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.
Spells from any spell list is literally magical secrets and you would be giving the warlock potentially 8 of them if they wanted to be caster focused but still have the Tome and Agonizing Blast. If its a repeatable invocation it could be 10 additional spells if you skip Tome and Agonizing Blast. It’s too strong. Even if you limited it 2nd level and lower spells it’s still too strong and a mockery of Magical Secrets. Giving them their 3rd pact slot at 7th is giving them more pact slots at 7th. I’m against that. A full Caster only has one 4th level slot a Warlock having three 4th level slots at this point is overpowered, especially if you also want them plucking spells from everyone else’s list. There are ways to improve the warlocks ability to cast spells without trying to make them overpowered. Getting some lower level spell slots to cast your Warlock spells is the only way to fix this problem with out making the Warlock over powered. Attaching these spell slots or Spellcasting levels (which is what I used to create a version that scales with multiclassing) to invocations is also important to make it optional and maintains something similar to gam balance.
Serious questions: How long have you been playing? What classes have you played? Do you DM?
I’m asking so I can try to understand your thought process. A person who played a bard and remembers selecting their magical secrets might have a different view than someone who hasn’t. Maybe if I understand why you think more pact slots at lower levels fixes the problem I can better explain why it doesn’t.
Giving them their 3rd pact slot at 7th is giving them more pact slots at 7th. I’m against that. A full Caster only has one 4th level slot a Warlock having three 4th level slots at this point is overpowered
And at level 8 they also get 2 - just like warlock, but they get 10(!) more lower level spells on top. Isn't that suddenly overpowered compared to warlock now?
7, 8 or 9 is perfectly fine for a 3rd slot. If 7 is too demanding, 8 or 9 is fine as well. But currently you have 9 levels playing at 2 spells per rest. It's laughable.
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.
Spells from any spell list is literally magical secrets and you would be giving the warlock potentially 8 of them if they wanted to be caster focused but still have the Tome and Agonizing Blast. If its a repeatable invocation it could be 10 additional spells if you skip Tome and Agonizing Blast. It’s too strong. Even if you limited it 2nd level and lower spells it’s still too strong and a mockery of Magical Secrets. Giving them their 3rd pact slot at 7th is giving them more pact slots at 7th. I’m against that. A full Caster only has one 4th level slot a Warlock having three 4th level slots at this point is overpowered, especially if you also want them plucking spells from everyone else’s list. There are ways to improve the warlocks ability to cast spells without trying to make them overpowered. Getting some lower level spell slots to cast your Warlock spells is the only way to fix this problem with out making the Warlock over powered. Attaching these spell slots or Spellcasting levels (which is what I used to create a version that scales with multiclassing) to invocations is also important to make it optional and maintains something similar to gam balance.
Serious questions: How long have you been playing? What classes have you played? Do you DM?
I’m asking so I can try to understand your thought process. A person who played a bard and remembers selecting their magical secrets might have a different view than someone who hasn’t. Maybe if I understand why you think more pact slots at lower levels fixes the problem I can better explain why it doesn’t.
3 4th level slots at 7th level Vs 1 4th, 3 3rd, 3 2nd, and 4 1st level isn’t really that overpowered.
And letting the Warlock select once per long rest spells isn’t making a mockery of the Bard.
As for my thoughts. I honestly believe WotC could drop 6 classes Bard, Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, Monk, and Sorcerer
Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, and Monk can be made into Fighter subclasses.
Giving them their 3rd pact slot at 7th is giving them more pact slots at 7th. I’m against that. A full Caster only has one 4th level slot a Warlock having three 4th level slots at this point is overpowered
And at level 8 they also get 2 - just like warlock, but they get 10(!) more lower level spells on top. Isn't that suddenly overpowered compared to warlock now?
7, 8 or 9 is perfectly fine for a 3rd slot. If 7 is too demanding, 8 or 9 is fine as well. But currently you have 9 levels playing at 2 spells per rest. It's laughable.
When converting to spell points, full casters have roughly 3 times the sp than warlock. When comparing the curves, the warlocks lags behind on levels 8,9 and 10. Giving them the 3rd slot at lvl 8 however inverts this relation. Therefore, lvl 9 is the best lvl to give the warlock their 3rd slot. Note that this is only due to the huge power spike that FC get on lvl 9. The curve would be a bit smoother if we give the warlock the 3rd slot on 8…
While we’re on the topic, warlocks get their 2nd spell slot to early. It should be on 3rd level rather than 2nd.
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.
Spells from any spell list is literally magical secrets and you would be giving the warlock potentially 8 of them if they wanted to be caster focused but still have the Tome and Agonizing Blast. If its a repeatable invocation it could be 10 additional spells if you skip Tome and Agonizing Blast. It’s too strong. Even if you limited it 2nd level and lower spells it’s still too strong and a mockery of Magical Secrets. Giving them their 3rd pact slot at 7th is giving them more pact slots at 7th. I’m against that. A full Caster only has one 4th level slot a Warlock having three 4th level slots at this point is overpowered, especially if you also want them plucking spells from everyone else’s list. There are ways to improve the warlocks ability to cast spells without trying to make them overpowered. Getting some lower level spell slots to cast your Warlock spells is the only way to fix this problem with out making the Warlock over powered. Attaching these spell slots or Spellcasting levels (which is what I used to create a version that scales with multiclassing) to invocations is also important to make it optional and maintains something similar to gam balance.
Serious questions: How long have you been playing? What classes have you played? Do you DM?
I’m asking so I can try to understand your thought process. A person who played a bard and remembers selecting their magical secrets might have a different view than someone who hasn’t. Maybe if I understand why you think more pact slots at lower levels fixes the problem I can better explain why it doesn’t.
3 4th level slots at 7th level Vs 1 4th, 3 3rd, 3 2nd, and 4 1st level isn’t really that overpowered.
And letting the Warlock select once per long rest spells isn’t making a mockery of the Bard.
As for my thoughts. I honestly believe WotC could drop 6 classes Bard, Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, Monk, and Sorcerer
Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, and Monk can be made into Fighter subclasses.
Bard and Sorcerer can be made into feat’s.
if you haven't filled out your UA7 survey yet, maybe consider slightly more subtle feedback. "burn it down for the insurance money" might not be the sort of playtest commentary they'd easily digest at this stage.
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!
Giving them their 3rd pact slot at 7th is giving them more pact slots at 7th. I’m against that. A full Caster only has one 4th level slot a Warlock having three 4th level slots at this point is overpowered
And at level 8 they also get 2 - just like warlock, but they get 10(!) more lower level spells on top. Isn't that suddenly overpowered compared to warlock now?
7, 8 or 9 is perfectly fine for a 3rd slot. If 7 is too demanding, 8 or 9 is fine as well. But currently you have 9 levels playing at 2 spells per rest. It's laughable.
Only if you factor the Warlock as just a vehicle for casting spells. Warlocks get a great deal more, and more modular features, than any other class in the game. The Warlock's casting ability should be nerfed compared to full casters. Obviously not to the degree of the massive nerf that was half-casters, but the Warlock shouldn't be pulling as many max-level spells as a full caster.
The Warlock number of spells should be increased (and worked around long resting like every other caster in the game) but that increase needs to be staggered with a few additional lower level spells to avoid casting as many high powered spells (relative to level) as full casters.
Giving them their 3rd pact slot at 7th is giving them more pact slots at 7th. I’m against that. A full Caster only has one 4th level slot a Warlock having three 4th level slots at this point is overpowered
And at level 8 they also get 2 - just like warlock, but they get 10(!) more lower level spells on top. Isn't that suddenly overpowered compared to warlock now?
7, 8 or 9 is perfectly fine for a 3rd slot. If 7 is too demanding, 8 or 9 is fine as well. But currently you have 9 levels playing at 2 spells per rest. It's laughable.
But a Warlock isn’t a full caster. They have things other than spells that a full caster doesn’t have. 5e Invocations are strong, UA7 improved a ton of them by bringing them down to appropriate levels. Also I think you forget one short rest later and however many pact slots a warlock used are back. Unless you are suggesting pack slots lose there ability to recharge on a short rest I won’t ever consider giving the Warlock more pact slots at lower levels. It’s laughable that you underrate the power of a short rest recharge.
Spells from any spell list is literally magical secrets and you would be giving the warlock potentially 8 of them if they wanted to be caster focused but still have the Tome and Agonizing Blast. If its a repeatable invocation it could be 10 additional spells if you skip Tome and Agonizing Blast. It’s too strong. Even if you limited it 2nd level and lower spells it’s still too strong and a mockery of Magical Secrets. Giving them their 3rd pact slot at 7th is giving them more pact slots at 7th. I’m against that. A full Caster only has one 4th level slot a Warlock having three 4th level slots at this point is overpowered, especially if you also want them plucking spells from everyone else’s list. There are ways to improve the warlocks ability to cast spells without trying to make them overpowered. Getting some lower level spell slots to cast your Warlock spells is the only way to fix this problem with out making the Warlock over powered. Attaching these spell slots or Spellcasting levels (which is what I used to create a version that scales with multiclassing) to invocations is also important to make it optional and maintains something similar to gam balance.
Serious questions: How long have you been playing? What classes have you played? Do you DM?
I’m asking so I can try to understand your thought process. A person who played a bard and remembers selecting their magical secrets might have a different view than someone who hasn’t. Maybe if I understand why you think more pact slots at lower levels fixes the problem I can better explain why it doesn’t.
3 4th level slots at 7th level Vs 1 4th, 3 3rd, 3 2nd, and 4 1st level isn’t really that overpowered.
And letting the Warlock select once per long rest spells isn’t making a mockery of the Bard.
As for my thoughts. I honestly believe WotC could drop 6 classes Bard, Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, Monk, and Sorcerer
Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, and Monk can be made into Fighter subclasses.
Bard and Sorcerer can be made into feat’s.
Three 4 level spell slots is overpowered at 7th level because the power of a 4th level spell higher than a 3rd level spell. Also more importantly it’s only 3 slots if you have a DM that never gives rest or you are at a one combat per day with nothing else to spend spell on table. If it’s a one short rest table you have 6 4th level spell slots. If it’s a 2 short rest table you have 9 4th level spell slots. I don’t understand how you can make the argument that it’s not overpowered.
Also you didn’t say just one spell from any list once a day. You said a repeatable invocation. So that’s multiple spells from multiple list. It’s a more choice, but less flexible version of magical secrets. The Warlock just needs to cast more Warlock spells with some long rest 1st level spell slots at 7th which it gains from invocations.
Also if WotC was going to drop classes, Warlock would be dropped before all the classes you named. It’s the newest of all the classes. Pact magic and Invocations are easily feats. Honestly it would make more sense for someone to take a Pact with a Fiend feat than it is for them to take I can play magical music feat. Thankfully they aren’t going to listen to this bad suggestion and no Classes are getting cut anytime soon.
Spells from any spell list is literally magical secrets and you would be giving the warlock potentially 8 of them if they wanted to be caster focused but still have the Tome and Agonizing Blast. If its a repeatable invocation it could be 10 additional spells if you skip Tome and Agonizing Blast. It’s too strong. Even if you limited it 2nd level and lower spells it’s still too strong and a mockery of Magical Secrets. Giving them their 3rd pact slot at 7th is giving them more pact slots at 7th. I’m against that. A full Caster only has one 4th level slot a Warlock having three 4th level slots at this point is overpowered, especially if you also want them plucking spells from everyone else’s list. There are ways to improve the warlocks ability to cast spells without trying to make them overpowered. Getting some lower level spell slots to cast your Warlock spells is the only way to fix this problem with out making the Warlock over powered. Attaching these spell slots or Spellcasting levels (which is what I used to create a version that scales with multiclassing) to invocations is also important to make it optional and maintains something similar to gam balance.
Serious questions: How long have you been playing? What classes have you played? Do you DM?
I’m asking so I can try to understand your thought process. A person who played a bard and remembers selecting their magical secrets might have a different view than someone who hasn’t. Maybe if I understand why you think more pact slots at lower levels fixes the problem I can better explain why it doesn’t.
3 4th level slots at 7th level Vs 1 4th, 3 3rd, 3 2nd, and 4 1st level isn’t really that overpowered.
And letting the Warlock select once per long rest spells isn’t making a mockery of the Bard.
As for my thoughts. I honestly believe WotC could drop 6 classes Bard, Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, Monk, and Sorcerer
Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, and Monk can be made into Fighter subclasses.
Bard and Sorcerer can be made into feat’s.
Three 4 level spell slots is overpowered at 7th level because the power of a 4th level spell higher than a 3rd level spell. Also more importantly it’s only 3 slots if you have a DM that never gives rest or you are at a one combat per day with nothing else to spend spell on table. If it’s a one short rest table you have 6 4th level spell slots. If it’s a 2 short rest table you have 9 4th level spell slots. I don’t understand how you can make the argument that it’s not overpowered.
Also you didn’t say just one spell from any list once a day. You said a repeatable invocation. So that’s multiple spells from multiple list. It’s a more choice, but less flexible version of magical secrets. The Warlock just needs to cast more Warlock spells with some long rest 1st level spell slots at 7th which it gains from invocations.
Also if WotC was going to drop classes, Warlock would be dropped before all the classes you named. It’s the newest of all the classes. Pact magic and Invocations are easily feats. Honestly it would make more sense for someone to take a Pact with a Fiend feat than it is for them to take I can play magical music feat. Thankfully they aren’t going to listen to this bad suggestion and no Classes are getting cut anytime soon.
One thing being missed is that most other classes have stuff that they get back on short rests as well. Since people are comparing stuff to wizard so much, the wizard can recover their highest level spell slot (provided it is 6th or below) on a short rest, or they can split it into multiple lower level spells. I bring this up since the debate seems to be Warlock has short rest recover while other classes get nothing. While they don't get anywhere near as much as a Warlock, it's far from nothing. And while a sorcerer doesn't get anything back on a short rest (2014 version), they can still create additional spell slots with them if they choose, and the current playtest version does have a (very lame) restoration mechanic allowing them to regain something on a short rest. Bards regain bardic inspiration, Clerics regain channel divinity, and druids regain wild shape on short rests, and none of that involves subclass choices yet (like Circle of the Land).
But if having three pact slots at level 7 is too much, the issue is that 2 is not enough, and at level 9 it is laughably inadequate - bad enough that I question whether the class was even playtested at that level. What other options are there to consider? Maybe a 1 level delay on when pact slots reach the highest spell level - having them increase at even levels instead of odd ones? I doubt 3 3rd level pact slots when other full casters have a 4th lvl spell would be seen as so unbalancing, and it would still be light years ahead of the half caster debacle from Playtest 5.
One thing being missed is that most other classes have stuff that they get back on short rests as well. Since people are comparing stuff to wizard so much, the wizard can recover their highest level spell slot (provided it is 6th or below) on a short rest, or they can split it into multiple lower level spells. I bring this up since the debate seems to be Warlock has short rest recover while other classes get nothing. While they don't get anywhere near as much as a Warlock, it's far from nothing. And while a sorcerer doesn't get anything back on a short rest (2014 version), they can still create additional spell slots with them if they choose, and the current playtest version does have a (very lame) restoration mechanic allowing them to regain something on a short rest. Bards regain bardic inspiration, Clerics regain channel divinity, and druids regain wild shape on short rests, and none of that involves subclass choices yet (like Circle of the Land).
But if having three pact slots at level 7 is too much, the issue is that 2 is not enough, and at level 9 it is laughably inadequate - bad enough that I question whether the class was even playtested at that level. What other options are there to consider? Maybe a 1 level delay on when pact slots reach the highest spell level - having them increase at even levels instead of odd ones? I doubt 3 3rd level pact slots when other full casters have a 4th lvl spell would be seen as so unbalancing, and it would still be light years ahead of the half caster debacle from Playtest 5.
I don't think it's missed so much as unconsidered. A warlock that regained as much as a Wizard on short rest would be fine, the problem comes up when you consider that the warlock can regain spell slots each time and each short rest restores their full suite of spells. Not enough to make them a full caster, but in much better shape than a full caster after a deadly encounter.
As I've said here and elsewhere, the solution should be to stagger casts so that the Warlock can cast a few spells at full caster potency and a few spells of lower level without stepping on the toes of full casters is the way to do it. Something like the table below (not mine, but I've unfortunately lost the original source). Add on a Mystic Cunning ability that restores 1 slot per spell level on a short rest once between long rests and you're casting more spells at identical potency without being able to spend slots like water as a full caster..
Even if this was what most players wanted, at this stage of the playtest the devs wont try out anything as radical as this any more. Best we can hope for is a slight improvement of what we’ve seen in playtest 7. Therefore I advocate for the following changes:
Delay the 2nd pact slot until 3rd level, move the 3rd slot to level 8 or 9. In addition (as suggested by SakuraCardCaptorsClearCard in the other thread) make warlock only recover 1 slot per SR and change Magical Cunning to regaining all Pact slots.
This increases the number of slots on high tier 2 while reducing the SR dependence and prevents insanely overpowered warlocks on tables with too many SR.
This would of course require changing the capstone too. I suggest to something like “regain x slots when rolling initiative.”
I suspect that in the end the developers are going to have to present several proposals and, instead of evaluating each one separately, ask the community which one they like best. Basically because I suspect that this version of warlock is not going to make the 60% approval cutoff either. And I don't think any possible version comes to that. Why? Well, because the positions are acrimonious, and some players want one thing, and others the opposite. So, since the middle point is very complicated, it is best to look for the proposal with the greatest number of supporters.
And I think the same thing will happen with the druid wildshape. We'll see what the druid iteration is like in the next playtest, and what JC says about playtest 6 (it was 6, right?). But I think it will not achieve the desired acceptance either.
Even if this was what most players wanted, at this stage of the playtest the devs wont try out anything as radical as this any more.
Then that's why they'll fail; they tried half caster, and while it wasn't my preferred solution to warlock's problems, it could have been improved into something I could still be satisfied with.
While my feedback included criticism of the solution as a whole in the general Warlock feedback box, in the specific feedback I focused on trying to explain what I didn't like about specific aspects, or which could be improved to address balance issues (Mystic Arcanum not being balanced compared to other invocations). But it feels like they just treated all criticism of the changes as entirely negative and completely ignored the detailed of what people didn't like and why, leading them to just scrap the whole thing when it could have tried improving it first.
Now they've gone back to 5e Warlock with a bunch of weird changes, reintroducing old problems and creating new ones. And it seems like they still don't understand that turning features into invocations without any kind of rebalancing simply doesn't work; they don't get to talk about how they'll do a separate balance pass because for a playtest to be useful there needs to be at least an initial attempt to balance any changes, otherwise all you're going to get are complaints about how unbalanced they are.
The more radical changes (Druid and Warlock) should have been released first, so they put out variants and refinements and get a much more complete picture of what people like and dislike about each version, and whether they're getting closer or further from something people will be happy with. Having Warlock be one of the last classes to get an update was just monumentally bad planning, as the more you intend to change, the more feedback you're going to need to get it right.
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.
While my feedback included criticism of the solution as a whole in the general Warlock feedback box, in the specific feedback I focused on trying to explain what I didn't like about specific aspects, or which could be improved to address balance issues (Mystic Arcanum not being balanced compared to other invocations). But it feels like they just treated all criticism of the changes as entirely negative and completely ignored the detailed of what people didn't like and why, leading them to just scrap the whole thing when it could have tried improving it first.
They are looking at 20,000+ responses to those surveys. Yours was just one, so no they didn't read and consider your specific criticisms, it almost certainly was boiled down into "half-caster=bad", "mystic arcanum as invocations = bad". Which they absolutely did respond to by scrapping half-caster and putting mystic arcanum back as they were before. There is a significant number of warlock fans who like the SR recharge of Pact Slots which means for balance reasons the warlock can't have more slots.
it almost certainly was boiled down into "half-caster=bad", "mystic arcanum as invocations = bad".
If they're just going to take knee-jerk reactions to a view of feedback that doesn't involve reading it then why ask for detailed feedback in the first place? It's just a waste of everybody's time.
There is a significant number of warlock fans who like the SR recharge of Pact Slots which means for balance reasons the warlock can't have more slots.
Warlocks can absolutely have more slots, because the short rest recharge should still be designed around an assumed number of short rests.
For example, if Warlock is designed for a minimum of one short rest per adventuring day, then the expected total slots is double, i.e- at 5th-level a Warlock is expected to have four 3rd-level slots per day. So they could be tweaked into either four 3rd-level slots per long rest, or three with one regained on a short rest. If the intention is two short rests per day then they could have six slots per long rest, or four with one regained on short rest etc. etc.
The point is to adjust the Warlock so it can cope better with the imbalance of having more or less short rests than expected. It will help Warlock at least, though arguably this is something they need to be doing for all classes; long rest resources (where feasible) should be reduced with partial short rest recovery added, while short rest resources (where feasible) should become long rest resources with partial short rest recovery. This way everyone is similarly dependent upon short rests, casters aren't as overpowered on shorter adventuring days etc.
The primary difference for Warlock vs. other full casters is then that the Warlock has fewer total slots (now guaranteed), but with a higher minimum slot level; so at 9th-level they can cast more spells at 5th-level than other casters, but can't cast at 3rd-, 4th- etc. This is essentially how it is in 5th edition but only when you get the expected number of short rests per adventuring day and you know you're going to get them (so you don't save your pact slots only to end up not using them). This is the fundamental problem that still needs solving; playtest 7 adds some features that help, invocations that were previously terrible are now actually worth taking etc., but the core problem is still there.
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.
Not sure how many more iterations we will see on classes. Spells still need UA time as well as DMG/MM. maybe they will keep some brief iterations along with DMG/MM UA’s since I’m not sure how much of those two books we can playtest, compared to classes
Also, if the number of short rests is the issue then maybe they should set the number you can take. If they balance around 1 SR then it should be RAW you get 1 SR per long rest. The problem is if you balance for a certain number of SR but the number you can actually take is unlimited then it is another problem.
While my feedback included criticism of the solution as a whole in the general Warlock feedback box, in the specific feedback I focused on trying to explain what I didn't like about specific aspects, or which could be improved to address balance issues (Mystic Arcanum not being balanced compared to other invocations). But it feels like they just treated all criticism of the changes as entirely negative and completely ignored the detailed of what people didn't like and why, leading them to just scrap the whole thing when it could have tried improving it first.
They are looking at 20,000+ responses to those surveys. Yours was just one, so no they didn't read and consider your specific criticisms, it almost certainly was boiled down into "half-caster=bad", "mystic arcanum as invocations = bad". Which they absolutely did respond to by scrapping half-caster and putting mystic arcanum back as they were before. There is a significant number of warlock fans who like the SR recharge of Pact Slots which means for balance reasons the warlock can't have more slots.
I would be curious to find out how many people like the SR recharge vs like the max spell level for all slots. And if there is a difference/disparity. Personally, I would be fine with warlocks being long rest recovery but still Pact slots at highest level. Then features like Magical Cunning to help out.
The half caster warlock was bad because you gave up spell potency to gain spell availability. The Mystic Arcanum invocation returned some potency, but in an extremely limited format. It also took away from your ability to grab other invocations. The flaw is that there was no way to remove Mystic Arcanum from invocations in that format, because at the highest levels of play selecting mostly MA invocations put you on par with full casters. If you are on par with full casters then you shouldn’t have a bunch of other invocations. I think the easiest fix for the half caster version is to make MA invocations make you learn a spell and gain a spell slot of that level so you could use them cast that spell or to upcast another spell. With the at will invocations brought down to appropriate levels like UA7 and the Pacts Boons being invocations it places Warlocks in a place were they must decide how they want to build. I would miss pact magic, but I would be okay with half caster warlock with just this one change.
The only reasonable fix I see for Pact Magic Warlock is invocations that grant low level spell slots. I attempted to just give Warlocks 1/3 Spellcasting on top of Pact Magic and discovered it was too strong if they didn’t give up some invocations for that power gain. Right now I’m playing with adding Spellcasting levels as invocations and it works pretty well and doesn’t break multiclassing.
The half caster warlock was bad because you gave up spell potency to gain spell availability. The Mystic Arcanum invocation returned some potency, but in an extremely limited format. It also took away from your ability to grab other invocations. The flaw is that there was no way to remove Mystic Arcanum from invocations in that format, because at the highest levels of play selecting mostly MA invocations put you on par with full casters. If you are on par with full casters then you shouldn’t have a bunch of other invocations. I think the easiest fix for the half caster version is to make MA invocations make you learn a spell and gain a spell slot of that level so you could use them cast that spell or to upcast another spell. With the at will invocations brought down to appropriate levels like UA7 and the Pacts Boons being invocations it places Warlocks in a place were they must decide how they want to build. I would miss pact magic, but I would be okay with half caster warlock with just this one change.
The only reasonable fix I see for Pact Magic Warlock is invocations that grant low level spell slots. I attempted to just give Warlocks 1/3 Spellcasting on top of Pact Magic and discovered it was too strong if they didn’t give up some invocations for that power gain. Right now I’m playing with adding Spellcasting levels as invocations and it works pretty well and doesn’t break multiclassing.
I really like this idea and think it shows both an appropriate amount of balance and adaptability. Only thing I'd add on is the ability to restore a Mystic Arcanum cast of 5th level or below on a short rest, once per long rest. Slots should prolly equal that of a Wizard at 1/2 level rounded up in spell slots.
I suppose since the developers won't budge on pact magic now the only balanced way to increase casts/day is to instead grant additional lower-level slots as invocations. I figure Pact of the Tome is the starting point, do you have a couple examples for how this progression would go?
Spells from any spell list is literally magical secrets and you would be giving the warlock potentially 8 of them if they wanted to be caster focused but still have the Tome and Agonizing Blast. If its a repeatable invocation it could be 10 additional spells if you skip Tome and Agonizing Blast. It’s too strong. Even if you limited it 2nd level and lower spells it’s still too strong and a mockery of Magical Secrets.
Giving them their 3rd pact slot at 7th is giving them more pact slots at 7th. I’m against that. A full Caster only has one 4th level slot a Warlock having three 4th level slots at this point is overpowered, especially if you also want them plucking spells from everyone else’s list. There are ways to improve the warlocks ability to cast spells without trying to make them overpowered. Getting some lower level spell slots to cast your Warlock spells is the only way to fix this problem with out making the Warlock over powered. Attaching these spell slots or Spellcasting levels (which is what I used to create a version that scales with multiclassing) to invocations is also important to make it optional and maintains something similar to gam balance.
Serious questions:
How long have you been playing?
What classes have you played?
Do you DM?
I’m asking so I can try to understand your thought process. A person who played a bard and remembers selecting their magical secrets might have a different view than someone who hasn’t. Maybe if I understand why you think more pact slots at lower levels fixes the problem I can better explain why it doesn’t.
And at level 8 they also get 2 - just like warlock, but they get 10(!) more lower level spells on top. Isn't that suddenly overpowered compared to warlock now?
7, 8 or 9 is perfectly fine for a 3rd slot. If 7 is too demanding, 8 or 9 is fine as well. But currently you have 9 levels playing at 2 spells per rest. It's laughable.
3 4th level slots at 7th level Vs 1 4th, 3 3rd, 3 2nd, and 4 1st level isn’t really that overpowered.
And letting the Warlock select once per long rest spells isn’t making a mockery of the Bard.
As for my thoughts. I honestly believe WotC could drop 6 classes Bard, Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, Monk, and Sorcerer
Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, and Monk can be made into Fighter subclasses.
Bard and Sorcerer can be made into feat’s.
When converting to spell points, full casters have roughly 3 times the sp than warlock. When comparing the curves, the warlocks lags behind on levels 8,9 and 10. Giving them the 3rd slot at lvl 8 however inverts this relation. Therefore, lvl 9 is the best lvl to give the warlock their 3rd slot. Note that this is only due to the huge power spike that FC get on lvl 9. The curve would be a bit smoother if we give the warlock the 3rd slot on 8…
While we’re on the topic, warlocks get their 2nd spell slot to early. It should be on 3rd level rather than 2nd.
if you haven't filled out your UA7 survey yet, maybe consider slightly more subtle feedback. "burn it down for the insurance money" might not be the sort of playtest commentary they'd easily digest at this stage.
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!
Only if you factor the Warlock as just a vehicle for casting spells. Warlocks get a great deal more, and more modular features, than any other class in the game. The Warlock's casting ability should be nerfed compared to full casters. Obviously not to the degree of the massive nerf that was half-casters, but the Warlock shouldn't be pulling as many max-level spells as a full caster.
The Warlock number of spells should be increased (and worked around long resting like every other caster in the game) but that increase needs to be staggered with a few additional lower level spells to avoid casting as many high powered spells (relative to level) as full casters.
But a Warlock isn’t a full caster. They have things other than spells that a full caster doesn’t have. 5e Invocations are strong, UA7 improved a ton of them by bringing them down to appropriate levels. Also I think you forget one short rest later and however many pact slots a warlock used are back. Unless you are suggesting pack slots lose there ability to recharge on a short rest I won’t ever consider giving the Warlock more pact slots at lower levels. It’s laughable that you underrate the power of a short rest recharge.
Three 4 level spell slots is overpowered at 7th level because the power of a 4th level spell higher than a 3rd level spell. Also more importantly it’s only 3 slots if you have a DM that never gives rest or you are at a one combat per day with nothing else to spend spell on table. If it’s a one short rest table you have 6 4th level spell slots. If it’s a 2 short rest table you have 9 4th level spell slots. I don’t understand how you can make the argument that it’s not overpowered.
Also you didn’t say just one spell from any list once a day. You said a repeatable invocation. So that’s multiple spells from multiple list. It’s a more choice, but less flexible version of magical secrets. The Warlock just needs to cast more Warlock spells with some long rest 1st level spell slots at 7th which it gains from invocations.
Also if WotC was going to drop classes, Warlock would be dropped before all the classes you named. It’s the newest of all the classes. Pact magic and Invocations are easily feats. Honestly it would make more sense for someone to take a Pact with a Fiend feat than it is for them to take I can play magical music feat. Thankfully they aren’t going to listen to this bad suggestion and no Classes are getting cut anytime soon.
One thing being missed is that most other classes have stuff that they get back on short rests as well. Since people are comparing stuff to wizard so much, the wizard can recover their highest level spell slot (provided it is 6th or below) on a short rest, or they can split it into multiple lower level spells. I bring this up since the debate seems to be Warlock has short rest recover while other classes get nothing. While they don't get anywhere near as much as a Warlock, it's far from nothing. And while a sorcerer doesn't get anything back on a short rest (2014 version), they can still create additional spell slots with them if they choose, and the current playtest version does have a (very lame) restoration mechanic allowing them to regain something on a short rest. Bards regain bardic inspiration, Clerics regain channel divinity, and druids regain wild shape on short rests, and none of that involves subclass choices yet (like Circle of the Land).
But if having three pact slots at level 7 is too much, the issue is that 2 is not enough, and at level 9 it is laughably inadequate - bad enough that I question whether the class was even playtested at that level. What other options are there to consider? Maybe a 1 level delay on when pact slots reach the highest spell level - having them increase at even levels instead of odd ones? I doubt 3 3rd level pact slots when other full casters have a 4th lvl spell would be seen as so unbalancing, and it would still be light years ahead of the half caster debacle from Playtest 5.
I don't think it's missed so much as unconsidered. A warlock that regained as much as a Wizard on short rest would be fine, the problem comes up when you consider that the warlock can regain spell slots each time and each short rest restores their full suite of spells. Not enough to make them a full caster, but in much better shape than a full caster after a deadly encounter.
As I've said here and elsewhere, the solution should be to stagger casts so that the Warlock can cast a few spells at full caster potency and a few spells of lower level without stepping on the toes of full casters is the way to do it. Something like the table below (not mine, but I've unfortunately lost the original source). Add on a Mystic Cunning ability that restores 1 slot per spell level on a short rest once between long rests and you're casting more spells at identical potency without being able to spend slots like water as a full caster..
Even if this was what most players wanted, at this stage of the playtest the devs wont try out anything as radical as this any more. Best we can hope for is a slight improvement of what we’ve seen in playtest 7. Therefore I advocate for the following changes:
Delay the 2nd pact slot until 3rd level, move the 3rd slot to level 8 or 9. In addition (as suggested by SakuraCardCaptorsClearCard in the other thread) make warlock only recover 1 slot per SR and change Magical Cunning to regaining all Pact slots.
This increases the number of slots on high tier 2 while reducing the SR dependence and prevents insanely overpowered warlocks on tables with too many SR.
This would of course require changing the capstone too. I suggest to something like “regain x slots when rolling initiative.”
I suspect that in the end the developers are going to have to present several proposals and, instead of evaluating each one separately, ask the community which one they like best. Basically because I suspect that this version of warlock is not going to make the 60% approval cutoff either. And I don't think any possible version comes to that. Why? Well, because the positions are acrimonious, and some players want one thing, and others the opposite. So, since the middle point is very complicated, it is best to look for the proposal with the greatest number of supporters.
And I think the same thing will happen with the druid wildshape. We'll see what the druid iteration is like in the next playtest, and what JC says about playtest 6 (it was 6, right?). But I think it will not achieve the desired acceptance either.
Then that's why they'll fail; they tried half caster, and while it wasn't my preferred solution to warlock's problems, it could have been improved into something I could still be satisfied with.
While my feedback included criticism of the solution as a whole in the general Warlock feedback box, in the specific feedback I focused on trying to explain what I didn't like about specific aspects, or which could be improved to address balance issues (Mystic Arcanum not being balanced compared to other invocations). But it feels like they just treated all criticism of the changes as entirely negative and completely ignored the detailed of what people didn't like and why, leading them to just scrap the whole thing when it could have tried improving it first.
Now they've gone back to 5e Warlock with a bunch of weird changes, reintroducing old problems and creating new ones. And it seems like they still don't understand that turning features into invocations without any kind of rebalancing simply doesn't work; they don't get to talk about how they'll do a separate balance pass because for a playtest to be useful there needs to be at least an initial attempt to balance any changes, otherwise all you're going to get are complaints about how unbalanced they are.
The more radical changes (Druid and Warlock) should have been released first, so they put out variants and refinements and get a much more complete picture of what people like and dislike about each version, and whether they're getting closer or further from something people will be happy with. Having Warlock be one of the last classes to get an update was just monumentally bad planning, as the more you intend to change, the more feedback you're going to need to get it right.
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.
They are looking at 20,000+ responses to those surveys. Yours was just one, so no they didn't read and consider your specific criticisms, it almost certainly was boiled down into "half-caster=bad", "mystic arcanum as invocations = bad". Which they absolutely did respond to by scrapping half-caster and putting mystic arcanum back as they were before. There is a significant number of warlock fans who like the SR recharge of Pact Slots which means for balance reasons the warlock can't have more slots.
If they're just going to take knee-jerk reactions to a view of feedback that doesn't involve reading it then why ask for detailed feedback in the first place? It's just a waste of everybody's time.
Warlocks can absolutely have more slots, because the short rest recharge should still be designed around an assumed number of short rests.
For example, if Warlock is designed for a minimum of one short rest per adventuring day, then the expected total slots is double, i.e- at 5th-level a Warlock is expected to have four 3rd-level slots per day. So they could be tweaked into either four 3rd-level slots per long rest, or three with one regained on a short rest. If the intention is two short rests per day then they could have six slots per long rest, or four with one regained on short rest etc. etc.
The point is to adjust the Warlock so it can cope better with the imbalance of having more or less short rests than expected. It will help Warlock at least, though arguably this is something they need to be doing for all classes; long rest resources (where feasible) should be reduced with partial short rest recovery added, while short rest resources (where feasible) should become long rest resources with partial short rest recovery. This way everyone is similarly dependent upon short rests, casters aren't as overpowered on shorter adventuring days etc.
The primary difference for Warlock vs. other full casters is then that the Warlock has fewer total slots (now guaranteed), but with a higher minimum slot level; so at 9th-level they can cast more spells at 5th-level than other casters, but can't cast at 3rd-, 4th- etc. This is essentially how it is in 5th edition but only when you get the expected number of short rests per adventuring day and you know you're going to get them (so you don't save your pact slots only to end up not using them). This is the fundamental problem that still needs solving; playtest 7 adds some features that help, invocations that were previously terrible are now actually worth taking etc., but the core problem is still there.
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.
Not sure how many more iterations we will see on classes. Spells still need UA time as well as DMG/MM. maybe they will keep some brief iterations along with DMG/MM UA’s since I’m not sure how much of those two books we can playtest, compared to classes
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Also, if the number of short rests is the issue then maybe they should set the number you can take. If they balance around 1 SR then it should be RAW you get 1 SR per long rest. The problem is if you balance for a certain number of SR but the number you can actually take is unlimited then it is another problem.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I would be curious to find out how many people like the SR recharge vs like the max spell level for all slots. And if there is a difference/disparity. Personally, I would be fine with warlocks being long rest recovery but still Pact slots at highest level. Then features like Magical Cunning to help out.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
The half caster warlock was bad because you gave up spell potency to gain spell availability. The Mystic Arcanum invocation returned some potency, but in an extremely limited format. It also took away from your ability to grab other invocations. The flaw is that there was no way to remove Mystic Arcanum from invocations in that format, because at the highest levels of play selecting mostly MA invocations put you on par with full casters. If you are on par with full casters then you shouldn’t have a bunch of other invocations. I think the easiest fix for the half caster version is to make MA invocations make you learn a spell and gain a spell slot of that level so you could use them cast that spell or to upcast another spell. With the at will invocations brought down to appropriate levels like UA7 and the Pacts Boons being invocations it places Warlocks in a place were they must decide how they want to build. I would miss pact magic, but I would be okay with half caster warlock with just this one change.
The only reasonable fix I see for Pact Magic Warlock is invocations that grant low level spell slots. I attempted to just give Warlocks 1/3 Spellcasting on top of Pact Magic and discovered it was too strong if they didn’t give up some invocations for that power gain. Right now I’m playing with adding Spellcasting levels as invocations and it works pretty well and doesn’t break multiclassing.
I really like this idea and think it shows both an appropriate amount of balance and adaptability. Only thing I'd add on is the ability to restore a Mystic Arcanum cast of 5th level or below on a short rest, once per long rest. Slots should prolly equal that of a Wizard at 1/2 level rounded up in spell slots.
I suppose since the developers won't budge on pact magic now the only balanced way to increase casts/day is to instead grant additional lower-level slots as invocations. I figure Pact of the Tome is the starting point, do you have a couple examples for how this progression would go?