Has anyone use spell point for warlock

[Asisreo1]

*snip stuff about orcs willingly assuming Fireball Formation, which I disagree with*

What? You think Orcs went to arcane school to even know about fireball? They probably only know that mages have big spells and should be priority. Everything else might be too complex for them to fully understand from their leader. Their leader definitely does not want them strafing around individually like a bunch of weird serpentine formations. The leader knows their strength is in numbers and their strength is in melee. If you were to command a bunch of orcs, it would be "surround the enemy! Get the weaklings first!"

The orcs probably wouldn't be able to tell a spellcaster from a commoner because both don't wear armor and both don't have real weapons.

How do you figure 2 attacks at level 4? Are you talking dual-wielding, or Polearm Master?

At level 5 he gets two attacks, but then the number of enemies roughly doubles so it doesn't change anything important.

Yeah, two weapon fighting. They get action surge, too. Remember, they're going all out. Although, I was a bit confused because we were talking about large AoE's and I thought fireball was on the table. The fighter himself might use a spell or maneuver, though.
Besides, the DMG warns that you should increase the difficulty if the enemies have a distinct edge because of outside influences like terrain. So technically, it would be a deadly encounter.

[MaxWilson]

What? You think Orcs went to arcane school to even know about fireball?

I think that when you make a claim about every encounter in the game, you can't exclude inconvenient encounters, like Scro (educated orc from space), or orcs who have encountered the party before, or orcs who have fought hobgoblin Devastators recently and just have a tactical doctrine of strafing initially until they run out of javelins.

Some orcs probably will bunch up in Fireball formation, but you can't use that possiblity to defend your claim that encounters always end in two rounds if PCs use full power. (A claim which has already been disproven for monsters besides orcs, but oh well.)

They probably only know that mages have big spells and should be priority. Everything else might be too complex for them to fully understand from their leader.

Teaching them to avoid Fireball formation is easier than teaching them how human mages behave, and it also helps them against creatures like dragons and Bodaks, and magic items like Beads of Force. We teach that tactical doctrine in real life even though there aren't any mages! It's a fairly obvious point of tactical doctrine and one of the major advantages in 5E of having opposable thumbs.

If you want to also teach them about mages and concentration, sure, go ahead.

Their leader definitely does not want them strafing around individually like a bunch of weird serpentine formations. The leader knows their strength is in numbers and their strength is in melee.

Demonstrably wrong in the 5E ruleset.

If you were to command a bunch of orcs, it would be "surround the enemy! Get the weaklings first!"

Sure, if you're playing a bunch of fairly stupid traditionalist orcs--and I usually do! But some orcs are not stupid, and if you're making a claim about all encounters including all orcs you can't exclude the non-stupid ones from discussion.

The orcs probably wouldn't be able to tell a spellcaster from a commoner because both don't wear armor and both don't have real weapons.

Your assumption that spellcasters don't wear armor and don't have real weapons is likewise erroneous. It's sometimes true, often not.

Yeah, two weapon fighting. They get action surge, too. Remember, they're going all out.

*snort* Fine, you Action Surge with TWF for a grand total of three attacks. You'll be lucky to kill two goblins this turn if you didn't invest in TWF style, and if you did invest in TWF style you're a fool.

Although, I was a bit confused because we were talking about large AoE's and I thought fireball was on the table. The fighter himself might use a spell or maneuver, though.
Besides, the DMG warns that you should increase the difficulty if the enemies have a distinct edge because of outside influences like terrain. So technically, it would be a deadly encounter.

According to the DMG, the terrain that bumps up difficulty is when e.g. you're fighting in a volcano and the enemies are all immune to the fire. Fighting a bunch of goblins in a dungeon doesn't qualify.

[Asisreo1]

I think that when you make a claim about every encounter in the game, you can't exclude inconvenient encounters, like Scro (educated orc from space), or orcs who have encountered the party before, or orcs who have fought hobgoblin Devastators recently and just have a tactical doctrine of strafing initially until they run out of javelins.

Do you want me to go through the entire list of possible encounters that any DM might present with Orcs? I'm just using the most common type of Orc encounter.

Some orcs probably will bunch up in Fireball formation, but you can't use that possiblity to defend your claim that encounters always end in two rounds if PCs use full power. (A claim which has already been disproven for monsters besides orcs, but oh well.)

It's an exaggeration but 2-3 rounds would definitely be the norm for a party going Alpha Strike in a balanced encounter.

Teaching them to avoid Fireball formation is easier than teaching them how human mages behave, and it also helps them against creatures like dragons and Bodaks, and magic items like Beads of Force. We teach that tactical doctrine in real life even though there aren't any mages! It's a fairly obvious point of tactical doctrine and one of the major advantages in 5E of having opposable thumbs.

Fireball formation is supposed to be "don't get within 20ft of each other, make sure you practice social distancing while crushing your enemy's skulls." I have a hard time believing the Orcs will know to not be in a 20ft sphere and remember that the entire time in a battle. I mean, they're orcs, not hobgoblins. And surrounding an enemy is the best monster tactic for brute characters bar-none.

Demonstrably wrong in the 5E ruleset.

Demonstrably right in 5E ruleset. It's difficult to benefit from cover in melee and orcs are both outranged and outdamaged by a 4th level PC in ranged combat. The PC's might have cover and can go prone at will. The base Orcs don't have sharpshooter so they can't ignore cover. Their most damaging attack is close range which is something they'd do because ending the battle quickly means dealing the most damage. They even have aggressiveness to boost their forward mobility since they can't move anymore than towards a hostile creature.

Sure, if you're playing a bunch of fairly stupid traditionalist orcs--and I usually do! But some orcs are not stupid, and if you're making a claim about all encounters including all orcs you can't exclude the non-stupid ones from discussion.

The smart Orcs are probably also frontliners. Even the spellcaster one can keeps his spiritual weapon up for free with no concentration and he's still quite a brute.

Your assumption that spellcasters don't wear armor and don't have real weapons is likewise erroneous. It's sometimes true, often not.

often true, sometimes not. Spellcaster don't get proficiency in great armor and if they do, they wouldn't benefit from mage armor. This means your best defensive option is mage armor unless you multiclass or go cleric with their bonus proficiency or hexblade. I'm talking if you go warlock, specifically.

Multiclassing is a huge investment. Especially for a magic caster into a martial character. You can do it, but you don't have access to as many spells now and you miss out on your ASI/feat. If you go magic caster to magic caster, sure. But going warlock to other spellcaster doesn't scale with pact magic.

*snort* Fine, you Action Surge with TWF for a grand total of three attacks. You'll be lucky to kill two goblins this turn if you didn't invest in TWF style, and if you did invest in TWF style you're a fool.

TWF is a fine fighting style. It's not optimal, but it puts an additional 4 damage on the board every turn which is non-insignificant.

According to the DMG, the terrain that bumps up difficulty is when e.g. you're fighting in a volcano and the enemies are all immune to the fire. Fighting a bunch of goblins in a dungeon doesn't qualify.

It's talking about situational drawbacks which are when "The enemy has cover and the party does not" or "the party cannot see the enemy." If the goblins are attacking from hiding and going back, they're probably benefitting from both. If the goblins surprised them, that's a possible 3x the expected difficulty which makes it beyond deadly. 12x goblins just leisurely walking through the woods when they agreed to fight the party in an honorable manner would be a "hard" encounter by the DMG. If they're benefitting from stuff like cover or darkness, they're deadly.

[Alucard89]

@Asisreo1 - I am sorry, but I would really appreciate if you can stop repeating yourself at this point. You said numerous times in this thread that you don't like idea of spell points for warlock and I have read that through out this thread enough times to know it.

So - we all know it, we accept your criticism but there is no point of saying the same thing differently in 10 posts.


@MaxWilson - Do you have maybe a table with spell-points for Warlock similar to how spell-points are presented for full casters in books? I would appreciate it as I have game upcoming today and I'd like to try spell-points for warlock. I have a player on level 5 warlock that clearly only uses his slots for darkness/pattern and spams EB most of the time and I think spellpoints would allow him to have little bit more fun during encounters and social situations.

[ProsecutorGodot]

@MaxWilson - Do you have maybe a table with spell-points for Warlock similar to how spell-points are presented for full casters in books? I would appreciate it as I have game upcoming today and I'd like to try spell-points for warlock. I have a player on level 5 warlock that clearly only uses his slots for darkness/pattern and spams EB most of the time and I think spellpoints would allow him to have little bit more fun during encounters and social situations.

Use the spell slot costs from the regular table to calculate the Warlocks amount of points. For example, since the player is a level 5 Warlock they have two 3rd level spell slots normally. Spell points have you spend 5 points per 3rd level spell, so this Warlock has 10 spell points.

1st	2
2nd	4
3rd-4th	6
5th-6th	10
7th-8th	12
9th-10th	14
11th-16th	21
17th-20th	28

[MaxWilson]

@MaxWilson - Do you have maybe a table with spell-points for Warlock similar to how spell-points are presented for full casters in books? I would appreciate it as I have game upcoming today and I'd like to try spell-points for warlock. I have a player on level 5 warlock that clearly only uses his slots for darkness/pattern and spams EB most of the time and I think spellpoints would allow him to have little bit more fun during encounters and social situations.

Use the spell slot costs from the regular table to calculate the Warlocks amount of points. For example, since the player is a level 5 Warlock they have two 3rd level spell slots normally. Spell points have you spend 5 points per 3rd level spell, so this Warlock has 10 spell points.

1st	2
2nd	4
3rd-4th	6
5th-6th	10
7th-8th	12
9th-10th	14
11th-16th	21
17th-20th	28

I fully endorse ProsecutorGodot's table. Those numbers are identical to the ones I use (per short rest). Then you get Mystica Arcana on top of that.

[Alucard89]

Use the spell slot costs from the regular table to calculate the Warlocks amount of points. For example, since the player is a level 5 Warlock they have two 3rd level spell slots normally. Spell points have you spend 5 points per 3rd level spell, so this Warlock has 10 spell points.

1st	2
2nd	4
3rd-4th	6
5th-6th	10
7th-8th	12
9th-10th	14
11th-16th	21
17th-20th	28

Nice, thank you! This looks good. At level 5 he can use 3x 2nd level spell or 5x 1st level spell. Even at this level this will give him more flexibility in combat.