Has anyone use spell point for warlock

[Throne12]

Has any one used the spell point variant for the warlock? How did it work and did it help feel like your casting more spells or what not.

[MaxWilson]

Yes, I have--the Warlock gets a number of spell points per short rest equal to the value of their short rest spell slots (2 at level 1, 21 at level 11, etc.). It makes the Warlock spell list feel less narrow because you're not forced to rely only on spells that upcast well--you can still cast Mirror Image without feeling bad about it.

Biggest balance implication is probably for Hexblades because spell points + Shield is kind of awesome. I haven't found it to be a problem (it's not *more* awesome than e.g. Danse Macabre, just differently awesome) but YMMV. Keep an eye on that one.

[Asisreo1]

Yes, I have--the Warlock gets a number of spell points per short rest equal to the value of their short rest spell slots (2 at level 1, 21 at level 11, etc.). It makes the Warlock spell list feel less narrow because you're not forced to rely only on spells that upcast well--you can still cast Mirror Image without feeling bad about it.

Biggest balance implication is probably for Hexblades because spell points + Shield is kind of awesome. I haven't found it to be a problem (it's not *more* awesome than e.g. Danse Macabre, just differently awesome) but YMMV. Keep an eye on that one.

Actually, the spell point variant is not meant to work with warlocks. Spell point variants only work with someone with the "spellcasting" feature. But warlocks use pact magic.

Check the conversion table in the DMG, it does implicitly state that warlocks already aren't allowed to use this conversion table at all but trying to brute force it to work would change warlocks completely in a bigger way than the variant would with other spellcasting classes.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Actually, the spell point variant is not meant to work with warlocks. Spell point variants only work with someone with the "spellcasting" feature. But warlocks use pact magic.

Check the conversion table in the DMG, it does implicitly state that warlocks already aren't allowed to use this conversion table at all but trying to brute force it to work would change warlocks completely in a bigger way than the variant would with other spellcasting classes.

Not being meant for it doesn't mean you can't use it.

I've also used it, and for a Hexblade that I was DMing for. Pretty much echoes what Max said. Shield didn't turn out to actually be that much of a problem in this case because he had PAM+Sentinel and focused a lot of his reactions on offense.

I like spell points for warlocks but on other caster it felt like too much of an advantage that they didn't really need.

[Asisreo1]

Not being meant for it doesn't mean you can't use it.

I've also used it, and for a Hexblade that I was DMing for. Pretty much echoes what Max said. Shield didn't turn out to actually be that much of a problem in this case because he had PAM+Sentinel and focused a lot of his reactions on offense.

I like spell points for warlocks but on other caster it felt like too much of an advantage that they didn't really need.

So, do they recover on a short rest? How do spell slot conversion work? Spell points aren't a direct spell point to spell conversion. You use spell points to create spell slots that are instantaneously used up. Pact Magic on warlocks say all spell slot levels are the same. So what's the difference between a warlock and a wizard?

[ProsecutorGodot]

So, do they recover on a short rest? How do spell slot conversion work? Spell points aren't a direct spell point to spell conversion. You use spell points to create spell slots that are instantaneously used up. Pact Magic on warlocks say all spell slot levels are the same. So what's the difference between a warlock and a wizard?

Yes, convert the warlocks typical spell slots into points based on the cost it would be to create equal level spells. Max outlined this in his post.

A wizard has 73 spell points at level 11. A warlock under these rules has 21. They have the option to cast the same amount of high level spells that they would under normal rules or the option to preserve some of their casting ability by casting are a lower level with points.

[Nifft]

Yes, I have--the Warlock gets a number of spell points per short rest equal to the value of their short rest spell slots (2 at level 1, 21 at level 11, etc.). It makes the Warlock spell list feel less narrow because you're not forced to rely only on spells that upcast well--you can still cast Mirror Image without feeling bad about it.

Biggest balance implication is probably for Hexblades because spell points + Shield is kind of awesome. I haven't found it to be a problem (it's not *more* awesome than e.g. Danse Macabre, just differently awesome) but YMMV. Keep an eye on that one.

Neat, thanks for reporting that.

Shield was on my short-list of things to worry about, and if it's not a worry then that's great for this variant.

[Asisreo1]

Yes, convert the warlocks typical spell slots into points based on the cost it would be to create equal level spells. Max outlined this in his post.

A wizard has 73 spell points at level 11. A warlock under these rules has 21. They have the option to cast the same amount of high level spells that they would under normal rules or the option to preserve some of their casting ability by casting are a lower level with points.

Yes, but the warlock recovers on a short rest. Also, can they cast higher than 5th level or does it go back to mystic arcanum?

The warlock would be able to cast more spells than a wizard very easily in an adventuring day, only needing an extra short rest. That and they don't have to judiciously allocate their spells in a fight. As people have said, just shield and you'll be fine with plenty more.

The reason I brought up pact magic was that it locks the spell level of your spell slot by RAW.

I mean, homebrew as you please by all means but it's not official simply by the fact that spell points require the spellcasting feature.

Spell points also has this side effect where a wizard, bard, and cleric can only cast a 6th and 7th level spell once rather than twice at higher levels.

It also kinda encroaches on one of the schticks of the sorcerer.

[MaxWilson]

Neat, thanks for reporting that.

Shield was on my short-list of things to worry about, and if it's not a worry then that's great for this variant.

It's potentially a playstyle thing--maybe it's not a problem because of my playstyle***, but it might be for yours, e.g. if you prefer to attrition-based games with 3-4 easy encounters per short rest. Keep an eye on it.

Spoiler: ***

Show

Typically combat-light-but-uber-Deadly-when-it-happens, except in dungeoncrawls which are deliberately murderhoboey, in which combats are common and merely deadly-ish.

My philosophy is that dungeons are for players to relax and murderhobo things for tactical challenge and treasure, but the wilderness/civilization/etc. is for roleplaying, in which case if there isn't a decent chance the PCs will actually lose there isn't much dramatic tension and little reason to even play out the scene. Since Deadly is an encounter where there's a real chance the PCs could lose a PC, an encounter where there's a real chance of TPKO (kill or knockout or surrender) is by definition at least Deadly by DMG labels--but I also always build in ways for the PCs to avoid or win the fights, even though I fully expect them to come up with their own ways instead of using the ones I built for them.

================================================== ==============

Yes, but the warlock recovers on a short rest. Also, can they cast higher than 5th level or does it go back to mystic arcanum?

I have in the past left Mystic Arcanum alone but if I had a high-level warlock today I'd offer them my revised Mystic Arcanum rules that I've been noodling on, which are that Mystic Arcanum are just warlock invocations a la "you add [spell XYZ] to your list of spells known", then you can cast the spell with your regular spell slots/points, including upcasting it.

Put that together with spell point rules and you'd wind up with a pool of short-rest spell points and a pool of long-rest spell points calculated from Mystica Arcana. You have a number of invocations equal to the Invocations + Mystic Arcana listed for your level in the PHB, and you can spend as many of those invocations as you like on Mystica Arcana. If you want to spend most of your invocations on enhancing Eldritch Blast and your combat abilities, and take Conjure Fey as your only Mystic Arcana, you can, and then if you want to cast Conjure Fey VI (Annis Hag), VII (Korred), VIII (T-Rex), and IX (uh, as DM I'll make up an Auntie Hag I guess?) each once per day at 17th level, you totally can.

The goal is to make warlocks feel different but not weaker or unsatisfying.

The warlock would be able to cast more spells than a wizard very easily in an adventuring day, only needing an extra short rest.

Wizards regain spells too on a short rest, so the warlock would need multiple short rests to pull ahead. In practice this isn't a problem. Yes, the warlock can burn spell points pretty freely on Suggestion/Detect Thoughts/Fly/etc. in social situations, but outside of a dungeon crawl there's probably at most only two seriously deadly confrontations in the adventure scenario, and you normally can't short rest in the middle of a deadly confrontation (assassination attempt, hostage rescue, base assault, etc.). Inside of a dungeon crawl, yes, a warlock could absolutely wind up with more spells per 24 hours than a wizard (with or without spell points), but dungeon crawls have built-in mechanisms to make that challenging (wandering monsters), and besides, dungeon crawls are for fun anyway.

That and they don't have to judiciously allocate their spells in a fight. As people have said, just shield and you'll be fine with plenty more.

Not true in my experience. If you've only got 14 spell points at 9th level, casting a Shield + Armor of Agathys V leaves you with only 5 spell points (enough for a Hypnotic Pattern or Fear in the next encounter). Sure, you could reserve all of your spell points exclusively for Shield, but then you're really no different from an Eldritch Knight--you might as well not even know any high-level spells.

The reason I brought up pact magic was that it locks the spell level of your spell slot by RAW.

Right. And that's why spell points are a DMG variant rule, not the vanilla RAW. (And warlock spell points are a further extrapolation of that rule variant.)

As an aside: I've always found it curious that according to the DMG, the downside to spell points is "increased complexity" when in reality spell points are actually simpler. Player says "I cast Hypnotic Pattern" and you say "that will be 5 spell points please." No messing around with different buckets of spell slots. Interestingly, the DMG does not say "spell points increase the power of a PC". It makes me wonder what kinds of assumptions the designers of classes like the warlock made: do their spreadsheets assume that warlocks will always get full value out of upcasted spells (i.e. stick strictly to spells that scale well, like Command instead of Hunger of Hadar?)? In any case I feel that spell points lead to a more satisfying warlock class.

[Asisreo1]

It's potentially a playstyle thing--maybe it's not a problem because of my playstyle***, but it might be for yours, e.g. if you prefer to attrition-based games with 3-4 easy encounters per short rest. Keep an eye on it.

Spoiler: ***

Show

Typically combat-light-but-uber-Deadly-when-it-happens, except in dungeoncrawls which are deliberately murderhoboey, in which combats are common and merely deadly-ish.

My philosophy is that dungeons are for players to relax and murderhobo things for tactical challenge and treasure, but the wilderness/civilization/etc. is for roleplaying, in which case if there isn't a decent chance the PCs will actually lose there isn't much dramatic tension and little reason to even play out the scene. Since Deadly is an encounter where there's a real chance the PCs could lose a PC, an encounter where there's a real chance of TPKO (kill or knockout or surrender) is by definition at least Deadly by DMG labels--but I also always build in ways for the PCs to avoid or win the fights, even though I fully expect them to come up with their own ways instead of using the ones I built for them.

================================================== ==============



I have in the past left Mystic Arcanum alone but if I had a high-level warlock today I'd offer them my revised Mystic Arcanum rules that I've been noodling on, which are that Mystic Arcanum are just warlock invocations a la "you add [spell XYZ] to your list of spells known", then you can cast the spell with your regular spell slots/points, including upcasting it.

Put that together with spell point rules and you'd wind up with a pool of short-rest spell points and a pool of long-rest spell points calculated from Mystica Arcana. You have a number of invocations equal to the Invocations + Mystic Arcana listed for your level in the PHB, and you can spend as many of those invocations as you like on Mystica Arcana. If you want to spend most of your invocations on enhancing Eldritch Blast and your combat abilities, and take Conjure Fey as your only Mystic Arcana, you can, and then if you want to cast Conjure Fey VI (Annis Hag), VII (Korred), VIII (T-Rex), and IX (uh, as DM I'll make up an Auntie Hag I guess?) each once per day at 17th level, you totally can.

The goal is to make warlocks feel different but not weaker or unsatisfying.



Wizards regain spells too on a short rest, so the warlock would need multiple short rests to pull ahead. In practice this isn't a problem. Yes, the warlock can burn spell points pretty freely on Suggestion/Detect Thoughts/Fly/etc. in social situations, but outside of a dungeon crawl there's probably at most only two seriously deadly confrontations in the adventure scenario, and you normally can't short rest in the middle of a deadly confrontation (assassination attempt, hostage rescue, base assault, etc.). Inside of a dungeon crawl, yes, a warlock could absolutely wind up with more spells per 24 hours than a wizard (with or without spell points), but dungeon crawls have built-in mechanisms to make that challenging (wandering monsters), and besides, dungeon crawls are for fun anyway.



Not true in my experience. If you've only got 14 spell points at 9th level, casting a Shield + Armor of Agathys V leaves you with only 5 spell points (enough for a Hypnotic Pattern or Fear in the next encounter). Sure, you could reserve all of your spell points exclusively for Shield, but then you're really no different from an Eldritch Knight--you might as well not even know any high-level spells.



Right. And that's why spell points are a DMG variant rule, not the vanilla RAW. (And warlock spell points are a further extrapolation of that rule variant.)

As an aside: I've always found it curious that according to the DMG, the downside to spell points is "increased complexity" when in reality spell points are actually simpler. Player says "I cast Hypnotic Pattern" and you say "that will be 5 spell points please." No messing around with different buckets of spell slots. Interestingly, the DMG does not say "spell points increase the power of a PC". It makes me wonder what kinds of assumptions the designers of classes like the warlock made: do their spreadsheets assume that warlocks will always get full value out of upcasted spells (i.e. stick strightly to spells that scale well, like Command instead of Hunger of Hadar?)? In any case I feel that spell points lead to a more satisfying warlock class.

They probably imagine upcasting a spell is always as good of an option as casting an equal spell level, possibly excepting spells that deal damage. Alot of spells are unique and are boosted when you upcast them. Hold person isn't something that gets a "better version" until Hold Monster and it generally depends on what you're fighting. You could either try to paralyze 4 humanoids with hold person or one monster with hold monster. As for damaging spells, it's no secret they don't scale well and I think that was purposeful design. If burning hands was better than fireball, why is getting fireball so cool? In fact, most classes can just trade burning hands for fireball on level-up and it would be a direct upgrade.

As for the Hadar spells, Hunger is both technically an upgrade as well as a cool spell to enforce. It's difficult terrain and the debuff of DoT and blindness means it's a priority to get out of but it has a 20ft radius so most creatures would have to dash to get out of it. It's also a sphere with a very long range so these debuffs work against flying enemies, though they might have enough fly movement to simply leave for free. If you can lock an enemy down in there, it gets really bad for them. It's especially cool against truesight enemies because even though they can see through magical darkness, they're still blinded automatically, no save.

So while it doesn't upscale, it is still strong enough to consider leaving in your spell list depending on who you fight.

Again, you can homebrew as you like. Just know the designers clearly didn't intend for the spell points to be used with Pact Magic and this could definitely change the overall feel for the game. Overall, it's clearly just a buff.

[MaxWilson]

They probably imagine upcasting a spell is always as good of an option as casting an equal spell level, possibly excepting spells that deal damage.

But of course it really isn't. Suggestion V is nowhere near as good as Hypnotic Pattern. Misty Step V is nowhere near as good as Dimension Door. Protection From Evil V is nowhere near as good as Magic Circle, let alone Wall of Force. If this was their assumption, then switching to spell points is actually fixing a bug in the warlock class created by forced upcasting: you no longer uselessly waste spell slots on things that don't help. (Nor as you "forced" to stick to spells that do upcast well, like Command, Fly, Armor of Agathys, Invisibility, Banishment, and to some extent Blindness/Deafness.)

As for the Hadar spells, Hunger is both technically an upgrade as well as a cool spell to enforce. It's difficult terrain and the debuff of DoT and blindness means it's a priority to get out of but it has a 20ft radius so most creatures would have to dash to get out of it. It's also a sphere with a very long range so these debuffs work against flying enemies, though they might have enough fly movement to simply leave for free. If you can lock an enemy down in there, it gets really bad for them. It's especially cool against truesight enemies because even though they can see through magical darkness, they're still blinded automatically, no save.

But Hunger of Hadar V is barely better at all than Hunger of Hadar III. The benefit you get from upcasting it in normal situations is zero. Being forced to spend extra spell points on them is a waste.

The blindness also isn't that helpful for you because neither of you can see the other, so at least by RAW the advantage/disadvantage cancels out. Spellcasters are hampered by the blindness, but they can just exit the blindness, whereas you can't really hide inside the darkness because of the damage--so it winds up being worse defensively than Darkness and worse offensively than Fireball. The anti-truesight thing is neat, but Fog Cloud does it just as well.

So while it doesn't upscale, it is still strong enough to consider leaving in your spell list depending on who you fight.

If you need a damage-over-time spell you're probably better off with a Patron-specific spell like Evard's Black Tentacles or Wall of Fire. If you need to block vision, you're better off with Shadow of Moil, Darkness, or a buddy casting Fog Cloud or Pyrotechnics (which doesn't even take concentration). What you don't need is to be forced to spend 7 spell points (or the equivalent in spell slots) on Hunger of Hadar when you really only want to spend 5.

Again, you can homebrew as you like. Just know the designers clearly didn't intend for the spell points to be used with Pact Magic and this could definitely change the overall feel for the game. Overall, it's clearly just a buff.

I see no evidence for the point in bold, and some evidence to the contrary: they didn't warn against anything but "increased complexity" with spell points, and they designed a spell list for warlocks that mostly doesn't upcast well. I don't see any reason to think that warlocks are a special concern w/rt the DMG spell point variant, even though you have to do your own math to derive the correct number of spell points for each warlock level.

[Asisreo1]

But of course it really isn't. Suggestion V is nowhere near as good as Hypnotic Pattern. Misty Step V is nowhere near as good as Dimension Door. Protection From Evil V is nowhere near as good as Magic Circle, let alone Wall of Force. If this was their assumption, then switching to spell points is actually fixing a bug in the warlock class created by forced upcasting: you no longer uselessly waste spell slots on things that don't help. (Nor as you "forced" to stick to spells that do upcast well, like Command, Fly, Armor of Agathys, Invisibility, Banishment, and to some extent Blindness/Deafness.)

Those all really go into my point of upgrading rather than upcasting. If a spell of a higher level is obviously better than a spell of the lower level, there's no reason not to "upgrade" that spell. That is suggestion to hypnotic pattern or silent image to major illusion or misty step to dimension door. It kinda gives the effect that you can cast much stronger versions of the same spell.

You're not required to keep the same spells forever, you're encouraged to swap spells upon level up and you have a clear path to which spells upgrade to which.

But Hunger of Hadar V is barely better at all than Hunger of Hadar III. The benefit you get from upcasting it in normal situations is zero. Being forced to spend extra spell points on them is a waste.

That was the design intent of warlocks, yes. If you were playing a wizard, sorcerer, cleric, or bard; you wouldn't feel any need to upcast. But you're not them, you're a warlock with a new way to cast spells. It doesn't matter if Hunger scales well, if you need hunger, you need it for the effects not the up scalability. Using spell points kinda removes that aspect of Warlocks. I don't consider that a fix, just merely a buff that shifts the playstyle of warlocks.

The blindness also isn't that helpful for you because neither of you can see the other, so at least by RAW the advantage/disadvantage cancels out. Spellcasters are hampered by the blindness, but they can just exit the blindness, whereas you can't really hide inside the darkness because of the damage--so it winds up being worse defensively than Darkness and worse offensively than Fireball. The anti-truesight thing is neat, but Fog Cloud does it just as well.

Spellcaster are the most affected by this spell as they have poor movement options when they're blinded. If they want to get out in a round, assuming it's centered on them, they'd have to either dash or dimension door out. Either way, it uses their action and Dimension Door is a 4th-level spell.

It needn't be centered on you. The inability to see might make some of your stuff difficult but you can always cast AoE or have the devil's sight invocation, which is already a sort-of cult classic amongst human warlocks. (Get it, cult?)

If you need a damage-over-time spell you're probably better off with a Patron-specific spell like Evard's Black Tentacles or Wall of Fire. If you need to block vision, you're better off with Shadow of Moil, Darkness, or a buddy casting Fog Cloud or Pyrotechnics (which doesn't even take concentration). What you don't need is to be forced to spend 7 spell points (or the equivalent in spell slots) on Hunger of Hadar when you really only want to spend 5.

Maybe you're playing Archfey or Darkness and Fog Cloud doesn't make the cut because they'll just move out as movement or they'll even use the darkness and fog cloud as a hiding place for themselves. Hunger and Evard forces the area to be a hostile one and they'd need to leave.

Evard is a straight upgrade to Hunger so I don't have anything to say about replacing it if it's on your spell list (although it doesn't have the blindness effect). Wall of fire is also a good upgrade.

I see no evidence for the point in bold, and some evidence to the contrary: they didn't warn against anything but "increased complexity" with spell points, and they designed a spell list for warlocks that mostly doesn't upcast well. I don't see any reason to think that warlocks are a special concern w/rt the DMG spell point variant, even though you have to do your own math to derive the correct number of spell points for each warlock level.

One way to modify how a class feels is to change how a class uses its spells. With this variant system, a character who has the Spellcasting feature uses spell points instead spell slots to fuel spells. Spell points give a caster more flexibility, at the cost of greater complexity.

It's pretty clear that only the characters with the Spellcasting feature is to use the system. Otherwise, they would've added Pact Magic. They couldn't have just forgot about Warlocks, they went over a whole list of other spellcasters and just overlooked warlock and skipped to wizard? They would've at least given some actual rule on how to use Warlocks if they considered third-casters.

[Desamir]

I'm curious--has anyone tried the simplified spell point variant where you split spell slots? E.g., a 5th level warlock would get their two 3rd-level slots converted to six "spell level slots" that they can spend as they choose. A spell cast at 1st level expends one slot, 2nd level expends two slots, and so on.

The math doesn't line up perfectly with spell points--it's better in some cases, worse in others--but its simplicity and similarity to Arcane Recovery is appealing.

[ProsecutorGodot]

It's pretty clear that only the characters with the Spellcasting feature is to use the system. Otherwise, they would've added Pact Magic. They couldn't have just forgot about Warlocks, they went over a whole list of other spellcasters and just overlooked warlock and skipped to wizard? They would've at least given some actual rule on how to use Warlocks if they considered third-casters.

Drawing a hard line on this is kind of antithetical to the design of 5E, which is rules as guidelines. I appreciate that you would rather not have it work for Warlocks, but there are groups that want it to and the system is relatively simple to tailor to them. If they had intended for you not to use them for Warlocks, I'd wager they would have said so flat out.

Additionally, Spell Points as they exist in the DMG are simply a proposed variant option under "Creating New Character Options". This is not an exhaustive list of new options, this is just the one given as an example in the DMG and you are encouraged to create your own.

[Asisreo1]

Drawing a hard line on this is kind of antithetical to the design of 5E, which is rules as guidelines. I appreciate that you would rather not have it work for Warlocks, but there are groups that want it to and the system is relatively simple to tailor to them. If they had intended for you not to use them for Warlocks, I'd wager they would have said so flat out.

Additionally, Spell Points as they exist in the DMG are simply a proposed variant option under "Creating New Character Options". This is not an exhaustive list of new options, this is just the one given as an example in the DMG and you are encouraged to create your own.

As I said, I have 0 problems with people homebrewing. I might seem to be anti-homebrew but I'm only cautious as homebrew has ruined my games more than any kind of player has. Homebrew classes, systems, features, etc. It's why I've decided to put my trust in the rules as written. They've come up short at times, but I've come to appreciate the art of the design of 5e because it's a really well-designed system compared to the majority of TTRPG's including previous editions.

If it all works in your table, far be it for me to tell you how to play. Just know I'm trying to keep people from blindly applying homebrew rules claimed to be great for all tables then get burned because the wizard player feels like the warlock kinda just does what he does with nearly no repercussions.

For instance, a short rest spellcaster is usually said to be bad in a combat-lite game but that's actually his playground. Even if you can't walk, sitting around while the others have a talk or look for something gives you back all your spell points/slots and you can keep casting your troublemaking roleplay spells like charm/dominate person.

[ProsecutorGodot]

As I said, I have 0 problems with people homebrewing. I might seem to be anti-homebrew but I'm only cautious as homebrew has ruined my games more than any kind of player has. Homebrew classes, systems, features, etc. It's why I've decided to put my trust in the rules as written. They've come up short at times, but I've come to appreciate the art of the design of 5e because it's a really well-designed system compared to the majority of TTRPG's including previous editions.

If it all works in your table, far be it for me to tell you how to play. Just know I'm trying to keep people from blindly applying homebrew rules claimed to be great for all tables then get burned because the wizard player feels like the warlock kinda just does what he does with nearly no repercussions.

For instance, a short rest spellcaster is usually said to be bad in a combat-lite game but that's actually his playground. Even if you can't walk, sitting around while the others have a talk or look for something gives you back all your spell points/slots and you can keep casting your troublemaking roleplay spells like charm/dominate person.

Just noting the bold because I found it pretty humorous. I genuinely don't think I've ever heard of a Wizard complaining that the Warlock has cooler toys. If anything, the default rules in 5E generally have all of the other arcane spellcasters looking jealously at the Wizard for having prepared casting from a long spell list that he gets to pick the most spells from automatically with the best form of ritual casting. He even gets other class features to go with it.

Hot take on the last paragraph: I don't think a Warlock does any better in this example than a Wizard, Bard or Sorcerer. One of the biggest reasons I stand behind spell points for Warlocks (and only for Warlocks) is because I don't think their default gives them their fair share of the playground, they're just forced to share with the other classes who take the better toys. Spell points do just enough to shore up what I consider failings in the class (spells becoming obsolete, tapping out on convenience/safety spells, forced upcasting on spells that do not upcast and the subsequent incentive to not use/learn those spells) while maintaining their unique features to separate them from the other casters.

[Asisreo1]

Just noting the bold because I found it pretty humorous. I genuinely don't think I've ever heard of a Wizard complaining that the Warlock has cooler toys. If anything, the default rules in 5E generally have all of the other arcane spellcasters looking jealously at the Wizard for having prepared casting from a long spell list that he gets to pick the most spells from automatically with the best form of ritual casting. He even gets other class features to go with it.

It's just something to keep in mind. I don't think anyone would actually be upset that a Druid gets revivify in a regular campaign, but maybe the cleric might feel that he could've just gone Druid and be able to both wildshape and revivify rather than adhere to a cleric.

Although, I've never envied the wizard at low levels when they were out of spells in 3-5 castings and they also get obliterated by anything that looks at them harmfully. I've never liked being a type of glass-cannon and even the tankier wizard builds make me feel like a pincushion.

Warlocks are at least proficient in light armor and can use any simple weapon like a dagger. Plus, they already have the best cantrip in the game. It becomes better than a good amount of spells at higher levels, too.

Hot take on the last paragraph: I don't think a Warlock does any better in this example than a Wizard, Bard or Sorcerer. One of the biggest reasons I stand behind spell points for Warlocks (and only for Warlocks) is because I don't think their default gives them their fair share of the playground, they're just forced to share with the other classes who take the better toys. Spell points do just enough to shore up what I consider failings in the class (spells becoming obsolete, tapping out on convenience/safety spells, forced upcasting on spells that do not upcast and the subsequent incentive to not use/learn those spells) while maintaining their unique features to separate them from the other casters.

I'm sure my take is a hotter one, at least in forums. I don't think a flaw is a failing, though. It's just how to balance someone one way or the other.

Most people here appreciate versatility in what they get to cast, which is exactly what wizards get, but having no at-will or passive defenses can really put a hindrance on exactly how many spells you can actually cast.

Maybe my table's the strange one. Usually, most enemies with an intelligence of 7 or higher know to gang up on the squishy one and the lower the intelligence, the less likely they care that the fighter is inbetween, they'll just dash and surround the magic caster and tank the OA's.

So I've seen plenty wizard-made red cream where someone thought they were a god at level 5 until an ambush happened and they realized 8 enemies cut off meaningful escape completely.

Warlocks get a couple stuff to help them like light armor proficiency, higher hit dice, and false-life/mage armor/fey presence even at first level.

Wizards have arcane ward or maybe portent, but even those are a long rest resource.

[Throne12]

As I said, I have 0 problems with people homebrewing. I might seem to be anti-homebrew but I'm only cautious as homebrew has ruined my games more than any kind of player has. Homebrew classes, systems, features, etc. It's why I've decided to put my trust in the rules as written. They've come up short at times, but I've come to appreciate the art of the design of 5e because it's a really well-designed system compared to the majority of TTRPG's including previous editions.

If it all works in your table, far be it for me to tell you how to play. Just know I'm trying to keep people from blindly applying homebrew rules claimed to be great for all tables then get burned because the wizard player feels like the warlock kinda just does what he does with nearly no repercussions.

For instance, a short rest spellcaster is usually said to be bad in a combat-lite game but that's actually his playground. Even if you can't walk, sitting around while the others have a talk or look for something gives you back all your spell points/slots and you can keep casting your troublemaking roleplay spells like charm/dominate person.

That's where your wrong short rest characters have so many problems in long dragged out encounters. They cast one spell and there done. Then if you want to contribute to combat you HAVE TO PICK EB and the invocation to buff it. So now you cant pick invocation to help in social or exploration ect. Yes I understand you cant do it all, but the Warlock is forcing you to be too specialized. Especially between the most played levels 1-10. I have the same problem with the sorcerer as I do with the warlock they are to Restricted compared to other spellcasters.

[Asisreo1]

That's where your wrong short rest characters have so many problems in long dragged out encounters. They cast one spell and there done. Then if you want to contribute to combat you HAVE TO PICK EB and the invocation to buff it. So now you cant pick invocation to help in social or exploration ect. Yes I understand you cant do it all, but the Warlock is forcing you to be too specialized. Especially between the most played levels 1-10. I have the same problem with the sorcerer as I do with the warlock they are to Restricted compared to other spellcasters.

How long do you think combats last? It's usually around 3-4 rounds. If it's anymore, you're either fighting a damage sponge or you aren't using your full power potential. Assuming 2 spellcasters and 2 martial, any monster/groups of monsters at the appropriate level and a bit beyond should be down for the count at round 2 given full power.

And they can cast 2 spells and be done. You don't have to pick eldritch blast but you're definitely missing out if you don't combat-wise.

And when they cast a spell, their spells are the most impactful they can be in a fight. Just be wise about what you cast, which shouldn't be hard because your spells known isn't the massive library that is a wizard's spells known list.

Eldritch Blast is a distraction. You get too married to it and you miss the chance when your leveled spells would have great effect. Too many times, I've seen warlocks not cast their spells when 4 or 5 enemies were in the perfect spot for an AoE because they forgot they could cast anything besides eldritch blast.

Outside of resistances, eldritch blast is just worse then a martial character's attack pattern, too. They even fall behind totem barbarians because of Rage damage. They even fall behind Rangers because of Hunter's mark and fighting styles.

It's good at-will damage for a spellcaster but being so shy with spellslots and telling yourself that there's no way the DM will allow you to take a short rest means that you've nerfed the class yourself by not using it to it's full potential.

[MaxWilson]

How long do you think combats last? It's usually around 3-4 rounds. If it's anymore, you're either fighting a damage sponge or you aren't using your full power potential. Assuming 2 spellcasters and 2 martial, any monster/groups of monsters at the appropriate level and a bit beyond should be down for the count at round 2 given full power.

Demonstrably untrue. E.g. Xanathar's rules say that 8 Stirges and 12 Goblins plinking away with shortbows is an appropriate challenge for a 4 PC party at level 4, but you're not going to kill them all in two rounds unless all twelve goblins conveniently assume Fireball formation for you to easily Shatter/Thunderwave, and why would they?

[Asisreo1]

Demonstrably untrue. E.g. Xanathar's rules say that 8 Stirges and 12 Goblins plinking away with shortbows is an appropriate challenge for a 4 PC party at level 4, but you're not going to kill them all in two rounds unless all twelve goblins conveniently assume Fireball formation for you to easily Shatter/Thunderwave, and why would they?

Um, did you account for the encounter multiplier? Because that's a deadly encounter.

[MaxWilson]

Um, did you account for the encounter multiplier? Because that's a deadly encounter.

Not by Xanathar's rules (page 90). It's a dead-standard encounter. CR 1/8 has an 8:1 ratio for 4th level PCs, CR 1/4 has a 4:1 ratio. To make a "potentially deadly" fight, per page 89 you treat the party as up to 50% bigger, yielding 18 goblins and 12 stirges.

Besides, it's not like DMG methods are significantly different in this case. 12 Goblins (zero stirges) are Hard for four level 4 PCs by DMG rules, and you're still not going to wipe them out in two rounds. You'll win, but not in two rounds.

[MrStabby]

I tried it a couple of years ago - it was before hexblade so I can't speak to that.

It made the class a lot more coherent and consitant and quite a bit more powerful as well as more fun. From an RP perspective it always felt wierd that as you got more powerful you just stopped casting what were your signature spells at lower levels, often not just knowing them any more. With spell points there was more continuity as what were onece good spells, remained good spells so didn't just get dropped out.

In terms of power it was a big, big upgrade - not saying it was unwarranted but it put the warlock on the same kind of power as the other full casters. The step up wasn't as big as I was expecting - the opportunity cost of casting a levelled spell is usually the forgone cantrip. The better the cantrip the higher the opportunity cost, which put a damper on power a bit. The other thing that meant is wasn't as overpowered as I had been worriedabout is the spells known for the warlock. They are plenty, when you are basically casting spells from one or two spell levels, but if you need to spread them out between 5 different spell levels it is quite a bit tighter. Notwithstanding this, it was a noticable increase in performance because a warlock could use a degree of power appropriate to the situation and be neither wasteful nor underpowered.

In terms of fun... a big plus. As a DM it gave me more freedom with encounters. I didn't need to worry abour resource management and where rests would happen and so on myself - sure it didn't fix everything but the warlocks could both do something and have something in reserve. The players got to spend more turns doing cool stuff and using their class features. And the classes without spells had fewer encounters where they were overshadowed by one big flashy spell.

I would recomend using this, but keep an eye out and challenge perconceptions you might have about things like rods othe pact keeper being nesescary.

[Asisreo1]

Not by Xanathar's rules (page 90). It's a dead-standard encounter. CR 1/8 has an 8:1 ratio for 4th level PCs, CR 1/4 has a 4:1 ratio. To make a "potentially deadly" fight, per page 89 you treat the party as up to 50% bigger, yielding 18 goblins and 12 stirges.

Besides, it's not like DMG methods are significantly different in this case. 12 Goblins (zero stirges) are Hard for four level 4 PCs by DMG rules, and you're still not going to wipe them out in two rounds. You'll win, but not in two rounds.

Um, you better win in 2-3 rounds or else someone's going to die. You have an average of 28 hp and assuming you have mage armor up with an AC of 16, the goblins could down you in the first round. If you get targeted, they have a DPR of 31.8 damage all together. That's assuming they didn't surprise you and aren't benefitting from unseen attacker which they are prone to hiding and doing. They'll definitely do it by next turn so the encounter might not be over by the second round but your character very well might.

Even a tanky character of 20 AC gets worn down fast if they have advantage from unseen attacker with a DPR of 32.97 when targeted.

So if you're in the situation of 12 goblins in a single encounter, you're very much in a pickle.

But goblins are skirmishers. Orcs are brutes who will mob up and be easy to hit a large area.

[Asisreo1]

I tried it a couple of years ago - it was before hexblade so I can't speak to that.

It made the class a lot more coherent and consitant and quite a bit more powerful as well as more fun. From an RP perspective it always felt wierd that as you got more powerful you just stopped casting what were your signature spells at lower levels, often not just knowing them any more. With spell points there was more continuity as what were onece good spells, remained good spells so didn't just get dropped out.

In terms of power it was a big, big upgrade - not saying it was unwarranted but it put the warlock on the same kind of power as the other full casters. The step up wasn't as big as I was expecting - the opportunity cost of casting a levelled spell is usually the forgone cantrip. The better the cantrip the higher the opportunity cost, which put a damper on power a bit. The other thing that meant is wasn't as overpowered as I had been worriedabout is the spells known for the warlock. They are plenty, when you are basically casting spells from one or two spell levels, but if you need to spread them out between 5 different spell levels it is quite a bit tighter. Notwithstanding this, it was a noticable increase in performance because a warlock could use a degree of power appropriate to the situation and be neither wasteful nor underpowered.

In terms of fun... a big plus. As a DM it gave me more freedom with encounters. I didn't need to worry abour resource management and where rests would happen and so on myself - sure it didn't fix everything but the warlocks could both do something and have something in reserve. The players got to spend more turns doing cool stuff and using their class features. And the classes without spells had fewer encounters where they were overshadowed by one big flashy spell.

I would recomend using this, but keep an eye out and challenge perconceptions you might have about things like rods othe pact keeper being nesescary.

Y'know. I don't doubt it was fun, but I could give a wizard a magic item that gave them infinite spells and I'm sure they'd have fun, too.

The warlock's EB isn't better than a martial but they definitely have something good when they're out of juice in an encounter.

But I don't see why people are upset that I'm saying that you can homebrew as you wish. It doesn't hurt me that you're having fun the way you play, it's just that being able to cast much like a fullcaster with the different invocations and short rest abilities that come with a warlock, as well as pact boons, may seem like other subclasses (namely the sorcerer) could quickly feel overshadowed since every single aspect of them would be stuck on full rest and their metamagic would probably be a direct pull from their spell point list.

[MaxWilson]

How long do you think combats last? It's usually around 3-4 rounds. If it's anymore, you're either fighting a damage sponge or you aren't using your full power potential. Assuming 2 spellcasters and 2 martial, any monster/groups of monsters at the appropriate level and a bit beyond should be down for the count at round 2 given full power.

Demonstrably untrue. E.g. Xanathar's rules say that 8 Stirges and 12 Goblins plinking away with shortbows is an appropriate challenge for a 4 PC party at level 4, but you're not going to kill them all in two rounds unless all twelve goblins conveniently assume Fireball formation for you to easily Shatter/Thunderwave, and why would they?

Not by Xanathar's rules (page 90). It's a dead-standard encounter. CR 1/8 has an 8:1 ratio for 4th level PCs, CR 1/4 has a 4:1 ratio. To make a "potentially deadly" fight, per page 89 you treat the party as up to 50% bigger, yielding 18 goblins and 12 stirges.

Besides, it's not like DMG methods are significantly different in this case. 12 Goblins (zero stirges) are Hard for four level 4 PCs by DMG rules, and you're still not going to wipe them out in two rounds. You'll win, but not in two rounds.

Um, you better win in 2-3 rounds or else someone's going to die. You have an average of 28 hp and assuming you have mage armor up with an AC of 16, the goblins could down you in the first round. If you get targeted, they have a DPR of 31.8 damage all together. That's assuming they didn't surprise you and aren't benefitting from unseen attacker which they are prone to hiding and doing. They'll definitely do it by next turn so the encounter might not be over by the second round but your character very well might.

Even a tanky character of 20 AC gets worn down fast if they have advantage from unseen attacker with a DPR of 32.97 when targeted.

So if you're in the situation of 12 goblins in a single encounter, you're very much in a pickle.

But goblins are skirmishers. Orcs are brutes who will mob up and be easy to hit a large area.

Somehow we've gone from 2 spellcasters and 2 warriors being able to wipe "any monster/groups of monsters at the appropriate level and a bit beyond" in 2 rounds if they go full power, to predictions of doom when faced with a Xanathar's or DMG-appropriate monster group. It makes me wonder you meant when you wrote "appropriate monster group" and how you measure "appropriate".

"Assuming 2 spellcasters and 2 martial, any monster/groups of monsters at the appropriate level and a bit beyond should be down for the count at round 2 given full power." This is untrue, QED.

P.S. It's not goblin-specific either. It's any enemies using ranged weapons. Even those 7 orcs aren't easily killable in 7 rounds if they use their javelins and extra movement from Aggressive instead of assuming Fireball Formation. (Strafing with Aggressive: use bonus action/Aggressive to move 30' closer, toss a javelin, use regular movement to move anywhere you want.)

[MrStabby]

Y'know. I don't doubt it was fun, but I could give a wizard a magic item that gave them infinite spells and I'm sure they'd have fun, too.

The warlock's EB isn't better than a martial but they definitely have something good when they're out of juice in an encounter.

But I don't see why people are upset that I'm saying that you can homebrew as you wish. It doesn't hurt me that you're having fun the way you play, it's just that being able to cast much like a fullcaster with the different invocations and short rest abilities that come with a warlock, as well as pact boons, may seem like other subclasses (namely the sorcerer) could quickly feel overshadowed since every single aspect of them would be stuck on full rest and their metamagic would probably be a direct pull from their spell point list.

Did you miss the bit where I was explaining that it was more fun for others at the table as well?

[Asisreo1]

Did you miss the bit where I was explaining that it was more fun for others at the table as well?

Nah, but an entire table could love critical fumbles and there's no harm trying it in a one-shot. But no guarantees everyone, or even the majority of people, will feel the same way.

[Asisreo1]

Somehow we've gone from 2 spellcasters and 2 warriors being able to wipe "any monster/groups of monsters at the appropriate level and a bit beyond" in 2 rounds if they go full power, to predictions of doom when faced with a Xanathar's or DMG-appropriate monster group. It makes me wonder you meant when you wrote "appropriate monster group" and how you measure "appropriate".

"Assuming 2 spellcasters and 2 martial, any monster/groups of monsters at the appropriate level and a bit beyond should be down for the count at round 2 given full power." This is untrue, QED.

P.S. It's not goblin-specific either. It's any enemies using ranged weapons. Even those 7 orcs aren't easily killable in 7 rounds if they use their javelins and extra movement from Aggressive instead of assuming Fireball Formation. (Strafing with Aggressive: use bonus action/Aggressive to move 30' closer, toss a javelin, use regular movement to move anywhere you want.)

Orcs will, at worst, surround the fighter and with a bit of communication and team skill, the fighter can get out and the wizard gets a good 7-8 of them down. Orcs are at a heavy disadvantage if they're not in melee. They only have a range if 20 feet so they'll be outranged and they'll quickly lose the amount of javelins if things keep up. They're strongest in melee, too. Orcs don't strafe fireball formation, they have no need if they can surround the fighter. If they dared fireball, it'll hit the fighter too. It's why a spellcaster might want to ready fireball for when the fighter escapes.

Goblins have no reason to target the fighter over the spellcaster because they will not have to engage him in melee and the spellcaster is the bigger threat. They can worry about the fighter when everyone else is dead. This specific encounter could easily spell disaster for a spellcaster if they're reckless. Besides a hard encounter says weaker characters might get taken out of the fight. That's what happened with the spellcaster.

But I do hold that the party going full power could quickly and decisively change the outcome of the fight. If they target the warlock, he could activate shield and they probably won't kill him. Next, the warlock could use mirror image to keep himself from getting hurt. Bonus points if he has One with the Shadows.

At this level, the fighter has 2 attacks and can kill a goblin easily with each. Warlocks could also easily kill goblins 2 a piece. Assuming the they kill 3 goblins a round, this hard encounter is done in roughly 4-5 rounds.

[MaxWilson]

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

At this level, the fighter has 2 attacks and can kill a goblin easily with each.

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.