
Yeah, that's kind of what I had in mind. But look at the new version of Pact of the Tome in the UA... it adds a new feature where you get a single level 1 spell slot that functions like normal, instead of recharging on a short rest. So I wonder if it's possible to have invocations that just give bonus spell slots, and the level of the spell slot gained is determined by the invocation and isn't something that you have to build up gradually. Like... it might be possible to take a high level invocation that gives you a 3rd level spell slot in addition to something lesser... like advantage to resist poison or something. But you don't necessarily need to have taken other invocations that grant spell slots. It might even be possible to have one that doesn't do anything but give you a collection of spell slots.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
I mean I suggested the pact boons level a while back, but since that kinda got little traction. Because then if that scales up, you got a melee and a spell flavor of warlock and you have the chain and the talisman as well.
Then you can have less invocations and keep them more appropriate for any warlock flavor.
Right now though this is all assuming you just do everything as an invocation.
invocations that give spell slots alongside their other use. so one way this might manifest is that Mask of Many Faces invocation goes from "cast disguise self at will without expending a slot" to "you now have access to two1st-level spell slots and know the disguise self spell." and then you might combine that with another two slots from Misty Visions and another two from Armor of Shadows, stitching together a piecemeal long-rest utility caster. but, what have you gained? you already have pact slots (it's too late in the game for that to change again), and now you can cast some warlock spells more frequently: Expeditious Retreat and Charm Person or Cause Fear? utility of a sort. why is this better than a single 'ritual casting' invocation that lets you pick a few not-normally-ritual spells? do warlocks need more things to cast in combat?
you'd like to extrapolate this up to higher spell levels, i know, but i'm focused on the start. wouldn't this sort of thing just open up other casters to multiclass 2 levels of warlock and grab four more spell slots (plus pact casting, plus a boon)? and similarly a warlock in search of spell slots would find many if they went a' multiclassin' about as well. the more i think about it, the less convinced i am that 'low level utility spell slots' are worth the trouble. i've said it before and i'll say it again: 4e gave everyone a pile of things to cast every round and 4e flopped. similar classes playing similarly loses a lot of replayability. flatten all the bumps and warts and what's left isn't memorable.
i mean, that's the crux of it. when multiclass is the best tool in the toolbox, it's going to get used a lot.
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!
Ritual cast is fine but it takes up one of your learned spells and you have to cast it.. repeatedly.
That's why some spells, like detect magic, which is awesome to always have on, (or disguise self), are just better for invocations than others (identify, for example).
A combat invocation is a bit weird but there's the one that gives you the armor spell, so... basically if an attack spell were an invocation. It would be a round about way of making it a cantrip, and you'd use an invocation instead of a learned cantrip space in your spell book.
I don't mind bumps. There should be some imbalances. Just not some so great it breaks the game or.leads to a false sense of choice.
Beyond that, I want people to have flexibility and fun with the simplest set of rules I can get away with (so I don't have to track 90 million little rules details), while having enough restrictions on what they can do that there's at least a bit of challenge or randomness to it.
Which is the answer to the whole "well don't design a game with combat mechanics" and "go read a book".
I love stories and my game shop tried selling me on an RPG without any dice and with the assumption of "always hits".
I don't want that any more than I want super crunch. It removes the randomness and the back and forth between success and failure that makes stories great. It doesn't inspire problem solving or the fear of death it's just bland...
Bland is definitely the vibe I got reading the rule books for 4.
I don't think that's a threat here, but we still need to keep an eye on the power creep.
Seems like a better option would be invocations that thematically “level up”. Take your at-wills, Mask of Many Faces for example. At-will cast Disguise Self, but at a certain point you get access to a once per day usage of Seeming. Master of Myriad Forms? Nets a once per day use of Polymorph. Invocations that scale would absolutely be a game changer and require more meaningful choices.
They give spell caster levels so the first improvement is literally as strong as the Awakened Power. If you want you could skip it and just take API2 at 9th, but that would only give you slots as a 3rd level caster. Honestly the the thing that makes it seem weak is the power of the later two since they give you 2 and 3 caster levels all at once. The reason I did them this way was to give people the option of how they wanted to invest in gaining spell slots and to allow additional slots at lower levels without becoming a heavy invocation tax. Originally I designed it as seven invocations each giving you 1 level toward spell slot progression. That was horrible design. The alternative is to make each improvement the same but that moves the levels you get them, meaning you only get one improvement during the games know sweet spot of 1-10.
Awaken Power 3rd level
1 Spellcasting level for slots
Awaken Power 2 7th level.
2 Spellcasting levels for slots
Awaken Power 3 12th level.
2 Spellcasting levels for slots
Awaken Power 4 18th level
2 Spellcasting levels for slots
I think the chance of multi-classing just to stock up on low-level spell slots would have to be a consideration. I think any feature that grants these spell slots should at least have a level limitation of 3. Overall, though, I think I still prefer to just have invocations that grant spell slots and nothing else. If I were to create it, I think I would do it this way...
Spell Versatility - Prerequisite: 3rd level
You gain two level 1 spell slots and one level 2 spell slot. These spell slots recover after completing a Long Rest.
Then, at 7th level you can take one that gives you one level 3 and one level 2 slot, then at 9th level you get one 4th level, one 3rd level, and one second level.
At that point you would still have less slots than a dedicated caster, but enough slots for utility casting. At that point your Pact slots are 5th level, and you can access higher level spells through Mystic Arcanums. And each higher level invocation doesn't necessarily require that you take the lower level invocation... just that your Warlock level is high enough. So anyone who just wants a little extra versatility with their low level spells might just go for the first invocation... someone might even drop the low level invocations and just prioritize whichever one gives them higher spell slots. But I think the main thing I prefer is ideas that lean into the customizability of Warlocks.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
I like this as well, but I'd add the warlock level clause to prevent the multiclass. Then pacts can also be invocations with little fanfare, though, I have a feeling if you did pact boons as invocations that level up as well, you'd end up being a fool to not take all three (or 4).
I think any extra "low level slots" a warlock gets should NEVER go above second level. 3rd level and above spells aren't really "low level". And the idea that any full caster is using an ACTION to cast a first or second level spell. If they are doing it one of a few things has happened. 1. The fight is easy and they don't want to waste a more powerful spell (In this case the warlock is just going to EB) 2. The spell is uniquely appropriate to the fight and makes it easy (Warlock should just cast it as well then) 3. The day has gone on really long and they have already used all of their high level slots (In this case, the likelihood of a second short rest occurring skyrockets, so while the full caster is using 2nd level spells the lock is likely still using 4th).
As far as magical cunning goes. if the thought is it doesn't do much because you can just take a short rest and get your slots back than your game is probably not struggling with short rests to begin with and you are regularly getting 2 short rests or more in which Warlocks were already balanced and fine without any additional buffs with 2 short rests in 2014. If the issue is that their is only 1 or 2 big fights a day and then a long rest, than again the table should really use the Gritty Realism rest rules as that is what they are designed for. The table isn't just nerfing warlocks in this case, they are buffing every full caster and nerfing every martial to a substantial degree.
Create an invocation that allows a Warlock to convert one of their high-level pact magic slots into a few lower-level spell slots.
Create an invocation that allows a Warlock to ask their patron to grant them a casting of a low-level spell at-will, similar Eldrich Sight. Instead of depending upon a specific invocation of one spell, allow the warlock to decide which spell, perhaps resets when you gain a level? The low-level spell at-will might be linked to the patron spells too.
Perhaps your warlock does not want to be disgused or altered but would value detecting and protecting, etc.
This whole argument seems off to me. If you want a combination of high and low level slots play a full caster. That is what they are designed for. Warlock has unique mechanics in that they don't get low level spell slots in exchange for always being able to cast 1-2 high level slots per combat. If that isn't the kind of mechanic you like then don't play Warlock? It's like playing a Rogue and complaining that they don't get Extra Attack. That's a fundamental part of their class design and class balance.
Hey now, as a rogue player we don't need an "extra attack". We need AC.
I mean our class salivates at the thought of getting that sweet sweet +1 to Ac when we upgrade from leather...
Tossing around a few high level “f*** that guy” spells before needing a break is jarring and for some really antithetical to the supposed Faustian bargain aspect. It’s not an absolute dealbreaker, but when it comes to the modularity of the class as a whole, the occultist vibe feels a bit lost in translation. JC even admitted that Warlock is the “odd-duck” of all the classes. There needs to be some measure of balance to the idea of scamming forbidden secrets from the multiverse that doesn’t just come with dropping a nuke and taking a nap.
That being said…the Lessons invocation opens up a new avenue of magical dicking around. As some have pointed out, you could use it to nab Magic Initiate, Fey Touched, Shadow Touched, Gift of the X Dragon, etc. this SCREAMS occultist and was possibly one of the better ideas they went with. Don’t get me wrong, I liked the revised warlock, it felt a little closer to what I imagined. But then I saw the recent version, had a bit of time to think on it, and now I have a lvl 10 Fiendlock sitting in my back pocket with damn near the magical versatility of a full caster just by selecting feats and a few invocations. Here’s the list
Invocations:
L1: Pact of the Tome - C: Sorcerous Burst, Mage Hand, Produce Flame; R: Detect Magic, Identify +1 1st lvl slot
L2: Pact of the Chain- Find Familiar (Imp), Devil Sight
L5: Agonizing Blast(Eldritch Blast?), Investment of the Chain Master
L7: Lessons of the First ones: Fey Touched - Misty Step, Bane
L9: Otherworldly Leap
Feats:
L4: Rune Shaper - Comprehend Languages, Entangle, Fog Cloud
L8: Shadow Touched - Invisibility, Disguise Self
Is it a bit cheesy? Yes, yes it is. Does it work? Yes it does.
That one invocation changed the game. The invocation at level one changed the game. We’re quite possibly closer to the idealized warlock than we think, but there still needs to be some tweaks.
Pact of the Chain needs a definitive power boost. Playing clever is all well and good, but there needs to be better balance and greater variety for the familiar options. Imp is still king, and that should be addressed in a meaningful way. They touched on various types of familiars with the Pact Familiar spell from the previous version, and having a couple options for each type was a splendid idea. Two fiends, two undead, two fey, etc. But basing them on monster manual creatures was a bit of a gaffe. Things like Invisibility and/or shapechanging should be standard on all the warlock familiars. Attacks should be balanced on each of them, with the damage type being dependent on the creature type. Rider effects like Poison or something else would be best relegated to Investment. And there should be no penalty for summoning a “basic” familiar. Just add invisibility and a bonus to attack and damage rolls. But I’m just spitballing.
I know this isn't the point of the thread, but I can't leave this stuff unaddressed when it comes up. My brain just won't let me. So, one more try.
How kind of you.
So does everyone else.
What tonal shift? People have been talking about the mechanics of D&D since D&D existed. You're the one with this weird idea that people had rejected any sort of mechanical systems in 5e prior to the One D&D "test" cycle.
The 2014 5e Dungeon Master's Guide is widely held to be the worst DMG in the history of the game. There has been pushback against the oversimplification of many of D&D's mechanics since the 2014 books were released - see the practically weekly, if not daily, threads about Better Melee that resulted in the Weapon Mastery system in some of the UA docs. The monsters are easy to kill for people who know how to play D&D. CR was tuned for players who didn't know what optimal decisions are and who never do anything but use their class's basic at-will resource - either The Attack Action or their basic damaging cantrip - every turn. J-Craw has stated such openly; CR errs on the side of heavily favoring the PCs because D&D was trying to idiot-proof combat, not because "storytelling and roleplaying can take center stage." If your combats aren't part of your storytelling and roleplaying, I question why you're using this system at all.
You keep dismissing crunchy players as obviously hating 'story'. Why? It's a well known fact amongst much of the playerbase that the players most invested in learning the mechanics, figuring out their characters, and engaging with the mechanical systems of the game are also the players most likely to invest heavily into their roleplaying. because they're invested in D&D. People who can't be assed to figure out even basic mechanics, who just want to yabber with their buddies and occasionally chuck a d6 for shits and giggs, are much less likely to be Invested In Roleplay because they aren't invested in the game in the first place.
No, Fourth Edition was the previous edition of D&D. The fact that you don't like it doesn't mean you get to unexist it. 4e, from what I've gathered since taking up the hobby 'bout five years ago, did a lot of things right and was an excellent game. It just wasn't enough of a D&D game for D&D players to accept it as D&D.
Your stance on combat proves you're not very good at it and don't understand it. Combat should be fast, frenetic, and ideally slightly panicked. If your combat takes six hours to play, you designed it poorly. Stacking fifty different largely-inconsequential modifiers isn't what any "combat junkie" is after; a true combat plyaer is one that wants to make interesting decisions in combat. Has nothing to do with Power Level or counting bonuses. We want awesome fights that we talk about later, where clever play and epic luck can sway the tides of ferocious battle.
They do. Interesting how you're willing to admit the game has a diverse audience here, but insist everywhere else that the game is narrowly focused solely on Amateur Thespians trying to present a play with/for their friends and crunchy folks can get bent.
You don't know me. You don't know my games. You don't know how I play, yet you disparage me - not my words, me - constantly. Which, whatever. I'm used to people disparaging me. But kindly follow your own advice, if you would? If you're going to constantly accuse me of being an absolutely awful player and an even worse person because I disagree with your views on game design, maybe just kindly don't.
Please do not contact or message me.
Huh? It makes perfect sense to me: You uncover secret magics you barely understand, granted to you by a mysterious patron. You unleash the raw eldritch horror, feeling the strange alien magic rip through you, using your body as a channel, a connection between something far larger and greater than you. Are you truly in control? Can you tell? As the spell completes you feel the magic fade, leaving a hole in your soul where it has burned through you. You gasp, regaining control of yourself after the burst of power, wondering whether one day you will be powerful to wield that magic yourself, as exhaustion seeps into your bones numbing you to the lingering tingle that ties you to this strange entity.
Agile... that's how you get possessed you know. And brain worms from another dimension.
Practice safe spellcasting....
Not sure where you are hearing that, every review / discussion I've heard about it is that it was mind-numblingly boring.