...Okay, I'll bite. I'm disappointed about UA5->UA7 Warlock too. But worse than 2014? I'm not seeing that at all.
Magical Cunning is a band-aid for the SR dependency issue, but it's at least one less time I'll have to beg for a short rest before a boss fight, so it's something.(And who knows, maybe they'll make it a full restore like Uncanny Metabolism is for monks instead of a half restore and give us a real capstone instead.)
We start the game with an Invocation now; level 1 Agonizing Blast or Fiendish Vigor are huge. And we get two more at level 2. Yes, our Pact Boon comes out of that budget now, but the UA Warlock still comes out ahead - at level 5, the 2014 Warlock would have a Pact Boon and 3 invocations, while the 2024 Warlock will have a Pact Boon and 4 left over.
I don't need to pay the Tome tax to be able to use rituals anymore.
If all you wanted out of Warlock was your one-level-Cha-to-attack dip, that still exists - and you're not locked into one specific frankly boring patron to get it anymore.
The subclasses are MASSIVELY improved. I actually can't wait to play an Archfey or GOOlock, words I never thought I'd type, and even Fiend and Celestial got buffed.
I hope they do further changes (like Eldritch Blast only scaling with Warlock levels) but the UA7 version is definitely an improvement.
...Okay, I'll bite. I'm disappointed about UA5->UA7 Warlock too. But worse than 2014? I'm not seeing that at all.
Magical Cunning is a band-aid for the SR dependency issue, but it's at least one less time I'll have to beg for a short rest before a boss fight, so it's something.(And who knows, maybe they'll make it a full restore like Uncanny Metabolism is for monks instead of a half restore and give us a real capstone instead.)
We start the game with an Invocation now; level 1 Agonizing Blast or Fiendish Vigor are huge. And we get two more at level 2. Yes, our Pact Boon comes out of that budget now, but the UA Warlock still comes out ahead - at level 5, the 2014 Warlock would have a Pact Boon and 3 invocations, while the 2024 Warlock will have a Pact Boon and 4 left over.
I don't need to pay the Tome tax to be able to use rituals anymore.
If all you wanted out of Warlock was your one-level-Cha-to-attack dip, that still exists - and you're not locked into one specific frankly boring patron to get it anymore.
The subclasses are MASSIVELY improved. I actually can't wait to play an Archfey or GOOlock, words I never thought I'd type, and even Fiend and Celestial got buffed.
I hope they do further changes (like Eldritch Blast only scaling with Warlock levels) but the UA7 version is definitely an improvement.
Not to mention that bane was added to the warlock spell list and that is a fantastic spell and very thematic for warlocks.
...Okay, I'll bite. I'm disappointed about UA5->UA7 Warlock too. But worse than 2014? I'm not seeing that at all.
Magical Cunning is a band-aid for the SR dependency issue, but it's at least one less time I'll have to beg for a short rest before a boss fight, so it's something.(And who knows, maybe they'll make it a full restore like Uncanny Metabolism is for monks instead of a half restore and give us a real capstone instead.)
I've been saying, if they just make the Pact Slot refresh feature uses scale along the same lines as Channel Divinity, that solves most of the lag. Full refresh would be good too. Maybe pull the 3rd one down into 3rd tier as opposed to 18th level where it's currently at on Clerics, but 11th level would already be a big jump in spellpower just by getting an extra slot in the pool and the first Arcanum for some straight punching power, so that'd depend on what the playtest shows for having essentially 12 5th level slots, a 6th and 7th level spell, and some utility Invocations does for performance vs 9 slots.
...Okay, I'll bite. I'm disappointed about UA5->UA7 Warlock too. But worse than 2014? I'm not seeing that at all.
Magical Cunning is a band-aid for the SR dependency issue, but it's at least one less time I'll have to beg for a short rest before a boss fight, so it's something.(And who knows, maybe they'll make it a full restore like Uncanny Metabolism is for monks instead of a half restore and give us a real capstone instead.)
I've been saying, if they just make the Pact Slot refresh feature uses scale along the same lines as Channel Divinity, that solves most of the lag. Full refresh would be good too. Maybe pull the 3rd one down into 3rd tier as opposed to 18th level where it's currently at on Clerics, but 11th level would already be a big jump in spellpower just by getting an extra slot in the pool and the first Arcanum for some straight punching power, so that'd depend on what the playtest shows for having essentially 12 5th level slots, a 6th and 7th level spell, and some utility Invocations does for performance vs 9 slots.
Honestly, I believe we could see a hybrid of the first set and second set of features. Specifically I could see an invocation that lets you choose a wizard spell of a level equal to or less than your pact slot that you can cast once per long rest without using a slot and you can take this multiple times but each time it has to be a different level then one you already have.
Magical Cunning being one instant full refresh per Long Rest that the Warlock can pull out for an emergency when they can't SR wouldn't completely solve the problem - but I think that plus the increased invocation count plus the ability to use rituals without a tax would roughly get the job done at most tables.
People would still be running to dip Sorcerer for Shield/Absorb and grabbing Fey-Touched as soon as they hit 4th so they can Misty Step without a pact slot, but since nobody is willing to actually fix Warlock casting it would be, well, something. (And boy does Pact Magic make Archfey's bucket of Misty Steps feel attractive.)
...Okay, I'll bite. I'm disappointed about UA5->UA7 Warlock too. But worse than 2014? I'm not seeing that at all.
Magical Cunning is a band-aid for the SR dependency issue, but it's at least one less time I'll have to beg for a short rest before a boss fight, so it's something.(And who knows, maybe they'll make it a full restore like Uncanny Metabolism is for monks instead of a half restore and give us a real capstone instead.)
We start the game with an Invocation now; level 1 Agonizing Blast or Fiendish Vigor are huge. And we get two more at level 2. Yes, our Pact Boon comes out of that budget now, but the UA Warlock still comes out ahead - at level 5, the 2014 Warlock would have a Pact Boon and 3 invocations, while the 2024 Warlock will have a Pact Boon and 4 left over.
I don't need to pay the Tome tax to be able to use rituals anymore.
If all you wanted out of Warlock was your one-level-Cha-to-attack dip, that still exists - and you're not locked into one specific frankly boring patron to get it anymore.
The subclasses are MASSIVELY improved. I actually can't wait to play an Archfey or GOOlock, words I never thought I'd type, and even Fiend and Celestial got buffed.
I hope they do further changes (like Eldritch Blast only scaling with Warlock levels) but the UA7 version is definitely an improvement.
1. This is an improvement, I'll grant you. I'm not happy with getting half of a magic item as a 'fix' but it's better than a sharp stick in the eye. Unless you feel insulted by it, which I kinda do. But an improvement is an improvement.
2. I like getting an invocation at 1, but I hate the fact that blade locks got catered to so hard by handing them the pact boon at 1 instead of 3. This is my primary complaint with the changes. I feel like we were better off getting our patron first. For example, before, I could make a celestial and heal at level 1 for my party. As a fiend I could pick up temp hit points. As a genie I could get my lamp. I feel like all warlocks got screwed because of blade 'wanting' to feel online at level 1. And, of course it makes it 1 level dippable for every cha caster who wants easy SAD. MC should not be such an easy choice to make for that.
3. I dont really care about the rituals, I can take em or leave. Technically an improvement, but not one that I find terribly useful. My groups have never had a shortage of ritual users, and we rarely need to use rituals. Obviously, your mileage may vary on how often it gets used.
4. I hate one level dipping. This is a problem with the new system.
5. Can't argue with this, but I strongly wish this was up front and not the pact boon.
EDIT: I really, really agree with you that the change EB to scale off warlock level rather than caster level like 2014. That was a great change, and even if they didn't keep the caster fixes, that is a change that should not have been rolled back.
EDIT2: My best hope for warlock changes at this point are additional invocations to add slots. Like at level 3, you can take an invocation to add 2 1st/day. At 5th you can take one to add 2 2nd/day, etc. Expensive, but would be worth it to some people.
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.
Magical Cunning being one instant full refresh per Long Rest that the Warlock can pull out for an emergency when they can't SR wouldn't completely solve the problem - but I think that plus the increased invocation count plus the ability to use rituals without a tax would roughly get the job done at most tables.
People would still be running to dip Sorcerer for Shield/Absorb and grabbing Fey-Touched as soon as they hit 4th so they can Misty Step without a pact slot, but since nobody is willing to actually fix Warlock casting it would be, well, something. (And boy does Pact Magic make Archfey's bucket of Misty Steps feel attractive.)
That's something I would certainly give them. Fey looks pretty solid now, whereas before I felt it was pretty meh. They put in solid work on improving the subclasses.
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.
I can get how the new one could be upsetting if you preferred subclass at level 1, but that ship has sailed; nobody is keeping that anymore, it's not even a Warlock thing, it's a system thing. So what matters instead is "Do levels 1 and 2 feel at least as good to play" and I believe that to be the case.
As for being a Celestial Warlock healer at levels 1 and 2... frankly that's not needed at all, so many other classes have more healing at those levels now. Rangers can heal at level 1, Paladins can heal at level 1 (on TOP of LoH), Fighters get twice as much healing at level 1, Monks can heal themselves at level 2, all the healing spells got buffed... the party will be fine. If your Celestial Warlock is really the only caster in the party, then the ritual thing will be far more important.
Where I agree with you is that Pact of the Blade should be toned down. In particular, I don't think it should grant weapon masteries, and I definitely don't think it should be any martial weapon; let those be Hexblade features. Pact of the Blade should work with non-heavy weapons so that it becomes a go-to for Longswords and the like.
Something to note about celestial healing is the new first level feat system. Taking magic initiate for spells from either cleric or druid or bard can get you a first level healing spell. Combine this with pact of the tome giving you an extra first level spell slot + the buffs to healing spells in general and at first level the new warlock is better at healing then the current celestial warlock at level 1. And if you don't want pact of the tome, 2d4+cha from healing word is still better than 2d6. Dont want to take magic initiate as your first level feat. Lessons of the first ones exist.
I truly believe the warlock benefits more from the system changes than any other caster.
I'll say one more time; Finesse needs a little more support in the Mastery system, because essentially your only options are TWF with a Scimitar and a Shortsword if you need to free up your Bonus Action, TWF with two Shortswords otherwise, or use a Rapier with pretty much only Vex. The Whip with Slow technically exists, but Whips have always been niche and Slow is probably the least engaging mastery option atm. Getting one more mastery option on the table would do a lot to allow finesse Fighters to properly embrace the modularity of the system.
That might be intentional, honestly. A way to sneakily redress some of the lopsidedness of Finesse in the first place, since a Finesse fighter (or anyone else) gets easy access to drastically superior ranged weaponry without having to really give up any significant melee capacity. Limiting(ish, for Fighters) the Mastery properties on Finesse gear might be a way to allow the Strength bois with mostly pointless chuckin' weapons to gain a different form of versatility. DX Fighter gets versatility in engagement range and tools used; ST Fighter gets versatility in controlling effects in the scrum. I could be raving nonsense, but honestly it makes a weird kinna sense in my head.
And how often have you been a melee Fighter and thought "boy, I sure wish I was in the back row using a bow and arrow right now"? Or fought an enemy that stayed more than 30 ft away from the party for the duration of the fight? The hypothetical "more options" exist, but in practical play the circumstances that would make emphasizing DEX markedly better for combat performance seem to occur very rarely, if ever. The weapon damage difference between thrown and ranged is hypothetically 2 points per attack, probably closer to 1 in practice since you need a feat to make Heavy Crossbows viable on a martial, while the melee difference between DEX and STR is likely to weigh more heavily towards the 2 in practice. Maybe possibly you could get an attack off at a distance in the round before everyone comes to grips, but again in my experience most encounters don't place units that far apart. Finally, one advantage STR has over DEX range that doesn't generally get mentioned is that STR can make the transition while still holding a shield; all the bows except a hand crossbow require two hands, which means you'd literally need to burn a whole turn stowing the shield when you made the transition and another one readying it again. So a DEX Fighter can either stick with a weapon that's got arguably worse performance than javelins thanks to loading if they want to transition between melee and range with a shield, sacrifice 2 AC to transition freely mid-combat on top of generally being a step behind Heavy Armor, or commit to melee or ranged when or possibly before many encounters start (depending on if your DM lets you make any final adjustments in that slice of time right before Initiative is officially called for) and still eat the AC loss at range. Does all of this really say "DEX is too good, must nerf/restrict"?
And it's not "ish" on the Finesse limitations; the parameters set mean even with the level 9 feature, they can only use Vex, Nick, and Slow. If they just tossed something like Topple or Sap into the mix I'd be fine, but as it is there's literally only a single mastery you're likely to use in melee if you want a DEX duelist, meaning a classic option that is nowhere near the highest DPR is now being soft-nerfed by being locked out of most of the versatility Fighters are supposed to be gaining. They're still not going to be able to effectively use what are arguably the two best mastery options of all, since those are Heavy weapon only, so exactly what floodgates are being opened by giving them the option to have a second mastery that can consistently impact the flow of combat in melee? You think the people who want to play knight in shining armor are all going to drop their longswords and plate mail for a rapier and leather? STR has over twice as many melee options as DEX, and even once you hit level 9 and start playing with Masteries a bit, Vex still tends to present as the only serious option for any DEX Fighter (Longbows and Heavy Crossbows can Topple or Push, but Push is almost entirely dependent on an environmental factor to be useful and Topple literally makes your attacks less likely to hit if you pull it off).
If you are talking about fighters they can change the mastery of longbows if they don't want the xbow feat (its heavy). they don't need to get 30 feet away, they can get 10 feet away, or they can just pick up xbow mastery or sharpshooter or gunner. Giving them two more masteries.
you don't need an extra turn to transition to shield, shield will be an action. drop your weapon or stow your weapon as a free object interaction, and unequip/equip a shield.
but while I think finesse could use an extra mastery, I don't think dex fighters have a right to the masteries they are missing without investing in str. BTW, if its important to have that versatility, you could make str your secondary stat, getting from 16 up to 20 if you really want to. (they get 7 asi/feats So really for fighter its just about how much you want it.
finesse can get a totally new mastery that fits the weapon type. it has no inalienable right to get the same masteries with no inconvenience.
Magical Cunning being one instant full refresh per Long Rest that the Warlock can pull out for an emergency when they can't SR wouldn't completely solve the problem - but I think that plus the increased invocation count plus the ability to use rituals without a tax would roughly get the job done at most tables.
People would still be running to dip Sorcerer for Shield/Absorb and grabbing Fey-Touched as soon as they hit 4th so they can Misty Step without a pact slot, but since nobody is willing to actually fix Warlock casting it would be, well, something. (And boy does Pact Magic make Archfey's bucket of Misty Steps feel attractive.)
What's really annoying is that they never seemed to recognise that Warlock's issue was a broader problem with the game; namely that making anything short rest bound causes issues. They really need to make far more abilities long rest bound with short rest recovery as standard rather than doing little bolt-on fixes everywhere.
I'd even go so far as to argue that spellcasting should go the opposite way; currently spellcasters get two additional slots when they gain most new spell levels, but really they should just get one for fewer in total, with short rest recovery (and Wizards/Land Druids recovering more) so everyone's resources are a bit more similar in rest dependence, because when everyone needs short rests a group is more likely to take them, or at least be in the same situation when they choose not to. It's also part of the problem of all classes and sub-classes have their own piles of resources; if all characters had a basic resource (e.g- "Energy") they could spend on different things, with the same progression and recovery, then the only consideration is the cost of martial abilities, spells etc. to balance them, after which you then can add any extra resources that still make sense. But that's way too radical a change, and more of a new edition kind of design.
But even just the "recognising short rests are the problem" ship seems to have sailed unless they plan to address in the DMG; as all they really did was have one attempt at something different with Warlock, hardly anyone liked it (mostly because of the wealth of glaring mistakes made) and they canned the whole thing in a fit of pique. But it's never really been just Warlock that needed fixing as the same issue affects Monks, as well as Fighters to some degree, Clerics and Druids who'd like to use their channel divinity/wildshape more etc., adding slightly different recovery mechanics individually to some of the affected classes and sub-classes just makes things more inconsistent, and is masking rather than solving the problem; that's like handing out bandages rather than clearing up the broken glass that's cutting everyone.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
They know it's busted and while they know how to fix it, people who don't play warlocks, rioted. So we get what we get.
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.
I can get how the new one could be upsetting if you preferred subclass at level 1, but that ship has sailed; nobody is keeping that anymore, it's not even a Warlock thing, it's a system thing. So what matters instead is "Do levels 1 and 2 feel at least as good to play" and I believe that to be the case.
As for being a Celestial Warlock healer at levels 1 and 2... frankly that's not needed at all, so many other classes have more healing at those levels now. Rangers can heal at level 1, Paladins can heal at level 1 (on TOP of LoH), Fighters get twice as much healing at level 1, Monks can heal themselves at level 2, all the healing spells got buffed... the party will be fine. If your Celestial Warlock is really the only caster in the party, then the ritual thing will be far more important.
Where I agree with you is that Pact of the Blade should be toned down. In particular, I don't think it should grant weapon masteries, and I definitely don't think it should be any martial weapon; let those be Hexblade features. Pact of the Blade should work with non-heavy weapons so that it becomes a go-to for Longswords and the like.
They do not look as good to me to play. They've lost anything resembling flavor. I understand it, but I don't like it and I feel it's a downgrade. The problems that warlock had before have not been fixed, and the MC problems that warlocks caused have not been fixed.
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.
They do not look as good to me to play. They've lost anything resembling flavor. I understand it, but I don't like it and I feel it's a downgrade. The problems that warlock had before have not been fixed, and the MC problems that warlocks caused have not been fixed.
If anything the multi-classing issues with Warlock are now worse than ever if they don't change it from the last UA; Pact of the Blade will ensure that single-level dips will remain very popular, especially since it comes with pact magic spellcasting on the side (and for grabbing eldritch blast). And a 2nd-level still lets you slap boosts onto eldritch blast if you want to, along with getting better pact magic.
It's not necessarily a bad thing for Warlock to remain a popular multi-class dip if it's enabling different styles of play, the problem is when it's good to the point that every optimiser is taking it on every build, which gets boring. We've had 10 years already of everyone online saying "take levels in Warlock for X, Y and Z" if you're playing pretty much any Charisma class. The balance definitely doesn't feel right in its UA7 form, and with no word on how they're reviewing balance we've no way to know if they're aware of and/or will address it.
Multiclassing needs to stop being treated as an afterthought in their feature design, because multi-classing is popular for the greater build variety it enables, but it's also a huge surface area for exploits, and many of them are easily fixed (reduce front-loading of classes, tie features to class rather than character level etc.).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
I think the most worrying thing I saw in this video was the encounter building rules. Not only are they only doing internal testing it also sounds like they are changing absolutely nothing about how the encounter building works. The only thing they are doing is "you don't have to calculate the budget anymore it is calculated for you". Which does nothing to solve the inadequacy of the encounter building at all.
Where I agree with you is that Pact of the Blade should be toned down. In particular, I don't think it should grant weapon masteries, and I definitely don't think it should be any martial weapon; let those be Hexblade features. Pact of the Blade should work with non-heavy weapons so that it becomes a go-to for Longswords and the like.
I really don't think we'll be seeing a new version of hexblade; it was always more a patch to pact of the blade than a patron, and I say this as somebody who's made my version of the hexblade patron a significant element of my game. (I did have to rebuild the patron from scratch to make it fit into a non-FR game, which is another reason I don't expect to see it again.)
Magical Cunning being one instant full refresh per Long Rest that the Warlock can pull out for an emergency when they can't SR wouldn't completely solve the problem - but I think that plus the increased invocation count plus the ability to use rituals without a tax would roughly get the job done at most tables.
People would still be running to dip Sorcerer for Shield/Absorb and grabbing Fey-Touched as soon as they hit 4th so they can Misty Step without a pact slot, but since nobody is willing to actually fix Warlock casting it would be, well, something. (And boy does Pact Magic make Archfey's bucket of Misty Steps feel attractive.)
What's really annoying is that they never seemed to recognise that Warlock's issue was a broader problem with the game; namely that making anything short rest bound causes issues. They really need to make far more abilities long rest bound with short rest recovery as standard rather than doing little bolt-on fixes everywhere.
I'd even go so far as to argue that spellcasting should go the opposite way; currently spellcasters get two additional slots when they gain most new spell levels, but really they should just get one for fewer in total, with short rest recovery (and Wizards/Land Druids recovering more) so everyone's resources are a bit more similar in rest dependence, because when everyone needs short rests a group is more likely to take them, or at least be in the same situation when they choose not to. It's also part of the problem of all classes and sub-classes have their own piles of resources; if all characters had a basic resource (e.g- "Energy") they could spend on different things, with the same progression and recovery, then the only consideration is the cost of martial abilities, spells etc. to balance them, after which you then can add any extra resources that still make sense. But that's way too radical a change, and more of a new edition kind of design.
But even just the "recognising short rests are the problem" ship seems to have sailed unless they plan to address in the DMG; as all they really did was have one attempt at something different with Warlock, hardly anyone liked it (mostly because of the wealth of glaring mistakes made) and they canned the whole thing in a fit of pique. But it's never really been just Warlock that needed fixing as the same issue affects Monks, as well as Fighters to some degree, Clerics and Druids who'd like to use their channel divinity/wildshape more etc., adding slightly different recovery mechanics individually to some of the affected classes and sub-classes just makes things more inconsistent, and is masking rather than solving the problem; that's like handing out bandages rather than clearing up the broken glass that's cutting everyone.
I'm not the target audience for warlock, so I won't speak for them. But I have no love or desire for long rest mechanics. I'm not interested in that type of resource management. I don't want to be rationing my abilities/gameplay for the whole day. Making the decision to suck/have no options every time I use a resource., I prefer short rest and at will gameplay.
now I'm not saying the whole game needs to be that way or every feature, but I don't need them taking away or diminishing my preferred g
gameplay rhythm to appease people who prefer the LR style. I wouldn't want monk to be LR based, I wouldn't want fighter to be LR based, or them adding or creating a bunch of LR resources for rogues.
I prefer short term resource management with the primary unit being one encounter /linked encounters.
So your solution, while it may seem great to you, isnt good for the people who specifically seek SR classes so they aren't playing with primarily 24hour cooldowns on their gameplay.
Magical Cunning being one instant full refresh per Long Rest that the Warlock can pull out for an emergency when they can't SR wouldn't completely solve the problem - but I think that plus the increased invocation count plus the ability to use rituals without a tax would roughly get the job done at most tables.
People would still be running to dip Sorcerer for Shield/Absorb and grabbing Fey-Touched as soon as they hit 4th so they can Misty Step without a pact slot, but since nobody is willing to actually fix Warlock casting it would be, well, something. (And boy does Pact Magic make Archfey's bucket of Misty Steps feel attractive.)
What's really annoying is that they never seemed to recognise that Warlock's issue was a broader problem with the game; namely that making anything short rest bound causes issues. They really need to make far more abilities long rest bound with short rest recovery as standard rather than doing little bolt-on fixes everywhere.
I'd even go so far as to argue that spellcasting should go the opposite way; currently spellcasters get two additional slots when they gain most new spell levels, but really they should just get one for fewer in total, with short rest recovery (and Wizards/Land Druids recovering more) so everyone's resources are a bit more similar in rest dependence, because when everyone needs short rests a group is more likely to take them, or at least be in the same situation when they choose not to. It's also part of the problem of all classes and sub-classes have their own piles of resources; if all characters had a basic resource (e.g- "Energy") they could spend on different things, with the same progression and recovery, then the only consideration is the cost of martial abilities, spells etc. to balance them, after which you then can add any extra resources that still make sense. But that's way too radical a change, and more of a new edition kind of design.
But even just the "recognising short rests are the problem" ship seems to have sailed unless they plan to address in the DMG; as all they really did was have one attempt at something different with Warlock, hardly anyone liked it (mostly because of the wealth of glaring mistakes made) and they canned the whole thing in a fit of pique. But it's never really been just Warlock that needed fixing as the same issue affects Monks, as well as Fighters to some degree, Clerics and Druids who'd like to use their channel divinity/wildshape more etc., adding slightly different recovery mechanics individually to some of the affected classes and sub-classes just makes things more inconsistent, and is masking rather than solving the problem; that's like handing out bandages rather than clearing up the broken glass that's cutting everyone.
This warlock was balanced in a way that only 1 short rest is needed to keep up with other full casters. In addition many classes are getting something they recover on a short rest. If your table is not taking at least 1 short rest then one of three things is happening. 1 you are only having one big combat per day, the system isn't really designed to handle that. 2 you aren't challenging your players enough for them to need to spend hit dice. Or 3 you have homebrewed an additional out of combat healing method that should have just been kept as a short rest so the game could function because out of combat mundane recovery is what a short rest is from a narrative and functional standpoint.
Magical Cunning being one instant full refresh per Long Rest that the Warlock can pull out for an emergency when they can't SR wouldn't completely solve the problem - but I think that plus the increased invocation count plus the ability to use rituals without a tax would roughly get the job done at most tables.
People would still be running to dip Sorcerer for Shield/Absorb and grabbing Fey-Touched as soon as they hit 4th so they can Misty Step without a pact slot, but since nobody is willing to actually fix Warlock casting it would be, well, something. (And boy does Pact Magic make Archfey's bucket of Misty Steps feel attractive.)
What's really annoying is that they never seemed to recognise that Warlock's issue was a broader problem with the game; namely that making anything short rest bound causes issues. They really need to make far more abilities long rest bound with short rest recovery as standard rather than doing little bolt-on fixes everywhere.
I'd even go so far as to argue that spellcasting should go the opposite way; currently spellcasters get two additional slots when they gain most new spell levels, but really they should just get one for fewer in total, with short rest recovery (and Wizards/Land Druids recovering more) so everyone's resources are a bit more similar in rest dependence, because when everyone needs short rests a group is more likely to take them, or at least be in the same situation when they choose not to. It's also part of the problem of all classes and sub-classes have their own piles of resources; if all characters had a basic resource (e.g- "Energy") they could spend on different things, with the same progression and recovery, then the only consideration is the cost of martial abilities, spells etc. to balance them, after which you then can add any extra resources that still make sense. But that's way too radical a change, and more of a new edition kind of design.
But even just the "recognising short rests are the problem" ship seems to have sailed unless they plan to address in the DMG; as all they really did was have one attempt at something different with Warlock, hardly anyone liked it (mostly because of the wealth of glaring mistakes made) and they canned the whole thing in a fit of pique. But it's never really been just Warlock that needed fixing as the same issue affects Monks, as well as Fighters to some degree, Clerics and Druids who'd like to use their channel divinity/wildshape more etc., adding slightly different recovery mechanics individually to some of the affected classes and sub-classes just makes things more inconsistent, and is masking rather than solving the problem; that's like handing out bandages rather than clearing up the broken glass that's cutting everyone.
This warlock was balanced in a way that only 1 short rest is needed to keep up with other full casters. In addition many classes are getting something they recover on a short rest. If your table is not taking at least 1 short rest then one of three things is happening. 1 you are only having one big combat per day, the system isn't really designed to handle that. 2 you aren't challenging your players enough for them to need to spend hit dice. Or 3 you have homebrewed an additional out of combat healing method that should have just been kept as a short rest so the game could function because out of combat mundane recovery is what a short rest is from a narrative and functional standpoint.
Its interesting that SR is designed to essentially be taking a breather, but many gms and players treat it like a LR. Its supposed to be 1-2 fights till you SR, (or really however long it takes to need to use health resources and SR resources).
Maybe they should have set it as 30 min, and an hour just seems like super long to people.
So your solution, while it may seem great to you, isnt good for the people who specifically seek SR classes so they aren't playing with primarily 24hour cooldowns on their gameplay.
In what way is long rest resources with short rest recovery harming your ability to play a short rest heavy campaign? The whole point is that proper long rest resources with short rest recovery can cope with any mix of resting, so it would work better in every campaign.
Warlock for example might have a peak of six slots on long rest instead of the current four on short rest, but regaining say, half on a short rest, so with lots of short rests you can still cast more overall, but a campaign that isn't seeing enough short rests (which appears to be the meta, as people always seem surprised to find out what the adventuring day mix is supposed to look like) wouldn't be as limiting for resource bound characters.
Currently any campaign in which short rests aren't common enough penalises short rest bound classes and only makes long rest bound classes stronger, and most of those are stronger in the first place thanks to spellcasting.
It's essentially what WotC have already been doing in UA, but they're not doing it consistently, and many are single use, and they're being palmed off as new features when they're actually just a basic resource requirement. It's frustrating when a feature for a class or sub-class is basically just "we can't be arsed doing this properly so here have some resources back and be thankful for it, also this is all you're getting for this level".
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
...Okay, I'll bite. I'm disappointed about UA5->UA7 Warlock too. But worse than 2014? I'm not seeing that at all.
I hope they do further changes (like Eldritch Blast only scaling with Warlock levels) but the UA7 version is definitely an improvement.
Not to mention that bane was added to the warlock spell list and that is a fantastic spell and very thematic for warlocks.
I've been saying, if they just make the Pact Slot refresh feature uses scale along the same lines as Channel Divinity, that solves most of the lag. Full refresh would be good too. Maybe pull the 3rd one down into 3rd tier as opposed to 18th level where it's currently at on Clerics, but 11th level would already be a big jump in spellpower just by getting an extra slot in the pool and the first Arcanum for some straight punching power, so that'd depend on what the playtest shows for having essentially 12 5th level slots, a 6th and 7th level spell, and some utility Invocations does for performance vs 9 slots.
Honestly, I believe we could see a hybrid of the first set and second set of features. Specifically I could see an invocation that lets you choose a wizard spell of a level equal to or less than your pact slot that you can cast once per long rest without using a slot and you can take this multiple times but each time it has to be a different level then one you already have.
Magical Cunning being one instant full refresh per Long Rest that the Warlock can pull out for an emergency when they can't SR wouldn't completely solve the problem - but I think that plus the increased invocation count plus the ability to use rituals without a tax would roughly get the job done at most tables.
People would still be running to dip Sorcerer for Shield/Absorb and grabbing Fey-Touched as soon as they hit 4th so they can Misty Step without a pact slot, but since nobody is willing to actually fix Warlock casting it would be, well, something. (And boy does Pact Magic make Archfey's bucket of Misty Steps feel attractive.)
1. This is an improvement, I'll grant you. I'm not happy with getting half of a magic item as a 'fix' but it's better than a sharp stick in the eye. Unless you feel insulted by it, which I kinda do. But an improvement is an improvement.
2. I like getting an invocation at 1, but I hate the fact that blade locks got catered to so hard by handing them the pact boon at 1 instead of 3. This is my primary complaint with the changes. I feel like we were better off getting our patron first. For example, before, I could make a celestial and heal at level 1 for my party. As a fiend I could pick up temp hit points. As a genie I could get my lamp. I feel like all warlocks got screwed because of blade 'wanting' to feel online at level 1. And, of course it makes it 1 level dippable for every cha caster who wants easy SAD. MC should not be such an easy choice to make for that.
3. I dont really care about the rituals, I can take em or leave. Technically an improvement, but not one that I find terribly useful. My groups have never had a shortage of ritual users, and we rarely need to use rituals. Obviously, your mileage may vary on how often it gets used.
4. I hate one level dipping. This is a problem with the new system.
5. Can't argue with this, but I strongly wish this was up front and not the pact boon.
EDIT: I really, really agree with you that the change EB to scale off warlock level rather than caster level like 2014. That was a great change, and even if they didn't keep the caster fixes, that is a change that should not have been rolled back.
EDIT2: My best hope for warlock changes at this point are additional invocations to add slots. Like at level 3, you can take an invocation to add 2 1st/day. At 5th you can take one to add 2 2nd/day, etc. Expensive, but would be worth it to some people.
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's something I would certainly give them. Fey looks pretty solid now, whereas before I felt it was pretty meh. They put in solid work on improving the subclasses.
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 get how the new one could be upsetting if you preferred subclass at level 1, but that ship has sailed; nobody is keeping that anymore, it's not even a Warlock thing, it's a system thing. So what matters instead is "Do levels 1 and 2 feel at least as good to play" and I believe that to be the case.
As for being a Celestial Warlock healer at levels 1 and 2... frankly that's not needed at all, so many other classes have more healing at those levels now. Rangers can heal at level 1, Paladins can heal at level 1 (on TOP of LoH), Fighters get twice as much healing at level 1, Monks can heal themselves at level 2, all the healing spells got buffed... the party will be fine. If your Celestial Warlock is really the only caster in the party, then the ritual thing will be far more important.
Where I agree with you is that Pact of the Blade should be toned down. In particular, I don't think it should grant weapon masteries, and I definitely don't think it should be any martial weapon; let those be Hexblade features. Pact of the Blade should work with non-heavy weapons so that it becomes a go-to for Longswords and the like.
Something to note about celestial healing is the new first level feat system. Taking magic initiate for spells from either cleric or druid or bard can get you a first level healing spell. Combine this with pact of the tome giving you an extra first level spell slot + the buffs to healing spells in general and at first level the new warlock is better at healing then the current celestial warlock at level 1. And if you don't want pact of the tome, 2d4+cha from healing word is still better than 2d6. Dont want to take magic initiate as your first level feat. Lessons of the first ones exist.
I truly believe the warlock benefits more from the system changes than any other caster.
If you are talking about fighters they can change the mastery of longbows if they don't want the xbow feat (its heavy). they don't need to get 30 feet away, they can get 10 feet away, or they can just pick up xbow mastery or sharpshooter or gunner. Giving them two more masteries.
you don't need an extra turn to transition to shield, shield will be an action. drop your weapon or stow your weapon as a free object interaction, and unequip/equip a shield.
but while I think finesse could use an extra mastery, I don't think dex fighters have a right to the masteries they are missing without investing in str. BTW, if its important to have that versatility, you could make str your secondary stat, getting from 16 up to 20 if you really want to. (they get 7 asi/feats So really for fighter its just about how much you want it.
finesse can get a totally new mastery that fits the weapon type. it has no inalienable right to get the same masteries with no inconvenience.
What's really annoying is that they never seemed to recognise that Warlock's issue was a broader problem with the game; namely that making anything short rest bound causes issues. They really need to make far more abilities long rest bound with short rest recovery as standard rather than doing little bolt-on fixes everywhere.
I'd even go so far as to argue that spellcasting should go the opposite way; currently spellcasters get two additional slots when they gain most new spell levels, but really they should just get one for fewer in total, with short rest recovery (and Wizards/Land Druids recovering more) so everyone's resources are a bit more similar in rest dependence, because when everyone needs short rests a group is more likely to take them, or at least be in the same situation when they choose not to. It's also part of the problem of all classes and sub-classes have their own piles of resources; if all characters had a basic resource (e.g- "Energy") they could spend on different things, with the same progression and recovery, then the only consideration is the cost of martial abilities, spells etc. to balance them, after which you then can add any extra resources that still make sense. But that's way too radical a change, and more of a new edition kind of design.
But even just the "recognising short rests are the problem" ship seems to have sailed unless they plan to address in the DMG; as all they really did was have one attempt at something different with Warlock, hardly anyone liked it (mostly because of the wealth of glaring mistakes made) and they canned the whole thing in a fit of pique. But it's never really been just Warlock that needed fixing as the same issue affects Monks, as well as Fighters to some degree, Clerics and Druids who'd like to use their channel divinity/wildshape more etc., adding slightly different recovery mechanics individually to some of the affected classes and sub-classes just makes things more inconsistent, and is masking rather than solving the problem; that's like handing out bandages rather than clearing up the broken glass that's cutting everyone.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
They know it's busted and while they know how to fix it, people who don't play warlocks, rioted. So we get what we get.
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
They do not look as good to me to play. They've lost anything resembling flavor. I understand it, but I don't like it and I feel it's a downgrade. The problems that warlock had before have not been fixed, and the MC problems that warlocks caused have not been fixed.
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
If anything the multi-classing issues with Warlock are now worse than ever if they don't change it from the last UA; Pact of the Blade will ensure that single-level dips will remain very popular, especially since it comes with pact magic spellcasting on the side (and for grabbing eldritch blast). And a 2nd-level still lets you slap boosts onto eldritch blast if you want to, along with getting better pact magic.
It's not necessarily a bad thing for Warlock to remain a popular multi-class dip if it's enabling different styles of play, the problem is when it's good to the point that every optimiser is taking it on every build, which gets boring. We've had 10 years already of everyone online saying "take levels in Warlock for X, Y and Z" if you're playing pretty much any Charisma class. The balance definitely doesn't feel right in its UA7 form, and with no word on how they're reviewing balance we've no way to know if they're aware of and/or will address it.
Multiclassing needs to stop being treated as an afterthought in their feature design, because multi-classing is popular for the greater build variety it enables, but it's also a huge surface area for exploits, and many of them are easily fixed (reduce front-loading of classes, tie features to class rather than character level etc.).
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.
I think the most worrying thing I saw in this video was the encounter building rules. Not only are they only doing internal testing it also sounds like they are changing absolutely nothing about how the encounter building works. The only thing they are doing is "you don't have to calculate the budget anymore it is calculated for you". Which does nothing to solve the inadequacy of the encounter building at all.
I really don't think we'll be seeing a new version of hexblade; it was always more a patch to pact of the blade than a patron, and I say this as somebody who's made my version of the hexblade patron a significant element of my game. (I did have to rebuild the patron from scratch to make it fit into a non-FR game, which is another reason I don't expect to see it again.)
I'm not the target audience for warlock, so I won't speak for them. But I have no love or desire for long rest mechanics. I'm not interested in that type of resource management. I don't want to be rationing my abilities/gameplay for the whole day. Making the decision to suck/have no options every time I use a resource., I prefer short rest and at will gameplay.
now I'm not saying the whole game needs to be that way or every feature, but I don't need them taking away or diminishing my preferred g
gameplay rhythm to appease people who prefer the LR style. I wouldn't want monk to be LR based, I wouldn't want fighter to be LR based, or them adding or creating a bunch of LR resources for rogues.
I prefer short term resource management with the primary unit being one encounter /linked encounters.
So your solution, while it may seem great to you, isnt good for the people who specifically seek SR classes so they aren't playing with primarily 24hour cooldowns on their gameplay.
This warlock was balanced in a way that only 1 short rest is needed to keep up with other full casters. In addition many classes are getting something they recover on a short rest. If your table is not taking at least 1 short rest then one of three things is happening. 1 you are only having one big combat per day, the system isn't really designed to handle that. 2 you aren't challenging your players enough for them to need to spend hit dice. Or 3 you have homebrewed an additional out of combat healing method that should have just been kept as a short rest so the game could function because out of combat mundane recovery is what a short rest is from a narrative and functional standpoint.
Its interesting that SR is designed to essentially be taking a breather, but many gms and players treat it like a LR. Its supposed to be 1-2 fights till you SR, (or really however long it takes to need to use health resources and SR resources).
Maybe they should have set it as 30 min, and an hour just seems like super long to people.
In what way is long rest resources with short rest recovery harming your ability to play a short rest heavy campaign? The whole point is that proper long rest resources with short rest recovery can cope with any mix of resting, so it would work better in every campaign.
Warlock for example might have a peak of six slots on long rest instead of the current four on short rest, but regaining say, half on a short rest, so with lots of short rests you can still cast more overall, but a campaign that isn't seeing enough short rests (which appears to be the meta, as people always seem surprised to find out what the adventuring day mix is supposed to look like) wouldn't be as limiting for resource bound characters.
Currently any campaign in which short rests aren't common enough penalises short rest bound classes and only makes long rest bound classes stronger, and most of those are stronger in the first place thanks to spellcasting.
It's essentially what WotC have already been doing in UA, but they're not doing it consistently, and many are single use, and they're being palmed off as new features when they're actually just a basic resource requirement. It's frustrating when a feature for a class or sub-class is basically just "we can't be arsed doing this properly so here have some resources back and be thankful for it, also this is all you're getting for this level".
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.