First game of 5e tonight!

[GreyBlack]

So I just successfully participated in my first game of 5e tonight; I'm a veteran of 2e/3.0/3.5/PF (kinga skipped 4e because it sucked), so things went pretty well. Chose Warlock for my starting class and it seems really good. However, I do have some "huh?" moments with regards to the warlock. More than anything, are there any sort of guides I can look at to better understand the class? Currently, I'm building as an AOE blaster, but any tips would be awesome.

[brainface]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?485736-Selling-your-Soul-at-a-Premium-The-Warlock-s-Guide-to-Power

[Daishain]

Check the thread in my signature. It is a collection of resources, including multiple Warlock build guides like the one brainface posted.

[kaoskonfety]

If you are going Great Old One verify with the DM how your Awakened Mind feature will work. The Dev's stated they intended one way communication, but it kinda reads 2 way (we do 2 way at our table and I know alot of others do too). Its one of the main early play items in your possible kit that's mildly disputed.

Determine with the DM how short rests will be handled and happen, as this will impact your spell recovery drastically, this also tends to vary a bit table to table. My current DM has basically ignored them and the warlock is suffering mildly for it. In the game I run I hand them out during any real down time (searching rooms, low stress social encounters etc) so the full casters mildly suffer by comparison.

It builds differently than most classes and frankly I love it. Have fun blowing stuff up!

EDIT - (I really can't add much 'mechanics' wise above the guides already posted)

[MrFahrenheit]

In genera, don't write one of those "huh" moments off till you've tried it (or one of the PCs have). There are some things in 5e that don't appear to make sense at first (e.g., "why is a creature with crap hp, damage and AC a CR 2?") but then make come together after you've put them into play ("ahhh...their special attack is against most players' dump stat and effectively wins the battle in two turns vs that player").

[R.Shackleford]

So I just successfully participated in my first game of 5e tonight; I'm a veteran of 2e/3.0/3.5/PF (kinga skipped 4e because it sucked), so things went pretty well. Chose Warlock for my starting class and it seems really good. However, I do have some "huh?" moments with regards to the warlock. More than anything, are there any sort of guides I can look at to better understand the class? Currently, I'm building as an AOE blaster, but any tips would be awesome.

What's funny is that the Warlock is a 4e class... Like... It looks slightly different but they are one of the big things that came from 4e.

At-Will, Encounter, and Daily spells.

Like or hate 4e is up to you but know you are essentially playing a 4e class.

[Daishain]

What's funny is that the Warlock is a 4e class... Like... It looks slightly different but they are one of the big things that came from 4e.

At-Will, Encounter, and Daily spells.

Like or hate 4e is up to you but know you are essentially playing a 4e class.

Don't think that's quite accurate, if only because there's a prior precedent. 3.5's warlock was based upon at will and daily spells and other such abilities. That was its schtick at the time, the fact that it used a different mechanic than the normal vancian style casting.

[R.Shackleford]

3.5's warlock was based upon at will, and daily spells. That was its Schtick, the fact that it used a different mechanic than the normal vancian style casting.

Most of the 3he's Warlock stuff was based around Eldritch Blast and changing said ability.

They weren't at-will, encounter, daily as heavy as the 4e Warlock. Even the patron abilities of the 5e Warlock represent the 4e types of Warlocks.

Dark One's Blessing and Misty Escape are especially straight up ports.

I'm not saying the 3e Warlock is nothing like the 4e/5e Warlock. However, the 3e Warlock is like a 80' Mustang whereas the 4e Warlock is a 2015' Mustang and the 5e Warlock is 2016' Mustang.

The same thing with the Fighter, Rogue, and Beast Master Ranger actually. They are almost direct ports of the 4e/Essentials versions rather than the 3e versions.

There is a lot of 4e in 5e.

I'm a huge fan of the Warlock and the best advice I could give someone... Choose the awesome spells that you think are cool. Your at-will abilities (Eldritch Blast and detect magic or the see in magical darkness one) will keep you relevant in the game.

Don't worry about focusing on damage, even without focusing on it (Hex specifically in 5e) you do enough damage to be scary.

Debilitate your enemy and make them sorry if they resist your might.

[kaoskonfety]

Most of the 4th edition hate I've heard (never played as my circles for groups rejected it outright, I've never SEEN it) had nothing to do with the clean and useful mechanics. It was that is was a tabletop strategy game you could, if you wanted, play a roleplaying game with, but there wasn't much of a RPG in there 'out of the box'.

If the class design looked like warlock with the array of class-specialization(blade, tome chain)-flavour(fae,goo,hell) + invocation sprinkles of your choice I may have to revisit.

[R.Shackleford]

Most of the 4th edition hate I've heard (never played as my circles for groups rejected it outright, I've never SEEN it) had nothing to do with the clean and useful mechanics. It was that is was a tabletop strategy game you could, if you wanted, play a roleplaying game with, but there wasn't much of a RPG in there 'out of the box'.

If the class design looked like warlock with the array of class-specialization(blade, tome chain)-flavour(fae,goo,hell) + invocation sprinkles of your choice I may have to revisit.

Which is the same hate I heard about later 2e stuff and then against 3e when 3e came out :D. I wasn't playing D&D during 2e but the people who got me into it argured against others about it. I remember being told I might as well play Diablo when I started playing 3e. That it was videogamey and you couldn't role-play with it *sigh*.

Sooo much fun to love all editions and be able to see the same arguments used for each system :p.

The look is very different, however it is only skin deep. The biggest difference is that everyone could have their own options at all levels (you could have simple characters just fine though). I have my issues with the system and it isn't perfect but it is still great :).

I really miss the 3e/4e feat system though.

[GreyBlack]

In genera, don't write one of those "huh" moments off till you've tried it (or one of the PCs have). There are some things in 5e that don't appear to make sense at first (e.g., "why is a creature with crap hp, damage and AC a CR 2?") but then make come together after you've put them into play ("ahhh...their special attack is against most players' dump stat and effectively wins the battle in two turns vs that player").

The "huh?" stuff comes more from how Warlocks get their Level 6+ spells; I understand, at a basic level, why Warlock spell progression caps at 5 (because casting the way a Warlock does, being able to dump 6 Level 9 spells after a short rest would be bananas), but it also, on initial reading, didn't sound like Warlocks even got their 6-9 spells. Again, more of a formatting thing than a genuine, "That's weird" moment.


What's funny is that the Warlock is a 4e class... Like... It looks slightly different but they are one of the big things that came from 4e.

At-Will, Encounter, and Daily spells.

Like or hate 4e is up to you but know you are essentially playing a 4e class.


Which is the same hate I heard about later 2e stuff and then against 3e when 3e came out :D. I wasn't playing D&D during 2e but the people who got me into it argured against others about it. I remember being told I might as well play Diablo when I started playing 3e. That it was videogamey and you couldn't role-play with it *sigh*.

Sooo much fun to love all editions and be able to see the same arguments used for each system :p.

The look is very different, however it is only skin deep. The biggest difference is that everyone could have their own options at all levels (you could have simple characters just fine though). I have my issues with the system and it isn't perfect but it is still great :).

I really miss the 3e/4e feat system though.

Ehh.... no. The 3.5 Warlock is actually very mechanically similar to the 5e, in my opinion. Sure, you don't get the "I can cast as many spells as I want whenever!" thing from 3.5 (because those invocations were bananas), but the 5e Warlock captures that flavor and mechanic by letting you recharge your spells after a short rest instead of a long rest, unlike every other caster. Eldritch Blast in 3.5 was... actually rather weak compared to some of the other Invocations that Warlocks got.

I will say, though, that I'm missing feats, too. I'm almost tempted to grab a feat or two, despite only having an 18 charisma right now (Tiefling Warlock, starting charisma of 17 +1 from level). We'll see; the bounded accuracy thing definitely helps.

[old school man]

Sounds like you are off to a good start, just enjoy it and have fun.




John

[GreyBlack]

Actually, here's a question for the forums: how good an idea would it be for me to gain Proficiency with, say, Constitution saves at the cost of a feat? Strength, I'm not too concerned about (again, ranged), and Dexterity same. However, Constitution seems to be a good place to attack at, especially for me, as a Squishy, so should I pick up Resilient for the bonus? Or not worry about it?

[Inevitability]

Most of the 4th edition hate I've heard (never played as my circles for groups rejected it outright, I've never SEEN it) had nothing to do with the clean and useful mechanics. It was that is was a tabletop strategy game you could, if you wanted, play a roleplaying game with, but there wasn't much of a RPG in there 'out of the box'.

These remarks always make me wonder: what mechanics did 3.5 had that encouraged roleplay? It seems that people are associating 4e's focus on more tactical combat with an automatic loss when it comes to roleplaying, but I'm honestly baffled why people think 3.5 does have built-in roleplaying.

Don't get me wrong, I love roleplaying, even moreso than the game's tactical aspect, but whether I was playing 3.5 or 4e, I always found the DM and players to be the ones responsible for great roleplaying, not the mechanics.

[GreyBlack]

These remarks always make me wonder: what mechanics did 3.5 had that encouraged roleplay? It seems that people are associating 4e's focus on more tactical combat with an automatic loss when it comes to roleplaying, but I'm honestly baffled why people think 3.5 does have built-in roleplaying.

Don't get me wrong, I love roleplaying, even moreso than the game's tactical aspect, but whether I was playing 3.5 or 4e, I always found the DM and players to be the ones responsible for great roleplaying, not the mechanics.

I'm not re-opening the Edition Wars again, but, just from my personal experience in both systems (3.x/PF and 4e), 3.5 allowed you to build characters in ways that were not combat essential; you could build a Social Rogue with a knack for negotiation who wasn't really useful in combat. While, yes, most characters _were_ built for some aspect of combat, you theoretically could. The limited skill system of 4e and the limited Alignment system (while usually not a proponent, I always found that the 3.x alignment system to be great for fleshing out a character's identity) usually meant that RPing was on the light side for 4e compared to the combat side, which had SIGNIFICANTLY more importance placed on it.

EDIT: BUT! That's all off topic. Resilience: good idea or bad idea?

[kaoskonfety]

Actually, here's a question for the forums: how good an idea would it be for me to gain Proficiency with, say, Constitution saves at the cost of a feat? Strength, I'm not too concerned about (again, ranged), and Dexterity same. However, Constitution seems to be a good place to attack at, especially for me, as a Squishy, so should I pick up Resilient for the bonus? Or not worry about it?

Several good warlock spells are concentration based. Resilient Con is a good feat BEFORE you consider that, but it's icing on the cake.

If you've got the feat to spare its an excellent choice - also consider Lucky for its more general utility in the same "dice outcomes I suck at" control field - edit - and on reflection I like playing Lucky up as part of the deal/patron protection "you think I sold my soul JUST for raw power? FOOLS!"

If you are going blade pact, take a look at Warcaster. some people/builds like it, others get more mileage out of resilient.

[Inevitability]

I'm not re-opening the Edition Wars again, but, just from my personal experience in both systems (3.x/PF and 4e), 3.5 allowed you to build characters in ways that were not combat essential; you could build a Social Rogue with a knack for negotiation who wasn't really useful in combat. While, yes, most characters _were_ built for some aspect of combat, you theoretically could. The limited skill system of 4e and the limited Alignment system (while usually not a proponent, I always found that the 3.x alignment system to be great for fleshing out a character's identity) usually meant that RPing was on the light side for 4e compared to the combat side, which had SIGNIFICANTLY more importance placed on it.

I fully agree that 3.5 made it easier to play a noncombatant. I fail to see how that equals to more roleplaying. You can have a social character who only says 'I roll diplomacy' and a combat-focused fighter who is incredibly well-played. It doesn't matter what aspect of the game your character excels at: what matters is how well you, as a player, roleplay them.

[Joe the Rat]

EDIT: BUT! That's all off topic. Resilience: good idea or bad idea?You've got two options here: Resilience (Con), or War Caster. Resilience will help round out odd stats, and gives you a fixed boost, making it easier to get most of your concentration checks. If you don't use a lot of concentration spells (Hex and Hunger of Hadar being good for blasting and AoE, respectively) this has more all-around benefits (poison saves, for instance).

War Caster makes you better at casting in the thick of it. Advantage of concentration improves your odds at higher rolls - moreso than Resilience. The odds of rolling above a 10 (checks against 20pts damage or less) - before bonuses - is about 75%. The hands-full casting and spell opportunity attack features will depend more on your style, and probably won't see as much play if you can keep someone else in front of you at all times.

[Laereth]

These remarks always make me wonder: what mechanics did 3.5 had that encouraged roleplay? It seems that people are associating 4e's focus on more tactical combat with an automatic loss when it comes to roleplaying, but I'm honestly baffled why people think 3.5 does have built-in roleplaying.

Don't get me wrong, I love roleplaying, even moreso than the game's tactical aspect, but whether I was playing 3.5 or 4e, I always found the DM and players to be the ones responsible for great roleplaying, not the mechanics.

For me at least this nails down the point : http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/17231/roleplaying-games/dissociated-mechanics-a-brief-primer and this http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1545/roleplaying-games/dissociated-mechanic

Before reading those pieces I had a hard time pointing what I found fishy with 4e (again for me), but I had always felt that something didn't click for me with the system.

[Inevitability]

For me at least this nails down the point : http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/17231/roleplaying-games/dissociated-mechanics-a-brief-primer and this http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1545/roleplaying-games/dissociated-mechanic

Before reading those pieces I had a hard time pointing what I found fishy with 4e (again for me), but I had always felt that something didn't click for me with the system.

Interesting read, but I still fail to see what part of this problem is exclusive to 4e. A few examples:

-Marshal's 'Grant Move Action'. It's a nonmagical ability that grants people extra movement, but can only be used several times per day.
-A barbarian's rage.
-Tome of Battle in its entirety.
-Masters of the Wild's Power Critical feat.

If you can justify these, then 4e's powers shouldn't be an issue.

Also, the guy writing this seems to be arbitrarily deciding what is and what is not 'dissociated'. Casting a spell and immediately forgetting about it is not dissociated, but striking an enemy in a particular way and not being able to do it until the next encounter is. In the first case, it's apparently okay because spells function in a certain way that involves them disappearing from the caster's memory, but the creation of similar justifications for the fighter's ability is considered an example of the Rule 0 fallacy, hard to keep track of, inelegant, and illogical. Wait what?


However, I feel a separate thread should be made for this discussion.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

Also, the guy writing this seems to be arbitrarily deciding what is and what is not 'dissociated'. Casting a spell and immediately forgetting about it is not dissociated, but striking an enemy in a particular way and not being able to do it until the next encounter is. In the first case, it's apparently okay because spells function in a certain way that involves them disappearing from the caster's memory, but the creation of similar justifications for the fighter's ability is considered an example of the Rule 0 fallacy, hard to keep track of, inelegant, and illogical. Wait what?

The fiction and consequences of the magic casting system are already baked into the rules system and the setting. It's something a knowledgeable NPC can talk about coherently in the world. Why a martial character can do his fancy flourish on command but only once a day is not explained in such a way, and thus an NPC can't talk about it in character without someone first creating new fluff that would go on to have mechanical consequences, which were not previously part of the system and therefore are houserules created to shore up a deficiency.

Edit: It's not that any specific edition of D&D or most roleplaying games are free of dissociated mechanics, the complaint is that 4e (according to hearsay, I've never played personally) is particularly replete with them.

[R.Shackleford]

The fiction and consequences of the magic casting system are already baked into the rules system and the setting. It's something a knowledgeable NPC can talk about coherently in the world. Why a martial character can do his fancy flourish on command but only once a day is not explained in such a way, and thus an NPC can't talk about it in character without someone first creating new fluff that would go on to have mechanical consequences, which were not previously part of the system and therefore are houserules created to shore up a deficiency.

Edit: It's not that any specific edition of D&D or most roleplaying games are free of dissociated mechanics, the complaint is that 4e (according to hearsay, I've never played personally) is particularly replete with them.
The complaint was less that it had those and more about people not liking that martials had abilities out side of *move and attack* and *skills*. That was root cause of a lot of complaints.

4E still was the best selling roleplaying game during its time (before essentials) so I'm sure it was more of a vocal minority than anything else. It sounds like a lot of people hate 4e when you are on a 3e hub.

But to the point...

Resilence Con > Warcaster if you are looking at just trying to pass con checks.

Advantage is worth about 3.33 and can be taken away, prof starts at 2 and goes to 6 and can't be taken away.

[Inevitability]

The fiction and consequences of the magic casting system are already baked into the rules system and the setting.

4th edition gives coherent explanations for various kinds of martial power. Yes, earlier editions may not have given any information except for 'you are a guy who is good with a sword', but one shouldn't let earlier editions alter his opinion on one particular edition.


The fiction and consequences of the magic casting system are already baked into the rules system and the setting. It's something a knowledgeable NPC can talk about coherently in the world. Why a martial character can do his fancy flourish on command but only once a day is not explained in such a way, and thus an NPC can't talk about it in character without someone first creating new fluff that would go on to have mechanical consequences, which were not previously part of the system and therefore are houserules created to shore up a deficiency.

You talk about martials not being able to perform a particular attack more than once per day as if it's something that, at a fundamental level, is incapable of making sense. Allow me to ask you in return: why is it illogical?

[Daishain]

Guys, I think that's enough of the edition wars. Start another thread if you want to keep it up

[R.Shackleford]

Guys, I think that's enough of the edition wars. Start another thread if you want to keep it up

Another reason I love my stances on each edition, I love them all, I can't edition war lol

But seriously OP, resilence unless you want the Spell OA.