The Warlock-Overpowered?

[NoseFeratu]

I know what you're all thinking, that the Warlock is a sub-par caster. However, I think that it has a lot of merit, especially in a dungeon crawl campaign. You're starved for long rests, and a Sorcerer 20 would get 22 spells every day, and only six of those would be above 5th level, where a Warlock's spell slots end. In terms of spells per day, a Warlock 20 would get 4 spell slots per encounter (recharging after a short rest) of 5th level- Multiply this by four, the average number of encounters per day, and you get 16 spell slots per day, all of 5th level. This, coupled with the Mystic Arcanum feature, gives Warlocks 20 spells per day of at least 5th level. A Sorcerer would only get nine spells of at least 5th level, severely limiting its blasting potential.

Even at low levels, the Warlock can spam Eldritch Blast for an average of 5.5 damage. A Sorcerer's equivalent would be casting Magic Missile, dealing a mediocre 3.5 damage, and expending a spell slot in the process.

Looking for input in case I may be mistaken.

[SharkForce]

1) level 6+ spells are not to be underrated. they tend to be amazingly powerful, and are the primary reason why casters start pulling ahead of non-casters. the warlock's limited spell selection, especially of level 6+ spells, is a major drawback.

2) sorcerers can get firebolt, which does the exact same d10 base damage. they won't add their attribute until 6 if dragon sorcerer, but still, same base damage.

3) magic missile does 3d4+3 last i checked. also, the fact that it cannot miss is kinda significant.

4) sorcerers can twin a firebolt for excellent damage in the same round that they quicken a firebolt. yes, the sorcery points will run out eventually... but if you're looking for damage, a sorcerer has plenty. other tricks include quickening cantrips in the same round that they fire a sunbeam ray or eyebite gaze attack, etc. other casters have various tricks they can also do with their high level spells.

5) being able to save up all your resources for one important battle can be very battle. there may be several fights in a day, but odds are good that not all of them call for equal resource use. a regular caster can throw everything in one big nasty fight against the BBEG. the warlock has those resources spread across the whole day.

warlocks are good and all. but no, they are not more powerful than every other caster. in fact, they are probably less powerful than most other casters.

[themaque]

Overpowered? No. They are DAMN effective at what they do. I was a little worried at first, but they really only have one tool in the tool box. oh a few tricks on the side, but They are a dependable damage. Only they don't need to worry about arrows.

[asorel]

1) level 6+ spells are not to be underrated. they tend to be amazingly powerful, and are the primary reason why casters start pulling ahead of non-casters. the warlock's limited spell selection, especially of level 6+ spells, is a major drawback.

2) sorcerers can get firebolt, which does the exact same d10 base damage. they won't add their attribute until 6 if dragon sorcerer, but still, same base damage.

3) magic missile does 3d4+3 last i checked. also, the fact that it cannot miss is kinda significant.

4) sorcerers can twin a firebolt for excellent damage in the same round that they quicken a firebolt. yes, the sorcery points will run out eventually... but if you're looking for damage, a sorcerer has plenty. other tricks include quickening cantrips in the same round that they fire a sunbeam ray or eyebite gaze attack, etc. other casters have various tricks they can also do with their high level spells.

5) being able to save up all your resources for one important battle can be very battle. there may be several fights in a day, but odds are good that not all of them call for equal resource use. a regular caster can throw everything in one big nasty fight against the BBEG. the warlock has those resources spread across the whole day.

warlocks are good and all. but no, they are not more powerful than every other caster. in fact, they are probably less powerful than most other casters.

I would argue that Warlocks are less versatile than other full casters, but not less powerful. Their biggest advantage is the Eldritch Blast cantrip. For one, the cantrip adds additional beams at higher levels, rather than the additional damage die that other cantrips receive. Combine this with Agonizing Blast, which adds your CHA mod to the damage of each beam, and you're looking at at-will damage that rivals that of a Fighter at a similar level. Furthermore, there are the other Eldritch Invocations that Warlocks receive. Things like at-will Mage Armor and seeing in both magical and nonmagical darkness for 120 feet should not be dismissed lightly. The Book of Ancient Secrets EI is essentially a better version of the Ritual Caster feat. Finally, Warlocks essentially have the pick of two archetypes: their Patron and their Pact Boon. You may not have the versatility of a Wizard or the nova potential of a Sorcerer, but you have great at-will damage, and a decent amount of flexibility via Invocations.

[BootStrapTommy]

With my play experience, I just might disagree on every level. As balanced as 5e has made things, warlock might just be on the lower end of the existing power spectrum. There's just something missing from the class...

...and a decent amount of flexibility via Invocations. Oh, right. Invocations blow now. Some of them are quite useful, but honestly, few match what warlocks use to be capable of...

[asorel]

With my play experience, I just might disagree on every level. As balanced as 5e has made things, warlock might just be on the lower end of the existing power spectrum. There's just something missing from the class...
Oh, right. Invocations blow now. Some of them are quite useful, but honestly, few match what warlocks use to be capable of...

True, but 5th edition in general seems to be scaled down a bit from earlier editions. 3.5 and 4th had players reaching godlike levels in terms of power level. While characters in 5E can reach relatively high levels of power, the absolute progression seems to have been scaled down.

[Easy_Lee]

2) sorcerers can get firebolt, which does the exact same d10 base damage. they won't add their attribute until 6 if dragon sorcerer, but still, same base damage.


Common misconception about cantrips other than eldritch blast: they have one attack roll and hit one target unless otherwise noted. Warlocks using agonizing eldritch blast have at least five advantages over other casters using other cantrips:

They add their CHA up to four times, instead of just once like every other cantrip. At 17+, this will yield 15 more damage than firebolt on average
They can target as many separate foes as they have blasts. This means three targets at 11 and four at 17. Other cantrips only hit one or two targets.
They get their CHA to damage at 2, which is the lowest level out of all casters
Eldritch blast is force, the least-resisted of all damage types besides magic weapon
Warlocks can further improve eldritch blast with repelling and long range

The damage this brings is competitive or superior to nearly every other build's at-will damage. If we combine this with warlocks having access to devil's sight, and bearing in mind the fact that it's force damage, we can see that warlocks are very effective at dealing consistent damage.

Agonizing eldritch blast is such a good option that a 2-level warlock dip can very easily be seen as overpowered. Bow-wielding eldritch knights and valor bards (who can get eldrtich blast via magical secrets, then take two in warlock after 14) can very easily abuse this dip, as can sorcerers. Blade-pact warlocks who use war caster can pull off some frightening opportunity attack blasts.

Eldritch blast and invocations are the thing that warlocks get over other casters. This is what they trade for a smaller spell list, few spell slots (so they're less able to nova), and very limited casting progression after level 12.

[Mandragola]

Warlocks are good, but honestly are not very comparable to arcane casters. They are far more like a ranger in how they play.

A warlock is a damage-dealing class. Their job is to kill things with eldritch blast. They are good at that.

A sorceror or wizard may do damage, though not as much to a single target and there's no point pretending that they do. But they have proper spells and tons of them at high level. But really, a true arcane caster isn't there for what they can do to one target, they are there for what they can do to the room - and to the universe. They can end encounters with a single spell.

It's true in theory that a warlock can rest a lot and have more spell slots but it really doesn't work out that way all the time. It's just as common to get no short rests at all, and have a character with two spell slots for the whole day.

[NoseFeratu]

1) level 6+ spells are not to be underrated. they tend to be amazingly powerful, and are the primary reason why casters start pulling ahead of non-casters. the warlock's limited spell selection, especially of level 6+ spells, is a major drawback.


I don't really see the difference between the 6+ spells... A Sorc gets two 6th and 7th level spells as opposed to one, but a Warlock and a Sorcerer both only get one 8th level and one 9th level spell.

The main advantage of a Sorcerer, though... They get Wish (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JackassGenie) and Time Stop. Still, at lower levels, a Warlock (Cthulhu Pact, naturally) can get Black Tentacles-Practically a death sentence-while a Sorc is left behind in this regard. A Warlock also has more out-of-combat tricks to keep from feeling useless. (God, I love Demiplane)

[SharkForce]

Common misconception about cantrips other than eldritch blast: they have one attack roll and hit one target unless otherwise noted. Warlocks using agonizing eldritch blast have at least five advantages over other casters using other cantrips:

They add their CHA up to four times, instead of just once like every other cantrip. At 17+, this will yield 15 more damage than firebolt on average
They can target as many separate foes as they have blasts. This means three targets at 11 and four at 17. Other cantrips only hit one or two targets.
They get their CHA to damage at 2, which is the lowest level out of all casters
Eldritch blast is force, the least-resisted of all damage types besides magic weapon
Warlocks can further improve eldritch blast with repelling and long range

The damage this brings is competitive or superior to nearly every other build's at-will damage. If we combine this with warlocks having access to devil's sight, and bearing in mind the fact that it's force damage, we can see that warlocks are very effective at dealing consistent damage.

Agonizing eldritch blast is such a good option that a 2-level warlock dip can very easily be seen as overpowered. Bow-wielding eldritch knights and valor bards (who can get eldrtich blast via magical secrets, then take two in warlock after 14) can very easily abuse this dip, as can sorcerers. Blade-pact warlocks who use war caster can pull off some frightening opportunity attack blasts.

Eldritch blast and invocations are the thing that warlocks get over other casters. This is what they trade for a smaller spell list, few spell slots (so they're less able to nova), and very limited casting progression after level 12.

i didn't misconceive any of that. his claim was that eldritch blast was amazing at low levels because of the base damage (at least, i presume that's what the 5.5 was). at low levels, fire bolt has the exact same base damage. now, had he decided to bring up all the other things that make eldritch blast so good* (to the point where it is essentially the core of the warlock class), i wouldn't have argued those other points. even if his point had been more general, like "they have great at-will damage for a caster", i'd agree there as well. but if his point is "wow, d10 base damage!!!!", well, that's nothing special. sorcerers and wizards get that too.

* i would add hex to the list of things that makes eldritch blast so good, personally, it being worth an extra d6 per hit is pretty significant. i don't consider the ability to split beams to be that awesome; most of the time you're going to want all of them on a single target anyways.

[NoseFeratu]

i didn't misconceive any of that. his claim was that eldritch blast was amazing at low levels because of the base damage (at least, i presume that's what the 5.5 was). at low levels, fire bolt has the exact same base damage. now, had he decided to bring up all the other things that make eldritch blast so good* (to the point where it is essentially the core of the warlock class), i wouldn't have argued those other points. even if his point had been more general, like "they have great at-will damage for a caster", i'd agree there as well. but if his point is "wow, d10 base damage!!!!", well, that's nothing special. sorcerers and wizards get that too.

* i would add hex to the list of things that makes eldritch blast so good, personally, it being worth an extra d6 per hit is pretty significant. i don't consider the ability to split beams to be that awesome; most of the time you're going to want all of them on a single target anyways.

The Eldrish Blast is much better than Firebolt, even without considering how much more damage it does. That reason is that practically EVERYTHING you'll realistically fight has fire resisance, if not fire immunity. An Eldritch Blast does force damage, which as far as I know, cant be resisted by anything in the MM.

[Easy_Lee]

A warlock is a damage-dealing class. Their job is to kill things with eldritch blast. They are good at that. A sorceror or wizard may do damage, though not as much to a single target and there's no point pretending that they do.

Evoker wizards and dragon sorcerers are better at burst-damage than warlocks are.

Evoker
For evokers, consider the spell Magic Missile and the Empowered Evocation feature. Magic missile hits automatically, and deals 1d4+1 damage per bolt. These bolts can be directed at any number of targets, and you create 3+(spell slot - 1) bolts. At 10th level, one could cast it out of a 5th level slot twice for seven bolts.

Here's the kicker: empowered evocation adds intelligence to "the damage roll." Does that mean it's added once per bolt, or once for all bolts? You have to roll the damage for each bolt independently, and they could in theory hit seven targets. If they hit seven targets, do you add intelligence-mod damage for all bolts? If so, why would you not add the same to each individual bolt striking one target? Depending on what kind of convoluted logic your DM attempts to apply to this, magic missile could end up doing 7+7d4+7*5 = damage for a level 10 evoker, or 59.5 damage spread up among whichever targets the evoker chooses.

Dragon Sorcerer
For sorcerers and evokers both, there's scorching ray. It's a second-level spell that creates three rays, each dealing 2d6 fire damage on a hit and requiring separate spell attacks. Once again, you conjure an additional ray for higher spell slots. So a 10th level fire dragon sorcerer or evoker wizard can chuck six bolts, each dealing 2d6 damage and pretty clearly adding the casting stat. So 6*2d6+5 = 72 damage for that 5th level slot, spread up among up to six targets. And sorcerers can further boost this by either twinning the spell to double the damage (and potential number of targets) or quickening it to cast firebolt or any other cantrip in the same round.

Both of the above options are far stronger than a level 11 eldritch blast (3*1d10+15 = 31.5 damage). The warlock cannot match that damage with one of his spell slots either; any damage spell the warlock gets, the evoker and sorcerer can also get, only they could be adding their casting stat to the damage roll(s).

However, the wizard and sorcerer cannot do this all day. They have to select when to utilize these kinds of options, and their at-will damage (particularly at high levels) is lesser, except for very specific multiclass builds which will usually give up spell slots.

[NoseFeratu]

Evoker wizards and dragon sorcerers are better at burst-damage than warlocks are.

Evoker
For evokers, consider the spell Magic Missile and the Empowered Evocation feature. Magic missile hits automatically, and deals 1d4+1 damage per bolt. These bolts can be directed at any number of targets, and you create 3+(spell slot - 1) bolts. At 10th level, one could cast it out of a 5th level slot twice for seven bolts.

Here's the kicker: empowered evocation adds intelligence to "the damage roll." Does that mean it's added once per bolt, or once for all bolts? You have to roll the damage for each bolt independently, and they could in theory hit seven targets. If they hit seven targets, do you add intelligence-mod damage for all bolts? If so, why would you not add the same to each individual bolt striking one target? Depending on what kind of convoluted logic your DM attempts to apply to this, magic missile could end up doing 7+7d4+7*5 = damage for a level 10 evoker, or 59.5 damage spread up among whichever targets the evoker chooses.

Dragon Sorcerer
For sorcerers and evokers both, there's scorching ray. It's a second-level spell that creates three rays, each dealing 2d6 fire damage on a hit and requiring separate spell attacks. Once again, you conjure an additional ray for higher spell slots. So a 10th level fire dragon sorcerer or evoker wizard can chuck six bolts, each dealing 2d6 damage and pretty clearly adding the casting stat. So 6*2d6+5 = 72 damage for that 5th level slot, spread up among up to six targets. And sorcerers can further boost this by either twinning the spell to double the damage (and potential number of targets) or quickening it to cast firebolt or any other cantrip in the same round.

Both of the above options are far stronger than a level 11 eldritch blast (3*1d10+15 = 31.5 damage). The warlock cannot match that damage with one of his spell slots either; any damage spell the warlock gets, the evoker and sorcerer can also get, only they could be adding their casting stat to the damage roll(s).

However, the wizard and sorcerer cannot do this all day. They have to select when to utilize these kinds of options, and their at-will damage (particularly at high levels) is lesser, except for very specific multiclass builds which will usually give up spell slots.

Yes, but an Eldritch Blast has better range with the proper Invocatins. A Firebolt can only get 120 feet, not the potential 300 of Eldritch Blast.

[JNAProductions]

How often does that come into play, though?

[NoseFeratu]

How often does that come into play, though?

I'm used to campaigns with massive halls in which to fight... The rang definitely helps, and 120' is well within the range of the monsters I've been fighting in my current campaign.

[JNAProductions]

More than 120' massive? That's 24 squares on a grid, and my playing grid is literally only 24X36. It's not even possible to be out of Firebolt range for me on one axis.

Still, if it matters in your campaign, that's a nice leg-up for the Warlock.

[Easy_Lee]

More than 120' massive? That's 24 squares on a grid, and my playing grid is literally only 24X36. It's not even possible to be out of Firebolt range for me on one axis.

Still, if it matters in your campaign, that's a nice leg-up for the Warlock.

Yep. Like I said, the warlock is very good at dealing consistent damage. Between devil's sight, force damage, the at-will nature, and the potential long range, it's very difficult to stop the warlock from hitting things.

[NoseFeratu]

The 120' range is within a Beholder's antimagic ray, and my DM seems to love those medieval Daleks.

[Malifice]

I know what you're all thinking, that the Warlock is a sub-par caster. However, I think that it has a lot of merit, especially in a dungeon crawl campaign. You're starved for long rests, and a Sorcerer 20 would get 22 spells every day, and only six of those would be above 5th level, where a Warlock's spell slots end. In terms of spells per day, a Warlock 20 would get 4 spell slots per encounter (recharging after a short rest) of 5th level- Multiply this by four, the average number of encounters per day, and you get 16 spell slots per day, all of 5th level. This, coupled with the Mystic Arcanum feature, gives Warlocks 20 spells per day of at least 5th level. A Sorcerer would only get nine spells of at least 5th level, severely limiting its blasting potential.

Looking for input in case I may be mistaken.

Your encounter pacing is off. You should get 2-3 short rests per long rest, and 2-3 encounters per short rest.

Meaning your spell slots recharge 3-4 times per adventuring day (+1 for the Warlock capstone) so 4-5 recharges per day.

On a standard adventuring day, you wind up with 16-20 spell slots of 5th level, and one each of 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th via mystic arcanum.

So you're pretty much on par with the Wizard and Sorcerer.

[Malifice]

Evoker wizards and dragon sorcerers are better at burst-damage than warlocks are.

Evoker
For evokers, consider the spell Magic Missile and the Empowered Evocation feature. Magic missile hits automatically, and deals 1d4+1 damage per bolt. These bolts can be directed at any number of targets, and you create 3+(spell slot - 1) bolts. At 10th level, one could cast it out of a 5th level slot twice for seven bolts.

Here's the kicker: empowered evocation adds intelligence to "the damage roll." Does that mean it's added once per bolt, or once for all bolts? You have to roll the damage for each bolt independently, and they could in theory hit seven targets. If they hit seven targets, do you add intelligence-mod damage for all bolts? If so, why would you not add the same to each individual bolt striking one target? Depending on what kind of convoluted logic your DM attempts to apply to this, magic missile could end up doing 7+7d4+7*5 = damage for a level 10 evoker, or 59.5 damage spread up among whichever targets the evoker chooses.

Devs have clearly stated it's once per spell, not once per bolt (even if you target multiple creatures).


Dragon Sorcerer
For sorcerers and evokers both, there's scorching ray. It's a second-level spell that creates three rays, each dealing 2d6 fire damage on a hit and requiring separate spell attacks. Once again, you conjure an additional ray for higher spell slots. So a 10th level fire dragon sorcerer or evoker wizard can chuck six bolts, each dealing 2d6 damage and pretty clearly adding the casting stat. So 6*2d6+5 = 72 damage for that 5th level slot, spread up among up to six targets. And sorcerers can further boost this by either twinning the spell to double the damage (and potential number of targets) or quickening it to cast firebolt or any other cantrip in the same round.

Devs have also pretty clearly said you cant twin a scorching ray.

Quicken works though.

[Strill]

I agree absolutely. Warlocks are definitely overpowered. They have the same at-will damage as a fighter, but have spellcasting, pacts, invocations, and Patrons. They blow the pants off the Fighter.

[Easy_Lee]

I agree absolutely. Warlocks have the same at-will damage as a fighter

Not quite. Fighters can pretty easily gain bonus action attacks, and can use their pact features to make those attacks crit more often or add superiority die, etc. Fighters also have action surge, more hp, better armor, indomitable, fighting styles that can further increase the damage or accuracy of their attacks, and so on. As I've shown in another thread, a champion's at-will damage beats just about anyone at just about every level.

That said, warlock at-will damage is definitely good enough. In fact, anyone with two levels of warlock and CHA investment has good at-will damage.

[Malifice]

I agree absolutely. Warlocks are definitely overpowered. They have the same at-will damage as a fighter, but have spellcasting, pacts, invocations, and Patrons. They blow the pants off the Fighter.

No, they dont mate.

20th level Eldritch blast (with Hex cast AND max Cha AND Agonizing blast) = 4d10+20+4d6 = 58 DPR

20th level BM Fighter with Bow and Sharpshooter + Archery style = 4d8+60 = 78 DPR (no action surge or superiority dice expended)

[SharkForce]

The Eldrish Blast is much better than Firebolt, even without considering how much more damage it does. That reason is that practically EVERYTHING you'll realistically fight has fire resisance, if not fire immunity. An Eldritch Blast does force damage, which as far as I know, cant be resisted by anything in the MM.

ok, look, force damage is good, that is true.

but not everything has fire resistance. in particular, the things where you don't care enough to do something more impressive than lobbing your "i don't really care about this fight enough to spend any resources at all" card at are particularly unlikely to have fire resistance, and even *more* especially so when we're talking about time when your base damage is 1d10 (ie very low levels).

lots of things have fire resistance compared to other elemental resistances. but it isn't even remotely close to everything, especially at low levels. goblins, orcs, hobgoblins, ogres, trolls, skeletons, zombies, giant spiders, kobolds, wolves, bears, snakes (animals in general really), gryphons, bandits, thieves, assassins, shamans of all varieties, a variety of giant insects and a whole host of other monsters have no resistance to fire whatsoever. in fact, i'm guessing that if i was to go dig through the MM and check every entry of less than 2 CR, i would find that far more of them have no fire resistance (or any resistance at all, for that matter) than there are entries that have fire resistance, let alone immunity.

fire damage is more resisted than other types. but it is not universal. at low levels, it isn't even common.

[Strill]

No, they dont mate.

20th level Eldritch blast (with Hex cast AND max Cha AND Agonizing blast) = 4d10+20+4d6 = 58 DPR

20th level BM Fighter with Bow and Sharpshooter + Archery style = 4d8+60 = 78 DPR (no action surge or superiority dice expended)

That's with -3 to all the fighter's rolls. I'd expect that to account for the ~20 damage difference.

You're also forgetting that the Warlock can get Repelling Blast, which means extra damage from knocking enemies into hazards, fire walls, and off cliffs.

[Malifice]

That said, warlock at-will damage is definitely good enough. In fact, anyone with two levels of warlock and CHA investment has good at-will damage.

Why I houseruled agonizing blast to add Warlock level to Eldritch blast damage instead of Charisma bonus.

I also made Eldritch Blast a single target spell (at the indicated levels you would gain a new bolt you instead gain +1d10 to the damage).

Finally I added a new invocation (Accursed blast) that lets you add an extra +1d6 necrotic damage at the same levels to a target under the effects of a hex spell cast by you and hit by your Eldrtich blast.

Blast locks now need to spend 2 invocations to be any good at it, and the 2 level dip in Warlock is a thing of the past.

[Malifice]

That's with -3 to all the fighter's rolls. I'd expect that to account for the ~20 damage difference.

I know magic items arent 'assumed' in 5th edition but I dare say in most campaigns featuring a 20th level Fighter, he has a magical bow (and/or arrows - they stack).

The 3 point difference to hit is easily made up for by the Fighter (who is already ignoring cover due to sharpshooter).

Even if he cant somehow make it up with a magical bow and/or arrows, his DPR is still the same once you factor in a 15 percent reduction for the -3 difference to hit.

Add in Action surge (2/short rest) and Superiority dice (6d12 per short rest+1d12 per encounter once expended) and his DPR spikes considerably.

Just with action surge and no dice expended youre looking at (8 x 1d8+15) 156 DPR.


You're also forgetting that the Warlock can get Repelling Blast, which means extra damage from knocking enemies into hazards, fire walls, and off cliffs.

And youre forgetting that the Fighter can knock people back and over cliffs with his superiority die (many of which which can be used with Bow attacks).

[SharkForce]

I agree absolutely. Warlocks are definitely overpowered. They have the same at-will damage as a fighter, but have spellcasting, pacts, invocations, and Patrons. They blow the pants off the Fighter.

1) as noted, fighters do actually get better and more reliable damage, assuming they can get at least some form of magical (not necessarily with a bonus) weapon and choose appropriate feats.

2) fighters are basically the worst class in the game to compare anything to. pick something more in the middle of the pack to compare to, like a rogue or a monk or even a paladin. just about anything blows the pants off the fighter (not literally though... that's presumably some sort of grapple check, and most fighters are actually pretty good at those).

[Malifice]

fighters are basically the worst class in the game to compare anything to. pick something more in the middle of the pack to compare to, like a rogue or a monk or even a paladin. just about anything blows the pants off the fighter (not literally though... that's presumably some sort of grapple check, and most fighters are actually pretty good at those).

Not this **** again.

[The_Snark]

Devs have clearly stated it's once per spell, not once per bolt (even if you target multiple creatures).

Hasn't something similar been said of Eldritch Blast?

[Malifice]

Hasn't something similar been said of Eldritch Blast?

Eldritch Blast seems to be the exception to the rule for some reason.

They called it out specifically, but are 'keeping an eye on it'.

[The_Snark]

Ah, interesting. Can you point me towards the source for that, for future reference?

[calebrus]

Ah, interesting. Can you point me towards the source for that, for future reference?

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/06/agonizing-blast-damage/

Staffan Johansson @DackeStaffan
Does Agonizing Blast add damage per Eldritch Blast casting, or per beam? E.g. 5th level lock deals 2d10+2*Cha, or 2d10+Cha?

Jeremy Crawford @JeremyECrawford
I would rule that you add your Charisma modifier whenever a beam hits. But I have my eye on this feature.

[Malifice]

Ah, interesting. Can you point me towards the source for that, for future reference?

Here:


Does Agonizing Blast add damage per Eldritch Blast casting, or per beam? E.g. 5th level lock deals 2d10+2*Cha, or 2d10+Cha? I would rule that you add your Charisma modifier whenever a beam hits. But I have my eye on this feature. -J

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?1900-D-D-5th-Edition-Sage-Advice-from-Designers-Mearls-Crawford#.VQeYz46UeVM#ixzz3Ubm0JoOQ

[NotALurker]

I know what you're all thinking, that the Warlock is a sub-par caster. However, I think that it has a lot of merit, especially in a dungeon crawl campaign. You're starved for long rests, and a Sorcerer 20 would get 22 spells every day, and only six of those would be above 5th level, where a Warlock's spell slots end. In terms of spells per day, a Warlock 20 would get 4 spell slots per encounter (recharging after a short rest) of 5th level- Multiply this by four, the average number of encounters per day, and you get 16 spell slots per day, all of 5th level. This, coupled with the Mystic Arcanum feature, gives Warlocks 20 spells per day of at least 5th level. A Sorcerer would only get nine spells of at least 5th level, severely limiting its blasting potential.

Even at low levels, the Warlock can spam Eldritch Blast for an average of 5.5 damage. A Sorcerer's equivalent would be casting Magic Missile, dealing a mediocre 3.5 damage, and expending a spell slot in the process.

Looking for input in case I may be mistaken.

shorts rests are too long to be a given in 5e. you could get one after every fight, you could get none for weeks on end.

[Malifice]

shorts rests are too long to be a given in 5e. you could get one after every fight, you could get none for weeks on end.

Huh?

No short (or by extension long) rests for weeks on end?

Wouldn't you die from sleep loss? Like surely, at some point you would be making Con saves vs exhaustion.

[NotALurker]

Not this **** again.

all classes are equaly important to be fun and powerful.

if you trying to see how a class measures up you should compare him to classes at both ends of the spectrum.


Huh?

No short (or by extension long) rests for weeks on end?

Wouldn't you die from sleep loss? Like surely, at some point you would be making Con saves vs exhaustion.

well you would get long rests, and while you gain everything in a long rest you do in a short rest a long rest is not a short rest.

[xyianth]

First, pact magic slots are not equivalent to encounter powers in 4e. Short rests are 1 hour long and the game is balanced around 6-9 encounters/long rest with 2 short rests/long rest. Doing the math, this results in your pact magic slots recharging every 2-3 encounters. Suddenly, the 4 slots becomes 1-2/encounter. If you are taking a short rest after every encounter, then warlocks and monks are overpowered, but that is not the class' fault.

Second, there is exactly 1 creature in the MM that is immune to force damage: Helmed Horror page 183. There are no creatures that resist force damage. There are also no creatures that are vulnerable to force damage. Since eldritch blast is a cantrip, Rakshasas and the Tarrasque are immune to it.

Third, the main difference between level 6+ spells on a warlock and on a sorcerer/wizard/druid/cleric/bard is that warlocks can't change which spell they cast, nor can they use the slots to power up their lower level spells. The fact that the warlock spell list is much shorter is also a limitation. Warlocks also lack the 2nd 6th and 7th level slots that full casters get.

Fourth, the invocations are vastly weaker than warlock invocations from 3.5, but they are hardly terrible. The main issue with the invocations printed is that there are a large number of them that are flat worse than the rest, which leads to most warlocks taking the exact same invocations. I fixed this in my games by altering most invocations to make them more viable choices.

Fifth, the black tentacles is no longer a great spell in 5e. In fact, it's rather terrible. Compare it to the entangle spell and then remind yourself that entangle is a 1st level spell.

Sixth, the great old one patron is, hands down, the worst subclass in all of 5e. Yes, even worse than frenzied berserker. Awakened mind is a great feature, and the bonus spells aren't bad for 1st and 2nd level spells. Entropic ward is far too weak for a 1/rest ability. Thought shield is great, if you are running into psychic damage every day or if you are playing a more intrigue based game. In your average D&D campaign, it's situational at best. And then we come to create thrall. RAW, the ability is broken, in that it does next to nothing. The 3rd, 4th, and 5th level spells that aren't terrible are also on the archfey list.

In my opinion, warlocks are one of the best designed classes of 5e. (great old one patron not withstanding) They are not overpowered, they are specialists. Most classes in 5e have a good number of things they can do, and gain increased ability in each area as you level. Warlocks gain great facility with a limited number of things, and gain more things they can cover as they level.

[SharkForce]

Hasn't something similar been said of Eldritch Blast?

iirc they said something to the effect of "oh, that wasn't intended, we're keeping an eye on it, but it looks fine based on current feedback". same basic thing with evocation specialist free overchannel on cantrips (honestly not sure when else they were expecting anyone to use it for apart from their 1 free use, mind you; if you're desperate enough to overchannel, you sure as hell can't afford to eat the damage from the higher level spells that you'd need to maximize).

edit: whoops, ninja'd massively.

[Malifice]

well you would get long rests, and while you gain everything in a long rest you do in a short rest a long rest is not a short rest.

So.. you can rest for 8 hours... but not for 1?


all classes are equaly important to be fun and powerful.

Agree. And Fighters are both.

We have different opinion on this I know.

[calebrus]

same basic thing with evocation specialist free overchannel on cantrips (honestly not sure when else they were expecting anyone to use it for apart from their 1 free use, mind you;

You just explained it.
One free use.
That's all it was intended for. Not unlimited free uses as long as you use it for a cantrip.
One free use.

The wording allows for free cantrips, but this was never intended.

[SharkForce]

You just explained it.
One free use.
That's all it was intended for. Not unlimited free uses as long as you use it for a cantrip.
One free use.

The wording allows for free cantrips, but this was never intended.

you can use it multiple times, it just sucks royally if you use it more than once on anything other than a cantrip. what is the point of letting you use it more than once if it is specifically designed to be such a stupid idea to use it more than once? why not just say "you can use it once per day" and then stop? (also, as a 1/day ability at that level, it is incredibly underwhelming).

[BootStrapTommy]

Agree. And Fighters are both.

We have different opinion on this I know.
Seems there is some residual disillusion from 3x in 5e, despite it having no place. The fighter's class features, hit die, and ability scores mean it is no longer the borked class it was in the past.

[Malifice]

you can use it multiple times, it just sucks royally if you use it more than once on anything other than a cantrip. what is the point of letting you use it more than once if it is specifically designed to be such a stupid idea to use it more than once? why not just say "you can use it once per day" and then stop? (also, as a 1/day ability at that level, it is incredibly underwhelming).

I think you'll find the no damage to the caster when over channelling a cantrip for the evoker was an oversight.

This was pretty much confirmed in a tweet (with a suggestion for d6 necrotic per use past the first with a cantrip from memory) a while back.


Seems there is some residual disillusion from 3x in 5e, despite it having no place. The fighter's class features, hit die, and ability scores mean it is no longer the borked class it was in the past.

Totally agree. Having played, watched and ran Fighters so far, they seem both powerful and fun.

Finally.

Still, haters gonna hate.

[NotALurker]

I think you'll find the no damage to the caster when over channelling a cantrip for the evoker was an oversight.

This was pretty much confirmed in a tweet (with a suggestion for d6 necrotic per use past the first with a cantrip from memory) a while back.



Totally agree. Having played, watched and ran Fighters so far, they seem both powerful and fun.

Finally.

Still, haters gonna hate.

when one spell can outdo a fighter...the casters are broken.

nor is there a complex and tactical non-caster option.

[Malifice]

when one spell can outdo a fighter...the casters are broken.


What spell do you refer to?

And plenty of things a Fighter can do outdo the wizard. Like HP, proficiencies, single target sustained DPR, etc.


nor is there a complex and tactical non-caster option.

I totally disagree.

A Human sword and board Battlemaster Fighter 6 (protection style) has three feats (Lets say Charger, shield master, and sentinel) plus 4 maneuvers (lets say menacing attack, riposte, knockdown attack and parry).

He can (every round):

Move and:


Use his action to either attack twice with a melee weapon OR ranged weapon (drawing it for free) OR use 2 maneuvers to either frighten or knockdown in addition to damage OR shove/ grapple/ disarm twice in any combination, OR use his action to Charge into a new opponent, moving double speed and dealing extra damage, and
Use his reaction to attack someone that either moves away OR attacks anyone else OR riposte the attack OR parry the attack OR protect an ally OR to interpose his shield against a reflex save attack), and
Use his bonus action to shove an opponent to the ground with his shield OR Heal 1d10+6, and
Action surge 1/ short rest when needed the most.


How is that a lack of interesting tactical options? How many do you need exactly?

Thats as many options as a 3.X Warblade of the same level

[Pex]

I agree absolutely. Warlocks are definitely overpowered. They have the same at-will damage as a fighter, but have spellcasting, pacts, invocations, and Patrons. They blow the pants off the Fighter.

That would be . . . interesting to roleplay.

[SharkForce]

I think you'll find the no damage to the caster when over channelling a cantrip for the evoker was an oversight.

This was pretty much confirmed in a tweet (with a suggestion for d6 necrotic per use past the first with a cantrip from memory) a while back.

yes. i know. i already said that.

what *doesn't* make any sense is that cantrips are basically the *only* worthwhile use of that ability after the first use, and yet, they clearly intended for it to be used more than once (you can tell, because things that are actually supposed to be limited in use are actually limited in use. for example, spells are supposed to be limited in use, and so they tell you *exactly* how many times you can use them. overchannel, on the other hand, doesn't say you can only use it once per day. it says you can do it as often as you want. then it puts such a mind-bogglingly stupid penalty on actually using it for anything other than cantrips that actually ever using it more than once (for anything other than cantrips) is guaranteed to cost more than it is worth.

now, if they didn't intend for it to be freely used with cantrips, then what other use could have possibly been intended? using it to overchannel anything even remotely level-appropriate is basically a guaranteed death sentence. using it on anything that won't outright kill you means you probably aren't going to have a meaningful impact (heck, let's not fool ourselves... by the time you get overchannel, even your high level damage spells probably aren't going to kill a lot of enemies without additional damage having first been applied).

it is only useful for the one free use and cantrips. for anything else, it's just you slitting your wrists and being unable to contribute to the fight further.

[Giant2005]

yes. i know. i already said that.

what *doesn't* make any sense is that cantrips are basically the *only* worthwhile use of that ability after the first use, and yet, they clearly intended for it to be used more than once (you can tell, because things that are actually supposed to be limited in use are actually limited in use. for example, spells are supposed to be limited in use, and so they tell you *exactly* how many times you can use them. overchannel, on the other hand, doesn't say you can only use it once per day. it says you can do it as often as you want. then it puts such a mind-bogglingly stupid penalty on actually using it for anything other than cantrips that actually ever using it more than once (for anything other than cantrips) is guaranteed to cost more than it is worth.

now, if they didn't intend for it to be freely used with cantrips, then what other use could have possibly been intended? using it to overchannel anything even remotely level-appropriate is basically a guaranteed death sentence. using it on anything that won't outright kill you means you probably aren't going to have a meaningful impact (heck, let's not fool ourselves... by the time you get overchannel, even your high level damage spells probably aren't going to kill a lot of enemies without additional damage having first been applied).

it is only useful for the one free use and cantrips. for anything else, it's just you slitting your wrists and being unable to contribute to the fight further.

It can be useful.
If the extra damage is the difference between a dead enemy and a living one, then using Overchannel would save you from one incoming hit. If that hit is likely to do more damage than the Overchannel itself, then using Overchannel would be advisable.
It isn't something that would happen a lot and the Wizard is probably more likely to use it when he shouldn't than when he should, but having more options is always better than having less options.

[NotALurker]

What spell do you refer to?

And plenty of things a Fighter can do outdo the wizard. Like HP, proficiencies, single target sustained DPR, etc.



I totally disagree.

A Human sword and board Battlemaster Fighter 6 (protection style) has three feats (Lets say Charger, shield master, and sentinel) plus 4 maneuvers (lets say menacing attack, riposte, knockdown attack and parry).

He can (every round):

Move and:


Use his action to either attack twice with a melee weapon OR ranged weapon (drawing it for free) OR use 2 maneuvers to either frighten or knockdown in addition to damage OR shove/ grapple/ disarm twice in any combination, OR use his action to Charge into a new opponent, moving double speed and dealing extra damage, and
Use his reaction to attack someone that either moves away OR attacks anyone else OR riposte the attack OR parry the attack OR protect an ally OR to interpose his shield against a reflex save attack), and
Use his bonus action to shove an opponent to the ground with his shield OR Heal 1d10+6, and
Action surge 1/ short rest when needed the most.


How is that a lack of interesting tactical options? How many do you need exactly?

Thats as many options as a 3.X Warblade of the same level

the most obvious example is meter swarm, you use that effectively (and given you have all day to find a good place to use it 90% of the time it will be used in a good place to use it) and that by itself will out damage the fighter.

a wizard who is at least somewhat focused on damage (not that that is a good idea mind you, hp is the worst way to take a target out) can come very close to a fighters dpr on a single target and when he can use AOEs the wizard easily passes the fighter. and of course the wizard has alot more things he can do then just damage.

I need exactly as many as a wizard has.

also that combo only starts up when your fairly high, what if I want a level 4 character that is as tactical as a level 4 wizard?


It can be useful.
If the extra damage is the difference between a dead enemy and a living one, then using Overchannel would save you from one incoming hit. If that hit is likely to do more damage than the Overchannel itself, then using Overchannel would be advisable.
It isn't something that would happen a lot and the Wizard is probably more likely to use it when he shouldn't than when he should, but having more options is always better than having less options.

no it is not.

It is better to provide a player one good power then say they can choose between one good power and one suicidal one.

[RulesJD]

Here:



Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?1900-D-D-5th-Edition-Sage-Advice-from-Designers-Mearls-Crawford#.VQeYz46UeVM#ixzz3Ubm0JoOQ

Wrong.

It is per bolt, not per target.

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/01/26/bonus-spell-damage/

Thus, a lvl 9 Magic Missile from an 20 Int evocation wizard does 12d4+72= 102 average damage to a single target. 72 because it is +6 total from each bolt (+1 from the spell, +5 from 20 Int).

[Malifice]

Wrong.

It is per bolt, not per target.

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/01/26/bonus-spell-damage/

Thus, a lvl 9 Magic Missile from an 20 Int evocation wizard does 12d4+72= 102 average damage to a single target. 72 because it is +6 total from each bolt (+1 from the spell, +5 from 20 Int).

You're reading those tweets wrong.

[themaque]

when one spell can outdo a fighter...the casters are broken.

nor is there a complex and tactical non-caster option.

You keep saying they are not as complex or TACTICAL as any caster.

https://shewhoprecedesmen.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/inconceivable_means_02.jpg

Tac·ti·cal
ˈtaktək(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: tactical

of, relating to, or constituting actions carefully planned to gain a specific military end.
(of bombing or weapons) done or for use in immediate support of military or naval operations.
(of a person or their actions) showing adroit planning; aiming at an end beyond the immediate action.

The only way a fighter can not be Tactical is if you are only using the second definition. No a fighter can not count as artillery, but that isn't the infantry man's fault.
Casters are more SHOWY, but to say that a fighter has no tactical use nor are can they be as complex is just foolish. There can be made the argument they have to be even MORE SO because they survive by their wits and skills alone. I don't know about you, but I've seen my fair share of "stupid" or "unthinking" Casters who just assume their spells will get them out of any mess. They are wrong.
Fighters don't have "hot button" items for ease of use, but if you have to have those to think tactically than the problem is with you not the game.

[Goodberry]

other tricks include quickening cantrips in the same round that they fire a sunbeam ray or eyebite gaze attack, etc.

This doesn't work. You can't cast a spell of level 1 or higher in the same round as a quickened spell.

[Giant2005]

This doesn't work. You can't cast a spell of level 1 or higher in the same round as a quickened spell.

He wasn't suggesting that, he was suggesting casting a quickened spell as well as a Cantrip.

[Malifice]

the most obvious example is meter swarm, you use that effectively (and given you have all day to find a good place to use it 90% of the time it will be used in a good place to use it) and that by itself will out damage the fighter.

Assuming you have a large group of enemies, sure it will (when you add the damage done per target up and look at the final sum). Single target the Fighter does way more damage (single target DPR at 20th level for a GWF/GWM Action surging battlemaster Fighter is around 200 points on average without magic weapons, girdles etc). So it evens out.

Well.. it evens out untill you realise that the Wizard gets to do that once per day. The Figther gets to Nova twice every short rest (6-8 times per day on average).

I dont have a problem with Wizards being your mortar platoon, while Fighters are your laser guided Hellfire missiles. You cant take out a tank with a mortar, just like you cant take out dispersed infantry with a guided Anti tank missile.


a wizard who is at least somewhat focused on damage (not that that is a good idea mind you, hp is the worst way to take a target out) can come very close to a fighters dpr on a single target

For single target DPR give me a Paladin, Fighter or lucky Barbarian thanks. Not a wizard.


also that combo only starts up when your fairly high, what if I want a level 4 character that is as tactical as a level 4 wizard?

Huh? OK - A Human sword and board Battlemaster Fighter 4 (protection style) has two feats (Lets say Charger, and shield master) plus 4 maneuvers (lets say menacing attack, riposte, knockdown attack and parry).

He can (every round):

Move and:


Use his action to either attack with a melee weapon OR ranged weapon (drawing it for free) OR use a maneuver to either frighten or knockdown in addition to damage OR shove/ grapple/ disarm, OR use his action to Charge into a new opponent, moving double speed and dealing extra damage, and
Use his reaction to attack someone that either moves away without withdrawing OR riposte the attack OR parry the attack OR protect an ally OR to interpose his shield against a reflex save attack), and
Use his bonus action to shove an opponent to the ground with his shield OR Heal 1d10+4, and
Action surge 1/ short rest when needed the most.


That is not enough tactical options for you at 4th level?

Barring cantrips, the Wizard 4 has 4 x 2nd level slots and 4 x 1st level slots (including arcane recovery) per long rest (8 encounters on average). He has 8 spells prepared (assuming 4th level ASI goes to Int) and amongst them will be mage armor and shield. He gets to burn around 1 slot of 1st or 2nd level per encounter.

Not bad, but in no way is it dwarfing the Fighters tactical options, nor is it making the Fighter above obsolete or outclassing him in any way.

[kaoskonfety]

The 120' range is within a Beholder's antimagic ray, and my DM seems to love those medieval Daleks.

Good old Snack Machine of Doom.

Totally Dalek-ing them up on next use "Di-Sint-a-GRATE!

[Grand Warchief]

The 120' range is within a Beholder's antimagic ray, and my DM seems to love those medieval Daleks.

Love the reference :)

[Person_Man]

I think the Warlock is a very balanced class. My only gripes are:

1) An Invisible Familiar or at-will Telepathy can dramatically change the nature of low level exploration and/or roleplaying challenges.

2) In an attempt to balance everything, the designers made it a very confusing class structurally. Do they really 5 different types of class abilities (Pact Magic, Invocations, Pact Boon, Mystic Arcanum, and Otherworldly Patron) that all function differently? Its very difficult to explain to new players. I would have just kept everything organized under Invocations (base class abilities) and Pacts (sub-class abilities). Then each Invocation could be written as a At-Will, Short Rest, or Long Rest ability, with whatever level restrictions needed.

[Chronos]

Fighters do not necessarily get more HP than wizards. An abjurer has, on average, more HP than a fighter at every level above first. A warlock with Armor of Agathys, or the fiend pact, or Fiendish Vigor, also has more HP.

And a straight warlock might have slightly lower at-will damage than a fighter, but they also have spell slots. It takes a heck of a lot of rounds of combat per short rest for the fighter's overall damage to catch up to the warlock's. The warlock can also shove opponents at the same time as damaging them, at will. The fighter can't shove without either giving up an attack, or using a superiority die.

Which means that, the few things that the fighter can do well, the warlock can do better. That's a problem.

[BootStrapTommy]

the most obvious example is meter swarm, you use that effectively (and given you have all day to find a good place to use it 90% of the time it will be used in a good place to use it) and that by itself will out damage the fighter.

a wizard who is at least somewhat focused on damage (not that that is a good idea mind you, hp is the worst way to take a target out) can come very close to a fighters dpr on a single target and when he can use AOEs the wizard easily passes the fighter. and of course the wizard has alot more things he can do then just damage. Usually a wizard can meteor swarm only once an encounter. By 17th level, most challenging CRs can have the health to survive it. Especially given how common fire resistance is.

Meanwhile, a 17th level fighter with Shield Master and Resilience (Dex) could easily emerge from the spell completely unscathed. Theoretically tieflings and fire genasi wouldn't even need Shield Master most of the time.

And while the wizard can replicate many of fighter abilities with spells, fighters do them at will. The wizard cannot.


It is better to provide a player one good power then say they can choose between one good power and one suicidal one.You seem to be missing the trope. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BloodMagic)

[Easy_Lee]

Which means that, the few things that the fighter can do well, the warlock can do better. That's a problem.

Fighters have a few things they do better than warlocks.

Grappling is possible on a Fighter, as is general use of the athletics feat. Warlocks have to multiclass of play dwarf in order to make strength a viable investment, since they don't get the armor proficiency and can barely afford feats with their stat requirements.

Fighters also have higher at-will damage potential. As I've shown elsewhere, a fairly standard champion can output around 60DPR or more. A warlock, even counting Hex which is not at-will, still only does about 56DPR with a maxed EB. Spreading his damage, the warlock can expect closer to 42DPR at-will, while the fighter can do better.

Fighters have numerous means to produce advantage. Grapple plus shove can maintain advantage over many rounds while the target tries to break free. The fighter must give up two attacks for this once per target, but can often expect to maintain it round-to-round, simultaneously giving the target disadvantage on its attacks. This combos very well with having a warlock in the party to Hex the target and give it disadvantage on athletics or acrobatics checks as needed.

There's also action surge, fighting styles, and several other benefits which distinguish fighters, to say nothing of their two bonus feats.

So I feel that fighters compete just fine with warlocks, assuming they needed to. You certainly benefit from having either class in your party, which I believe is the most important point.

[archaeo]

I think the Warlock is a very balanced class. My only gripes are:

1) An Invisible Familiar or at-will Telepathy can dramatically change the nature of low level exploration and/or roleplaying challenges.

Why should this be a gripe? I think part of what I like about the class design in 5e generally and Warlock in particular is the flexibility. If I build a typical eldritch blasting mad man, it will play completely differently from the telepathic pet master, or the blade pact bro, or the various other things going on in Warlock.

I don't see it as particularly unbalancing, anyway, except perhaps for published adventures where the DM doesn't feel qualified to tweak challenges to make them appropriate for a given party.


2) In an attempt to balance everything, the designers made it a very confusing class structurally. Do they really 5 different types of class abilities (Pact Magic, Invocations, Pact Boon, Mystic Arcanum, and Otherworldly Patron) that all function differently? Its very difficult to explain to new players. I would have just kept everything organized under Invocations (base class abilities) and Pacts (sub-class abilities). Then each Invocation could be written as a At-Will, Short Rest, or Long Rest ability, with whatever level restrictions needed.

I'll cheerfully concede that Warlock is complicated, though I imagine it actually isn't hard to grasp if you play it level-by-level. Your organizational structure doesn't really sound that much less complicated, but you'd have to see it written out to really know.

Oh, wait, I forgot, silly me, talking about Warlocks,


Fighters


fighter


Fighters

One day, I'll open a 5e thread, and nobody will be talking about Fighters. But this isn't that day.

[NoseFeratu]

Why should this be a gripe? I think part of what I like about the class design in 5e generally and Warlock in particular is the flexibility. If I build a typical eldritch blasting mad man, it will play completely differently from the telepathic pet master, or the blade pact bro, or the various other things going on in Warlock.

I don't see it as particularly unbalancing, anyway, except perhaps for published adventures where the DM doesn't feel qualified to tweak challenges to make them appropriate for a given party.



I'll cheerfully concede that Warlock is complicated, though I imagine it actually isn't hard to grasp if you play it level-by-level. Your organizational structure doesn't really sound that much less complicated, but you'd have to see it written out to really know.

Oh, wait, I forgot, silly me, talking about Warlocks,







One day, I'll open a 5e thread, and nobody will be talking about Fighters. But this isn't that day.

Started it for you. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?404213-Fighters-and-Other-Fighty-Things-Like-Warlocks&p=18971295#post18971295)

[NotALurker]

You keep saying they are not as complex or TACTICAL as any caster.

https://shewhoprecedesmen.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/inconceivable_means_02.jpg

Tac·ti·cal
ˈtaktək(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: tactical

of, relating to, or constituting actions carefully planned to gain a specific military end.
(of bombing or weapons) done or for use in immediate support of military or naval operations.
(of a person or their actions) showing adroit planning; aiming at an end beyond the immediate action.

The only way a fighter can not be Tactical is if you are only using the second definition. No a fighter can not count as artillery, but that isn't the infantry man's fault.
Casters are more SHOWY, but to say that a fighter has no tactical use nor are can they be as complex is just foolish. There can be made the argument they have to be even MORE SO because they survive by their wits and skills alone. I don't know about you, but I've seen my fair share of "stupid" or "unthinking" Casters who just assume their spells will get them out of any mess. They are wrong.
Fighters don't have "hot button" items for ease of use, but if you have to have those to think tactically than the problem is with you not the game.

the only way a fighter can effect the outcome of a fight is by damage.

the wizard has more effects then you can easily count, and alot more ways to do damage.

also past something like 8th level unless you greatly surpass the number of fights per day the system expects you to have full casters will have at least 2 spells per encounter, and because of the nature of spell casting they can be assumed to be used in situations where they are most effective.

so the whole "its ok if fighters suck, because they suck all day long" thing only comes up in very very long days.

I would take a wizard who only does 2/3 the damage of a fighter over a fighter any day, the wizard has more options and if you need to just do damage he can do that too.

[hawklost]

the only way a fighter can effect the outcome of a fight is by damage.

the wizard has more effects then you can easily count, and alot more ways to do damage.

also past something like 8th level unless you greatly surpass the number of fights per day the system expects you to have full casters will have at least 2 spells per encounter, and because of the nature of spell casting they can be assumed to be used in situations where they are most effective.

so the whole "its ok if fighters suck, because they suck all day long" thing only comes up in very very long days.

I would take a wizard who only does 2/3 the damage of a fighter over a fighter any day, the wizard has more options and if you need to just do damage he can do that too.

Funny, in the last 3 sessions, the Fighter has done many things other than 'hit them' to change how a fight works.

He has
- Grappled a BBEG who trying to escape through a portal and dragged him away, keeping him from being able to make it in a single round
- Shoved an enemy over a ledge knocking them away from the ranged characters (coincidentally knocking them prone and almost killing them from damage, but that wasn't the intention)
- Ran up to an enemy with a bow and stole it (also did the same thing with a Focus for a Wizard but the wizard had a spell component pouch as well so it wasn't super useful)
- Knocked multiple people prone to let the party get advantage (and slow them down)

All of these effects without using any of his BM abilities (which he also used but to different effects)

EDIT:
Caster: "I am the great and powerful X.... fear my powe...... wait, did that guy just steal my focus? And my Spellpouch?! What a jerk, what am I to do now!?" (<<< This is just being silly, not a real claim)

[NotALurker]

Funny, in the last 3 sessions, the Fighter has done many things other than 'hit them' to change how a fight works.

He has
- Grappled a BBEG who trying to escape through a portal and dragged him away, keeping him from being able to make it in a single round
- Shoved an enemy over a ledge knocking them away from the ranged characters (coincidentally knocking them prone and almost killing them from damage, but that wasn't the intention)
- Ran up to an enemy with a bow and stole it (also did the same thing with a Focus for a Wizard but the wizard had a spell component pouch as well so it wasn't super useful)
- Knocked multiple people prone to let the party get advantage (and slow them down)

All of these effects without using any of his BM abilities (which he also used but to different effects)

EDIT:
Caster: "I am the great and powerful X.... fear my powe...... wait, did that guy just steal my focus? And my Spellpouch?! What a jerk, what am I to do now!?" (<<< This is just being silly, not a real claim)

yet none of those were thanks to the fighter class. they are things anyone in the world could have done.

[SharkForce]

He wasn't suggesting that, he was suggesting casting a quickened spell as well as a Cantrip.

I wasn't suggesting that either. sunbeam is a spell you cast, concentrate on, and gain the ability to fire sunbeams from it as a standard action. you cast it once, and in later rounds you can fire a sunbeam without casting any spells at all. it's kinda like call lightning.

edit: oh, and no fighter gets 200 DPR. even in their action surge boosts, that is not remotely close to their expected DPR. 50-60 is pretty good for at-will, and in an action surge you don't get an extra bonus action so you're probably still only looking at ~100 damage even on rounds where you get your action surge, unless we're talking about targets with extremely low AC (which is not typical).

[Cazero]

yet none of those were thanks to the fighter class. they are things anyone in the world could have done.

Only a character with multiple attacks per rounds and a good melee modifier can do that reliably and without wasting actions.

[hawklost]

yet none of those were thanks to the fighter class. they are things anyone in the world could have done.

Never knew those wizards could knock someone down and then strike them. Or attempt multiple grapples if the first failed. Or knock multiple objects out of an opponents hand. All this in the same round even.

Fighter with 3 actions
Run up to one enemy 15 ft away, shove him off a ledge.
Move over 10 ft to another enemy and grab his focus out of his hands. (pick it up and move with it)
Move the last 5 ft and grapple that Ranged character.

All possible in a single round

Now lets look at the Wizard
Run up to one enemy 15 ft away and shove him off a ledge (hopefully that wizard has a high str and has acrobatics skill)
Stare at the other two enemies and hope they don't target him this round.

[RulesJD]

You're reading those tweets wrong.

No, I'm not. Don't be upset just because it means Wizards can have some decent single target damage. The specific question is "X per bolt"? To which the response is "yes". So it is X per bolt, which default is 3 bolts. The X is whatever the additional spell damage modifier, which was also specifically referenced as the evocation wizard's level 10 ability.

[Myzz]

in regards to a warlock being OP... realize that at those higher levels yall are talking about... A warlock is going to be next to useless against many foes (in regards to his EB damage)

[Easy_Lee]

in regards to a warlock being OP... realize that at those higher levels yall are talking about... A warlock is going to be next to useless against many foes (in regards to his EB damage)

How so? Force damage us the second least resisted damage type, right behind magic weapons.

[Person_Man]

Why should this be a gripe? I think part of what I like about the class design in 5e generally and Warlock in particular is the flexibility. If I build a typical eldritch blasting mad man, it will play completely differently from the telepathic pet master, or the blade pact bro, or the various other things going on in Warlock.

Speaking as an old-school-ish gamer, there is a certain type of exploration and roleplaying that is a big part of D&D for me and my players that is changed by the introduction of certain magical abilities and/or spells.

For me, low-level D&D has a strong emphasis on the traditional-ish dungeon crawl, with traps, riddles, secret passages, environmental hazards, that you must actively explore while worrying about possible combat encounters. An Invisible Familiar that takes the time to carefully search out a dungeon can dramatically change the nature of this framework. You don't worry about roving monsters the same way because the Invisible Familiar can usually tells you where they all are and what they're doing. Players don't have to risk being scouts or potentially splitting up the party. Many traps and hazards can easily be avoided. And instead of being a hidden map game, you basically just hand the players a map of the dungeon and ask them how they want to take it apart. This can be avoided various ways, but then you have to create an in-game rationale for those workarounds which logically don't exist for many adventure locations.

Similarly, telepathy and/or read thoughts blows up many interesting roleplaying encounters. Are you worried that the attractive NPC prisoner you just rescued might be a succubus? Are you worried that the quest giving NPC might ultimately betray you or have an ulterior motive? Do you want to infiltrate the Evil Guild or Evil without being detected? Sorry, but the existence of mind-reading Warlocks makes these types of roleplaying encounters meaningless without workarounds, and again, such workarounds may not make sense for the particular game.

This has always been an issue in D&D. But (without splat books) it usually didn't show up until mid-high levels, and/or could only be done a very limited number of times per day. (You had to choose to memorize X spell, had limited slots, had costly material components, etc).

Its a very minor gripe, and easily avoided just by talking to your PCs about what type of game they want to play, and then having them build their classes appropriately. I just wish it had not been hard wired into the low-level core rules.

[NotALurker]

Only a character with multiple attacks per rounds and a good melee modifier can do that reliably and without wasting actions.

so like I said they are things anyone could have done. the fighter can just do things anyone can do...slightly better.

the wizard can do things that no fighter can do.

[Myzz]

How so? Force damage us the second least resisted damage type, right behind magic weapons.

since EB is a cantrip, the PHB specifically calls them out as L0 spells. Which means anything that is immune to LX and lower spells is immune to EB. See Raksasha (MM 257) as an example...

So a 20th level warlock would still have his 4 Arcanum to do something, but thats about it...

[Shining Wrath]

so like I said they are things anyone could have done. the fighter can just do things anyone can do...slightly better.

the wizard can do things that no fighter can do.

As clearly demonstrated, by "slightly" you mean "far far far way lots and lots incredibly more" when compared to any full caster. In case you weren't paying attention: MULTIPLE ACTIONS. Breaking the action economy is important enough in 5e that the DMG suggests that the DM multiply the XP of creatures by 2 or 3 or 4 when there are more than one.

Yeah, True Polymorph and Meteor Swarm are excellent tools. Multiple attacks, which as enumerated can be varied and tactically useful, are also excellent tools.

It takes exactly one Beholder to make your wizard a Commoner with better saves. There are encounters where some classes do better than some other classes - for all possible permutations of classes.

[Malifice]

No, I'm not. Don't be upset just because it means Wizards can have some decent single target damage. The specific question is "X per bolt"? To which the response is "yes". So it is X per bolt, which default is 3 bolts. The X is whatever the additional spell damage modifier, which was also specifically referenced as the evocation wizard's level 10 ability.

What do you have to say to the tweet about 'X per damage roll'

[RulesJD]

What do you have to say to the tweet about 'X per damage roll'

Exactly what it means. It is X per damage roll, and each bolt is an individual damage roll. As opposed to fireball, where the damage roll is 8d6, rather than 8 1d6 rolls.

[ChubbyRain]

The biggest issue I have of class design isn't just how powerful they are compared to other classes or even to the game itself.

It is what you can make out of that class. The four main roles of any class is Controller, Defender, Leader, and Striker.

What can a class effectively do if built for each role. Notice I typed the word effectively, because I can make anyone into an ineffective character. Actually as long as I'm not trying to unoptimize that may not be possible with some classes... Of course we are going with options straight from the class, things that we don't normally have to get permission from the DM to use. So no multiclassing and no feats. How do the classes stack up as classes.


What the Warlock can be built to do effectively and how many roles can they cover at one time.

Controller: Pushing multiple creatures 10' and from a distance? Yeah that is nice at-will controller. They also get some nifty spells that can boost their controller ability. But their at-will is good enough to make them an effective controller, very deadly with the right party (as most things are determined by the party). If you want to be an effective striker, this role doesn't get lose out since you can be both at the same time. Some of the invocations allow for some controller abilities (levitate and silent image at-will come to mind).

Defender: Not much here that I can recall.

Leader: Not enough to make an effective leader.

Striker: Agonizing blast is fun and fantastic. Add in Hex and you got yourself a ball game. They also can grab up some nice AoE like Fireball for when you want to take out groups of lower CRs (which in this edition means something).

Warlock: Can become a Controller and a Striker effectively, anything else is a bit ineffective. This is pretty much the same as 4e. Two roles at once and both very effective.

What the Fighter can be built to do effectively and how many roles can they cover at one time.

Controller: No form of the fighter can be an effective controller. Menacing strike is about the only controller ability you gain but it isn't at-will or usable that many times per short rest until you get higher levels. If something like menacing strike was at-will I would call them an effecting controller. Other battle master maneuvers are horrid at controller except for tripping, which again isn't at-will nor is it usable that often. Warlock may only be able to damage+push but that is still better than what the fighter can do.

A Fighter can grapple at-will, however they must be in close and they must be targeting a creature no larger than one size greater than the fighter. All PC races are medium and thus may only grapple large or smaller creatures. There is also the problem of swarms in 5e that will absolutely murderlate the fighter while they are trying to grapple a creature. The fighter won't be able to maneuver themselves into a better position and will be surrounded and turned into a mushy pile of fighter on the floor.

Defender: Nope. On the outside this looks like something the fighter can do, but even with feats this is something that the fighter can't do effectively. They may be able to lock down one target, which is somewhat nice, but everything else running past the fighter will destroy the weaker members of the team. Since reactions are 1/round and not 1/turn the fighter (and all others) who try to be defenders suffer. I think this needs to be changed, and if it is then Fighters would be able to be effective Defenders... Up into later levels when OA's become useless unless you are a Rogue.

Leader: Nope, not having any of this. Even the one battlemaster maneuver is just terrible and even including the healer feat you just won't get much leading done. Other battle master maneuvers look like gravy on the outside but in actual combat they are pretty meh. Giving another ally an attack would be awesome, but unless your ally is a rogue. That is some pretty bad leading.

Striker: The only thing the Fighter does well. The Fighter even when not built for a weapon type (melee or range) can be decent at killing. Sadly however the Fighter has no way of overcoming resistances or immunities and might be the only class that doesn't have some way of overcoming such a thing (even a rogue can apply poison quickly). The eldritch knight typically never uses their spells for attacking so even they can't overcome or get around immunities.

The fighter can effectively be one type, a striker, and even then a DM would need to handle them with care. If you throw out to many of the wrong type of enemies they will fall behind quicker than other classes.

I'm sure i missed something specific but really for most games this is how it goes down. The Warlock can cover two very powerful roles, controlling and striking, while the Fighter can cover one role.

One of the biggest problems is that you don't have to think in order to shut the fighter down, but you have to put some thought into shutting down the warlock.

[SharkForce]

since EB is a cantrip, the PHB specifically calls them out as L0 spells. Which means anything that is immune to LX and lower spells is immune to EB. See Raksasha (MM 257) as an example...

So a 20th level warlock would still have his 4 Arcanum to do something, but thats about it...

can you actually come up with an example of "immune to spells of level X and lower" that *isn't* the rakshasa? because that's the only one i noticed.

[Chronos]

It is what you can make out of that class. The four main roles of any class is Controller, Defender, Leader, and Striker.
It's considerably worse than that-- That's only one role, the role of Combatant. There are many other roles in the game, none of which the Fighter class is much good at. They're good at fighting (hence the name), and not much else. They can't get past most dungeon obstacles, they're no better than anyone else and worse than most at being the party face, they don't have any particular talents at gaining information, and so on.

Which wouldn't be a problem, if they were much better at fighting than the other classes. There's nothing wrong with being specialized. But they're not: Everyone is at least as good at fighting as fighters are, as well as being good at other things.

Now, this is mitigated somewhat by backgrounds: Everyone can pick up some out-of-combat utility by picking a background that gives appropriate skills. But that's something everyone can do, so it doesn't really credit the fighter.

[JNAProductions]

can you actually come up with an example of "immune to spells of level X and lower" that *isn't* the rakshasa? because that's the only one i noticed.

Tiamat. But if she's a likely fight for your party, you either need to tone down the cheese or have a serious talk with your DM about appropiate challenges.

[ChubbyRain]

It's considerably worse than that-- That's only one role, the role of Combatant. There are many other roles in the game, none of which the Fighter class is much good at. They're good at fighting (hence the name), and not much else. They can't get past most dungeon obstacles, they're no better than anyone else and worse than most at being the party face, they don't have any particular talents at gaining information, and so on.

Which wouldn't be a problem, if they were much better at fighting than the other classes. There's nothing wrong with being specialized. But they're not: Everyone is at least as good at fighting as fighters are, as well as being good at other things.

Now, this is mitigated somewhat by backgrounds: Everyone can pick up some out-of-combat utility by picking a background that gives appropriate skills. But that's something everyone can do, so it doesn't really credit the fighter.

I hope they remove the Fighter from 6e, unless they give the fighter an identity of course.

[Easy_Lee]

It is what you can make out of that class. The four main roles of any class is Controller, Defender, Leader, and Striker.

I don't think those roles really fit 5e, though. Characters are a bit more diverse than they were in 4e.

[themaque]

I hope they remove the Fighter from 6e, unless they give the fighter an identity of course.

Fighter has an identity. He's the man skilled with weapons and armor. He's the mortal soldier. May not be impressive to you, but it's an identity.

What you're wanting, I think, is special powers, abilities, or maneuvers.

[JNAProductions]

I have to agree the Fighter is a bit bland. I'd kinda like it if they combined him with the Warlord of 4E-give him a more leader of men bent, rather than just fighting. As was pointed out, there are a lot of fighters, so the Fighter isn't really unique.

The casters, though, each have their own special thing. Divine casters get the best healing and melee magic, arcane casters get more blasty and tricksy magic, Warlocks get short rest Pact Magic... They're distinct.

[ChubbyRain]

Fighter has an identity. He's the man skilled with weapons and armor. He's the mortal soldier. May not be impressive to you, but it's an identity.

What you're wanting, I think, is special powers, abilities, or maneuvers.

Sorry I'm talking about the Fighter not the Paladin, Cleric, Ranger, Rogue, Bard, or Barbarian.

What you said is no different than any of those classes. The Fighter has no identity.

Being effective is the next step (what you call having special powers), but without an identity you can't make a balanced class that has those special powers.

Easy_Lee: Those roles are in 5e even if they aren't stated out right. These roles are specific to any one type of game but to pretty much any game that involves fighting. You can rename these like they did for 4e monsters but they are still there. Attack, Defend, Buff, Debilitate.

Heck, even in video games you get these four main types.

[themaque]

Sorry I'm talking about the Fighter not the Paladin, Cleric, Ranger, Rogue, Bard, or Barbarian.

What you said is no different than any of those classes. The Fighter has no identity.

Well, I'm sorry but I see it differently.

Paladin = Holy Warrior and divine champion.
Cleric = Battle Priest
Ranger = Woodsman and scout
Rogue = Skilled stealthy combatant
Barbarian = Bezerker, raging warrior

Fighter = Mundane Soldier. No special powers. No divine gifts from god. Just a man skilled at arms. Simple Mercenary. Infantryman. Town Guard.

I see him as distinct. Many of those other roles you mentioned could fulfill those roles, but they often have other powers or goals that supersede the concept.

And bard? The Bard is the simple soldier? He's the jack of all trades. Dabbler in all forms of skills, magic, and arms.

Now if you don't like that concept, well you don't like it. But I personally feel the concept is there.

EDIT: If you feel the concept could use a punch in the arm power wise. Well, you could easily have a point. But I feel it IS a distinct role. I assume the Warlord will be a specific path at some point.

[NotALurker]

As clearly demonstrated, by "slightly" you mean "far far far way lots and lots incredibly more" when compared to any full caster. In case you weren't paying attention: MULTIPLE ACTIONS. Breaking the action economy is important enough in 5e that the DMG suggests that the DM multiply the XP of creatures by 2 or 3 or 4 when there are more than one.

Yeah, True Polymorph and Meteor Swarm are excellent tools. Multiple attacks, which as enumerated can be varied and tactically useful, are also excellent tools.

It takes exactly one Beholder to make your wizard a Commoner with better saves. There are encounters where some classes do better than some other classes - for all possible permutations of classes.

being better at things anyone can do is not enough. he needs to be able to do things that no one who is not a fighter of his level can.

[ChubbyRain]

Well, I'm sorry but I see it differently.

Paladin = Holy Warrior and divine champion.
Cleric = Battle Priest
Ranger = Woodsman and scout
Rogue = Skilled stealthy combatant
Barbarian = Bezerker, raging warrior

Fighter = Mundane Soldier. No special powers. No divine gifts from god. Just a man skilled at arms. Simple Mercenary. Infantryman. Town Guard.

I see him as distinct. Many of those other roles you mentioned could fulfill those roles, but they often have other powers or goals that supersede the concept.

And bard? The Bard is the simple soldier? He's the jack of all trades. Dabbler in all forms of skills, magic, and arms.

Now if you don't like that concept, well you don't like it. But I personally feel the concept is there.

EDIT: If you feel the concept could use a punch in the arm power wise. Well, you could easily have a point. But I feel it IS a distinct role. I assume the Warlord will be a specific path at some point.

All of those that you listed have the same exact qualifications that are given to the fighter.

Good at fighting with weapons? Yes.
Good at using armor and shields? Yes.

The fighter has no identity. These other classes gain additional all stuff overtop of what their base has. Be this spells or other abilities.

The fighter isn't a mundane soldier though, they go beyond mundane. Not very far mind you but they are not mundane. Calling them a soldier is more of an identify than what they get now.

All of those other class have something specifics. The fighter doesn't and that is why he is such a pain in 5e. Due to not having a specific identity (because he doesn't have one) he gains these general abilities that go against how all other classes are made and thus can't be balanced correctly.

The barbarian is a fighter, the ranger is a fighter, the bard is a fighter, the rogue ia a fighter and so forth. They are specific types of fighters that have identities. When you have an identity you can be made Into a class with abilities that match.

The fighter is a fighter who fights. That is like saying a human is a human who does human stuff. What does this PC do? Well human stuff...

But if we gave that human an identity, say let's call him Jim. Jim is a human who does human things. Well what specifically does Jim do? Jim is a Human that Fights. Well how does Jim fight? Jim is a human who is a Knight and uses heavy armor and weapons along with a code of conduct.

Jim is a human who is a samurai that uses medium armor and a two handed sword and Bushido abilities.

The initial Jim had no identity. He was a fighter, but the later Jim was still a fighter but had identity. Jim is a Samurai that used Bushido to fight enemies.

[NotALurker]

Fighter has an identity. He's the man skilled with weapons and armor. He's the mortal soldier. May not be impressive to you, but it's an identity.

What you're wanting, I think, is special powers, abilities, or maneuvers.

unless you know of a better way to keep up with full casters yes things to do other then hit things with swords would be nice.

and no that is not enough for a class anymore then "good with magic" is enough


I don't think those roles really fit 5e, though. Characters are a bit more diverse than they were in 4e.

those were not made up by MMOs or by 4e they are emergent of combat systems.




Fighter = Mundane Soldier. No special powers. No divine gifts from god. Just a man skilled at arms. Simple Mercenary. Infantryman. Town Guard.


so his role is to be boring and not notable in any way? not having an identity when everyone else does is not in itself an identity.

[Giant2005]

This "no identity fighter" crap is just that... crap.
If you were right, the action movie genre simply wouldn't exist because there would be no demand for identity-less protagonists.
The Fighter is the guy that has learned to compete in a world full of magical badasses with nothing but his own skill and cunning.

[NotALurker]

This "no identity fighter" crap is just that... crap.
If you were right, the action movie genre simply wouldn't exist because there would be no demand for identity-less protagonists.
The Fighter is the guy that has learned to compete in a world full of magical badasses with nothing but his own skill and cunning.

we are talking about the class fighter, not against the very idea of a non-magic user badass.

[Malifice]

Exactly what it means. It is X per damage roll, and each bolt is an individual damage roll. As opposed to fireball, where the damage roll is 8d6, rather than 8 1d6 rolls.

That's where the misinterpretation lies. You would have to direct each of the 12 individual magic missile at a separate target to claim '12 separate damage rolls' (one on each). Remember - its not +Int per damage die ; its +Int per damage roll.

Thus to claim the full bonus you need to target 12 different creatures, dealing 1d4 + 1 + 5 damage to each target (assuming an Int of 20). If you direct all 12 at one target its 12d4 + 12 + 5 damage.

I can think of better things to do with a 9th level spell slot.

Read the tweet (and the reference to fireball) again.

[Cazero]

being better at things anyone can do is not enough. he needs to be able to do things that no one who is not a fighter of his level can.
Why aren't you talking about the rogue then?
The rogue is utterly useless. Sneak attack is only damage, and anyone can deal damage. Expertise is only getting reliable better rolls, and anyone can roll high. Seriously, why would anyone pick a rogue? None of their class feature are the allmighty spellcasting and everything they do can be done by others.
Would you try to shove a dragon without 20 strength and another attempt in the same turn (read : with any spellcaster)?


we are talking about the class fighter, not against the very idea of a non-magic user badass.
...That is what the fighter class is. A badass from wits and skills alone. This is his identity.
The fact there is some overlap with barbarian and rogue is irrelevant. Wizard overlaps with warlock and/or sorcerer for the most part : the frail guy who casts spells. Cleric and druid are thematically exactly the same thing : the mortal champion/herald/channel of a supernatural force, one for any deity and the other to the almighty force of nature that might as well be a specific god.
If your character identity stops at class choice, you're doing the whole identity thing wrong.

[RulesJD]

That's where the misinterpretation lies. You would have to direct each of the 12 individual magic missile at a separate target to claim '12 separate damage rolls' (one on each). Remember - its not +Int per damage die ; its +Int per damage roll.

Thus to claim the full bonus you need to target 12 different creatures, dealing 1d4 + 1 + 5 damage to each target (assuming an Int of 20). If you direct all 12 at one target its 12d4 + 12 + 5 damage.

I can think of better things to do with a 9th level spell slot.

Read the tweet (and the reference to fireball) again.

You are quite literally wrong in every way possible. I don't know how to make it more clear given the response from Crawford when asked whether it applied to each bolt. Your clarification between damage die and roll is wrong, as is your argument.

You do not need to target different creatures. You treat each bolt as a separate damage strike:
Bolt 1 = 1d4+6
Bolt 2 = 1d4+6
Bolt 3 = 1d4+6
etc.

If each bolt happens to hit the same target, then so be it. Same for Eldritch blast and its Cha mod (and hex for that matter), same for Scorching Ray, same for Melf's Meteors. I'm sorry you're wrong, but you are. Jeremy Crawford has said exactly that. The damage output of the spell does not change whether you target all the bolts against one creature, or against separate creatures.

[ghost_warlock]

Similarly, telepathy and/or read thoughts blows up many interesting roleplaying encounters. Are you worried that the attractive NPC prisoner you just rescued might be a succubus? Are you worried that the quest giving NPC might ultimately betray you or have an ulterior motive? Do you want to infiltrate the Evil Guild or Evil without being detected? Sorry, but the existence of mind-reading Warlocks makes these types of roleplaying encounters meaningless without workarounds, and again, such workarounds may not make sense for the particular game.

Huh? The warlock's telepathy is one-way send only (https://twitter.com/dastion/status/505079251268145152) (response by Jeremy Crawford). It doesn't give any sort of mind-reading ability at all.

Sure, that same warlock could learn detect thoughts, but so could any other caster with that spell on their list.

[Malifice]

You are quite literally wrong in every way possible. I don't know how to make it more clear given the response from Crawford when asked whether it applied to each bolt. Your clarification between damage die and roll is wrong, as is your argument.

You do not need to target different creatures. You treat each bolt as a separate damage strike:
Bolt 1 = 1d4+6
Bolt 2 = 1d4+6
Bolt 3 = 1d4+6
etc.

If each bolt happens to hit the same target, then so be it. Same for Eldritch blast and its Cha mod (and hex for that matter), same for Scorching Ray, same for Melf's Meteors. I'm sorry you're wrong, but you are. Jeremy Crawford has said exactly that. The damage output of the spell does not change whether you target all the bolts against one creature, or against separate creatures.

Can you point me to where it says 'each bolt regardless of target'?

The class feature says 'you add your intelligence to the damage roll of each spell you cast' not 'you add your intelligence to the damage roll of each bolt'.

[Shining Wrath]

being better at things anyone can do is not enough. he needs to be able to do things that no one who is not a fighter of his level can.

Since 3/4 or more of the archetypes can cast spells, being better at some spells is therefore not enough, and Wizards and Warlocks and so on are all useless identity-free drones.

There are of course a few spells that are unique to each class - unless a Bard picks them up. I guess the Bard is the only true class.

And again, Extra Attacks. Breaking the Action Economy. The 3rd and 4th attacks are unique to fighters and they damn well matter.

[themaque]

All of those that you listed have the same exact qualifications that are given to the fighter.

-snip-

The initial Jim had no identity. He was a fighter, but the later Jim was still a fighter but had identity. Jim is a Samurai that used Bushido to fight enemies.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree.

If I want to play a samurai, I play a fighter and have him follow the code of Bushido. That is the character I created. I don't feel I need a "Samurai" class to do so, because I have the generic fighter. Character is what I put on the general framework, that's my responsibility.

But, If you don't see it that way, so be it. But I both hope and sincerely doubt the fighter goes away in 6e, although I think it's a little early to be talking about THAT yet.

[ChubbyRain]

We are just going to have to agree to disagree.

If I want to play a samurai, I play a fighter and have him follow the code of Bushido. That is the character I created. I don't feel I need a "Samurai" class to do so, because I have the generic fighter. Character is what I put on the general framework, that's my responsibility.

But, If you don't see it that way, so be it. But I both hope and sincerely doubt the fighter goes away in 6e, although I think it's a little early to be talking about THAT yet.

Disagree all you want but it doesn't cha he the fact that the fighter has no identity.

It would be like making the warlock the warlock generic and vague. No mention of the patrons or where the warlock gains their powers. No mention of the pacts, just "you fain this ability at level 3". If the identity of the warlock was stripped out you would at least still have a balanced class. But would this class be better suited as a wizard? As a sorcerer? Maybe a subclass? Too many questions pop if you left the warlock without their identity.

The Fighter forces players to do something no other class does. Pick your own identity and gain generic abilities that aren't very good at showing that identity you chose. How does a Samurai explain that they have no Bushido (even if they are mundane) abilities (champion)? Or that they get tired after using them 4 times? Really? A Samurai with the recharge mechanism of the Battle Master? That doesn't sound like a samurai at all.

I could forgive the fighter if it was built as decently as the warlock, being that it could cover more than one role effectively and had interesting mechanics that weren't so damn gamist (and I'm a huge fan of 4e, think about that for a second)... But the way the fighter is set up now it might as well be gone. We could then at least balance the game better.

[themaque]

Disagree all you want but it doesn't cha he the fact that the fighter has no identity.

It would be like making the warlock the warlock generic and vague. No mention of the patrons or where the warlock gains their powers. No mention of the pacts, just "you fain this ability at level 3". If the identity of the warlock was stripped out you would at least still have a balanced class. But would this class be better suited as a wizard? As a sorcerer? Maybe a subclass? Too many questions pop if you left the warlock without their identity.

The Fighter forces players to do something no other class does. Pick your own identity and gain generic abilities that aren't very good at showing that identity you chose. How does a Samurai explain that they have no Bushido (even if they are mundane) abilities (champion)? Or that they get tired after using them 4 times? Really? A Samurai with the recharge mechanism of the Battle Master? That doesn't sound like a samurai at all.

I could forgive the fighter if it was built as decently as the warlock, being that it could cover more than one role effectively and had interesting mechanics that weren't so damn gamist (and I'm a huge fan of 4e, think about that for a second)... But the way the fighter is set up now it might as well be gone. We could then at least balance the game better.

Why does Bushido give you combat mechanics? It's a social contract. You don't need a whole class dedicated to it. If anything maybe an alternate path of the fighter class. The starting ones are general, but I highly suspect future archetypes to be more world specific with character.

You are correct that Fighter is fairly generic, but that's a feature not a bug. I don't need my class dictating my entire character. Specific character traits are best left to path choices, which the fighter does well.

Now saying it could use a boost in power I would generally agree. But not to the point of forcing a pre-rendered identity on it, outside of maybe the archetypes.

No other class do you pick your identity? That implies all your rangers will start to feel kind of samey.

[Myzz]

Why does Bushido give you combat mechanics? It's a social contract. You don't need a whole class dedicated to it.

True dat... BattleMaster or Champion could quite easily be Samurai



You are correct that Fighter is fairly generic, but that's a feature not a bug. I don't need my class dictating my entire character. Specific character traits are best left to path choices, which the fighter does well.

wouldn't being the ONLY extremely generic class itself be an identity?

If you don't want to be a fighter, don't be a fighter. If you want to be a Warrior that has some spells to augment his fighting arsenal, play Pally or War Cleric... Or heck BladeLock...

If your a DM that thinks Fighter is too generic for your setting... Don't allow anyone to be a fighter... Or Gestalt Everyone with Fighter...

A min/maxxed fighter will be designed ONLY for combat, because guess what! Thats how you built YOUR character. If you want to build a character that is more well rounded, you are free to do so... You won't even be that far off of the Max you could be doing in combat (unless you specifically designed a character that is terrible at combat) due to the Bounded Accuracy bringing all number closer inline.

AND if you NEED magic in order to FEEL effective... why are you bothering to look at the fighter!

and besides this thread was supposed to be about if a Warlock is OP... which they are never OP, they are simply very good all the time at doing ONE thing, but get a few cool things to make them interesting enough for many people to play. (which can be said about the Fighter class too)

[charcoalninja]

My favourite use for Warlock is a 1 level dip into Tempest cleric for Heavy Armour Proficiency and Shields to turn the Fiend Warlock into one of the best frontline tanks in the game. Scads of HP, go tome pact for cantrips that rock socks, keeping Shilelagh on hand for if you fight a Rakshasa and go to town being a nigh invincible redmage.

[RulesJD]

Can you point me to where it says 'each bolt regardless of target'?

The class feature says 'you add your intelligence to the damage roll of each spell you cast' not 'you add your intelligence to the damage roll of each bolt'.

Question: "@JeremyECrawford +x per bolt,even on same target?" The per bolt language references the fact that Magic Missile creates 3 bolts by default. The "+x" is referring to the additional damage caused by a class feature, in this case it is the Empowered Evocation specifically referenced in the prior tweet. On a 20 Int Wizard, that thus becomes +5 per bolt. Stated in the long form, the question posed is as follows: "Does the Evocation Wizard's Empowered Evocation ability add +5 to each bolt from Magic Missile, regardless of whether each bolt is striking the same target?" That is literally the only way to read that question.

Answer: "@BrailSays Yep. It's one damage roll, just like fireball, but that roll can damage the same target more than once." The "It" in the sentence refers to the damage roll of each bolt, NOT the Magic Missile spell in its entirety. Stated in the long form, the answer is as follows: "Yep. The Wizard's Empowered Evocation ability adds +5 to the damage roll of each individual damage roll of a spell. The three individual damage rolls, in the case of Magic Missile, can damage the same target more than once."

There are a few words that you need to pay particular attention to. First, that the damage roll can impact one target "more than once." Under your interpretation, that would make zero sense because the EE ability would never be affecting the same target "more than once." Here is a break down of how EE works based on the idea that it gets applied to each damage roll in a spell:

1. Magic Missile casts 3 bolts, that are capable of doing 1d4+1. Each bolt is an independent damage roll. Thus, EE applies to each and the damage of the spell is 1d4+6 per bolt. You may assign each bolt as you wish.
2. Fireball cast 1 fireball that is capable of doing 8d6. The "damage roll" for fireball is thus to be considered 1 rolling of 8 dice at a time, every single time regardless of how many or how few targets are hit by the spell. Thus, EE applies to cause the damage to each target struck by the fireball to be 8d6+5.
3. Scorching Ray casts 3 rays, that are capable of doing 2d6 damage per ray. Each ray is an independent damage roll. Thus, EE applies to each ray and the damage roll per ray becomes 2d6+5 per ray. You may assign each ray as you wish.

Your confusion stems from the fact that you believe that the damage roll for Magic Missile is tied to whether the bolts strike independent targets or a single target. Yes, if you target MM at one creature you will end up doing 3d4+3 damage. However, that is NOT the damage roll for MM. It is 1d4+1, applied three times to a single target. This is not a case of semantics. Any evocation spell that allows you to target difference creatures with an individual damage roll gets EE applied to each individual damage roll. IF the evocation wizards happens to target the same creature with each individual damage roll, then so be it. It does not change the fact that the damage rolls are done independently of one another, even if practically the player is obviously rolling all the dice at once.

[hawklost]

Answer: "@BrailSays Yep. It's one damage roll, just like fireball, but that roll can damage the same target more than once." The "It" in the sentence refers to the damage roll of each bolt, NOT the Magic Missile spell in its entirety. Stated in the long form, the answer is as follows: "Yep. The Wizard's Empowered Evocation ability adds +5 to the damage roll of each individual damage roll of a spell. The three individual damage rolls, in the case of Magic Missile, can damage the same target more than once."



Sorry, but I have to disagree with your statement of what 'it' stands for. There is no possible way 'it' can be a single bolt and effect the same target more than once. That is a complete contradiction as the single bolt only effects a single target, regardless of where the other bolts go.

Now, if you want to argue that you can roll a single 1d4 and each bolt does that roll +1 (to +6 with EE) then that interpretation works. But not if each bolt is a singular 'it' from his response.

So out of the 3 possible interpretations we get this.

1) Each bolt gets the +EE but is seperate rolls - Doesn't fit the response that was given in the Answer as a bolt can only hit one thing period.
2) Each Bolt gets the seperate roll but only EE per Creature - Doesn't seem to fit the way the Answer is
3) roll a single 1d4 (called x) for all bolts and each bolt does x+1 (+EE) - This fits the Answer and the RAW but noone wants to use it this way for some reason

[Chronos]

Quoth NotALurker:

being better at things anyone can do is not enough.
Sure it is, if you really are enough better at them. The goals of the fighter are just fine. It's only a problem when he fails to achieve them.

[NotALurker]

Since 3/4 or more of the archetypes can cast spells, being better at some spells is therefore not enough, and Wizards and Warlocks and so on are all useless identity-free drones.

There are of course a few spells that are unique to each class - unless a Bard picks them up. I guess the Bard is the only true class.

And again, Extra Attacks. Breaking the Action Economy. The 3rd and 4th attacks are unique to fighters and they damn well matter.

not useless but yes they do need be given more things that only they can do.

again fighters simply do things any creature in the game can do..a little better.

you know a easier way to break the action economy? bring 3 or 4 low level fighters. you have now replaced your level 10 fighter. you can't do that with casters, at level 10 a wizard can do things that no number of level 1-8 wizards can.

[Shining Wrath]

not useless but yes they do need be given more things that only they can do.

again fighters simply do things any creature in the game can do..a little better.

you know a easier way to break the action economy? break 3 or 4 level level fighters. you have now replaced your level 10 fighter. you can do that with casters, at level 10 a wizard can do things that no number of level 1-8 wizards can.

A level 10 wizard cannot do something notably different than what a level 10 sorcerer / warlock / cleric / druid can do. And I'll bet if I have, e.g., 2,000 level 1 wizards I will kill your level 10 wizard in one round, so "any number" is some sort of exaggeration. Do any of them have level 5 spells? No, but they can probably achieve the same effect as any level 5 spell through some combination of 2,000 first level spells and cantrips.

Putting fighters down for being the best at the single most fundamental action in the game makes no sense. Yes, almost every creature in the MM has melee attacks. That doesn't mean melee attacks are unimportant, it means they are critical to the game. If you want to say fighters bore you, that is your choice, may you prosper. To say that no one should ever want to play a character whose contributions chiefly involve poking the enemy with the sharp end of a stick is decreeing BADWRONGFUN for other people's choices.

[NotALurker]

A level 10 wizard cannot do something notably different than what a level 10 sorcerer / warlock / cleric / druid can do. And I'll bet if I have, e.g., 2,000 level 1 wizards I will kill your level 10 wizard in one round, so "any number" is some sort of exaggeration. Do any of them have level 5 spells? No, but they can probably achieve the same effect as any level 5 spell through some combination of 2,000 first level spells and cantrips.

Putting fighters down for being the best at the single most fundamental action in the game makes no sense. Yes, almost every creature in the MM has melee attacks. That doesn't mean melee attacks are unimportant, it means they are critical to the game. If you want to say fighters bore you, that is your choice, may you prosper. To say that no one should ever want to play a character whose contributions chiefly involve poking the enemy with the sharp end of a stick is decreeing BADWRONGFUN for other people's choices.

yes I agree that classes like the sorcerer and the warlock need to have their own spells, rather then mooching off the wizards.

I did not say kill someone I said that if a level 10 wizard casts the best spell he knows, then you have 10 level 1's try and cast it they will fail and no amount of increase in numbers will help.

if a level 10 fighter does the best thing he can do then, then you ask a few level 1's to do they can do it. a fighter of any level can be expressed as how many level 1's he is worth. you can not do this for a wizard.

every class needs to be able to do things that no one who is not their class and their level (well within a few levels anyway) can do.

[SharkForce]

perhaps a better way to phrase it: a fighter advances fairly linearly. what they can do, they generally get better at, but they don't generally add to the list of things they can do for the most part. in contrast, a wizard also gets better at doing what they do, but also gets to add new things. more spell slots, new spells known, new spell levels available, new class abilities that modify their spells, and so forth. and not only do they get those new things they can do, but those new things they can do *also* improve, starting from the point where the basic things they can do are at.

a wizard that advanced like a fighter would occasionally learn a new level one spell (perhaps every few levels), and might continue to gain more spell slots, but would largely be reduced to using cantrips and level 1 spells (cast using a variety of spell slots of different levels) throughout their entire career.

I'm not necessarily sold on the fighter having a problem in terms of lacking an identity (that's what sub-classes are for), but I do feel like the fighter needs to advance in terms of being able to do new things as well as getting better in the things they started with.

[NotALurker]

perhaps a better way to phrase it: a fighter advances fairly linearly. what they can do, they generally get better at, but they don't generally add to the list of things they can do for the most part. in contrast, a wizard also gets better at doing what they do, but also gets to add new things. more spell slots, new spells known, new spell levels available, new class abilities that modify their spells, and so forth. and not only do they get those new things they can do, but those new things they can do *also* improve, starting from the point where the basic things they can do are at.

a wizard that advanced like a fighter would occasionally learn a new level one spell (perhaps every few levels), and might continue to gain more spell slots, but would largely be reduced to using cantrips and level 1 spells (cast using a variety of spell slots of different levels) throughout their entire career.

I'm not necessarily sold on the fighter having a problem in terms of lacking an identity (that's what sub-classes are for), but I do feel like the fighter needs to advance in terms of being able to do new things as well as getting better in the things they started with.

that is the core of the quadratic wizard, linear fighter issue yes.

that and the system presents them as equals by giving each the same opportunity cost and not saying otherwise.

[themaque]

BACK TO THE WARLOCK

Should Eldritch Blast be a class feature instead of a Cantrip?

[Easy_Lee]

BACK TO THE WARLOCK

Should Eldritch Blast be a class feature instead of a Cantrip?

If you want to discourage those who multiclass to get it, that's what it would take. Honestly, it wouldn't be an unreasonable house rule. No other two-level dip is as good as two short-rest spell slots, a full-progression ranged option that's force damage, an additional invocation, and the additional cantrips.

Those familiar with my posts know I seldom feel any option is truly broken. That said, warlock dips for EB just might be. I know of few builds stronger than the Fighter EK 8 / Warlock 12 (EB + bonus action longbow attack every turn, action surge for another EB), or the Sorcerer / Warlock 2 build (EB and bonus action quickened EB for 84 DPR, sustainable until you run out of spell slots).

I wouldn't be surprised if EB gets errata'd as a class feature with its own progression.

[NotALurker]

If you want to discourage those who multiclass to get it, that's what it would take. Honestly, it wouldn't be an unreasonable house rule. No other two-level dip is as good as two short-rest spell slots, a full-progression ranged option that's force damage, an additional invocation, and the additional cantrips.

Those familiar with my posts know I seldom feel any option is truly broken. That said, warlock dips for EB just might be. I know of few builds stronger than the Fighter EK 8 / Warlock 12 (EB + bonus action longbow attack every turn, action surge for another EB), or the Sorcerer / Warlock 2 build (EB and bonus action quickened EB for 84 DPR, sustainable until you run out of spell slots).

I wouldn't be surprised if EB gets errata'd as a class feature with its own progression.

also if really needs to have a scaling spell level if things in the game depend on it. otherwise warlocks could end up shooting blanks when they fight things that are immune to cantrips

[SharkForce]

alternately, agonizing blast could be changed to adding damage once per round, and scale up at certain warlock levels (the total damage would need to be decreased, as it is gaining in reliability by a significant margin). because truthfully, the problem is not eldritch blast... it's good, don't get me wrong, but the thing that makes it amazing is the invocations that boost it up. 1d10 with good range and force damage is a bit better than most other cantrips, but not so good that you'd want to delay your caster class by 2 levels, even when you make it fire 4 separate beams.

[Strill]

BACK TO THE WARLOCK

Should Eldritch Blast be a class feature instead of a Cantrip?

No. Just make Agonizing Blast scale with Warlock level.

[Malifice]

Putting fighters down for being the best at the single most fundamental action in the game makes no sense. Yes, almost every creature in the MM has melee attacks. That doesn't mean melee attacks are unimportant, it means they are critical to the game. If you want to say fighters bore you, that is your choice, may you prosper. To say that no one should ever want to play a character whose contributions chiefly involve poking the enemy with the sharp end of a stick is decreeing BADWRONGFUN for other people's choices.

This. Top post.


No. Just make Agonizing Blast scale with Warlock level.

Yeah. I let it add Warlock level to the damage instead of Cha.

I also make EB be a single target spell so it balances perfectly.

[BootStrapTommy]

We are just going to have to agree to disagree.

If I want to play a samurai, I play a fighter and have him follow the code of Bushido. That is the character I created. I don't feel I need a "Samurai" class to do so, because I have the generic fighter. Character is what I put on the general framework, that's my responsibility. The PHB actually suggests Paladin. Since each vow's roleplaying requirements are DM fiat now, it says to just make yourself vowed to daimyo. And your spellcasting some eastern Zen thing. I think the DMG repeats this suggestion where it talks about adding eastern flavor to a campaign.

Anyway, Warlocks! I'd make the argument against their power, given that while they have a nice cantrip for damage, their general spellcasting is so limited that their class features don't really make up for it. And invocations kind of suck.

[NotALurker]

This. Top post.



what about people WANT to play a heavy armor dude who is tatical, has lots of options and is just as powerful as a wizard? where is the option for that?

or are we back to the choice between a complex and powerful caster vs a simple, weak non-caster. with no options for anything else.

[NoseFeratu]

Warlocks get a few other tricks in addition to their Eldritch Blast, too... Can a Fighter fly or create mirror duplicates of himself? I think not. And that's not even mentioning that with the Pact of the Tome, they can learn any cantrip or ritual. This makes the Warlock superior to the Fighter for sure, and almost like a Lore Bard, in a sense.

[Malifice]

what about people WANT to play a heavy armor dude who is tatical, has lots of options and is just as powerful as a wizard? where is the option for that?

I posted a Fighter 4 above that has just as many options that the Wizard of the same level. Played over the recommended 8 encounters per day with 2-3 short rests during, the Fighter has 16 superiority dice (2 special options per battle) 3-4 actions surges and 3-4 second winds. Plus shoving, grappling, wrestling, bull rushing, subduing etc etc. The same level wizard has 8 spells (4 x 2nd level) or around 1 spell per encounter.

I get the feeling you either dont actually play the game, or have a really different gaming group to what I tend to see. Nothing wrong with that if thats your thing, but can you stop posting your opinion as if it is objective fact. Its not. I can assure you that Fighters in my campaigns are every bit as tactical, and powerfull as the Wizards are.

{scrubbed}

[NotALurker]

I posted a Fighter 4 above that has just as many options that the Wizard of the same level. Played over the recommended 8 encounters per day with 2-3 short rests during, the Fighter has 16 superiority dice (2 special options per battle) 3-4 actions surges and 3-4 second winds. Plus shoving, grappling, wrestling, bull rushing, subduing etc etc. The same level wizard has 8 spells (4 x 2nd level) or around 1 spell per encounter.

I get the feeling you either dont actually play the game, or have a really different gaming group to what I tend to see. Nothing wrong with that if thats your thing, but can you stop posting your opinion as if it is objective fact. Its not. I can assure you that Fighters in my campaigns are every bit as tactical, and powerfull as the Wizards are.



{scrubbed}

are the fighter moves just as powerful as the wizard ones? if that is not the case what stops a wizard from using his few very powerful effects when they are needed most, making me little more then clean up for situations that are not worth using spells?

{scrubbed}

[JNAProductions]

Not quite, but they get a few more, they're more reliable, and they're much better off if they misspend their moves.

And, having played just a bit of 4E, I'm wondering where anyone has lied about it, or where you were promised 5E would be exactly what you specifically wanted.

[SharkForce]

I posted a Fighter 4 above that has just as many options that the Wizard of the same level. Played over the recommended 8 encounters per day with 2-3 short rests during, the Fighter has 16 superiority dice (2 special options per battle) 3-4 actions surges and 3-4 second winds. Plus shoving, grappling, wrestling, bull rushing, subduing etc etc. The same level wizard has 8 spells (4 x 2nd level) or around 1 spell per encounter.

I get the feeling you either dont actually play the game, or have a really different gaming group to what I tend to see. Nothing wrong with that if thats your thing, but can you stop posting your opinion as if it is objective fact. Its not. I can assure you that Fighters in my campaigns are every bit as tactical, and powerfull as the Wizards are.

that's nice. 4 levels later, how many options does he have? because i may not be a professional game designer, but it looks suspiciously like it might be "almost the exact same options, none of which were unavailable at level 4 if that's what the fighter wanted". then add another 4 levels, and it looks like, once again, the same set of options. slightly more often. slightly better bonus. slightly more attacks to spend on those options. gradually accumulating the BM maneuvers that they didn't consider good enough to choose before. but pretty much the same options, without seeing any major improvements in resources available or in the power of their options.

now compare them to... well, most any other class, really, but especially full casters. typically, more resources are gained, the value of each unit of resource is increased by various other class features, and the things they can do with those resources become more and more varied.

something just doesn't seem to add up quite the way it should.

and that is why you don't use the fighter as a basis for comparison to any other class. yes, the warlock does enjoy DPR fairly close to a fighter's DPR, and gets more powerful options in addition to that DPR. and so do several other classes.

[Malifice]

are the fighter moves just as powerful as the wizard ones?

Pretty much. The Fighter gets to second wind which is the same as casting a quickened cure light wounds (self only) healing 1d10+4 from 3-4 times per day. On par with what a 1st level spell provides.

He gets 12-16 manouvers each day, granting an extra d8 damage per manouver in addition to other status effects (frightened, prone, disarmed etc). Thats a pool of 12-16d8 damage plus the status effects. Thats both a source of extra damage, and the equal to spells like burning disarm or scare.

Action surge is roughly the equal of Haste for a round. He gets to do that 3-4 times.

He lacks AoE spells (like Web and Sleep) but at least one of those is save dependent, and the other has no effect on undead and the like and is HP dependent. Of the Wizards 8 spells he gets for the adventuring day, at least a few will be cast and resisted via a saving throw. One will likely be spent on Mage armor, and one or two on a shield spell to keep the wizard alive in tricky situations.

I reckon the two are roughly equal in power and have roughly the same options. They do play different to one another though. The wizard (being tied to long rest for 'recharge') has to conserve energy. He will spend much of his time popping sub par damaging cantrips and the like while the Fighter does most of the heavy lifting. Every now and then he gets to pop a big spell (subject to conditions being good for it - a well placed AoE spell can be devestating (assuming saves are failed). OTOH every now and then the Fighter can go nova with an Action surge.

If you played in a balanced party, where your DM enforces the recommended rest and encounter pacing you would see the Wizard chugging along at 75 percent the effectiveness of the Fighter with the ability to (a few times per day) blow a high level slot and spike effectiveness to 200 percent that of the Fighter. Somtimes the Wizard doesnt get the chance to long rest (they are much harder to get than short rests) and spends a fair portion of the adventuring day out of spell slots hiding behind the Fighter. But every now and then he gets the chance to shine.

I get that your observations have shown you something different. But that doesnt mean that what you say about fighter and wizard disparity is objectively true.

It certainly isnt true in the games I play (and DM). Whether my emprical experience falsifies your theory or not is up to you to decide.


if that is not the case what stops a wizard from using his few very powerful effects when they are needed most, making me little more then clean up for situations that are not worth using spells?

This will happen from time to time. There will certainly be encounters where the Wizard will get to shine - for example an encounter with a bunch of low HP mooks all bunched together on the other side of a chasm shooting at the party with ranged weapons. One fireball later and the encounter has ended (spectacularly). Kudos to the wizard (and remember this assumes 1 - the wizard prepared the right spell for the job 2 - the wizard had unexpended spell slots of the right level and 2 - the encounter evironment supported the spell in question). When those three conditions are met, yeah sure the wizard gets his chance to shine. If one of those conditions is not met (out of spells, wrong spell prepared or environment does not support the spell you do have) then you are effectively a d6HD low AC commoner wearing a dress and a pointy hat relying on fall back cantrips to do 60 percent the damage of your Fighter buddies (whom you are hiding behind).

The differing playstyles between the Fighter (reliable powers and high levels of damage dealing and soaking) and Wizard (lower HP, AC and DPR, but capable of flashy things from time to time that a Fighter cant do) isnt a glitch. This is an intentional feature of the game and has been in every edition (barring 4th).


I might if I was not promised that 5e would be exactly what I wanted. also, when people stop lying about 4e

No one is lying about 4th edition. A lot of people (myself included) and other posters in here and elsewhere thought it felt too 'samey' and 'gamey'. I'm sure you have seen this criciticm often enough to know that I am not alone in feeling this way. I personally disliked it immensely for those reasons (and also for its assumption of how people plat DnD). Thats just my opinion though. Youre more than welcome to play it if you like the game - I'm certainly not telling you which is the 'objectively' better system because no such thing exists. Its ultimately a matter of personal subjective preference.


that's nice. 4 levels later, how many options does he have?

Being 8th level now he has 2 more feats, an extra attack per round and more maneuvers known.

Lets give him (Sentinel for human, Shield master, Charger and Tavern brawler)

Meaning he can now disarm and attack someone in a round. Or shove and attack. Or disarm AND shove. Or action surge, disarm with a manouver, shove the opponent away from the weapon, move up to the opponent, knock him to the ground and attack him. Can use his bonus action to either shove with his shield or bash with it as an improvised weapon. Or use that bonus action to heal via second wind. He can charge into combat via charger feat too.

Simply combining (manouvers known, base combat actions, attack action) with 2 attacks per round plus action surge gives hundreds (if not thousands) of different combinations in any given round.

For reactions he can parry, riposte, make an AoO against an enemy who attacks someone other than him or moves away, defend an ally against an attack via the protection combat style or interpose his shield against an attack needing a Dex save.

That's just his options round to round.

How many options do you want exactly?


then add another 4 levels, and it looks like, once again, the same set of options.

He is now 12th level with 3 attacks per round. The permutations of (manouver + combat action + attack) just went into overdrive.


don't use the fighter as a basis for comparison to any other class. yes, the warlock does enjoy DPR fairly close to a fighter's DPR, and gets more powerful options in addition to that DPR. and so do several other classes.

The Fighter easily clearly and overwhelmingly beats the Warlocks DPR. At every level.

[Strill]

I also make EB be a single target spell so it balances perfectly.No it doesn't. You massively nerf Hex with that. Just make the CHA bonus apply to an additional ray at level 5, 11, and 17.


what about people WANT to play a heavy armor dude who is tatical, has lots of options and is just as powerful as a wizard? where is the option for that?

Cleric.

[Malifice]

No it doesn't. You massively nerf Hex with that. Just make the CHA bonus apply to an additional ray at level 5, 11, and 17.

How is instead of firing 4 rays doing 1d10 each you fire one ray doing 4d10 that much of a 'massive nerf'?

[miburo]

How is instead of firing 4 rays doing 1d10 each you fire one ray doing 4d10 that much of a 'massive nerf'?

Because Hex is 1d6 damage per hit. So now you do 4d10 + 1d6 vs. 4d10 + 4d6. That's a pretty big nerf.

[Malifice]

Because Hex is 1d6 damage per hit. So now you do 4d10 + 1d6 vs. 4d10 + 4d6. That's a pretty big nerf.

Yeah. Sorry, I also created a new invocation:

Accursed Blast
Prerequisite: Warlock level 5th knowledge of the Hex spell and Eldritch Blast cantrip
When you hit a creature with an eldritch blast, and that creature is also under the effects of a hex spell cast by you, you inflict an extra 1d6 necrotic damage. This damage increases by an extra 1d6 at 11th and 17th level.

Now Blastlocks have to put an investment into it (with Agnonizing blast running of Warlock level for damage, and needing to expend 2 invocations to be truly effective at Eldritch blasting), and the 2 level warlock dip is much more balanced. Also balances Blastlocks with Bladelocks much better too.

Also; with single target EB's, its only a single target attack and damage roll per round. Much quicker to resolve.

[Mandragola]

Eldritch blast is fine. It gives warlocks comparable damage to archers - especially rangers. EB looks marginally better than archery on paper but that ignores magic items, which can make a huge difference in favour of archery.

Something I'm starting to see is that higher-level warlocks are less likely to have hex running all the time. They start using their spell slots to cast "real" spells instead, because as good as EB is it often isn't a better use of an action than casting fireball. The ranger doesn't have this issue with hunter's mark because he's still got all his level 1 slots to cast it with. Of course, the ranger also never gets to cast fireball!

Anyway the point is, at low level all other casters are envious of EB+hex, because they've only got a few proper spell slots. But even by around 5th level a wizard has 9 spell slots and the warlock only has 2. The full caster's level 1 and 2 slots are still worth a fair bit and for many turns the wizard will therefore be able to cast something better than EB. From that point onward the warlock doesn't feel much like a caster and is - in purely mechanical terms - more like a martial character. They mostly pick one target and defeat it through damage, rather than letting off a major spell that ends the encounter in one go.

[SharkForce]

@malifice:

doing the exact same thing, only slightly more often, is exactly what i said he could do. it simply does not scale. he's doing a bunch of level 1 stuff, only slightly better than he used to, and a bit more often. that is not competitive. i don't care how many ways he can combine his actions, he's still only got the same few actions for the most part, and they don't get substantially better as he levels up. the few times he actually does get new actions (gets to pick a new maneuver, or a new feat), it's functionally a level 1 ability - that is, something which would be balanced for level 1.

in contrast, a full caster is gaining abilities which are considered to be balanced for the level they're currently at.

to compare properly, a battlemaster would need to be gaining more uses of maneuvers, and their maneuvers would need to be getting more impressive, rather than getting to choose from the ones they already rejected. and i don't mean getting a slightly higher die roll to add to damage or whatever.

even more telling is the fact that saving throws in non-proficient saves get harder as you gain levels (the DC goes up, but saving throw bonus generally does not except in proficient saves), and fighters enjoy relatively few ways to take advantage of that. so even the wizard's level 1 spell slots are doing more work.

also, regarding warlock DPR: it really is pretty close to the same. eldritch blast warlocks clock in somewhere around 35 (i think slightly lower) without hex at level 20, melee champion fighters in melee clock in at around 50 (again, just slightly below iirc), against AC 19 (average for that CR) assuming they have polearm mastery and great weapon mastery. add in hex damage, and you're looking at ~45 DPR for a warlock... which is pretty danged close, all things considered, for a blast warlock that wants DPR.

so yes, really, the warlock does enjoy similar DPR. they won't get the same single-target nova (unless they dip 2 fighter levels), but sustained DPR is pretty close, even if comparing against the highest DPR archetype of fighter (if we compare to battlemaster, nova value goes up but sustained DPR goes down).

[bloodshed343]

This. Top post.



Yeah. I let it add Warlock level to the damage instead of Cha.

I also make EB be a single target spell so it balances perfectly.

Level 20 warlock doing 4d10+80 at-will is much better.

[Shining Wrath]

I like the idea of moving Eldritch Blast from cantrip to class feature.

Any DM who doesn't throw at least some "dungeons" at the party where spells are not optimal solutions to several encounters isn't trying very hard.

[dev6500]

Level 20 warlock doing 4d10+80 at-will is much better.

I think he meant that he turned Eldritch blast into a single target, or in other words single attack roll, cantrip. Like Firebolt. Then he changed the invocation so that it adds Warlock level to damage. Therefore at lvl 5 2d10 +5, at lvl 20, 4d10 + 20.

I think its a fix meant to remove the ability to dip 2 levels into warlock to get full EB progression.

[Malifice]

Anyway the point is, at low level all other casters are envious of EB+hex, because they've only got a few proper spell slots. But even by around 5th level a wizard has 9 spell slots and the warlock only has 2. The full caster's level 1 and 2 slots are still worth a fair bit and for many turns the wizard will therefore be able to cast something better than EB. From that point onward the warlock doesn't feel much like a caster and is - in purely mechanical terms - more like a martial character. They mostly pick one target and defeat it through damage, rather than letting off a major spell that ends the encounter in one go.

2 per short rest. In a standard adventuring day of 2-3 short rests per day, thats 6-8 slots per day, so directly comparable to the Wizard.


Level 20 warlock doing 4d10+80 at-will is much better.

Where are you getting the +80 from?


regarding warlock DPR: it really is pretty close to the same. eldritch blast warlocks clock in somewhere around 35 (i think slightly lower) without hex at level 20, melee champion fighters in melee clock in at around 50 (again, just slightly below iirc), against AC 19 (average for that CR) assuming they have polearm mastery and great weapon mastery. add in hex damage, and you're looking at ~45 DPR for a warlock... which is pretty danged close, all things considered, for a blast warlock that wants DPR.

so yes, really, the warlock does enjoy similar DPR. they won't get the same single-target nova (unless they dip 2 fighter levels), but sustained DPR is pretty close, even if comparing against the highest DPR archetype of fighter (if we compare to battlemaster, nova value goes up but sustained DPR goes down).

A 20th level GWF/GWM Fighter inflicts around 23 points of damage per hit, and if he drops a foe or crits gains an extra attack for (5 x 23) 115 points of damage (without action surge or superiority dice). At 20th level a BM Fighter can easily sustain around 100 DPR, with Nova damage spikes (superiority dice and Action surge) pushing that number to 200 DPR plus.

Remember - he gets 2 action surges and 6 superiority dice (d12's) per short rest at this point, and with standard encounter pacing, gets around 2 encounters per short rest. In other words he can reliably action surge and blow 3d12 per encounter.

Even with agonising blast and Hex cast, the warlock averages only 56 DPR. Which is on par with a rogues SA damage.

Its good consistent ranged DPR mind you (and the Warlock has spells, pact features and invocations up his sleeve as well) but its not in the same league as the Fighter.

Remember also (and while it's not 'core' 99 percent of campaigns feature magic items) that magical weapons are much more common than anything a warlock can use to boost his attack rolls with EB, and Girdles of giant strength are the only stat increasing items to raise a stat above 20 (barring tomes). For ranged attacks, magical bows stack with magical arrows, again favoring the Fighter. All the above items heavily skew the numbers even further in the Fighters favor.

In a nutshell, while not part of core, in any campaign that features magic items, the numbers even more heavily favor the Fighter.


I think he meant that he turned Eldritch blast into a single target, or in other words single attack roll, cantrip. Like Firebolt. Then he changed the invocation so that it adds Warlock level to damage. Therefore at lvl 5 2d10 +5, at lvl 20, 4d10 + 20.

I think its a fix meant to remove the ability to dip 2 levels into warlock to get full EB progression.

Yeah, this.

Eldritch blast I homebrewed to be a single target attack roll that scales with an extra d10 at the levels you would normally get another bolt (so damage remains the same).

Agonizing blast I changed to let the warlock add his warlock level to the damage of his EB's instead of Cha (so scales with level).

Then i added a new invocation called 'Accursed blast' that increases hex damage on your EB's from 1-3d6 at the levels you gain an extra d10 EB damage, making the damage of a warlocks EB's scale appropriately - while also balancing blast locks with blade locks.

A 2 level dip in Warlock in my games gives 2 slots per Short rest, cantrips and spells known - and access to EB (itself a good thing). However you will only ever get the one single attack of between 1 to 4 d10 (depending on level) and picking up Agonizing blast at that level as an invocation will only allow you to add +2 to the damage overall (so not really worth it for the dip).

A Warlock 20 in my campaigns still does 4d10+20+4d6 damage per round (main difference being its now single target) however he has to invest a second invocation slot to do it (making it more of a choice).

[Chronos]

Remember also (and while it's not 'core' 99 percent of campaigns feature magic items) that magical weapons are much more common than anything a warlock can use to boost his attack rolls with EB...
Rod of the Pact Keeper is the exact same rarity as a magic weapon of the same bonus. They don't add to damage, but they do give a bonus to the attack roll (as well as to save DC and an extra spell slot per day).

[MeeposFire]

Rod of the Pact Keeper is the exact same rarity as a magic weapon of the same bonus. They don't add to damage, but they do give a bonus to the attack roll (as well as to save DC and an extra spell slot per day).

I forget does that require attunement? If so that is a big difference between basic magic weapons because that means you should compare that rod to the weapons that give bonus effects like bonus fire damage.

[Malifice]

Rod of the Pact Keeper is the exact same rarity as a magic weapon of the same bonus. They don't add to damage, but they do give a bonus to the attack roll (as well as to save DC and an extra spell slot per day).

I would hazard a guess that Magic weapons (which do add to damage unlike the rod) are a lot more common that Rods of the Pact keeper. If you're using the random item allocation tables, they're much more common.

There are also dozens of unique magic weapons (vorpal swords, frostblades, flame tounges etc) on top of the +1-3 weapons.

And of all the stat items, Strength is the one most easily pushed above 20 thanks to girdles.

Also (for ranged attacks) bows + stack with arrows +. Add in another +2 for Archery style and sharpshooter, and your Archer Fighter will blow the Warlock out of the water with DPR.

Tack on armor and shields, potions for combat buffs (haste, giant strength etc) and Fighters get much more mileage out of items than Warlocks in the DPR stakes.

[dev6500]

I would hazard a guess that Magic weapons (which do add to damage unlike the rod) are a lot more common that Rods of the Pact keeper. If you're using the random item allocation tables, they're much more common.

There are also dozens of unique magic weapons (vorpal swords, frostblades, flame tounges etc) on top of the +1-3 weapons.

And of all the stat items, Strength is the one most easily pushed above 20 thanks to girdles.

Also (for ranged attacks) bows + stack with arrows +. Add in another +2 for Archery style and sharpshooter, and your Archer Fighter will blow the Warlock out of the water with DPR.

Tack on armor and shields, potions for combat buffs (haste, giant strength etc) and Fighters get much more mileage out of items than Warlocks in the DPR stakes.

I think magic items do not help clarify this argument. Currently magic arrows do not pop up in bunches of 20 and the accessibility of magical consumables may vary greatly from game to game. in regards to sum total of attack boosting items for non casters versus warlocks, warlocks can get up to +8 to attack from magic items between roof of the pact keeper, wand of the war mage and robe of the archmagi. There are other spell attack boosting items but they are not as good the above mentioned. Also end game warlocks get foresight, so between all these different effects warlocks should have superior hit chance.

When we compare dpr, it should be done against target ac ranges. To assume hits for all attacks and just take average damage makes sharpshooter and great weapon master look better than they are.

Still for pure warlock, it would likely be a tough comparison since there are so few ways to boost spell damage. Basically just hex. Warlock 3/sorcerer 17 has some pretty high dpr for nova. 2 EBs a turn is pretty high dpr with a possible +19 to hit and advantage from foresight. If you are some variety of elf you can even store up sorcery points while everyone is sleeping for 4 hours. Turn points into spell slots, sacrifice Warlock slots short rest repeat. Can get you an extra 10 sorcery points while everyone sleeps.

[xyianth]

A 20th level GWF/GWM Fighter inflicts around 23 points of damage per hit, and if he drops a foe or crits gains an extra attack for (5 x 23) 115 points of damage (without action surge or superiority dice). At 20th level a BM Fighter can easily sustain around 100 DPR, with Nova damage spikes (superiority dice and Action surge) pushing that number to 200 DPR plus.

This math is hilariously wrong. The only way you are averaging 23 damage per hit is if you have 20 str, great weapon fighting, great weapon master, a great sword, and every swing takes the -5 attack penalty. Just FYI, with that attack penalty you are making attacks at +6 vs AC 19. Your 23 damage per hit is nice, but you only hit 40% of the time. This results in a DPR much closer to 50 than 115. It also makes the fighter dependent on exactly one weapon type, which compares much more favorably to the odds that the warlock gets whatever useful items it depends on.


Remember also (and while it's not 'core' 99 percent of campaigns feature magic items) that magical weapons are much more common than anything a warlock can use to boost his attack rolls with EB, and Girdles of giant strength are the only stat increasing items to raise a stat above 20 (barring tomes). For ranged attacks, magical bows stack with magical arrows, again favoring the Fighter. All the above items heavily skew the numbers even further in the Fighters favor.

If you are decking out a fighter in legendary rarity magic items specifically geared towards his build and comparing it to a naked warlock, that fighter damn well better blow the warlock out of the water. If it didn't, the warlock would be phenomenally OP. Let's at least try and make fair comparisons. I'm not arguing that warlocks out DPR fighters, I believe they are comparable in the at-will DPR they can dish out when compared fairly. Fighters are better able to nova, warlocks have more versatility. They play together very well.


I would hazard a guess that Magic weapons (which do add to damage unlike the rod) are a lot more common that Rods of the Pact keeper. If you're using the random item allocation tables, they're much more common.

There are also dozens of unique magic weapons (vorpal swords, frostblades, flame tounges etc) on top of the +1-3 weapons.

And of all the stat items, Strength is the one most easily pushed above 20 thanks to girdles.

Also (for ranged attacks) bows + stack with arrows +. Add in another +2 for Archery style and sharpshooter, and your Archer Fighter will blow the Warlock out of the water with DPR.

Tack on armor and shields, potions for combat buffs (haste, giant strength etc) and Fighters get much more mileage out of items than Warlocks in the DPR stakes.

You know what else is really common in the totally random loot department: wands. Wands that the fighter doesn't even know which end is the dangerous one. If a warlock hordes wands, he becomes a lot less reliant on eldritch blast for his combat actions. Once again, while the fighter wins in the pure DPR contest, warlocks have versatility that the fighter can't imagine. DPR isn't everything, and it is literally the fighter's specialty. Fighters aren't weak, but neither are warlocks. (It's actually rather difficult to create a 'weak' character in 5e, unless you intentionally tank your stats)

[SharkForce]

yeah, if you assume you always hit, you're not going to get an accurate picture of real DPR. actual calculated DPR is much closer to 50. better than warlock, but not by a huge amount (warlock DPR is, naturally, also reduced by accuracy, but since the warlock isn't taking a -5 penalty to hit, it isn't at the same ratio).

[Malifice]

This math is hilariously wrong. The only way you are averaging 23 damage per hit is if you have 20 str, great weapon fighting, great weapon master, a great sword, and every swing takes the -5 attack penalty.

Yeah. Like I said in my post. A Fighter 20 with GWM/GWF. Stats of 20 are assumed at 20th level for both the Fighter and the Warlock (ignoring the fact the Fighter gets more ASI/Feats than the 'lock).


Just FYI, with that attack penalty you are making attacks at +6 vs AC 19. Your 23 damage per hit is nice, but you only hit 40% of the time. This results in a DPR much closer to 50 than 115.

Caveat being that the Fighter doesn't have to worry about penalties for cover (unlike the 'lock) and will often be making his attacks at advantage (via frightening them and knocking them prone with maneuvers and combat actions that knock enemies prone). He can also expend a maneuver to add +1d12 to hit if needed. Speaking of those BM maneuvers, dont forget the Fighter can (and usually will) expend one on his first attack to deal an extra 1d12 damage and knock the enemy prone (or frighten it), gaining advantage on the remaining 3-8 attacks (with advantage + GWM). Those maneuvers are the Fighters main way of getting advantage on his attacks (and he has enough dice to keep trying to Frighten or knock down for his first few attacks till he gets there before pulverizing the enemy into the ground with GWM feat switched on (possibly action surging to ensure its dead dead dead)

Of course the Warlock can take the Spell Sniper feat to remove the cover problem, but thats a separate issue.

The -5 is also much easier to counter for the Fighter due to the easier access to +(X) magic weapons, and potions/belts of giant strength (Strength being easier to buff to 20+ than Charisma). Magic weapons are far more common than Rods of the Pact Keeper and so forth. Caveat of 'magic items are not default' applies, but the assumptions here is that 99 percent of games will feature Magic Items, and that a 20th level fighter is probably carrying a decent Magic weapon as his principle item (as happens in 99 percent of campaigns).

Im not saying that there dont exist items to buff the Warlocks chances to hit, but such items are much rarer and not as effective as the magic items that help a Str based melee type.


It also makes the fighter dependent on exactly one weapon type, which compares much more favorably to the odds that the warlock gets whatever useful items it depends on.

How so? The above works with any heavy or two handed weapon. Fighter can easily switch to ranged if needed.


If you are decking out a fighter in legendary rarity magic items specifically geared towards his build and comparing it to a naked warlock, that fighter damn well better blow the warlock out of the water.

Im not doing this. I'm only suggesting that magic items (assuming random rolling of items as per the DMG) heavily favor the Fighter (and other warrior types). In 99 percent of campaigns magical weapons and armor (and melee buff potions like haste, giant strength, invisibility etc) are the most common permanent items found.

Things like Robes of the Arch magi and Rods of the Pact Keeper are much rarer. In fact you have the same chance of discovering a Vorpal Sword as you do the Robes, and a Flametounge as you do the Rod.


You know what else is really common in the totally random loot department: wands. Wands that the fighter doesn't even know which end is the dangerous one. If a warlock hordes wands, he becomes a lot less reliant on eldritch blast for his combat actions. Once again, while the fighter wins in the pure DPR contest, warlocks have versatility that the fighter can't imagine. DPR isn't everything, and it is literally the fighter's specialty. Fighters aren't weak, but neither are warlocks. (It's actually rather difficult to create a 'weak' character in 5e, unless you intentionally tank your stats)

I agree with you, the Warlock (with wands, staves, spells and invocations) has a lot more tricks up his sleeve.

But I hazard a guess by the time they both reach 20th level, the Fighter will be outstripping the Warlock in DPR by figures much higher than assumed in the standard assumptions of numbers made in these forums. My own subjective experience tends to bear this out as well.


I think magic items do not help clarify this argument. Currently magic arrows do not pop up in bunches of 20 and the accessibility of magical consumables may vary greatly from game to game. in regards to sum total of attack boosting items for non casters versus warlocks, warlocks can get up to +8 to attack from magic items between roof of the pact keeper, wand of the war mage and robe of the archmagi. There are other spell attack boosting items but they are not as good the above mentioned. Also end game warlocks get foresight, so between all these different effects warlocks should have superior hit chance.

Want to know the odds of a Warlock getting his hands on those three items in that combination as opposed to a Fighter getting a flametounge or Frostbrand or +1-3 weapon etc?

Your Warlock kit out there is the same as a Fighter rocking a Girdle of Storm Giant Strength (in lieu of the robes) +2 Sword (in lieu of the +2 Rod). Forget the wand for now.

+17 to hit, -5 for GWM = +12 hit (29 damage per hit). Vs AC 15 = 26 damage per attack x 4 attacks = 104 DPR (if the Fighter expends a superiority dice to knock down the enemy first, and succeeds - with an Athletics bonus of +15 - he makes his remaining 7-8 attacks at advantage). Doesn't include Action surge, possible extra attack with GWM, or superiority dice damage.

Vs AC 20 (without GWM 'on') He hits on a 3+ doing 17 x 4 DPR (68 DPR); again - not including superiority dice or action surge. We can assume at least one dice expended per round (probably trying to knock the enemy prone on the first attack) adding an extra 6 damage to the above for 74 DPR.

Your Warlock (even if he hits with every bolt AND has Hex up) still gets 56 DPR (the extra +8 attack bonus is irrelevant because im assuming every attack hits).

Factoring in 'best possible' items for the Warlock v a Fighter with A +2 sword and Girdle (which is the balls item of course) the Fighter puts out between 150-200% the sustained DPR of the Warlock.


Can get you an extra 10 sorcery points while everyone sleeps.

Not in 99 percent of campaigns I reckon.

Edit - TLDR - there wouldn't be too many 20th level characters (including warlocks) that would be entirely comfortable rolling initiative within 30' of a 20th level hostile NPC Fighter.

[rollingForInit]

Of course the Warlock can take the Spell Sniper feat to remove the cover problem, but thats a separate issue.


But if you assume that the Fighter will be taking feats, you have to assume that the Warlock will as well. How is that a separate issue?


Magic weapons are far more common than Rods of the Pact Keeper and so forth.

You keep saying this, but that is simply false. A RotPK follows the same rarity as weapons. +1 is uncommon, +2 is rare, etc. They are exactly as rare/common as magical weapons. There is also the Wand of War Magic (or whatever it's called) that offers similar bonuses, but not to saving throws. There are plenty of items that can only be attuned to by spellcasters. Take a Staff of the Magi, for instance. Pretty powerful stuff.

The only thing Fighters have going for them that Warlocks don't are the Strength-enhancing belts, that are very strong. But then again, do remember that the items in the DMG are all available only by DM approval, and they partially exist to serve as suggestions and ideas for inspiration. They're not a part of some mandatory magic item shop. There's nothing preventing a DM from reflavouring a Belt of Giant Strength into a Pendant of Fey Charisma or something like that. And even if that's not the case, there are books that can enhance Charisma.

You gotta assume that magical item distribution will be fair between a Warlock and a Fighter to compare them. So you can't say that a Fighter will be better because it'll get to 30 Str while the Warlock will be stuck at 20 Charisma, because that is simply unfair. If you're going to compare them, compare them with the same stats and assume the DM was fair in item distribution.

[Malifice]

But if you assume that the Fighter will be taking feats, you have to assume that the Warlock will as well. How is that a separate issue?

Because the Fighter gets more Feats. So in any comparison between feat selection, the Fighter wins.


You keep saying this, but that is simply false. A RotPK follows the same rarity as weapons. +1 is uncommon, +2 is rare, etc. They are exactly as rare/common as magical weapons. There is also the Wand of War Magic (or whatever it's called) that offers similar bonuses, but not to saving throws. There are plenty of items that can only be attuned to by spellcasters. Take a Staff of the Magi, for instance. Pretty powerful stuff.

AFB but have a look on the Magic Item tables in the DMG. Now tell me what the percentage chance of obtaining a Rod of the Pact keeper is as opposed to finding a magical weapon.

We can agree that Magic weapons are much more common in most games than Rods of the Pact keeper or Robes of the Archmagi.


The only thing Fighters have going for them that Warlocks don't are the Strength-enhancing belts, that are very strong. But then again, do remember that the items in the DMG are all available only by DM approval, and they partially exist to serve as suggestions and ideas for inspiration. They're not a part of some mandatory magic item shop. There's nothing preventing a DM from reflavouring a Belt of Giant Strength into a Pendant of Fey Charisma or something like that. And even if that's not the case, there are books that can enhance Charisma.

There is nothing stopping the DM from inventing a item that triples the damage of Eldritch blasts too, but lets leave homebrew out of this for the time being.


You gotta assume that magical item distribution will be fair between a Warlock and a Fighter to compare them. So you can't say that a Fighter will be better because it'll get to 30 Str while the Warlock will be stuck at 20 Charisma, because that is simply unfair. If you're going to compare them, compare them with the same stats and assume the DM was fair in item distribution.

I'm assuming the standard random magic item distribution from the DMG over a 20 level adventuring career, and no homebrewed magic items.

Which heavily favors the Fighter in DPR calculations.

[xyianth]

Your 99% assumptions do not match my experience. Most campaigns do not use completely random treasure from the DMG loot tables. The most common form of campaign has the DM ensuring that the party comes across items they can use. Not every item is custom tailored, but when it comes time to give out a +1 weapon, a blastlock's +1 weapon would likely be the RotPK. (or equivalent)

If you allow fighters to get a disproportionate ratio of useful magic items (which, I admit, the random loot tables grant), allow them to take feats, assume they get perfect combat setups, and only require them to deal with 3-4 enemies per short rest, then yes fighters rule the roost when it comes to raw DPR. However, to argue that this is the common state that players will encounter is just unsupportable. In actual play, with warlocks and fighters each given roughly equal access to useful magic items, feats, and under more common combat situations, the warlock averages between 35 and 55 DPR while the fighter averages between 40 and 60 DPR. When it comes time to nova a single target, the fighter can spike that number to >100 for 1-2 rounds. The warlock lacks a significant nova threat, but makes up for it in versatility.

I don't know how you run your games, and it is entirely possible that 99% of the games you have run/played used completely random loot tables. I've been playing and DMing for 17 years, and I have played in exactly 1 one-shot campaign that used entirely random loot tables. It is far more accurate for me to say <1% of campaigns use random loot as you describe. For the purpose of online comparison between classes, I think it is more useful to assume that characters get equal access to useful items for the sake of simplicity. Regardless of how loot is determined, it should be fairly obvious that having more/better magic items gives a character a competitive edge.

[Malifice]

If you allow fighters to get a disproportionate ratio of useful magic items (which, I admit, the random loot tables grant), allow them to take feats, assume they get perfect combat setups, and only require them to deal with 3-4 enemies per short rest, then yes fighters rule the roost when it comes to raw DPR.

But these are the exact default assumptions inherent in the game. The magic item tables are heavily skewed in favor of the Fighter (and skewed against, for example the Monk), feats favor fighters over everyone else as they get more and feats are skewed heavily towards combat abilities and specific combat styles (sentinel, mage slayer, shield expert, TWF, GWM, Sharpshooter, tavern brawler, grappler etc). The default encounter pacing is approx. 2 encounters per Short Rest, with the Fighter (and much of the Warlocks) abilities recharging on a short rest.

This isnt by accident. Its an intentional design choice by the Devs.


However, to argue that this is the common state that players will encounter is just unsupportable.

Its the default play style imagined in the books.

DM's can hand out custom items, or tailor them to the party. They can tweak the rest and encounter pacing also. Im just using the default rules as I see them.


I don't know how you run your games, and it is entirely possible that 99% of the games you have run/played used completely random loot tables.

Most have used them in some form or another. In combination with that, and treasure found in any published adventure, or carried by any statted out NPC/ BBEG we murdered. DM may also insert magic items from time to time to balance the magic item load out. But random items are the default go to. Over 30 years of play.

Maybe thats just our differing experiences.

[dev6500]

Magic weapons are far more common than Rods of the Pact Keeper and so forth. Caveat of 'magic items are not default' applies, but the assumptions here is that 99 percent of games will feature Magic Items, and that a 20th level fighter is probably carrying a decent Magic weapon as his principle item (as happens in 99 percent of campaigns).

Im not saying that there dont exist items to buff the Warlocks chances to hit, but such items are much rarer and not as effective as the magic items that help a Str based melee type.

Magic weapons are of the exact same rarity as both rod of the pact keeper and wand of warmagi.




Im not doing this. I'm only suggesting that magic rarits (assuming random rolling of items as per the DMG) heavily favor the Fighter (and other warrior types). In 99 percent of campaigns magical weapons and armor (and melee buff potions like haste, giant strength, invisibility etc) are the most common permanent items found.

Things like Robes of the Arch magi and Rods of the Pact Keeper are much rarer. In fact you have the same chance of discovering a Vorpal Sword as you do the Robes, and a Flametounge as you do the Rod.

I personally can't speak for 99% of games. In my games, DMs often make sure there is loot of equal value for everyone. In games without magic item trading, I have found this to be increasingly true since player's cannot trade out items you give them.







Your Warlock kit out there is the same as a Fighter rocking a Girdle of Storm Giant Strength (in lieu of the robes) +2 Sword (in lieu of the +2 Rod). Forget the wand for now.

+17 to hit, -5 for GWM = +12 hit (29 damage per hit). Vs AC 15 = 26 damage per attack x 4 attacks = 104 DPR (if the Fighter expends a superiority dice to knock down the enemy first, and succeeds - with an Athletics bonus of +15 - he makes his remaining 7-8 attacks at advantage). Doesn't include Action surge, possible extra attack with GWM, or superiority dice damage.

Vs AC 20 (without GWM 'on') He hits on a 3+ doing 17 x 4 DPR (68 DPR); again - not including superiority dice or action surge. We can assume at least one dice expended per round (probably trying to knock the enemy prone on the first attack) adding an extra 6 damage to the above for 74 DPR.

Your Warlock (even if he hits with every bolt AND has Hex up) still gets 56 DPR (the extra +8 attack bonus is irrelevant because im assuming every attack hits).

Factoring in 'best possible' items for the Warlock v a Fighter with A +2 sword and Girdle (which is the balls item of course) the Fighter puts out between 150-200% the sustained DPR of the Warlock.


It all depends on how you stack the comparisons. Sure if we include the robe, there is a legendary but if its just +3 rod and a +2 wand then instead of the storm giant belt you end up with the fire giant or stone giant belt. the robe was only a +2 in that example.
So in this comparison, +17 to hit for Warlock vs. +15 or +14 to hit for fighter. Warlock can also have all day advantage with foresight. Fighter still likely better vs 15 ac but that is pretty low for end game.
Warlock with advantage nets 57.6 vs 20 ac.
At +15, your fighter with 25 str and +2 greatsword(sorry if I picked wrong weapon. Just went with the traditional example) has 2d6 +9 for 52.2 damage vs 20 ac.

so for baseline damage, they are pretty comparable. If you want to go for nova comparisons and add in limited use fighter abilities we should add in limited use Warlock abilities like hellish rebukes, hurl thru hell, etc.

If we go with the Warlock/sorc I mentioned, the nova capability really goes up.

[xyianth]

snip

Fair enough. Under the conditions you describe, I can understand the viewpoint that fighter DPR is amazing and warlocks get kind of left behind. I personally would hate playing in such a campaign, but I certainly am not going to say you are wrong to do so.

On a completely separate and off-topic note, I don't think I ever directly thanked you for the inspiration of some of the changes I made to warlock for my table. So, thanks! :smallsmile: (I did credit you in the write-up though)

[georgie_leech]

Just to chime in on the RotPK thing, the one side is correct when they view it as just as likely as any given magic weapon of the same rarity. The other side is also correct in asserting that Magic Weapons as a whole are more common, due to the sheer number of such examples. Any given result on a d20 roll is just as likely as any other, but the set (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19) is quite a bit larger than the set of (20). In the same way, assuming randomised treasure, you're more likely to get at least one example of a +1 Longsword OR +1 Shortsword OR +1... than a RotPK. Lastly, rarity matters not one whit if the DM is handing out at least somewhat customised treasure, as they don't need to worry about rarity and it would be difficult to not be seen playing favourites if the Fighter got the kind of weapon he needed to boost her damage while the Warlock was denied his.

[Malifice]

Fair enough. Under the conditions you describe, I can understand the viewpoint that fighter DPR is amazing and warlocks get kind of left behind. I personally would hate playing in such a campaign, but I certainly am not going to say you are wrong to do so.

On a completely separate and off-topic note, I don't think I ever directly thanked you for the inspiration of some of the changes I made to warlock for my table. So, thanks! :smallsmile: (I did credit you in the write-up though)

No worries mate :)

Let me know how they play out.

Did you take all the invocations as well as the eldrich blast stuff?

[rollingForInit]

Because the Fighter gets more Feats. So in any comparison between feat selection, the Fighter wins.



AFB but have a look on the Magic Item tables in the DMG. Now tell me what the percentage chance of obtaining a Rod of the Pact keeper is as opposed to finding a magical weapon.

We can agree that Magic weapons are much more common in most games than Rods of the Pact keeper or Robes of the Archmagi.



There is nothing stopping the DM from inventing a item that triples the damage of Eldritch blasts too, but lets leave homebrew out of this for the time being.



I'm assuming the standard random magic item distribution from the DMG over a 20 level adventuring career, and no homebrewed magic items.

Which heavily favors the Fighter in DPR calculations.

I agree that the tables favour weapon-users, and I don't know how you run your games, but we've never used 100% randomised treasure for all loot. We use it sometimes, especially for money and valuables, or for some magical items ... but whoever DM's generally makes sure that everyone gets decent magical items. You'd have to be one hell of a crappy DM if you kept on rolling on the random tables for everything and the warlock gets nothing of use while the fighters and barbarians get plenty of weapons.

[themaque]

I agree that the tables favour weapon-users, and I don't know how you run your games, but we've never used 100% randomised treasure for all loot. We use it sometimes, especially for money and valuables, or for some magical items ... but whoever DM's generally makes sure that everyone gets decent magical items. You'd have to be one hell of a crappy DM if you kept on rolling on the random tables for everything and the warlock gets nothing of use while the fighters and barbarians get plenty of weapons.

It also depends on how things roll at your table. If the Warlock would be happier finding some other random utility use item, than that's probably what he will find.

[Malifice]

I agree that the tables favour weapon-users, and I don't know how you run your games, but we've never used 100% randomised treasure for all loot. We use it sometimes, especially for money and valuables, or for some magical items ... but whoever DM's generally makes sure that everyone gets decent magical items. You'd have to be one hell of a crappy DM if you kept on rolling on the random tables for everything and the warlock gets nothing of use while the fighters and barbarians get plenty of weapons.

Hell get one. Eventually.

[Chronos]

But we're not interested in the chance of getting just any magic weapon at all. We're assuming specifically a magic greatsword, with an ability of some sort that's useful to the fighter in combat. How's his DPR look if the magic weapon he has is instead a short sword or a dagger?

And yes, fighters get more feats than warlocks do. This is because they need more feats. A fighter is likely to want Great Weapon Master, Sharpshooter, and Sentinel, while a warlock doesn't really have much use for anything beyond Spell Sniper and War Caster. Incidentally, if attacks of opportunity ever come up, War Caster is enough by itself to push warlock DPR up past anything fighters can do on a consistent basis, since the fighter only gets one attack, but the warlock gets all four of his again.

Looking at nova capability also doesn't favor the fighter. When a fighter goes nova, it means that he's doing a little less than double his normal damage. When a warlock goes nova, it tends to mean things like all of the enemies are incapacitated, or one of them just dies.

[rollingForInit]

It also depends on how things roll at your table. If the Warlock would be happier finding some other random utility use item, than that's probably what he will find.

Oh definitely. But the same could be true for a fighter. The fighter might prefer magical armors or necklaces or stuff that lets him cast some utility spells. But if we're going to compare the DPS of the classes, with magical items, we kind of have to assume that both are equally equipped to do damage.


Hell get one. Eventually.

And therefore a fighter and a warlock should be compared under the assumption that both have magical items that can boost damage.

Or that neither have them.

[xyianth]

No worries mate :)

Let me know how they play out.

Did you take all the invocations as well as the eldrich blast stuff?

I detailed the changes I made here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?401058-Let-the-Warlock-shine-improved-invocations-and-other-changes). I've made substantial changes to most classes in an attempt to bring all options up to around the same power as a RAW bard or paladin. As a result, I have kept eldritch blast the same, but I did like your additions of upper level invocations that were specific to the different pact types. I haven't yet had a campaign reach 18th level to test them out, but I have one that will get there eventually. And it has 2 warlocks (1 blade, 1 tome) so they will probably test them out. I'll be sure to let you know how they perform when they do.

[MeeposFire]

Just note that wands require attunement which means that using one can potentially eliminate another item that you wold want to use.

[Malifice]

But we're not interested in the chance of getting just any magic weapon at all. We're assuming specifically a magic greatsword, with an ability of some sort that's useful to the fighter in combat. How's his DPR look if the magic weapon he has is instead a short sword or a dagger?

For a GWM/GWF Fighter, any magic 2 hander will do the job nicely. And they are much more common in the majority of campaigns than RotPK.


And yes, fighters get more feats than warlocks do. This is because they need more feats. A fighter is likely to want Great Weapon Master, Sharpshooter, and Sentinel, while a warlock doesn't really have much use for anything beyond Spell Sniper and War Caster. Incidentally, if attacks of opportunity ever come up, War Caster is enough by itself to push warlock DPR up past anything fighters can do on a consistent basis, since the fighter only gets one attack, but the warlock gets all four of his again.

Re feats agree. Its a core concept of Fighters. Any campaign that doesnt allow feats (IMO) nerfs the Fighter.

Re AoO - I also agree. I find that a glitch in the system, Im looking to houserule somehow. Possibly by adding extra damage to AoO's for classes with the extra attack class feature, maybe by virtue of a feat.


Looking at nova capability also doesn't favor the fighter. When a fighter goes nova, it means that he's doing a little less than double his normal damage. When a warlock goes nova, it tends to mean things like all of the enemies are incapacitated, or one of them just dies.

Fighter single target Nova damage is obscene at high levels with Action surge + superiority dice. The warlock gets better AoE effects though for mook clearance.

[Chronos]

Is the fighter's single-target nova damage (after accounting for chance of missing) greater than 150? If not, then the warlock still wins that comparison, thanks to Power Word Kill.

[Giant2005]

Is the fighter's single-target nova damage (after accounting for chance of missing) greater than 150? If not, then the warlock still wins that comparison, thanks to Power Word Kill.

The Fighter can potentially do more than 150 on his nova but either way, I'm not sure I understand the point. The Fighter could do 1 damage and that would out-damage the nothing that the Power Word Kill would do to a target one would consider using his nova strike on.

[asorel]

Is the fighter's single-target nova damage (after accounting for chance of missing) greater than 150? If not, then the warlock still wins that comparison, thanks to Power Word Kill.

PWK has a 100HP threshold, not 150. In any case, I'm not certain that short-rest abilities are comparable to a spell that can be cast exactly once per day.

[Giant2005]

PWK has a 100HP threshold, not 150. In any case, I'm not certain that short-rest abilities are comparable to a spell that can be cast exactly once per day.

Not just that, but unless you cast it on a mook it is extremely unreliable (Less reliable than a spell that uses an attack roll or a DC at least). If you have to estimate when to cast the thing, the liklihood of using the spell too early or too late is far too high. Neither a nova that only works on mooks nor a nova that is too unreliable to use are deserving of the title "Nova".

[xyianth]

And no self respecting warlock takes PWK as his/her 9th level arcanaum anyway. That slot is reserved for either foresight or true polymorph.

[Chronos]

OK, then, True Polymorph. In that case, your single-target nova damage is "You're a frog now".

[Malifice]

OK, then, True Polymorph. In that case, your single-target nova damage is "You're a frog now".

Save negates.

[Chronos]

And missing on your attacks negates the fighter's damage. But saves can be made far more reliable than attack rolls, provided you target weak saves, and if Wis is one of your target's strong saves, then you use some other spell on them instead.

[Giant2005]

OK, then, True Polymorph. In that case, your single-target nova damage is "You're a frog now".

Polymorph isn't a nova, it is a buff. That Frog can just hurt himself and turn back into a person that knows you wasted an action and a high level spell slot simply to cost him an action. Or he can spend his time hurting you until you hit him and turn him back, then he gets to know that you wasted two actions, a high level spell slot, possibly another spell slot and a few HP while it cost him nothing - he gets to continue the battle with full HP thanks to the temporary HP that was generously given to him.

[JNAProductions]

It also eats up your concentration for ten minutes, if you want it to really be permenant.

[dev6500]

Polymorph isn't a nova, it is a buff. That Frog can just hurt himself and turn back into a person that knows you wasted an action and a high level spell slot simply to cost him an action. Or he can spend his time hurting you until you hit him and turn him back, then he gets to know that you wasted two actions, a high level spell slot, possibly another spell slot and a few HP while it cost him nothing - he gets to continue the battle with full HP thanks to the temporary HP that was generously given to him.
How does the frog hurt himself short of jumping off a ledge? Also how would a frog attacking a high level character force that character to attack him? Can he even hit you consistently for more than 2 damage. I would just ignore the frog until all other enemies are dead. Seems like it will kill at least several rounds of actions from a single target.

[Giant2005]

How does the frog hurt himself short of jumping off a ledge?
Or a rock or a blade or whatever.

Also how would a frog attacking a high level character force that character to attack him? Can he even hit you consistently for more than 2 damage. I would just ignore the frog until all other enemies are dead. Seems like it will kill at least several rounds of actions from a single target.
That makes sense - I was assuming the Frog was alone but if he had allies then it could be a good way of taking him temporarily out of combat while you deal with the others. But even then, a Frog has too few HP to stay that way for very long - if he has allies then any one of them could spend their action turning him back to normal if they go before him. Regardless of how it plays, that Frog or an ally of his could turn himself back to normal with a single action which means the caster is always going to lose on that transaction: an action + a high level spell slot is always going to be more of a cost than an action alone.
At the very least, I think we can all agree that Polymorphing your enemy isn't a nova attack of any variety (Considering it doesn't do a single point of damage and actually buffs the HP of the target slightly). At best it could be considered a battlefield control ability.

[Shining Wrath]

And missing on your attacks negates the fighter's damage. But saves can be made far more reliable than attack rolls, provided you target weak saves, and if Wis is one of your target's strong saves, then you use some other spell on them instead.

Not if you're a warlock - if you took True Polymorph as your level 9 arcanum, it is forevermore your only level 9 spell. I would recommend that a Warlock keep saves in mind when choosing arcana, but it's a limited spell list. And by the time you're throwing 9th level spells around, you are playing with creatures that have solid stats and saves all around. Ancient dragons, mostly; big fiends, demi and regular liches, solars. Fun people to try to "target a weak save". To be fair, they also have high AC. For example, Death Knight:
AC 20. Saves (SDCn): 5, 6, 5. Saves (IWCh): 1, 9, 10. Oh, and advantage when saving against "spells and other magical effects". Target his Intelligence with Feeblemind, have your spell DC be 19 (8 + 5 + 6), hope he doesn't roll an 18 on either of 2 D20 (72% chance). Good odds, but unlike the fighter you get ONE chance; on the other hand, Feeblemind is debilitating. All the Death Knight can do is fight mindlessly; unfortunately, that includes 3 longsword attacks at +11 to hit.

[Chronos]

Not if you're a warlock - if you took True Polymorph as your level 9 arcanum, it is forevermore your only level 9 spell.
Because 9th-level spells are the only spells a warlock has, and there's no way he could possibly have any other spell that targets another save?

[xyianth]

Remember, a warlock with true polymorph isn't just a warlock anymore, it is an adult gold dragon (or worse, depending on level) with warlock powers. Even worse, true polymorph can change rocks into frogs and frogs into magic items, so with enough time you can make your own treasure horde too.

This is of course true for any caster with the true polymorph spell, but this thread is at least partially focused on warlocks so I used them for the example.

[Mara]

As far as over-channeled cantrips go, I would reasonably rule that the cantrips spell level is .5, which is how cantrips are treated throughout the rules when cost is brought into question. Notice overchannel does 2d12 damage per spell level, thus a cantrip would do 1d12.

As for Warlock vs fighter, warlocks are not as tough (HP/AC/abilities), do not grapple or shove very well, and do not have action surge. They instead have pact magic and invocations.

[Person_Man]

RE: The Polymorph Problem

This issue occurred in 1E, 2E, 3E, and the various half editions in between. At some point the full casters get access to nuclear bombs. If they use a nuclear bomb, they can basically win any encounter, and can sometimes wreck whole campaigns. But the DM can also use these bombs, possibly creating a mutually assured destruction that deters the players from using such spells in the first place, or possibly elevating the campaign to a very high-magic lateral thinking game (if he uses Polymorph, I'll use Contingency, but then he might use Wish, in which case I'll use...), or possibly just failing and watching the entire campaign crumble into garbage.

But the important thing to remember is that the DM and players are all people. No one is a computer. Polymorph isn't hard coded into the system. DMs can talk to players and figure out what type of game will be the most fun for them. Players can choose to use Polymorph sparingly, or use it only for roleplaying and exploration purposes, or not use it at all. And if somebody does something that wrecks the game, everyone learns to avoid doing that thing again in the future. Also, beer solves a lot of problem. If a reasonable DM talks to a player and applys enough alcohol, you can usually fix any balance issue. This doesn't work with computers - trust me, I've (accidentally) tried on more then one occasion.

I would have loved it if Polymorph and other nuclear weapons like Simulacron and Wish had been removed or fixed. But there are some old school players and DMs who just love playing with nuclear bombs, so it was put in for them, with the assumption that they would be avoided by players who hated them.

[Mara]

5e Polymorph, the 4th level spell requires concentration, which heavily nerfs potential exploits.

[rollingForInit]

Remember, a warlock with true polymorph isn't just a warlock anymore, it is an adult gold dragon (or worse, depending on level) with warlock powers. Even worse, true polymorph can change rocks into frogs and frogs into magic items, so with enough time you can make your own treasure horde too.

This isn't how it works, is it? True Polymorph says that the target's game statistics are replaced by the statistics of the new form. So if you turn into a Gold Dragon permanently, you lose your Warlock powers unless the dragon also has them.

And I wouldn't allow anyone to use it to create magical items, since the spell doesn't say anything about allowing the creation of magical items. Just objects. I guess that's very open to interpretation, but it would get very silly if you interpreted it to allow the creation of one Holy Avenger of Efreet Chain every day.

[Pex]

This isn't how it works, is it? True Polymorph says that the target's game statistics are replaced by the statistics of the new form. So if you turn into a Gold Dragon permanently, you lose your Warlock powers unless the dragon also has them.

And I wouldn't allow anyone to use it to create magical items, since the spell doesn't say anything about allowing the creation of magical items. Just objects. I guess that's very open to interpretation, but it would get very silly if you interpreted it to allow the creation of one Holy Avenger of Efreet Chain every day.

The wording is confusing because it's written in the negative. ". . . and it can't speak, cast spells, or take any other action that requires hands or speech, unless its new form is capable of such actions."

The key word is "unless". Since a Gold Dragon is capable of speaking, casting spells, and all sorts of things a Warlock who uses True Polymorph to become a Gold Dragon can use all his Warlock abilities.

[Mara]

The wording is confusing because it's written in the negative. ". . . and it can't speak, cast spells, or take any other action that requires hands or speech, unless its new form is capable of such actions."

The key word is "unless". Since a Gold Dragon is capable of speaking, casting spells, and all sorts of things a Warlock who uses True Polymorph to become a Gold Dragon can use all his Warlock abilities.Actually the spell says you gain the game statistic of what you polymorph into. It's not like shapechange, you will get the spellcasting abilities of the Gold Dragon, but you keep none of your features. You retain alignment and personality.

[Pex]

Actually the spell says you gain the game statistic of what you polymorph into. It's not like shapechange, you will get the spellcasting abilities of the Gold Dragon, but you keep none of your features. You retain alignment and personality.

That's just asking for what the definition of "is" is. The key word is "capable". A warlock in dragon form is capable of using his abilities because a dragon is capable of using such abilities. It doesn't matter if any particular dragon specifically has those abilities as if having warlock levels but rather the physical body can do so. That "unless" phrase makes all the difference.

[xyianth]

This isn't how it works, is it? True Polymorph says that the target's game statistics are replaced by the statistics of the new form. So if you turn into a Gold Dragon permanently, you lose your Warlock powers unless the dragon also has them.

And I wouldn't allow anyone to use it to create magical items, since the spell doesn't say anything about allowing the creation of magical items. Just objects. I guess that's very open to interpretation, but it would get very silly if you interpreted it to allow the creation of one Holy Avenger of Efreet Chain every day.

You are free to rule it that way if you wish, (honestly it is a lot less broken that way) but unless you are arguing that magic items aren't objects there is nothing that forces this interpretation.


The wording is confusing because it's written in the negative. ". . . and it can't speak, cast spells, or take any other action that requires hands or speech, unless its new form is capable of such actions."

The key word is "unless". Since a Gold Dragon is capable of speaking, casting spells, and all sorts of things a Warlock who uses True Polymorph to become a Gold Dragon can use all his Warlock abilities.

+1 to this, polymorph doesn't make you lose your features. It prevents you from using them if your new form can't. Dragons absolutely can cast spells, speak, etc... Yes, this is broken and you shouldn't let players do this. That doesn't change the way the spell works though. Feel free to rule it as you wish. I usually just end the campaign before 17th level because I have never been able to incorporate 9th level spellcasting in my sandbox campaigns without them breaking the world. At least in 5e, the seriously broken spells are limited almost exclusively to 9th level. (for now) My 3.5 campaigns have been running under E6 rules for a long time due to all the broken-ness in spells of 4th level and up.

[Giant2005]

polymorph doesn't make you lose your features. It prevents you from using them if your new form can't.

That isn't true, the spell very specifically states that all of your abilities are replaced by that of the new form. Even if the new form is capable of casting spells, those are the only spells you have - your spells are stuck back in your true form.

[rollingForInit]

That's just asking for what the definition of "is" is. The key word is "capable". A warlock in dragon form is capable of using his abilities because a dragon is capable of using such abilities. It doesn't matter if any particular dragon specifically has those abilities as if having warlock levels but rather the physical body can do so. That "unless" phrase makes all the difference.

You're forgetting that the description for this spell takes into account that the polymorph can be made permanent. That is, you can end up as a Gold Dragon permanently. Or as a goldfish. There are many other ways for other creatures to cast spells or learn magic. A Gold Dragon could start taking levels in the Wizard class to learn spells. So could most humanoids you'd polymorph into. They are capable, therefore they can. A goldfish couldn't. Nor could a wolf or anything that cannot speak or use somatic components. That "unless" makes perfect sense for this.

It does not say that you retain your own abilities. It explicitly says that you lose your abilities and gain the abilities of the new form.
Compare this to Shapechange or the Druid's Wild Shape. Those abilities explicitly state that you retain your class features, feats and other similarly gained abilities. True Polymorph very conspicuously does not mention any of this.


You are free to rule it that way if you wish, (honestly it is a lot less broken that way) but unless you are arguing that magic items aren't objects there is nothing that forces this interpretation.



Magical items are technically optional to use and entirely under the DM's purview. It would make no sense at all to allow player's to circumvent that and get whatever they want. It would also make adventuring completely redundant. By RAW it's 100% open to interpretation, I'll agree with that. But I can't see any way that it'll create magical items under RAI.

[xyianth]

That isn't true, the spell very specifically states that all of your abilities are replaced by that of the new form. Even if the new form is capable of casting spells, those are the only spells you have - your spells are stuck back in your true form.


You're forgetting that the description for this spell takes into account that the polymorph can be made permanent. That is, you can end up as a Gold Dragon permanently. Or as a goldfish. There are many other ways for other creatures to cast spells or learn magic. A Gold Dragon could start taking levels in the Wizard class to learn spells. So could most humanoids you'd polymorph into. They are capable, therefore they can. A goldfish couldn't. Nor could a wolf or anything that cannot speak or use somatic components. That "unless" makes perfect sense for this.

It does not say that you retain your own abilities. It explicitly says that you lose your abilities and gain the abilities of the new form.
Compare this to Shapechange or the Druid's Wild Shape. Those abilities explicitly state that you retain your class features, feats and other similarly gained abilities. True Polymorph very conspicuously does not mention any of this.

Huh, I had not read the shapechange spell yet, so I did not realize that your class features were considered part of your game statistics. I had (possibly incorrectly) assumed that even while polymorphed you were still a level X member of your class. Since both shapechange and polymorph use the same exact wording about game statistics but shapechange explicitly discusses retaining features, I suppose you could interpret this to mean polymorph does not. That does constrain the abuse a little, though archmage, rakshasa, and other abusive forms still exist.


Magical items are technically optional to use and entirely under the DM's purview. It would make no sense at all to allow player's to circumvent that and get whatever they want. It would also make adventuring completely redundant. By RAW it's 100% open to interpretation, I'll agree with that. But I can't see any way that it'll create magical items under RAI.

This seems like odd logic to me. If ordinary spellcasters can create magic items at lower level, why wouldn't high level magic be able to create them faster? Obviously, the DM controls whether magic items exist and whether they can be crafted at all. But if you have already made that decision for your campaign world, I can't see any reason that 9th level spells couldn't make magic items other than DM fiat. As to making adventuring redundant, I couldn't disagree more. Adventuring is not solely a means to acquire magic items. In fact, I'd argue that at high level, adventuring for the sake of finding items is limited to artifacts and the like. High level PCs (should) have more important things to do than search a dungeon for loot.

[rollingForInit]

Huh, I had not read the shapechange spell yet, so I did not realize that your class features were considered part of your game statistics. I had (possibly incorrectly) assumed that even while polymorphed you were still a level X member of your class. Since both shapechange and polymorph use the same exact wording about game statistics but shapechange explicitly discusses retaining features, I suppose you could interpret this to mean polymorph does not. That does constrain the abuse a little, though archmage, rakshasa, and other abusive forms still exist.



This seems like odd logic to me. If ordinary spellcasters can create magic items at lower level, why wouldn't high level magic be able to create them faster? Obviously, the DM controls whether magic items exist and whether they can be crafted at all. But if you have already made that decision for your campaign world, I can't see any reason that 9th level spells couldn't make magic items other than DM fiat. As to making adventuring redundant, I couldn't disagree more. Adventuring is not solely a means to acquire magic items. In fact, I'd argue that at high level, adventuring for the sake of finding items is limited to artifacts and the like. High level PCs (should) have more important things to do than search a dungeon for loot.

Sorry, I was in a bit of a hurry. I meant to write something like "makes adventuring for loot redundant". If True Polymorph allows the creation of magical items, 1/day, in a month you could have the party fully stocked with the best possible Legendary items/artifacts, as well as plenty of less unique but still very useful items. Artifacts are, after all, also "objects". There's no material reward that could ever compete with what a Wizard can whip together with a casting of True Polymorph.

And low-level PC's can create only low-level magical items. Creating a legendary item costs 500 000 gp, requires the spellcaster to be of 17th level or higher, and would take a lone spellcaster about 50 years to complete. Saying that such an item can just be created with the casting a spell that that 17th level caster could know just doesn't make sense. Even if you go down to very rare magical items, it'd take about 5 years for a lone spellcaster to create one, and it costs 50000 gp. There, as well, it really would make no sense if True Polymorph could just spew out one of those per day.

Allowing True Polymorph to create magical items renders the magical item crafting rules moot, because no spellcaster will toil for 50 years to create an item when it can just be done with a spell.

[SharkForce]

the magical item crafting rules are trash, and are more designed to make sure you don't use them at all than to provide a good framework for crafting items as far as i can tell.

not saying that true polymorph should be allowed to create magic items, mind you... i fully support not allowing it, because it will break things... but i think i'm actually going to go so far as to say that 5th editions item creation rules make the 2nd edition ones look good, and that's pretty depressing.

[rollingForInit]

the magical item crafting rules are trash, and are more designed to make sure you don't use them at all than to provide a good framework for crafting items as far as i can tell.

not saying that true polymorph should be allowed to create magic items, mind you... i fully support not allowing it, because it will break things... but i think i'm actually going to go so far as to say that 5th editions item creation rules make the 2nd edition ones look good, and that's pretty depressing.

Oh, I agree, I don't really like them either. I just meant that, they made those rules. It would make no sense for them to have a spell that easily makes the same rules completely pointless. So I'm quite sure that RAI for TP is that it shouldn't create magic items, at least not anything better than very basic items.

Although, I guess if it came to it, I might allow someone in a game I'm running to use TP as such, but warn them that creating powerful items with the spell can have consequences. Perhaps the gods do not approve of such powers. Perhaps demons start stealing the items. Perhaps the items will have dangerous flaws ...

[xyianth]

the magical item crafting rules are trash, and are more designed to make sure you don't use them at all than to provide a good framework for crafting items as far as i can tell.

not saying that true polymorph should be allowed to create magic items, mind you... i fully support not allowing it, because it will break things... but i think i'm actually going to go so far as to say that 5th editions item creation rules make the 2nd edition ones look good, and that's pretty depressing.


Oh, I agree, I don't really like them either. I just meant that, they made those rules. It would make no sense for them to have a spell that easily makes the same rules completely pointless. So I'm quite sure that RAI for TP is that it shouldn't create magic items, at least not anything better than very basic items.

Although, I guess if it came to it, I might allow someone in a game I'm running to use TP as such, but warn them that creating powerful items with the spell can have consequences. Perhaps the gods do not approve of such powers. Perhaps demons start stealing the items. Perhaps the items will have dangerous flaws ...

Keep in mind, it sounds like we are all basically in agreement that TP shouldn't be used to create magic items. I was merely pointing out what I believe is a valid RAW interpretation. This lets it fall into the same category of having simulacrums wish for magic items, technically RAW legal, but no sane DM should allow it.

I too hate 5e's magic item crafting rules. In fact, I hate everything related to magic items in 5e:

They break, or seriously bend, bounded accuracy
They take forever to craft, yet fall from the random loot tables like confetti at a parade
They are so priceless that PCs can't buy/sell them so they end up building castles out of solid gold with all their unused gp
They are optional, but half the creatures in the MM have resistance to non-magical weapons
Attunement requirement is supposed to represent items that help define a character, yet a lot of fairly generic items require attunement
etc...
There may be some minor use of hyperbole in the above list... :smallbiggrin: