I did read your posts. Perhaps I misunderstood them.
You want to make agonizing blast 1/turn. To make up the damage difference, you want to double down on hex instead with more damage and features to improve it, yes?
Not quite - I think the proposal is to make AB work more like Hex. It applies once per turn, but scales with Warlock level, and can apply to any damaging cantrip.
Once per turn and a larger damage boost is so the same effect works with any cantrip without penalizing "Not Eldritch Blast", and scaling specifically with Warlock level is to prevent multiclass abuse.
The issue I see is how do you get the number right? 1 damage per Warlock level looks like a nerf at lower levels and gets worse the higher stats get, at least in comparison to what Warlocks currently have. But 2 damage per Warlock level is too much, and we all know how much the current edition hates fractions.
Well some of the other abuse loopholes are being closed in the playtest, such as eldritch knight being able to dip warlock, cast hex, then use warmagic to get extra taps of hex by casting EB instead of say, firebolt. I'd missed that warmagic was changed from 'cantrip' to 'wizard cantrip'.
Regardless, changing agonizing blast is a more intrusive 'fix' than just making the number of blasts scale off the warlock level. The more complicated the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain. As long as EB is a character level scaling cantrip, it's going to open up hex/hunter's mark multi-tap shenanigans.
EDIT: It also does not address the difference in reliability between one attack roll per round, and multiple attack rolls per round.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I did read your posts. Perhaps I misunderstood them.
You want to make agonizing blast 1/turn. To make up the damage difference, you want to double down on hex instead with more damage and features to improve it, yes?
Not quite.
Both would be once per turn, and both would scale by Warlock level (as in this case hex would be a Warlock class feature, or spell only usable by Warlocks). There's nothing to do with Hex making up for any shortfall, they would both simply do scaling damage once per turn, instead of doing flat CHA (or 1d6) damage on every attack, which is the part that made them stronger on eldritch blast and a lot less useful on other cantrips.
I gave a specific example of this:
Agonizing Blast
Once per turn when you deal damage with a Warlock cantrip, you may deal additional damage of the same type to one of your targets equal to your Charisma modifier. This damage increases as you gain levels in this class, increasing to twice your Charisma modifier at 5th-level, three times your Charisma modifier at 11th-level and four times your Charisma modifier at 17th-level.
So when a Warlock is only slinging a single eldritch blast beam, it would only give +CHA extra damage (same as it does right now). But when they get two beams it now does +CHA*2, so if you hit with at least one beam, you deal the extra, scaled damage and so-on. Plus, if you choose to use a different cantrip instead, which only has a single attack roll (or uses a saving throw), you are still gaining increased damage at higher Warlock levels, unlike the UA7 Agonizing Blast which is only granting a single +CHA on single attacks.
I mentioned hex because I want basically the same thing for that as well – it should become a Warlock class feature, and at the same levels you should get an extra 1d6 damage once per turn, so it can again work with any cantrip, rather than only really being useful on eldritch blast. Together eldritch blast + Agonizing Blast + hex should still give you around the same amount of damage that it does now, but you could alternatively do toll the dead + Agonizing Blast + hex and do similar damage (albeit with fewer chances to land it).
They actually seemed to be experimenting with this during the earlier Warlock UA, although it was tied to spell level so didn't really work properly (weirdly would have worked better as a change for the current 5e or UA7 Warlock since its pact slots scale on their own), but it got lost under all the backlash from the other changes. As a Warlock-only spell/class feature scaling to the Warlock level it should work just fine, and if Warlocks gain easier ways to cast it, invocations to boost it etc., it could make higher level Warlocks worth investing in.
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.
The issue I see is how do you get the number right? 1 damage per Warlock level looks like a nerf at lower levels and gets worse the higher stats get, at least in comparison to what Warlocks currently have. But 2 damage per Warlock level is too much, and we all know how much the current edition hates fractions.
You could just make it +CHA at 1st-level, +CHA*2 at 5th-level, +CHA*3 at 11th-level, and +CHA*4 at 17th-level – while in some respects this would be slightly stronger than it is now (since you get the full bonus damage if you land only a single hit), I don't think it makes enough different to really matter. Alternatively they could do some kind of flat bonus, so the peak isn't quite as high but the average works out the same, but I'm not sure it's really needed.
A pure 5e Warlock's blasting potential isn't actually that high, so a slight boost shouldn't be a problem. Certainly not when compared to a Sorcerer taking a Warlock dip so they can do a full strength Agonizing Blast three times in a single turn (Twinned Spell + Quickened Spell) which is the kind of thing we're aiming to prevent. It's not necessarily the worst thing you can do as a Sorlock, but it's a good example of the principle.
If you assume Charisma +5 by 17th-level, and a 100% chance to hit, four beams is 4d10+20 damage in both cases, so the average damage is 42. If we assume a 60% chance to hit the current form is an average ~25 damage, but the once per turn scaled option is ~33 damage if my back of napkin math is correct, where you only need one beam to hit for the full +20 bonus damage, with any extra beams that hit only giving +5.5 each. It might be slightly higher than that I'm not sure, found it tricky to work out. And that's with eldritch blast, with toll the dead you could do 4d12+20 (46 necrotic damage damage on a target saving throw failure) so it's potentially a bigger single hit, but you're at the mercy of the target's ability to save against it, e.g- if they only a have a 60% chance of failing, the average over time becomes ~27 damage etc.
With hex functioning the same way you'd see the same thing there, but on the current 5e Warlock hex isn't the strongest option at later levels anyway so it being a bit stronger isn't a bad thing. Plus if it can be bolstered by invocations for stronger debuffs, or bonus effects (e.g- Relentless Hex to trigger teleports) it could become a much more appealing option.
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.
4- make a version of True Strike that does a choice of (acid, cold, fire, lightning, poison, thunder) damage… but is d4s instead of d6s, and scales with the sum of Druid and Ranger levels (and 1/3 elemental monk levels). Its a Druid cantrip, and Rangers get it for free at 2nd or 3rd level. Elemental Monks get it at 3rd or 6th level (in addition to Elementalism).
Why do Druids & Rangers get a WORSE damage type and WORSE damage and WORSE scaling than Clerics and Paladin?
They’re getting the same scaling (both are based on the same version of True Strike, both class pairs are getting full levels). Lower die type due to more damage type choices. I don’t agree that it’s a worse type, they can pick their type from that set with every hit, picking one the target is vulnerable to, and avoiding one the target is resistant or immune to… and it’s only a problem if the target is immune to all of them. That’s arguably better than being limited to Radiant, where a creature might actually be immune to it (there are some) and then you’re kind of screwed if they’re also resistant or immune to B/P/S.
Monks get worse scaling… but it’s the same scaling as an EK.
That assumes your players are meta-gaming munchkins who have memorized the MM, so know every creature resistance & vulnerability.
Horrible, self serving, and invalid assumption. Starting out with a weak attempt at a personal attack doesn’t encourage taking your concerns seriously/meaningfully. No one owes you reading past that sentence, instead of reporting it as a non-constructive comment.
If that's not the case then you have to guess & trial & error your way through damage types hoping to come across one they aren't resistant to which is wasting valuable turns not doing full damage.
In other words: life and learning. Characters might have legends and suspicions that give them hints. From there, you make mistakes and eventually hit the sweet spot. Does it take a round or two the first time? Sure. That’s just like learning a new obstacle in real life. And then you learn and remember it: knowing what to do against things you (meaning your character) have encountered before, or things like them, isn’t metagaming… it’s having a functional memory.
On the first hand, you’re complaining about people who metagame, and then here you’re asserting metagame concepts (damage throughput and optimal use of rounds). If you’re dismissive of metagaming munchkins, maybe don’t parrot their arguments.
Very few creatures are resistant / immune to radiant damage so simply through not needing to waste actions learning what damage type the enemies aren't resistant too they are dealing more damage.
Now who’s metagaming?
The scaling is not the same, Cleric & Paladin increases by 1d6 each step, while Ranger/Druid increases by 1d4 each step - which means at level 11, Ranger/Druid is dealing 3 less damage on average than Cleric & Paladin and it much more likely to use a damage type that is resisted.
Scaling is that they get a die improvement at the same time. Same scaling for both sets.
Damage per die/die-tyoe is a separate variable.
Listing the same concern twice, but calling it two different things, just so you can pretend there’s more issues in your list, is a disingenuous argument.
What you're saying makes sense Haravikk but I'd rather them just make EB scale only with Warlock level. That will do enough to make multiclass or EA characters use other cantrips with AB. +20 to every cantrip even by 17 just isn't necessary, especially if you add other cantrip boosters on top of that.
Personally I think they went the wrong direction with truestrike.
I would rather it bump accuracy or make a portion of your next attacks damage guaranteed. In line with action cost of a cantrip.
While I like the new True Strike, I probably wouldn't have called it True Strike. It's in the Smite category, and also the same category as Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade. I would probably have called this cantrip (as written) Divine Smite, or Radiant Strike/Smite, or something like that. And then had something like Arcane Smite for the Wizard/Sorcerer version or something.
I agree that True Strike itself should be about accuracy. As far as I recall, it's always been about accuracy (the 2014 and 3.0x versions were both that, as I recall). I would have made the new one like the 1DD version of Guidance and Resistance (reaction based cantrip, that you use when an attack roll is missed).
What you're saying makes sense Haravikk but I'd rather them just make EB scale only with Warlock level. That will do enough to make multiclass or EA characters use other cantrips with AB. +20 to every cantrip even by 17 just isn't necessary, especially if you add other cantrip boosters on top of that.
You mean any cantrip not every cantrip right? I believe Haravikk is still suggesting to keep the AB wording from the playtest that you pick 1 warlock cantrip and apply it and keep the wording that you can only take an invocation once unless it specifies.
4- make a version of True Strike that does a choice of (acid, cold, fire, lightning, poison, thunder) damage… but is d4s instead of d6s, and scales with the sum of Druid and Ranger levels (and 1/3 elemental monk levels). Its a Druid cantrip, and Rangers get it for free at 2nd or 3rd level. Elemental Monks get it at 3rd or 6th level (in addition to Elementalism).
Why do Druids & Rangers get a WORSE damage type and WORSE damage and WORSE scaling than Clerics and Paladin?
They’re getting the same scaling (both are based on the same version of True Strike, both class pairs are getting full levels). Lower die type due to more damage type choices. I don’t agree that it’s a worse type, they can pick their type from that set with every hit, picking one the target is vulnerable to, and avoiding one the target is resistant or immune to… and it’s only a problem if the target is immune to all of them. That’s arguably better than being limited to Radiant, where a creature might actually be immune to it (there are some) and then you’re kind of screwed if they’re also resistant or immune to B/P/S.
Monks get worse scaling… but it’s the same scaling as an EK.
That assumes your players are meta-gaming munchkins who have memorized the MM, so know every creature resistance & vulnerability.
Horrible, self serving, and invalid assumption. Starting out with a weak attempt at a personal attack doesn’t encourage taking your concerns seriously/meaningfully. No one owes you reading past that sentence, instead of reporting it as a non-constructive comment.
If that's not the case then you have to guess & trial & error your way through damage types hoping to come across one they aren't resistant to which is wasting valuable turns not doing full damage.
In other words: life and learning. Characters might have legends and suspicions that give them hints. From there, you make mistakes and eventually hit the sweet spot. Does it take a round or two the first time? Sure. That’s just like learning a new obstacle in real life. And then you learn and remember it: knowing what to do against things you (meaning your character) have encountered before, or things like them, isn’t metagaming… it’s having a functional memory.
On the first hand, you’re complaining about people who metagame, and then here you’re asserting metagame concepts (damage throughput and optimal use of rounds). If you’re dismissive of metagaming munchkins, maybe don’t parrot their arguments.
Very few creatures are resistant / immune to radiant damage so simply through not needing to waste actions learning what damage type the enemies aren't resistant too they are dealing more damage.
Now who’s metagaming?
The scaling is not the same, Cleric & Paladin increases by 1d6 each step, while Ranger/Druid increases by 1d4 each step - which means at level 11, Ranger/Druid is dealing 3 less damage on average than Cleric & Paladin and it much more likely to use a damage type that is resisted.
Scaling is that they get a die improvement at the same time. Same scaling for both sets.
Damage per die/die-tyoe is a separate variable.
Listing the same concern twice, but calling it two different things, just so you can pretend there’s more issues in your list, is a disingenuous argument.
4- make a version of True Strike that does a choice of (acid, cold, fire, lightning, poison, thunder) damage… but is d4s instead of d6s, and scales with the sum of Druid and Ranger levels (and 1/3 elemental monk levels). Its a Druid cantrip, and Rangers get it for free at 2nd or 3rd level. Elemental Monks get it at 3rd or 6th level (in addition to Elementalism).
Why do Druids & Rangers get a WORSE damage type and WORSE damage and WORSE scaling than Clerics and Paladin?
They’re getting the same scaling (both are based on the same version of True Strike, both class pairs are getting full levels). Lower die type due to more damage type choices. I don’t agree that it’s a worse type, they can pick their type from that set with every hit, picking one the target is vulnerable to, and avoiding one the target is resistant or immune to… and it’s only a problem if the target is immune to all of them. That’s arguably better than being limited to Radiant, where a creature might actually be immune to it (there are some) and then you’re kind of screwed if they’re also resistant or immune to B/P/S.
Monks get worse scaling… but it’s the same scaling as an EK.
That assumes your players are meta-gaming munchkins who have memorized the MM, so know every creature resistance & vulnerability.
Horrible, self serving, and invalid assumption. Starting out with a weak attempt at a personal attack doesn’t encourage taking your concerns seriously/meaningfully. No one owes you reading past that sentence, instead of reporting it as a non-constructive comment.
Sorry but what are you talking about? Saying you are assuming players are meta-gaming munchkins is not a personal attack, if I had called you a meta gaming munchkin then that would have been a personal attack. I did not. I pointed out an assumption you are making, and you have not made any argument to refute that statement. You are just complaining about being fairly criticized, which would mean either you don't have an argument to counter the criticism and are trying to deflect attention from that fact, or you are so sensitive you can't handle even the most basic criticism, in which case I'd suggest we stop this conversation now.
In other words: life and learning. Characters might have legends and suspicions that give them hints. From there, you make mistakes and eventually hit the sweet spot. Does it take a round or two the first time? Sure. That’s just like learning a new obstacle in real life. And then you learn and remember it: knowing what to do against things you (meaning your character) have encountered before, or things like them, isn’t metagaming… it’s having a functional memory.
Sorry but what? This is 100% home-brew. A legend is just as likely to be misleading and helpful, and I seriously doubt an ordinary person will know about the weaknesses of an Lemure, or Gorgon prior to becoming an adventurer. The second half is just you agreeing with me that Rangers & Druid have to learn & memorize monster weaknesses & resistances to be effective with your proposed cantrips, whereas Clerics and Paladins don't have to, thus putting the Rangers & Druids at a disadvantage because of the damage type of your proposed cantrips.
Now who’s metagaming?
I've been a DM for years, so yes I have read the MM and know my monster stats. But I don't use that information when I play as a character in a game. Seriously, do you even know what meta-gaming even is? Metagaming is using knowledge that your character wouldn't have to make decisions while playing the game. It has nothing to do with discussing the design of the game in a forum. In fact, I would consider knowing the MM well a prerequisite to having your ideas of game design & game balance taken seriously.
Scaling is that they get a die improvement at the same time. Same scaling for both sets.
No, scaling is by how much a feature or trait improves, not just the fact that it does. Call Lightning scales better than Fireball despite the fact that they both increase by 1 die size per spell level, because Call Lightning increases by a d10 (5.5 damage) whereas Fireball increases by a d6 (3.5 damage). But Fireball deals more damage baseline than Call Lightning because as a 3rd level slot, Call Lightning deals 3d10 = 15.5 damage, whereas Fireball deals 6d8 = 27 damage.
Plus you made two personal attacks on me in your post, which I'm not going to bother responding to.
What you're saying makes sense Haravikk but I'd rather them just make EB scale only with Warlock level. That will do enough to make multiclass or EA characters use other cantrips with AB. +20 to every cantrip even by 17 just isn't necessary, especially if you add other cantrip boosters on top of that.
You mean any cantrip not every cantrip right? I believe Haravikk is still suggesting to keep the AB wording from the playtest that you pick 1 warlock cantrip and apply it and keep the wording that you can only take an invocation once unless it specifies.
I meant every time they cast the one cantrip they chose, sorry about that
What you're saying makes sense Haravikk but I'd rather them just make EB scale only with Warlock level. That will do enough to make multiclass or EA characters use other cantrips with AB. +20 to every cantrip even by 17 just isn't necessary, especially if you add other cantrip boosters on top of that.
Yeah, the priority is absolutely to fix the multi-classing exploit; unless they do something really weird I'll be happy with anything that achieves that. The 1/turn scaling Agonizing Blast is just my preferred solution for the side-benefit it can have to cantrip selection.
There are definitely other ways to fix the multi-classing issue, and other ways to make different cantrip options more viable, I just like the neatness of doing both in one. If we can do both some other way then I'll be onboard so long as it means I can be sling fire bolts for a Fiend, or mind slivers for a Great Old One etc. and it not just being markedly worse than eldritch blast the entire time. 😉
Making eldritch blast properly Warlocks only is certainly another option, and should work fine as well. Though on the other hand, with Agonizing Blast changed, eldritch blast doesn't necessarily need further restrictions as giving up a feat, option or a quick (but now more balanced) multi-class dip into Warlock is probably a reasonably fair price to get it. They could may drop the damage dice down by one, as long as Agonizing Blast is tuned to make up the difference (which I think it would be with Charisma modifier scaling)? Just a thought though, and mainly inspired by the fact that every caster and their mum gets force damage when in monster stat block form now, yet most players can't deal force damage easily except via magic missile, it's not something I'm that bothered about personally since I rarely take eldritch blast on Warlocks. 😂
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.
You'd have to make it tap AB once for every die of damage it scales, and even then it will be worse than EB since a miss is a full miss, and EB has multiple attack rolls to do /something/
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
You'd have to make it tap AB once for every die of damage it scales, and even then it will be worse than EB since a miss is a full miss, and EB has multiple attack rolls to do /something/
That is basically exactly what he is suggesting but having it scale on warlock level. At warlock level 5 it does 2xCha, at 11 it does 3xCHA and at 17 it does 4x CHA bonus but only once. he also has acknowledged that EB would still be the best one for it because of the hit chance.
I am of the opinion that if it were to scale this way that you wouldn't need it to do as much damage as is POSSIBLE now only do more damage than it does now on a single hit. Like if it maxed out at 15 at 17 you would still get good value because it should be extremely rare to hit more than 3 rays anyway.
You'd have to make it tap AB once for every die of damage it scales, and even then it will be worse than EB since a miss is a full miss, and EB has multiple attack rolls to do /something/
That is basically exactly what he is suggesting but having it scale on warlock level. At warlock level 5 it does 2xCha, at 11 it does 3xCHA and at 17 it does 4x CHA bonus but only once. he also has acknowledged that EB would still be the best one for it because of the hit chance.
I am of the opinion that if it were to scale this way that you wouldn't need it to do as much damage as is POSSIBLE now only do more damage than it does now on a single hit. Like if it maxed out at 15 at 17 you would still get good value because it should be extremely rare to hit more than 3 rays anyway.
Appropriate scaling if you want this not to be straight boost to pure warlocks would be: 5 at 1st level, 7 at 5th level, 10 at 11th level, and 13 at 17th level.
That's a lot more complicated than it needs to be, just to use other cantrips and still be less efficient than EB. What would be better though is adding the control effects to other cantrips to make them more worth casting as opposed to agonizing blast. Even now, I find opportunities to use my other cantrips when I am looking for something beyond damage, or I feel I won't hit. I use EB strictly for damage, I look to other cantrips for riders.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
That's a lot more complicated than it needs to be, just to use other cantrips and still be less efficient than EB. What would be better though is adding the control effects to other cantrips to make them more worth casting as opposed to agonizing blast. Even now, I find opportunities to use my other cantrips when I am looking for something beyond damage, or I feel I won't hit. I use EB strictly for damage, I look to other cantrips for riders.
I can understand that, but with invocations a Warlock can have both - damage and a rider effect. But I do understand wanting a rider when possible - in my current game I am playing a Tielfing Bard, and I chose Levistus Tiefling specifically to get the Ray of Frost cantrip over any other cantrip choice, as being a 3 player party I wanted a damage option for my primary cantrip. I'd rather have the 10 ft of reduced movement over a slightly larger damage die, especially since fleeing enemies seem to bring complications in our games more often than not.
4- make a version of True Strike that does a choice of (acid, cold, fire, lightning, poison, thunder) damage… but is d4s instead of d6s, and scales with the sum of Druid and Ranger levels (and 1/3 elemental monk levels). Its a Druid cantrip, and Rangers get it for free at 2nd or 3rd level. Elemental Monks get it at 3rd or 6th level (in addition to Elementalism).
Why do Druids & Rangers get a WORSE damage type and WORSE damage and WORSE scaling than Clerics and Paladin?
They’re getting the same scaling (both are based on the same version of True Strike, both class pairs are getting full levels). Lower die type due to more damage type choices. I don’t agree that it’s a worse type, they can pick their type from that set with every hit, picking one the target is vulnerable to, and avoiding one the target is resistant or immune to… and it’s only a problem if the target is immune to all of them. That’s arguably better than being limited to Radiant, where a creature might actually be immune to it (there are some) and then you’re kind of screwed if they’re also resistant or immune to B/P/S.
Monks get worse scaling… but it’s the same scaling as an EK.
That assumes your players are meta-gaming munchkins who have memorized the MM, so know every creature resistance & vulnerability.
Horrible, self serving, and invalid assumption. Starting out with a weak attempt at a personal attack doesn’t encourage taking your concerns seriously/meaningfully. No one owes you reading past that sentence, instead of reporting it as a non-constructive comment.
Sorry but what are you talking about? Saying you are assuming players are meta-gaming munchkins is not a personal attack,
But you didn't say "assuming players", you made it specific: "assumes your players". If you meant a generalization, you would have worded it as a generalization (like you did here, showing that you know the difference). You didn't do that in the initial statement, you directed it at MY players, and therefore MY game group, which is personal. The best quibble you can make here is that you were being ambiguous so that you could be evasive/disingenuous about it (as you're now being) if you were called out on it. But you've also just shown that you do in fact know the difference in wording.
In other words: life and learning. Characters might have legends and suspicions that give them hints. From there, you make mistakes and eventually hit the sweet spot. Does it take a round or two the first time? Sure. That’s just like learning a new obstacle in real life. And then you learn and remember it: knowing what to do against things you (meaning your character) have encountered before, or things like them, isn’t metagaming… it’s having a functional memory.
Sorry but what? This is 100% home-brew.
Characters remembering past events that happened in-game in previous sessions is home brew? Since when?
Characters having lore-like (arcana, nature, religion) that might fill in details (correct or incorrect) about semi-common knowledge of common creatures? While not RAW in 5e, I wouldn't call it home-brew, either. I haven't ever played at a table that doesn't allow lore-like skills to be used that way. And it also adds to verisimilitude that serves the role playing atmosphere.
And _neither_ is using "player knowledge that the character doesn't have." The former is specifically known character knowledge, and the latter is using the system to determine what the character might know independently of what the player knows (or sometimes doesn't know).
Now who’s metagaming?
I've been a DM for years, so yes I have read the MM and know my monster stats. But I don't use that information when I play as a character in a game. Seriously, do you even know what meta-gaming even is? Metagaming is using knowledge that your character wouldn't have to make decisions while playing the game. It has nothing to do with discussing the design of the game in a forum. In fact, I would consider knowing the MM well a prerequisite to having your ideas of game design & game balance taken seriously.
So it's only metagaming when someone else does the exact same thing you do. Right.
Also, metagaming is not identical to using player knowledge, it's also picking the mechanics over the role playing (focusing on the metagame , instead of the actual game (the role playing and diegesis)). In some circles that's called "playing the system instead of playing the game." (the best example I can give you of that is late 80's flight simulators, where you could use the game implementation to do post stall maneuvering even though the plane you were flying couldn't do post stall maneuvering: you're playing the meta game instead of the actual game). It's also a subset of metagaming. "Player knowledge" is a subset of metagaming, not the only form of metagaming. And you're definitely using the mechanical metagame to justify your argument.
Scaling is that they get a die improvement at the same time. Same scaling for both sets.
No, scaling is by how much a feature or trait improves, not just the fact that it does.
Scaling is always about order of magnitude and/or multipliers, in any field of analysis. Not about specific numbers. For example "it scales with powers of 10", "it scales with powers of 2", or "it scales by a ratio of 1:32." Therefore: number of dice, and not specific values. And it's even how the term is used in D&D: people talk about how often number of dice increase as scaling ... they don't apply that term to increasing the die type (such as with versatile, shillelagh, and other things that change your die type).
But even if we go with your (incorrect) version of scaling, in which it is the over all damage, you made a list with the same item twice ("WORSE damage" and "WORSE scaling" -- if scaling is the over all damage potential, then those two things are the same thing), making a two item list seem like a three item list. Which is disingenuous, at best.
Scaling is always about order of magnitude and/or multipliers, in any field of analysis. Not about specific numbers. For example "it scales with powers of 10", "it scales with powers of 2", or "it scales by a ratio of 1:32." Therefore: number of dice, and not specific values. And it's even how the term is used in D&D: people talk about how often number of dice increase as scaling ... they don't apply that term to increasing the die type (such as with versatile, shillelagh, and other things that change your die type).
But even if we go with your (incorrect) version of scaling, in which it is the over all damage, you made a list with the same item twice ("WORSE damage" and "WORSE scaling" -- if scaling is the over all damage potential, then those two things are the same thing), making a two item list seem like a three item list. Which is disingenuous, at best.
Again, are we living in different realities? Because the new Shillelagh that scales by increasing the die size from d8 to d10 to d12 to 2d6 is 100% referred to as "scaling" by the D&D community. Likewise anything linked to proficiency bonus is referred to as "scaling" regardless of whether is uses dice or not. "Scaling" in D&D is simply the tendency of a number to increase with character level. It is used to describe how a spell/ability/magic item/whatever performs across different tiers of play. Versatile weapons don't "scale" because the change in the die size has nothing to do with character level, and it does not change whether it is used in tier 1 play or tier 4 play.
Scaling is the amount by which something increases with character level, for instance Second Wind has better scaling (increases by 1/character level) compared to the new Aasimar Healing Hands (increases by 1 every 4 character levels). Call Lightning increases by 5.5 damage per 2 character levels when cast with max level slots, while Fireball increases by 3.5 over the same time period. Therefore Call Lightning scales better.
It's very simple, I don't know why you can't understand. It's a simple linear relationship. Baseline damage = intercept, scaling = slope, when you plot the damage the spell does vs level of spell slot. Why are you trying to redefine words? Just go out an read / watch some of the D&D content out there it is very clear how people use these words, and it is absolutely not how you are using them.
PS You're multiplicative argument invalidates your own point as well, the increasing number of dice is still a linear change not a geometric one so by your own definition isn't "scaling". You don't double the number of time each step up in cantrips, you increase it by one.
UA 7.5 Shillelagh is definitely double/geometric scaling because both the dice are going up and you can combine it with any source of multiple attacks (Extra Attack, Haste, etc.) It's a bit excessive for a cantrip to scale with multiple attacks while also converting a quarterstaff to greatsword levels of damage imo.
UA 7.5 Shillelagh is definitely double/geometric scaling because both the dice are going up and you can combine it with any source of multiple attacks (Extra Attack, Haste, etc.) It's a bit excessive for a cantrip to scale with multiple attacks while also converting a quarterstaff to greatsword levels of damage imo.
Shillelagh is just a poorly designed spell. It's exclusive to Druid, but much more useful for Ranger or Paladin. You can't make it scale well for Druid b/c then it would be busted on a Ranger/Paladin if they find a way to get it, but if you don't make ti scale well then it's no good to Druid b/c they get much better cantrips like Primal Savagery.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Not quite - I think the proposal is to make AB work more like Hex. It applies once per turn, but scales with Warlock level, and can apply to any damaging cantrip.
Once per turn and a larger damage boost is so the same effect works with any cantrip without penalizing "Not Eldritch Blast", and scaling specifically with Warlock level is to prevent multiclass abuse.
The issue I see is how do you get the number right? 1 damage per Warlock level looks like a nerf at lower levels and gets worse the higher stats get, at least in comparison to what Warlocks currently have. But 2 damage per Warlock level is too much, and we all know how much the current edition hates fractions.
Well some of the other abuse loopholes are being closed in the playtest, such as eldritch knight being able to dip warlock, cast hex, then use warmagic to get extra taps of hex by casting EB instead of say, firebolt. I'd missed that warmagic was changed from 'cantrip' to 'wizard cantrip'.
Regardless, changing agonizing blast is a more intrusive 'fix' than just making the number of blasts scale off the warlock level. The more complicated the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain. As long as EB is a character level scaling cantrip, it's going to open up hex/hunter's mark multi-tap shenanigans.
EDIT: It also does not address the difference in reliability between one attack roll per round, and multiple attack rolls per round.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Not quite.
Both would be once per turn, and both would scale by Warlock level (as in this case hex would be a Warlock class feature, or spell only usable by Warlocks). There's nothing to do with Hex making up for any shortfall, they would both simply do scaling damage once per turn, instead of doing flat CHA (or 1d6) damage on every attack, which is the part that made them stronger on eldritch blast and a lot less useful on other cantrips.
I gave a specific example of this:
So when a Warlock is only slinging a single eldritch blast beam, it would only give +CHA extra damage (same as it does right now). But when they get two beams it now does +CHA*2, so if you hit with at least one beam, you deal the extra, scaled damage and so-on. Plus, if you choose to use a different cantrip instead, which only has a single attack roll (or uses a saving throw), you are still gaining increased damage at higher Warlock levels, unlike the UA7 Agonizing Blast which is only granting a single +CHA on single attacks.
I mentioned hex because I want basically the same thing for that as well – it should become a Warlock class feature, and at the same levels you should get an extra 1d6 damage once per turn, so it can again work with any cantrip, rather than only really being useful on eldritch blast. Together eldritch blast + Agonizing Blast + hex should still give you around the same amount of damage that it does now, but you could alternatively do toll the dead + Agonizing Blast + hex and do similar damage (albeit with fewer chances to land it).
They actually seemed to be experimenting with this during the earlier Warlock UA, although it was tied to spell level so didn't really work properly (weirdly would have worked better as a change for the current 5e or UA7 Warlock since its pact slots scale on their own), but it got lost under all the backlash from the other changes. As a Warlock-only spell/class feature scaling to the Warlock level it should work just fine, and if Warlocks gain easier ways to cast it, invocations to boost it etc., it could make higher level Warlocks worth investing in.
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.
You could just make it +CHA at 1st-level, +CHA*2 at 5th-level, +CHA*3 at 11th-level, and +CHA*4 at 17th-level – while in some respects this would be slightly stronger than it is now (since you get the full bonus damage if you land only a single hit), I don't think it makes enough different to really matter. Alternatively they could do some kind of flat bonus, so the peak isn't quite as high but the average works out the same, but I'm not sure it's really needed.
A pure 5e Warlock's blasting potential isn't actually that high, so a slight boost shouldn't be a problem. Certainly not when compared to a Sorcerer taking a Warlock dip so they can do a full strength Agonizing Blast three times in a single turn (Twinned Spell + Quickened Spell) which is the kind of thing we're aiming to prevent. It's not necessarily the worst thing you can do as a Sorlock, but it's a good example of the principle.
If you assume Charisma +5 by 17th-level, and a 100% chance to hit, four beams is 4d10+20 damage in both cases, so the average damage is 42. If we assume a 60% chance to hit the current form is an average ~25 damage, but the once per turn scaled option is ~33 damage if my back of napkin math is correct, where you only need one beam to hit for the full +20 bonus damage, with any extra beams that hit only giving +5.5 each. It might be slightly higher than that I'm not sure, found it tricky to work out. And that's with eldritch blast, with toll the dead you could do 4d12+20 (46 necrotic damage damage on a target saving throw failure) so it's potentially a bigger single hit, but you're at the mercy of the target's ability to save against it, e.g- if they only a have a 60% chance of failing, the average over time becomes ~27 damage etc.
With hex functioning the same way you'd see the same thing there, but on the current 5e Warlock hex isn't the strongest option at later levels anyway so it being a bit stronger isn't a bad thing. Plus if it can be bolstered by invocations for stronger debuffs, or bonus effects (e.g- Relentless Hex to trigger teleports) it could become a much more appealing option.
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.
Horrible, self serving, and invalid assumption. Starting out with a weak attempt at a personal attack doesn’t encourage taking your concerns seriously/meaningfully. No one owes you reading past that sentence, instead of reporting it as a non-constructive comment.
In other words: life and learning. Characters might have legends and suspicions that give them hints. From there, you make mistakes and eventually hit the sweet spot. Does it take a round or two the first time? Sure. That’s just like learning a new obstacle in real life. And then you learn and remember it: knowing what to do against things you (meaning your character) have encountered before, or things like them, isn’t metagaming… it’s having a functional memory.
On the first hand, you’re complaining about people who metagame, and then here you’re asserting metagame concepts (damage throughput and optimal use of rounds). If you’re dismissive of metagaming munchkins, maybe don’t parrot their arguments.
Now who’s metagaming?
Scaling is that they get a die improvement at the same time. Same scaling for both sets.
Damage per die/die-tyoe is a separate variable.
Listing the same concern twice, but calling it two different things, just so you can pretend there’s more issues in your list, is a disingenuous argument.
What you're saying makes sense Haravikk but I'd rather them just make EB scale only with Warlock level. That will do enough to make multiclass or EA characters use other cantrips with AB. +20 to every cantrip even by 17 just isn't necessary, especially if you add other cantrip boosters on top of that.
While I like the new True Strike, I probably wouldn't have called it True Strike. It's in the Smite category, and also the same category as Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade. I would probably have called this cantrip (as written) Divine Smite, or Radiant Strike/Smite, or something like that. And then had something like Arcane Smite for the Wizard/Sorcerer version or something.
I agree that True Strike itself should be about accuracy. As far as I recall, it's always been about accuracy (the 2014 and 3.0x versions were both that, as I recall). I would have made the new one like the 1DD version of Guidance and Resistance (reaction based cantrip, that you use when an attack roll is missed).
You mean any cantrip not every cantrip right? I believe Haravikk is still suggesting to keep the AB wording from the playtest that you pick 1 warlock cantrip and apply it and keep the wording that you can only take an invocation once unless it specifies.
Sorry but what are you talking about? Saying you are assuming players are meta-gaming munchkins is not a personal attack, if I had called you a meta gaming munchkin then that would have been a personal attack. I did not. I pointed out an assumption you are making, and you have not made any argument to refute that statement. You are just complaining about being fairly criticized, which would mean either you don't have an argument to counter the criticism and are trying to deflect attention from that fact, or you are so sensitive you can't handle even the most basic criticism, in which case I'd suggest we stop this conversation now.
Sorry but what? This is 100% home-brew. A legend is just as likely to be misleading and helpful, and I seriously doubt an ordinary person will know about the weaknesses of an Lemure, or Gorgon prior to becoming an adventurer. The second half is just you agreeing with me that Rangers & Druid have to learn & memorize monster weaknesses & resistances to be effective with your proposed cantrips, whereas Clerics and Paladins don't have to, thus putting the Rangers & Druids at a disadvantage because of the damage type of your proposed cantrips.
I've been a DM for years, so yes I have read the MM and know my monster stats. But I don't use that information when I play as a character in a game. Seriously, do you even know what meta-gaming even is? Metagaming is using knowledge that your character wouldn't have to make decisions while playing the game. It has nothing to do with discussing the design of the game in a forum. In fact, I would consider knowing the MM well a prerequisite to having your ideas of game design & game balance taken seriously.
No, scaling is by how much a feature or trait improves, not just the fact that it does. Call Lightning scales better than Fireball despite the fact that they both increase by 1 die size per spell level, because Call Lightning increases by a d10 (5.5 damage) whereas Fireball increases by a d6 (3.5 damage). But Fireball deals more damage baseline than Call Lightning because as a 3rd level slot, Call Lightning deals 3d10 = 15.5 damage, whereas Fireball deals 6d8 = 27 damage.
Plus you made two personal attacks on me in your post, which I'm not going to bother responding to.
I meant every time they cast the one cantrip they chose, sorry about that
Yeah, the priority is absolutely to fix the multi-classing exploit; unless they do something really weird I'll be happy with anything that achieves that. The 1/turn scaling Agonizing Blast is just my preferred solution for the side-benefit it can have to cantrip selection.
There are definitely other ways to fix the multi-classing issue, and other ways to make different cantrip options more viable, I just like the neatness of doing both in one. If we can do both some other way then I'll be onboard so long as it means I can be sling fire bolts for a Fiend, or mind slivers for a Great Old One etc. and it not just being markedly worse than eldritch blast the entire time. 😉
Making eldritch blast properly Warlocks only is certainly another option, and should work fine as well. Though on the other hand, with Agonizing Blast changed, eldritch blast doesn't necessarily need further restrictions as giving up a feat, option or a quick (but now more balanced) multi-class dip into Warlock is probably a reasonably fair price to get it. They could may drop the damage dice down by one, as long as Agonizing Blast is tuned to make up the difference (which I think it would be with Charisma modifier scaling)? Just a thought though, and mainly inspired by the fact that every caster and their mum gets force damage when in monster stat block form now, yet most players can't deal force damage easily except via magic missile, it's not something I'm that bothered about personally since I rarely take eldritch blast on Warlocks. 😂
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.
You'd have to make it tap AB once for every die of damage it scales, and even then it will be worse than EB since a miss is a full miss, and EB has multiple attack rolls to do /something/
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
That is basically exactly what he is suggesting but having it scale on warlock level. At warlock level 5 it does 2xCha, at 11 it does 3xCHA and at 17 it does 4x CHA bonus but only once. he also has acknowledged that EB would still be the best one for it because of the hit chance.
I am of the opinion that if it were to scale this way that you wouldn't need it to do as much damage as is POSSIBLE now only do more damage than it does now on a single hit. Like if it maxed out at 15 at 17 you would still get good value because it should be extremely rare to hit more than 3 rays anyway.
Appropriate scaling if you want this not to be straight boost to pure warlocks would be: 5 at 1st level, 7 at 5th level, 10 at 11th level, and 13 at 17th level.
That's a lot more complicated than it needs to be, just to use other cantrips and still be less efficient than EB. What would be better though is adding the control effects to other cantrips to make them more worth casting as opposed to agonizing blast. Even now, I find opportunities to use my other cantrips when I am looking for something beyond damage, or I feel I won't hit. I use EB strictly for damage, I look to other cantrips for riders.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I can understand that, but with invocations a Warlock can have both - damage and a rider effect. But I do understand wanting a rider when possible - in my current game I am playing a Tielfing Bard, and I chose Levistus Tiefling specifically to get the Ray of Frost cantrip over any other cantrip choice, as being a 3 player party I wanted a damage option for my primary cantrip. I'd rather have the 10 ft of reduced movement over a slightly larger damage die, especially since fleeing enemies seem to bring complications in our games more often than not.
But you didn't say "assuming players", you made it specific: "assumes your players". If you meant a generalization, you would have worded it as a generalization (like you did here, showing that you know the difference). You didn't do that in the initial statement, you directed it at MY players, and therefore MY game group, which is personal. The best quibble you can make here is that you were being ambiguous so that you could be evasive/disingenuous about it (as you're now being) if you were called out on it. But you've also just shown that you do in fact know the difference in wording.
Characters remembering past events that happened in-game in previous sessions is home brew? Since when?
Characters having lore-like (arcana, nature, religion) that might fill in details (correct or incorrect) about semi-common knowledge of common creatures? While not RAW in 5e, I wouldn't call it home-brew, either. I haven't ever played at a table that doesn't allow lore-like skills to be used that way. And it also adds to verisimilitude that serves the role playing atmosphere.
And _neither_ is using "player knowledge that the character doesn't have." The former is specifically known character knowledge, and the latter is using the system to determine what the character might know independently of what the player knows (or sometimes doesn't know).
So it's only metagaming when someone else does the exact same thing you do. Right.
Also, metagaming is not identical to using player knowledge, it's also picking the mechanics over the role playing (focusing on the metagame , instead of the actual game (the role playing and diegesis)). In some circles that's called "playing the system instead of playing the game." (the best example I can give you of that is late 80's flight simulators, where you could use the game implementation to do post stall maneuvering even though the plane you were flying couldn't do post stall maneuvering: you're playing the meta game instead of the actual game). It's also a subset of metagaming. "Player knowledge" is a subset of metagaming, not the only form of metagaming. And you're definitely using the mechanical metagame to justify your argument.
Scaling is always about order of magnitude and/or multipliers, in any field of analysis. Not about specific numbers. For example "it scales with powers of 10", "it scales with powers of 2", or "it scales by a ratio of 1:32." Therefore: number of dice, and not specific values. And it's even how the term is used in D&D: people talk about how often number of dice increase as scaling ... they don't apply that term to increasing the die type (such as with versatile, shillelagh, and other things that change your die type).
But even if we go with your (incorrect) version of scaling, in which it is the over all damage, you made a list with the same item twice ("WORSE damage" and "WORSE scaling" -- if scaling is the over all damage potential, then those two things are the same thing), making a two item list seem like a three item list. Which is disingenuous, at best.
Again, are we living in different realities? Because the new Shillelagh that scales by increasing the die size from d8 to d10 to d12 to 2d6 is 100% referred to as "scaling" by the D&D community. Likewise anything linked to proficiency bonus is referred to as "scaling" regardless of whether is uses dice or not. "Scaling" in D&D is simply the tendency of a number to increase with character level. It is used to describe how a spell/ability/magic item/whatever performs across different tiers of play. Versatile weapons don't "scale" because the change in the die size has nothing to do with character level, and it does not change whether it is used in tier 1 play or tier 4 play.
Scaling is the amount by which something increases with character level, for instance Second Wind has better scaling (increases by 1/character level) compared to the new Aasimar Healing Hands (increases by 1 every 4 character levels). Call Lightning increases by 5.5 damage per 2 character levels when cast with max level slots, while Fireball increases by 3.5 over the same time period. Therefore Call Lightning scales better.
It's very simple, I don't know why you can't understand. It's a simple linear relationship. Baseline damage = intercept, scaling = slope, when you plot the damage the spell does vs level of spell slot. Why are you trying to redefine words? Just go out an read / watch some of the D&D content out there it is very clear how people use these words, and it is absolutely not how you are using them.
PS You're multiplicative argument invalidates your own point as well, the increasing number of dice is still a linear change not a geometric one so by your own definition isn't "scaling". You don't double the number of time each step up in cantrips, you increase it by one.
UA 7.5 Shillelagh is definitely double/geometric scaling because both the dice are going up and you can combine it with any source of multiple attacks (Extra Attack, Haste, etc.) It's a bit excessive for a cantrip to scale with multiple attacks while also converting a quarterstaff to greatsword levels of damage imo.
Shillelagh is just a poorly designed spell. It's exclusive to Druid, but much more useful for Ranger or Paladin. You can't make it scale well for Druid b/c then it would be busted on a Ranger/Paladin if they find a way to get it, but if you don't make ti scale well then it's no good to Druid b/c they get much better cantrips like Primal Savagery.