Been playing for a few years - still don't understand Warlocks

[schm0]

The DMG does not say that. It uses the 6-8 figure as an example if the encounters are at a specific threshold of difficulty.

I'm becoming more and more certain that a lot of players are taking someone else's word second-hand for what the DMG says rather than reading it themselves.

To be fair, I say 6-8 encounters all the time as shorthand. If one doesn't know that it means medium and hard encounters, or that the number changes (more if you have easier encounters, less if they are more difficult) then that's the fault of the reader.

[Tanarii]

The DMG does not say that. It uses the 6-8 figure as an example if the encounters are at a specific threshold of difficulty.

I'm becoming more and more certain that a lot of players are taking someone else's word second-hand for what the DMG says rather than reading it themselves.

Me too. More importantly, the fact that the DMG text says 6-8 medium/hard, but the table is (for most levels) 6 medium or 4.5 hard, particularly indicates that it's become a second hand knowledge statement being passed around and accepted without digging in,

[Segev]

To be fair, "6-8 encounters" and "6-8 medium/hard encounters" is not that big a distinction, when "medium" is - or at least should be - what people default to as "standard" or "average."

[Frogreaver]

I played a Warlock in a game where we had one meaty combat each session. Playing a Warlock was fun but underwhelming. You really need multiple fights/encounters a day to make the Warlock feel special. They thrive in constrained narrative environments (like dungeons).

Single combat days are a thing. But let’s be honest, what was the wizard actually doing in that combat? Most likely they cast a nice concentration spell on turn 1 and then started using a few damage spells.

That’s not significantly different than eb spam after dropping a nice concentration spell on turn 1.

[diplomancer]

I like warlocks; but I'd say the best reason to dislike warlocks is the tendency for every thread about Warlocks quickly derail to the minutia of the adventuring day.

[MaxWilson]

To be fair, "6-8 encounters" and "6-8 medium/hard encounters" is not that big a distinction, when "medium" is - or at least should be - what people default to as "standard" or "average."

Should it be? Why? Medium fights involve the enemy being outgunned by about 4:1 and dying. Where's the dramatic tension in that, and why should that level of tension be standard?

[Segev]

Should it be? Why? Medium fights involve the enemy being outgunned by about 4:1 and dying. Where's the dramatic tension in that, and why should that level of tension be standard?

Because the word "medium" has implications and connotations. If the game does not mean for "medium" to be somehow synonymous with "average" or "expected" or something along those lines, the game designers made a bad choice in how they named whatever they did label as "medium."

Given that, at least by the arguments being made here, "medium" does seem to be part of the default assumption, it seems to be being used correctly, here.

You may believe that "medium" difficulty is "too easy" for an encounter, but that doesn't make the assessment that "medium" is the default when discussing expected encounter rates wrong or unjustified. And, if the designers did successfully design a game where 4-8 medium fights with 1-3 short rests per day leads to the expected attrition and overall risk, then it seems they got it right.

But "why should 'medium' be the assumption?" Because of what the word means in English when used on a scale typified by having (at least) "easy," "medium," and "hard" as ratings.

[Tanarii]

To be fair, "6-8 encounters" and "6-8 medium/hard encounters" is not that big a distinction, when "medium" is - or at least should be - what people default to as "standard" or "average."

But 6-8 medium or hard vs 6 medium or 4.5 hard is quite a big distinction. And it's a mistake directly in the DMG.

[Segev]

But 6-8 medium or hard vs 6 medium or 4.5 hard is quite a big distinction. And it's a mistake directly in the DMG.

Which hardly means people are at fault for not having read the DMG if the DMG itself is imperfect.

I feel like we're arguing different things, though, as that doesn't seem to follow from the discussion of what "medium" means, and the accusation that people don't read the DMG.

[schm0]

But 6-8 medium or hard vs 6 medium or 4.5 hard is quite a big distinction. And it's a mistake directly in the DMG.

Where are you getting this 4.5 number? It's 6-8 medium or hard encounters, on average. DM's who don't understand that someone saying "6-8 encounters" means this very thing indicates they have not read this relevant section of the DMG.

Regardless, the difficulty of encounters is largely tangential. When it comes to the warlock (and monk and fighter), they will be outshone by long rest casters unless they get the recommended number of short rests in between.

[Segev]

Where are you getting this 4.5 number? It's 6-8 medium or hard encounters, on average. DM's who don't understand that someone saying "6-8 encounters" means this very thing indicates they have not read this relevant section of the DMG.

Regardless, the difficulty of encounters is largely tangential. When it comes to the warlock (and monk and fighter), they will be outshone by long rest casters unless they get the recommended number of short rests in between.

I think you quoted the wrong person. I do not believe I used "4.5" anywhere.

[schm0]

Yeah, that was weird. I updated my post.

[MaxWilson]

Where are you getting this 4.5 number?

Presumably from doing math on the DMG table. For most levels, the highest number of median Medium encounters you can fit into the adventuring day budget is 4-5. For a few levels it approaches 6, but I don't remember which levels. You can fit more if you use the easiest possible just-barely-Medium encounters, but if you assume median Medium then it's about 4-5.

For example, at 16th level the adventuring day budget for four PCs is 80,000 adjusted XP, and Medium encounters are 12,800 to just under 19,200 XP.

(12,800 + 19,200)/2 = 16,000.

80,000/16,000 = 5.

Ergo, you can have about five Medium encounters at level 16 without going over budget. You can have about 3.3 Hard encounters, and 1 Deadly encounter may or may not completely blow your entire XP budget, but 2.7 Deadly encounters definitely will. So call it (1+2.7)/2 = 1.85ish Deadly encounters on average.

[Tanarii]

Where are you getting this 4.5 number? It's 6-8 medium or hard encounters, on average. DM's who don't understand that someone saying "6-8 encounters" means this very thing indicates they have not read this relevant section of the DMG.

Presumably from doing math on the DMG table.

Yes exactly.

Which hardly means people are at fault for not having read the DMG if the DMG itself is imperfect

And Segev, I suppose you have a point. It's hard for me not to fault people for reading "6 to 8 medium or hard encounters" in the DMG, and then walk away without checking that statement matches the table given.

But others might find it hard to fault them for that.

[MaxWilson]

Which hardly means people are at fault for not having read the DMG if the DMG itself is imperfect.

I feel like we're arguing different things, though, as that doesn't seem to follow from the discussion of what "medium" means, and the accusation that people don't read the DMG.

We know from the history of the Basic rules that the difficulty table was updated (I forget what version of the rules, but after the PHB came out and before the DMG) to make everything that used to be Hard now be Medium, and everything that was Medium now be Easy, etc. The table was updated, but the text describing the table was left unchanged. At the time the "6-8 Medium or Hard encounters" sentence was written, it was accurate and matched the table, but those same 6-8 encounters today would be Easy or Medium.

Concrete example: if you look at Basic 0.1 pages 56-58, there's a Hard encounter given as an example encounter between four PCs (three level 3, one level 2) and four hobgoblins. That consumes 800 out of the 4200 XP budget for the day (3*1200 + 600, per table on page 58), leaving 3400 XP left. If you distribute those 3400 XP evently between six other encounters for a total of seven encounters, that gives you one Hard encounter (hobgoblins, 800 XP) and six more barely-Hard encounters (whatever else, 566 XP). That's because a Medium encounter can be at most 550 XP (3*150 + 100) and a Hard encounter can be at most 825 XP (3 * 225 + 150), according to the table on page 56. So we see that "six to eight medium or hard encounters in a day" held, back then.

Today that same encounter is Medium.

It seems clear that not changing the sentence was just an oversight.

[Segev]

There is a difference between "reading and comprehending" and "studying in depth."

[Tanarii]

There is a difference between "reading and comprehending" and "studying in depth."

Sure sure. But given it's become a tag line for those opposed to using the system math, it's important to note that as few as 3 Deadly or 4.5 Hard or 6 Medium encounters qualifies as an adventuring day for most level, assuming the same 2 short rests. Especially since those who want fewer encounters also often want herder ones.

So circling back around to this:

Regardless, the difficulty of encounters is largely tangential. When it comes to the warlock (and monk and fighter), they will be outshone by long rest casters unless they get the recommended number of short rests in between.

Agreed. If you have e.g. 3 Deadly encounters per the DMG, and no short rests in between, it changes the expectations for classes from having one between each.

Not that some to many players wouldn't except to be optimized and prepared enough to handle it, regardless of class. But the relative value to a given player of each class would (and should) change.

[MaxWilson]

Agreed. If you have e.g. 3 Deadly encounters per the DMG, and no short rests in between, it changes the expectations for classes from having one between each.

Or more than one between them. A common myth is that only there is some expectation in the DMG that there be only 2 short rests per day. The DMG never says or implies that.

It can be relevant if, for example, the party is warlock Invisibility or Dimension Door or Suggestion or Cure Wounds or whatever, in between those deadly combat encounters. Perhaps that's even how they reduce the odds from "hopeless" to merely "deadly."

[Tanarii]

Or more than one between them. A common myth is that only there is some expectation in the DMG that there be only 2 short rests per day. The DMG never says or implies that.

Absolutely. I know personally how it affects players of long rest casters to have to face an extra (roughly) 1/3-2/3 of an adventuring day with an additional short rest or two.

And of course as you say back to back short rests can make warlocks very interesting.

[schm0]

Or more than one between them. A common myth is that only there is some expectation in the DMG that there be only 2 short rests per day. The DMG never says or implies that.

Mine does:

In general, over the course of a full adventuring day, the party will likely need to take two short rests, about one-third and two-thirds of the way through the day. DMG p. 84

[MaxWilson]

Mine does:

That only sets a minimum. It says nothing about only taking two. If the party has a nice relaxing hour-long dinner with an earl or by themselves, and the warlock regains spell slots, the DMG quote doesn't say that's wrong.

[lukethecat2003]

Hey everyone,

So, quite frankly, I just don't get warlocks. Now, before I explain why, I've gotta say that I'm sure I must be missing something, as I've read that so many people play them and thoroughly enjoy them. I understand this has been covered a lot in the past. But having said that, I just can't get to grips with them. Lastly, this is going to be a long post, so apologies in advance.

So from what I understand - they have a very small number of spell slots, which is offset by them always casting their spells at their maximum possible level (up to 5th level spellslots). This leads me to my first issue though. Let's take a level 10 Warlock (because 10 is middle-of-the-road). A level 10 Warlock has two level 5 spellslots. Well, so does a wizard, and a bard, and every other (full) spellcaster. BUT of course, the Warlock regains those spellslots on a short rest, rather than a long one. Well, here's what I don't understand - does that.. matter?

Let's imagine two very different scenarios, one adventuring day with one fight in. And another adventuring day with 6 fights in, with two short rests. Let's say fight-fight [short rest] fight-fight [short rest] fight-fight.

In the first scenario, the Warlock uses both of his spellslots and does a metric tonne of damage - and then is consigned to casting cantrips for the rest of the fight. The Wizard may also use his level 5 spellslots, if he chooses, and do the same damage, but is then left to cast spells from his thirteen remaining spellslots.

Alright, so the second scenario looks more favorable to the warlock. For each fight, if he chooses he can use one of his powerful spellslots. The Wizard, having only two 5th spellslots, has to choose when to use them over the course of all of the six fights. But still, once the Wizard has used those spellslots - he has these thirteen spellslots left - that's (just over) two spellslots per fight, on top of the 5th level ones. Where every one of those spellslots is greater than a cantrip (to a varying degree, obviously, but he's got three 4th level spellslots, for example).

What I'm trying to get at, is that surely, even in a Warlock's extremely favorable scenario. The Wizard (or other fullspellcaster) still comes out on top, doesn't it? I have no idea how tables work in this forum, but I've just randomly listed a comparison of the sort of spell usage you might expect over the course of this adventuring hypothetical day. Does it look like it favors the Warlock that much?

Wizard

First fight - 5th level spellslot. 3rd level spellslot. 1st level spellslot.
Second fight - 4th level spellslot. 1st level spellslot. 3rd level spellslot.
[short rest]
Third Fight - 3rd. 1st. cantrips
Fourth Fight - 5th. 2nd. 1st.
[short rest]
Fifth Fight - 2nd. 4th. cantrips
Sixth Fight - 2nd. 4th. cantrips

Warlock

First fight - 5th level spellslot. cantrips.
Second Fight - 5th level spellslot. cantrips.
[short rest]
Third Fight - 5th level spellslot. cantrips.
Fourth Fight - 5th level spellslot. cantrips.
[short rest]
Fifth Fight - all cantrips
Sixth Fight - two 5th level spellslots. cantrips.

Even if we put the power discrepancy (or not, that's what I'm asking) aside - doesn't the Warlock's fighting day look extremely boring? I know this is clearly subjective, but - one spell a fight, and then cantripping? It doesn't sound too exciting.

Doesn't this discrepancy only grow larger as the respective classes level up? The Warlock ends up with four 5th level spellslots (and he can't upcast these spells higher than 5th level). Plus four Mystic Arcanum spells which are per long rest. The Wizard has twenty-two spellslots. Twenty two! The Wizard does have one fewer 5th level spellslots (three, not four) - but he also has two level 6 and 7 slots (instead of one Mystic Arcanum for that level) - and he can upcast any of his spells to level 9 if he chooses.

And this is considering the Warlocks best adventuring day. I know in our playgroup we rarely, if ever have that many fights in a day. Although I concede, we may have less than usual. But if we lower the number of fights from (a high) six to (a reasonable) four - the Warlock's 'plan' stays identical, whilst the Wizard can now use a whole extra spell-per-fight. In fact, doesn't the Warlocks 'plan' stay identical nomatter the situation? The only situation I can see where the Warlock really, truly shine would be an adventuring day consisting of an ungodly amount of fights, whilst also allowing for many shortrests.

And I know, there are invocations. Invocations are amazing and extremely flavorful, but really - can they make up for the sheer number of spells that other casters get? All of the 'spell' invocations are per long rest. I understand there are powerful combinations, Darkness and Devil's Sight, for example, or making your Eldritch Blast extremely powerful. But it still appears that they would get left behind, compared to other casters, wouldn't they?

I'm trying not to theorycraft too much, just to enough to get an idea. You never know how many fights you're going to have in day after all - it just seems that picking any reasonable number always leaves the Warlocks trailing. Perhaps I'm completely wrong, are the fifth level spellslots that much more valuable than the sheer number of 1-4 spellslots available to other casters? Am I wrong in comparing them to other casters in the first place? It's just - if spells aren't their 'stick' then.. what is? The utility of Eldritch Invocations?

Warlock's flavor is absolutely incredible, I love the sound of the class. But isn't that flavor somewhat hampered by the mechanics? Heck, I think I'd be a little annoyed in the very first fight - casting one spell and then cantripping for the remainder of the fight. Doing that virtually every single fight sounds.. tiresome? It certainly doesn't feel, mechanically, what the class comes across as thematically.

Out of combat, I completely get it, the flavor (and even to some extent the mechanics, with the invocations) is incredible. Am I focusing on the combat too much? Is the Warlock's 'stick' their out of combat potential? Is that where all the fun is?

Apologies for dragging on, I've just been trying to get my head around them for so long. I wanted to make one tonight for a campaign, but after thinking on them (yet again) - I just couldn't. So I thought I'd ask here, what am I missing?

Thanks so much for reading.

From my looking into the stats of the class, the invocations give a huge amount of depth to the character. Being able to push an enemy toward or away from you 10-40 ft per turn is insanely useful when you are playing with strategy in mind.

Additionally, whilst playing the class, you would be thinking about all that you can use at one point in time. Just because you can only use something once per long rest doesnt mean you are going to be thinking about it once per long rest. It exists as an option for the whole day. Its not the actions that you make that makes something interesting, its the options you have for actions that makes combat interesting. Choice is ultimately what would make the combat more interesting.

And in terms of RP, talking is a free action, if you're genuinely going for a good RP thing, in fights people arent just silent, people are calling out to each other, depending on the personalities of the characters you'll be talking to your enemy. Yes, if you neglect acting how a real person would act, Warlock may be a little dry in comparison to wizard, but the upside of the warlock is that the skill of the player matters less at the base of it. When you get into higher level play (people who are actually good at the game), yes the difference is accentuated, as Wizards are really powerful alongside other teammates and extremely influential, but for most people, the reliability of essentially always having a bow whilst also having magic is really attractive.

Also you overestimate the usefulness of 1st lvl spells. By lvl 5 or 11, they become worse than cantrips in terms of damage, and their utility is limited in scope, as they only do certain things, and at a lower rate. at lvl 11, a firebolt will be better than chromatic orb and such.

[Randomthom]

Warlocks sit somewhere in between a lot of concepts and, due to the way invocations work can build in many different directions. They're probably the most versatile class in that respect.

I'm currently in a campaign playing a lvl 13 Hexblade Warlock. My feat selection (shield master, sentinel, warcaster) and invocations are mostly bolstering my melee capabilities (thirsting blade, lifedrinker) but also bring some utility with gift of the depths (cast water breathing 1/day, lasts 24h) and I mostly act as the "tank that can't be ignored" for the group. I also bring a lot of utility through crowd control (banishment, hold person & hold monster, force cage), invisibility (upcast @5th = 4 targets), scrying, dimension door, teleportation circle.

In-short, I have a lot of options and I bring a lot of functionality. I don't do as much damage as the rogue, I can't sling as many spells as the Wizard or Cleric but I do both those things very well.

Two observatons regarding Warlocks (ignoring multi-classing for the moment).
1. They play better than they sound, especially in the mid-tier levels.
2. You can change 1 invocation each time you level up so you can experiment as you play them.

[schm0]

That only sets a minimum. It says nothing about only taking two. If the party has a nice relaxing hour-long dinner with an earl or by themselves, and the warlock regains spell slots, the DMG quote doesn't say that's wrong.

The text quite clearly says to take two, and it says nothing about a minimum. Of course, it's just a guideline (like all rules), but that number is the de facto standard.

I'd be very careful with drifting away from the recommended guidelines, especially if you have a short rest class in your party. Some people have argued against adjusting resting rules to stretch the adventuring day to suit your needs, but taking away short rests from short rest classes will make them perform far worse than their long rest counterparts. Warlock is no different.

[Sir_Leorik]

So from what I understand - they have a very small number of spell slots, which is offset by them always casting their spells at their maximum possible level (up to 5th level spellslots). This leads me to my first issue though. Let's take a level 10 Warlock (because 10 is middle-of-the-road). A level 10 Warlock has two level 5 spellslots. Well, so does a wizard, and a bard, and every other (full) spellcaster. BUT of course, the Warlock regains those spellslots on a short rest, rather than a long one. Well, here's what I don't understand - does that.. matter?

It isn't just the two spell slots. Its what those spells do. For example, I play a Celestial Patron Tomelock, who functions as a backup healer to the party Forge Domain Cleric. Let's say our Paladin is hurt badly. The Forge Domain Cleric can spend a 1st level spell slot to cast Healing Word for 1d4+5 hit points. Or we can stop the party for ten minutes for the Cleric to cast Prayer of Healing, which does more healing. Or my Warlock can cast Cure Wounds (which is on the Expanded Spell List of my subclass) at 5th level. She can't do that all the time, but she can do it. In addition she has her Healing Light class feature, to use in combat, which functions like Healing Word on steroids.

Let's imagine two very different scenarios, one adventuring day with one fight in. And another adventuring day with 6 fights in, with two short rests. Let's say fight-fight [short rest] fight-fight [short rest] fight-fight.

In the first scenario, the Warlock uses both of his spellslots and does a metric tonne of damage - and then is consigned to casting cantrips for the rest of the fight. The Wizard may also use his level 5 spellslots, if he chooses, and do the same damage, but is then left to cast spells from his thirteen remaining spellslots.

Again, which spells are the Warlock casting? I usually only cast either Hex, in order to enhance my Eldritch Blasts, or I cast one Hypnotic Pattern, or one Sickening Radiance. All three of these spells require concentration. So what I do is determine which spell is appropriate for this combat, and cast it. I then use Eldritch Blast for the rest of the combat. I don't compete with the party's Wizard for effectiveness, as my Warlock complements the Wizard and the Cleric.

Even if we put the power discrepancy (or not, that's what I'm asking) aside - doesn't the Warlock's fighting day look extremely boring? I know this is clearly subjective, but - one spell a fight, and then cantripping? It doesn't sound too exciting.

Doesn't this discrepancy only grow larger as the respective classes level up? The Warlock ends up with four 5th level spellslots (and he can't upcast these spells higher than 5th level). Plus four Mystic Arcanum spells which are per long rest. The Wizard has twenty-two spellslots. Twenty two! The Wizard does have one fewer 5th level spellslots (three, not four) - but he also has two level 6 and 7 slots (instead of one Mystic Arcanum for that level) - and he can upcast any of his spells to level 9 if he chooses.

And this is considering the Warlocks best adventuring day. I know in our playgroup we rarely, if ever have that many fights in a day. Although I concede, we may have less than usual. But if we lower the number of fights from (a high) six to (a reasonable) four - the Warlock's 'plan' stays identical, whilst the Wizard can now use a whole extra spell-per-fight. In fact, doesn't the Warlocks 'plan' stay identical nomatter the situation? The only situation I can see where the Warlock really, truly shine would be an adventuring day consisting of an ungodly amount of fights, whilst also allowing for many shortrests.

The way to build an effective Warlock, IMO, is to take spells that complement the party. My Warlock rarely casts Counterspell, but she has it on her list. The advantage she has over the Wizard when it comes to casting Counterspell, is that she can automatically counter spells up to 5th level, because she's always upcasting them.

And I know, there are invocations. Invocations are amazing and extremely flavorful, but really - can they make up for the sheer number of spells that other casters get? All of the 'spell' invocations are per long rest. I understand there are powerful combinations, Darkness and Devil's Sight, for example, or making your Eldritch Blast extremely powerful. But it still appears that they would get left behind, compared to other casters, wouldn't they?

I think you need to look at what invocations can do, especially the ones just released in Tasha's.

I'm trying not to theorycraft too much, just to enough to get an idea. You never know how many fights you're going to have in day after all - it just seems that picking any reasonable number always leaves the Warlocks trailing. Perhaps I'm completely wrong, are the fifth level spellslots that much more valuable than the sheer number of 1-4 spellslots available to other casters? Am I wrong in comparing them to other casters in the first place? It's just - if spells aren't their 'stick' then.. what is? The utility of Eldritch Invocations?

Warlock's flavor is absolutely incredible, I love the sound of the class. But isn't that flavor somewhat hampered by the mechanics? Heck, I think I'd be a little annoyed in the very first fight - casting one spell and then cantripping for the remainder of the fight. Doing that virtually every single fight sounds.. tiresome? It certainly doesn't feel, mechanically, what the class comes across as thematically.

Every Warlock subclass is different. Hexblades are the premier Gish class (though they don't have to be). Fiend Warlocks are excellent Blasters. Celestial Warlocks are Healers. Furthermore no two Warlocks are alike. Take the Genie Warlock, for example. One player might favor the Efreet and take the Tome Boon, to be a Blaster who knows every Ritual in the Game, while another may favor the Dao and take the Talisman Boon, becoming a Support caster. That is the appeal of the Warlock: variety, and using those combinations to create interesting effects.

[MaxWilson]

The text quite clearly says to take two, and it says nothing about a minimum.

No, it doesn't say to take two.

It says the party will probably need two.

[schm0]

No, it doesn't say to take two.

It says the party will probably need two.

{Scrubbed}

[MaxWilson]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

{Scrubbed}

The DMG never says anywhere that the party should not get more than two short rests. I agree that we disagree, but I don't agree that it's pedantic to point out that you're misinterpreting the DMG.

[schm0]

{Scrubbed}

[MaxWilson]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

What difference do you see there? To me those quotes look far more similar to how I described them (even down to the LOL, which you did actually literally say!), which was my honest intent in writing that conversation summary, than your descriptions of the DMG text look like what it actually says. What about that summary do you disagree with? Are you saying you didn't deny it was a minimum instead of a maximum? Are you denying that you tried to laugh me off as "pedantic" instead of explaining your reasoning?

Nothing in the DMG says "only two" or "at most two" or anything implying that. It says they will "need" two, implying that you shouldn't give less (ergo, it's a minimum!) unless you know what you're doing. Exactly as I've been saying all along. You've been saying the opposite but haven't explained why.