Warlock "fix"--refreshing spell points instead of fixed slots?

[LordShade]

A lot of people have expressed frustration with the Warlock's short-rest, limited-slot, fixed-level casting mechanic. How much of an improvement would it be if you changed it from "a 7th level warlock refreshes 2 4th-slots per short rest" to "a 7th-level warlock refreshes 12 spell points per short rest"? Assuming you actually get your two short rests per day, this would give a PC warlock 36 spell points in a day and a lot less angst over burning slots on low-level spells.

Obviously it's a buff, but I wonder how meaningful of one.

[Spiritchaser]

A lot of people have expressed frustration with the Warlock's short-rest, limited-slot, fixed-level casting mechanic. How much of an improvement would it be if you changed it from "a 7th level warlock refreshes 2 4th-slots per short rest" to "a 7th-level warlock refreshes 12 spell points per short rest"? Assuming you actually get your two short rests per day, this would give a PC warlock 36 spell points in a day and a lot less angst over burning slots on low-level spells.

Obviously it's a buff, but I wonder how meaningful of one.

I’ve run a couple of campaigns this way, and it generally turns out to be a very strong buff.

Consider what the other players characters are like. If your warlock is adventuring with a druid, a sorcadin and a bladesinger? It’ll likely be fine

Partnered with a PHB ranger? Maybe not so much.

[MoiMagnus]

That's very strong, probably too much. Except if the remaining of the party is made of full spellcasters, I'd advise against it.

Personally, I find that Tasha's feats (Fey Touched and Shadow Touched) and/or some spell-related magic items (ring of spell storing, etc) are usually enough to "fix" the Warlock, as Warlocks benefits from them much more than regular spellcasters. Easy access to scrolls is also a good "fix" (assuming gold is not tight).

I almost forgot one houserule we have that make the warlock much more pleasant: Every spell can be cast at higher level for additional benefits, as decided cooperatively by the GM and the player the first time it is relevant (additional target, more damage, higher range, etc). Example: Dimensional Door at 5th level takes an additional person with you.

[Ettina]

That's very strong, probably too much. Except if the remaining of the party is made of full spellcasters, I'd advise against it.

Honestly, I've played warlocks alongside regular full casters and never had much of an issue with them feeling underpowered. In particular, I'm playing both a warlock and a wizard in HotDQ, and the warlock feels more consistently good whereas the wizard generally feels useless a lot and then trivializes a combat now and then.

[Kane0]

Significant buff. I prefer modifying the 'cast X spell' invocations to allow one free casting at base spell level per long rest that doesnt use a pact magic slot, that seems to really help castery warlocks feel more castery

[PhantomSoul]

Significant buff. I prefer modifying the 'cast X spell' invocations to allow one free casting at base spell level per long rest that doesnt use a pact magic slot, that seems to really help castery warlocks feel more castery

It's also nice for making your invocations not effectively also costing your spell slots to be worthwhile.

[Theodoxus]

I've allowed it in every game I've run since I read about it in the DMG. I've had a couple players take me up on it, but most of the time they prefer the simplicity of 2 slots instead.

Me? I'd love to play a game where it was allowed. Being far more flexible in what I can do is a big draw, but I've never felt it was too powerful. I don't even understand how it could be. You're still only getting 1/3 the number of spell points a full caster gets. You can't nova any harder than a standard Warlock, you just have slightly more staying power instead of relying on EB spam.

Maybe if you get a short rest after every encounter, and you're running 5 or 6 encounters a day, then it'd be OP. But most games I've run or played, getting 2 SR is stretching it. 1 is far more common.

I don't know... just seems folks saying it's OP need to justify what they mean.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I personally think spell points work great for a Warlock.

And only for Warlocks. I think it's too efficient for other casters to have that kind of flexibility*, it allows Warlocks to have their powerful moments and also use their utility spells like Shield without spending between half and a third of their power budget between rests.
*The party Sorcerer in our nearly 3 year long campaign uses spell points, and at 18th level all it really has over traditional spell slots is that it maximizes the amount of fireballs or lightning bolts he can throw out while maintaining his lower level utility spells available and not sitting "unused" in 1st and 2nd level spell slots.

[Kane0]

I don't know... just seems folks saying it's OP need to justify what they mean.

I didnt say OP, but I feel like I should qualify my position in that I give Sorcs Spell Points and prefer they stay unique amongst casters in that regard.

[Tanarii]

I personally think spell points work great for a Warlock.

And only for Warlocks. I think it's too efficient for other casters to have that kind of flexibility*, it allows Warlocks to have their powerful moments and also use their utility spells like Shield without spending between half and a third of their power budget between rests.
Interesting. I think spell points are too powerful on warlocks, which are already pretty powerful even without the ability to subdivide their spell slots. Whereas spellcasting characters have lots of flexibility built in to their slot system to begin with.

In other words, it's a bigger relative boost for warlocks, and it's one they don't really need. It's not like they lag behind full spellcasting casters.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Interesting. I think spell points are too powerful on warlocks, which are already pretty powerful even without the ability to subdivide their spell slots. Whereas spellcasting characters have lots of flexibility built in to their slot system to begin with.

In other words, it's a bigger relative boost for warlocks, and it's one they don't really need. It's not like they lag behind full spellcasting casters.

It's a lot easier to make a Warlock that does lag behind though (having limited spells known and the most different spellcasting) I think spell points is a better fail safe for that sort of thing. Sure, Eldritch Blast stands fine on its own but it doesn't always feel that way.

It also lets them stretch their budget in games that might run many/long encounters between rests. It does the same for full casters, except I don't think they actually need that extension because their designed with the intention that those resources should be stretched throughout a whole day rather than a few hours.

So I guess we agree with the reasoning, but not the conclusion.

[Tanarii]

It also lets them stretch their budget in games that might run many/long encounters between rests. It does the same for full casters, except I don't think they actually need that extension because their designed with the intention that those resources should be stretched throughout a whole day rather than a few hours.

Long adventuring days generally means more than expected short rests per long rest. And that's when warlocks shine and spellcasting feature casters suffer.

[Eldariel]

I think this is a great idea to enable different Warlocks. As it stands, Warlocks are largely "Focus on long concentration spells"-class because of the way their spell casting works; this would allow you to play a caster Warlock without feeling terribly underoptimised. It would be a bit stronger but meh, strong classes can keep up with that and weak classes already don't. Wouldn't really change much in that regard.

[Mitchellnotes]

I think using the spell slot variant with warlocks may be a bit too much of a power boost. More importantly, I think it may begin to step on other casters toes a bit. Warlock by design seems to be a class that is focused more on using fewer spells but that are consistently powerful. Switching it to spell points makes the class a "spells known" class that refreshes on a short rest. A sorcerer would then be a "spells known" class that refreshes on a long rest. There are differences of course (metamagic vs. pact+invocations), but it starts to blur the line a bit too much for me.

I like the idea of invocations not using a spell slot (which is where the design seems to be moving anyway), but the change I would make is more for higher level. I would allow mystic arcanum to provide a spell slot that is usable 1/day (instead of just a spell usable 1/day), and pull the mystic arcanum spells into just the normal spells known. This would give some flexibility with the 6-9 spell slots (it irks me to no end that warlocks have all of the tools to be able to do planar binding, but can't really make use of it and that they have so many tasha's summons that are stuck at the level 5 slot limbo right before the 3 attacks/turn)

I hear the concern about it feeling really bad about using a slot for a lower level spell (misty step as an example). The other thing you could do is give the eldritch master capstone much earlier. It gives the ability to spike a bit more, but still wouldn't be usable in combat.

[TyGuy]

Played a hexblade with a ring of spell storing and fey-touched feat. I guess RAW the ring of spell storing kinda sucks for warlock because they're supposed to fill up with slot level instead of the spell level. But we didn't run it that way (because that's f#@!&^g stupid). So instead of storing a max of two shield each cast at "level 2", I was able to keep the 3 shield and a misty step load out.

I also would have been fine with spell points variant. Or homebrew to add additional benefits to spells without up-cast effects, which is too much work for the average DM I've played with.

For myself, it's not so much a underpowered/overpowered issue. It's a continuity issue and an unsatisfying wastefulness issue. I don't want to "forget" spells as I level, I prefer to plan a character out a bit and think of spells that fit the theme or desired play style. For learned-spell casters I prefer to pick spells that the PC has "learned for good", that aren't some fleeting ability, but an intrinsic part of their growing powers. I also cringe at the thought of spending a 4th or higher level slot on shield or misty step. Two spells I love, but man, such an unsatisfying opportunity cost. So my two options with RAW are swap out low level spells which goes against my thematic desires and discards spells I like, or spend the limited slots on what feels like grossly overpaying because "cool warlock mechanics"

I don't have any issue with the pact magic mechanic outside of that catch 22 though. That's why I really like any workarounds that address those two issues I have while preserving the pact magic theme. I personally don't see the big deal in spell points adding the potential for more lesser spells while maintaining the same exact total spell power threshold. For me it alleviates far more problems than it introduces.

[MoiMagnus]

Played a hexblade with a ring of spell storing and fey-touched feat. I guess RAW the ring of spell storing kinda sucks for warlock because they're supposed to fill up with slot level instead of the spell level. But we didn't run it that way (because that's f#@!&^g stupid). So instead of storing a max of two shield each cast at "level 2", I was able to keep the 3 shield and a misty step load out.

Ring of spell storing main use is a great way to get useful spell slots from your teammate or from allied NPCs.
[Technically, you can also get enemy prisoners to refill your ring, though you need to ensure that the enemy doesn't use his freedom to run away, and doesn't deceive you by putting the wrong spell. But high Intimidation/Persuasion and Arcana/Insight should do the trick.]