I am realizing that for myself as long as it is fairly well balanced and a unique way of doing things with a lot of modular options I am probably going to be happy with warlock. It is why I was ok with the last one and good with this one.
But I did want to point out something i believe people are struggling with when it comes to warlock. There seems to be some misunderstanding with why pact magic is structured the way it is.
First obviously WoTC considers Warlock to be a pseudo 3/4 caster essentially where they should be using some of their 'martial' prowess (EB/PotB) as compensation for less spell casting than a full caster.
Second people made it clear they wanted the full level casts back, but wizards doesn't feel comfortable with having a single character that can cast more than 2 second level spells in a single combat at level 3, or more than 2 3rd level spells in a single combat at level 5, they are probably barely comfortable with 2 4th level spells in a single combat at level 7 and same with level 9 and 5th level spells.
Pact magic is currently structured in a way to prevent too many powerful casts in a single combat by a single character. However, they want daily resources of warlock to be more in line with that of a half caster or better. By level 5 a half caster can cast 6 spells total and with tome and 1 short rest and magical cunning, so can the warlock. Which only really changes at level 9 when the half caster gets to 9, but changes back at level 11 when the lock gets their third slot and mystic arcanum.
This is the structure of pact magic, the power of a full casters best spells in a single combat with the total number of castings of a half caster throughout the day.
This was the case for the 2014 warlock as well WITH the assumption that WoTC was going under of 2 rests per day. I don't work for WoTC but these last few UA's have told me that the 2 rest per day assumption isn't there anymore. But they still do seem to assume 1 short rest. Which I have said I feel is fair, and fair to assume. You don't design a game with short and long rests with the intent that the players never use one of the two rests in an adventuring day.
Hate the number munchers as much as ya'll want, but I see what they are going for, and I do not feel they are wrong to go for it. They have toned down the number of smites you can do in a single turn and limited stunning strike to once per turn because they want the big boss fight at the end of the dungeon to be epic and the struggle on the way to the boss to use some resources too. It is structured and changed that way for the same reason they don't want more than 2 3rd level spells to be cast by the same character in a single fight at level 5.
I am realizing that for myself as long as it is fairly well balanced and a unique way of doing things with a lot of modular options I am probably going to be happy with warlock. It is why I was ok with the last one and good with this one.
But I did want to point out something i believe people are struggling with when it comes to warlock. There seems to be some misunderstanding with why pact magic is structured the way it is.
There's no misunderstanding at all.
There's disagreement.
Disagreement and misunderstanding are two different things.
First obviously WoTC considers Warlock to be a pseudo 3/4 caster essentially where they should be using some of their 'martial' prowess (EB/PotB) as compensation for less spell casting than a full caster.
Second people made it clear they wanted the full level casts back, but wizards doesn't feel comfortable with having a single character that can cast more than 2 second level spells in a single combat at level 3, or more than 2 3rd level spells in a single combat at level 5, they are probably barely comfortable with 2 4th level spells in a single combat at level 7 and same with level 9 and 5th level spells.
Where was this stated? This is an inference as much as anything the "number haters" have stated. it's a logical/reasonable one, certainly, but it's still an inference.
Pact magic is currently structured in a way to prevent too many powerful casts in a single combat by a single character. However, they want daily resources of warlock to be more in line with that of a half caster or better. By level 5 a half caster can cast 6 spells total and with tome and 1 short rest and magical cunning, so can the warlock. Which only really changes at level 9 when the half caster gets to 9, but changes back at level 11 when the lock gets their third slot and mystic arcanum.
This is the structure of pact magic, the power of a full casters best spells in a single combat with the total number of castings of a half caster throughout the day.
That's one interpretation of 'the structure of Pact Magic', yes. Again, a reasonable one, but it's far from Definitive(C).
This was the case for the 2014 warlock as well WITH the assumption that WoTC was going under of 2 rests per day. I don't work for WoTC but these last few UA's have told me that the 2 rest per day assumption isn't there anymore. But they still do seem to assume 1 short rest. Which I have said I feel is fair, and fair to assume. You don't design a game with short and long rests with the intent that the players never use one of the two rests in an adventuring day.
The problem can be summarized with the old cartoon turn of phrase "I'll gladly pay you tomorrow for a hamburger today". The fact that the warlock, under "ideal" resting conditions, has roughly the same number of casts per day as a half-caster or even a full caster is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that the warlock runs out of leveled spellcasting the next best thing to completely instantly, and no warlock player can ever KNOW they're going to get the fast recharge their class implies. They can suspect they will. They can assume they will. They can even demand that fast recharge and accuse anyone who doesn't give it to them of being an evil cheater, the way y'all always accuse me of being an evil cheater.
But they. Cannot. Know. And that means any player who is not an inveterate gambler HAS to treat their "Short Rest" resources like long rest resources, because whether they regularly get thirty-seven hundred short rests a day or not, they cannot KNOW they will do so and must - I repeat, MUST - keep reserves in the tank all damn day if they wish to be effective adventurers. A warlock player that routinely, recklessly assumes he'll always get all kinds of free chances to recharge and blows his spells profligately is a warlock player that will be caught on empty and killed whenever the DM finally decides he's had enough of players not belieiving in either time management or security.
Some players love this. They adore it. They die for that sense of gambling with the universe, hoping to Strike It Big and get that 10+ short rest day where they're golden gods of spellslinging. Many other players hate that feeling, as evinced by the fact that people have complained about warlock not getting enough spells since the 2014 books were released.
All this thread, all the other thread, all the other dozen threads before it? Supporters of the 2014 design have resorted to, more or less, saying "you're just wrong-brained, if you stopped thinking wrongly warlock would be fine." You won't convince anyone to stop "thinking wrongly." You have to fix the problem. And the problem is that Pact Magic feels bad to use for a large percentage of players because of its intensely and fundamentally uncertain "fast" recharge.
Hate the number munchers as much as ya'll want, but I see what they are going for, and I do not feel they are wrong to go for it. They have toned down the number of smites you can do in a single turn and limited stunning strike to once per turn because they want the big boss fight at the end of the dungeon to be epic and the struggle on the way to the boss to use some resources too. It is structured and changed that way for the same reason they don't want more than 2 3rd level spells to be cast by the same character in a single fight at level 5.
It's not about hating number munchers. It's about telling number munchers to stop using bad math that deliberately misleads readers into thinking things are true that are not true because nobody at a real, actual D&D table plays or acts the way trhe number muncher's math says they play/act. Easy as that.
I wouldn't call 1 rest a day ideal resting conditions. Every caster needs to be conservative with their spells. A warlock should be able to gauge when the short rest is coming by looking at the damage the party has taken. Martials aren't going to go into the next combat low on health so they are going to NEED to spend hit dice. If they are getting low chances are you are going to take a short rest. Magical cunning should also make going out feel less bad because you know you can get 1 more back and still be good till that long or short rest. It is really that simple, gauge your spells based on party health and resources. It is a team game, play like a team.
From an old school real time strategy game philosophy. The resources you did not spend by the end of the game, whether win or lose, are wasted. Money is only worth the asset you can purchase with it.
The Eldritch Knight is a warrior that can cast spells.
The Blade pact warlock is (theoretically, ostensibly, not really but for purposes of argument) a spellcaster that can use swords.
If you don't know what the difference is there, I can't help you. Nobody says the Eldritch Knight and the Bladesinger are the same thing, and those two subclasses share a whole lot more DNA than the warlock and the EK.
Flavor is not free. Flavor unsupported by mechanics is thin, insubstantial, and deeply unsatisfying. Mechanics unsupported by flavor are dry, dusty, and unappetizing. You need both, they need to work together, and there's no room for debate on the matter. Not really.
EDIT: You missed the part where I said that this change was in conjunction with the Eldritch-Blast-as-class-feature change given in the original post, Kahbiel. the only way to get more EB beams is to get more warlock levels.
Fully agree with your points about flavor here.
I did miss your point about EB only scaling with Warlock levels, that does alleviate the multi-classing issue.
However the multiple melee attacks from PotB stands. The balance concerns over the 3rd attack at 11 are still quite hot, I don't think anyone has even considered adding another attack at 17 (not that I'm much concerned with balance at that level anyway). It also adds attacks for free where the current set up requires at least one more invocation. That, plus this invocations ability to combine with melee attack feats, are the single class balance concerns.
Hate the number munchers as much as ya'll want, but I see what they are going for, and I do not feel they are wrong to go for it. They have toned down the number of smites you can do in a single turn and limited stunning strike to once per turn because they want the big boss fight at the end of the dungeon to be epic and the struggle on the way to the boss to use some resources too. It is structured and changed that way for the same reason they don't want more than 2 3rd level spells to be cast by the same character in a single fight at level 5.
Snipping the vast majority of your post here, but referencing it because I completely agree on the vast majority of what you said.
My couple quibbles would be Short Rest Dependency and reconciling spells.
On the first, I just don't like the way that the Warlocks spell dependency requires short rests, and thi k it could be fixed to model a 1 or 2 short rest period without forcing the Warlock to beg the party for an hour break. Not everyone has a problem with this though; so what-ev.
On number of spells however, I think you can get much better mileage out of keeping the Warlocks # of max lvl spells limited compared to a FC while still giving them some spell casting options. In this model, as the Warlock gains increased spell levels they looses spell slots from lower lvl spells, but done at a rate where they still feel the sting. Spells / long rest stay at a range of 4 to 6 with a partial recovery at short rest, but at no point is the warlock casting more 3rd level spells than a FC, and before 14th is the Warlock isnt throwing out more 4th or 5th level spells.
So you're still more vulnerable than FC to running out of spells, but you've got some wriggle room to adapt. Simultaneously, you're never outperforming full casters at their highest level spells available.
Hate the number munchers as much as ya'll want, but I see what they are going for, and I do not feel they are wrong to go for it. They have toned down the number of smites you can do in a single turn and limited stunning strike to once per turn because they want the big boss fight at the end of the dungeon to be epic and the struggle on the way to the boss to use some resources too. It is structured and changed that way for the same reason they don't want more than 2 3rd level spells to be cast by the same character in a single fight at level 5.
Snipping the vast majority of your post here, but referencing it because I completely agree on the vast majority of what you said.
My couple quibbles would be Short Rest Dependency and reconciling spells.
On the first, I just don't like the way that the Warlocks spell dependency requires short rests, and thi k it could be fixed to model a 1 or 2 short rest period without forcing the Warlock to beg the party for an hour break. Not everyone has a problem with this though; so what-ev.
On number of spells however, I think you can get much better mileage out of keeping the Warlocks # of max lvl spells limited compared to a FC while still giving them some spell casting options. In this model, as the Warlock gains increased spell levels they looses spell slots from lower lvl spells, but done at a rate where they still feel the sting. Spells / long rest stay at a range of 4 to 6 with a partial recovery at short rest, but at no point is the warlock casting more 3rd level spells than a FC, and before 14th is the Warlock isnt throwing out more 4th or 5th level spells.
So you're still more vulnerable than FC to running out of spells, but you've got some wriggle room to adapt. Simultaneously, you're never outperforming full casters at their highest level spells available.
And as I have said, I would probably be ok with something along those lines. The issues I have seen so far with most suggestions is that it usually doesn't accomplish some of these goals or comes dangerously close to just being a full caster. For example in the other thread the thing you posted is just an outright nerf to daily casting at most levels for the benefits of having it all at once and able to do it all in a single fight. I don't know if I care for that. If the warlock is going to lose higher level slots I would like to see more casting with lower levels, but every time I have tried to create that myself it has come dangerously close to just being a full caster.
If I were to keep the goal of "not casting more top level spells than full caster, but ALSO keeping number of total casts= to half casters, but all at once" it would probably be. 2 first level spells at 1 (which is UA7 achieves with tome) 3 first level spells at level 2 (again UA7 achieves this with tome no rests needed and no magical cunning needed). 2 second level spells and 1 first at level 3 (same number of max spells as a full caster, total number of spells as a half caster, again the exact same as UA7 with tome and no rests or magical cunning). (warlocks are ridiculously strong in the first few levels) 3 second level spells at level 4 2 3rd level 3 second level at level 5 3 3rd and 3 second at level 6 1 4th, 3 3rd and 3 second at level 7 2 4th, 3 3rd, and 2 second at level 8 1 5th, 3 4th, 3 3rd, and 2 second at level 9.....
This is same total number of casts as a half caster with same number of max casts as a full caster.... and it looks dangerously close to just being a full caster without first level slots but then you add in invocations for a bunch of first level spells and you are back to just being a full caster. Which starts requiring nerfs to invocations rolling back eb and AB.. so on and so forth.
I like sakura's idea in the previous, only one spell back on a short and all back with MC, but obviously then they need a new capstone WHICH THEY NEED ANYWAY.....
Yup, my earlier version was generally too stingy and think this is a significant improvement.
Why you would use the half-caster as the baseline for number of spells per day though? Initially it's balanced out, but as your write up indicates the Warlock would quickly gain so many spells that they might as well be a full caster anyway. I'm not, like.. being snide here, I genuinely don't see the benefit in symmetry.
For comparison with your version the details make a big difference. 1 3rd level at 5 rather than 2, 2 3rd and 2 2nd at 6, 2nd level spells drop off at 8 and 3rd level drop off at 11. This version would be able to cast as many to a little bit less amount of the big spells/level, but doesn't have access to enough spells to be constantly casting. Using half-caster as the template doesn't lop off nearly enough spells fast enough to accomplish the scarcity.
The Warlock would be able to cast all their spells immediately under my version here, but that's no different from a full caster. The diff compared to full caster is that with only 3-6 (4-7 with recovery) per long rest it would be likely be a waste of resources.
Yup, my earlier version was generally too stingy and think this is a significant improvement.
Why you would use the half-caster as the baseline for number of spells per day though? Initially it's balanced out, but as your write up indicates the Warlock would quickly gain so many spells that they might as well be a full caster anyway. I'm not, like.. being snide here, I genuinely don't see the benefit in symmetry.
For comparison with your version the details make a big difference. 1 3rd level at 5 rather than 2, 2 3rd and 2 2nd at 6, 2nd level spells drop off at 8 and 3rd level drop off at 11. This version would be able to cast as many to a little bit less amount of the big spells/level, but doesn't have access to enough spells to be constantly casting. Using half-caster as the template doesn't lop off nearly enough spells fast enough to accomplish the scarcity.
The Warlock would be able to cast all their spells immediately under my version here, but that's no different from a full caster. The diff compared to full caster is that with only 3-6 (4-7 with recovery) per long rest it would be likely be a waste of resources.
The reason being is currently with just 1 short rest, magical cunning and pact of the tome the warlock already manages to get the same number of casts as a half caster while having them all be big casts except the 1 first level slot from pact of the tome. They can't cast more of those big spells in a single fight, but they can cast them throughout the day. If we were to drop below the half caster in total number of casts per day I would suspect people would still complain about warlocks not getting enough spells.
For example if at level 5 there were only 4 spell (say 2 3rd and 2 second) and the whole day that was it that is only 4 spells total in that day. That is already what the warlock has with 0 short rests and one use of magical cunning gets. They just have 2 3rd (+one recovered with MC) and 1 first with tome instead of the second level spells. They just don't get that in one singular fight. People are already saying this is not enough casting to use out of combat utility spells and combat spells to then take away gaining 2 more casts with a short rest and limit it to 1 is just an outright reduction in both number of casts and strength of casts.
This is kind of where the issue is coming from. The warlock is getting a lot more casts than people are giving it credit for in this iteration.
I like the ideas but I think it could use some tuning. Pact of the blade needs a bit more oopmh as its just a spell sniper feat as is, bake in the AoO or smite into it.Diverse blaster gives a lot so its hard to complain but I think for features focusing on eldritch blast once per spell feel weird as the entire thing that makes eldritch blast unique is its multiple hits. Some things maybe need to be limited but it feels off in general as that is the entire gimmick of eldritch blast over other cantrips.
I have this issue in 2014 version as well but if the base damage is going to be force or raw magical energy it feels weird to me it does not effect objects. Cold, necrotic, a new spiritual category, radiant I can kind of see it. But if people don't want cantrips in general to effect a object I want it to be a damage type that it makes sense for and honestly I kind of prefer it being save based as I can see those as like a locking onto a life force style spell. Just feels off to create and direct enough magical energy or force to kill a horse instantly but it can't break a window. And if its a class feature and not a normal cantrip I don't think it has to be balanced against like fire bolt as the only cantrip to hit objects.
I agree that frequency and consistency of short rests is an issue for warlocks. And if WotC decided that you get exactly 1 short rest per long rest that could help with both DM’s and players knowing what’s coming. Not that I think they should do this.
But I also think the problem lies with people’s expectations of this class. Warlocks are not spellcasters in the sense we think of any other class that can cast spells.
Their slots refresh on a short rest. No other caster does this.
Their slots are held separately from all other spell slots when multiclassing. They don’t combine to determine spell slots although you can use them interchangeably with slots from other classes.
they scale to highest level slot. No other caster does this.
When choosing spells you have to look at them completely different than any other caster because of the auto-scaling. Spells that may be so-so for a regular caster may be fantastic on a warlock because they scale. And vice versa, some spells just don’t cut it when you are using higher level slots, but are great for other casters.
It’s basically warlocks we’re designed for one of two things:
1. A gish type character that relies on invocations to boost their melee with limited slots to assist as well as at will casts from invocations, if they can afford to spare any.
2. A Eldritch Blast spammer with invocations to boost their EB with limited slots to assist as well as at will casts from invocations, if they can afford to spare any.
If you are trying to play a warlock like any other caster, or outside of the two versions above you are probably going to be frustrated and disappointed.
And I’m not saying you are playing them wrong if you want to go your own way. You may have tons of fun doing so. And by all means play however you like. But warlocks are not "spellcasters” like any other. They are something different with the benefit of some limited slots as a gift of their patron.
And I’m not saying the 2014 version was perfect. I do think, and my opinion has been evolving during this playtest process, that UA7’s version is better than UA5 and fits the warlock idea with some adjustments to help. But it still needs some work.
I agree that frequency and consistency of short rests is an issue for warlocks. And if WotC decided that you get exactly 1 short rest per long rest that could help with both DM’s and players knowing what’s coming. Not that I think they should do this.
But I also think the problem lies with people’s expectations of this class. Warlocks are not spellcasters in the sense we think of any other class that can cast spells.
Their slots refresh on a short rest. No other caster does this.
Their slots are held separately from all other spell slots when multiclassing. They don’t combine to determine spell slots although you can use them interchangeably with slots from other classes.
they scale to highest level slot. No other caster does this.
When choosing spells you have to look at them completely different than any other caster because of the auto-scaling. Spells that may be so-so for a regular caster may be fantastic on a warlock because they scale. And vice versa, some spells just don’t cut it when you are using higher level slots, but are great for other casters.
It’s basically warlocks we’re designed for one of two things:
1. A gish type character that relies on invocations to boost their melee with limited slots to assist as well as at will casts from invocations, if they can afford to spare any.
2. A Eldritch Blast spammer with invocations to boost their EB with limited slots to assist as well as at will casts from invocations, if they can afford to spare any.
If you are trying to play a warlock like any other caster, or outside of the two versions above you are probably going to be frustrated and disappointed.
And I’m not saying you are playing them wrong if you want to go your own way. You may have tons of fun doing so. And by all means play however you like. But warlocks are not "spellcasters” like any other. They are something different with the benefit of some limited slots as a gift of their patron.
And I’m not saying the 2014 version was perfect. I do think, and my opinion has been evolving during this playtest process, that UA7’s version is better than UA5 and fits the warlock idea with some adjustments to help. But it still needs some work.
Then what is the point of even giving them spells other than the best ones (like armor of agathys, hex up to a certain point, shadow of moil, counterspell, etc) if the class isn't even designed to use them effectively?
It's the same question I sometimes ask about invocations and even cantrips. Why even make Agonizing Blast an invocation when you're actively nerfing yourself by not taking it as a typical blaster lock? Why would you even make eldritch blast a "choice" for cantrips when it clearly is the best option by a country mile, and will be taken by 99% of warlocks, thus reducing the genuine choices at 1st level by 1?
It feels more like an illusion of choice if you want to actually be effective in combat.
For your first question, I would say that they are working to remedy this problem, since they have stated that they are trying to provide more (or maybe all) spells with some kind of benefit for upcasting.
For the second question, yes if you want to play a typical blaster lock, then Eldritch Blast and Agonizing Blast are essential choices. However, some people don't play their Warlocks in this manner. The game they are in may not be as focused on combat as the average game, and thus Eldritch Blast and Agonizing Blast may even be sub-optimal in some circumstances. I realize this is rare, but I have heard people talking about not taking these features on a Warlock and enjoying the extra freedom it has given them to choose another cantrip and/or invocation.
I agree that frequency and consistency of short rests is an issue for warlocks. And if WotC decided that you get exactly 1 short rest per long rest that could help with both DM’s and players knowing what’s coming. Not that I think they should do this.
But I also think the problem lies with people’s expectations of this class. Warlocks are not spellcasters in the sense we think of any other class that can cast spells.
Their slots refresh on a short rest. No other caster does this.
Their slots are held separately from all other spell slots when multiclassing. They don’t combine to determine spell slots although you can use them interchangeably with slots from other classes.
they scale to highest level slot. No other caster does this.
When choosing spells you have to look at them completely different than any other caster because of the auto-scaling. Spells that may be so-so for a regular caster may be fantastic on a warlock because they scale. And vice versa, some spells just don’t cut it when you are using higher level slots, but are great for other casters.
It’s basically warlocks we’re designed for one of two things:
1. A gish type character that relies on invocations to boost their melee with limited slots to assist as well as at will casts from invocations, if they can afford to spare any.
2. A Eldritch Blast spammer with invocations to boost their EB with limited slots to assist as well as at will casts from invocations, if they can afford to spare any.
If you are trying to play a warlock like any other caster, or outside of the two versions above you are probably going to be frustrated and disappointed.
And I’m not saying you are playing them wrong if you want to go your own way. You may have tons of fun doing so. And by all means play however you like. But warlocks are not "spellcasters” like any other. They are something different with the benefit of some limited slots as a gift of their patron.
And I’m not saying the 2014 version was perfect. I do think, and my opinion has been evolving during this playtest process, that UA7’s version is better than UA5 and fits the warlock idea with some adjustments to help. But it still needs some work.
Then what is the point of even giving them spells other than the best ones (like armor of agathys, hex up to a certain point, shadow of moil, counterspell, etc) if the class isn't even designed to use them effectively?
It's the same question I sometimes ask about invocations and even cantrips. Why even make Agonizing Blast an invocation when you're actively nerfing yourself by not taking it as a typical blaster lock? Why would you even make eldritch blast a "choice" for cantrips when it clearly is the best option by a country mile, and will be taken by 99% of warlocks, thus reducing the genuine choices at 1st level by 1?
It feels more like an illusion of choice if you want to actually be effective in combat.
Except that it isn't, mainly because of the MCing potential for Warlock, which IMO is on brand for them. For a pure warlock, sure you're always going to take EB+AB, but for a MC you might or might not depending on what you want out of it. That said they should make EB+AB a class feature so it scales on warlock levels to prevent dipping. And the point of giving spell diversity is for versatility, if a warlock never casts anything other than Hex then we should remove spellcasting entirely from the warlock and just make Hex a class feature like the Bloodhunter's Rite damage. TBH if people only care about combat you could easily nix all the warlock spellcasting, and replace its invocations with limited use combat spells. Hopefully though, there are people who care about aspects of the game other than combat.
If all you care about is combat, then 1/2 of class features and 2/3 of spells are useless to you, and that is how it should be.
Except that it isn't, mainly because of the MCing potential for Warlock, which IMO is on brand for them. For a pure warlock, sure you're always going to take EB+AB, but for a MC you might or might not depending on what you want out of it. That said they should make EB+AB a class feature so it scales on warlock levels to prevent dipping. And the point of giving spell diversity is for versatility, if a warlock never casts anything other than Hex then we should remove spellcasting entirely from the warlock and just make Hex a class feature like the Bloodhunter's Rite damage. TBH if people only care about combat you could easily nix all the warlock spellcasting, and replace its invocations with limited use combat spells. Hopefully though, there are people who care about aspects of the game other than combat.
If all you care about is combat, then 1/2 of class features and 2/3 of spells are useless to you, and that is how it should be.
I shouldn't need to say it, but I do care about more than just combat. However, I'm not blind to the reality that the class as it is limits choices made in it, because D&D overall is still a heavily combat-focused game, and many players will not like it if the choices they make end up causing problems for their contributions to combat.
I also shouldn't need to state that I want Warlock as a class to stand on its own two feet rather than be seen mostly as a convenient multiclass dip.
I want Warlock to allow for more diverse selections without hampering a character's ability to do well in the combat pillar, because like it or not, a class's worth in this game is often greatly tied to how well you can contribute in that pillar, whether through direct damage or as support or battlefield control.
Warlock already gets the most diverse selections in the game. But for choices to be meaningful there must be a trade off. If you choose defensive options you sacrifice offense, if you choose utility spells you sacrifice combat spells, and if you choose OOC invocations you sacrifice combat invocations. Otherwise why have it be a choice at all? Just have all warlocks be identical with every spell on their spell list prepared, every invocation as a class feature they all get.
The problem with your argument is that you don't see this kind of trade off with any other spellcaster. Wizards, Sorcerers, Bards, Druids, Clerics, and even half-casters like Paladin and Artificer can have the best of these worlds without giving up too much. They can still be effective in combat (again, a major marker for a class's worth in this game, which you'd be hard pressed to deny, whether your personal experiences differ from this standard or not) while being effective in social control or utility or support or battlefield control if they so wish.
Eldritch Blast being a must-take in the class isn't just a meme. It's the reality for many who want to play the class for the long haul. D&D is not Blades in the Dark or Call of Cthulhu or World of Darkness where there is fully fleshed out out-of-combat gameplay that makes combat much less central as a pillar. Warlock as it is now would thrive in those kinds of game, but it was unfortunate to be in D&D.
They absolutely have the same trade off, Paladins get almost no utility features/spells and no battlefield control so they do not get the option to be awesome at utility (Warlock does), and have to choose whether to use their spellslots, channel divinity & spells prepared for combat or social, if they spend a spellslot on Zone of Truth or Find Steed they can't use it for Smite.
Wizards have to choose what spells they prepare, and when and where they spend their slots. If they use all their spells for utility, exploration & social then they will be utterly useless in combat, and if they go all in on every fight they will be next to useless by the time you get to the big bad. Sorcerers get so few spells known they have to choose whether to go with offense, defense or battlefield control, never mind utility.
In contrast Druids don't have the option to be awesome damage dealers and have no options for teleportation or even protecting camp, their spelllist is super limited and they have hardly any decent combat spells available but a million exploration and battlefield manipulation spells, whereas their Wildshape makes them awesome at utility. They have piss-poor defences too.
Bards don't the the option to be awesome damage dealers, their spelllist it all buff/debuff and control, with only a handful of spells known they are second-rate healers, and second-rate utility, and bottom of the barrel in terms of damage and suvivability, but the top in terms of social.
So yes sure, a Bard doesn't have to choose what they are good at, but that's because they can only be good at one thing. Whereas Warlocks have to choose because they can be good at almost anything if you build them right.
The reason being is currently with just 1 short rest, magical cunning and pact of the tome the warlock already manages to get the same number of casts as a half caster while having them all be big casts except the 1 first level slot from pact of the tome. They can't cast more of those big spells in a single fight, but they can cast them throughout the day. If we were to drop below the half caster in total number of casts per day I would suspect people would still complain about warlocks not getting enough spells.
For example if at level 5 there were only 4 spell (say 2 3rd and 2 second) and the whole day that was it that is only 4 spells total in that day. That is already what the warlock has with 0 short rests and one use of magical cunning gets. They just have 2 3rd (+one recovered with MC) and 1 first with tome instead of the second level spells. They just don't get that in one singular fight. People are already saying this is not enough casting to use out of combat utility spells and combat spells to then take away gaining 2 more casts with a short rest and limit it to 1 is just an outright reduction in both number of casts and strength of casts.
This is kind of where the issue is coming from. The warlock is getting a lot more casts than people are giving it credit for in this iteration.
That's an explanation of how it is though, not necessarily how it should or shouldn't be. If there's a good argument for why half-caster per day slots work best that's a separate discussion. I guess some people may feel that the Warlock getting more or less spells per day than a half-caster is a salient point, but I don't necessarily buy that it comes out that way in practice.
The Pact of the Tome addition feels really.. I dunno, weird. I wouldn't call a single first level spell (especially from the Warlock spell list) much of anything from 5th level on. I would much rather see it scale appropriately and make it exclusive from Pact of the Blade or other possible, exclusive, central Pacts.* This version would see additional /long rest spells and additional higher-level rituals. A Warlock could lean into utility casting possibilities of Tome, or lean into the high-offensive Blade. Obviously, since the Warlock gets so many invocations this doesn't work if these choices aren't exclusive.
More to the point I see what you mean about my spell math. I was only looking to correct the disjointed spell recovery issue, but you're right that this doesn't solve the problem with people feeling Warlocks don't have enough spells/day in general. Reconfiguring my math a bit, it may make a lot more sense to simply base the Warlock on a FC (full caster) with mostly an equal # of the 2-3 highest-level spells. So trying to get a better compromise would look like..
1 @3rd, 4 @4th, 2 @5th --- FC 3 3rd, 3 4th, 2 5th ((Warlock gets one more 4th level than a FC here))
MA 7th (9; 12 w/MC)
4 @4th, 3 @5th (MC now adds +2 4th, +1 5th) --- FC 3 4th, 2 5th ((Warlock now gets 2 more 4th and 1 more 5th))
MA (10; 13 w/MC)
4 @4th, 4 @5th (10; 13 w/MC) --- FC still at 3 4th, 2 5th ((2 more 4th and 2 more 5th))
MA (11; 14 w/SR)
3 @4th, 5@ 5th --- ((FC finally gets a 3rd 5th level slot in time to still be two behind on 5th, 4th lvl drops to parity))
2 @4th, 6@ 5th
8 @5th, Magical Cunning now restores 3 5th level spells on a short rest)
So that's 4 per day or 6 with a short rest from levels 3-4 vs 3 per day or 5 on a short rest for the UA7. However, I don't think low-level spells per LR are the problem with the Warlock, because you're still riding out the power from Eldritch Blast invocations. I think what needs fixed are the spells per LR after 5th level.
This variant gets 5/7 on 5th level, 6/9 on 7th, and 7/10 on 10th. At 11th the standard can now cast 5/8 with 1 short rest, but that's still 2 less than this variant. Both casters are static on spell slots from 12-15, but the variant still has improved spell potency to look forward to during these levels that are otherwise static for the UA7. At level 16 the variant gets 8/11, while the next increase for the UA7 is 6/10 at level 17.
Lastly, let's get to the spells per encounter and overall lower-level spell potency of this Warlock compared to the UA7. For the question of spells per encounter I think it's important to note that there will be times when any spell caster wants to blow all their highest level spells as quickly as possible for a boss encounter or a series of bad rolls. The ability burn out is available to basically every class to one degree or another and will be appreciated when the struggle gets really desperate. Based on that, I think the Warlock kind of shoots themselves in the foot in the clutch if they're limited to just two potent spells in any given encounter.
As far as overall spell potency goes, I don't think anyone is complaining that the Warlock is too weak in general, just that the vanishingly small amount of spells available between rests make it seem like you're barely a spell caster at all. My version would balance that increase in casts while decreasing the number of times Warlocks can cast 3rd/4th/5th level spells when those spells are the center stage of the game.
I'm not following. Eldritch Blast + 2-3 invocations to improve it doesn't really cost you anything in the long run. Yes, it's obvious enough that it should probably just be a class feature instead, but you could say that about a ton of things that are optional or not. It's very easy to get an adequate amount of damage with the Warlock, take that cantrip and a couple invocations. If you want to progress into utility casting, or maximize damage, or take on a wide breadth of skills those are all options to you still. You'll never have the utility of a Wizard or battlefield control of a druid or etc-etc, but nothing in the base Warlock or AM's proposed revision changes that; it's how classes have always worked. So I'm not seeing your point.
Alright I'll concede that the other spellcasting classes have some veritable trade-offs of their own.
Still, there is something they have (except maybe Sorcerer, since I do actually recall that this had a similar complaint in the past) that Warlocks don't, which is that if you decide to focus on a particular playstyle, it generally doesn't feel like you gave up something significant in exchange to the same extent that it does with Warlock. Sure, these classes also have "obvious" picks or "must haves" (such as shield, spirit guardians, counterspell, fireball, and so on), but you can also take a number of other spells besides those and have a reasonable shot at using them when you want to use them.
If I choose to focus a Wizard character on support, it doesn't feel as much that I had to nerf myself (combat-wise) to do so, because of the sheer number of spells Wizard can get and the number of slots I can use, and the fact that the class's specific take on ritual casting makes it so that I can pick up a number of ritual spells without ever preparing them.
Druid is more limited in what it can do than Wizards, but what it does do (healing, battlefield control, summoning, etc), it does pretty well. And it often doesn't feel one-note in combat because the spells you end up using in combat can have more variety on average than Warlock.
Warlocks at level 1 can have 5 cantrips if you take Pact of the Tome, only 1 of which "has" to be EB whereas the Wizard gets 4, which at least one of which will "have" to be a ranged damage dealing cantrip (arguably at least 2 will have to be since none of their cantrips are anywhere close to as reliable as EB). Pact of the Tome also gives Warlocks more flexibility in ritual casting that Wizards (at least in tier 1), and they have far more flexiblity in cantrips. Out of combat I would argue warlocks have greater flexibility in spellcasting that Wizards because if there's no time pressure it's easy to take a SR and recharge your Warlock slots. So things like Death Ward (Undead-lock) they can put on all the party members at the start of the day and have it cost them nothing as they can recharge the slots, same for Scrying - use it as much as you want and just take a SR before heading out for the day. And my Genie-lock with Create Food & Water meant we just handwaved the provisioning of a small army we took with us b/c over the course of a few hours I could feed them all and recharge my slots. Wizard may be able to learn more spells total but they get roughly the same number of spells prepared (when you factor in that warlocks now get their patron spells auto-prepared).
With Warlock, if I choose not to take Eldritch Blast and any of its invocations, that is a deliberate choice I'm making to sacrifice the class's usual combat power, and one I am keenly aware of. If I know without a doubt that the campaign I will be playing in will be more compatible with making such a choice, then obviously it won't be a problem. But if it's the average campaign, I'm essentially taking a gamble.
One spell, one cantrip and one invocation isn't much (yes that's all you need to be completely effective in combat as a Warlock), considering that by level 2, the UA warlock has 3 invocations one of which can be used to get a ton of cantrips. Plus that everyone can get a 1st level feat for 2 free cantrips. It's easy to get essentially every decent cantrip in the game as a Warlock. You can choose to never Smite as a Paladin if you want to and instead focus on spellcasting but yes that involves giving something up to do it.
What I think is weird about that is in my experience I have felt more diverse than most casters as a warlock as I had eldritch blast to fall back on as a basic standby and a couple must have best spells lets me round out all my other spells with niche utility applications with a couple sweet at will spells/invocations to round it out further. And I didn't feel the need to burn through my spells like i frequently do as a wizard/sorcerer etc as cantrips are so bad it feels like you are almost doing nothing those rounds.
That being said in the it wont happen but on the eldritch blast front I do wish it was a class feature. And not basically its own cantrip. I'd make it a feature at 5th/11th/17th levels that was a way to modify cantrips with an attack roll. Maybe add on some reason why it did not work with booming blade type spells but all it did was turn a normal cantrip into a split ray effect. Maybe add a feature so the warlock learned a extra cantrip that fit the requirements at certain levels so they had a diverse cantrip system. Maybe some kind of limit on how many times a special effect could hit a target without invocations improving it. Personally as I want hex to be more tied into the class I'd want the extras to be based on if hex was on the target. With hex that integral it would need to be a class feature and some kind of buff as to why it was used past level 5, I personally like the warlock can concentrate on two effects as long as one of them is hex.
I don't like turning EB into a melee attack, but I do like making EB part of your melee attack. Like Lifedrinker could be giving one of your attacks the full EB scaling (with no cha mod) instead of the per hit scaling. That way you could also make use of the EB invocations if you want to invest into those and you could prevent PAM cheese.
That way you'd have:
Lvl 9: 2*(1d10+5)+2d10 = 32 dmg vs Old Lifedrinker 28 dmg vs EB 21dmg
Lvl 11: 3*(1d10+5)+3d10 = 48 dmg vs Old Lifedrinker 42 dmg vs EB 31.5 dmg
Lvl 17: 3*(1d10+5)+4d10 = 53.5 dmg vs Old Lifedrinker 42 dmg vs EB 42 dmg
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am realizing that for myself as long as it is fairly well balanced and a unique way of doing things with a lot of modular options I am probably going to be happy with warlock. It is why I was ok with the last one and good with this one.
But I did want to point out something i believe people are struggling with when it comes to warlock. There seems to be some misunderstanding with why pact magic is structured the way it is.
First obviously WoTC considers Warlock to be a pseudo 3/4 caster essentially where they should be using some of their 'martial' prowess (EB/PotB) as compensation for less spell casting than a full caster.
Second people made it clear they wanted the full level casts back, but wizards doesn't feel comfortable with having a single character that can cast more than 2 second level spells in a single combat at level 3, or more than 2 3rd level spells in a single combat at level 5, they are probably barely comfortable with 2 4th level spells in a single combat at level 7 and same with level 9 and 5th level spells.
Pact magic is currently structured in a way to prevent too many powerful casts in a single combat by a single character. However, they want daily resources of warlock to be more in line with that of a half caster or better. By level 5 a half caster can cast 6 spells total and with tome and 1 short rest and magical cunning, so can the warlock. Which only really changes at level 9 when the half caster gets to 9, but changes back at level 11 when the lock gets their third slot and mystic arcanum.
This is the structure of pact magic, the power of a full casters best spells in a single combat with the total number of castings of a half caster throughout the day.
This was the case for the 2014 warlock as well WITH the assumption that WoTC was going under of 2 rests per day. I don't work for WoTC but these last few UA's have told me that the 2 rest per day assumption isn't there anymore. But they still do seem to assume 1 short rest. Which I have said I feel is fair, and fair to assume. You don't design a game with short and long rests with the intent that the players never use one of the two rests in an adventuring day.
Hate the number munchers as much as ya'll want, but I see what they are going for, and I do not feel they are wrong to go for it. They have toned down the number of smites you can do in a single turn and limited stunning strike to once per turn because they want the big boss fight at the end of the dungeon to be epic and the struggle on the way to the boss to use some resources too. It is structured and changed that way for the same reason they don't want more than 2 3rd level spells to be cast by the same character in a single fight at level 5.
There's no misunderstanding at all.
There's disagreement.
Disagreement and misunderstanding are two different things.
Where was this stated? This is an inference as much as anything the "number haters" have stated. it's a logical/reasonable one, certainly, but it's still an inference.
That's one interpretation of 'the structure of Pact Magic', yes. Again, a reasonable one, but it's far from Definitive(C).
The problem can be summarized with the old cartoon turn of phrase "I'll gladly pay you tomorrow for a hamburger today". The fact that the warlock, under "ideal" resting conditions, has roughly the same number of casts per day as a half-caster or even a full caster is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that the warlock runs out of leveled spellcasting the next best thing to completely instantly, and no warlock player can ever KNOW they're going to get the fast recharge their class implies. They can suspect they will. They can assume they will. They can even demand that fast recharge and accuse anyone who doesn't give it to them of being an evil cheater, the way y'all always accuse me of being an evil cheater.
But they. Cannot. Know. And that means any player who is not an inveterate gambler HAS to treat their "Short Rest" resources like long rest resources, because whether they regularly get thirty-seven hundred short rests a day or not, they cannot KNOW they will do so and must - I repeat, MUST - keep reserves in the tank all damn day if they wish to be effective adventurers. A warlock player that routinely, recklessly assumes he'll always get all kinds of free chances to recharge and blows his spells profligately is a warlock player that will be caught on empty and killed whenever the DM finally decides he's had enough of players not belieiving in either time management or security.
Some players love this. They adore it. They die for that sense of gambling with the universe, hoping to Strike It Big and get that 10+ short rest day where they're golden gods of spellslinging. Many other players hate that feeling, as evinced by the fact that people have complained about warlock not getting enough spells since the 2014 books were released.
All this thread, all the other thread, all the other dozen threads before it? Supporters of the 2014 design have resorted to, more or less, saying "you're just wrong-brained, if you stopped thinking wrongly warlock would be fine." You won't convince anyone to stop "thinking wrongly." You have to fix the problem. And the problem is that Pact Magic feels bad to use for a large percentage of players because of its intensely and fundamentally uncertain "fast" recharge.
It's not about hating number munchers. It's about telling number munchers to stop using bad math that deliberately misleads readers into thinking things are true that are not true because nobody at a real, actual D&D table plays or acts the way trhe number muncher's math says they play/act. Easy as that.
Please do not contact or message me.
I wouldn't call 1 rest a day ideal resting conditions. Every caster needs to be conservative with their spells. A warlock should be able to gauge when the short rest is coming by looking at the damage the party has taken. Martials aren't going to go into the next combat low on health so they are going to NEED to spend hit dice. If they are getting low chances are you are going to take a short rest. Magical cunning should also make going out feel less bad because you know you can get 1 more back and still be good till that long or short rest. It is really that simple, gauge your spells based on party health and resources. It is a team game, play like a team.
From an old school real time strategy game philosophy. The resources you did not spend by the end of the game, whether win or lose, are wasted. Money is only worth the asset you can purchase with it.
Fully agree with your points about flavor here.
I did miss your point about EB only scaling with Warlock levels, that does alleviate the multi-classing issue.
However the multiple melee attacks from PotB stands. The balance concerns over the 3rd attack at 11 are still quite hot, I don't think anyone has even considered adding another attack at 17 (not that I'm much concerned with balance at that level anyway). It also adds attacks for free where the current set up requires at least one more invocation. That, plus this invocations ability to combine with melee attack feats, are the single class balance concerns.
Snipping the vast majority of your post here, but referencing it because I completely agree on the vast majority of what you said.
My couple quibbles would be Short Rest Dependency and reconciling spells.
On the first, I just don't like the way that the Warlocks spell dependency requires short rests, and thi k it could be fixed to model a 1 or 2 short rest period without forcing the Warlock to beg the party for an hour break. Not everyone has a problem with this though; so what-ev.
On number of spells however, I think you can get much better mileage out of keeping the Warlocks # of max lvl spells limited compared to a FC while still giving them some spell casting options. In this model, as the Warlock gains increased spell levels they looses spell slots from lower lvl spells, but done at a rate where they still feel the sting. Spells / long rest stay at a range of 4 to 6 with a partial recovery at short rest, but at no point is the warlock casting more 3rd level spells than a FC, and before 14th is the Warlock isnt throwing out more 4th or 5th level spells.
So you're still more vulnerable than FC to running out of spells, but you've got some wriggle room to adapt. Simultaneously, you're never outperforming full casters at their highest level spells available.
And as I have said, I would probably be ok with something along those lines. The issues I have seen so far with most suggestions is that it usually doesn't accomplish some of these goals or comes dangerously close to just being a full caster. For example in the other thread the thing you posted is just an outright nerf to daily casting at most levels for the benefits of having it all at once and able to do it all in a single fight. I don't know if I care for that. If the warlock is going to lose higher level slots I would like to see more casting with lower levels, but every time I have tried to create that myself it has come dangerously close to just being a full caster.
If I were to keep the goal of "not casting more top level spells than full caster, but ALSO keeping number of total casts= to half casters, but all at once" it would probably be.
2 first level spells at 1 (which is UA7 achieves with tome)
3 first level spells at level 2 (again UA7 achieves this with tome no rests needed and no magical cunning needed).
2 second level spells and 1 first at level 3 (same number of max spells as a full caster, total number of spells as a half caster, again the exact same as UA7 with tome and no rests or magical cunning). (warlocks are ridiculously strong in the first few levels)
3 second level spells at level 4
2 3rd level 3 second level at level 5
3 3rd and 3 second at level 6
1 4th, 3 3rd and 3 second at level 7
2 4th, 3 3rd, and 2 second at level 8
1 5th, 3 4th, 3 3rd, and 2 second at level 9.....
This is same total number of casts as a half caster with same number of max casts as a full caster.... and it looks dangerously close to just being a full caster without first level slots but then you add in invocations for a bunch of first level spells and you are back to just being a full caster. Which starts requiring nerfs to invocations rolling back eb and AB.. so on and so forth.
I like sakura's idea in the previous, only one spell back on a short and all back with MC, but obviously then they need a new capstone WHICH THEY NEED ANYWAY.....
Yup, my earlier version was generally too stingy and think this is a significant improvement.
Why you would use the half-caster as the baseline for number of spells per day though? Initially it's balanced out, but as your write up indicates the Warlock would quickly gain so many spells that they might as well be a full caster anyway. I'm not, like.. being snide here, I genuinely don't see the benefit in symmetry.
For comparison with your version the details make a big difference. 1 3rd level at 5 rather than 2, 2 3rd and 2 2nd at 6, 2nd level spells drop off at 8 and 3rd level drop off at 11. This version would be able to cast as many to a little bit less amount of the big spells/level, but doesn't have access to enough spells to be constantly casting. Using half-caster as the template doesn't lop off nearly enough spells fast enough to accomplish the scarcity.
The Warlock would be able to cast all their spells immediately under my version here, but that's no different from a full caster. The diff compared to full caster is that with only 3-6 (4-7 with recovery) per long rest it would be likely be a waste of resources.
I'll take a closer look at Sakura's take, thanks.
The reason being is currently with just 1 short rest, magical cunning and pact of the tome the warlock already manages to get the same number of casts as a half caster while having them all be big casts except the 1 first level slot from pact of the tome. They can't cast more of those big spells in a single fight, but they can cast them throughout the day. If we were to drop below the half caster in total number of casts per day I would suspect people would still complain about warlocks not getting enough spells.
For example if at level 5 there were only 4 spell (say 2 3rd and 2 second) and the whole day that was it that is only 4 spells total in that day. That is already what the warlock has with 0 short rests and one use of magical cunning gets. They just have 2 3rd (+one recovered with MC) and 1 first with tome instead of the second level spells. They just don't get that in one singular fight. People are already saying this is not enough casting to use out of combat utility spells and combat spells to then take away gaining 2 more casts with a short rest and limit it to 1 is just an outright reduction in both number of casts and strength of casts.
This is kind of where the issue is coming from. The warlock is getting a lot more casts than people are giving it credit for in this iteration.
I like the ideas but I think it could use some tuning. Pact of the blade needs a bit more oopmh as its just a spell sniper feat as is, bake in the AoO or smite into it.Diverse blaster gives a lot so its hard to complain but I think for features focusing on eldritch blast once per spell feel weird as the entire thing that makes eldritch blast unique is its multiple hits. Some things maybe need to be limited but it feels off in general as that is the entire gimmick of eldritch blast over other cantrips.
I have this issue in 2014 version as well but if the base damage is going to be force or raw magical energy it feels weird to me it does not effect objects. Cold, necrotic, a new spiritual category, radiant I can kind of see it. But if people don't want cantrips in general to effect a object I want it to be a damage type that it makes sense for and honestly I kind of prefer it being save based as I can see those as like a locking onto a life force style spell. Just feels off to create and direct enough magical energy or force to kill a horse instantly but it can't break a window. And if its a class feature and not a normal cantrip I don't think it has to be balanced against like fire bolt as the only cantrip to hit objects.
I agree that frequency and consistency of short rests is an issue for warlocks. And if WotC decided that you get exactly 1 short rest per long rest that could help with both DM’s and players knowing what’s coming. Not that I think they should do this.
But I also think the problem lies with people’s expectations of this class. Warlocks are not spellcasters in the sense we think of any other class that can cast spells.
Their slots refresh on a short rest. No other caster does this.
Their slots are held separately from all other spell slots when multiclassing. They don’t combine to determine spell slots although you can use them interchangeably with slots from other classes.
they scale to highest level slot. No other caster does this.
When choosing spells you have to look at them completely different than any other caster because of the auto-scaling. Spells that may be so-so for a regular caster may be fantastic on a warlock because they scale. And vice versa, some spells just don’t cut it when you are using higher level slots, but are great for other casters.
It’s basically warlocks we’re designed for one of two things:
1. A gish type character that relies on invocations to boost their melee with limited slots to assist as well as at will casts from invocations, if they can afford to spare any.
2. A Eldritch Blast spammer with invocations to boost their EB with limited slots to assist as well as at will casts from invocations, if they can afford to spare any.
If you are trying to play a warlock like any other caster, or outside of the two versions above you are probably going to be frustrated and disappointed.
And I’m not saying you are playing them wrong if you want to go your own way. You may have tons of fun doing so. And by all means play however you like. But warlocks are not "spellcasters” like any other. They are something different with the benefit of some limited slots as a gift of their patron.
And I’m not saying the 2014 version was perfect. I do think, and my opinion has been evolving during this playtest process, that UA7’s version is better than UA5 and fits the warlock idea with some adjustments to help. But it still needs some work.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
For your first question, I would say that they are working to remedy this problem, since they have stated that they are trying to provide more (or maybe all) spells with some kind of benefit for upcasting.
For the second question, yes if you want to play a typical blaster lock, then Eldritch Blast and Agonizing Blast are essential choices. However, some people don't play their Warlocks in this manner. The game they are in may not be as focused on combat as the average game, and thus Eldritch Blast and Agonizing Blast may even be sub-optimal in some circumstances. I realize this is rare, but I have heard people talking about not taking these features on a Warlock and enjoying the extra freedom it has given them to choose another cantrip and/or invocation.
Except that it isn't, mainly because of the MCing potential for Warlock, which IMO is on brand for them. For a pure warlock, sure you're always going to take EB+AB, but for a MC you might or might not depending on what you want out of it. That said they should make EB+AB a class feature so it scales on warlock levels to prevent dipping. And the point of giving spell diversity is for versatility, if a warlock never casts anything other than Hex then we should remove spellcasting entirely from the warlock and just make Hex a class feature like the Bloodhunter's Rite damage. TBH if people only care about combat you could easily nix all the warlock spellcasting, and replace its invocations with limited use combat spells. Hopefully though, there are people who care about aspects of the game other than combat.
If all you care about is combat, then 1/2 of class features and 2/3 of spells are useless to you, and that is how it should be.
Warlock already gets the most diverse selections in the game. But for choices to be meaningful there must be a trade off. If you choose defensive options you sacrifice offense, if you choose utility spells you sacrifice combat spells, and if you choose OOC invocations you sacrifice combat invocations. Otherwise why have it be a choice at all? Just have all warlocks be identical with every spell on their spell list prepared, every invocation as a class feature they all get.
They absolutely have the same trade off, Paladins get almost no utility features/spells and no battlefield control so they do not get the option to be awesome at utility (Warlock does), and have to choose whether to use their spellslots, channel divinity & spells prepared for combat or social, if they spend a spellslot on Zone of Truth or Find Steed they can't use it for Smite.
Wizards have to choose what spells they prepare, and when and where they spend their slots. If they use all their spells for utility, exploration & social then they will be utterly useless in combat, and if they go all in on every fight they will be next to useless by the time you get to the big bad. Sorcerers get so few spells known they have to choose whether to go with offense, defense or battlefield control, never mind utility.
In contrast Druids don't have the option to be awesome damage dealers and have no options for teleportation or even protecting camp, their spelllist is super limited and they have hardly any decent combat spells available but a million exploration and battlefield manipulation spells, whereas their Wildshape makes them awesome at utility. They have piss-poor defences too.
Bards don't the the option to be awesome damage dealers, their spelllist it all buff/debuff and control, with only a handful of spells known they are second-rate healers, and second-rate utility, and bottom of the barrel in terms of damage and suvivability, but the top in terms of social.
So yes sure, a Bard doesn't have to choose what they are good at, but that's because they can only be good at one thing. Whereas Warlocks have to choose because they can be good at almost anything if you build them right.
That's an explanation of how it is though, not necessarily how it should or shouldn't be. If there's a good argument for why half-caster per day slots work best that's a separate discussion. I guess some people may feel that the Warlock getting more or less spells per day than a half-caster is a salient point, but I don't necessarily buy that it comes out that way in practice.
The Pact of the Tome addition feels really.. I dunno, weird. I wouldn't call a single first level spell (especially from the Warlock spell list) much of anything from 5th level on. I would much rather see it scale appropriately and make it exclusive from Pact of the Blade or other possible, exclusive, central Pacts.* This version would see additional /long rest spells and additional higher-level rituals. A Warlock could lean into utility casting possibilities of Tome, or lean into the high-offensive Blade. Obviously, since the Warlock gets so many invocations this doesn't work if these choices aren't exclusive.
More to the point I see what you mean about my spell math. I was only looking to correct the disjointed spell recovery issue, but you're right that this doesn't solve the problem with people feeling Warlocks don't have enough spells/day in general. Reconfiguring my math a bit, it may make a lot more sense to simply base the Warlock on a FC (full caster) with mostly an equal # of the 2-3 highest-level spells. So trying to get a better compromise would look like..
So that's 4 per day or 6 with a short rest from levels 3-4 vs 3 per day or 5 on a short rest for the UA7. However, I don't think low-level spells per LR are the problem with the Warlock, because you're still riding out the power from Eldritch Blast invocations. I think what needs fixed are the spells per LR after 5th level.
This variant gets 5/7 on 5th level, 6/9 on 7th, and 7/10 on 10th. At 11th the standard can now cast 5/8 with 1 short rest, but that's still 2 less than this variant. Both casters are static on spell slots from 12-15, but the variant still has improved spell potency to look forward to during these levels that are otherwise static for the UA7. At level 16 the variant gets 8/11, while the next increase for the UA7 is 6/10 at level 17.
Lastly, let's get to the spells per encounter and overall lower-level spell potency of this Warlock compared to the UA7. For the question of spells per encounter I think it's important to note that there will be times when any spell caster wants to blow all their highest level spells as quickly as possible for a boss encounter or a series of bad rolls. The ability burn out is available to basically every class to one degree or another and will be appreciated when the struggle gets really desperate. Based on that, I think the Warlock kind of shoots themselves in the foot in the clutch if they're limited to just two potent spells in any given encounter.
As far as overall spell potency goes, I don't think anyone is complaining that the Warlock is too weak in general, just that the vanishingly small amount of spells available between rests make it seem like you're barely a spell caster at all. My version would balance that increase in casts while decreasing the number of times Warlocks can cast 3rd/4th/5th level spells when those spells are the center stage of the game.
I'm not following. Eldritch Blast + 2-3 invocations to improve it doesn't really cost you anything in the long run. Yes, it's obvious enough that it should probably just be a class feature instead, but you could say that about a ton of things that are optional or not. It's very easy to get an adequate amount of damage with the Warlock, take that cantrip and a couple invocations. If you want to progress into utility casting, or maximize damage, or take on a wide breadth of skills those are all options to you still. You'll never have the utility of a Wizard or battlefield control of a druid or etc-etc, but nothing in the base Warlock or AM's proposed revision changes that; it's how classes have always worked. So I'm not seeing your point.
Warlocks at level 1 can have 5 cantrips if you take Pact of the Tome, only 1 of which "has" to be EB whereas the Wizard gets 4, which at least one of which will "have" to be a ranged damage dealing cantrip (arguably at least 2 will have to be since none of their cantrips are anywhere close to as reliable as EB). Pact of the Tome also gives Warlocks more flexibility in ritual casting that Wizards (at least in tier 1), and they have far more flexiblity in cantrips. Out of combat I would argue warlocks have greater flexibility in spellcasting that Wizards because if there's no time pressure it's easy to take a SR and recharge your Warlock slots. So things like Death Ward (Undead-lock) they can put on all the party members at the start of the day and have it cost them nothing as they can recharge the slots, same for Scrying - use it as much as you want and just take a SR before heading out for the day. And my Genie-lock with Create Food & Water meant we just handwaved the provisioning of a small army we took with us b/c over the course of a few hours I could feed them all and recharge my slots. Wizard may be able to learn more spells total but they get roughly the same number of spells prepared (when you factor in that warlocks now get their patron spells auto-prepared).
One spell, one cantrip and one invocation isn't much (yes that's all you need to be completely effective in combat as a Warlock), considering that by level 2, the UA warlock has 3 invocations one of which can be used to get a ton of cantrips. Plus that everyone can get a 1st level feat for 2 free cantrips. It's easy to get essentially every decent cantrip in the game as a Warlock. You can choose to never Smite as a Paladin if you want to and instead focus on spellcasting but yes that involves giving something up to do it.
What I think is weird about that is in my experience I have felt more diverse than most casters as a warlock as I had eldritch blast to fall back on as a basic standby and a couple must have best spells lets me round out all my other spells with niche utility applications with a couple sweet at will spells/invocations to round it out further. And I didn't feel the need to burn through my spells like i frequently do as a wizard/sorcerer etc as cantrips are so bad it feels like you are almost doing nothing those rounds.
That being said in the it wont happen but on the eldritch blast front I do wish it was a class feature. And not basically its own cantrip. I'd make it a feature at 5th/11th/17th levels that was a way to modify cantrips with an attack roll. Maybe add on some reason why it did not work with booming blade type spells but all it did was turn a normal cantrip into a split ray effect. Maybe add a feature so the warlock learned a extra cantrip that fit the requirements at certain levels so they had a diverse cantrip system. Maybe some kind of limit on how many times a special effect could hit a target without invocations improving it. Personally as I want hex to be more tied into the class I'd want the extras to be based on if hex was on the target. With hex that integral it would need to be a class feature and some kind of buff as to why it was used past level 5, I personally like the warlock can concentrate on two effects as long as one of them is hex.
I don't like turning EB into a melee attack, but I do like making EB part of your melee attack. Like Lifedrinker could be giving one of your attacks the full EB scaling (with no cha mod) instead of the per hit scaling. That way you could also make use of the EB invocations if you want to invest into those and you could prevent PAM cheese.
That way you'd have: