Warlock - Spell Slots Problem

[Laereth]

Hello fellow playgrounders !

I have a little issue in my game.

One of my players is playing a warlock. He didn't like the fluff of the wizard of being a bookish nerd or being born with his powers like a sorcerer. He liked the idea of having made a pact with an otherwordly creature (similarly to Lilianna for those MTG fans out there) and that his character is on a quest for magic power.

This is his first true D&D campaign, he played some Pathfinder with us before but that things lasted for 3-4 sessions. He chose the warlock, mostly for fluff, and because he wanted to play a caster. However, the small number of spell slots on the class is stymieing his options as he'd like to be able to do more than: hex -> eldritch blast. He's got some nifty other spells he'd like to use from time to time, but he always ends up short on slots.

Part of the problem is the team comp, two paladins, a cleric and a rogue. Both paladins and the cleric run more on long rather than short rests and the rogue doesn't care either way. The other part might fall on me not pushing them enough so that long rests are not always easy to take, then again the campaign is still very young. In the end the warlock often ends up expending his two slots rather fast and only recouping when the team stops for a long rest.

TLDR I'd like to give the warlock more flexibility to his casting so that he could exploit his spells more. I'm toying with 2 solutions and would like your input:

1) Replace the Warlock's Pact Magic and Mystic Arcanums with a regular spell progression (as a sorcerer or wizard). That puts him more in line with the cleric in the way he replenishes his spells and would allow the whole group to have the same resting requirements and would also increase his versatility in his spell use.

2) Use the Spell Points variant and customizing it to the Warlock. This would keep the Warlock unique but increase his versatility a bit (which is the intended outcome).


Note that I'm opting for those options as I know my players and that changing to the "gritty realism variant" would feel pretty harsh and be a drastic change of pace for them and the campaign in general. But maybe it is what we need ?

I could also suggest to him to multiclass into Sorcerer, arguing that his pursuit of power has ignited his "Spark" or "Gift". That would put him behind in spellcasting ability for quite a few levels (they will hit level 5 next session).

I could also adjust the number of encounters so that they are forced to take short rests and all, but I know that my (other) players like a fewer more meaningful combats rather than multiple combats for the sake of combat.

Anyways, thanks in advance for your help guys !

[jaappleton]

WHAT IS WITH THIS TODAY!? This is so eerie!

Today I got the idea in my head of a Warlock using the Spell Point variant found in the Dungeon Master's Guide. Turns out, a lot of people use it. Some modifying it for short rests, some using it as is to turn the Warlock into a normal, per-long-rest spellcaster equivalent.

And I JUST saw someone who turned the Spell Point Variant system into a Short Rest version.

Why is there this huge influx is Warlock spell slot stuff lately?

Here's the Short Rest version of Spell Points at the end of Page 1.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?512338-Spell-Points-What-are-the-benefits-drawbacks


At lv3, you still only really have two second level slots, like normal. But it allows the casting of first level spells for the cost of first level spells.

Most of the time, I'd rather cast Hex at lv1 each combat instead of upcasting. If I'm an Archfey Lock, I can cast Faerie Fire at its normal cost, instead of being forced to upcast it with no additional benefit of using a higher level slot.

[Gignere]

You need stuff that does damage to the party like traps or natural hazards but that doesn't tax their normal resources. This way it encourages them to short rest when a trap takes off half your hit points even a paladin will short rest.

[Kileonhardt]

Why is there this huge influx is Warlock spell slot stuff lately?

Because there are a lot of people who like the Warlock but hate how their spell slots are handled :P Really changing Warlocks to spell point variant make them more of a caster instead of a hex + eldritch blast bot which is why most prefer to do it that way.

[tkuremento]

WHAT IS WITH THIS TODAY!? This is so eerie!

Today I got the idea in my head of a Warlock using the Spell Point variant found in the Dungeon Master's Guide. Turns out, a lot of people use it. Some modifying it for short rests, some using it as is to turn the Warlock into a normal, per-long-rest spellcaster equivalent.

And I JUST saw someone who turned the Spell Point Variant system into a Short Rest version.

Why is there this huge influx is Warlock spell slot stuff lately?

Here's the Short Rest version of Spell Points at the end of Page 1.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?512338-Spell-Points-What-are-the-benefits-drawbacks


At lv3, you still only really have two second level slots, like normal. But it allows the casting of first level spells for the cost of first level spells.

Most of the time, I'd rather cast Hex at lv1 each combat instead of upcasting. If I'm an Archfey Lock, I can cast Faerie Fire at its normal cost, instead of being forced to upcast it with no additional benefit of using a higher level slot.

Thanks for linking it so I didn't have to post it in a third thread! xD Seriously this is hilarious but at the same time almost feels kinda bad like maybe it should be all in one thread or something :|

[RSP]

Other option:

Give the Warlock a SR as a usable resource. If the only problem is other PCs don't want to wait for a rest, then just let the Warlock pick 1 or 2 times between every long rest, depending on how many encounters you have planned for the day, where he can recoup his slots without actually taking a SR.

This maintains the balance of Pact Magic per the designers' intent, while not causing the PCs to change their habits. You could say a short rest would still be needed for HD use or regaining other abilities, but this should solve the issue with the Warlock running out of slots.

[Contrast]

One of my players is playing a warlock. He didn't like the fluff of the wizard of being a bookish nerd or being born with his powers like a sorcerer. He liked the idea of having made a pact with an otherwordly creature (similarly to Lilianna for those MTG fans out there) and that his character is on a quest for magic power.



1) Replace the Warlock's Pact Magic and Mystic Arcanums with a regular spell progression (as a sorcerer or wizard). That puts him more in line with the cleric in the way he replenishes his spells and would allow the whole group to have the same resting requirements and would also increase his versatility in his spell use.



I could also suggest to him to multiclass into Sorcerer, arguing that his pursuit of power has ignited his "Spark" or "Gift".

Just a reminder that rules are rules and fluff is fluff. Nothing wrong with playing a character who made a deal with an otherworldy being for magical power and using the wizard or sorceror rules instead if you don't like the mechanics of the warlock class provided everyone is on board. A fighter can explain how he aquired his fighting skills however he wants - unless there's something terribly setting specific that gets in the way don't see any reason spellcasters can't do the same.

[tkuremento]

Just a reminder that rules are rules and fluff is fluff. Nothing wrong with playing a character who made a deal with an otherworldy being for magical power and using the wizard or sorceror rules instead if you don't like the mechanics of the warlock class provided everyone is on board. A fighter can explain how he aquired his fighting skills however he wants - unless there's something terribly setting specific that gets in the way don't see any reason spellcasters can't do the same.

He do you fluff the spellbook and acquiring spells from other spellbooks as a wizard that made a deal with a magical being?

[Ninja-Radish]

Unfortunately, Warlocks are the epitome of the "cool fluff, terrible mechanics" issue you sometimes see in rpgs. They're just a bad class all around, unless you really want to spam Eldritch Blast all the time.

There's no easy solution, but the spell points optional system does seem interesting. I'd try that out just to see if it improve things.

[Ziegander]

Something I've been thinking of is drastically fewer spell points, but whenever a Warlock spends hit dice they also recover that many or even half that many spell points.

Recovering their magic power on short rests instead of long is part of the Warlock's identity and I like that, but being forced to upcast everything is just more hindrance than help.

[Jerrykhor]

I was in that same situation not too long ago. My DM said my patron granted me +1 spell slot right from the start, and it has worked out well. Having 3 spell slots instead of 2 was just perfect. You get to use 1 for hex, 1 for a big fight and keep 1 for emergencies, or test a new spell that sounds fun.

Just dont replace it with the regular spell progression. Warlocks are unique and are meant to be different from wizard/sorc/cleric. Ask him to convince the party in character to take short rests. Since he's the only caster in the group, it shouldn't be hard to convince everyone that your big Fireball/Hypnotic Pattern/Fear can solve many problems that involve violence.

[gfishfunk]

Why don't the other players want a short rest? It's not like they have to wait it out in real time.

[Contrast]

He do you fluff the spellbook and acquiring spells from other spellbooks as a wizard that made a deal with a magical being?

You may recall there is, in fact, already a warlock pact and invocation where your patron grants you a tome of mystical power which boosts your spellcasting abilities into which you can scribe new spells.

So the PHB did the mental legwork for you already there.

[JellyPooga]

Unfortunately, Warlocks are the epitome of the "cool fluff, terrible mechanics" issue you sometimes see in rpgs. They're just a bad class all around, unless you really want to spam Eldritch Blast all the time.

Urgh, the Warlock isn't badly designed. It's only bad if you A) think of them in the same light as Full-casters (which they are not) and B) have a party that refuses to short rest.

The "solution" (if you can even call it that) is to play the game as it has been designed...with short rests. Yes, there are Classes that don't require them quite as much as others and the Warlock is probably the most heavily dependent on them, but that doesn't mean players should simply ignore them. You rarely hear complaints about the Monk and Fighter being "badly designed" for being "forced" to just use the attack action once their Ki points or Superiority dice have been expended; the Warlock is no different.

Short rests are an excellent way to restore HP without expending valuable spell-slots, if nothing else. Try hammering your players with a bit more damage; make encounters harder, throw in some traps, use monsters that have AoE effects that deal damage even on a successful save...they'll soon burn through all their spells on healing and feel ineffectual later in the adventuring day unless they start taking those short rests and spending their HD to heal instead.

[Kane0]

-Snip-

1) It is recommended a party receive 2 short rests per day. You can change this up every now and again to keep players on their toes but without short rests classes like the fighter, warlock and especially monk suffer. Clerics, Wizards and Druids also like short rests for some of their abilities.
2) The spell point system is great, I recommend it for Sorcerers and sometimes Warlocks, depending on group.
3) You can redo fluff as you please. A sorcerer who bargained with a dragon to access his otherwise locked birthright, a wizard who sold out his entire mage academy to a fiend, a cleric who worships a vestige living beyond the known realms. All these can be a warlock in another classes' clothing.
4) If a single spell is taking up all the warlock's slots consider placing a magic item to help with that. A wand of Hex or a (lesser) pearl of power would expand their capabilities wonderfully without throwing game balance out the window. Hell you can even make a custom invocation that allows two free castings of hex per long rest (level 5+), that'll do the trick.

[Tanarii]

Why don't the other players want a short rest? It's not like they have to wait it out in real time.
Yeah, it's kind of weird. I've found the majority of players are happy to take a short rest when possible, if only to spend some HD to recover HPs. Even with a lot of potentially healers in the party, they're usually happy to be able to use their spell slots on other things.

If the 1 hour time is an in-game issue, you can always just make it a purely meta thing, and tell the players they gain the benefit of a short rest after an appropriate number of encounters.

[tkuremento]

You may recall there is, in fact, already a warlock pact and invocation where your patron grants you a tome of mystical power which boosts your spellcasting abilities into which you can scribe new spells.

So the PHB did the mental legwork for you already there.

This:

He didn't like the fluff of the wizard of being a bookish nerd

I was asking based on this. That's all.

[Laereth]

Why don't the other players want a short rest? It's not like they have to wait it out in real time.

It's not that they don't want, more that they don't think about it ? We've played a long time with 3.5 and then switched to Pathfinder, with only a very short stint in 4e. We're, I'm including myself in there, way more to have only one sort of rest in a day.

I should probably remind them more often: "don't forget you can take a short rest", or I could simply as Tanarii suggested apply the benefits after 2-3 encounters. But old habits die hard and since we don't run many concurrent games, it might take a while to change them.

I'll weight my options, I might err on the safe side and simply provide the warlock with a Rod of the Pact Keeper or a Cursed Pearl that grants Hex 1 or 2 / day. But, I'll keep the spell points in mind. They might just provide the most elegant solution.

[CaptainSarathai]

Spell Points is something I've always done for Warlocks, because it seems like the class was made for it.

Secondly, "shorter, short rests" would help. Let your Warlock take a short rest in 5 minutes or so. Remember that the scale for a Short Rest is every 2-3 Encounters. A Long Rest occurs after 2-3 Short Rests.

I find that if your players aren't begging to take short rests, even as long-dependent classes like Paladins and Wizards, then you aren't beating them up enough. Part of the short rest is recovering HP. If you are letting them get by on healing spells, then you aren't hurting them enough, and you aren't giving them enough other uses for those spells.

[Ninja-Radish]

Urgh, the Warlock isn't badly designed. It's only bad if you A) think of them in the same light as Full-casters (which they are not) and B) have a party that refuses to short rest.

That's the problem right there. In many peoples' view, the Warlock is supposed to be a full caster. Except that they don't get any of the benefits that full casters are supposed to get, like numerous spell slots.

The issue with 5E is how long short rests are. At an hour long, players get nervous about resting because they think the DM will have monsters attack them if they stay in one place that long. Back in 4E a short rest was 5 minutes long, and I don't remember anyone having an issue with resting for 5 minutes. 5E would work alot better as a system if short rests were actually short.

[Kane0]

It's not that they don't want, more that they don't think about it ? We've played a long time with 3.5 and then switched to Pathfinder, with only a very short stint in 4e. We're, I'm including myself in there, way more to have only one sort of rest in a day.

I should probably remind them more often: "don't forget you can take a short rest", or I could simply as Tanarii suggested apply the benefits after 2-3 encounters. But old habits die hard and since we don't run many concurrent games, it might take a while to change them.


Beat it out of them.

D&D is all about resource management and the whittling down thereof, but in 5e you need to be more aggressive about it sometimes. If you only face easy-medium encounters you need half a dozen in one day just to *challenge* a normal party, if you're doing hard-deadly encounters you need 2-3 of them.
If the party isn't looking for a way to fit in an hour breather to spend HD and get resources back, you need to pressure them more.

If you or the party are uncomfortable with stopping for a 1 hour lunch break half way through a dungeon, consider the 5-minute short rest variant rule. It's exactly the same, but without the illusion of the danger of being ambushed during your rest.

[Malifice]

Seeing as the game expects 6-8 encounters per long rest, and 2-3 short rests in that same time, the easiest solution is to allow the Warlock to refresh spell slots every 2 encounters.

For an ingame reason, thats just how his patron rolls.

[jaappleton]

Seeing as the game expects 6-8 encounters per long rest, and 2-3 short rests in that same time, the easiest solution is to allow the Warlock to refresh spell slots every 2 encounters.

For an ingame reason, thats just how his patron rolls.

"My underlings can't do advance my goals if they've exhausted my power!"

[Malifice]

"My underlings can't do advance my goals if they've exhausted my power!"

Nah, the patron wants souls. Sweet tasty souls. About two encounters worth (give or take).

[SharkForce]

He do you fluff the spellbook and acquiring spells from other spellbooks as a wizard that made a deal with a magical being?

the magical being stuffs his head full of magical knowledge so that now he's like a savant (including the ability to process the information without having needed years of magical training - just an hour or so of checking the books and fixing it in his mind every now and then is all that is required).

next?

[Tanarii]

It's only bad if you A) think of them in the same light as Full-casters (which they are not) and



That's the problem right there. In many peoples' view, the Warlock is supposed to be a full caster. Except that they don't get any of the benefits that full casters are supposed to get, like numerous spell slots.
Warlocks are full casters. They just operate on a short rest scale instead of a long rest one.

The problem in these complaint threads about warlocks are generally:
A) short rests aren't frequent, are far less than by the book. Warlocks don't get their number of slots needed to last an adventuring day.
B) long rests are too frequent, are far more than BtB. Other full casters regularly go nova.
C) BtB rests are use, but player or DM doesn't understand that warlocks are actually getting approximately the same slots as any other full casters, because they don't do the math.

[Millstone85]

It's not that they don't want, more that they don't think about it ?Surely the warlock thinks about it, but maybe he doesn't dare reminding the group that he needs the pause a bit more than they do? You could encourage him to speak up.

[JellyPooga]

Warlocks are full casters. They just operate on a short rest scale instead of a long rest one.

Hmm, perhaps I should have clarified. Yes they are casters, but that short rest operation gives them a very different play style to "full" casters.

A Warlock cannot afford to cast more than one, maybe two non-Cantrip spells in a given encounter, even after level 10 when they have three or more slots at their disposal. They "burn out" a lot quicker than true "full casters".

Conversely, assuming they get adequate short rests, they're always able to contribute their "big guns" (up to 5th lvl spells), while a Wizard or Cleric only gets one, maybe two shots at getting their "best" spells to stick in a day.

This makes Warlocks less useful for utility, as a rule. You don't want to "waste" a slot on some level 1 spell when it comes at the cost of a level 4 or 5 slot. This is also why I don't particularly like the idea of using spell points for Warlocks; as tempting as the notion is, it changes their dynamic quite significantly from something unique as a hard-hitting alpha-striker to "just another full caster" with an odd recharge mechanic.

[Tanarii]

Oh yeah, totally a different play style, for the reasons you've described. That's the reason I haven't chimed in on the Spell Pponts for warlocks thing. I'd never consider allowing that, because unlike characters with the Spellcasting feature, it completely blows away the entire point of pact magic and throws the 'warlock' play style out the window completely.

Something something baby with the bath water.

[Millstone85]

Hmm, perhaps I should have clarified. Yes they are casters, but that short rest operation gives them a very different play style to "full" casters.Maybe we should invent new terms, like "nova caster" and "pulsar caster".

[Xetheral]

The problem in these complaint threads about warlocks are generally:
A) short rests aren't frequent, are far less than by the book. Warlocks don't get their number of slots needed to last an adventuring day.
B) long rests are too frequent, are far more than BtB. Other full casters regularly go nova.
C) BtB rests are use, but player or DM doesn't understand that warlocks are actually getting approximately the same slots as any other full casters, because they don't do the math.

Even if, for sake of argument, I accept all of those as true, that doesn't in any way diminish the fact that Warlock casting is a somewhat widespread problem, as evidenced by the frequency of the complaints.

It doesn't really matter that you think the complaints are unfounded--warlock casting is still a problem for some subset of the community. Just like it doesn't really matter that I think the balance complaints about GWM/Sharpshooter are unfounded--those feats are still problematic for some subset of the community.

In the end, a feature can still be a problem no matter how much others think it isn't or shouldn't be.

[JellyPooga]

It strikes me now I'm thinking about it, that Warlocks, perhaps more so than any other caster, are forced to "play smart". Every spell they cast (non-cantrip, of course) has to make a difference. They simply can't afford to waste slots on the little stuff, like a Wizard or Cleric might.

Up against a bunch of low-CR mooks?
Warlock: "Bah, they're not worth my time; you deal with it"
Wizard: "Eh" *shrugs* "Burning Hands!"

[Millstone85]

Up against a bunch of low-CR mooks?
Warlock: "Bah, they're not worth my time; you deal with it"
Wizard: "Eh" *shrugs* "Burning Hands!"Uh no, they are worth all the eldritch blasting, just not the slots.

I know you precised non-cantrips before, but then the conversation wouldn't sound like that.

[JellyPooga]

Uh no, they are worth all the eldritch blasting, just not the slots.

I know you precised non-cantrips before, but then the conversation wouldn't sound like that.

Why bother even with EB if the Wizard is just going to Burning Hands them all anyways...? (Yes, yes, I know, it's always worth using an unlimited resource when you have the chance; just illustrating the point :smallwink:)

[Zalabim]

3) You can redo fluff as you please. A sorcerer who bargained with a dragon to access his otherwise locked birthright
Especially when you're refluffing, but true also in normal cases, a sorcerer's power doesn't have to be something you were born with. A dragon sorcerer's power might have come from drinking an elixir made with dragon's blood, treating a disfiguring/wasting disease with a poultice of ground dragon scale, or desperate royalty bargaining for a living dragon's heart to save their sick child.

[Tanarii]

In the end, a feature can still be a problem no matter how much others think it isn't or shouldn't be.It does matter if they are unfounded. Because if people are saying it's broken when it isn't, and this becomes a hive mind view, it can affect future iterations of the game. That's rather a top level view of course ... on a personal level of playing 5e it doesn't really effect me if people want to be wrong or not understand how something is supposed to work. I just like to argue with them anyway because fun.

However, what also very much matters is if the default assumptions of the game don't work for a DMs/players personal preference. If someone understands how rests are supposed to work, and understands how the warlock is supposed to work within that rest structure, then decides they don't like that way it works (for reasons) and want to modify it ... that's a great basis for modifying it.

Edit: in other words, there's a difference between an unfounded and incorrect assumption leading to a complaint, and understanding something and wanting it to work differently.

[Solunaris]

Especially when you're refluffing, but true also in normal cases, a sorcerer's power doesn't have to be something you were born with. A dragon sorcerer's power might have come from drinking an elixir made with dragon's blood, treating a disfiguring/wasting disease with a poultice of ground dragon scale, or desperate royalty bargaining for a living dragon's heart to save their sick child.

A Dragon Sorcerer doesn't even have to be draconic. My current character is a "Draconic" Sorcerer in that he uses that subclasses abilities. His powers actually come from a magical accident that shifted him one half moment forward. The draconic scales? His ability to see half a moment into the future and adjust accordingly.

Basically, fluff is whatever you want it to be.

[Xetheral]

Because if people are saying it's broken when it isn't...

And that is probably the underlying reason we disagree on this issue. You're treating whether or not a feature is broken as an objective question, whereas I think the question is (by definition) inherently subjective.


However, what also very much matters is if the default assumptions of the game don't work for a DMs/players personal preference. If someone understands how rests are supposed to work, and understands how the warlock is supposed to work within that rest structure, then decides they don't like that way it works (for reasons) and want to modify it ... that's a great basis for modifying it.

Considering that there is considerable disagreement about how things are "supposed" to work (e.g. are the DM encounter-per-day figures means, medians, or upper bounds? If they *are* means or medians, what is the intended distribution and variance?) I don't think it is even possible to unambiguously "understand[] how rests are supposed to work". Whose understanding are you advocating others understand before modifying the system? Yours? :smallsmile:

[Millstone85]

Basically, fluff is whatever you want it to be.While you can do that, a softer approach is to decompose/recompose the fluff.

Method of acquiring the power
* Cleric: devotion to a higher being
* Warlock: bargain with a higher being
* Wizard: intellectual study of magic
* Sorcerer: instinctive practice of magic

Origin of the power
* Cleric: divine
* Warlock: fey, fiendish or alien
* Wizard: standard
* Sorcerer: draconic or wild

A character with true devotion to an infernal lord? They could be a cleric or a warlock.
A character with a scholarly take on wild magic? They could be a wizard or a sorcerer.
A character who made a pact with a dragon? They could be a warlock or a sorcerer.
A character who worships the essence of magic? They could be a cleric or a wizard.

[Bloodcloud]

Allow two 5 min short rests per day for ability recovering purpose. You keep the balance, can still push em woth restricted healing, but the short rests class keep up. Simple, minute mal impact on the game rules.

[Laereth]

Thanks guys for all the suggestions !

I recognize that the issue arises part from me not challenging the players often enough and trying to have too many set-piece battles and not enough time constrains. Again the campaign is still very young.

I also don't think the warlock spell casting is broken. It might not be suited for the way we (my group of friends and I) are used to play.

I was simply seeking to know if I couldn't toy with the class in order to put the player more in line with his colleagues in his ressources management as I saw that as the easiest solution rather than toying with the pacing in the number of encounters as my players like it this way (I assume from the way they talk about the game). The only objective is to increase the newer player's enjoyment of the game.

You guys have given me food for thought on the possibilities:

Warlock mechanics changes:

1) Use a modified variant of the Spell Points system and keep recharge on Short Rests
2) Create a new invocation that allows 1-2 castings of Hex/day
3) Have the Warlock reset his powers every two encounters
4) Change the Warlock to have full progression same as a Sorcerer by removing Pact Magic and Mystic Arcanum. I don't know how that affects the balance of the class with invocations and all, but note that as a group we are not overly concerned with internal party balance, as one of my players put it when I discussed the Warlock matter briefly with them: "I don't care if you buff the warlock, he's on our side"

Game management changes:

1) Increase pressure on party to increase reliance on short rests and make long rests harder to get
2) Keep long rests at 8 hours but make short rests shorter (5 ? 15 ? 30 ? minutes) to increase their availability
3) Beat into my players heads that the Warlock would be more powerful and more useful if they took 1 or 2 short rests
4) Give a few items specific for the Warlock, rod of pact bearer or crystal of Hex

I've got a lot of thinking to do :/
Will probably discuss with the player what he'd prefer, but given that he's new he won't be sure what he'd exactly like to change.

[Tanarii]

And that is probably the underlying reason we disagree on this issue. You're treating whether or not a feature is broken as an objective question, whereas I think the question is (by definition) inherently subjective.Yes, but from what I've seen, you think everything is inherently subjective. Which is a point of view I won't ever hold.

[Ziegander]

BtB rests are use, but player or DM doesn't understand that warlocks are actually getting approximately the same slots as any other full casters, because they don't do the math.

Surely you jest.

Even if we assume three short rests per day, which just never seems to happen, yes, at first level that means the Warlock has two extra spell slot when compared to Wizards or Druids. Unfair! At 2nd level, egad, they get nearly triple the spell slots! Unacceptible! Why, it takes a Cleric or Bard two more levels just to catch up! Finally, the true full casters have taken their rightful place as champions of magical power.

And that's precisely the last time ever that the Warlock will have the same number of spell slots as other casters. Well... well, what about higher levels? Okay, sure, let's check five levels down the line. At 7th level, a Warlock still has eight spell slots per day while a Sorcerer has 11. In four levels, Warlocks get their next bump, and that gives them twelve spell slots per day. Technically 13 (Mystic Arcanum) Wizard has sixteen. Well, but full caster spell slots are slowing down now, what about when the Warlock gets another slot? At 17th the Warlock has twenty spell slots per day if she gets three short rests. Actually, I stand corrected, the Wizard only has 19 (ignoring Arcane Recovery).

However. When was the last time you played 5e and took three short rests? It's honestly never happened in any game I've played, but that's purely anecdotal. How often do you think it happens in games? Being generous, we might assume 50% of the time? So instead of being worth four daily slots, each of the Warlock's slots is now only actually worth three. So that puts the Warlock down in spell slots from level 4 for the rest of their career. If, as in my experience, you only ever get two short rests a day, it's much worse.

That's kind of the definition of bad design if you have all characters always being virtually guaranteed long rests, because mortal beings need to sleep or they will die, but then you have one class that, varying by game table, can be massively overpowered, average against other spellcasters, or find themselves incredibly weak, simply because of rest dynamics that don't necessarily apply to characters of other classes. Even Monks can make it with just one or two short rests a day, they still have a ton of strengths to fall back on. Almost everything the Warlock does relies on short rests unless you go all in on Eldritch Blast. When the effectiveness of a class design depends completely on whether other characters at the table want to take short rests, yeah, that's a bad class design.

[Xetheral]

Yes, but from what I've seen, you think everything is inherently subjective. Which is a point of view I won't ever hold.

Hardly. Mathematics is an excellent example of something I consider objective. Additionally, I consider my determination of what is and is not subjective to itself be objective....

Consider: whether or not a feature is "broken" is logically equivalent to a question of set membership. A feature is broken if (and only if) it is a member of the set of all broken features. Unfortunately that set is not (and cannot be) well-defined. Accordingly, membership in the set cannot be determined objectively.

Where do you disagree? That whether a given label applies to a concept is not a question of set membership? That objectively determining set membership doesn't require the set to be well-defined? Do we disagree about the meaning of the words "objective" and "subjective" themselves?

[Tanarii]

Surely you jest.Counting just level 5 slots and below, and counting only the top 3 spell slots available (since below that aren't particularly relevant)
Warlocks get 1 per encounter at level 2-10, 1.5 / encounter at levels 11-16, and 2 / encounter at level 17. Always at max level.
Spellcasting Feature casters get 1/encounter at levels 1-4, 1.5/encounter at levels 5+, and only 2-3 of those are at max level.
The difference is fairly negligible, and covered by the max level bump that Warlocks get.

If you count all slots level 5 and below (ie don't discount level 1 & 2 spells when appropriate), Spellcasting casters get:
1/encounter level 1-4, 1.5/encounter levels 5-6, 2/encounter levels level 8+, 2.5/encounter at 10+.
But the majority of those are 3 levels or more below max possible casting level once you hit 7th level onwards. Trying to count those level 1 & 2 slots at higher levels isn't a fair comparison. Warlocks have that same functionality is covered by invocations & EB. And again, the difference is fairly negligible when you take into account warlocks spells are maxed.

So no, I don't jest.

[Ziegander]

I don't jest.

You didn't even read my post.

1) IF the party decides to take three short rests a day, and IF the DM puts them through 8 encounters that day, THEN, yes, your calculations are correct.

2) Counting 1st and 2nd level slots is absolutely fair and that you don't think it is shows an extreme lack of comprehension in how the game actually plays. Have you played 5e much?

-- 2a) Bards, Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers, and especially Wizards have many 1st and 2nd level spell options that remain useful when cast at those levels all throughout their career, not just for utility but also for defense.

-- 2b) Warlock have a handful of spells that would be great to cast at lower spell levels if it would conserve them a higher level spell slot but they don't have that option.

3) What is actually not fair is claiming that since all of the Warlock's spell slots are 5th level that having 12 or 14 of them "per day" that he comes out totally even with a Cleric or Wizard. There are many, many spells a Warlock would rather cast in a lower level slot if it helped him conserve spell power, but that's not an option.

4) Um, no, EB does not serve the same function as 1st and 2nd level spell slots. Neither do invocations. Sure, there are a couple unique invocations that offer something spell slots of any level just don't do, but not every Warlock wants to take all the same spells and invocations all the time and other invocations give you the ability to expend a spell slot to cast one spell once per long rest. Hardly a trade there. Even Devil's Sight or False Life at-will aren't a substitute for the options that 1st and 2nd level spell afford other casters.

-- 4a) If you're going to bring up non-spell class features as for how the Warlock makes up for having fewer spell slots with less spell flexibility, then you're opening the door for discussing Channel Divinity or Arcane Recovery.

5) The fact that you have nothing at all to say about the incredibly common situation across all tables where players take fewer than three short rests per day or how it's bad design for a class to be designed 100% on a mechanic that's up to a table of players and not just the player playing said class, a mechanic that not only varies from in-game day to in-game day but from game table to game table, and a mechanic that often requires DMs to come up with their own house rules regarding either the class or the rests or both, all of this just tells me you either don't care about any of that, which is just dismissal of huge parts of the problem, or that you just truly don't understand the full scope of the problem.

[Tanarii]

You didn't even read my post.I read it. It was wrong. Not untypical when it comes to looking at how Warlock Pact Magic SR slots work vs Spellcasting LR slots.


1) IF the party decides to take three short rests a day, and IF the DM puts them through 8 encounters that day, THEN, yes, your calculations are correct.Two short rests, and 6 encounters per day. ie by the book.

[SharkForce]

ignoring low level slots is silly.

with spells like web, hypnotic pattern, fear, phantasmal force, tasha's uncontrollable hideous laughter, pyrotechnics, and others as low level options, it is entirely possible to dominate encounters even at level 20 with low level spell slots depending on the enemy. reaching into roles beyond crowd control, you have stuff like shield, fog cloud, darkness, mirror image, misty step, invisibility, protection from evil and good, and feather fall that can make a big difference to an encounter.

reaching beyond the wizard spell list to other casters, you have gems like entangle, lesser restoration, bless, bane, pass without trace, protection from poison, silence, spike growth, faerie fire, heat metal, healing word, spiritual weapon, enhance ability, and others that can substantially shift the course of an encounter (not necessarily a combat encounter, although sometimes they can do that as well).

certainly, these spells are not as overall world-altering as stuff like wish or mass suggestion. and they aren't even as encounter-altering as spells like wall of force or shapechange. but when you're up against a large group of low-dex enemies, a web in the right place can cost your enemies their entire turn (and possibly more). a misty step can give you the breathing room that makes the difference between "stuck next to something that will kill you next round" and "safe behind your front line". protection from evil and good can be the difference between your level 15 fighter helping you vs helping kill you.

used in the right place at the right time on the right target, level 1-3 spell slots are a valuable resource. ignoring that is just silly.

[Tanarii]

used in the right place at the right time on the right target, level 1-3 spell slots are a valuable resource. ignoring that is just silly.Sure, if you like. But that's why I addressed it in my post regarding spells / encounter, even though I don't agree they're comparable or it's silly to think they're significantly less valuable or comparable to invocations. Even when you don't ignore them, Warlocks are comparable to other full casters in terms of slots / encounter.

[Vaz]

Sure, if you like. But that's why I addressed it in my post regarding spells / encounter, even though I don't agree they're comparable or it's silly to think they're significantly less valuable or comparable to invocations. Even when you don't ignore them, Warlocks are comparable to other full casters in terms of slots / encounter.

In your white room. In practise, not so much.

[Tanarii]

In your white room. In practise, not so much.That's .. like the exact opposite of my point.

In a white room, Spellcasting seems like far more slots than it actually is compared to Pact Magic. On paper, it looks like a big advantage for spellcasting. Because people just add up slots, not taking into account the number of encounters typically faced and number of rests that normally happen. And they don't take into account that a large number of those spells are very low level spells.

[Millstone85]

In a white room, Spellcasting seems like far more slots than it actually is compared to Pact Magic. On paper, it looks like a big advantage for spellcasting. Because people just add up slots, not taking into account the number of encounters typically faced and number of rests that normally happen.The thing, I think, is that you define "typically" and "normally" by what the book advises, while others define those terms by table experience. In turn, you regard it as experience of the game being played wrong, while they regard your analysis as wrong.

[CursedRhubarb]

I'd be wary of making Warlocks progress like a normal caster. They'd still have all the goodies of their cantrips and invocation shenanigans but if you look at the Warlock spell list, they have some of the most potent spells available. It also gives them an extra 2 Cantrips.
I strongly recommend not giving Warlocks Full Caster spell progression and using the Spell Point System.
The reason for this caution is that, for the majority of the game they will be fine, far stronger than they are currently but mostly within reason. (Look at their spell list, they would be able to optimise spell slot level to a crazy level) but then if you have a game that reaches level 20...A Level 20 Warlock that is a Full Caster gets their capstone. As is now, that's an extra 5 lvl 5 spell slots per long rest. As a full caster as soon as they would hit Level 20 their spell slots available become:
1st- 8
2nd- 6
3rd- 6
4th- 6
5th- 6
6th- 4
7th- 4
8th- 2
9th- 2

Let them use the Spell Point System and they can suddenly cast 20 9th lvl spells and 2 1st or 2nd lvl spells per long rest. They'd have no need to worry about casting anything below 9th level and would suddenly become very hard to Counterspell. Thankfully they don't have Wish or Simulacrum on their spell list but what they do have would be scary with everything cast at 9th level.

(Would make for an amazing BBEG to try and tackle though. 10 lvl 9 spells, 2 lvl 2, unleashes 60 Wights and the 720 zombies they control as he disappears for a minute, only to return with 10 more lvl 9 spells and 2 lvl 2 ready to join the fight again along with any remaining undead.)

[Tanarii]

The thing, I think, is that you define "typically" and "normally" by what the book advises, while others define those terms by table experience. In turn, you regard it as experience of the game being played wrong, while they regard your analysis as wrong.
My table experience is that generally people use the recommendations from the book, since that's what everything is balanced around. And when they don't they make adjustments to the rules to account for it, instead of complaining that things are broken because they're intentionally not using the baseline assumptions.

Edit: My forum experience is that people come complain things are broken without realizing what the baseline assumptions are, and how to make adjustments to account for intentionally not using them.

[Laereth]

I'd be wary of making Warlocks progress like a normal caster. They'd still have all the goodies of their cantrips and invocation shenanigans but if you look at the Warlock spell list, they have some of the most potent spells available. It also gives them an extra 2 Cantrips.
I strongly recommend not giving Warlocks Full Caster spell progression and using the Spell Point System.
The reason for this caution is that, for the majority of the game they will be fine, far stronger than they are currently but mostly within reason. (Look at their spell list, they would be able to optimise spell slot level to a crazy level) but then if you have a game that reaches level 20...A Level 20 Warlock that is a Full Caster gets their capstone. As is now, that's an extra 5 lvl 5 spell slots per long rest. As a full caster as soon as they would hit Level 20 their spell slots available become:
1st- 8
2nd- 6
3rd- 6
4th- 6
5th- 6
6th- 4
7th- 4
8th- 2
9th- 2

Let them use the Spell Point System and they can suddenly cast 20 9th lvl spells and 2 1st or 2nd lvl spells per long rest. They'd have no need to worry about casting anything below 9th level and would suddenly become very hard to Counterspell. Thankfully they don't have Wish or Simulacrum on their spell list but what they do have would be scary with everything cast at 9th level.

(Would make for an amazing BBEG to try and tackle though. 10 lvl 9 spells, 2 lvl 2, unleashes 60 Wights and the 720 zombies they control as he disappears for a minute, only to return with 10 more lvl 9 spells and 2 lvl 2 ready to join the fight again along with any remaining undead.)

Hum...sorta forgot about that capstone thing when i was thinking about giving full progression. I don't really care if I make a character slightly more powerful with a change (ie more versatility in spell use with the variant spell point system), but that is just silly. I could change it and make it refresh all slots below 5th level however if they make it to 20...But I'll probably err on the safe side and not do that. That is one option down. Thanks for pointing it out.

[Ruslan]

There is always a problem with some characters benefiting more from short rests, and some working more on long-rest resources. A game's balance might depend on the real-life persuasion skill of the players. - if the warlock (in real life) is more charismatic, he will convince the party to stop for a short rest after every encounter. If the cleric 'runs the show', the party will continue until he runs out of slots. And so on.

So, here's a solution I came up with in my games. I started from the premise - a game is supposed to be balanced for two Short Rests per day. That's what the developers tell us. Well, if there are supposed to be 2 short rests per day, why not just enforce it? So, here's my Short Rest ruleset:


A Short Rest is an abstraction. It doesn't take time off the in-game clock. A character can declare he's taking a Short Rest at any time, as long as not in combat and not in imminent danger.
The entire party does not have to take a Short Rest at the same time. Character A can take a Short Rest now, and characters B and C later.
A character can only benefit from two Short Rests per day. The rationale for this is: if you've already taken 2 short rests, and need to rest again, you must be so beat up that only a long rest will do.


That's it. Each player manages his own rests. No more intraparty tug-of-war. Instant game balance.

[Asmotherion]

Option number 3: Guide him in taking the right Invocations like Misty Vissions and Mask of Many Faces that give him some At-Will spells in order for him to feel more of a true caster than just a blaster. Silent Image is solid, and with the right amound of creativity can be very usefull in battle (from hiding behind walls to creating additional companions and virtually "outnumber" the opponents, or even controlling them against going to a specific spot, by virtually setting it on fire).

The Warlock in combat may focus on his Hexed Eldritch Blasts ofcource, but this does not prevent him from using other at-will abilities to cleverly win the battle.

Option 4: The sorcerer does not need to be born with his powers, he can gain them latter by infusing himself with an elemental essance for example, or surviving a Wizard's experiment gone-wrong. He can even gain them by pact, if you are willing to fluff it this way. If he want to focus on being a caster with more spell slots and less of a blaster, Sorcerer feels a safer option for him. On the other hand, same goes for wizard, if you re-fluff the details, he could be a Wizard who receves spells through oracles from his patron to wright them down in his spellbook, and he gaind the knowlage on how to use those spells, not from study but directly in his brain from his patron.

Option 5: 10-minute short rests, 1 hour long rests. Regular rules apply about only one long rest per day, so even the paladins will be glad to get a short rest.

[CursedRhubarb]

Hum...sorta forgot about that capstone thing when i was thinking about giving full progression. I don't really care if I make a character slightly more powerful with a change (ie more versatility in spell use with the variant spell point system), but that is just silly. I could change it and make it refresh all slots below 5th level however if they make it to 20...But I'll probably err on the safe side and not do that. That is one option down. Thanks for pointing it out.

Glad to be of help. It's a capstone that gets forgotten about quite often and gets called not very useful at times. But it sneaks up on you when trying to tweak the class.

To keep the warlock feel without changing the number of slots but making it feel like you have, you could look at increasing their available slots to what they would have if they took all the short rests, but have them refresh on a long rest instead of a short one. Would be like 6 or 8 depending on if 2 or 3 shorts per day then would increase as they go. Still cap at 5th level slots and it may look like a lot of slots but, if you add up Full Caster slots, the difference won't be too bad, especially when you factor in that that's 8+ slots all at max level. Would want to limit the capstone to only give 5 slots as it normally would.

With max level casting, having the short rest limit forces Warlocks to be paced. Removing the forced pacing and giving them all their slots at once turns them into scary nova types and you'd probably want to ban any MC with them. (The common 2 lvl dip for Sorcerer18/Lock2 would get a huge amount of slots to burn for points. 3-4 with 1lvl dip and 6-8 with a 2 lvl dip. A Sorc17/Lock3 winds up with 6-8 lvl 2 slots to burn. Use a Paladin MC and you get a lot more bang for your buck with Smite fuel.)

[Vogonjeltz]

Hello fellow playgrounders !

I have a little issue in my game.

One of my players is playing a warlock. He didn't like the fluff of the wizard of being a bookish nerd or being born with his powers like a sorcerer. He liked the idea of having made a pact with an otherwordly creature (similarly to Lilianna for those MTG fans out there) and that his character is on a quest for magic power.

This is his first true D&D campaign, he played some Pathfinder with us before but that things lasted for 3-4 sessions. He chose the warlock, mostly for fluff, and because he wanted to play a caster. However, the small number of spell slots on the class is stymieing his options as he'd like to be able to do more than: hex -> eldritch blast. He's got some nifty other spells he'd like to use from time to time, but he always ends up short on slots.

Part of the problem is the team comp, two paladins, a cleric and a rogue. Both paladins and the cleric run more on long rather than short rests and the rogue doesn't care either way. The other part might fall on me not pushing them enough so that long rests are not always easy to take, then again the campaign is still very young. In the end the warlock often ends up expending his two slots rather fast and only recouping when the team stops for a long rest.

TLDR I'd like to give the warlock more flexibility to his casting so that he could exploit his spells more. I'm toying with 2 solutions and would like your input:

1) Replace the Warlock's Pact Magic and Mystic Arcanums with a regular spell progression (as a sorcerer or wizard). That puts him more in line with the cleric in the way he replenishes his spells and would allow the whole group to have the same resting requirements and would also increase his versatility in his spell use.

2) Use the Spell Points variant and customizing it to the Warlock. This would keep the Warlock unique but increase his versatility a bit (which is the intended outcome).


Note that I'm opting for those options as I know my players and that changing to the "gritty realism variant" would feel pretty harsh and be a drastic change of pace for them and the campaign in general. But maybe it is what we need ?

I could also suggest to him to multiclass into Sorcerer, arguing that his pursuit of power has ignited his "Spark" or "Gift". That would put him behind in spellcasting ability for quite a few levels (they will hit level 5 next session).

I could also adjust the number of encounters so that they are forced to take short rests and all, but I know that my (other) players like a fewer more meaningful combats rather than multiple combats for the sake of combat.

Anyways, thanks in advance for your help guys !

Standard adventuring day holds 6-8 encounters with 2 short rests at the 1/3 and 2/3 mark.

At that rate the Warlock should try to expend no more than a single spell per combat encounter, and then only if the encounter really calls for it.

Choosing invocations that grant spellcasting, and pact of the tome are some other great ways to expand the spellcasting repertoire.

[Ziegander]

Standard adventuring day holds 6-8 encounters with 2 short rests at the 1/3 and 2/3 mark.

At that rate the Warlock should try to expend no more than a single spell per combat encounter, and then only if the encounter really calls for it.

When exactly does that work? Let's call it a 6 encounter day (still straining credulity at my table, combat takes longer than anything else, and even if we play for 3 hours per game night, trying to fit in 6 combat encounters is usually 2/3 that time, at least). Let's start at 5th level. Clerics and Wizards have cantrips, albeit less useful than a Fighter's at-will Greatsword, but they also have four 1st-level spell slots, three 2nd-level spell slots, and two 3rd-level spell slots. That gives them some combination of nine spell slots for the day, or something like one spell per encounter, cantrips on the side, and three non-combat spells per day. Seems reasonable.

On the other hand, with 2 short rests, Warlocks get 6 spell slots per day. Now, that's six 3rd level spell slots per day, absolutely, but they don't get Fireball. They don't get Animate Dead or Revivify. What they get is one 3rd-level spell per encounter, and they know exactly one of them. They could upcast Hold Person or Invisibility or Armor of Agathys or, uh... yeah... So what you're looking at is a character with one spell slot per encounter, no spell slots for non-combat, and in-combat, they may or may not have slightly more powerful or slightly less powerful effects.

One of these two options seems clearly superior, at this level point, than the other.


Choosing invocations that grant spellcasting, and pact of the tome are some other great ways to expand the spellcasting repertoire.

Pact of the Tome is a good pact, I totally agree, but all it does is give Ritual Casting to a class that sorely needs out of combat utility when Clerics and Wizards already had it anyway. So, essentially, aside from gaining a few other cantrips, it does almost nothing valuable.

But choosing invocations that grant spellcasting? Are you actually serious? Yes, I want to spend a class feature on sort of learning a spell that I can only cast once per day even though I have spell slots that refresh on short rests. Ascendant Step. Great. I can get a bad spell at-will six levels after no spell caster wanted to spend daily slots on it. Dreadful Word. Oh, good, in exchange for having just four spells at 4th level on my spell list I can actually cast one decent spell. It uses one of my short rest slots, and I can't cast it again until I long rest. Oh my ****. Wut. Mask of Many Faces, yeah, it's cool, in the right campaign. Even in the right campaign it's still only kind of okay. Not in that campaign, worthless. Master of a Myriad Forms, grrrreaaat, let's get a spell 13 levels late that was only moderately good 13 levels ago. But I can cast it at-will! Who. Cares. Literally every other spellcasting option makes you "learn" a new spell that you can only cast on a long rest with your short rest slots. Fantastic. Once per day you cast Slow. You still have a woefully limited number of actual spells known that can actually be cast with pact magic slots and you still probably don't have enough of them with your short rests to compete with real full-casters.

[Toadkiller]

It seems like the easiest thing to do is play a sorceror and refluff it as a warlock.

[CursedRhubarb]

-snip-

Looks like you really hate the class so I'm confused why you wanted to post on a thread about someone that wants to play it and trying to figure how to work with it to do what they want.

At 5th you can have 2 3rd level spells known, you learn 1 with the level up and can change 1 you knew before.

Depending on the Patron choice they can have Fireball, though it's one to weigh on how useful it will be for you.

Where other casters are focused more on using spell slots for their main schtick, a Warlock is reversed. They focus on cantrips and use spell slots with sergical precision to get the maximum effect. One spell, depending on choice is, in many cases, all they really need to use. Mine has Hex, Dissonant Whispers, Darkness, Hold Person, Hunger of Hadar, and Hypnotic Pattern. I've managed to keep Hex up quite often with a decent Con score and keeping a slot in reserve for those "Oh S***" moments has let me do several "last man standing" situations where lucky crits dropped the rest of the group, leaving the low AC lock to take on 3+ guys and come out victorious. (Darkness+Mold Earth has been amazing in these situations)

It's not a solo game (not often anyways) it's a team game. Playing a lvl 5 GOO Lock I've gone through many encounters without using any spells, or just using Hex and keeping it up for a few hours, and came out on top for damage. That's with a Wizard using all his spell slots, a Ranger Using all his spells/abilities, and a Moon Druid burning both Wildshape and all his spell slots. I was still good to go and had 1 or 2 slots still available.

The Invocations let you refine the role you want your lock to fill. Mask of Many Faces is amazing on a Cha class that takes the Friends cantrip. Paired with Beguiling Influence you can do lots in social encounters. Gaining some of the spells they can give you can be great, especially if you have a group that doesn't have a Cleric or someone to cast them.

It's not a Full, or even Half Caster class. If you try to treat it as one, yeah you will be disappointed. It's weird and follows it's own logic and rules.

[Ziegander]

Looks like you really hate the class so I'm confused why you wanted to post on a thread about someone that wants to play it and trying to figure how to work with it to do what they want.

At 5th you can have 2 3rd level spells known, you learn 1 with the level up and can change 1 you knew before.

Depending on the Patron choice they can have Fireball, though it's one to weigh on how useful it will be for you.

Where other casters are focused more on using spell slots for their main schtick, a Warlock is reversed. They focus on cantrips and use spell slots with sergical precision to get the maximum effect. One spell, depending on choice is, in many cases, all they really need to use. Mine has Hex, Dissonant Whispers, Darkness, Hold Person, Hunger of Hadar, and Hypnotic Pattern. I've managed to keep Hex up quite often with a decent Con score and keeping a slot in reserve for those "Oh S***" moments has let me do several "last man standing" situations where lucky crits dropped the rest of the group, leaving the low AC lock to take on 3+ guys and come out victorious. (Darkness+Mold Earth has been amazing in these situations)

It's not a solo game (not often anyways) it's a team game. Playing a lvl 5 GOO Lock I've gone through many encounters without using any spells, or just using Hex and keeping it up for a few hours, and came out on top for damage. That's with a Wizard using all his spell slots, a Ranger Using all his spells/abilities, and a Moon Druid burning both Wildshape and all his spell slots. I was still good to go and had 1 or 2 slots still available.

The Invocations let you refine the role you want your lock to fill. Mask of Many Faces is amazing on a Cha class that takes the Friends cantrip. Paired with Beguiling Influence you can do lots in social encounters. Gaining some of the spells they can give you can be great, especially if you have a group that doesn't have a Cleric or someone to cast them.

It's not a Full, or even Half Caster class. If you try to treat it as one, yeah you will be disappointed. It's weird and follows it's own logic and rules.

I've never actually played it. But I've had five different players try it and be disappointed. So... sure, maybe they're all just bad, and it's probably my fault they've all had bad experiences, but in my opinion, it's a really poorly designed class.

I don't hate it. Unfortunately, I love the fluff, and some of the mechanical execution is great, but don't be surprised if this is the next class to get a UA overhaul before the Sorcerer. The Warlock is the most complicated, most short rest dependent class in the game. It requires the most system mastery to execute properly and yet delivers the least versatility in play. It requires either a strict adherence to rest mechanics or a large house rule structure to play correctly at your table. It's kind of a total mess, and could use a lot of work, in my opinion.

I love a lot of its premises, a lot of its ideas, a lot of its underlying design, but overall, if you're not going for a blastlock, you're just not going to work as well as just about any other character in the game, and that feels wrong, not only to me, but to a ton of other players and DMs out there. Yes, it works if you optimize EB and use spells as, like, a tertiary role, but for a class that gets 9th level spells, it feels super ****ed to have your game role be the same as an Eldritch Knight.

[Millstone85]

for a class that gets 9th level spells, it feels super ****ed to have your game role be the same as an Eldritch Knight.For a class that fills the role of a ranged eldritch knight, it feels ****ing awesome to get a 9th level spell.

Really, I am fine with the idea that the warlock is actually a kind of ranged gish that's more than a 1/3-with-cantrips or 1/2-without-cantrip spellcaster.

What is not cool is that Pact of the Blade seems to promise to bring that to melee and then doesn't deliver. But that's a problem with the feature, not the class.

[Grod_The_Giant]

If a sizable number of players have problems with the Warlock-- and from all appearances, both on this forum and in my real-life experience, that's certainly true-- then it's a poorly written class. It doesn't matter whether or not it functions when played "properly;" the very fact that there is only one right way to play it is, inherently, a failure of design. You'll note that no other class in the game has that problem-- you generally don't see people wondering why the Paladin struggles to debuff, or the Monk struggles in toe-to-toe fights, because the classes naturally steer you in the direction you're looking for. Fluff and features align in obvious ways. The Warlock... the Warlock doesn't. It does not communicate that it's really an archer-with-a-bit-of-magic-utility; instead, it suggests that I should be some sort of dark, scary debuff-y guy while supporting that very poorly.

[Gignere]

I think the main problem with locks is that they absolutely need to pace themselves and in fights if the enemy makes the save they are SoL and must fall back to using EB. Whereas the other full casters can immediately try again and again until something sticks. This is especially true in the BBEG fights with legendary saves so basically when the warlock need to step up, he/she can't and it can make them feel quite impotent.

[Tanarii]

If a sizable number of players have problems with the Warlock-- and from all appearances, both on this forum and in my real-life experience, that's certainly true-- then it's a poorly written class. It doesn't matter whether or not it functions when played "properly;" the very fact that there is only one right way to play it is, inherently, a failure of design. You'll note that no other class in the game has that problem-- you generally don't see people wondering why the Paladin struggles to debuff, or the Monk struggles in toe-to-toe fights, because the classes naturally steer you in the direction you're looking for. Fluff and features align in obvious ways. The Warlock... the Warlock doesn't. It does not communicate that it's really an archer-with-a-bit-of-magic-utility; instead, it suggests that I should be some sort of dark, scary debuff-y guy while supporting that very poorly.
There's a difference between:
A) anti-optimization (very poor option picks)
B) not understanding how Pact Magic slots per encounter are balanced and intentionally trying to claim that perfectly well balanced options suck and generally being hostile to the entire concept of Short Rest slots and Invocations (see Ziegander's posts)
C) Not liking the general way the class is designed to play, because you've got a different idea of what a warlock entails
D) Being of the opinion that the mechanics are kinda clunky

Edit: I'm actually of the opinion that the mechanics are kinda clunky.

Notice btw I didn't include an option 'Think the Warlock is perfectly designed and balanced as is'. I didn't even notice that until I started making this edit. So that tells you my personal views on the matter. :smallbiggrin:

[Vogonjeltz]

When exactly does that work? Let's call it a 6 encounter day (still straining credulity at my table, combat takes longer than anything else, and even if we play for 3 hours per game night, trying to fit in 6 combat encounters is usually 2/3 that time, at least). Let's start at 5th level. Clerics and Wizards have cantrips, albeit less useful than a Fighter's at-will Greatsword, but they also have four 1st-level spell slots, three 2nd-level spell slots, and two 3rd-level spell slots. That gives them some combination of nine spell slots for the day, or something like one spell per encounter, cantrips on the side, and three non-combat spells per day. Seems reasonable.

On the other hand, with 2 short rests, Warlocks get 6 spell slots per day. Now, that's six 3rd level spell slots per day, absolutely, but they don't get Fireball. They don't get Animate Dead or Revivify. What they get is one 3rd-level spell per encounter, and they know exactly one of them. They could upcast Hold Person or Invisibility or Armor of Agathys or, uh... yeah... So what you're looking at is a character with one spell slot per encounter, no spell slots for non-combat, and in-combat, they may or may not have slightly more powerful or slightly less powerful effects.

One of these two options seems clearly superior, at this level point, than the other.



Pact of the Tome is a good pact, I totally agree, but all it does is give Ritual Casting to a class that sorely needs out of combat utility when Clerics and Wizards already had it anyway. So, essentially, aside from gaining a few other cantrips, it does almost nothing valuable.

But choosing invocations that grant spellcasting? Are you actually serious? Yes, I want to spend a class feature on sort of learning a spell that I can only cast once per day even though I have spell slots that refresh on short rests. Ascendant Step. Great. I can get a bad spell at-will six levels after no spell caster wanted to spend daily slots on it. Dreadful Word. Oh, good, in exchange for having just four spells at 4th level on my spell list I can actually cast one decent spell. It uses one of my short rest slots, and I can't cast it again until I long rest. Oh my ****. Wut. Mask of Many Faces, yeah, it's cool, in the right campaign. Even in the right campaign it's still only kind of okay. Not in that campaign, worthless. Master of a Myriad Forms, grrrreaaat, let's get a spell 13 levels late that was only moderately good 13 levels ago. But I can cast it at-will! Who. Cares. Literally every other spellcasting option makes you "learn" a new spell that you can only cast on a long rest with your short rest slots. Fantastic. Once per day you cast Slow. You still have a woefully limited number of actual spells known that can actually be cast with pact magic slots and you still probably don't have enough of them with your short rests to compete with real full-casters.

It's 6-8 encounters per adventuring day not real life day.

And that is exactly how many encounters happen in the very first day of the starter adventure

Edit: And combats likely only last 1 minute of actual in-game time given that every round is only 6 seconds.

[jas61292]

Personally, I think a lot of people get upset with the warlock because they come in looking for two things: A) a full caster, but different, and B) a magic archer.

However, in my experience, the issue is with B. The class is actually a really good and diverse caster, but it won't seem like it if you are investing all your resources into a pure damaging cantrip. The warlocks I have seen that have been the best are those who did not take eldritch blast, period. In doing so, they freed up invocation space for things that are far more useful, including, most notably, the ability to get certain spells or spell like effects at will. Two slots per short rest doesn't seem like a lot, even if mathematically it comes out close to other classes on a standard day. However, it feels way different when your "cantrips" also include things like Silent Image, and you have an effect better than the Darkvision spell at will.

Also, for what its worth, forgoing Eldritch Blast allows you to pick more utility damaging cantrips like Ray of Frost, which don't pack the punch of eldritch blast, but fit in more with the classic caster role.

Now, I am not saying that the stereotypical blaster warlock is bad. Far from it. But I do not think, at least at lower levels before you really get a good number of invocations, you can't really play that AND get the kind of caster a lot of people envision when they hear it gets access to 9th level spells.

[Ninja-Radish]

Personally, I think a lot of people get upset with the warlock because they come in looking for two things: A) a full caster, but different, and B) a magic archer.

However, in my experience, the issue is with B. The class is actually a really good and diverse caster, but it won't seem like it if you are investing all your resources into a pure damaging cantrip.

That's interesting, because every single one of the Warlock complaint threads I've seen were about one of two things: A) Warlocks suck because they have too few spell slots, or B) Pact of the Blade doesn't work unless you multiclass Fighter or Paladin.

The big issue in my view is that the fluff describes Warlocks as casters who gain kewl powers from a supernatural patron. Except Warlocks play more like archer rangers or rogues than they do spellcasters, which pisses many people off. Bladelocks are an even bigger problem, but I won't get into it here.

[Sigreid]

So, an option would be for him to play a wizard, and fluff it like a pact of tome warlock. He's a diabolist that made a pact for the ability to wield magic. He can add other wizard spells to his book of shadows, but instead of study and practice he does it through rituals and sacrifices to his patron (same cost) who grants him the clarity to copy the spell.

Just at thought based on what you said he doesn't like about wizard and how you would prefer him to operate.

[Armok]

One way to address this without reworking the entire class is to change up the items you hand out. Slipping in a wand or staff in some treasure might solve a lot of his problems, especially if it's got a few different applications. For example, a staff with protection from good/evil, darkness and unseen servant can easily be thrown on an evil conjurer and worked into an encounter. Just having some thematic options that don't tax spell slots might be a bit more enjoyable, and when your players find creative ways to use non-damage spells everybody wins.

Also don't forget to give scrolls out semi-regularly. Like don't go overboard with it, but just knowing you have a scroll of cure disease or burning hands on your hands and then using it when you really need it is pretty satisfying for a caster.

[Zalabim]

I actually took a little time and estimated the average "level" of spell a caster was casting each round (assuming 20 rounds of action in a day) between a wizard and a warlock, and while the wizard casts more slotted spells, the warlock casts an average higher slot per spell. For example, agonizing eldritch blast at level 5 is almost 2nd level (12.9 average damage vs MM 14 or Chromatic Orb 12.6), while fire bolt at level 5 isn't 1st level (7.7 average damage vs MM 10.5 or Chromatic Orb 9.45). Basically, a level 5 warlock casts 6 3rd level spells and then 14 "2nd level" cantrips (average ~2.3), while a level 5 wizard casts 3 3rd level spells, 3 2nd level spells, 4 1st level spells, and 10 sub 1st level cantrips (average ~1.45). I then looked at the spell lists to make some concrete comparisons and realized that the warlock's spell list is so different from the Wizard's that comparing the classes by spell slots is pointless.

If you insist on doing so though, the other comparison that compromises between counting a 1st level slot as the same value as a 5th level slot and not counting a 1st level slot at all is comparing by converting to spell points. A level 5 warlock has 10 spell points per short rest and invocations, and some kind of patron ability. A level 5 wizard has 27 spell points per long rest, an extra 5 spell points from arcane recovery, and some kind of school specialization ability. At level 9 it's 14 per short rest compared to 57 per long rest and 9 from arcane recovery. At level 11 it goes to 21 per short rest and 9 on a long rest compared to 73 per long rest and 11 from arcane recovery. It dips at points, but it is about the same as a normal progression of spell points if you get two short rests.

It may be a problem that the Warlock can be built badly, but so can most spell casters. It may be a problem that the warlock can suffer without short rests, compared to the rest of the party, but so do other primarily short rest based classes.


I'd be wary of making Warlocks progress like a normal caster. They'd still have all the goodies of their cantrips and invocation shenanigans but if you look at the Warlock spell list, they have some of the most potent spells available. It also gives them an extra 2 Cantrips.
What? How? How did you come to this conclusion?

I strongly recommend not giving Warlocks Full Caster spell progression and using the Spell Point System.
The reason for this caution is that, for the majority of the game they will be fine, far stronger than they are currently but mostly within reason. (Look at their spell list, they would be able to optimise spell slot level to a crazy level) but then if you have a game that reaches level 20...A Level 20 Warlock that is a Full Caster gets their capstone. As is now, that's an extra 5 lvl 5 spell slots per long rest.
The Warlock Capstone recovers their normal amount of spell slots, so 4 level 5 slots. Not 5. And it would probably best to keep it that way, or similar, for any change to the warlock.

Let them use the Spell Point System and they can suddenly cast 20 9th lvl spells and 2 1st or 2nd lvl spells per long rest.
The spell point system doesn't allow anyone to cast more than one 9th level spell in day. Same for 8th, 7th, and 6th.

[Millstone85]

It does not communicate that it's really an archer-with-a-bit-of-magic-utility; instead, it suggests that I should be some sort of dark, scary debuff-y guy while supporting that very poorly.Coming from 4e, I knew to expect a "striker". Recognizing the at-will/encounter/daily design from that same edition, my expectation was only reinforced. But I see now how people would think the class is something else. Debuffing would be thematic, yes.


The class is actually a really good and diverse caster, but it won't seem like it if you are investing all your resources into a pure damaging cantrip.Making a blastlock only takes the one invocation, which is of course Agonizing Blast. If you really like the cantrip, as I do, you can go for Repelling Blast too and, maaayybe, Eldritch Spear. But you only need the first. How would saving on that so dramatically change the class?

[DKing9114]

Making a blastlock only takes the one invocation, which is of course Agonizing Blast. If you really like the cantrip, as I do, you can go for Repelling Blast too and, maaayybe, Eldritch Spear. But you only need the first. How would saving on that so dramatically change the class?

I believe the resources in question referred to always using the Hex+Blast combination which, while fairly potent, does mean you are spending a spell slot on straight damage each encounter.

[Millstone85]

I believe the resources in question referred to always using the Hex+Blast combination which, while fairly potent, does mean you are spending a spell slot on straight damage each encounter.I should also have quoted the part about freeing up invocation space, or not taking eldritch blast at all.

And I believe you can maintain hex between encounters, though it does forbid other concentration spells.

[jas61292]

I believe the resources in question referred to always using the Hex+Blast combination which, while fairly potent, does mean you are spending a spell slot on straight damage each encounter.

This is true, in addition to the frequency with which people will look at repelling blast. Assuming you do both of those things from the start, then at level 2, you essentially have 1 spell slot per short rest for every single other situation other than damage. And you will only have two spells known to use with it. And that is of course assuming you never lose concentration and have to cast Hex again, and that all encounters between short rests take place within an hour of each other. Essentially, you make yourself a DPS machine, but without really anything useful to do outside of combat.

Alternatively, lets say you forgo the archer mentality completely. Now, none of your spell slots are dedicated to any specific spell, allowing you to better allocate them as needed. In addition, you likely have at least one, if not two higher level spells you can cast at will, greatly increasing your utility, both out of combat, and potentially in combat depending on the specific choices. And, if you need some at will damage, you can always rely on Ray of Frost, which has a fantastic secondary effect that is nearly as good as repelling blast at low levels. If you don't have Agonizing Blast, useful secondary effects will almost always be more valuable than 1 point more damage per die, on average. Yeah, your role is completely different now. You are more of a classic caster, with utility, control, and the occasional power spell. Is this a better character? It depends a lot on the kind of game you play. Maybe, maybe not. But it is very effective, and gets you the full casting style, with a very different feel. Something I don't think you really get when you focus on Eldritch Blast and DPS above all.

[Chaosrex]

An Eldritch Knight Figther, gets more spellslots then a Warlock...

A dude that was whacking stuff on the head , decided to randomly pick up a spellbook and read it between two sweat sessions, and ends up with MORE spell slots then a Dude who've made a Pact with a Demi-God/Devil/Magical teapotand sold his Soul/Blood/McGuffin

Let that sink in for a minute...

[JakOfAllTirades]

Why don't the other players want a short rest? It's not like they have to wait it out in real time.

Nice thread necro.

Anyway, yeah, this right here. It works like this:

Warlock player: "Guys, my character could use a short rest."

Everyone else: "Okay, we'll do that."

Warlock player notes recovery of spell slots, etc. All players roll hit dice used, if needed.

One or two minutes later, the game continues. Wow, that was easy.

[Blood of Gaea]

Warlocks are full casters. They just operate on a short rest scale instead of a long rest one.
If that was true, they would get a second use of their 6th and 7th level Mystic Arcanum.

[Tanarii]

If that was true, they would get a second use of their 6th and 7th level Mystic Arcanum.
Please do not quote things I posted two years ago.

[jaappleton]

Hello fellow playgrounders !

I have a little issue in my game.

One of my players is playing a warlock. He didn't like the fluff of the wizard of being a bookish nerd or being born with his powers like a sorcerer. He liked the idea of having made a pact with an otherwordly creature (similarly to Lilianna for those MTG fans out there) and that his character is on a quest for magic power.

This is his first true D&D campaign, he played some Pathfinder with us before but that things lasted for 3-4 sessions. He chose the warlock, mostly for fluff, and because he wanted to play a caster. However, the small number of spell slots on the class is stymieing his options as he'd like to be able to do more than: hex -> eldritch blast. He's got some nifty other spells he'd like to use from time to time, but he always ends up short on slots.

Part of the problem is the team comp, two paladins, a cleric and a rogue. Both paladins and the cleric run more on long rather than short rests and the rogue doesn't care either way. The other part might fall on me not pushing them enough so that long rests are not always easy to take, then again the campaign is still very young. In the end the warlock often ends up expending his two slots rather fast and only recouping when the team stops for a long rest.

TLDR I'd like to give the warlock more flexibility to his casting so that he could exploit his spells more. I'm toying with 2 solutions and would like your input:

1) Replace the Warlock's Pact Magic and Mystic Arcanums with a regular spell progression (as a sorcerer or wizard). That puts him more in line with the cleric in the way he replenishes his spells and would allow the whole group to have the same resting requirements and would also increase his versatility in his spell use.

2) Use the Spell Points variant and customizing it to the Warlock. This would keep the Warlock unique but increase his versatility a bit (which is the intended outcome).


Note that I'm opting for those options as I know my players and that changing to the "gritty realism variant" would feel pretty harsh and be a drastic change of pace for them and the campaign in general. But maybe it is what we need ?

I could also suggest to him to multiclass into Sorcerer, arguing that his pursuit of power has ignited his "Spark" or "Gift". That would put him behind in spellcasting ability for quite a few levels (they will hit level 5 next session).

I could also adjust the number of encounters so that they are forced to take short rests and all, but I know that my (other) players like a fewer more meaningful combats rather than multiple combats for the sake of combat.

Anyways, thanks in advance for your help guys !

I played a Warlock for a bit. Part of the issue I had was that spells are always cast at their highest level. If Im playing a Hexblade, or say an Archfey, then Shield and Faerie Fire are always cast at their highest level.

Don’t get me wrong, they’re great spells. But when you only have two slots before level 11... That sucks.

What my DM and I came up with was this:

Short Rest Spell Point Variant

So at level 5, you have two 3rd level slots, right? According to the spell point system, that’s 5 points each. So you have 10 points, per short rest.

This allows low level spells to be cast at low levels.

It also makes certain Invocations to be much more appealing. Sign of Ill Omen, I believe that’s the one that lets you cast Bane? Doesn’t totally suck now.

For Invocations like Eldritch Smite, you spent a number of points equal to a spell level. 2nd, 3rd, etc.

Now, using this method, you may end up with just 1 spell point sometimes, until your next rest. And you can’t use that for anything. That’s what you trade off for MUCH higher flexibility, and it’s 100% worth it IMO.

That’s what my DM and I came up with and it was MUCH, much better.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Please don't revive old threads. If a thread hasn't been posted in within the last 45 days, please don't revive it.