Thoughts on the Warlock

[Tanarii]

That's, I think, why they are so hard to pin down.

Not really. Short-rest full caster fits wonderfully.

[MaxWilson]

3) Make more warlock specific spells that scale better. I cannot properly express how many Warlock spells either do not scale, or scale so poorly that there's no point in taking them. For example, Armor of Agathys, starts out cent, with the 5 temp hp and 5 cold damage. And you know what, the second level scales nicely too. 10 temp hp for an hour as a non-concentration is nice...but it quickly falls off. Then there's Arms of Hadar, 2d6 necrotic in a 10ft radius around yourself. The rider is pretty decent, denying anyone who fails the save a reaction...but the damage only scales by 1d6 to a max of 6d6 at 5th level.

An easy way to make warlock spells scale is to just use DMG spellpoints. If a fifth level warlock has 10 SP per short rest (computed by summing up the value of his two 3rd level slots), he can cast Hex I for two spell points, switch to Invisibility for another two spell points, and still have room for a Hypnotic Pattern or else a Mirror Image + Hex. You don't waste spell points on useless upcasts.

[Max_Killjoy]

An easy way to make warlock spells scale is to just use DMG spellpoints. If a fifth level warlock has 10 SP per short rest (computed by summing up the value of his two 3rd level slots), he can cast Hex I for two spell points, switch to Invisibility for another two spell points, and still have room for a Hypnotic Pattern or else a Mirror Image + Hex. You don't waste spell points on useless upcasts.

Is there somewhere I can look this "spell points" system up, at least the basics, without a DMG?

[Solusek]

To my mind, Warlocks have to wait a bit too long for their 3rd spell slot.

Also, I really think stuff like Minions of Chaos and Sculptor of Flesh should let you cast those spells 1/Long Rest without using a spell slot.

Agree with both of these points. The invocations that require a spell/rest resource to use all seem bad. That resources is already extremely limited, why take an invocation that will tax it even more.

It would be great if Warlocks got their third spell slot somewhere around level 7-9. That feels like it's about right.

[OverLordOcelot]

I will gladly explain how Hex then EB is boring and why the other stuff is not. Starting with your first example. Hunter's mark and bow is the same thing at Hex and EB but it only uses 1 spell slot out of my many spell slots. So I can cast lightning arrow and still have spell slots. I have flexibility and I'm not one dimensional. I have options! Warlocks don't have options with 2 spell slots. Also, there's sharpshooter and maybe one on shot I picture myself taking a deep aim and blame headshot. Maybe I picture myself hold my bow sideways and just volleying arrow after arrow. Maybe I picture myself doing some Legolas maneuvers.
Polearm mastery because imagine you doing flourishes with a polearm. One attack you make a big side swipe then next attack comes over the top and then I swing the end around. Or I take an attack and then swing my polearm behind my neck and throw my other arm out as my pole arm hits from the other side.
Basically it's all about picturing how your character is attacking and using these skills. If you're just casting the same cantrip over and over again that's lame. How can you theater of mind how you're attacking?

I really can't comprehend how someone can say with a straight face 'if you're using a stick with a blade on the end, you can imagine doing all kinds of different maneuvers with it. Same thing if you're using a bow to shoot wooden arrows, I could do some legolas maneuvers. But if you're casting beams of magical energy, it's just lame, there's no way to imagine those beams doing anything different, or even looking different, even though there's not even an appearance specified. If I'm casting magical energy, I just have to stand in place and do the exact same thing over and over'.

I don't think this is a failure of the warlock class, this is a failure of imagination. You've got beams of some kind of energy where exactly what it even looks like is entirely up to you, that can move in whatever way is appropriate to get to the enemy, that can use whatever method of casting you want to describe (including something like "I hold a ghostly bow and shoot arrows from it") and that if you take invocations can do interesting effects like fling the person 10-20-30 feet away or cripple them so they move more slowly.

And if you are the kind of person who hates the basic mechanics of a warlock, you shouldn't play one any more than a person who hates the idea of swinging a melee weapon over and over should play a melee fighter.

[Man_Over_Game]

I really can't comprehend how someone can say with a straight face 'if you're using a stick with a blade on the end, you can imagine doing all kinds of different maneuvers with it. Same thing if you're using a bow to shoot wooden arrows, I could do some legolas maneuvers. But if you're casting beams of magical energy, it's just lame, there's no way to imagine those beams doing anything different, or even looking different, even though there's not even an appearance specified. If I'm casting magical energy, I just have to stand in place and do the exact same thing over and over'.

I don't think this is a failure of the warlock class, this is a failure of imagination. You've got beams of some kind of energy where exactly what it even looks like is entirely up to you, that can move in whatever way is appropriate to get to the enemy, that can use whatever method of casting you want to describe (including something like "I hold a ghostly bow and shoot arrows from it") and that if you take invocations can do interesting effects like fling the person 10-20-30 feet away or cripple them so they move more slowly.

And if you are the kind of person who hates the basic mechanics of a warlock, you shouldn't play one any more than a person who hates the idea of swinging a melee weapon over and over should play a melee fighter.

Valid points. Eldritch Blast is one option the Warlock may have to depend on, after running out of spells, but don't forget that they also have:

• Invocations
• A choice between having:
  
  • Twice as many cantrips as anyone else
  • Having a superpowered, invisible flying familiar that you can cast spells through
  • Summoning any weapon of your choosing
• The powerful resource provided by their Patron

Sometimes, Eldritch Blast is the best tactical choice, so it gets used a lot. But ask yourself what tools a Fighter, Barbarian or Ranger is able to choose from after the second round of combat? Which of those are going to be the best tactical choice?

[OverLordOcelot]

Though they are similar I still argue that even an EK can do more. More spell slots and the better action economy. I can cast Booming blade, GFB, or some other cantrip and be able to attack. I can cast fireball and still attack. Maybe I feel casting isn't the best option so instead I attack with all my extra attacks and action surge. EK has those options available. Warlock just says "I've got EB".

Note that at the level where an EK can cast fireball twice per day, the warlock can cast 3 5th level spells per short rest, plus a 6th and 7th level spell per day, and is one level from getting his big pact ability, like the ability to turn an incapacitated humanoid into a thrall, the ability to cause a creature to lose a turn and take 10d10 damage if you hit it with an attack, or the ability to regain half your max HP and blind and injure enemies near you instead of taking a death save. Plus they have six invovcations at that point, so have things like continuous truesight or the ability to disguise self at will, and have their 'I've got EB' do things like fling people 30' across the room.

I mean, action surge plus lots of attacks is reasonably effective, but I don't find 'I cast sickening radiance and keep flinging people back into it when they try to escape, and hurl the one guy who manages to get close to me into hell itself' to exactly be boring.

[Willie the Duck]

Is there somewhere I can look this "spell points" system up, at least the basics, without a DMG?

I do not believe so. I've looked around for things which clearly don't violate copyright law, and not finding much. Hopefully the base concept is clear: instead of your normal pool of spell slots (per Long or Short Rest), you instead get a daily allotment of spell points based on your level (1/2 for paladins/rangers, 1/3 for AT/EK). You can spend them on spells (much like a sorcerer can spend sorcery points on spells, just without the additional meta-magic option). There are some additional constraints, particularly pertaining to using all their points into their maximum level spells (a protection against super-nova-ing) and such, but that's most of the concept.

[Max_Killjoy]

I do not believe so. I've looked around for things which clearly don't violate copyright law, and not finding much. Hopefully the base concept is clear: instead of your normal pool of spell slots (per Long or Short Rest), you instead get a daily allotment of spell points based on your level (1/2 for paladins/rangers, 1/3 for AT/EK). You can spend them on spells (much like a sorcerer can spend sorcery points on spells, just without the additional meta-magic option). There are some additional constraints, particularly pertaining to using all their points into their maximum level spells (a protection against super-nova-ing) and such, but that's most of the concept.

The basics seem pretty obvious, I was just hoping for details.

As part of the side-project that has me learning 5e, there's a class concept I'm working through that might work best with a "spell points" system as their default casting method -- less total combined raw power / raw volume of spells, but more versatility. I didn't know that there was an optional system in place already in the DMG until seeing it in this thread.

[ad_hoc]

It would be great if Warlocks got their third spell slot somewhere around level 7-9. That feels like it's about right.

7th level Warlocks can summon a Barlgura 6 times a day on average. You want to bump that to 9?

You might as well say that Fighters should get their 3rd attack at 7th level.

[Malifice]

Warlocks don't have options with 2 spell slots.

Warlocks. Dont. Have. Only. Two. Spell slots.

The game expects the average median adventuring day will feature 2 short rests per long rest.

Meaning your Warlock gets (on average) [1-4] depending on level x 3 spell slots per long rest (the same time a long rest based class like Wizard resets).

Thats 3 slots per long rest at 1st level, 6 slots at levels 2-10, 9 slots at levels 11-16 and 12 slots per long rest past that (in addtion to an extra slot for Mystic arcanum at 11th, 13th, 15th, and 17th).

Wah wah my DM doesnt average 2 short rests per long rest. Take that up with your DM.

[JMS]

7th level Warlocks can summon a Barlgura 6 times a day on average. You want to bump that to 9?

You might as well say that Fighters should get their 3rd attack at 7th level.

An uncontrolled, CE Barlgura, I believe randomly selected? Seems really... risky.
The spell slot is also more like an action surge than an extra attack.

[Willie the Duck]

The basics seem pretty obvious, I was just hoping for details.

I assumed, and sorry, no luck. Optional DMG rules are not a high priority for making it into open content.

As part of the side-project that has me learning 5e, there's a class concept I'm working through that might work best with a "spell points" system as their default casting method -- less total combined raw power / raw volume of spells, but more versatility. I didn't know that there was an optional system in place already in the DMG until seeing it in this thread.

There are a lot of optional rules that seem to get completely ignored, and I'm not quite sure why. Spell points and alternate rest rules in particular. Hopefully if you get into a game, you'll have a change to peruse your DM's DMG before play, and inquire about options.

[KorvinStarmast]

Is there somewhere I can look this "spell points" system up, at least the basics, without a DMG?

It's an optional/variant rule, and is in the DMG. If you have a friend who has the DMG then why not borrow it?
You can also search the D&D 5e forums here for threads with that as the topic. There have been quite a few.

[sithlordnergal]

Warlocks. Dont. Have. Only. Two. Spell slots.

The game expects the average median adventuring day will feature 2 short rests per long rest.

Meaning your Warlock gets (on average) [1-4] depending on level x 3 spell slots per long rest (the same time a long rest based class like Wizard resets).

Thats 3 slots per long rest at 1st level, 6 slots at levels 2-10, 9 slots at levels 11-16 and 12 slots per long rest past that (in addtion to an extra slot for Mystic arcanum at 11th, 13th, 15th, and 17th).

I think he means 2 spell slots per encounter. While they do come back on a short rest, there is never a guarantee that you can immediately get a short rest, and there shouldn't be a guaranteed short rest. Meaning you're far more limited in your casting, because if a spell fails to have an effect then you will only have one more chance to do something outside of cantrips.

[Max_Killjoy]

It's an optional/variant rule, and is in the DMG. If you have a friend who has the DMG then why not borrow it?
You can also search the D&D 5e forums here for threads with that as the topic. There have been quite a few.

I don't have a gaming group any more -- between the marriage/house/kids/dog monster, moving away for career or school reasons, and other stuff, they've all moved on from gaming or moved on from here.

The side-project is entirely online and remote.

[Pex]

I'll be starting a new character as a Blade Pact Hexblade. I'm hoping not to get bored with it by thinking of my character as a warrior who can do a little magic. He's a fighter by other means. Eldritch Blast will do more damage, but I'll do decent enough with my weapon. Eldritch Blast is my glorified long bow range attack. I'll enjoy the versatility of being able to fight in melee and range as the need arises. My spells and invocations will help me be the warrior. There's a wizard and sorcerer in the party. They can handle the magic. I'm in the front lines with the paladin. I want to avoid the repetitiveness I see in the Chain Warlock in another campaign.

[OverLordOcelot]

Forgot to mention in my earlier post - if the lack of low-level slots really bothers you, you can just take a few levels of sorcerer or bard (or another caster if you have stats) to get a bunch of 1s and 2s if it really bothers you. A Warlock 10/Spellcaster 3 gets 4 1st and 2 2nd level spells, ritual casting for those, and seven+ cantrips on top of the 3 5th level spells per short rest plus invocations. That's actually just as many spell slots as the fireball flinging EK gets even at zero short rests per long rest, and those are higher level with many more options for spells known and possibly ritual casting.

Also in the comparison if the EK has his 2nd level 'any school' spell free for enlarge instead of Magic Weapon, he's either really gimped against creatures resistant/immune to nonmagical weapons, or you're assuming that he has magic items. That's either a pretty glaring weakness for the EK, or giving him a big boost over the Warlock - if we're assuming magic items, why doesn't the warlock get a Rod of the Pact Keeper at any point? The whole 'why not just play an EK, he has more slots' just falls to pieces if you look at it closer.

[Yunru]

Is there somewhere I can look this "spell points" system up, at least the basics, without a DMG?

Yes. It's just the Sorcerer's Font of Magic.

[Tanarii]

It would be great if Warlocks got their third spell slot somewhere around level 7-9. That feels like it's about right.

Spell point equivalents is the best way to see if this might work.

spellcasting feature casters get spell points per the DMG:
5 - 27
6 - 32
7 - 38
8 - 44
9 - 57
10 - 64
11 - 64 (if you subtract the level 6 slot included)

Pact Magic casters currently get 6 slots per LR pre-10, and 9 per LR post-11, or in spell points:
5 & 6 - 30
7 & 8 - 36
9 & 10 - 42
11+ - 63 (not including the level 6 arcanum)

So they're definitely behind a little bit at level 7-10. But if you add a slot you instead get:
5 & 6 - 45
7 & 8 - 54
9+ - 63

Which means it's right on the money if you give the third level 5 slot at level 10. For level 8 1 extra 4th level slot per LR would work, and for level 9 1 extra 5th level slot on 2 out of the 3 short rests (warlocks choice) would work.

[ad_hoc]

An uncontrolled, CE Barlgura, I believe randomly selected? Seems really... risky.
The spell slot is also more like an action surge than an extra attack.

It's selected by the player. It also attacks the nearest non-demon if it breaks control so not that risky.

Regardless I just used it as an example of a 4th level spell. Obviously no one is going to use all of their spell slots on summoning demons each day. There are other powerful ones too.

Warlocks are very powerful if you actually use their spell slots as their level rather than wasting them on low level spells.

[Talionis]

Without stating that all DMs should use the average rests per day which never happens. Good DMs should have some adventuring days where you short rest a lot and others where you may not get a short rest. It allows different classes to shine at different places in the story and rewards the short and long rest classes. If a DM is trying to let different characters shine on purpose the number of rests balance out fairly organically.

[Dr. Cliché]

Oh, one other point I want to make - I think Eldritch Blast was handled very badly.

I don't mind it being a Cantrip but I think the Warlock should automatically start with it.

This isn't about power but rather about making the purpose of the class clear. Otherwise you have this weird disconnect wherein the Warlock is built around spamming the best Cantrip in the game (if you don't take it then you might as well pick a different class), yet you can choose to just not have that Cantrip.

[ad_hoc]

Oh, one other point I want to make - I think Eldritch Blast was handled very badly.

I don't mind it being a Cantrip but I think the Warlock should automatically start with it.

This isn't about power but rather about making the purpose of the class clear. Otherwise you have this weird disconnect wherein the Warlock is built around spamming the best Cantrip in the game (if you don't take it then you might as well pick a different class), yet you can choose to just not have that Cantrip.

Eldritch Blast is in the same tier of power as many other cantrips. It's really not very special.

At the end of the day, it's also just a cantrip. Or in other words it is a weak ranged attack.

Obviously the best reason to take Warlock is because you like the theme and have a character idea with it in mind.

Mechanically they are set apart by not just being short rest casters, but having the most high level slots of any caster. Invocations are also a unique feature of the Warlock.

A cantrip of the same power level of other good cantrips is not a defining feature.

[Willie the Duck]

Eldritch Blast is in the same tier of power as many other cantrips. It's really not very special.

At the end of the day, it's also just a cantrip. Or in other words it is a weak ranged attack.

Without Agonizing Blast and/or Repelling Blast, it is just a force-damage Fire Bolt. However, it seems unreasonable to pretend that those invocations don't exist when analyzing Eldritch Blast's contribution to the gamespace of the class. That the designers expected spamming Agonizing/Repelling Eldritch Blast's as a primary part of a Warlock's combat contribution is an arguable position, but certainly a reasonable interpretation.

I personally consider Eldritch Blast, Find Familiar, Shillelagh, and to a lesser extent the SCAG cantrips to be class features masquerading as spells. However, they did make them as spells, so I recognize how arguable a position that is.

Obviously the best reason to take Warlock is because you like the theme and have a character idea with it in mind.

Yes, but the game designers could have made any class, mechanically, to serve that theme. What they made is the class we have in the books. That's the thing that Dr. Cliché is displeased with.

Mechanically they are set apart by not just being short rest casters, but having the most high level slots of any caster. Invocations are also a unique feature of the Warlock.

Yes, there are a lot of different things unique to Warlocks, which is why I called them so hard to pin down, analytically. There's no one thing that makes or breaks them, which is why peoples' opinions upon them seem to fluctuate so wildly depending on playstyle (which will effect them differently from other classes, because of these multiple differences).

A cantrip of the same power level of other good cantrips is not a defining feature.

Again, this is pretending that two class- and cantrip-specific boosters, right in that invocation Warlock-unique feature, don't exist.

[ad_hoc]

Yes, but the game designers could have made any class, mechanically, to serve that theme. What they made is the class we have in the books. That's the thing that Dr. Cliché is displeased with.

That's not true. Classes are written story first and then mechanics are designed to fit into that story. Mechanics and theme are intertwined with theme coming first. In other words, the mechanics are in service to the theme/narrative/story not the other way around.

Yes, there are a lot of different things unique to Warlocks, which is why I called them so hard to pin down, analytically. There's no one thing that makes or breaks them, which is why peoples' opinions upon them seem to fluctuate so wildly depending on playstyle (which will effect them differently from other classes, because of these multiple differences).



Again, this is pretending that two class- and cantrip-specific boosters, right in that invocation Warlock-unique feature, don't exist.

The argument was 'if you don't take Eldritch Blast you shouldn't play a Warlock because it is class defining'. Also the cantrip is the 'best' in the game.

So we have 2 claims. Warlocks are defined by EB. EB is the best in the game.

The latter has nothing to do with what invocations are available to it.

The EB Invocations also, while available to Warlocks, don't define Warlocks. Warlocks without those Invocations are just as much Warlocks as others (and play differently than every other class).

[Max_Killjoy]

That's not true. Classes are written story first and then mechanics are designed to fit into that story. Mechanics and theme are intertwined with theme coming first. In other words, the mechanics are in service to the theme/narrative/story not the other way around.

Looking at the classes, I'm not sure that's entirely / absolutely true -- there appears to be quite a bit of legacy weight, and some consideration given to differentiated and "interesting" mechanics.

[ad_hoc]

Looking at the classes, I'm not sure that's entirely / absolutely true -- there appears to be quite a bit of legacy weight, and some consideration given to differentiated and "interesting" mechanics.

JC and MM have talked about it extensively. They get a lot of questions from the internet regarding mechanical balance and such and their response is always that the game is designed narrative first.

Even in yesterday's Q&A JC talks about it in regards to sneak attack around the 10 minute mark here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzHRp-GTsKA

The Rogue isn't limited to finesse and ranged weapons purely for mechanical balance, but to keep their identity. It's important for classes to have strong identity represented through mechanics so the game doesn't feel like a 'mush' of mechanics.

[Max_Killjoy]

JC and MM have talked about it extensively. They get a lot of questions from the internet regarding mechanical balance and such and their response is always that the game is designed narrative first.

Even in yesterday's Q&A JC talks about it in regards to sneak attack around the 10 minute mark here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzHRp-GTsKA

The Rogue isn't limited to finesse and ranged weapons purely for mechanical balance, but to keep their identity. It's important for classes to have strong identity represented through mechanics so the game doesn't feel like a 'mush' of mechanics.

You may have noted that I'm somewhat cynical and untrusting when it comes to companies telling us why they did things or what we can expect -- any such statements from developers or other representatives of any company need a giant grain of salt.

As for "keeping identity", that's a fundamental disagreement I have going back over multiple editions, and seems to run absolutely counter to the notion of starting with the "narrative" (setting aside the difference between "narrative" and "fiction/setting/character/etc" for now)... D&D very much gives the impression of wanting players to start with the Race and Class and mechanics first, and then work "backwards" to a character that fits the available options.

[Arcturus]

Our group has also spent a lot thought trying to help our warlock keep up with full casters and half casters. Sadly 2 short rests per long rest and an extra short rest for Hex in the morning just isn't the reality of the adventuring day for our group - all too often we are in a crisis with no time to rest or only have 1 big encounter in a day after much exploration and investigation.

One thing that really helped our warlock feel more effective was the DM giving him a magic item that allowed him to cast Hex using a charge. This led us to conclude that a big part of the 2 spell slot problem is that Hex feels very mandatory and thus you really only have 1 spell slot (as noted by many others above.) We are 35 sessions into our game and our warlock still only has 2 slots. He has noted that he would prefer to get more slots sooner even if that meant that his max spell level didn't go up as quickly.

The fix we might try next time someone rolls a warlock is to change Hex into a class feature that doesn't require concentration (maybe with some other alterations to balance the lack of concentration such as reducing bonus damage to d4 or changing up its action economy.)

Note: It would also be interesting to test the spell point variant described above - we'd never considered that before.