Why would anyone get more than 2 levels of Warlock?

[Waazraath]

And environmental hazards; cliffs that can't be scaled without the occasional fall, or use of spells like fly or levitation; storms and hurricanes, with hail and snow, that requre spells for shelter, or might give hp damage, or a level of exhaustion; etc.

[Malifice]

Traps; environmental hazards and even some social encounters.

As long as there is resource drain (HP, spell slots etc) it counts.

[Mordaedil]

So if I slap my teammates every time there is a pause causing one hit point of damage, I can drain the number of encounters per day?

[mgshamster]

So if I slap my teammates every time there is a pause causing one hit point of damage, I can drain the number of encounters per day?

Depends on the level. At level 1, that could work rather well (your fellow players may not like you for it and your DM is under no obligation to oblige). At higher levels, a 1 HP drain doesn't even mark the "easy" encounter list.

Remember, 6-8 encounters per adventuring day is actually a misnomer. And the DMG doesn't actually say "six to eight." (I take that back, it does actually say 6-8 medium to hard encounters).

Using the XP Encounter Budget numbers, what you get is 2-32 encounters per day, ranging from 2 deadly to 6-8 medium/hard to 32 easy encounters.

There's always implictions to only giving one type of encounter all the time, though. If you're always giving 2 deadly encounters per day with no variance, you'll experience a ton of Nova characters, and those who are short rest dependent will feel weaker. If you're always giving 32 easy encounters per day, your players may feel bogged down in combat.

Like most things in life, they key is variance. Keep a varried set of encounters in your game. Mix it up. Sometimes have no encounters. Sometimes have a few deadly ones. Sometimes have a ton of easy ones. Sometimes have a handful of medium ones. Sometimes do one deadly, two medium, and a handful of easy. Mix it up. Problems can arise when you only ever do one type.

The fun part is that if you keep it mixed, players won't *expect* the adventuring day to be one style, so even if you do throw out two deadly encounters in one day, your players still won't Nova every last spell slot - because they don't know if that's the last encounter.

[MaxWilson]

Traps; environmental hazards and even some social encounters.

As long as there is resource drain (HP, spell slots etc) it counts.

Assuming you mean "significant resource drain", by that metric, only Deadly encounters should count.

[Segev]

Even in a dungeon, you can build non-combat encounters out of relatively simple elements.

An unoccupied room with doors in and out locked, furnished appropriately for the dungeon or building, in which 6 basic traps, 2 decoy (low-value) loot stashes, 2 real (valuable-for-the-level) loot stashes, and one key clue or other plot-relevant thing, all hidden in different locations. The decoys and traps have moderately easy Investigation DCs to discover them, though the traps have a higher DC to identify them as traps (and maybe the loot stashes each have their own traps). The real loot stashes are better-hidden, and the plot-relevant clue is hidden at a DC the DM feels appropriate for how important/helpful it is. (Note that the three-clue rule should probably be in place, so this should be non-essential on its own.)

[Malifice]

Assuming you mean "significant resource drain", by that metric, only Deadly encounters should count.

It doesn't have to be significant.

A simple concealed and spiked 30' pit trap (DC X Perception to detect, DC X Thieves tools to disarm, DC X Dexterity save to avoid, 3d6 bludgeoning damage and Xd10 piercing damage) works just fine in most campaigns as an encounter.

A skill monkey can bypass it with no resource expenditure. Otherwise its going to drain HP and possibly other resources (slots) to bypass.

The game is literally called Dungeons and Dragons. Its been a basic premise of the game since day one that it features a group of around 4-5 characters of mixed abilities entering and plundering a 'dungeon' [an area featuring half a dozen or more traps, combat encounters, riddles and puzzles closely grouped together].

People are acting like half a dozen encounters in a day is unusual. It's not; that's how the game has been played since day one.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm about to go to bed, so I won't brainstorm any right now, but it might be a good direction for this thread to go to consider what could constitute additional, non-combat encounters which would nonetheless ping the resource management game sufficiently to induce balance.

Note that they need not be formally noted as encounters, even, just... situations which prompt the characters to use resources they need rests (short or long) to recover.

There are any number of natural obstacles or non combat encounters that will pose challenges to the party either through skill checks, a spell (knock for example) or a combination of those that do not include combat. (Pool of poisonous water, quick sand, mudlice, avalanche, etc).

The list is almost endless in terms of what the DM can come up with to present the player with puzzles and challenges.

[KorvinStarmast]

People are acting like half a dozen encounters in a day is unusual. It's not; that's how the game has been played since day one.

I agree with your whole post, except that back in "day one" days we often had more than 4 or 5 players. But that too varied by table ...

[Willie the Duck]

I'm about to go to bed, so I won't brainstorm any right now, but it might be a good direction for this thread to go to consider what could constitute additional, non-combat encounters which would nonetheless ping the resource management game sufficiently to induce balance.

Honestly, at this point, the only way the OP and their threads could ever go somewhere productive was to stop trying to get the forum populous (or now the designers) to 'admit' some flaw in the game as-is, and instead submit a suggested houserule for the system that addresses the perceived flaws that he sees in it, and submit it for review. He'd probably find a more receptive audience anyways.

[MaxWilson]

Honestly, at this point, the only way the OP and their threads could ever go somewhere productive was to stop trying to get the forum populous (or now the designers) to 'admit' some flaw in the game as-is, and instead submit a suggested houserule for the system that addresses the perceived flaws that he sees in it, and submit it for review. He'd probably find a more receptive audience anyways.

Some people come to these forums for insight, and not to seek emotional fulfillment from strangers.

It's frustrating, yes, to ask for insight and receive a bunch of unsatisfactory answers; and you may see some frustration vented. But the goal being sought in this case isn't an emotional one--even if someone "admits" flaws, it leaves you unsatisfied, because you still didn't get what you were looking for in the first place: new, good ideas.

As it's been said, "You'd worry less what other people thought of you if you knew how seldom they do." Sometimes, other people don't really care what you think.

[Zalabim]

As it's been said, "You'd worry less what other people thought of you if you knew how seldom they do." Sometimes, other people don't really care what you think.

I really like this message.

Remember, 6-8 encounters per adventuring day is actually a misnomer. And the DMG doesn't actually say "six to eight." (I take that back, it does actually say 6-8 medium to hard encounters).

Using the XP Encounter Budget numbers, what you get is 2-32 encounters per day, ranging from 2 deadly to 6-8 medium/hard to 32 easy encounters.

Actually, since there's no upper limit to the XP budget of deadly encounters, it's actually a minimum of 1, but since it wouldn't be possible to use up the PCs hit dice healing with only a single encounter, there has to be at least 2 to leave them exhausted. Basing it on the threshold numbers, the range is actually 3-16, with usually some remainder after the 3 deadly, and for the vast majority of levels the easy encounters number is less than 15. I don't know how you got 32.

[Unoriginal]

Some people come to these forums for insight, and not to seek emotional fulfillment from strangers.

Some people do, indeed.

Probably a majority, even.

I have not seen one post from Merudo indicating he actually seeks insight or advice rather than just wanting to prove/convince others he's right, despite how he formulated the OP.

It's possible that I'm wrong about the situation and Merudo, but given how his defence of his point included him admitting double-standard (i.e the wizard being allowed to long rest when out of spells while the Warlock wasn't allowed to short rest), prefering his one example of DM and players mishandling the warlock over the insight and advice of people who have played and DMed for the class a lot more (as well as from people who have a firm grasp on theory), and him outright lying to make his point seems relevant, I would be surprised.

Yes, it's frustrating when people don't give you what you want, but one is not entitled to have their misconceptions confirmed because of that.

[GreyBlack]

You don't include your warlock levels when determining multiclass spells per day. That's a pretty big reason right there.

Say you multiclass as Sorcerer 5/Warlock 2. When determining your daily spells as Warlock, where a Sorcerer 7 or a Warlock 7 could cast level 4 spell slots, as is you can only cast as a Sorcerer 5 with spells per day. Overall, it slows down your spell progression and makes you have that much less possible burst damage.

[Merudo]

I have not seen one post from Merudo indicating he actually seeks insight or advice rather than just wanting to prove/convince others he's right, despite how he formulated the OP.

My argumentative style is to make an unconventional argument that I believe to be at least somewhat true, and see how good the rebuttals provided by others are.

For the record I've got plenty of insight through this thread.

None of said insight came from you, though. In fact, the main purpose of your posts seem to be to attack my character and second guess my intents.

I've therefore decided to add you to my ignore list. You won't get any more replies from me.

[Merudo]

You don't include your warlock levels when determining multiclass spells per day. That's a pretty big reason right there.

Say you multiclass as Sorcerer 5/Warlock 2. When determining your daily spells as Warlock, where a Sorcerer 7 or a Warlock 7 could cast level 4 spell slots, as is you can only cast as a Sorcerer 5 with spells per day. Overall, it slows down your spell progression and makes you have that much less possible burst damage.

The Sorcerer 5/Warlock 2 can do 24 short rests in a day, which directly translates into 48 sorcery points, which can be used to create *NINE* level 3 slots for a total of eleven level 3 slots. The level 7 Sorcerer has three level 3 slots and one level 4 slot.

[Malifice]

The Sorcerer 5/Warlock 2 can do 24 short rest in a day...

...in a game that doesnt feature a Dungeon Master, or desperately needs a new one.

[MaxWilson]

My argumentative style is to make an unconventional argument that I believe to be at least somewhat true, and see how good the rebuttals provided by others are.

For the record I've got plenty of insight through this thread.

FWIW, I think it's possible that you'd be better understood if you were more public with acknowledgements when you do receive insight: "Thanks! Good point!" Rewarding those who offer valuable insights (while starving those who just want to start fights) may lead to more and better insights.

Take that for what it's worth. Just an observation.

[Unoriginal]

My argumentative style is to make an unconventional argument that I believe to be at least somewhat true, and see how good the rebuttals provided by others are.

All your arguments have been pretty standard for a "here why I don't like the Warlock" thread, so I don't know which part was the "unconventional" one.

None of said insight came from you, though.

I think it was pretty clear that you didn't consider anything I or the people I agree with said to be insight, yes.

In fact, the main purpose of your posts seem to be to attack my character and second guess my intents.

My main purpose and activity has been to provide arguments and comments to explain how the game work contrarily to your misconceptions, and , once it was clear you were going to continue to argue your point and ignore diverging arguments, to point out what you were doing.

I've therefore decided to add you to my ignore list. You won't get any more replies from me.

Valid. It's your right. Won't change when something needs to be pointed out, however.

The Sorcerer 5/Warlock 2 can do 24 short rests in a day, which directly translates into 48 sorcery points, which can be used to create *NINE* level 3 slots for a total of eleven level 3 slots. The level 7 Sorcerer has three level 3 slots and one level 4 slot.

...in a game that doesnt feature a Dungeon Master, or desperately needs a new one.

Yeah, 25 hours of short rests in a 24 hour days totally make sense (unless variant rules are used, of course).

Especially when one of Merudo's main arguments so far was that a Warlock getting 1 or 2 short rests was already something the DM needed to make a special adjustment to allow/that the other players would not agree to.

[Segev]

Yeah, 25 hours of short rests in a 24 hour days totally make sense (unless variant rules are used, of course).

Especially when one of Merudo's main arguments so far was that a Warlock getting 1 or 2 short rests was already something the DM needed to make a special adjustment to allow/that the other players would not agree to.

To be fair, while 25 short rests is a bit silly, 20-ish is certainly viable in any game where the party does 15 minute adventure days. Especially with coffeelock shenanigans to not need sleep.

And Merudo's point about 15-minute adventure days is at least as old a problem as 4e, if not earlier: the daily-resource classes just decide that, after any given encounter where they're out of their nova blasts, they'll barricade themselves up and take whatever amounts to a long rest for the system in question. 8 hours or 24, who cares? It's not like the players have to sit through it.

The solutions all require active and clever DMing, involving a reactive and active world that does things while the PCs rest.

[GreyBlack]

The Sorcerer 5/Warlock 2 can do 24 short rests in a day, which directly translates into 48 sorcery points, which can be used to create *NINE* level 3 slots for a total of eleven level 3 slots. The level 7 Sorcerer has three level 3 slots and one level 4 slot.

1 - The OP asked for reasons why you wouldn't grab more than 2 levels. Lagging behind in spellcasting power is a legitimate reason.

2 - Ctrl+Z Sorcerer, Ctrl+V wizard, cleric, paladin, bard, etc.

[Malifice]

To be fair, while 25 short rests is a bit silly, 20-ish is certainly viable in any game where the party does 15 minute adventure days.

Who is running games like this?

[Unoriginal]

To be fair, while 25 short rests is a bit silly, 20-ish is certainly viable in any game where the party does 15 minute adventure days.

If for some reasons your adventure day lasts 15 mins, why would you need short rests?

And once again, one of Merudo's main "arguments" was that according to him, a warlock could barely get a short rest, that allowing it added work for the DM, and that the group didn't want to do short rests (when for some reason the wizard was allowed to long rest after burning all their spells nova-style).

[Willie the Duck]

As it's been said, "You'd worry less what other people thought of you if you knew how seldom they do." Sometimes, other people don't really care what you think.

Fortune cookie wisdom does not elevate this discussion in any way, but in the end it boils down to a difference in perception. You see someone genuinely looking for insight. After all these threads, I see someone with an axe to grind against the system as it is that doesn't get why we aren't all rushing to agree. Perhaps it is a different level of jadedness.

[Segev]

Who is running games like this?

I had the misfortune of playing in one in a 4e game. It was stupid. And it took me at least two encounters to catch on that the party was going to barricade and rest after every encounter, so I was the sucker who wasn't blowing my dailies like they were encounter powers.

It was...lame.

I have also, in much less lame circumstances but equally frustrating ones for those with "higher endurance" mechanics (e.g. martials and the like who refresh per-encounter or who can use their best abilities all day long), been in games where the encounter rate is at most two per day, with 1 per day being more common when any happen at all. This is much more due to the nature of the game involving less classic "dungeon delving" and more travel and exploration, which made it feel less artificial. But it still made the daily-resource-management classes able to treat their powers as if they were limited by-encounter rather than by the day, magnifying their strength greatly.

If for some reasons your adventure day lasts 15 mins, why would you need short rests?

That's the point. You don't. And 15-minute adventure days are equivalent to 1-encounter-or-less-per-day campaigns, for all intents and purposes, when it comes to resource management.

If you aren't getting into multiple encounters on a reasonable number of days, you're going to have the long-rest classes have the same resource regen rate-per-encounter as the short-rest classes.

And once again, one of Merudo's main "arguments" was that according to him, a warlock could barely get a short rest, that allowing it added work for the DM, and that the group didn't want to do short rests (when for some reason the wizard was allowed to long rest after burning all their spells nova-style).

Merudo's argument, as I understood it, is that a party would either refuse to "merely" take a short rest, insisting on a long one, or that the DM wouldn't give time to "short rest" and would force them to wait for end-of-day to have a breather.

I have never seen a DM do the latter except as a response to players trying to cheese something, but the former is in line with my experience that there are players and parties where, if they're going to rest, will insist on the long rest to recharge their daily powers.

[Merudo]

Fortune cookie wisdom does not elevate this discussion in any way, but in the end it boils down to a difference in perception. You see someone genuinely looking for insight. After all these threads, I see someone with an axe to grind against the system as it is that doesn't get why we aren't all rushing to agree. Perhaps it is a different level of jadedness.

Axe to grind? Against what?

I never played as a Warlock, the class never interested me either mechanically or thematically. I'd rather not have my powers being granted by an evil entity seeking either possession of my soul or my destruction/corruption.

I'd rather play a long rest caster, thank you very much.

The extend of my "frustration" is that I feel a little bad about those who picked the Warlock and end up disappointed by their choices.

[SpanielBear]

Axe to grind? Against what?

I never played as a Warlock, the class never interested me either mechanically or thematically. I'd rather not have my powers being granted by an evil entity seeking either possession of my soul or my destruction/corruption.

I'd rather play a long rest caster, thank you very much.

The extend of my "frustration" is that I feel a little bad about those who picked the Warlock and end up disappointed by their choices.

Don't really know what to say to this, except taste and tables differ. If there is confusion as to how *anyone* could enjoy the warlock as a class, there are plenty of examples in this thread, more than enough to counter a claim that it is objectively or universally unenjoyable. But by the same token and as you have pointed out, it isn't a class that is going to be enjoyed by all players.

But that's hardly unique, right? Some people will never find a monk to their taste, or a cleric. No class will be to everyone's taste, there's always going to be exceptions.

I can equally understand warlocks being more of an edge case than most, there are a lot of moving parts and they do seem to favour "thematic" players over "power" players (distinction my own). But even then, that's not to say a warlock is a drain on a party or cannot fulfil any role. Depends on how one wants to play them and what the party structure is (in your Strahd party, it's possible a hexblade may have fared better, for example).

(As an aside, the entity providing the power isn't necessarily evil. GOOlocks, deathlocks and Faelocks are all neutral leaning, a Celestial warlock could be as varied as any deities' servant, and a hexblade is pretty free to go down any alignment they choose, depending on how they see their patron at character creation.)


I'm playing a pure GOOlock in my game at the moment, pact of the tome. Party includes a arcane trickster, pact of ancients paladin, moon druid and battlemaster. I've never felt like a drag on my party, nor do I feel like I am stealing anyone's thunder (hopefully). It's just my experience, but I'm having fun.

[Sinon]

The extend of my "frustration" is that I feel a little bad about those who picked the Warlock and end up disappointed by their choices.

You started a tread with the title, “Why would anyone get more than 2 levels of Warlock?”

In addition to getting many, good, varied responses to that question, your two specific concerns were addressed.

The main problem with Eldritch Blast is that two levels in Warlock are enough to nearly full master the ability.

No they are not. There are multiple invocations that can apply to this cantrip, making it an unlimited-use option for direct damage, area damage, and control. If you want all of them, you have to take more levels in warlock. (Even more if you want some of the other goodies invocations have to offer.)

The other problem I have with the Warlock is that spellslots management requires an almost tyrannical DM and/or an overly assertive Warlock to be balanced.

Again, just not true. As it has been repeatedly pointed out.

“The extend of my ‘frustration’ is that I feel a little bad about those who” responded to your questions like they were the legitimate concerns of a person who was actually looking for answers.

I will say this for you – if you truly did this out of concern for players who might actually want to play the warlock, the responses here have a breadth and a depth that might make some of them take a second, closer look.

But at every turn you’ve demonstrated that you were actually just trying to argue about flaws you perceive in the class design, and you did so based on no real experience with the class and questionable understanding of the system in general.

Now, it isn’t really a big deal that you still don’t like warlocks. I don’t like sorcerers, but I don’t start threads trying to cast my preferences as flaws in the design. I just don’t play them.

[Merudo]

No they are not. There are multiple invocations that can apply to this cantrip, making it an unlimited-use option for direct damage, area damage, and control. If you want all of them, you have to take more levels in warlock. (Even more if you want some of the other goodies invocations have to offer.)

While there are multiple invocations related to Eldritch blast, only Agonizing Blast & Repelling Blast are really worth it.

The rest of your post doesn't really contribute to the discussion so I choose to ignore it.

[SpanielBear]

While there are multiple invocations related to Eldritch blast, only Agonizing Blast & Repelling Blast are really worth it.

The rest of your post doesn't really contribute to the discussion so I choose to ignore it.

I get that you find many of the class features, including invocations, sub-par and not to your taste or playstyle. I also understand that there are others who feel the same.

Will you at least concede that this is not an objective perspective, but a subjective one? Plenty of posts in this thread show how other players do enjoy the class, and find fun ways to use the tools it provides.

A discussion about differing tastes will never resolve.

I am still curious too about what you would like to see to make the warlock-class work for you.

(also, again gonna point out that warlock patrons are not all evil...)