Personally I find the class design of Warlock highly illogical to include certain support spells at level 1 or 2, but your spell slot levels quickly "outlevel" these spells at level 5, going to 3rd level spell slots, where it feels wasteful to cast these support spells because they don't scale with spell level. Therefore I will almost always seek to include a multiclass into Sorcerer (so no stat hindrance) to acquire some low level spell slots, strictly for utility like Hex.
Hex and Shield are not utility spells they are combat spells. Hex scales with EB beam-number so should cost a higher level slot at higher levels because Hex for an 11th level warlock is 3x as powerful as Hex for a 1st level warlock - why should it cost the same level spell slot?
I don't really care about the label you want to use. They are not direct damage spells but supports something else. Hex increases damage on-hit, Shield allows for a character with few armor proficiencies and bad HP to be... somewhat serviceable on the frontline - not to mention that Warlock don't have Shield (the spell) naturally so is only acquired through feats or a MC dip into Sorc.
I don't get your point at all about Hex should have a higher cost because there's a cantrip that functions really really well with Hex. Should Paladin's Divine Favor also require a 2nd level spell slot when he acquires his 2nd weapon attack on level 5? It's such a weird and narrow-minded way to look at the spell and the class. Again back to my original complaint: Warlocks are mainly EB spammers... and that feels very reductive to a class that could be made much more interesting by removing their reliance on EB. Hence the reason why MC Sorc (or Bard) is strong with Warlock to grant that broadening of their capabilities. I'd even go as far as say it makes the Hexblade function a lot better if you're not going the classic Pala into Warlock-Hexblade to gain heavy armor and Divine Smite.
The whole point of Warlock is that it uses a different spellcasting mechanic than other spellcasting classes, the whole point is that you are primarily an EB / spell-sword gish and NOT a full spellcaster - they play like a Fighter that uses spells rather than a full spellcaster.
I don't agree that the point of Warlocks is to spam Eldritch Blast. It's what they are best at, but not their purpose. The majority of their subclasses are also dapping into magic, but because of the class structure they provide magic through class features but magic nonetheless. Their sword-builds are very lacking as a full-class build because of their poor armor proficiencies and medium hit die, only attempted to be fixed with the introduction of the Hexblade subclass.
Good thing the UA's standardized subclass progression got scrapped, otherwise good luck surviving as a melee frontliner till level 3 with just Light Armor and no shield. Oh, you're not supposed to fight in melee until you acquire Hexblade's Medium armor proficiency and can bump your AC up from 12 + DEX to 14 + DEX (+2 cap) + 2 shield? Ah see I thought it was weird that this class that have multiple ways to capitalize on weapon swings have surprisingly poor means to actually be in close quarter combat. You know what can fix this? Multi-classing, you're right.
Also weird comparison that you think Warlocks are a Fighter slinging spells, rather than say a Ranger slinging spells (well EB mostly). Although the Ranger generally has better survivability support, with their natural medium armor (and shield) proficiency and their main damage stat coincide with the armor boosting stat.
If you don't like that I'd suggest not playing a warlock and just go full Sorcerer or Bard (or MC between the two of them) as there are plenty of build options for full CHA spellcaster already.
Eh... no. It's strange for a class to have feature that lends its strengths to a melee fighter, but then not back it up with much actual support that can sustain such a build. And again many of these issues can be covered for by MC'ing into either a Paladin/Fighter for armor and/or Sorc/Bard for spells that support it. I just want the Warlock class to better support its own features and uniqueness and not rely on MC'ing to fix obvious short comings.
The MC between warlock & sorcerer is incredibly broken, and needs a massive nerf (EB cannot remain a cantrip), there is and will always be a massive incentive to MC purely for power reasons because it is necessary to put a lot of very good class features in the first 3 levels of the game so that classes really feel distinct from each other even at low levels. So there must be costs to MCing as well, or we might as well forget about high level class features because everyone will be MCing.
I don't know if I'd say Sorlock is massively broken. It does what I said before: cover for some obvious short comings. I haven't really seen much attempt at "fixing" this broken MC'ing in the UA, so perhaps it is not as problematic as you think?
imagine EB was a 1st level spell and warlock could cast one free 1st level warlock spell each round. also assume a feature at warlock levels 5/11/17 increases number of EB beams. what's lost? what's gained?
<snip>
EB just needs to be a class feature, rather than a spell. It's not only good for fixing the Sorlock, but it also makes Warlocks less vulnerable to things like Globe of Invulnerability or Magic Immunity.
They just removed Paladin's Divine Smite as a class feature and made it a spell, specifically to put it "back-in-line" with all the other Smites, limiting it to once per turn, and to avoid it circumventing something like magic immunity, silence, what-have-ya. I don't see them pulling Eldritch Blast out as a cantrip and make it a class feature.
I'm not entirely sure what we are trying to achieve by it not being a spell. So Sorlock cannot meta-magic it twice with quickened spell? Seems like quickened spell, that essentially allows the casting of two cantrips in a turn, is the problem because it behaves very much like Twinned Spell that specifically have restrictions to disallow multi-target spells (regardless if it only targets one creature) and it cannot target the same creature.
"Warlock becomes less "vulnerable" to Globe of Invulnerability." Is that a general problem? What are Arcane casters to do in that scenario? Oh, right both have access to Dispel Magic. Or could possibly wait out the 1 minute duration.
And magic immunity? That's a fat L to any Arcane caster and that's a-okay? At least the Warlock have multiple features that makes them want to hit things with a weapon.
RE: the "they can't do it because backwards compatibility" argument...
I don't get where you are coming from. Classes changed. Classes use new tables. If a class in OD&D is using a new table, the table might as well *not* include ASIs, and have a separate "character advancement table". What part is clashing with backwards compatibility? Take races. Ooops, we don't have races any more. So we have something else. "But GM, pretty please, I want to play this harengon/dhampir/whatever, but that is a race, and we now have species and background feats and whatever, so the format kinda doesn't fit..." Is that backwards compatible? In what way is that backwards compatible, but the sentence "If playing a pre-OD&D class that has built-in ASIs, ignore those at levels 4, 8, 12, 16 & 19" is some great clash that demolishes backwards compatibility?
I don't even want to think about any "healing" content from before being "totally compatible" with the new game that has healing spells at double the strength....
I think it's more a matter of not changing things too much in a direction where many players will feel alienated by the change and say "Who is this for?" or "Does multi-classing need to be stronger?". Already in this very thread you see quite a few who are very affected by multi-classing's strengths.
As for race versus species + background, I think it would be fair to select either one, with your DM's blessing.
I think the separation of ASIs/feats from class features and over into a more generic character progression system, probably with other advancements like someone mentioned, would be a good thing. However I also feel like something should rightfully take that place in the class level progression. But that requires way more changes than what is feasible to do for OneDND if that system is to be balanced and well-structured, and not feel like an awkward tacked-on change solely for the benefit of multi-classing. I do hope WotC will be willing to expand even further on a character level progression system for a new edition, perhaps taking inspiration of some of the ideas that I and others have written previously in the thread.
And if you really really feel for it, you can always ask your play-group to try it out as homebrew.
Good thing the UA's standardized subclass progression got scrapped, otherwise good luck surviving as a melee frontliner till level 3 with just Light Armor and no shield.
It's really not hard, Rogue have been doing it for years without problems. Since Warlock can get Mage Armour (+2 increase in AC compared to an equivalent Rogue), and Armour of Agathys (equivalent to boosting their hit die to a d12), and/or unlimited False Life (gives them the most HP of any class at this level) there shouldn't be any problem at all with them surviving to 3rd level.
Also weird comparison that you think Warlocks are a Fighter slinging spells, rather than say a Ranger slinging spells (well EB mostly).
No it's not weird at all, both Warlocks and Fighters are SR-dependent and have a small number of combat abilities (in Warlock's case this is their spell slots) that they can use every combat vs other classes that have many more abilities that only recharge on a LR.
I'm not entirely sure what we are trying to achieve by it not being a spell. So Sorlock cannot meta-magic it twice with quickened spell?
Multiple things actually :
1) prevent twinning, quickening, or interactions with other items / features (e.g. Illusionist's gloves) that allow casting 2 cantrips per turn.
2) prevent auto-scaling with character level and instead scale on warlock level that makes dipping warlock for EB + AB so attractive to other classes to get an unlimited ranged attack that scales like a Fighter's extra attack. Currently this require a 2 level dip, but in the latest UA it would require only a single level dip.
3) prevent it being easily accessible to other classes via feats like Magic Initiate to preserve Warlock uniqueness.
"Warlock becomes less "vulnerable" to Globe of Invulnerability." Is that a general problem? What are Arcane casters to do in that scenario?
Warlocks are especially vulnerable because they have so few spell slots. It is relatively likely that they waste 1 spell slot discovering the GoI and thus have only 1 slot left to attempt to dispel it. In contrast full casters will have 4 or 5 or more spell slots to attempt to dispel it.
And magic immunity? That's a fat L to any Arcane caster and that's a-okay?
Full casters have much more diversity and flexibility with high level slots available to them in order to overcome limited magic immunity whereas warlocks only have their individual Mystic Arcanum spells. E.g. a cleric can upcast Flame Strike to 7th or 8th level to overcome limited magic immunities if they need to but a Warlock cannot.
Good thing the UA's standardized subclass progression got scrapped, otherwise good luck surviving as a melee frontliner till level 3 with just Light Armor and no shield.
It's really not hard, Rogue have been doing it for years without problems. Since Warlock can get Mage Armour (+2 increase in AC compared to an equivalent Rogue), and Armour of Agathys (equivalent to boosting their hit die to a d12), and/or unlimited False Life (gives them the most HP of any class at this level) there shouldn't be any problem at all with them surviving to 3rd level.
Well I'd compare with a Studded Leather at 12 AC, so Mage Armor is just +1 AC and then your Warlock has spent their singular Invocation on that. Your average gold start is about 100g, which can afford you a rapier (25g) and a studded leather armor (45g) as a start. Then depending on your luck and preferences you can go Thieves' Tools (25g) -AND/OR- a short bow (25g), a quiver (1g), 20x arrows (1g).
However just like before, a Rogue's main damage stat coincide with the stat that boost armor. So while a Rogue will definitely boost their DEX up max, your Warlock tend to not have that same preference, keeping it at +2 max. So the Rogue does have a slight leg-up or an equivalent AC (in case of Mage Armor) as the Warlock up till level 3 + a shopping trip for a chain shirt/scale mail.
Also weird comparison that you think Warlocks are a Fighter slinging spells, rather than say a Ranger slinging spells (well EB mostly).
No it's not weird at all, both Warlocks and Fighters are SR-dependent and have a small number of combat abilities (in Warlock's case this is their spell slots) that they can use every combat vs other classes that have many more abilities that only recharge on a LR.
Action Surge and one use of Second Wind, along with three of their ten subclasses' main or secondary ability? That's kinda a short list to make them the most comparable due to SR-resources but whatever.
However I fail to see why Warlock couldn't have something along the lines I proposed before with a Shell Invocation that grants them access to defensive spells and accompanied with spell slots dedicated to that purpose? And since these spell slots are granted through the invocation, you could easily have them replenish on a LR instead of a SR like the Warlock's ordinary spell slots. Warlock already have access to unlimited casting of Mage Armor and False Life, but these spells don't scale. Why is it bad to give them a limited but better scaling option instead? (I know Shield doesn't technically scale, but since it's a barrier-to-entry, it's about accruing a critical mass).
Protective Shell Prerequisite: Level 1+ Warlock
You learn the Shield and Absorb Element spells. These function as Warlock spells for you.
Using this invocation, you can cast either spell once per long rest. After you reach Warlock level 11, you can do this twice per long rest.
Repeatable once. You can gain this invocation up to two times. Granting a total of two uses per long rest up until Warlock level 11, hereafter you can use it four times per long rest.
If you did give Warlocks something along those lines, I think you'd also see a drop in MC'ing (to acquire spell slots and protective magics), because it would fix a flaw in Warlock's survivability that levels don't fix by themselves.
And there's already the Invocation - Pact of the Tome, that grants a 1st level spell slot, replenished at a LR. The invocation has other benefits, so perhaps there would be room for another such invocation that just grant a 1st level spell slot but replenished at a SR or perhaps always replenished with the Magical Cunning feature (so 2x per long rest). This could be for Hex, Shield (acquired through subclass or the above suggested invocation), or whatever 1st level spells you need. Perhaps the prerequisite for that invocation could be Warlock level 5+, where most full casters have access to 9 spell slots. A level 5 Warlock with that invocation would then have access to 2x 3rd level spell slots and 1x 1st level spell slot per short rest, which is usually capped at 2 SR per adventuring day and often used less, for up to 9 spell slots per adventuring day. That seems pretty on par in Warlock's best case scenario.
With the previous Shell Invocation x2, Pact of the Tome and the SR 1st level spell slot, plus Magical Cunning that brings a level 5 Warlock with 2 SR up to 13 eligible spell casts per adventuring day in the best case scenario, herein 6 are 1st level and 7 are 3rd level. However it is much more reasonable to figure only 1 SR on most days so down to 10 spell casts for Warlock. In comparison Sorc could have access to 13 spell slots, 7x 1st lvl, 4x 2nd lvl, and 2x 3rd lvl, but all in the very first fight. Wizard comes out at 11 spell slots with 6x 1st lvl, 3x 2nd lvl, 2x 3rd lvl. Not to mention that this is where Warlock peaks comparable to other full casters in terms of spell slot numbers and level.
I'm not entirely sure what we are trying to achieve by it not being a spell. So Sorlock cannot meta-magic it twice with quickened spell?
Multiple things actually :
1) prevent twinning, quickening, or interactions with other items / features (e.g. Illusionist's gloves) that allow casting 2 cantrips per turn.
2) prevent auto-scaling with character level and instead scale on warlock level that makes dipping warlock for EB + AB so attractive to other classes to get an unlimited ranged attack that scales like a Fighter's extra attack. Currently this require a 2 level dip, but in the latest UA it would require only a single level dip.
3) prevent it being easily accessible to other classes via feats like Magic Initiate to preserve Warlock uniqueness.
I'm going to preface this with that I think EB itself should be nerfed, again because Warlock relies a lot - too much - on it. But I'll get back to that later.
Personally I don't find any issue in "copying" EB, as long as they have different targets. The problem seems to primarily be centered around damage potential to singular targets, because Agonizing Blast provides a hefty amount of damage to a free, ranged spell attack. On top of that you can add Hex's damage for a truly devastating amount of damage at range.
I previously stated that I think Quickened Spell from Sorc causes an issue with multi-casting cantrips. I don't actually think that's much of an issue when it's isolated to the Sorcerer, like chain-gunning Fire Bolts, as they spend their Sorc Points on it. However Fire Bolt is fairly self-contained, whilst EB is less so.
I really don't like EB not behaving like a spell, but the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of EB being a class feature on similar terms as Smites are for Paladin. It is still a spell, it is still a cantrip, it should always be prepared and not count toward your learned cantrips, however we change Eldritch Blast a bit. This also includes some restrictions that tone EB down a smidge.
A beam of crackling energy streaks toward a creature within range. Make a ranged spell attack against the target. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 force damage.
At Higher Levels. From level 5 and onwards, when you cast this spell you may once per turn create more beams according to your character level: Two beams at level 5, three beams at level 11, four beams at level 17. These beams can target the same creature or different creatures. For each target make a separate ranged spell attack. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 force damage per beam directed at them.
The main changes: the extra beams are a once per turn feature - so copying/multicasting is pretty poor, but you can still War Caster your way to another full blast with an Opportunity Attack. It's not particularly elegant, but it works similar to Sneak Attack. And multiple beams striking the same target is treated as ONE attack. This mainly serves to make it closer on par with other cantrips that only have one attack roll, and it vastly lowers Hex's damage contribution and invocations that functions per hit - like Repelling Blast. Lowering the damage output on a singular Hex'ed target from up to [1d10 + 4 CHA + 1d6] times beams for an average of 26 at level 5, to instead [1d10 + 4 CHA] times beams + 1d6 for an average of 22.5. Or at level 17; average of 56 versus 45.5.
Still EB functions like a spell, so you can interact with it like a spell. The potential has been reduced for a primary Warlock, but it is still a very solid spell. This also leaves more room for improving other aspects of invocations that interact with EB, and it leaves more power to be redistributed to other areas for Warlock. I didn't touch the scaling as it requires a minimum of multiclassing into Warlock to acquire it through class feature, and then you need to satisfy the 13 CHA requirement. Sorc/Bard/Pala can still do this if they want a low-effort but strong ranged cantrip, and personally I don't see the mechanical issue. Always a fun thing to explain to your GM how that came to be. Otherwise I feel like we're moving into Rage/Sneak Attack territory where EB would shape the entirety of the Warlock class and hell no is that a productive future for Warlock.
"Warlock becomes less "vulnerable" to Globe of Invulnerability." Is that a general problem? What are Arcane casters to do in that scenario?
Warlocks are especially vulnerable because they have so few spell slots. It is relatively likely that they waste 1 spell slot discovering the GoI and thus have only 1 slot left to attempt to dispel it. In contrast full casters will have 4 or 5 or more spell slots to attempt to dispel it.
First of all, the purpose of GoI is to counteract spell casters, so the fact that it can catch a Warlock out is not really something I'll lament. You could just as easily have cast EB against what is presumably something that looks like a spell caster. Not many non-spell casters have access to GoI, AFAIK.
That Warlock could just as easily have been hindered by a Counter Spell.
Secondly, this also seems a very good reason why adding a few extra spell slots through invocations could be a good idea. Not specifically to be able to cast something like Dispel Magic, but to have more flexibility and able to prod a target for weaknesses.
And magic immunity? That's a fat L to any Arcane caster and that's a-okay?
Full casters have much more diversity and flexibility with high level slots available to them in order to overcome limited magic immunity whereas warlocks only have their individual Mystic Arcanum spells. E.g. a cleric can upcast Flame Strike to 7th or 8th level to overcome limited magic immunities if they need to but a Warlock cannot.
And honestly I would not be bothered if the Mystic Arcanum had two spells to choose from, to grant a bit of flexibility. It seems a waste that Warlock's spell list includes a good handful of spells at level 6, but you only ever get one (well the UA lets you swap once per level-up, but that's not really flexibility). Because we like to do this so much, it could be done through an invocation. Either grant all Arcanum stages an additional spell to cast from or just one or two Arcanum stages.
However just like before, a Rogue's main damage stat coincide with the stat that boost armor. So while a Rogue will definitely boost their DEX up max, your Warlock tend to not have that same preference, keeping it at +2 max. So the Rogue does have a slight leg-up or an equivalent AC (in case of Mage Armor) as the Warlock up till level 3 + a shopping trip for a chain shirt/scale mail.
Since we were talking about levels 1-3 boosting your stats is not applicable. A warlock with mage armour is going to be looking at 13+2(dex) vs a Rogue's 12+3(dex) at those levels, alternatively the warlock can take the unlimited false life invocation for a huge amount of survivability at 1st level: 5-8 temporary hit points is massive when your max HP is only 10, and then can retrain it later on if they want to.
Giving warlocks defensives magic is a major no-no because warlocks get armour proficiency. Shield is only available to classes that don't get any armour proficiency which is as it should be and honestly the one change I'm most hoping for in the 2024 release is for Shield to get one sentence added to it's mechanics: "you can only benefit from this spell if you are not wearing armour and not using a shield."
With the previous Shell Invocation x2, Pact of the Tome and the SR 1st level spell slot, plus Magical Cunning that brings a level 5 Warlock with 2 SR up to 13 eligible spell casts per adventuring day in the best case scenario, herein 6 are 1st level and 7 are 3rd level. However it is much more reasonable to figure only 1 SR on most days so down to 10 spell casts for Warlock. In comparison Sorc could have access to 13 spell slots, 7x 1st lvl, 4x 2nd lvl, and 2x 3rd lvl, but all in the very first fight. Wizard comes out at 11 spell slots with 6x 1st lvl, 3x 2nd lvl, 2x 3rd lvl. Not to mention that this is where Warlock peaks comparable to other full casters in terms of spell slot numbers and level.
That WAY too powerful for warlock. Either a warlock can have similar number of spells cast per day as a full caster - in which case why do they exist? Just play a full caster OR they can have a spammable cantrip / extra attack that deals equal damage to a fighter using weapons. They cannot have both. Warlock is fundamentally a half-caster, it gets an always available high damage spammable attack, lots of HP boosting options, and a little bit of spellcasting on the side, just like Ranger and Paladin. It's why I liked the UA warlock that made the warlock follow the same spell scaling as other half-casters with the choice to use your invocations build the "other half" of your choice - either more spellcasting or more weapon focused or more utility/support focused. If the warlock even gets similar casting to a full caster it needs to have EB & pact of the blade taken away to keep the classes balanced. It's really bad for the game if one class can simultaneously be just as good a caster as a wizard and just as good a weapon user as a fighter.
I fear we've gone off-topic, so I'll invite this discussion on Warlock over to another thread here on the UA forum about "What do you want from revised classes".
I don't really care about the label you want to use. They are not direct damage spells but supports something else. Hex increases damage on-hit, Shield allows for a character with few armor proficiencies and bad HP to be... somewhat serviceable on the frontline - not to mention that Warlock don't have Shield (the spell) naturally so is only acquired through feats or a MC dip into Sorc.
I don't get your point at all about Hex should have a higher cost because there's a cantrip that functions really really well with Hex. Should Paladin's Divine Favor also require a 2nd level spell slot when he acquires his 2nd weapon attack on level 5? It's such a weird and narrow-minded way to look at the spell and the class. Again back to my original complaint: Warlocks are mainly EB spammers... and that feels very reductive to a class that could be made much more interesting by removing their reliance on EB. Hence the reason why MC Sorc (or Bard) is strong with Warlock to grant that broadening of their capabilities. I'd even go as far as say it makes the Hexblade function a lot better if you're not going the classic Pala into Warlock-Hexblade to gain heavy armor and Divine Smite.
I don't agree that the point of Warlocks is to spam Eldritch Blast. It's what they are best at, but not their purpose. The majority of their subclasses are also dapping into magic, but because of the class structure they provide magic through class features but magic nonetheless. Their sword-builds are very lacking as a full-class build because of their poor armor proficiencies and medium hit die, only attempted to be fixed with the introduction of the Hexblade subclass.
Good thing the UA's standardized subclass progression got scrapped, otherwise good luck surviving as a melee frontliner till level 3 with just Light Armor and no shield. Oh, you're not supposed to fight in melee until you acquire Hexblade's Medium armor proficiency and can bump your AC up from 12 + DEX to 14 + DEX (+2 cap) + 2 shield? Ah see I thought it was weird that this class that have multiple ways to capitalize on weapon swings have surprisingly poor means to actually be in close quarter combat. You know what can fix this? Multi-classing, you're right.
Also weird comparison that you think Warlocks are a Fighter slinging spells, rather than say a Ranger slinging spells (well EB mostly). Although the Ranger generally has better survivability support, with their natural medium armor (and shield) proficiency and their main damage stat coincide with the armor boosting stat.
Eh... no. It's strange for a class to have feature that lends its strengths to a melee fighter, but then not back it up with much actual support that can sustain such a build. And again many of these issues can be covered for by MC'ing into either a Paladin/Fighter for armor and/or Sorc/Bard for spells that support it. I just want the Warlock class to better support its own features and uniqueness and not rely on MC'ing to fix obvious short comings.
I don't know if I'd say Sorlock is massively broken. It does what I said before: cover for some obvious short comings. I haven't really seen much attempt at "fixing" this broken MC'ing in the UA, so perhaps it is not as problematic as you think?
They just removed Paladin's Divine Smite as a class feature and made it a spell, specifically to put it "back-in-line" with all the other Smites, limiting it to once per turn, and to avoid it circumventing something like magic immunity, silence, what-have-ya. I don't see them pulling Eldritch Blast out as a cantrip and make it a class feature.
I'm not entirely sure what we are trying to achieve by it not being a spell. So Sorlock cannot meta-magic it twice with quickened spell? Seems like quickened spell, that essentially allows the casting of two cantrips in a turn, is the problem because it behaves very much like Twinned Spell that specifically have restrictions to disallow multi-target spells (regardless if it only targets one creature) and it cannot target the same creature.
"Warlock becomes less "vulnerable" to Globe of Invulnerability." Is that a general problem? What are Arcane casters to do in that scenario? Oh, right both have access to Dispel Magic. Or could possibly wait out the 1 minute duration.
And magic immunity? That's a fat L to any Arcane caster and that's a-okay? At least the Warlock have multiple features that makes them want to hit things with a weapon.
I think it's more a matter of not changing things too much in a direction where many players will feel alienated by the change and say "Who is this for?" or "Does multi-classing need to be stronger?".
Already in this very thread you see quite a few who are very affected by multi-classing's strengths.
As for race versus species + background, I think it would be fair to select either one, with your DM's blessing.
I think the separation of ASIs/feats from class features and over into a more generic character progression system, probably with other advancements like someone mentioned, would be a good thing. However I also feel like something should rightfully take that place in the class level progression. But that requires way more changes than what is feasible to do for OneDND if that system is to be balanced and well-structured, and not feel like an awkward tacked-on change solely for the benefit of multi-classing. I do hope WotC will be willing to expand even further on a character level progression system for a new edition, perhaps taking inspiration of some of the ideas that I and others have written previously in the thread.
And if you really really feel for it, you can always ask your play-group to try it out as homebrew.
It's really not hard, Rogue have been doing it for years without problems. Since Warlock can get Mage Armour (+2 increase in AC compared to an equivalent Rogue), and Armour of Agathys (equivalent to boosting their hit die to a d12), and/or unlimited False Life (gives them the most HP of any class at this level) there shouldn't be any problem at all with them surviving to 3rd level.
No it's not weird at all, both Warlocks and Fighters are SR-dependent and have a small number of combat abilities (in Warlock's case this is their spell slots) that they can use every combat vs other classes that have many more abilities that only recharge on a LR.
Multiple things actually :
1) prevent twinning, quickening, or interactions with other items / features (e.g. Illusionist's gloves) that allow casting 2 cantrips per turn.
2) prevent auto-scaling with character level and instead scale on warlock level that makes dipping warlock for EB + AB so attractive to other classes to get an unlimited ranged attack that scales like a Fighter's extra attack. Currently this require a 2 level dip, but in the latest UA it would require only a single level dip.
3) prevent it being easily accessible to other classes via feats like Magic Initiate to preserve Warlock uniqueness.
Warlocks are especially vulnerable because they have so few spell slots. It is relatively likely that they waste 1 spell slot discovering the GoI and thus have only 1 slot left to attempt to dispel it. In contrast full casters will have 4 or 5 or more spell slots to attempt to dispel it.
Full casters have much more diversity and flexibility with high level slots available to them in order to overcome limited magic immunity whereas warlocks only have their individual Mystic Arcanum spells. E.g. a cleric can upcast Flame Strike to 7th or 8th level to overcome limited magic immunities if they need to but a Warlock cannot.
Well I'd compare with a Studded Leather at 12 AC, so Mage Armor is just +1 AC and then your Warlock has spent their singular Invocation on that. Your average gold start is about 100g, which can afford you a rapier (25g) and a studded leather armor (45g) as a start. Then depending on your luck and preferences you can go Thieves' Tools (25g) -AND/OR- a short bow (25g), a quiver (1g), 20x arrows (1g).
However just like before, a Rogue's main damage stat coincide with the stat that boost armor. So while a Rogue will definitely boost their DEX up max, your Warlock tend to not have that same preference, keeping it at +2 max. So the Rogue does have a slight leg-up or an equivalent AC (in case of Mage Armor) as the Warlock up till level 3 + a shopping trip for a chain shirt/scale mail.
Action Surge and one use of Second Wind, along with three of their ten subclasses' main or secondary ability? That's kinda a short list to make them the most comparable due to SR-resources but whatever.
However I fail to see why Warlock couldn't have something along the lines I proposed before with a Shell Invocation that grants them access to defensive spells and accompanied with spell slots dedicated to that purpose? And since these spell slots are granted through the invocation, you could easily have them replenish on a LR instead of a SR like the Warlock's ordinary spell slots. Warlock already have access to unlimited casting of Mage Armor and False Life, but these spells don't scale. Why is it bad to give them a limited but better scaling option instead? (I know Shield doesn't technically scale, but since it's a barrier-to-entry, it's about accruing a critical mass).
Protective Shell
Prerequisite: Level 1+ Warlock
You learn the Shield and Absorb Element spells. These function as Warlock spells for you.
Using this invocation, you can cast either spell once per long rest. After you reach Warlock level 11, you can do this twice per long rest.
Repeatable once. You can gain this invocation up to two times. Granting a total of two uses per long rest up until Warlock level 11, hereafter you can use it four times per long rest.
If you did give Warlocks something along those lines, I think you'd also see a drop in MC'ing (to acquire spell slots and protective magics), because it would fix a flaw in Warlock's survivability that levels don't fix by themselves.
And there's already the Invocation - Pact of the Tome, that grants a 1st level spell slot, replenished at a LR. The invocation has other benefits, so perhaps there would be room for another such invocation that just grant a 1st level spell slot but replenished at a SR or perhaps always replenished with the Magical Cunning feature (so 2x per long rest). This could be for Hex, Shield (acquired through subclass or the above suggested invocation), or whatever 1st level spells you need. Perhaps the prerequisite for that invocation could be Warlock level 5+, where most full casters have access to 9 spell slots. A level 5 Warlock with that invocation would then have access to 2x 3rd level spell slots and 1x 1st level spell slot per short rest, which is usually capped at 2 SR per adventuring day and often used less, for up to 9 spell slots per adventuring day. That seems pretty on par in Warlock's best case scenario.
With the previous Shell Invocation x2, Pact of the Tome and the SR 1st level spell slot, plus Magical Cunning that brings a level 5 Warlock with 2 SR up to 13 eligible spell casts per adventuring day in the best case scenario, herein 6 are 1st level and 7 are 3rd level. However it is much more reasonable to figure only 1 SR on most days so down to 10 spell casts for Warlock. In comparison Sorc could have access to 13 spell slots, 7x 1st lvl, 4x 2nd lvl, and 2x 3rd lvl, but all in the very first fight. Wizard comes out at 11 spell slots with 6x 1st lvl, 3x 2nd lvl, 2x 3rd lvl. Not to mention that this is where Warlock peaks comparable to other full casters in terms of spell slot numbers and level.
I'm going to preface this with that I think EB itself should be nerfed, again because Warlock relies a lot - too much - on it. But I'll get back to that later.
Personally I don't find any issue in "copying" EB, as long as they have different targets. The problem seems to primarily be centered around damage potential to singular targets, because Agonizing Blast provides a hefty amount of damage to a free, ranged spell attack. On top of that you can add Hex's damage for a truly devastating amount of damage at range.
I previously stated that I think Quickened Spell from Sorc causes an issue with multi-casting cantrips. I don't actually think that's much of an issue when it's isolated to the Sorcerer, like chain-gunning Fire Bolts, as they spend their Sorc Points on it. However Fire Bolt is fairly self-contained, whilst EB is less so.
I really don't like EB not behaving like a spell, but the more I think about it, the more I like the idea of EB being a class feature on similar terms as Smites are for Paladin. It is still a spell, it is still a cantrip, it should always be prepared and not count toward your learned cantrips, however we change Eldritch Blast a bit. This also includes some restrictions that tone EB down a smidge.
Eldritch Blast
Evocation cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 120 feet
Components: V, S
Duration: Instantaneous
A beam of crackling energy streaks toward a creature within range. Make a ranged spell attack against the target. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 force damage.
At Higher Levels. From level 5 and onwards, when you cast this spell you may once per turn create more beams according to your character level: Two beams at level 5, three beams at level 11, four beams at level 17. These beams can target the same creature or different creatures. For each target make a separate ranged spell attack. On a hit, the target takes 1d10 force damage per beam directed at them.
The main changes: the extra beams are a once per turn feature - so copying/multicasting is pretty poor, but you can still War Caster your way to another full blast with an Opportunity Attack. It's not particularly elegant, but it works similar to Sneak Attack. And multiple beams striking the same target is treated as ONE attack. This mainly serves to make it closer on par with other cantrips that only have one attack roll, and it vastly lowers Hex's damage contribution and invocations that functions per hit - like Repelling Blast. Lowering the damage output on a singular Hex'ed target from up to [1d10 + 4 CHA + 1d6] times beams for an average of 26 at level 5, to instead [1d10 + 4 CHA] times beams + 1d6 for an average of 22.5. Or at level 17; average of 56 versus 45.5.
Still EB functions like a spell, so you can interact with it like a spell. The potential has been reduced for a primary Warlock, but it is still a very solid spell. This also leaves more room for improving other aspects of invocations that interact with EB, and it leaves more power to be redistributed to other areas for Warlock. I didn't touch the scaling as it requires a minimum of multiclassing into Warlock to acquire it through class feature, and then you need to satisfy the 13 CHA requirement. Sorc/Bard/Pala can still do this if they want a low-effort but strong ranged cantrip, and personally I don't see the mechanical issue. Always a fun thing to explain to your GM how that came to be. Otherwise I feel like we're moving into Rage/Sneak Attack territory where EB would shape the entirety of the Warlock class and hell no is that a productive future for Warlock.
First of all, the purpose of GoI is to counteract spell casters, so the fact that it can catch a Warlock out is not really something I'll lament. You could just as easily have cast EB against what is presumably something that looks like a spell caster. Not many non-spell casters have access to GoI, AFAIK.
That Warlock could just as easily have been hindered by a Counter Spell.
Secondly, this also seems a very good reason why adding a few extra spell slots through invocations could be a good idea. Not specifically to be able to cast something like Dispel Magic, but to have more flexibility and able to prod a target for weaknesses.
And honestly I would not be bothered if the Mystic Arcanum had two spells to choose from, to grant a bit of flexibility. It seems a waste that Warlock's spell list includes a good handful of spells at level 6, but you only ever get one (well the UA lets you swap once per level-up, but that's not really flexibility). Because we like to do this so much, it could be done through an invocation. Either grant all Arcanum stages an additional spell to cast from or just one or two Arcanum stages.
Since we were talking about levels 1-3 boosting your stats is not applicable. A warlock with mage armour is going to be looking at 13+2(dex) vs a Rogue's 12+3(dex) at those levels, alternatively the warlock can take the unlimited false life invocation for a huge amount of survivability at 1st level: 5-8 temporary hit points is massive when your max HP is only 10, and then can retrain it later on if they want to.
Giving warlocks defensives magic is a major no-no because warlocks get armour proficiency. Shield is only available to classes that don't get any armour proficiency which is as it should be and honestly the one change I'm most hoping for in the 2024 release is for Shield to get one sentence added to it's mechanics: "you can only benefit from this spell if you are not wearing armour and not using a shield."
That WAY too powerful for warlock. Either a warlock can have similar number of spells cast per day as a full caster - in which case why do they exist? Just play a full caster OR they can have a spammable cantrip / extra attack that deals equal damage to a fighter using weapons. They cannot have both. Warlock is fundamentally a half-caster, it gets an always available high damage spammable attack, lots of HP boosting options, and a little bit of spellcasting on the side, just like Ranger and Paladin. It's why I liked the UA warlock that made the warlock follow the same spell scaling as other half-casters with the choice to use your invocations build the "other half" of your choice - either more spellcasting or more weapon focused or more utility/support focused. If the warlock even gets similar casting to a full caster it needs to have EB & pact of the blade taken away to keep the classes balanced. It's really bad for the game if one class can simultaneously be just as good a caster as a wizard and just as good a weapon user as a fighter.
I fear we've gone off-topic, so I'll invite this discussion on Warlock over to another thread here on the UA forum about "What do you want from revised classes".
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/unearthed-arcana/192323-what-do-you-want-from-revised-classes?page=3