If the current warlock ends up being definitive, I wonder how many variants we are going to see in the game. Because my suspicion is that we're only going to see the bladelock. And mostly in dip to hit with char. Like now actually. Hexblade only, or dip to hexblade. Curious that being the class with the most customization, it is the one with the fewest variants seen in the real game.
Hexblade is the definition of front-loaded. You have charisma for attack and damage rolls, Medium Armor and Shield proficiencies, and Hexblade’s Curse. That’s on top of Eldritch Blast and a Pact Slot.
This new lock is just as front loaded, for 2 levels you get : 2 cantrips, 3 spells prepared, and 3 invocations (which can be Pact of the Blade, Pact of the Tome, and Agonizing Blast)
Maybe a few more spells prepared would also help since some invocations were removed because they are now on the warlock spell list and can be cast as rituals. If you want them they take away from other spells prepared that you might actually want to use your pact slots on.
Maybe a few more spells prepared would also help since some invocations were removed because they are now on the warlock spell list and can be cast as rituals. If you want them they take away from other spells prepared that you might actually want to use your pact slots on.
No, it really isn't necessary. I built a 5th level warlock based on the current UA in the other thread and this is the list of spells it has prepared / available without taking Pact of the Tome nor Magic Initiate:
Spells: Dancing Lights, Eldritch Blast, Mage Hand, Faerie Fire (free 1/LR), Calm Emotions, Sleep, False Life (at will), Hex, Armour of Agathys, Darkness (free 1/LR), Misty Step (free 4/LR), Invisibility (on self at will), Hold Person, Suggestion, Phantasmal Force, Blink, Plant Growth, Hypnotic Pattern, Summon Fey
Seriously now, could someone explain why this isn't enough?
Can you Import the throwing fighting style please.
Why were the fighting maneuvers that you excluded, excluded?
Are the spells cast from Warlock invocations at minimum level or at the level of the available spell slot, but just not used. (DO they still need V/S/M components?)
Flex was a good option for a versatile weapon's weapon Mastery. BUT it should not REMOVE versatility but build on it. Add an extra weapon damage die on a critical when used 2-handed. OR. Add 1-2 to AC when used 2-handed.
This new lock is just as front loaded, for 2 levels you get : 2 cantrips, 3 spells prepared, and 3 invocations (which can be Pact of the Blade, Pact of the Tome, and Agonizing Blast)
Not sure I'd expect that to last; I dunno what everyone else has put in their feedback but I've asked for pacts to go back to being one choice at a later level (3rd or 4th), though I'm not opposed to a later level invocation enabling a second choice, maybe late tier 2 or early tier 3? But it needs to be balanced against the strength of other invocations that aren't available until the same level, as currently blade and tome are easily the strongest invocations, and chain is pretty good for the utility.
The Warlock playtest content so far has been super slapdash; the half caster idea wasn't terrible, but they clearly didn't think it through enough and it showed. But then they immediately reverse it (rather than trying to refine it first) and in doing so they threw a bunch of other stuff scattershot onto the 2014 Warlock base. I can't imagine anybody was asking for pact of the blade to get a 3rd attack at 11th-level so where did that come from? Maybe roll improved pact weapon into it as standard, but it doesn't need more than that. Chain is the one that needed improving yet in both playtests they boosted the other two the most?
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
This new lock is just as front loaded, for 2 levels you get : 2 cantrips, 3 spells prepared, and 3 invocations (which can be Pact of the Blade, Pact of the Tome, and Agonizing Blast)
Not sure I'd expect that to last; I dunno what everyone else has put in their feedback but I've asked for pacts to go back to being one choice at a later level (3rd or 4th), though I'm not opposed to a later level invocation enabling a second choice, maybe late tier 2 or early tier 3? But it needs to be balanced against the strength of other invocations that aren't available until the same level, as currently blade and tome are easily the strongest invocations, and chain is pretty good for the utility.
The Warlock playtest content so far has been super slapdash; the half caster idea wasn't terrible, but they clearly didn't think it through enough and it showed. But then they immediately reverse it (rather than trying to refine it first) and in doing so they threw a bunch of other stuff scattershot onto the 2014 Warlock base. I can't imagine anybody was asking for pact of the blade to get a 3rd attack at 11th-level so where did that come from? Maybe roll improved pact weapon into it as standard, but it doesn't need more than that. Chain is the one that needed improving yet in both playtests they boosted the other two the most?
Warlock intra-class-balance is ****ed that's why. Being melee as squishy and investing heavily into it should give you more damage than the 1 invocation ranged EB blasting warlock... and EB keeps scaling beyond level 11. When EB deals more damage at all levels... Pact of the Blade becomes a trap option. You could just as well spec into spellsniper and just cast EB in melee range for more damage. lol
The half-caster warlock was a terrible and robbed warlock of everything unique. It was also underpowered as shit.
This new lock is just as front loaded, for 2 levels you get : 2 cantrips, 3 spells prepared, and 3 invocations (which can be Pact of the Blade, Pact of the Tome, and Agonizing Blast)
Not sure I'd expect that to last; I dunno what everyone else has put in their feedback but I've asked for pacts to go back to being one choice at a later level (3rd or 4th), though I'm not opposed to a later level invocation enabling a second choice, maybe late tier 2 or early tier 3? But it needs to be balanced against the strength of other invocations that aren't available until the same level, as currently blade and tome are easily the strongest invocations, and chain is pretty good for the utility.
The Warlock playtest content so far has been super slapdash; the half caster idea wasn't terrible, but they clearly didn't think it through enough and it showed. But then they immediately reverse it (rather than trying to refine it first) and in doing so they threw a bunch of other stuff scattershot onto the 2014 Warlock base. I can't imagine anybody was asking for pact of the blade to get a 3rd attack at 11th-level so where did that come from? Maybe roll improved pact weapon into it as standard, but it doesn't need more than that. Chain is the one that needed improving yet in both playtests they boosted the other two the most?
You can't really argue that warlock is underpowered and needs fixing when you're basing that argument on the assumption that the huge buff they got is going to be undone (the one to Barbarian has not been rolled back). They made warlock super powerful, so I don't understand why people still think it needs to be fixed.
Maybe a few more spells prepared would also help since some invocations were removed because they are now on the warlock spell list and can be cast as rituals. If you want them they take away from other spells prepared that you might actually want to use your pact slots on.
Honestly, with the current Warlock it doesn't matter how many spells you prepare. As a ritual, Detect magic and Comprehend Languages are mainly going to be used. And with spell slots you will use Armor of Agathys, Shadow of Moil (Darkness before having lvl4 spell slots) and, for the few warlocks that are not bladelock, some control spell.
You could have the Warlock have his entire spell list prepared, which won't matter. That is what is going to be played.
I hope the plan is for subclasses to add spells that can be cast without spending spell slots (like the new archfey). If not, we will see even less variety than in the 2014 warlock.
You can't really argue that warlock is underpowered
Except that I didn't; I said the pacts boons are much stronger than other invocations so it's silly for them to be mixed in together. And I was responding to you complaining about how front-loaded the class is; pact boons used to be gained at 3rd-level, now you can get all three at 2nd-level, I can't see that remaining as it's a complete mess and only makes an already front-loaded class even more front-loaded, without solving any of its other issues.
you're basing that argument on the assumption that the huge buff they got is going to be undone
And you're basing your argument on something I didn't say.
While I do generally think the Warlock needs to be improved from its current 5th edition form, that doesn't mean I have to unquestioningly accept every broken, overpowered, stupid idea Wizards of the Coast throws into a playtest without thinking it through. It may well have made Warlock more powerful, but it hasn't made it better or fixed any of the real problems with the 5e version (which they have in fact reintroduced and in some ways made worse).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Maybe a few more spells prepared would also help since some invocations were removed because they are now on the warlock spell list and can be cast as rituals. If you want them they take away from other spells prepared that you might actually want to use your pact slots on.
Honestly, with the current Warlock it doesn't matter how many spells you prepare. As a ritual, Detect magic and Comprehend Languages are mainly going to be used. And with spell slots you will use Armor of Agathys, Shadow of Moil (Darkness before having lvl4 spell slots) and, for the few warlocks that are not bladelock, some control spell.
You could have the Warlock have his entire spell list prepared, which won't matter. That is what is going to be played.
Then please explain how come I have personally played 3 warlocks none of whom ever cast any of those spells (only one even learned them), and I have played with four warlocks again whom have never cast any of those spells.
Maybe a few more spells prepared would also help since some invocations were removed because they are now on the warlock spell list and can be cast as rituals. If you want them they take away from other spells prepared that you might actually want to use your pact slots on.
Honestly, with the current Warlock it doesn't matter how many spells you prepare. As a ritual, Detect magic and Comprehend Languages are mainly going to be used. And with spell slots you will use Armor of Agathys, Shadow of Moil (Darkness before having lvl4 spell slots) and, for the few warlocks that are not bladelock, some control spell.
You could have the Warlock have his entire spell list prepared, which won't matter. That is what is going to be played.
I hope the plan is for subclasses to add spells that can be cast without spending spell slots (like the new archfey). If not, we will see even less variety than in the 2014 warlock.
If those are the spells you will mainly cast then why bother having 15 spells prepared? The point I was saying is that even besides Detect Magic and Comprehend Languages, there might be other rituals, including higher level ones, that a player might want to take since they were removed from invocations specifically because they now are on the spell list.
And maybe there are some other spells that you might want to have ready to go just in case. Armor of Agathys and Shadow of Moil might be your go-to spells but wouldn’t it be nice if you had some versatility?
Maybe a few more spells prepared would also help since some invocations were removed because they are now on the warlock spell list and can be cast as rituals. If you want them they take away from other spells prepared that you might actually want to use your pact slots on.
Honestly, with the current Warlock it doesn't matter how many spells you prepare. As a ritual, Detect magic and Comprehend Languages are mainly going to be used. And with spell slots you will use Armor of Agathys, Shadow of Moil (Darkness before having lvl4 spell slots) and, for the few warlocks that are not bladelock, some control spell.
You could have the Warlock have his entire spell list prepared, which won't matter. That is what is going to be played.
Then please explain how come I have personally played 3 warlocks none of whom ever cast any of those spells (only one even learned them), and I have played with four warlocks again whom have never cast any of those spells.
And there will also be those who play clerics without spiritual weapon + spiritual guardians. But that is irrelevant. The thing is, those combos are objectively more powerful than anything else you can do with the class, which is why most players play that. Nothing prevents you from doing something else, that's obvious. But if you want to play optimized, and most people optimize the character, that's what you have to choose. I play many games a week, and with many different people. And I can assure you that the majority of players I share a table with do that. And it's simple: You have two spell slots and you want to get the most out of them. Then if you play a hexblade, and people who play a warlock play a hexblade, the most profitable is Armor of agathys + Shadow of moil. Then we can do as much theorycraft as we want. However, at the end of the day, the real game is what it is.
This new lock is just as front loaded, for 2 levels you get : 2 cantrips, 3 spells prepared, and 3 invocations (which can be Pact of the Blade, Pact of the Tome, and Agonizing Blast)
Not sure I'd expect that to last; I dunno what everyone else has put in their feedback but I've asked for pacts to go back to being one choice at a later level (3rd or 4th), though I'm not opposed to a later level invocation enabling a second choice, maybe late tier 2 or early tier 3? But it needs to be balanced against the strength of other invocations that aren't available until the same level, as currently blade and tome are easily the strongest invocations, and chain is pretty good for the utility.
The Warlock playtest content so far has been super slapdash; the half caster idea wasn't terrible, but they clearly didn't think it through enough and it showed. But then they immediately reverse it (rather than trying to refine it first) and in doing so they threw a bunch of other stuff scattershot onto the 2014 Warlock base. I can't imagine anybody was asking for pact of the blade to get a 3rd attack at 11th-level so where did that come from? Maybe roll improved pact weapon into it as standard, but it doesn't need more than that. Chain is the one that needed improving yet in both playtests they boosted the other two the most?
You can't really argue that warlock is underpowered and needs fixing when you're basing that argument on the assumption that the huge buff they got is going to be undone (the one to Barbarian has not been rolled back). They made warlock super powerful, so I don't understand why people still think it needs to be fixed.
Pretty sure he said the huge buff isn’t what people were asking for. WotC improved a bunch of stuff nobody wanted. Imagine if they “fixed” the monk by increasing its move speed and giving it 3 reactions a turn. It would be more powerful, but not what people were asking for
This new lock is just as front loaded, for 2 levels you get : 2 cantrips, 3 spells prepared, and 3 invocations (which can be Pact of the Blade, Pact of the Tome, and Agonizing Blast)
Not sure I'd expect that to last; I dunno what everyone else has put in their feedback but I've asked for pacts to go back to being one choice at a later level (3rd or 4th), though I'm not opposed to a later level invocation enabling a second choice, maybe late tier 2 or early tier 3? But it needs to be balanced against the strength of other invocations that aren't available until the same level, as currently blade and tome are easily the strongest invocations, and chain is pretty good for the utility.
The Warlock playtest content so far has been super slapdash; the half caster idea wasn't terrible, but they clearly didn't think it through enough and it showed. But then they immediately reverse it (rather than trying to refine it first) and in doing so they threw a bunch of other stuff scattershot onto the 2014 Warlock base. I can't imagine anybody was asking for pact of the blade to get a 3rd attack at 11th-level so where did that come from? Maybe roll improved pact weapon into it as standard, but it doesn't need more than that. Chain is the one that needed improving yet in both playtests they boosted the other two the most?
You can't really argue that warlock is underpowered and needs fixing when you're basing that argument on the assumption that the huge buff they got is going to be undone (the one to Barbarian has not been rolled back). They made warlock super powerful, so I don't understand why people still think it needs to be fixed.
Pretty sure he said the huge buff isn’t what people were asking for. WotC improved a bunch of stuff nobody wanted. Imagine if they “fixed” the monk by increasing its move speed and giving it 3 reactions a turn. It would be more powerful, but not what people were asking for
If they make Monk a powerful reaction based class that would be really awesome and cool, and I'd be excited to play it. So I don't know what you are talking about here. People were asking for more spellslots they've tried two different ways that are [relatively] balanced to do that. And people still complain. People want Warlock to be a full spellcaster, but it just isn't... If you want to play a CHA-based full spellcaster the Sorcerer and Bard are right there for you. Flavour wise an Abberant Mind Sorcerer == GOOlock, a Swords Bard == Hexblade, a Glamour Bard == Feylock, a Draconic Sorcerer == Fiendlock, and Divine Soul Sorcerer == Celestiallock.
If you're not going to be happy unless WotC reads your mind and creates exactly what who you would design it, then I'm sorry but you're just going to have to live with being unhappy because they aren't going to do that. That is what HB is for, if you have an exact design you want HB it and run it like that in your games.
I can't talk about what other people want. But what I want is a warlock that does not depend on something circumstantial such as short rests. I'm not asking for a warlock fullcaster. And I haven't seen too many people ask for that either. What I have seen is people argue, and I obviously agree, that the warlock is a class that depends more than anyone on how the DM decides to manage short rests. And that is above, and below. That is to say: If you do the short rests at will, it is broken. If you don't do short rest, do few, or only do them when it makes narrative sense, the warlock either has minimal magic, or has to be handled with uncertainty. This makes some players jealously guard their spell slots, and feel a certain injustice in the way the DM handles SR. And believe me, it has happened to me hundreds of times that warlock players have complained that I had let them do a SR when he had not yet used up his spell slots, or that he had not been able to do SR for a long time when he did not have spell slots. And that's not cool. It is a poorly designed feature at its core, and it puts the DM in a constant dilemma.
This new lock is just as front loaded, for 2 levels you get : 2 cantrips, 3 spells prepared, and 3 invocations (which can be Pact of the Blade, Pact of the Tome, and Agonizing Blast)
Not sure I'd expect that to last; I dunno what everyone else has put in their feedback but I've asked for pacts to go back to being one choice at a later level (3rd or 4th), though I'm not opposed to a later level invocation enabling a second choice, maybe late tier 2 or early tier 3? But it needs to be balanced against the strength of other invocations that aren't available until the same level, as currently blade and tome are easily the strongest invocations, and chain is pretty good for the utility.
The Warlock playtest content so far has been super slapdash; the half caster idea wasn't terrible, but they clearly didn't think it through enough and it showed. But then they immediately reverse it (rather than trying to refine it first) and in doing so they threw a bunch of other stuff scattershot onto the 2014 Warlock base. I can't imagine anybody was asking for pact of the blade to get a 3rd attack at 11th-level so where did that come from? Maybe roll improved pact weapon into it as standard, but it doesn't need more than that. Chain is the one that needed improving yet in both playtests they boosted the other two the most?
You can't really argue that warlock is underpowered and needs fixing when you're basing that argument on the assumption that the huge buff they got is going to be undone (the one to Barbarian has not been rolled back). They made warlock super powerful, so I don't understand why people still think it needs to be fixed.
Pretty sure he said the huge buff isn’t what people were asking for. WotC improved a bunch of stuff nobody wanted. Imagine if they “fixed” the monk by increasing its move speed and giving it 3 reactions a turn. It would be more powerful, but not what people were asking for
If they make Monk a powerful reaction based class that would be really awesome and cool, and I'd be excited to play it. So I don't know what you are talking about here. People were asking for more spellslots they've tried two different ways that are [relatively] balanced to do that. And people still complain. People want Warlock to be a full spellcaster, but it just isn't... If you want to play a CHA-based full spellcaster the Sorcerer and Bard are right there for you. Flavour wise an Abberant Mind Sorcerer == GOOlock, a Swords Bard == Hexblade, a Glamour Bard == Feylock, a Draconic Sorcerer == Fiendlock, and Divine Soul Sorcerer == Celestiallock.
If you're not going to be happy unless WotC reads your mind and creates exactly what who you would design it, then I'm sorry but you're just going to have to live with being unhappy because they aren't going to do that. That is what HB is for, if you have an exact design you want HB it and run it like that in your games.
Reaction Monk would be horrible because the player wouldn’t have control of when they get to do the thing. If the DM doesn’t give them enough to react to then they never get to do it. That’s one of the flaws with deflect missiles. I’ve seen so many combats we’re not a single thing that is deflectable is launched toward the monk. And it’s not even that the DM is purposely trying to avoid shooting at them. I’m pretty sure people who are complaining about Warlock filled out the same survey I did and didn’t get what they wanted changed. I actually got one of my UA5 survey request fulfilled in UA7 warlock and that was invocation spells being given at lower levels. Then WotC went are removed two great low level invocations, just because they could be ritual cast. In the UA7 survey I told requested those invocations be returned and give the players the option of picking up the spell with an invocation or from their spell list. No one is asking for the Warlock to be a full caster. People are asking for it to have an option to cast more spells. Not everyone wants to play a Pact of the Blade Warlock. A lot of people asked that Chain get improved, but instead JC said Chain was never meant to be as juicy. That’s horrible because in 5e it was one of three equal options. Honestly in 5e Blade was the worst choice except on one subclass.
This new lock is just as front loaded, for 2 levels you get : 2 cantrips, 3 spells prepared, and 3 invocations (which can be Pact of the Blade, Pact of the Tome, and Agonizing Blast)
Not sure I'd expect that to last; I dunno what everyone else has put in their feedback but I've asked for pacts to go back to being one choice at a later level (3rd or 4th), though I'm not opposed to a later level invocation enabling a second choice, maybe late tier 2 or early tier 3? But it needs to be balanced against the strength of other invocations that aren't available until the same level, as currently blade and tome are easily the strongest invocations, and chain is pretty good for the utility.
The Warlock playtest content so far has been super slapdash; the half caster idea wasn't terrible, but they clearly didn't think it through enough and it showed. But then they immediately reverse it (rather than trying to refine it first) and in doing so they threw a bunch of other stuff scattershot onto the 2014 Warlock base. I can't imagine anybody was asking for pact of the blade to get a 3rd attack at 11th-level so where did that come from? Maybe roll improved pact weapon into it as standard, but it doesn't need more than that. Chain is the one that needed improving yet in both playtests they boosted the other two the most?
You can't really argue that warlock is underpowered and needs fixing when you're basing that argument on the assumption that the huge buff they got is going to be undone (the one to Barbarian has not been rolled back). They made warlock super powerful, so I don't understand why people still think it needs to be fixed.
Pretty sure he said the huge buff isn’t what people were asking for. WotC improved a bunch of stuff nobody wanted. Imagine if they “fixed” the monk by increasing its move speed and giving it 3 reactions a turn. It would be more powerful, but not what people were asking for
If they make Monk a powerful reaction based class that would be really awesome and cool, and I'd be excited to play it. So I don't know what you are talking about here. People were asking for more spellslots they've tried two different ways that are [relatively] balanced to do that. And people still complain. People want Warlock to be a full spellcaster, but it just isn't... If you want to play a CHA-based full spellcaster the Sorcerer and Bard are right there for you. Flavour wise an Abberant Mind Sorcerer == GOOlock, a Swords Bard == Hexblade, a Glamour Bard == Feylock, a Draconic Sorcerer == Fiendlock, and Divine Soul Sorcerer == Celestiallock.
If you're not going to be happy unless WotC reads your mind and creates exactly what who you would design it, then I'm sorry but you're just going to have to live with being unhappy because they aren't going to do that. That is what HB is for, if you have an exact design you want HB it and run it like that in your games.
Reaction Monk would be horrible because the player wouldn’t have control of when they get to do the thing. If the DM doesn’t give them enough to react to then they never get to do it. That’s one of the flaws with deflect missiles. I’ve seen so many combats we’re not a single thing that is deflectable is launched toward the monk. And it’s not even that the DM is purposely trying to avoid shooting at them. I’m pretty sure people who are complaining about Warlock filled out the same survey I did and didn’t get what they wanted changed. I actually got one of my UA5 survey request fulfilled in UA7 warlock and that was invocation spells being given at lower levels. Then WotC went are removed two great low level invocations, just because they could be ritual cast. In the UA7 survey I told requested those invocations be returned and give the players the option of picking up the spell with an invocation or from their spell list. No one is asking for the Warlock to be a full caster. People are asking for it to have an option to cast more spells. Not everyone wants to play a Pact of the Blade Warlock. A lot of people asked that Chain get improved, but instead JC said Chain was never meant to be as juicy. That’s horrible because in 5e it was one of three equal options. Honestly in 5e Blade was the worst choice except on one subclass.
Correct. All WotC would have to do is really just give the 3rd pact slot at 7th and the 4th pact slot at a 11th or 13th. And make a repeatable invocation that lets the warlock select 1 spell from any spell list and be able to cast the spell once per long rest.
This new lock is just as front loaded, for 2 levels you get : 2 cantrips, 3 spells prepared, and 3 invocations (which can be Pact of the Blade, Pact of the Tome, and Agonizing Blast)
Not sure I'd expect that to last; I dunno what everyone else has put in their feedback but I've asked for pacts to go back to being one choice at a later level (3rd or 4th), though I'm not opposed to a later level invocation enabling a second choice, maybe late tier 2 or early tier 3? But it needs to be balanced against the strength of other invocations that aren't available until the same level, as currently blade and tome are easily the strongest invocations, and chain is pretty good for the utility.
The Warlock playtest content so far has been super slapdash; the half caster idea wasn't terrible, but they clearly didn't think it through enough and it showed. But then they immediately reverse it (rather than trying to refine it first) and in doing so they threw a bunch of other stuff scattershot onto the 2014 Warlock base. I can't imagine anybody was asking for pact of the blade to get a 3rd attack at 11th-level so where did that come from? Maybe roll improved pact weapon into it as standard, but it doesn't need more than that. Chain is the one that needed improving yet in both playtests they boosted the other two the most?
You can't really argue that warlock is underpowered and needs fixing when you're basing that argument on the assumption that the huge buff they got is going to be undone (the one to Barbarian has not been rolled back). They made warlock super powerful, so I don't understand why people still think it needs to be fixed.
Pretty sure he said the huge buff isn’t what people were asking for. WotC improved a bunch of stuff nobody wanted. Imagine if they “fixed” the monk by increasing its move speed and giving it 3 reactions a turn. It would be more powerful, but not what people were asking for
If they make Monk a powerful reaction based class that would be really awesome and cool, and I'd be excited to play it. So I don't know what you are talking about here. People were asking for more spellslots they've tried two different ways that are [relatively] balanced to do that. And people still complain. People want Warlock to be a full spellcaster, but it just isn't... If you want to play a CHA-based full spellcaster the Sorcerer and Bard are right there for you. Flavour wise an Abberant Mind Sorcerer == GOOlock, a Swords Bard == Hexblade, a Glamour Bard == Feylock, a Draconic Sorcerer == Fiendlock, and Divine Soul Sorcerer == Celestiallock.
If you're not going to be happy unless WotC reads your mind and creates exactly what who you would design it, then I'm sorry but you're just going to have to live with being unhappy because they aren't going to do that. That is what HB is for, if you have an exact design you want HB it and run it like that in your games.
Reaction Monk would be horrible because the player wouldn’t have control of when they get to do the thing. If the DM doesn’t give them enough to react to then they never get to do it. That’s one of the flaws with deflect missiles. I’ve seen so many combats we’re not a single thing that is deflectable is launched toward the monk. And it’s not even that the DM is purposely trying to avoid shooting at them. I’m pretty sure people who are complaining about Warlock filled out the same survey I did and didn’t get what they wanted changed. I actually got one of my UA5 survey request fulfilled in UA7 warlock and that was invocation spells being given at lower levels. Then WotC went are removed two great low level invocations, just because they could be ritual cast. In the UA7 survey I told requested those invocations be returned and give the players the option of picking up the spell with an invocation or from their spell list. No one is asking for the Warlock to be a full caster. People are asking for it to have an option to cast more spells. Not everyone wants to play a Pact of the Blade Warlock. A lot of people asked that Chain get improved, but instead JC said Chain was never meant to be as juicy. That’s horrible because in 5e it was one of three equal options. Honestly in 5e Blade was the worst choice except on one subclass.
Correct. All WotC would have to do is really just give the 3rd pact slot at 7th and the 4th pact slot at a 11th or 13th. And make a repeatable invocation that lets the warlock select 1 spell from any spell list and be able to cast the spell once per long rest.
That 1 spell from any spell list is a little too strong and any spell list is really a bard thing. I also wouldn’t just give more pact slots. That increases power curve too much for those that do get short rests. The balance is finding a sweet spot for low level spell slots and how much of an invocation tax it would should cost to gain them. Also figuring out how to give them in a way that doesn’t break multiclassing.
This new lock is just as front loaded, for 2 levels you get : 2 cantrips, 3 spells prepared, and 3 invocations (which can be Pact of the Blade, Pact of the Tome, and Agonizing Blast)
Not sure I'd expect that to last; I dunno what everyone else has put in their feedback but I've asked for pacts to go back to being one choice at a later level (3rd or 4th), though I'm not opposed to a later level invocation enabling a second choice, maybe late tier 2 or early tier 3? But it needs to be balanced against the strength of other invocations that aren't available until the same level, as currently blade and tome are easily the strongest invocations, and chain is pretty good for the utility.
The Warlock playtest content so far has been super slapdash; the half caster idea wasn't terrible, but they clearly didn't think it through enough and it showed. But then they immediately reverse it (rather than trying to refine it first) and in doing so they threw a bunch of other stuff scattershot onto the 2014 Warlock base. I can't imagine anybody was asking for pact of the blade to get a 3rd attack at 11th-level so where did that come from? Maybe roll improved pact weapon into it as standard, but it doesn't need more than that. Chain is the one that needed improving yet in both playtests they boosted the other two the most?
You can't really argue that warlock is underpowered and needs fixing when you're basing that argument on the assumption that the huge buff they got is going to be undone (the one to Barbarian has not been rolled back). They made warlock super powerful, so I don't understand why people still think it needs to be fixed.
Pretty sure he said the huge buff isn’t what people were asking for. WotC improved a bunch of stuff nobody wanted. Imagine if they “fixed” the monk by increasing its move speed and giving it 3 reactions a turn. It would be more powerful, but not what people were asking for
If they make Monk a powerful reaction based class that would be really awesome and cool, and I'd be excited to play it. So I don't know what you are talking about here. People were asking for more spellslots they've tried two different ways that are [relatively] balanced to do that. And people still complain. People want Warlock to be a full spellcaster, but it just isn't... If you want to play a CHA-based full spellcaster the Sorcerer and Bard are right there for you. Flavour wise an Abberant Mind Sorcerer == GOOlock, a Swords Bard == Hexblade, a Glamour Bard == Feylock, a Draconic Sorcerer == Fiendlock, and Divine Soul Sorcerer == Celestiallock.
If you're not going to be happy unless WotC reads your mind and creates exactly what who you would design it, then I'm sorry but you're just going to have to live with being unhappy because they aren't going to do that. That is what HB is for, if you have an exact design you want HB it and run it like that in your games.
Reaction Monk would be horrible because the player wouldn’t have control of when they get to do the thing. If the DM doesn’t give them enough to react to then they never get to do it. That’s one of the flaws with deflect missiles. I’ve seen so many combats we’re not a single thing that is deflectable is launched toward the monk. And it’s not even that the DM is purposely trying to avoid shooting at them. I’m pretty sure people who are complaining about Warlock filled out the same survey I did and didn’t get what they wanted changed. I actually got one of my UA5 survey request fulfilled in UA7 warlock and that was invocation spells being given at lower levels. Then WotC went are removed two great low level invocations, just because they could be ritual cast. In the UA7 survey I told requested those invocations be returned and give the players the option of picking up the spell with an invocation or from their spell list. No one is asking for the Warlock to be a full caster. People are asking for it to have an option to cast more spells. Not everyone wants to play a Pact of the Blade Warlock. A lot of people asked that Chain get improved, but instead JC said Chain was never meant to be as juicy. That’s horrible because in 5e it was one of three equal options. Honestly in 5e Blade was the worst choice except on one subclass.
Correct. All WotC would have to do is really just give the 3rd pact slot at 7th and the 4th pact slot at a 11th or 13th. And make a repeatable invocation that lets the warlock select 1 spell from any spell list and be able to cast the spell once per long rest.
That 1 spell from any spell list is a little too strong and any spell list is really a bard thing. I also wouldn’t just give more pact slots. That increases power curve too much for those that do get short rests. The balance is finding a sweet spot for low level spell slots and how much of an invocation tax it would should cost to gain them. Also figuring out how to give them in a way that doesn’t break multiclassing.
I don't think they were suggesting more pact slots, just acquiring them sooner. Level 7 is when the Warlock really starts to feel like they don't have anywhere close to enough spell slots, so it makes sense to get the third one there - sure, by some formulas it might LOOK like it's good and balanced to keep them at 2 forever, but by playability that math seems off.
This new lock is just as front loaded, for 2 levels you get : 2 cantrips, 3 spells prepared, and 3 invocations (which can be Pact of the Blade, Pact of the Tome, and Agonizing Blast)
Not sure I'd expect that to last; I dunno what everyone else has put in their feedback but I've asked for pacts to go back to being one choice at a later level (3rd or 4th), though I'm not opposed to a later level invocation enabling a second choice, maybe late tier 2 or early tier 3? But it needs to be balanced against the strength of other invocations that aren't available until the same level, as currently blade and tome are easily the strongest invocations, and chain is pretty good for the utility.
The Warlock playtest content so far has been super slapdash; the half caster idea wasn't terrible, but they clearly didn't think it through enough and it showed. But then they immediately reverse it (rather than trying to refine it first) and in doing so they threw a bunch of other stuff scattershot onto the 2014 Warlock base. I can't imagine anybody was asking for pact of the blade to get a 3rd attack at 11th-level so where did that come from? Maybe roll improved pact weapon into it as standard, but it doesn't need more than that. Chain is the one that needed improving yet in both playtests they boosted the other two the most?
You can't really argue that warlock is underpowered and needs fixing when you're basing that argument on the assumption that the huge buff they got is going to be undone (the one to Barbarian has not been rolled back). They made warlock super powerful, so I don't understand why people still think it needs to be fixed.
Pretty sure he said the huge buff isn’t what people were asking for. WotC improved a bunch of stuff nobody wanted. Imagine if they “fixed” the monk by increasing its move speed and giving it 3 reactions a turn. It would be more powerful, but not what people were asking for
If they make Monk a powerful reaction based class that would be really awesome and cool, and I'd be excited to play it. So I don't know what you are talking about here. People were asking for more spellslots they've tried two different ways that are [relatively] balanced to do that. And people still complain. People want Warlock to be a full spellcaster, but it just isn't... If you want to play a CHA-based full spellcaster the Sorcerer and Bard are right there for you. Flavour wise an Abberant Mind Sorcerer == GOOlock, a Swords Bard == Hexblade, a Glamour Bard == Feylock, a Draconic Sorcerer == Fiendlock, and Divine Soul Sorcerer == Celestiallock.
If you're not going to be happy unless WotC reads your mind and creates exactly what who you would design it, then I'm sorry but you're just going to have to live with being unhappy because they aren't going to do that. That is what HB is for, if you have an exact design you want HB it and run it like that in your games.
Reaction Monk would be horrible because the player wouldn’t have control of when they get to do the thing. If the DM doesn’t give them enough to react to then they never get to do it. That’s one of the flaws with deflect missiles. I’ve seen so many combats we’re not a single thing that is deflectable is launched toward the monk. And it’s not even that the DM is purposely trying to avoid shooting at them. I’m pretty sure people who are complaining about Warlock filled out the same survey I did and didn’t get what they wanted changed. I actually got one of my UA5 survey request fulfilled in UA7 warlock and that was invocation spells being given at lower levels. Then WotC went are removed two great low level invocations, just because they could be ritual cast. In the UA7 survey I told requested those invocations be returned and give the players the option of picking up the spell with an invocation or from their spell list. No one is asking for the Warlock to be a full caster. People are asking for it to have an option to cast more spells. Not everyone wants to play a Pact of the Blade Warlock. A lot of people asked that Chain get improved, but instead JC said Chain was never meant to be as juicy. That’s horrible because in 5e it was one of three equal options. Honestly in 5e Blade was the worst choice except on one subclass.
Correct. All WotC would have to do is really just give the 3rd pact slot at 7th and the 4th pact slot at a 11th or 13th. And make a repeatable invocation that lets the warlock select 1 spell from any spell list and be able to cast the spell once per long rest.
That 1 spell from any spell list is a little too strong and any spell list is really a bard thing. I also wouldn’t just give more pact slots. That increases power curve too much for those that do get short rests. The balance is finding a sweet spot for low level spell slots and how much of an invocation tax it would should cost to gain them. Also figuring out how to give them in a way that doesn’t break multiclassing.
Never said give more pact slots. And a spell from any spell list once per long rest isn’t really that strong or stepping on the bard.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This new lock is just as front loaded, for 2 levels you get : 2 cantrips, 3 spells prepared, and 3 invocations (which can be Pact of the Blade, Pact of the Tome, and Agonizing Blast)
Maybe a few more spells prepared would also help since some invocations were removed because they are now on the warlock spell list and can be cast as rituals. If you want them they take away from other spells prepared that you might actually want to use your pact slots on.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
No, it really isn't necessary. I built a 5th level warlock based on the current UA in the other thread and this is the list of spells it has prepared / available without taking Pact of the Tome nor Magic Initiate:
Spells: Dancing Lights, Eldritch Blast, Mage Hand, Faerie Fire (free 1/LR), Calm Emotions, Sleep, False Life (at will), Hex, Armour of Agathys, Darkness (free 1/LR), Misty Step (free 4/LR), Invisibility (on self at will), Hold Person, Suggestion, Phantasmal Force, Blink, Plant Growth, Hypnotic Pattern, Summon Fey
Seriously now, could someone explain why this isn't enough?
Some of my questions.
Can you Import the throwing fighting style please.
Why were the fighting maneuvers that you excluded, excluded?
Are the spells cast from Warlock invocations at minimum level or at the level of the available spell slot, but just not used. (DO they still need V/S/M components?)
Flex was a good option for a versatile weapon's weapon Mastery. BUT it should not REMOVE versatility but build on it. Add an extra weapon damage die on a critical when used 2-handed. OR. Add 1-2 to AC when used 2-handed.
Not sure I'd expect that to last; I dunno what everyone else has put in their feedback but I've asked for pacts to go back to being one choice at a later level (3rd or 4th), though I'm not opposed to a later level invocation enabling a second choice, maybe late tier 2 or early tier 3? But it needs to be balanced against the strength of other invocations that aren't available until the same level, as currently blade and tome are easily the strongest invocations, and chain is pretty good for the utility.
The Warlock playtest content so far has been super slapdash; the half caster idea wasn't terrible, but they clearly didn't think it through enough and it showed. But then they immediately reverse it (rather than trying to refine it first) and in doing so they threw a bunch of other stuff scattershot onto the 2014 Warlock base. I can't imagine anybody was asking for pact of the blade to get a 3rd attack at 11th-level so where did that come from? Maybe roll improved pact weapon into it as standard, but it doesn't need more than that. Chain is the one that needed improving yet in both playtests they boosted the other two the most?
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Warlock intra-class-balance is ****ed that's why. Being melee as squishy and investing heavily into it should give you more damage than the 1 invocation ranged EB blasting warlock... and EB keeps scaling beyond level 11. When EB deals more damage at all levels... Pact of the Blade becomes a trap option. You could just as well spec into spellsniper and just cast EB in melee range for more damage. lol
The half-caster warlock was a terrible and robbed warlock of everything unique. It was also underpowered as shit.
You can't really argue that warlock is underpowered and needs fixing when you're basing that argument on the assumption that the huge buff they got is going to be undone (the one to Barbarian has not been rolled back). They made warlock super powerful, so I don't understand why people still think it needs to be fixed.
Honestly, with the current Warlock it doesn't matter how many spells you prepare. As a ritual, Detect magic and Comprehend Languages are mainly going to be used. And with spell slots you will use Armor of Agathys, Shadow of Moil (Darkness before having lvl4 spell slots) and, for the few warlocks that are not bladelock, some control spell.
You could have the Warlock have his entire spell list prepared, which won't matter. That is what is going to be played.
I hope the plan is for subclasses to add spells that can be cast without spending spell slots (like the new archfey). If not, we will see even less variety than in the 2014 warlock.
Except that I didn't; I said the pacts boons are much stronger than other invocations so it's silly for them to be mixed in together. And I was responding to you complaining about how front-loaded the class is; pact boons used to be gained at 3rd-level, now you can get all three at 2nd-level, I can't see that remaining as it's a complete mess and only makes an already front-loaded class even more front-loaded, without solving any of its other issues.
And you're basing your argument on something I didn't say.
While I do generally think the Warlock needs to be improved from its current 5th edition form, that doesn't mean I have to unquestioningly accept every broken, overpowered, stupid idea Wizards of the Coast throws into a playtest without thinking it through. It may well have made Warlock more powerful, but it hasn't made it better or fixed any of the real problems with the 5e version (which they have in fact reintroduced and in some ways made worse).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Then please explain how come I have personally played 3 warlocks none of whom ever cast any of those spells (only one even learned them), and I have played with four warlocks again whom have never cast any of those spells.
If those are the spells you will mainly cast then why bother having 15 spells prepared? The point I was saying is that even besides Detect Magic and Comprehend Languages, there might be other rituals, including higher level ones, that a player might want to take since they were removed from invocations specifically because they now are on the spell list.
And maybe there are some other spells that you might want to have ready to go just in case. Armor of Agathys and Shadow of Moil might be your go-to spells but wouldn’t it be nice if you had some versatility?
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
And there will also be those who play clerics without spiritual weapon + spiritual guardians. But that is irrelevant. The thing is, those combos are objectively more powerful than anything else you can do with the class, which is why most players play that. Nothing prevents you from doing something else, that's obvious. But if you want to play optimized, and most people optimize the character, that's what you have to choose.
I play many games a week, and with many different people. And I can assure you that the majority of players I share a table with do that. And it's simple: You have two spell slots and you want to get the most out of them. Then if you play a hexblade, and people who play a warlock play a hexblade, the most profitable is Armor of agathys + Shadow of moil.
Then we can do as much theorycraft as we want. However, at the end of the day, the real game is what it is.
Pretty sure he said the huge buff isn’t what people were asking for. WotC improved a bunch of stuff nobody wanted. Imagine if they “fixed” the monk by increasing its move speed and giving it 3 reactions a turn. It would be more powerful, but not what people were asking for
If they make Monk a powerful reaction based class that would be really awesome and cool, and I'd be excited to play it. So I don't know what you are talking about here. People were asking for more spellslots they've tried two different ways that are [relatively] balanced to do that. And people still complain. People want Warlock to be a full spellcaster, but it just isn't... If you want to play a CHA-based full spellcaster the Sorcerer and Bard are right there for you. Flavour wise an Abberant Mind Sorcerer == GOOlock, a Swords Bard == Hexblade, a Glamour Bard == Feylock, a Draconic Sorcerer == Fiendlock, and Divine Soul Sorcerer == Celestiallock.
If you're not going to be happy unless WotC reads your mind and creates exactly what who you would design it, then I'm sorry but you're just going to have to live with being unhappy because they aren't going to do that. That is what HB is for, if you have an exact design you want HB it and run it like that in your games.
I can't talk about what other people want. But what I want is a warlock that does not depend on something circumstantial such as short rests. I'm not asking for a warlock fullcaster. And I haven't seen too many people ask for that either.
What I have seen is people argue, and I obviously agree, that the warlock is a class that depends more than anyone on how the DM decides to manage short rests. And that is above, and below. That is to say: If you do the short rests at will, it is broken. If you don't do short rest, do few, or only do them when it makes narrative sense, the warlock either has minimal magic, or has to be handled with uncertainty. This makes some players jealously guard their spell slots, and feel a certain injustice in the way the DM handles SR. And believe me, it has happened to me hundreds of times that warlock players have complained that I had let them do a SR when he had not yet used up his spell slots, or that he had not been able to do SR for a long time when he did not have spell slots. And that's not cool. It is a poorly designed feature at its core, and it puts the DM in a constant dilemma.
Reaction Monk would be horrible because the player wouldn’t have control of when they get to do the thing. If the DM doesn’t give them enough to react to then they never get to do it. That’s one of the flaws with deflect missiles. I’ve seen so many combats we’re not a single thing that is deflectable is launched toward the monk. And it’s not even that the DM is purposely trying to avoid shooting at them.
I’m pretty sure people who are complaining about Warlock filled out the same survey I did and didn’t get what they wanted changed. I actually got one of my UA5 survey request fulfilled in UA7 warlock and that was invocation spells being given at lower levels. Then WotC went are removed two great low level invocations, just because they could be ritual cast. In the UA7 survey I told requested those invocations be returned and give the players the option of picking up the spell with an invocation or from their spell list. No one is asking for the Warlock to be a full caster. People are asking for it to have an option to cast more spells. Not everyone wants to play a Pact of the Blade Warlock. A lot of people asked that Chain get improved, but instead JC said Chain was never meant to be as juicy. That’s horrible because in 5e it was one of three equal options. Honestly in 5e Blade was the worst choice except on one subclass.
Correct. All WotC would have to do is really just give the 3rd pact slot at 7th and the 4th pact slot at a 11th or 13th. And make a repeatable invocation that lets the warlock select 1 spell from any spell list and be able to cast the spell once per long rest.
That 1 spell from any spell list is a little too strong and any spell list is really a bard thing. I also wouldn’t just give more pact slots. That increases power curve too much for those that do get short rests. The balance is finding a sweet spot for low level spell slots and how much of an invocation tax it would should cost to gain them. Also figuring out how to give them in a way that doesn’t break multiclassing.
I don't think they were suggesting more pact slots, just acquiring them sooner. Level 7 is when the Warlock really starts to feel like they don't have anywhere close to enough spell slots, so it makes sense to get the third one there - sure, by some formulas it might LOOK like it's good and balanced to keep them at 2 forever, but by playability that math seems off.
Never said give more pact slots. And a spell from any spell list once per long rest isn’t really that strong or stepping on the bard.