I need some feedback on the houserues my DM uses

[Trandir]

Here are the houserules


The Agonizing blast invocation now has this effect "the eldritch blast damage changes from 1d10 to 3d4".

The expanded spell list's spells are added to your spells known and do not count towards your limit of spells known.

The pact magic now gives a different amount of spells slots as indicated in the table (http://imgur.com/gallery/4qTctj2). Your spells are casted at a spell level equal to the spell slot used to cast them. (But the slots are still regained on short rest as well as long ones.)


The Hex Warrior feature of the Hexblade patron doesn't provide any bonus proficiency. The pact of the blade no longer makes you proficient in your pact weapon and it gives as bonus proficiencies shields, medium armor, and all martial weapons.


This should be all. So what do you think?

Edit: Also I got the greenlight to change the spell progression to something that is neither as unbalanced as the OP table nor as limited as the RAW list. And I think spell points could work out quite nicely. They would still recharge on short rest and would allow for either some spell spamming or going nova. But how many points? Just the equivalent of two of the highest level slot you can cast might be a OK, but agonizing blast will probably stay in its nerfed state so maybe they can get some extra points. What do you think?

[diplomancer]

5/10.

I like giving the Patron spells for free (even more now that WotC is going in that direction w/ sorcerers as well), though I would test it first by giving Warlocks a choice of either Patron spell per level for free, and moving some of Hexblade to Pact of the Blade is a common, and good, houserule (though I'd personally keep shield proficiency with the Hexblade, and move the Cha to weapon attacks to Pact of the Blade).

On the other hand, eldritch blast does not need any boost, and I really dislike the changes to pact magic, being both overtuned and stripping the warlock of its main mechanic identity.

[Trandir]

On the other hand, eldritch blast does not need any boost, and I really dislike the changes to pact magic, being both overtuned and stripping the warlock of its main mechanic identity.

You do realize agonizing blast is guttet right? The change is not an addition. It's all the invocation does.

[Unoriginal]

This should be all. So what do you think?

Your DM has something against Warlocks?

[Trandir]

Your DM has something against Warlocks?

I honestly think he considers this an improvement over the original design

[diplomancer]

You do realize agonizing blast is guttet right? The change is not an addition. It's all the invocation does.

Ah, I didn't notice that, sorry. Then I'm not so sure, it's a very small increase for an invocation, not even worth it. And, though this is definitely more idiosyncratic, I also dislike rolling d4s for some reason; rolling 6 of them and having to sum them up individually sounds like a bother. Playing online it'd be different, of course.

Overall, all these houserules combined would change the way the warlock plays significantly; the nerf to agonizing blast, combined with the changes to Pact Magic, would get the Warlock playing more like other casters¹ and I don't think that's a good thing, personally.

¹ i.e, casting spells almost every round after a certain level, and not depending on cantrip damage; consider a 6th level warlock, and two short rests- he'd have 18 slots! That means he's probably casting a leveled spell almost every round.

[stoutstien]

You do realize agonizing blast is guttet right? The change is not an addition. It's all the invocation does.
Well 3d4 and 1d10+2 are pretty close and 3d4 can benefit from critical Hits so I wouldn't call it gutted.

[Trandir]

Well 3d4 and 1d10+2 are pretty close and 3d4 can benefit from critical Hits so I wouldn't call it gutted.

Problem is agonizing blast very rarely adds +2, it's usually +3-5 depending on level. At +3 it already lags behind and at +4 with a critical they are about the same.

[stoutstien]

Problem is agonizing blast very rarely adds +2, it's usually +3-5 depending on level. At +3 it already lags behind and at +4 with a critical they are about the same.
Oh it's not a good trade for the class in general but AB is pretty meh to begin with. It's either a tax or the damage isn't worth the pick.

[Guy Lombard-O]

Well, that's basically a complete rework of the warlock, isn't it?

Honestly, though, I'd sooner play it than the PHB warlock. Sure, your ABlasts are weaker than they otherwise would be. But with that many spell slots...short rest spell slots...you'll be able to use spells like Shield without it feeling like a waste, and you can cast Hex without feeling like it's a big deal to dump it in favor of a better spell when the situation arises.

But with two short rests a day, you'll be firing off more spells than any other caster in the party. And since warlock spells are a bit notorious for not usually scaling well with upcast slots, you'll be able to power them with those lower level slots. Combine that with the free Patron spells giving you more spells known? More versatility.

I honestly think it'll play pretty well (and may even be a bit overpowered), although it won't really feel that much like a normal warlock. Which, in my opinion at least, is sort of okay (I admittedly don't care to play PHB warlocks).

[MrStabby]

Uff. Some big changes to the class.

I think changes that make the class more fun, though as to balance it would depend on the table and DM as to what is more useful.

I think it is the kind of thing that might tempt me to actually play a warlock again, but I would suggest that your DM actively monitor it and dial up or down as needed.

[diplomancer]

Your DM has something against Warlocks?

I think the answer to that question, for the DM as well as to some of the posters here, is yes.

Not because the changes are a nerf, they definitely are not (my first impression is that they make the non-Warlock overpowered, unless perhaps Short Rests are capped at 1 per Long Rest); but because they eliminate the Warlock as it is (i.e, a caster with a few big effects complemented by some decent at-will options for the rest of his rounds) and create a new caster class in its place that plays a lot like other caster classes.

[OldTrees1]

You do realize agonizing blast is guttet right? The change is not an addition. It's all the invocation does.


I honestly think he considers this an improvement over the original design

Sounds like the GM wanted Warlocks to be more like short rest spellcasters than eldritch blast spammers. The changes nerf agonizing blast (8.5 -> 7.5, 19 -> 15, 31.5 -> 22.5, 42 -> 30) but increase your spell casting frequency per short rest.
3rd - 4th: 1 2nd -> 2-3 1st
5th - 6th: 1 3rd -> 3 1st and 1-2 2nd
7th - 8th: 1 4th -> 3-4 1st, 2-3 2nd, and 1 3rd
9th-10th: 1 5th -> 4 1st, 3 2nd, 2 3rd, and 1 4th

Spells known doubled.

Seems like a really strong buff to the class in Tier 1-2. You almost have as many spells per short rest as other casters do per long rest.

Personally I would extend the spell progression to 6-7th level spells, and then slow it down over 20 levels instead of 10. Although I would also be inclined to bring back the At-will Warlock from 3e.

[Pex]

Suggest to the DM to change Agonizing Blast to be:

Eldritch Blast now rolls 2d6/1d12 for damage, and you may reroll a 1 or 2 on a damage die.

It's still a nerf but easier to calculate the damage, and the player gets fun out of rerolling bad luck. With obvious bias I think it makes the invocation no longer a must have but not a never have. His version appears never have to me.

[Theodoxus]

I like Pex's idea.

I also think it would be way simpler to just use spell points at this point. You can play the Warlock exactly the same as the PHB version (just talking about spell casting) if you want, upcasting to obtain your two spells, but you can also get a lot more granular with your casts, if you desire. No longer blowing a 5th level slot on Shield for instance, but casting it with 2 spell points instead. For those who prefer to play closer to a standard caster while still maintaining their short rest recharge. I've allowed this option in a few of my games and the players who don't mind fiddly tracking of a numerical resource and wanted to play something other than a sorcerer, jumped at the chance. My regular Warlock player just stuck to maximized spell levels. He is perfectly happy with very few options and no math.

[Tanarii]

The Agonizing blast invocation now has this effect "the eldritch blast damage changes from 1d10 to 3d4".Makes it not an automatic take, but it adds another bell curve on top of being multiple blasts at level 5+. You're unlikely to anything far outside average damage.


The expanded spell list's spells are added to your spells known and do not count towards your limit of spells known.Overpowered, especially with the next one.


The pact magic now gives a different amount of spells slots as indicated in the table (http://imgur.com/gallery/4qTctj2). Your spells are casted at a spell level equal to the spell slot used to cast them. (But the slots are still regained on short rest as well as long ones.)If this in play, the warlock needs to lost a bunch of features to rebalance it to be more like a spellcasting caster. Probably ditch at least half the invocations they would normally get.

(Edit: I missed they get a Long rest spellcaster's slots on a short rest recharge rate. Just ... No. That is ridiculous.)


The Hex Warrior feature of the Hexblade patron doesn't provide any bonus proficiency. The pact of the blade no longer makes you proficient in your pact weapon and it gives as bonus proficiencies shields, medium armor, and all martial weapons.This is a terrible idea, it's hugely OP and unbalanced Pact of the Blade to become an automatic top pick for all Warlocks.

[Captain Panda]

I honestly think he considers this an improvement over the original design

Yeah, he's wrong. That isn't an opinion, that's a fact, the math is clear.

From 5.5 damage per beam to 7.5 damage per beam. Instead of potentially +5, now you have +2 that doesn't scale. That's bad.

[JNAProductions]

Yeah, he's wrong. That isn't an opinion, that's a fact, the math is clear.

From 5.5 damage per beam to 7.5 damage per beam. Instead of potentially +5, now you have +2 that doesn't scale. That's bad.

Depends on what was meant by improvement.

Improvement as "This does more damage," he's mathematically wrong.
Improvement as "This is more balanced with other invocations," that's a good deal trickier to know.

My main concern, OP, is the adjusted spell slots. That's a LOT of casting-and with the extra spells known...

[heavyfuel]

Good houserules. Might actually be a tad overpowered.


Your DM has something against Warlocks?

What are you talking about? It's a nerf to EB and Hexblade, but pretty much a buff everywhere else.

10 extra spells known, a BUNCH more spells per short rest, and now picking spells that don't upcast are actually worth it, which drastically expands the selection of worthy spells.

[Keravath]

Honestly, the class looks way overpowered.

Nerf to agonizing blast so that each beam does 3d4 instead of d10+cha.

However, instead of two highest level spell slots on a short rest they have a bunch of lower level ones. This reaches a maximum at level 10 where they have 10 short rest slots of 1-4 + 1 level 5 short rest instead of 2 level 5s. In fact the warlock has so many spell slots that they will just spam spells every combat instead of agonizing blast since they will get all back on a short rest. Eldritch smite just got a bit boost.

From 11+ they give up two 5th level slots for the mass of lower level ones - so it is a nerf to their highest level spell casting ability but since they get them all back on a short rest anyway - they can cast tons of spells.

Moving the armor/shield/weapon proficiencies to blade pact from hexblade is a fairly common modification and after doing that it doesn't matter whether blade pact makes you proficient with your pact weapon or not. Does hex warrior still let you use charisma for attack rolls?

Anyway, the bottom line for me is that the huge number of short rest spell slots combined with all the additional spells makes the class massively OP compared to the base version and other classes.

[OldTrees1]

Maybe get rid of the Mystic Arcanum and change Pact Magic to something like this?




1
2
3
4
5
6
7


1
1


4
2
1


7
3
1
1


10
3
2
1
1


13
4
3
2
1
1


16
4
4
3
2
1
1


19
4
4
4
3
2
1
1

[sophontteks]

What exactly is the DM trying to accomplish?

[Trandir]

Does hex warrior still let you use charisma for attack rolls?


Yup. Only the proficiencies got changed.


What exactly is the DM trying to accomplish?

By his own words "make Warlock less of an EB spammer and more of a caster". I think he managed to do it. But I am concerned about the execution.

[Unoriginal]

What are you talking about? It's a nerf to EB and Hexblade, but pretty much a buff everywhere else.

10 extra spells known, a BUNCH more spells per short rest, and now picking spells that don't upcast are actually worth it, which drastically expands the selection of worthy spells.

Which to me indicates the DM does not like the Warlock as they are.

[Trandir]

Which to me indicates the DM does not like the Warlock as they are.

Yup. He thinks the RAW warlock is boring

[Pex]

Suggest to the DM to change Agonizing Blast to be:

Eldritch Blast now rolls 2d6/1d12 for damage, and you may reroll a 1 or 2 on a damage die.

It's still a nerf but easier to calculate the damage, and the player gets fun out of rerolling bad luck. With obvious bias I think it makes the invocation no longer a must have but not a never have. His version appears never have to me.

I did mean you may only reroll a damage die once. If the second roll is a 1 or 2 that's the damage. Let the DM decide if he prefers 2d6 or 1d12.

[Captain Panda]

By his own words "make Warlock less of an EB spammer and more of a caster". I think he managed to do it. But I am concerned about the execution.

The game already has such an option, he may be shocked to learn! It's called the wizard, and it's an awesome class. :smallcool:

[sophontteks]

Yup. Only the proficiencies got changed.

By his own words "make Warlock less of an EB spammer and more of a caster". I think he managed to do it. But I am concerned about the execution.

A strange goal. It'd be easier to just ban the class entirely. As a player I'd just operate on the assumption that warlocks are banned, and play something else. What he created isn't a warlock. It's a homebrew class.

[diplomancer]

The game already has such an option, he may be shocked to learn! It's called the wizard, and it's an awesome class. :smallcool:

Exactly; what this change accomplishes is to create another Wizard; worse spells, but far better casting.

Or worse, a better Paladin. Because a Hexblade pact of the blade (you don't NEED to be Hexblade, though the Shield spell helps; but this is a Warlock that can DUMP cha; i.e., not a warlock, so the Cha to weapon attacks is not that important) with Eldritch Smite and these slots will make the Paladin weep. This is almost as most a "smite on every attack" build as the Coffeelockadin, except you can do it from level 6.

It's what I'd build with these houserules, and tell the rest of the martials "don't bother, I've got damage covered". Go with a handcrossbow (CB expert and SS, naturally) and make the DM regret his badly-thought ideas

[xyianth]

If these are the only changes to all classes, he has made the warlock the best caster in the game. Yes, as others have pointed out his agonizing blast change is a direct nerf to the invocation and results in it no longer being worth an invocation slot. Honestly, with his spells known and slot changes, you won't care about eldritch blast much anyway by level 6-7 or so. It is at best a 3 point damage nerf per blast. That said, even without agonizing blast, eldritch blast is still the best ranged attack cantrip in the game. And that is before you had the slots to make absolutely certain every single target you hit with it is hexed. (Note: this is not an optimal strategy with the way he changed your casting; I'm just pointing it out for the sake of completeness)

The pact of the blade and hex warrior changes are basically irrelevant. They make non-hexblade blade pact warlocks better, and non-blade pact hexblade warlocks worse. Both those options were niche anyways. Blade pact hexblades are essentially unchanged. (Again, for completeness, you can no longer find some exotic weapon and make it your pact weapon; this was always cheesy anyway so who cares?)

Now, with those out of the way, let's break this thing! :smallamused:

Celestial warlock is now the best healer in the game. No need for life cleric pact magic goodberry shenanigans, just get cure wounds, lesser/greater restoration, and revivify for free along with all the slots needed to cast them willy nilly. Oh and keep your slotless improved healing words too. Go chain or tome pact and don't worry about touch range either. Take a dip as a divine soul sorcerer to pick up bless and no one will remember why they ever brought a cleric along anyway. (not counting those twilight clerics, of course)

Hexblade blade pact warlocks can now cast shield every time they are attacked. You get an absurd amount of leveled spell slots now. If you aren't using them on shield/misty step, you probably are using them to smite with. (via invocation and/or paladin dip)

I direct you to the Genie warlock, specifically the Dao Genie warlock. Spike Growth is well known for its insane synergy with forced movement. Agonizing Blast may be nerfed, but Repelling Blast isn't. If you have a grappler in your party, all the better.

Enjoy!

No but seriously, half-caster slot progression that recharges on a short rest is absurdly OP. Agonizing blast could read "casting eldritch blast kills you forever" and I still wouldn't care. Post-TCE, caster warlocks don't even use eldritch blast except in emergencies anymore. Take pact of the chain, investment of the chain master, a sprite or pseudodragon familiar, and the mind sliver cantrip. Go around poisoning and knocking foes unconscious at ridiculous rates.

[Trandir]

So it seems clear that the changes introduce some problems. Any idea to make things more balanced?

[diplomancer]

So it seems clear that the changes introduce some problems. Any idea to make things more balanced?

Easiest way is to limit the SR recharge to once per day (no need to limit SRs, or other classes might be upset; just the Warlock slot recharge). Maybe give one more 5th level slot at some point to compensate.

I still feel it's OP; but maybe not brokenly OP.

[OldTrees1]

So it seems clear that the changes introduce some problems. Any idea to make things more balanced?

The GM clearly wants a spellcasting focused class that recharges on a short rest rather than a long rest. They also want it to cast more frequently than 5E Warlock.

Maybe get rid of the Mystic Arcanum and change Pact Magic to something like this?
Now you are trading spell level in exchange for spell volume




1
2
3
4
5
6
7


1
1


4
2
1


7
3
1
1


10
3
2
1
1


13
4
3
2
1
1


16
4
4
3
2
1
1


19
4
4
4
3
2
1
1

[heavyfuel]

Which to me indicates the DM does not like the Warlock as they are.

Or, they love the concept of the Warlock, but thinks it was poorly executed. So he tries to improve the Warlock, not out hate, but out of love

[MoiMagnus]

No but seriously, half-caster slot progression that recharges on a short rest is absurdly OP.

I would put a very important limitation to this (and in general, "this houserule makes the warlock is OP").
I've seen on a quite frequent basis peoples complaining that warlock was just underwhelming or crap at their table, mostly because of how often the short rests are available.

If your table is usually having one short rest per long rest, at most two but rarely placed at practical moments, and that you often end up having in sequence 3 deadly encounters without a short rest (or at the contrary you long rest so often that there is never multiple difficult encounters per day), then Warlock will probably still be underwhelming despite those changes.

[diplomancer]

Or, they love the concept of the Warlock, but thinks it was poorly executed. So he tries to improve the Warlock, not out hate, but out of love

Which still means he does not like Warlocks as they are. It's a weird concept of love "I will change this thing I love until it's absolutely different; but it's alright, it's for its sake"


I would put a very important limitation to this (and in general, "this houserule makes the warlock is OP").
I've seen on a quite frequent basis peoples complaining that warlock was just underwhelming or crap at their table, mostly because of how often the short rests are available.

If your table is usually having one short rest per long rest, at most two but rarely placed at practical moments, and that you often end up having in sequence 3 deadly encounters without a short rest (or at the contrary you long rest so often that there is never multiple difficult encounters per day), then Warlock will probably still be underwhelming despite those changes.

Even without any SRs, if you go Blade, you will leave Paladins behind with your better, more flexible, smites. So it will definitely not feel underwhelming.

[xyianth]

I would put a very important limitation to this (and in general, "this houserule makes the warlock is OP").
I've seen on a quite frequent basis peoples complaining that warlock was just underwhelming or crap at their table, mostly because of how often the short rests are available.

If your table is usually having one short rest per long rest, at most two but rarely placed at practical moments, and that you often end up having in sequence 3 deadly encounters without a short rest (or at the contrary you long rest so often that there is never multiple difficult encounters per day), then Warlock will probably still be underwhelming despite those changes.

That is fair, but then the whole short rest recharge loses its meaning. If you only SR 0-1 times per day, why even have an SR recharge mechanic? Just make them half casters like paladin/ranger and be done with it. (I'm not saying that would be balanced, I'm saying it is the same thing as a short rest recharge mechanic if it never gets used more than once per long rest.)

Absent other information, you have to assume that the adventuring day is typical as laid out in the 5e rules: 2-3 SRs per LR. If this isn't followed, both monks and warlocks get more/less powerful depending on whether you SR more/less frequently. This is regardless of any house rules as laid out by the OP.

[heavyfuel]

Which still means he does not like Warlocks as they are. It's a weird concept of love "I will change this thing I love until it's absolutely different; but it's alright, it's for its sake"

Is it weird? I mean, I can see a situation where it would be weird, like if it were in relation to other people. "I love this person, so I'll try to change them" is definitely weird.

But "I love my own body, therefore I will exercise to improve it" is a pretty common feeling. "I like my gaming PC, so I'll buy new parts to improve it" is also pretty common. "I loved this lasgana I just made, but I think next time I'll put a little more cheese" can also be the case.

Just because you love/like something, it doesn't mean you think it's perfect.

[diplomancer]

Is it weird? I mean, I can see a situation where it would be weird, like if it were in relation to other people. "I love this person, so I'll try to change them" is definitely weird.

But "I love my own body, therefore I will exercise to improve it" is a pretty common feeling. "I like my gaming PC, so I'll buy new parts to improve it" is also pretty common. "I loved this lasgana I just made, but I think next time I'll put a little more cheese" can also be the case.

Just because you love/like something, it doesn't mean you think it's perfect.

This is more like "I love lasagna, however I don't think anyone should eat lasagna and I will never serve it to anyone; I'll serve gnocchi instead and call it lasagna. You see, I love the idea of lasagna".

And in this particular case, the gnocchi that's being served is so much better than all other pasta that it's almost as eliminating all pasta except gnocchi. I'd love to see the shenanigans a four-gnocchi party could pull off, and compare it to what a fusili-lasagna-spaghetti-ravioli party could do.

Hmm, I'm hungry.

[Keravath]

That is fair, but then the whole short rest recharge loses its meaning. If you only SR 0-1 times per day, why even have an SR recharge mechanic? Just make them half casters like paladin/ranger and be done with it. (I'm not saying that would be balanced, I'm saying it is the same thing as a short rest recharge mechanic if it never gets used more than once per long rest.)

Absent other information, you have to assume that the adventuring day is typical as laid out in the 5e rules: 2-3 SRs per LR. If this isn't followed, both monks and warlocks get more/less powerful depending on whether you SR more/less frequently. This is regardless of any house rules as laid out by the OP.

I'd just like to point out that making a warlock a half-caster would be a huge nerf to the class. Yes, their spell slots are limited by short rests which is a game style mechanic but they still get a reasonable amount of spells if they get short rests (backed up by at will damage through eldritch blast). That is the current class design.

I think the changes suggested by the OP go too far. If you want a more caster based warlock then remove the agonizing blast invocation entirely - eldritch blast is still a decent cantrip with 1d10 force damage with multiple bolts especially when combined with hex.

Increase the number of short rest spell slots - not as many as suggested by the OP and give the class one long rest spell slot from each of levels 6-9 with limited spells known - perhaps constrained by mystic arcanums. Currently there are 4 mystic arcanums - if you want the class to have more high level spell choices then add a some more arcanums between level 11-20.

In terms of short rest slots, it would need playtesting, but maybe one spell slot of each level - increasing after level 11. This would be in keeping with a 1 spell slot/spell level/long rest for level 6-9. Alternatively, keep the 2 highest level slots in tier 1,2 and add some number of lower level slots (no where near as many as proposed in the OP post).

Either way, it would need playtesting to see if it worked. From what I can tell, the proposal in the first post was mostly because the DM involved doesn't like Eldritch blast which is a central design feature of the 5e warlock.

[KorvinStarmast]

The only house rule I agree with on that list (particularly now that Tasha's sorcerers get goodies) is the 'patron spells count as spells known' - the rest is badly done. :smallyuk: Good reason not to play a 'lock' at his table.

So it seems clear that the changes introduce some problems. Any idea to make things more balanced?
1. Do the bonus spells
2. Ban Hexblade
3. At level 3 pact of the Blade gets medium armor proficiency and makes attacks with his/her Pact Weapon use Charisma for Str/Dex.

That's my suggestion.

[Tanarii]

1. Do the bonus spells
2. Ban Hexblade
3. At level 3 pact of the Blade gets medium armor proficiency and makes attacks with his/her Pact Weapon use Charisma for Str/Dex.
1 & 3 are a serious buff to a class that doesn't need a buff. Unless they're being balanced out by a serious nerf. (And AB nerf isn't near sufficient.)

#2 should go without saying.

[OldTrees1]

This is more like "I love lasagna, however I don't think anyone should eat lasagna and I will never serve it to anyone; I'll serve gnocchi instead and call it lasagna. You see, I love the idea of lasagna".

And in this particular case, the gnocchi that's being served is so much better than all other pasta that it's almost as eliminating all pasta except gnocchi. I'd love to see the shenanigans a four-gnocchi party could pull off, and compare it to what a fusili-lasagna-spaghetti-ravioli party could do.

Hmm, I'm hungry.

The OP's GM is likely familiar with the 3E Warlock. While the 3E Warlock had Eldritch Blast as a valid attack option, they also were at-will partial casters. So the conversion from 3E Warlock to 5E Warlock could be see as unfaithful to the class concept. If the GM loves the 3E Warlock, they might modify the 5E Warlock to be a better translation.

They also over tuned it but that does not imply they hate anything.

Sort of like adding the pasta back into the lasagna recipe after someone else removed it.

[diplomancer]

The OP's GM is likely familiar with the 3E Warlock. While the 3E Warlock had Eldritch Blast as a valid attack option, they also were at-will partial casters. So the conversion from 3E Warlock to 5E Warlock could be see as unfaithful to the class concept. If the GM loves the 3E Warlock, they might modify the 5E Warlock to be a better translation.

They also over tuned it but that does not imply they hate anything.

Hate is quite a strong word, which no one claimed is the case. According to the OP, the DM dislikes the 5e Warlock, and thinks it's boring. He wants to create a new class instead and call it the Warlock. That means banning the Warlock.

Of course, in this particular case, he made it so powerful that it's possible that, apart from banning the Warlock, he might have soft-banned quite a few other classes as weel.

[Trandir]

Of course, in this particular case, he made it so powerful that it's possible that, apart from banning the Warlock, he might have soft-banned quite a few other classes as weel.

I don't understand what you mean. Can you explain it again?

[diplomancer]

I don't understand what you mean. Can you explain it again?

The way the class was re-written, the main difficulty would be actually using all of the slots the class gets; so the best solution is a way to increase your "slot usage frequency"; and Pact of the Blade's Eldritch smite invocation does that; you will be smiting *every single round*, twice per round if you can get a reliable reaction attack like PAM. Which means that people have fewer reasons to pick a Paladin; go Celestial Pact of the Blade, prioritize Str or Dex over Cha, and now you have a class that's stronger than the Paladin at damage, and can also heal better than the Paladin. So if that option was on the table, the Paladin is "soft-banned", meaning that someone who wants to play a Paladin would do better to play this Warlock; sure, you might miss the auras, but, as good as they are, they'd not compensate for it.

Now, if you are outdamaging a smite-happy Paladin, you are probably outdamaging most martials; so if damage is what you want to do with your Martials, they are also soft-banned.

[Trandir]

Now, if you are outdamaging a smite-happy Paladin, you are probably outdamaging most martials; so if damage is what you want to do with your Martials, they are also soft-banned.

Oh, you meant that they outclass other classes. I can see that. Thanks for the explanation.

[heavyfuel]

This is more like "I love lasagna, however I don't think anyone should eat lasagna and I will never serve it to anyone; I'll serve gnocchi instead and call it lasagna. You see, I love the idea of lasagna"

Sorry, but I don't see how that's even remotely close to what's happening. It's like they are removing something from the lasagna, like minced meat, but then also adding prosciutto. Sure, you might prefer lasagna with minced meat, but it's still a lasagna.

[Trandir]

Sorry, but I don't see how that's even remotely close to what's happening. It's like they are removing something from the lasagna, like minced meat, but then also adding prosciutto. Sure, you might prefer lasagna with minced meat, but it's still a lasagna.

It's more like putting pizza mozzarella instead of regular mozzarella, all beef ragu instead of mixed ragu and then you pour an unhealty ammount of bechamel in it.

Also I got the greenlight to change the spell progression to something that is neither as unbalanced as the OP table nor as limited as the RAW list. And I think spell points could work out quite nicely. They would still recharge on short rest and would allow for either some spell spamming or going nova. But how many points? Just the equivalent of two of the highest level slot you can cast might be a OK, but agonizing blast will probably stay in its nerfed state so maybe they can get some extra points. What do you think?

[Tanarii]

Also I got the greenlight to change the spell progression to something that is neither as unbalanced as the OP table nor as limited as the RAW list. And I think spell points could work out quite nicely. They would still recharge on short rest and would allow for either some spell spamming or going nova. But how many points? Just the equivalent of two of the highest level slot you can cast might be a OK, but agonizing blast will probably stay in its nerfed state so maybe they can get some extra points. What do you think?
Changing Pact Magic to spell points adds quite a lot of power to the class (because flexibility is power), but it's better than the originally present option.

Two suggested ways to do it, since there isn't a RAW way to use Pact Magic with the spell points optional rule:
1 - convert spell slots from the warlock table to spell points per the DMG values for that level of slot. That's how many you get per SR.
2 - divide the total spell points a spellcasting spell caster would get per the DMG table by 3. That's how many you get per SR.

[Trandir]

Changing Pact Magic to spell points adds quite a lot of power to the class (because flexibility is power), but it's better than the originally present option.

Two suggested ways to do it, since there isn't a RAW way to use Pact Magic with the spell points optional rule:
1 - convert spell slots from the warlock table to spell points per the DMG values for that level of slot. That's how many you get per SR.
2 - divide the total spell points a spellcasting spell caster would get per the DMG table by 3. That's how many you get per SR.

Option 2 kind of gimpses the warlock before 7th level and then begins to pick up speed. Option 1 works just fine with added flexibility, but is that a good idea at the end of the day?

[Tanarii]

Option 2 kind of gimpses the warlock before 7th level and then begins to pick up speed. Option 1 works just fine with added flexibility, but is that a good idea at the end of the day?
IMO no, if you do that you need to remove some invocations to balance it out. But lots of people on these forums are advocates of it anyway.

Probably because it's so good /suspiciousmind

[KorvinStarmast]

1 & 3 are a serious buff to a class that doesn't need a buff. Unless they're being balanced out by a serious nerf. (And AB nerf isn't near sufficient.) I can live without the Cha for attack and damage, personally, but leave AB alone. That's my taste; (and I still have not taken AB, I like repelling more as a support lock. For smaller parties who rely on more damage from the 'lock, AB is fine as is).

[Kane0]

The Agonizing blast invocation now has this effect "the eldritch blast damage changes from 1d10 to 3d4".

Not amazing, not terrible. I recommend going Elven Hexblade for crit fishing otherwise you're losing 1-3 damage per hit vs stock depending on your Cha.



The expanded spell list's spells are added to your spells known and do not count towards your limit of spells known.

This is good, and I do similar (one instead of both).



The pact magic now gives a different amount of spells slots as indicated in the table (http://imgur.com/gallery/4qTctj2). Your spells are casted at a spell level equal to the spell slot used to cast them. (But the slots are still regained on short rest as well as long ones.)

That's quite a considerable step up, you're getting almost full caster progression but with short rest recovery to boot. This is definitely a power boost.



The Hex Warrior feature of the Hexblade patron doesn't provide any bonus proficiency. The pact of the blade no longer makes you proficient in your pact weapon and it gives as bonus proficiencies shields, medium armor, and all martial weapons.

This is a pretty standard change i've seen on a few tables and works alright. Benefits bladelocks that aren't Hexblades and only delays Hexblades by 2 levels at most.



Edit: Also I got the greenlight to change the spell progression to something that is neither as unbalanced as the OP table nor as limited as the RAW list. And I think spell points could work out quite nicely. They would still recharge on short rest and would allow for either some spell spamming or going nova. But how many points? Just the equivalent of two of the highest level slot you can cast might be a OK, but agonizing blast will probably stay in its nerfed state so maybe they can get some extra points. What do you think?

Yes spell points would probably be better and is also a relatively common houserule. Just take the PHB warlock slots and use the DMG Spell Point table to convert them into their spell point value, refilling that pool on a long or short rest.
If you feel a little short I would perhaps recommend making an invocation that gives you a small handful of extra SP, like +prof bonus or +cha bonus. Or just allow the invocations that cast spells to let you cast those spells once per long rest without needing to expend a slot/points, probably a better solution as those invocations are usually considered bottom of the pile anyways.

[OldTrees1]

Hate is quite a strong word, which no one claimed is the case. According to the OP, the DM dislikes the 5e Warlock, and thinks it's boring. He wants to create a new class instead and call it the Warlock. That means banning the Warlock.

Of course, in this particular case, he made it so powerful that it's possible that, apart from banning the Warlock, he might have soft-banned quite a few other classes as weel.

The second part does not follow from the first part. He wants to improve the class. That does not imply the framing (create new class and ban old class) that you are using. So rather than get stuck on that topic, should we consider how to address the desires of the OP and the OP's GM?

For example short rest slots going to 7th level by 20th at the cost of having slower progression and no mystic Arcanum. A buff and 2 nerfs that could be calibrated for balance.

Although you are right that an increase in spell slots might require changing Eldritch Smite.

[diplomancer]

The second part does not follow from the first part. He wants to improve the class. That does not imply the framing (create new class and ban old class) that you are using. So rather than get stuck on that topic, should we consider how to address the desires of the OP and the OP's GM?

For example short rest slots going to 7th level by 20th at the cost of having slower progression and no mystic Arcanum. A buff and 2 nerfs that could be calibrated for balance.

Although you are right that an increase in spell slots might require changing Eldritch Smite.

There is a class, that plays a certain way (i.e, it fires off around one powerful effect per combat and then spends the rest of the combat contributing to the party mostly through Eldritch Blast damage). He doesn't like the way this class plays. He wants a class that fires spells pretty much every round (the spell table provided would mean that from around level 6, that would be quite doable). That's why he is creating this new class. The class is not improved, the way, say, Tasha's Beastmaster was improved; it is fundamentally changed.

As to the spell point variant; it's definitely a power up, but I haven't played with it and so can't say if it's overpowered. Might be just compensating for the Agonizing Blast nerf, and accomplish more of what the DM wants. It does provide evidence as to how over powered the initial suggestion was. A regular 6th level Warlock would have 10 spell points per short rest; the unWarlock would have 17! And it would get worse from there.

[Trandir]

What about the Treantmonk warlock variant (https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-LsTGnSOjNrYbYGZzxZ8)?

[MrStabby]

There is a class, that plays a certain way (i.e, it fires off around one powerful effect per combat and then spends the rest of the combat contributing to the party mostly through Eldritch Blast damage). He doesn't like the way this class plays. He wants a class that fires spells pretty much every round (the spell table provided would mean that from around level 6, that would be quite doable). That's why he is creating this new class. The class is not improved, the way, say, Tasha's Beastmaster was improved; it is fundamentally changed.

As to the spell point variant; it's definitely a power up, but I haven't played with it and so can't say if it's overpowered. Might be just compensating for the Agonizing Blast nerf, and accomplish more of what the DM wants. It does provide evidence as to how over powered the initial suggestion was. A regular 6th level Warlock would have 10 spell points per short rest; the unWarlock would have 17! And it would get worse from there.

The problem with this is that is assumes that spell points are actually a good metric for measuring relative spellcasting power.

This misses out on a lot of stuff, some obvious and some more subtle. I mean sometimes you just want a very simple measure and just adding everything together with some kind of weighting is good enough but at others you need to look a bit more deeply.

I think that this is one of those times.

One of the weaknesses of the warlock is that it is capped in power by its short rest mechanic. You open the day with an epic fight then followed by some easy ones? All the full casters can pull forwards their consumption of spells to when they need it. The warlock is stuck with their (probably) two spells. And if you have a DM that throws the unexpected and dangerous at the party then the need to hold some resource back at all times seriously squeezes your resource availability. Comparing spellpoints doesn't capture this.

And as important as the number of spell points is what you can spend them on. What is the best thing to do at any point in time? This is determined by your spell list. Spell points don't really capture what they can be spent on and some classes have vastly better spell lists than others.

I think I would be tempted to at least try the half casting/short rest progression. Run it in a one-shot to see how it works in practice. Yes, it looks strong on paper but the limitations of the spell list and the limitations on what you can have access to at any given point in time are strikes against it... and you only have one use of concentration no matter how many spell slots you get to spend it on. Then there is the "linear fighter, quadratic wizard" trope - there is a little truth to it. High hevel spells are really powerful; a single teleport can solve more encounters than a fighter has hitpoints, and meteor swarm can demolish a small army. In D&D the big guns are big.

[Trandir]

Snip


I think the progression suggested by my DM is a bit too generous. It also opens a couple of problems with multiclassing into a class that has good low level spells to spam or just eldritch smite.

I am finding the spell points to be also kind of hard to balance. Mainly because the spam of shield from hexblade is an ever present concern.

[Tanarii]

One of the weaknesses of the warlock is that it is capped in power by its short rest mechanic.
Also one of its biggest strengths is that it's power isn't capped because of its short rest mechanic. It can get slots back as often as it can rest an hour.

[Theodoxus]

If you're spamming Shield, you're burning through your small pool of spell points.

Of course, if you have Shield, you're either a Hexblade or you've multiclassed. If you're a Hexblade, you're either burning through spell points extremely fast with Shield and Smites or you're taking a more conservative approach and using them only when it's to your best advantage (surrounded my multiple opponents so your Shield is a good call).

I haven't had a chance to actually play or run a Hexblade with the spell point variant, but I would suspect that having more times you can Smite, even if they're smaller, would be a larger boon. The granularity offered by spell points allows for a lot of options otherwise not available. Now, some people obviously think that more options = OP. In my estimation, more options simply means more fun. Especially if you're not having to beg the group for a short rest after every combat... YMMV.

[Tanarii]

Now, some people obviously think that more options = OP. In my estimation, more options simply means more fun.
Those two are correlated for many players ... of the character with the OP abilities.

But OP often doesn't mean more fun for the DM or other players.

[Theodoxus]

Those two are correlated for many players ... of the character with the OP abilities.

But OP often doesn't mean more fun for the DM or other players.

In the aggregate, I agree. But in this specific case, you're using spell points as provided in the DMG with the small homebrew of converting the spell slot level to the requisite spell points and then multiplying them by the number of slots available (the most common way to convert Warlock slots to spell points), then you're really not doing anything that is particularly egregious to either DM or the other players - especially if this change is noted in session 0 so all the players are on board with it, and have the option to also pick Warlock if they truly believe that it overly strengthens the class.

As I noted when I first mentioned it in this thread, you can still play a book-standard Warlock with this change, simply by maximizing the cost of any spell cast. Now, it makes little sense to do that for spells that don't have an upcast feature (like Shield), but there's nothing in the optional rules, either way, regarding "overcharging" for the spells' cost.

[diplomancer]

If you're spamming Shield, you're burning through your small pool of spell points.

Of course, if you have Shield, you're either a Hexblade or you've multiclassed. If you're a Hexblade, you're either burning through spell points extremely fast with Shield and Smites or you're taking a more conservative approach and using them only when it's to your best advantage (surrounded my multiple opponents so your Shield is a good call).

I haven't had a chance to actually play or run a Hexblade with the spell point variant, but I would suspect that having more times you can Smite, even if they're smaller, would be a larger boon. The granularity offered by spell points allows for a lot of options otherwise not available. Now, some people obviously think that more options = OP. In my estimation, more options simply means more fun. Especially if you're not having to beg the group for a short rest after every combat... YMMV.

In my opinion, the one thing that makes the Hexblade somewhat balanced with the other Warlock Patrons (considering only single-class Warlocks, naturally), is the fact that they CAN'T spam Shield. If I were to do a Spell Points Warlock, I would:
1- Either ban the Hexblade outright OR: either take Shield out of their Patron list, or say Shield is always cast at the maximum level
2- Either ban Eldritch Smite OR require that those smites always be at the highest possible level.

Do those things and you are at least approaching something somewhat balanced.

[Trandir]

Those two are correlated for many players ... of the character with the OP abilities.

But OP often doesn't mean more fun for the DM or other players.

I can agree that more options mean more powerful spellcasting but I am trying to not break anything.

So far the only two ways I could think of are:

to increase the cost in points of all slots by 1 (so a 1st level slot costs 3 a 2nd costs 4 and so on up to 5th level slot that would cost 7) and add a couple of points to allow to cast the same number of max level spells to cast. Doing this would limit the number of low-level spells you can spam.

to reduce by 1 the points the warlock gets (compared to my previous idea) this reduces the number of max level spells you can cast and might be a fair price for the added versatility.

[diplomancer]

to reduce by 1 the points the warlock gets (compared to my previous idea) this reduces the number of max level spells you can cast and might be a fair price for the added versatility.

This is very close to the Treantmonk's variant that was mentioned earlier, though his variant is more elegantly simple (1SP per warlock level, a spell slot of x level costs x SPs). If I were given a choice between the regular warlock and the Treantmonk variant, it'd be a tough call (with the caveats I mentioned in my previous post about spamming Shield and Eldritch Smite).

[Trandir]

This is very close to the Treantmonk's variant that was mentioned earlier, though his variant is more elegantly simple (1SP per warlock level, a spell slot of x level costs x SPs). If I were given a choice between the regular warlock and the Treantmonk variant, it'd be a tough call (with the caveats I mentioned in my previous post about spamming Shield and Eldritch Smite).


that variant makes the low level spells spam a much bigger problem and it doesn't take into account eldritch smite

[diplomancer]

that variant makes the low level spells spam a much bigger problem and it doesn't take into account eldritch smite

I agree. Which is why I mentioned the caveats of my earlier post.

I don't think many 1st level spells are a problem to spam, to be honest. Shield is definitely one of them, mostly because of the low action cost; but consider, say, Cure Wounds. Oh, a Celestial Pact Warlock of 5th level can cast Cure Wounds 5 times and regain all of that back on a SR. True, but the Cleric could cast Prayer of Healing, which is like up to 6 2nd level cure wounds, and regain that slot on a SR as well too, as well as having all his other cleric slots (as long as the "harness divine power" option of class features from Tasha's is in play).

[diplomancer]

clerics don't just regain that slot, they have to burn their channel divinity to do so. Also if you can cast that spell you can take a short rest more often than not

The channel divinity that they regain on a SR, just like the Warlock will regain his slots on a SR; that's why I chose it as a point of comparison, we are comparing two SR resources.

The problem of casting a bunch of cure wounds IS something that will happen before a SR, because it's probably not a good idea to be running around on empty. So we are talking about the difference between 60 and 70 minutes, which I've never seen be relevant at the table.

Also, 10 minutes is more like the time it takes to search a room well; it's far more doable than getting a short rest. It can also, like rituals, be done while moving, which you can't do during a SR.

[Theodoxus]

In my opinion, the one thing that makes the Hexblade somewhat balanced with the other Warlock Patrons (considering only single-class Warlocks, naturally), is the fact that they CAN'T spam Shield. If I were to do a Spell Points Warlock, I would:
1- Either ban the Hexblade outright OR: either take Shield out of their Patron list, or say Shield is always cast at the maximum level
2- Either ban Eldritch Smite OR require that those smites always be at the highest possible level.

Do those things and you are at least approaching something somewhat balanced.

Sure, I guess. I just don't have a big a problem with either. A few more smaller smites isn't going to make combat any faster, but it will make the player feel more engaged.

Shield isn't particularly bad either. If you're using mindless critters, it makes the player feel important to block multiple attacks that might have otherwise whittled their character down. If you're using mindful critters, after they see one of their buddies attack get deflected by a glowing nimbus of eldritch energy, they'd probably either turn their attacks on other party members (if they'd reasonably recognize that it's a persistent effect) or try to maneuver in such a way as to partially negate the advantage Shield is providing (flanking, if you're using those rules) or other ways to try to generate advantage.

Either way, as I said, if the player is using these abilities in a reckless manner, they'll be begging for a short rest after every fight. Warlocks aren't really meant to play as LR casters, even if their personal resources are stretched out some.

Look, at 3rd level, they have 6 spell points. That's 3 Shields or 3 1st level Smites. (Or a couple Shields and a Hex...) it's really not that dramatic.

After looking over Treantmonks 'brew, the only thing I'd say would be to change the name of spell points, since that's already an established mechanic that he is fundamentally changing, and call them Witch Points, or Warlock Points or Eldritch Points... something that implies they're class specific, like Sorcery Points or Ki. Otherwise they play just like spell points for most levels and keeping the name of a known mechanic just ends up creating confusion to anyone not versed on his specific version.

[Trandir]

The channel divinity that they regain on a SR, just like the Warlock will regain his slots on a SR; that's why I chose it as a point of comparison, we are comparing two SR resources.

The problem of casting a bunch of cure wounds IS something that will happen before a SR, because it's probably not a good idea to be running around on empty. So we are talking about the difference between 60 and 70 minutes, which I've never seen be relevant at the table.

Also, 10 minutes is more like the time it takes to search a room well; it's far more doable than getting a short rest. It can also, like rituals, be done while moving, which you can't do during a SR.

I am not even sure why we are talking about this. Spell spamming would not be a problem for healing. And even your plan is kind of rendundant as I would expect the short rest to take care of the damage and not the 10 minute casting spell

The problem would be spamming hex every combat, shield, hellish rebuke, eldritch smite and possibly with 1st level spell that could be problematic.

Treantmonk while refined is still problematic.