Short Rest spell slots shouldn't be a Warlock's Gimmick. It should be Invocations.

[Warlock'sFriend]

Invocations and the weird unique effects they can have should be the focus of the warlock class, especially now that we're moving towards having less unique class spell lists. Pact Magic has never mechanically felt warlocky. The class needs to feel like they have access to weird glitchy spell effects with ominous and unsettling flavor.

[Kane0]

So like the 3e warlock

[animorte]

Invocations and the weird unique effects they can have should be the focus of the warlock class
Aren't they? I certainly feel like it and that's precisely why it's my favorite class. It's the same reason I don't mind the UA changes; it still has a great deal of customization through invocations.

[Tanarii]

So like the 3e warlock
Agreed. Warlocks should switch to at-will oriented abilities, with some invocations that let them cast a specific spell once a day.

Then switch all the other LR casters to be SR based instead. That'd address the 5MWD issue once and for all :smallamused:

[Quietus]

Agreed. Warlocks should switch to at-will oriented abilities, with some invocations that let them cast a specific spell once a day.

Then switch all the other LR casters to be SR based instead. That'd address the 5MWD issue once and for all :smallamused:

I often find that our approaches differ quite a bit, but this "All casters are short rest casters"? This is tempting to me.

[Kane0]

Im already tinkering with normal spellcasting being a combination of short and long rest slots, it wouldnt be much if a stretch to change up the warlock if everyone starts using their castinng method

[Corran]

Invocations and the weird unique effects they can have should be the focus of the warlock class, especially now that we're moving towards having less unique class spell lists. Pact Magic has never mechanically felt warlocky. The class needs to feel like they have access to weird glitchy spell effects with ominous and unsettling flavor.
Pact magic and invocations are not at odds though. Both help differentiate the warlock from other casters and one does not detract from the other. More unique spell lists is the real difference maker. As an example, I've played a bit with conjure fey when I wanted to support a character's witch theme and I think it's fitting that the druid and the warlock get it. Maybe it would be nice for transmutation wizards too, and it might even make some sense to restrict it to archfey warlocks only (depending on how much you want to focus on subclass theme vs class theme). Invocations are certainly very nice to have and I appreciate them mostly from a customization perspective (though I do appreciate the little bit of uniqueness they can add to a character). Pact magic certainly makes the warlock play differently than other casters, so while I cannot say I am thrilled with it, there is logic for it to exist. But spells produce effects that can be more impactful, so they carry a big part of a caster's identity with them.

[Frogreaver]

I agree about invocations but think short rest slots are important.

My take: warlock should get more slots per short rest but not get as high of level ones. Maybe stay with the half caster max slot progression as he scales about like a half caster martial otherwise. If he had 3 1st level short rest slots at level 3 that would feel much better than 2 2nd levels. Scale that to 3 level 2 slots at level 5, etc. then give him a few more invocations and maybe a few more powerful ones.

Having 2 slots just isn’t enough IMO.

[RSP]

I’m a big fan of differentiating how the casters work. Keep Warlocks as a SR caster, but better differentiate the other casters: make Sorc a spell point caster, do something for Bard, keep Wizard as is.

Making the classes all operate the same isn’t particularly interesting to me.

But having interesting options in how a class works, is interesting to me.

[Aimeryan]

Pact magic and invocations are not at odds though.

This. Its a strawman argument since one does not interfere with the other.

What Pact Magic needs is to be decoupled explictly from Short Rests and put on a two uses per Long Rest, minute long activation. Not because of Invocations though; it is because there are not enough Short Rest features in the game compared to Long Rest features, so parties want Long Rests instead.

---


I’m a big fan of differentiating how the casters work. Keep Warlocks as a SR caster, but better differentiate the other casters: make Sorc a spell point caster, do something for Bard, keep Wizard as is.

Making the classes all operate the same isn’t particularly interesting to me.

But having interesting options in how a class works, is interesting to me.


Also this.

[Amnestic]

Turning bards into half-caster for slots that get full-caster spell known progression, utilising a 'Tempo' mechanic in order to cast higher level spells so they have to build to them in a fight.


Tempo Points (TP) can be spent in order to either upcast a spell or to cast a higher level spell, so long as a slot is used. (i.e. the bard always needs to expend a spell slot to cast a levelled spell). 1 Tempo Point per spell level, up to a maximum of their spells known level. (eg. Expend a 1st level spell slot and 3 TP to cast Greater Invisibility.

Unspent Tempo Points are lost when combat ends, as the thrill of the fight leaves them. (Alternative: Last for 1 minute to allow building out of combat via bardic inspiration?)

Gained in the following ways:-
* At the start of a Bard's turn, while they are not Incapacitated or Unconscious, they gain 1 Tempo Point.
* When they cast a spell, they gain Tempo Points equal to the spell slot level expended (eg. 3rd level spell slot = Gain 3 Tempo Points).
* Damaging cantrips and granting Bardic Inspiration give half a point each.
* Other subclass specific methods (eg. Valour/Swords could get it from making weapon attacks)
* Tier 3/4 boost to TP when rolling initiative(?)

Spells of 6th level or higher could only be cast 1/LR, similar to how spell points work

[KorvinStarmast]

Aren't they? I certainly feel like it and that's precisely why it's my favorite class. It's the same reason I don't mind the UA changes; it still has a great deal of customization through invocations. But they inflict an invocation tax and removed Mystic Arcana, so you end up with fewer invocations. Not a good trade off. :smallfurious:

Pact magic and invocations are not at odds though. Both help differentiate the warlock from other casters and one does not detract from the other. More unique spell lists is the real difference maker. Yes. The longer I play the more I think that magical secrets needs to be a Warlock feature, not a bard feature.

I agree about invocations but think short rest slots are important. Concur. And the require the Warlock player to make choices.

Having 2 slots just isn’t enough IMO. Depends on how many short rests tend to arrive on a given day. That's a pacing bit. As but one example, we encountered a wereboar settlement, and it was not a combat encounter ... it was one of these odd social encounters. On a hunch, I invited a couple of the wereboars to visit me at the tavern, and with their consent (persuasion check for the win) cast remove curse on two of them. They were no longer were boars. I asked them to each bring a friend an hour later (i'd buy them a beer) and so I sat there for an hour) and then two more curses were removed. By midnight, I had cured a dozen of them, and invited a couple for breakfast.

We discovered that the only wereboar who I could not cure needed a wish to become not a wereboar the following day, and he got a bit upset that I'd more or less deprived him of his wereboar community. So we invited him to travel with us, with the promise that we'd take him to the capital and see if we could find someone who could help him as well. Once again, persuasion won the day and he joined our party until we encountered an archdruid (NPC lady) who invited him to stay with her, which he did. The rest of his community returned to their original homes/families, now that their curse was lifted.

Turning bards into half-caster for slots that get full-caster spell known progression, utilising a 'Tempo' mechanic in order to cast higher level spells so they have to build to them in a fight. There's an interesting approach ...


Tempo Points (TP) can be spent in order to either upcast a spell or to cast a higher level spell, so long as a slot is used. (i.e. the bard always needs to expend a spell slot to cast a levelled spell). 1 Tempo Point per spell level, up to a maximum of their spells known level. (eg. Expend a 1st level spell slot and 3 TP to cast Greater Invisibility.

Unspent Tempo Points are lost when combat ends, as the thrill of the fight leaves them. (Alternative: Last for 1 minute to allow building out of combat via bardic inspiration?)

Gained in the following ways:-
* At the start of a Bard's turn, while they are not Incapacitated or Unconscious, they gain 1 Tempo Point.
* When they cast a spell, they gain Tempo Points equal to the spell slot level expended (eg. 3rd level spell slot = Gain 3 Tempo Points).
* Damaging cantrips and granting Bardic Inspiration give half a point each.
* Other subclass specific methods (eg. Valour/Swords could get it from making weapon attacks)
* Tier 3/4 boost to TP when rolling initiative(?)

Spells of 6th level or higher could only be cast 1/LR, similar to how spell points work

Interesting idea to toss into the Build / Spender thread on the RPG forum ... :smallsmile:

Damaging cantrips and granting Bardic Inspiration give half a point each.
I'll suggest that's too fiddly, and recommend removing it

[OldTrees1]

Personally I think Warlocks should return to their at-will slower spellcaster origins. Invocations provide passive/at-will effects and control what spells the warlock knows. This allows the Warlock spell list to be carefully curated.

Early on they might have invocations for spells similar to:
Detect Magic, Fog Cloud, Mage Armor, See Invisibility, Speak with Animals

Tier 2 might have spells similar to:
Darkness, Endure Elements, Invisibility(Self only)

Tier 3 might have spells similar to:
Levitate, Sending, Suggestion, BlackTentacles

They get spells slower and can't upcast them, but they get to cast them at will. This takes some of their invocations, and competes with other invocations for passive abilities like Devil's Sight or Eyes of the Rune Keeper.

[Tanarii]

I often find that our approaches differ quite a bit, but this "All casters are short rest casters"? This is tempting to me.
Right? It wasn't a totally serious comment, but it'd sure fix a lot of things. It'd require a complete rewrite of a lot of things, including some spells. Some are far too powerful if you can rest an hour and recast, potentially 15-ish times a day. That shouldn't matter for adventuring and encounters, but it matters to some folks for world building and verisimilitude.

[Segev]

Pact magic does contribute to warlocks feeling weird and like they have a "cheat" path to power.

Invocations getting a bit of a brush-up to be MORE at-will effects and LESS "I spent an invocation to be worse at casting this one spell than a wizard would be" would be good, though. Even if a spell granted by an invocation is "good enough" to cost an Invocation, but also "too good" to let them just add it as a spell known for their Pact Magic, it should do something weird or cool or otherwise special that no other caster can do just by casting the spell. It should not cost an Invocation just to know the spell, but know it less effectively than another caster. Invocations should feel like "cheating," not like something you paid through the nose for and all you got was this lousy T-shirt.

I do think Warlocks need to get 3 pact magic slots per short rest much earlier than they do. Probably around level 5, level 7 at the latest.

[Mastikator]

Aren't they? I certainly feel like it and that's precisely why it's my favorite class. It's the same reason I don't mind the UA changes; it still has a great deal of customization through invocations.

I've always felt that warlock was primarily the hexblade blade pact class and secondarily hex + eldritch blast + agonizing blast class.

Personally I'm with you in the UA changes, but they could just remove spell casting entirely from the class, and just give them more and better invocations.

[MoiMagnus]

Right? It wasn't a totally serious comment, but it'd sure fix a lot of things. It'd require a complete rewrite of a lot of things, including some spells. Some are far too powerful if you can rest an hour and recast, potentially 15-ish times a day. That shouldn't matter for adventuring and encounters, but it matters to some folks for world building and verisimilitude.

IMO, "per day" is already too much for world building in a lot of cases.
I think my preferred situation is if spells where split into "per short rest" and "per week" (either on the lunar calendar, and/or by requiring two consecutive days of rest and downtime)

[KorvinStarmast]

I've always felt that warlock was primarily the hexblade blade pact class and secondarily hex + eldritch blast + agonizing blast class. Given that Xanathar's didn't come out until three years after the PHB was released, what makes you say that?
Pact of the Blade, PHB only, had some drawbacks in terms of how to boost Armor Class; had the Pact at level 3 granted Medium Armor proficiency (like the Valor Bard got in the PHB) one of those shortcomings would have been mitigated.

I feel that per the Warlock description and its original form (during play test) as an INT based caster, that Pact of the Tome was the core Warlock, and Fiend patron running a close second to GOO in terms of concept. But I can see how Fiend, thematically, was probably viewed by many (sold your soul for power) as the more relatable theme.

Personally I'm with you in the UA changes, but they could just remove spell casting entirely from the class, and just give them more and better invocations. "More and better?" Yeah, but that could use some detailed explanation to flesh out. :smallsmile:

[Tanarii]

Given that Xanathar's didn't come out until three years after the PHB was released, what makes you say that?
Pact of the Blade, PHB only, had some drawbacks in terms of how to boost Armor Class; had the Pact at level 3 granted Medium Armor proficiency (like the Valor Bard got in the PHB) one of those shortcomings would have been mitigated.
Pact Blade should not grant MA. Bladelocks aren't supposed to be a stand in melee class, at least not without some serious investment (which they can do via Invocations). The Pact Boon is merely a way to get a melee range attack for AOs using found magic weapons, or if you absolutely can't get away to avoid disadvantage on attacks. That's on par with the other two boons in terms of ability gained.

Being able to seriously stand in melee with a single Boon or Patron pick AND still be a full caster is ridiculously OP. As the mistake that is the Hexblade has proven.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My WIP actually goes in this direction, moving much more toward the 3e model. You get EB + blast shapes + blast effects (shapes change how it works, effects modify it with things like push/pull/control effects, different damage types), and you get invocations. More of them. Some of them are "you can choose a spell from any spell list and cast it", but you end up with way fewer spells.

[Corran]

The Pact Boon is merely a way to get a melee range attack for AOs using found magic weapons
If scagtrips are included in the game (which I presume you are taking into account based on the mention of magic weapons), then this does not seem on par with pact of the tome and chain. Putting a warlock in melee is dubious for several reasons, allowing the pact to grant MA prof is a step in making it slightly useful.

[Tanarii]

If scagtrips are included in the game (which I presume you are taking into account based on the mention of magic weapons), then this does not seem on par with pact of the tome and chain. Putting a warlock in melee is dubious for several reasons, allowing the pact to grant MA prof is a step in making it slightly useful.
No, SCAGtrips are just as bad as Hexblade.

Giving MA to an arcane squishy blaster full caster that also has a great ranged attack is a terrible idea.

Now apropos to the topic of the thread, certainly if they weren't a full caster any more, and it was a choice between great melee or great ranges, that'd be a different matter.

[Corran]

Giving MA to an arcane squishy blaster full caster that also has a great ranged attack is a terrible idea.

Maybe it is. But giving that same character a melee weapon is also a terrible idea. One solution is to give a lot more goodies alongside that melee weapon. The other solution is to get rid of the blade pact entirely (or rename it to pact of the arrow or something, so that it does not imply a playstyle that it cannot support well enough).

[Tanarii]

Maybe it is. But giving that same character a melee weapon is also a terrible idea. One solution is to give a lot more goodies alongside that melee weapon. The other solution is to get rid of the blade pact entirely (or rename it to pact of the arrow or something, so that it does not imply a playstyle that it cannot support well enough).More melee goodies is fine as long as it comes at some kind of cost somewhere in regards to EB+AB and full casting.

But personally I've found even Str Bladelocks with no armor dip did fine if they invest resources in the defensive things the class already provides ... at least as a skirmisher. The bigger pain is how MAD it is, just like a Valor Bard or StRanger.

The real problem is that it doesn't stack up offensively against an EB+AB warlock who manages to hide behind the meat shields/kite. And given how little 5e shuts down ranged casting at close range, it doesn't take much to "kite" to avoid losing DPR (as opposed to escaping danger).

[KorvinStarmast]

Pact Blade should not grant MA.
Then why does the full caster Valor Bard get it?

Bladelocks aren't supposed to be a stand in melee class, at least not without some serious investment (which they can do via Invocations). The Pact Boon is merely a way to get a melee range attack for AOs using found magic weapons, or if you absolutely can't get away to avoid disadvantage on attacks. That's on par with the other two boons in terms of ability gained. OK. I can see where you are coming from.

Being able to seriously stand in melee with a single Boon or Patron pick AND still be a full caster is ridiculously OP. As the mistake that is the Hexblade has proven. The problem with Hexblade is Charisma casting stat SADishness. :smallyuk:

No, SCAGtrips are just as bad as Hexblade. Giving MA to an arcane squishy blaster full caster that also has a great ranged attack is a terrible idea. Now apropos to the topic of the thread, certainly if they weren't a full caster any more, and it was a choice between great melee or great ranges, that'd be a different matter. At least you are consistent, and that leads us to what they are doing in D&Done.

[Tanarii]

Then why does the full caster Valor Bard get it?Because they're an arcane off-tank/support/heals, not an arcane nuke squishy :smalltongue:



The problem with Hexblade is Charisma casting stat SADishness. :smallyuk:Yes. But IMO "The other problem ..."

That Patron has two major balance problems. :smallamused:

[KorvinStarmast]

Because they're an arcane off-tank/support/heals, not an arcane nuke squishy :smalltongue: Wait, that's for another thread! :smalleek:

Yes. But IMO "The other problem ..."
That Patron has two major balance problems. :smallamused:
Heck it has a third problem in that the patron lore wise is an utter mess.

[Kane0]

Im not sold on making the warlock less than full progression. Have them gain access to equivalent spell levels at the same rate as other casters but limit it in other ways (spell list, spells known, number of slots, etc)
If youre turning all their magic into invocations then all well and good, but they shouldnt be unable to get the black tentacles invoc or whatever later than the others

[Theodoxus]

Pact Blade should not grant MA. Bladelocks aren't supposed to be a stand in melee class, at least not without some serious investment (which they can do via Invocations). The Pact Boon is merely a way to get a melee range attack for AOs using found magic weapons, or if you absolutely can't get away to avoid disadvantage on attacks. That's on par with the other two boons in terms of ability gained.

Being able to seriously stand in melee with a single Boon or Patron pick AND still be a full caster is ridiculously OP. As the mistake that is the Hexblade has proven.

That's the impression out of the box though. Hexblade exacerbated the issue, but even before Xanathar's, I saw most Bladelocks in AL going full melee, because that was what they assumed the subclass was supposed to do - by virtue of name, if not also invo choices. I will posit that it's 100% on WotC and their marketing of the subclass in the early days, and then doubling down a few years later with the Hexblade...

But even so, I'd say Warlocks are not ridiculously OP in any stretch. As has been noted for ages, lack of decent armor, and more importantly, only having a d8 HP keeps them from being able to frontline for long, despite a player's opinion or WotC's cheerleading. Pretending otherwise gets that toon dead.


I'm not sold on making the warlock less than full progression. Have them gain access to equivalent spell levels at the same rate as other casters but limit it in other ways (spell list, spells known, number of slots, etc.)
If you're turning all their magic into invocations then all well and good, but they shouldn't be unable to get the black tentacles invoc or whatever later than the others

Had Warlock been the arcane Paladin/Ranger style half-caster out of the box, and been an amalgam of 3E style Warlock and 5E style Artificer, with more at-will powers and subclasses that represented things like witchcraft (Alchemy), melee combat (Blade and Armorer mashup), and Ranged Arcanist (EB spam with an artillerist flair), that would have been amazing (provided someone from 2021 could time travel back to 2013 and get that developed instead). Alas, I'm not sure where to take the class - and neither does WotC, all things considered.

If Warlocks do end up being the worst of all possible worlds, as it appears to be going down, then I agree with whomever said they should get Magical Secrets. If the D&DOne style Mystic Incarnum stay, then let the Warlock pick from any list, not just Arcane, and call it good.

[Kane0]

Had Warlock been the arcane Paladin/Ranger style half-caster out of the box that would have been amazing.
Alas, I'm not sure where to take the class - and neither does WotC, all things considered.


Indeed, however now we are in the awkward position where the Artificer exists. Mystic Arcanum functioning a bit like magical secrets would be interesting though.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Invocations and the weird unique effects they can have should be the focus of the warlock class, especially now that we're moving towards having less unique class spell lists. Pact Magic has never mechanically felt warlocky. The class needs to feel like they have access to weird glitchy spell effects with ominous and unsettling flavor.

First I've long been of the opinion that it's pretty weird and makes a lot of work for the DM that some classes are more SR based and some are LR based. DMs are constantly trying to balance rests in a way that may not fit with the storyline/ dungeon, etc to not favor 1 character over another because of this imbalance. The game would be far better: easier to deal with and have more natural flow if characters got resources back in roughly the same proportion.

As per your specific concern, I'm honestly not a huge Warlock fan. I'm not sure the game needs 3 full casting Cha based classes. Bard and some variation of Sorc/ Warlock would be fine with me; maybe there could be subclasses that resembled those from both the current Sorc and Warlock options, but I don't think we need both.

[KorvinStarmast]

If Warlocks do end up being the worst of all possible worlds, as it appears to be going down, then I agree with whomever said they should get Magical Secrets. If the D&DOne style Mystic Incarnum stay, then let the Warlock pick from any list, not just Arcane, and call it good. That is me: until I had played a few warlocks and then a lore bard, it didn't register on me how the class description in the PHB points at magical secrets. Not sure why the dev team gave that to bard rather than warlock, TBH. But then, I am still annoyed that the warlock isn't an INT caster ....

[PhoenixPhyre]

That is me: until I had played a few warlocks and then a lore bard, it didn't register on me how the class description in the PHB points at magical secrets. Not sure why the dev team gave that to bard rather than warlock, TBH. But then, I am still annoyed that the warlock isn't an INT caster ....

Yeah. Magical secrets seems very much more a warlock thing than a bard thing. My WIP "warlock" doesn't have a spell list of its own and picks up spells from any list via invocations.

[animorte]

My WIP actually goes in this direction, moving much more toward the 3e model. You get EB + blast shapes + blast effects (shapes change how it works, effects modify it with things like push/pull/control effects, different damage types), and you get invocations. More of them. Some of them are "you can choose a spell from any spell list and cast it", but you end up with way fewer spells.

Yeah. Magical secrets seems very much more a warlock thing than a bard thing. My WIP "warlock" doesn't have a spell list of its own and picks up spells from any list via invocations.
I absolutely adore this. I am personally requesting access in advance whenever you're prepared to reveal it, please and thank you. :smallbiggrin:

[PhoenixPhyre]

I absolutely adore this. I am personally requesting access in advance whenever you're prepared to reveal it, please and thank you. :smallbiggrin:

My development is "open source"--the link in my signature to the PDF is actively updated as I push stuff to the main branch. The formatting is...kinda jacked right now. Warlock starts on the bottom of page 50. I've done a first pass on that, but it needs a lot more work. Any feedback would be wonderful.

[Rukelnikov]

Unpopular(?) opinion, Warlock shouldn't be a class.

I love the archetype, I mained lock in wow and took more lock levels in 5e than any other class. But the thing is, making deals with powerful entities should not be a class feature, it should be something the system opens up to everyone, in the same vein of the underused and underexpanded boons and charms. And while of course I can do that as a DM, I am disincentivized from doing so since Jack took 2 levels in Warlock to be able to see in magical darkness, so now when Steve wants to make a deal with a devil for the same power, which is something that would be totally up my alley to explore as a DM, I gotta take into account that these world building/story aspects are also class features.

[Amnestic]

But the thing is, making deals with powerful entities should not be a class feature, it should be something the system opens up to everyone,

They certainly can, and this is mechanically represented by multiclassing into warlock.

If Steve wants to make a magical pact as part of a story beat, then this can likewise be represented by a level (either as a full on multiclass or the DM granting a "pseudo-level" with the features of a 1st level warlock without the HP boost or proficiency bonus progression.

Anyone can swear an Oath (Paladin), get a godly blessing (Cleric), read a book on spellcasting (wizard) or inherit a magical bloodline (sorcerer). Typically that progression is done by taking a level in the relevant class, but there's nothing stopping a DM from giving out those class features as boons either, as a story/quest reward.

[stoutstien]

Unpopular(?) opinion, Warlock shouldn't be a class.

I love the archetype, I mained lock in wow and took more lock levels in 5e than any other class. But the thing is, making deals with powerful entities should not be a class feature, it should be something the system opens up to everyone, in the same vein of the underused and underexpanded boons and charms. And while of course I can do that as a DM, I am disincentivized from doing so since Jack took 2 levels in Warlock to be able to see in magical darkness, so now when Steve wants to make a deal with a devil for the same power, which is something that would be totally up my alley to explore as a DM, I gotta take into account that these world building/story aspects are also class features.

The direction I went was make the <warlock>type be at the subclass level so every class has excess but in slightly different forms. In a lot of way clerics, warlocks, and paladins are all very similar so can share this format.

**The source of power is large part of world building in my setting. **

[PhoenixPhyre]

Anyone can swear an Oath (Paladin), get a godly blessing (Cleric), read a book on spellcasting (wizard) or inherit a magical bloodline (sorcerer). Typically that progression is done by taking a level in the relevant class, but there's nothing stopping a DM from giving out those class features as boons either, as a story/quest reward.

I think there's a big difference between swearing an oath (ie making a promise, even a very solemn and binding one) and swearing an Oath (ie gaining paladin powers). The latter is way more life-changing and is out of reach for most people. So if a PC made a vow, even a strong one, they're not necessarily taking a level in paladin. And that goes way more for NPCs--I'd say most knightly orders have tons of people who have taken the same oaths as the paladins have...but don't have the powers of a paladin. Because the words of the oath aren't magical--it's the intense single-minded dedication to that course of life that grants power.

Similarly, lots of people have godly blessings. Only a very few of those are the gods' chosen champions (ie have cleric levels). Including most priests.

Lots of people have read books on spellcasting yet can't cast a single spell--becoming a wizard requires substantial [training|innate skill] to get to the point where you can turn that theory into practice. If all it took was simply reading a book...everyone with any free time and a modicum of education would be a wizard.

Similarly, I think we should differentiate between "making a deal with a patron" and making a Pact with a patron. In one, you have a one-off, minor quid pro quo. I did/will do thing for you; in exchange, you give me goodie X. A warlock's Pact is more substantive and life-changing. And includes the possibility of ongoing exchanges. At least usually.

Thus, "making a deal" or "making an oath" or "getting a godly blessing" or "studying a magical book" or even "experiencing a life event associated with magic" (aka the sort of thing that would trigger sorcerer powers) is better, IMO, modeled by a DMG boon. Which might be a feat (especially something like Magic Initiate, fey-touched, etc), or may be something custom. Taking a level is kinda a bigger step up, representing a fundamental alteration (for levels 2-N) in how your character is relating to the world and power.

[Segev]

It is worth noting that giving a class feature as a "freebie" is a possible "boon" type reward. Your wizard delves into Things Man Wasn't Meant To Know and winds up making a bargain with a fiend, maybe he gets The Dark One's Luck. Or even a single Pact Magic slot at a level of spell equal to his highest (max. 5). Maybe your Bard who made a vow he didn't quite intend to with a Faerie Princess winds up with the Beast Speech Invocation in addition to whatever ... obligations ... he might have taken upon himself.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It is worth noting that giving a class feature as a "freebie" is a possible "boon" type reward. Your wizard delves into Things Man Wasn't Meant To Know and winds up making a bargain with a fiend, maybe he gets The Dark One's Luck. Or even a single Pact Magic slot at a level of spell equal to his highest (max. 5). Maybe your Bard who made a vow he didn't quite intend to with a Faerie Princess winds up with the Beast Speech Invocation in addition to whatever ... obligations ... he might have taken upon himself.

Yeah. Very much so. Boons are an under-explored source of narrative-sourced reward IMX.

[Kane0]

Feats are also perfectly cromulent boons, one of which is Eldritch Adept.

[MoiMagnus]

Unpopular(?) opinion, Warlock shouldn't be a class.

I love the archetype, I mained lock in wow and took more lock levels in 5e than any other class. But the thing is, making deals with powerful entities should not be a class feature, it should be something the system opens up to everyone, in the same vein of the underused and underexpanded boons and charms. And while of course I can do that as a DM, I am disincentivized from doing so since Jack took 2 levels in Warlock to be able to see in magical darkness, so now when Steve wants to make a deal with a devil for the same power, which is something that would be totally up my alley to explore as a DM, I gotta take into account that these world building/story aspects are also class features.


To some degree yes.
But on the other hand, the same could be said for clerics. Their existence as a class disincentivize the GM from having the gods take a more active role and grant powers to the PCs in exchange of services/loyalty/etc.

More generally, by making level up systematic through XP, you're loosing a lot of interesting opportunity to obtain powers through RP. Even for martials, going on a quest for a legendary master swordman is kind of useless.

Peoples have mentioned multiclassing, but the Eldritch Adept feats also work well enough. And it's much more reasonnable for the GM to hand out free feats due to RP than handing out a free level.

[Tanarii]

It's certainly would have made my open table campaign make more "sense" in terms of world building if considerably more than 1/12 of PCs running around hadn't sold their soul to a Devil (or other patron), so to speak.

I didn't really worry about it too much of course. There are so many other things requires to not make sense in an open table vaguely west marches persistent campaign world, just to make the game playable. :smallamused:

[Segev]

It's certainly would have made my open table campaign make more "sense" in terms of world building if considerably more than 1/12 of PCs running around hadn't sold their soul to a Devil (or other patron), so to speak.

I didn't really worry about it too much of course. There are so many other things requires to not make sense in an open table vaguely west marches persistent campaign world, just to make the game playable. :smallamused:

I mean, if deals with Patrons are a path to power, is it any wonder a significant chunk of people already weird enough to be out doing "adventuring" would be the sort to take that left-hand path to power?

[Tanarii]

I mean, if deals with Patrons are a path to power, is it any wonder a significant chunk of people already weird enough to be out doing "adventuring" would be the sort to take that left-hand path to power?

Point is, if deals with Patrons are that easy to get, it says something significant in terms of world building.

In a single group of players with a single party, it's possible to hold the conceit that they're relatively unique. In a large group of rotating players with multiple characters each, it's not. (Or an MMO for that matter. For an example of where available classes strongly influences world lore. And vice versa.)

[Kenny_Snoggins]

I often find that our approaches differ quite a bit, but this "All casters are short rest casters"? This is tempting to me.

Alternately I think there are a bunch of 'ribbon' type features for various classes that could just be changed to a once per long rest resource that gives the effect of a short rest to the party. I think that would help the general dearth of short rests currently used in the game and make the adventuring day more balanced. Song of Rest for the bard comes to mind, for example. Just make it a 5 minute performance that gives a short rest to whoever hears it, once a day. Maybe 2x a day at level 10.

[Talionis]

I think Warlocks are really good at casting one or two buff spells that rise in power by spell slot. Armor of Agathys is a good example. The Warlock looks for that type of spell. To make Pact of the Blade work. But it also works well for Summoning Warlocks.

I’d like to see Warlocks get one spell slot at full caster level that caps out at level five recharges on short rest and a second that starts at level one and scales up starting at level eleven. Spell level known could stay half caster, just makes sure they have good scaling Warlock class spells. This would be a compromise to the new and old. It would keep Warlock casting different.

[Sorinth]

For the OP I already feel like the Walrock's gimmick is Invocations and not pact magic. Fix the 1/day spell castings invocations so that they are actually worthwhile and you've got yourself a solid caster. I would probably also move away from EB and have those invocations reworked to boost any/all warlock cantrips.

Slightly off topic I'm on the side of all casters should be SR casters and that they then have class features to help differentiate them beyond spell list and re-tune their power since going from LR to SR is a nerf.

For the full casters it would generally breakdown along these concepts
Druids/Warlock -> Invocations (Seperate Lists)
Wizards -> Expanded Ritual Magic (Basically any spell but time/cost grows exponentially with spell level) and possibly customizing spells which would be sort of metamagic options that apply to specific spells every time they are cast. The meta magics available would be level gated so at low levels you are customizing/boosting the less powerful ones like Transmuted
Clerics -> Expanded Ritual Magic and better cantrip/weapon options
Sorcerer -> Sorcery Points with expanded option to trade health for sorcery points/slots
Bards -> Boost Bardic Inspiration and probably make it harder to tell when a bard is casting vs a non magical performance and less likely for targets to know when they were influenced by magic