Playtest 7 Warlock

[Oramac]

Ok, so I've been playing with ideas to replace the godawful Magical Cunning feature.

I tried several combinations of Pact Magic and 1/3 or 1/2 casting, and they all felt too powerful, so I'm looking in a different direction.

Obviously, the names & numbers (class level, spell level, amount) would need tweaking, but I think something like this would work much better while maintaining the warlock flavor. I'm just spitballing here, so don't be too harsh. :D

Spoiler: Class Feature: Mystical Magic

Show

Class Feature

At 2nd level, your Patron has bestowed upon you a limited amount of power that is more readily available to you. You gain two 1st level spell slots. You may use these spell slots to cast spells as normal, however you only regain these spell slots upon completion of a Long Rest.

At 9th level, you gain a third spell slot of 1st level, and at 15th level, you gain a fourth spell slot of 1st level.

Spoiler: Invocation: Advanced Mystical Magic

Show

Invocation

Prerequisite: 5th Level Warlock

Your Patron has shown you even deeper magical secrets. You gain two spell slots of 2nd level. These spell slots follow the rules of your Mystical Magic feature.

Spoiler: Invocation: Perfect Mystical Magic

Show

Invocation

Prerequisite: 9th Level Warlock; Advanced Mystical Magic invocation

Your Patron has shown you even deeper magical secrets. You gain one spell slot of 3rd level. This spell slot follows the rules of your Mystical Magic feature.

[Psyren]

I don't think 1/3 casting + Pact Magic + Invocations would be too strong at all honestly. I just wouldn't give them any extra cantrips, spell slot progression only.

Spoiler

Show

At 3rd level when it comes online, you'd have 2 2nd-level pact slots, 2 1st-level LR spell slots, and 2 cantrips. Compare to a Wizard or Sorcerer who would have 2 2nd-level (3 with FoM/AR), 4 1st-level, and 4 cantrips.

And thats honestly as good as it gets, add more levels and the other casters pull ahead even more. Take 7th level: the Warlock would have 3 cantrips, 2 4th-level slots, zero 3rd-level, 2 2nd-level and 4 1st-level. Meanwhile the Sorcerer has 5 cantrips, 1 4th-level, 3 3rd-level, 3 2nd-level and 4 1st-level; it can trade in some of the excess lower level slots for more 4ths and even recovering some points on an SR. And the Warlock has the least preparations and the worst list of the three on top of all that.

Sure if you're routinely getting 2 SR per LR it's a sizeable buff over 2014, but I think the issue WotC is trying to solve is that most Warlocks aren't getting that in practice.

At worst I would say you could adjust the Warlock to only recover half their pact slots on a SR instead of all of them with the 1/3 or 1/2, and then recover the full pact slots at higher levels or something.

[Skrum]

Sure if you're routinely getting 2 SR per LR it's a sizeable buff over 2014, but I think the issue WotC is trying to solve is that most Warlocks aren't getting that in practice.

Agreed with your whole post, but this part in particular. Someone did a breakdown elsewhere that showed that warlocks with 1/3 casting + pact magic AND 2 short rests/long rest get more spells - but that rest schedule is like the biggest IF in the world.

In practice, the rest schedule looks like

medium combat
medium combat
short rest
deadly combat
long rest

or
medium combat
short rest
hard combat
deadly combat
long rest

or
medium combat
short rest
medium combat
short rest
ultra-deadly combat

or
medium combat
ultra-deadly combat
long rest

Of the 4 of these examples, only the 3rd "works" in warlocks' favor - and even then, if that final combat is a 6 round, death at every turn affair (which is exactly how I like Boss Battles to be, both as a DM and as a player), the warlock is gonna be lackluster.

Because warlocks get so few pact slots, they not only need a lot of short rests per long rest to draw even, they need the short rests to be spaced very nicely through out the day. Even within a single combat, if it drags on just a little, they're reduced to cantrips extremely quickly. The flat-out don't get enough slots for casting to be their centerpiece ability. But the class is built like it is their centerpiece ability.

[Oramac]

I don't think 1/3 casting + Pact Magic + Invocations would be too strong at all honestly. I just wouldn't give them any extra cantrips, spell slot progression only. Sure if you're routinely getting 2 SR per LR it's a sizeable buff over 2014, but I think the issue WotC is trying to solve is that most Warlocks aren't getting that in practice.

At worst I would say you could adjust the Warlock to only recover half their pact slots on a SR instead of all of them with the 1/3 or 1/2, and then recover the full pact slots at higher levels or something.

Agreed with your whole post, but this part in particular. Someone did a breakdown elsewhere that showed that warlocks with 1/3 casting + pact magic AND 2 short rests/long rest get more spells - but that rest schedule is like the biggest IF in the world. snip

That's fair. I was just looking at the face of the casting when trying them out. Looking through the day, it probably would work. It would definitely need some playtesting, but could work.

[Psyren]

Agreed with your whole post, but this part in particular.

*snip*

Because warlocks get so few pact slots, they not only need a lot of short rests per long rest to draw even, they need the short rests to be spaced very nicely through out the day. Even within a single combat, if it drags on just a little, they're reduced to cantrips extremely quickly. The flat-out don't get enough slots for casting to be their centerpiece ability. But the class is built like it is their centerpiece ability.

Exactly, and I'll add to this - your breakdown is just combat, but casters have exploration and social challenges to deal with too. Now that Warlocks are natively ritual casters that helps quite a bit, but there's still a good chance you'll need to blow a pact slot to bypass a non-combat challenge, which leads into combat before you get a chance to SR.

[Kane0]

Ok, so I've been playing with ideas to replace the godawful Magical Cunning feature.

I tried several combinations of Pact Magic and 1/3 or 1/2 casting, and they all felt too powerful, so I'm looking in a different direction.

Kudos to you!

Mystical Magic
Advanced Mystical Magic
Perfect Mystical Magic

Seems perfectly fine, especially if you take the slot away from the pact of the tome. That extra 1st at level 9 hits at exactly the point where many people want the 3rd pact magic slot moved to.
Maybe perfect should be one third and one fourth? Might be a bit strong for a single invocation though, even at that level.

[GeneralVryth]

Ok, so I've been playing with ideas to replace the godawful Magical Cunning feature.

I tried several combinations of Pact Magic and 1/3 or 1/2 casting, and they all felt too powerful, so I'm looking in a different direction.

Obviously, the names & numbers (class level, spell level, amount) would need tweaking, but I think something like this would work much better while maintaining the warlock flavor. I'm just spitballing here, so don't be too harsh. :D

Spoiler: Class Feature: Mystical Magic

Show

Class Feature

At 2nd level, your Patron has bestowed upon you a limited amount of power that is more readily available to you. You gain two 1st level spell slots. You may use these spell slots to cast spells as normal, however you only regain these spell slots upon completion of a Long Rest.

At 9th level, you gain a third spell slot of 1st level, and at 15th level, you gain a fourth spell slot of 1st level.

Spoiler: Invocation: Advanced Mystical Magic

Show

Invocation

Prerequisite: 5th Level Warlock

Your Patron has shown you even deeper magical secrets. You gain two spell slots of 2nd level. These spell slots follow the rules of your Mystical Magic feature.

Spoiler: Invocation: Perfect Mystical Magic

Show

Invocation

Prerequisite: 9th Level Warlock; Advanced Mystical Magic invocation

Your Patron has shown you even deeper magical secrets. You gain one spell slot of 3rd level. This spell slot follows the rules of your Mystical Magic feature.

It's pretty easy to show 1/3 casting + Pact Magic is likely to be too much (unless you rip out invocations and Pact Boons entirely). With your suggestion you need to ask why you feel it's important that Warlocks get some 1st level slots? What spells are they going to be used for at levels 5+? I think the unstated thing is a lot of people want them for spells like Shield, and other powerful reaction spells, which there is a reason Warlocks don't get natively. And are limited by Pact Slots when they do. Especially, at 2nd level, 2 bonus first level slots is a lot when Warlocks already get 2 per short rest. At that point assuming a day with 2 short rests, you are talking about 8 1st level slots, more than double (nearly triple) what a full caster gets.

I don't think 1/3 casting + Pact Magic + Invocations would be too strong at all honestly. I just wouldn't give them any extra cantrips, spell slot progression only.

Spoiler

Show

At 3rd level when it comes online, you'd have 2 2nd-level pact slots, 2 1st-level LR spell slots, and 2 cantrips. Compare to a Wizard or Sorcerer who would have 2 2nd-level (3 with FoM/AR), 4 1st-level, and 4 cantrips.

And thats honestly as good as it gets, add more levels and the other casters pull ahead even more. Take 7th level: the Warlock would have 3 cantrips, 2 4th-level slots, zero 3rd-level, 2 2nd-level and 4 1st-level. Meanwhile the Sorcerer has 5 cantrips, 1 4th-level, 3 3rd-level, 3 2nd-level and 4 1st-level; it can trade in some of the excess lower level slots for more 4ths and even recovering some points on an SR. And the Warlock has the least preparations and the worst list of the three on top of all that.

Sure if you're routinely getting 2 SR per LR it's a sizeable buff over 2014, but I think the issue WotC is trying to solve is that most Warlocks aren't getting that in practice.

At worst I would say you could adjust the Warlock to only recover half their pact slots on a SR instead of all of them with the 1/3 or 1/2, and then recover the full pact slots at higher levels or something.

How many Warlocks is most? It's clear it's an issue, but how big of an issue is it? It's a playstyle issue. The problem is Warlocks were already pretty good and are getting buffs in general, you give them enough so they are as good or better than a full caster without rests and then they become OP by caster standards with rests, which is not good.

Agreed with your whole post, but this part in particular. Someone did a breakdown elsewhere that showed that warlocks with 1/3 casting + pact magic AND 2 short rests/long rest get more spells - but that rest schedule is like the biggest IF in the world.

In practice, the rest schedule looks like

medium combat
medium combat
short rest
deadly combat
long rest

or
medium combat
short rest
hard combat
deadly combat
long rest

or
medium combat
short rest
medium combat
short rest
ultra-deadly combat

or
medium combat
ultra-deadly combat
long rest

Of the 4 of these examples, only the 3rd "works" in warlocks' favor - and even then, if that final combat is a 6 round, death at every turn affair (which is exactly how I like Boss Battles to be, both as a DM and as a player), the warlock is gonna be lackluster.

Because warlocks get so few pact slots, they not only need a lot of short rests per long rest to draw even, they need the short rests to be spaced very nicely through out the day. Even within a single combat, if it drags on just a little, they're reduced to cantrips extremely quickly. The flat-out don't get enough slots for casting to be their centerpiece ability. But the class is built like it is their centerpiece ability.

I am the one who ran the numbers. Also, those schedules are not common in my experience (except at maybe levels 1 to 3). If a party needs to short rest after a single medium encounter then hey had some bad luck (or they regularly burn too hot). But this is the core of the problem isn't it? Those patterns would produce a problem for short rest based classes if they are common, and I can't say what's common for the larger population and what isn't.

[Psyren]

How many Warlocks is most? It's clear it's an issue, but how big of an issue is it? It's a playstyle issue. The problem is Warlocks were already pretty good and are getting buffs in general, you give them enough so they are as good or better than a full caster without rests and then they become OP by caster standards with rests, which is not good.

I don't think they would become "OP with rests" at all - though again, if enough people think so, they can always modulate how many pact slots come back on each one to something below "all of them," at least for the first tier or two.

As for "how many Warlocks is most" - nobody has data on that but WotC themselves, and the one thing we can clearly see is that the 2014 model generated enough complaints for them to try fixing it... even if they can't seem to figure out how to do that while keeping the 2014 fans happy.

[Skrum]

I am the one who ran the numbers. Also, those schedules are not common in my experience (except at maybe levels 1 to 3). If a party needs to short rest after a single medium encounter then hey had some bad luck (or they regularly burn too hot). But this is the core of the problem isn't it? Those patterns would produce a problem for short rest based classes if they are common, and I can't say what's common for the larger population and what isn't.

Well, what's a "medium" encounter, etc., depends on table optimization. My notion of a medium encounter is one that requires the expenditure of non-trivial resources but is extremely unlikely to cause or even threaten death. What I'm getting at is the rests don't necessarily come when the party need-needs them - they often happen when the narrative allows them.

My bigger point, that I've made many times before, is that the rest schedule "naturally" falls in a very long-rest heavy place compared to official suggestion. For example, characters go to sleep each night. Depending on where they're sleeping, I think a lot of DMs feel some level of pressure to have sleep mark a long rest. And from there, squashing 6-8 encounters into one 18-ish hour chunk of in-game time doesn't always make a lot of sense.

There's obviously lots of context to how this actually plays out, and certainly a DM who's very diligent about keeping to book recommendations can craft an encounter and rest schedule that looks like 6-8 encounters/long rest with 2 short rests in there somewhere (and not totally ignore immersion to do it). But I think there's a real aspect of "swimming upstream" to do this.

[GeneralVryth]

I don't think they would become "OP with rests" at all - though again, if enough people think so, they can always modulate how many pact slots come back on each one to something below "all of them," at least for the first tier or two.

As for "how many Warlocks is most" - nobody has data on that but WotC themselves, and the one thing we can clearly see is that the 2014 model generated enough complaints for them to try fixing it... even if they can't seem to figure out how to do that while keeping the 2014 fans happy.

Why can't people who think Warlocks are under-powered just give Warlocks a free 1/LR short rest? Your argument is basically it's a problem for you and you don't care if your proposed fix makes it a problem for others because they can just house-rule it. That's a bad argument. As for WotC, I am not sure there is any real proof there are a lot of complaints that the 2014 is extremely under-powered. As the first fix was arguable a straight nerf (that was my thought), and their second attempt is a very slight buff to spellcasting while bringing some other sub-par abilities up to par. Both taken together suggests they are trying to avoid making Warlocks much stronger while trying to address the concerns about spell slots in some playgroups.

Well, what's a "medium" encounter, etc., depends on table optimization. My notion of a medium encounter is one that requires the expenditure of non-trivial resources but is extremely unlikely to cause or even threaten death. What I'm getting at is the rests don't necessarily come when the party need-needs them - they often happen when the narrative allows them.

My bigger point, that I've made many times before, is that the rest schedule "naturally" falls in a very long-rest heavy place compared to official suggestion. For example, characters go to sleep each night. Depending on where they're sleeping, I think a lot of DMs feel some level of pressure to have sleep mark a long rest. And from there, squashing 6-8 encounters into one 18-ish hour chunk of in-game time doesn't always make a lot of sense.

There's obviously lots of context to how this actually plays out, and certainly a DM who's very diligent about keeping to book recommendations can craft an encounter and rest schedule that looks like 6-8 encounters/long rest with 2 short rests in there somewhere (and not totally ignore immersion to do it). But I think there's a real aspect of "swimming upstream" to do this.

If you go by a different thread PhoenixPhyre posted a medium encounter is essentially an encounter that would consume 1/4 of party health plus other resources, in a worst-average case scenario (the 1/4 is if the opponent hits every time which is unlikely to be the case, but monsters hitting more than average + party hitting less than average can get you there fast). A good rule of thumb is if an encounter ever feels difficult and you aren't having extremely bad luck, then either you built badly or it's more difficult than medium.

As for the book recommendations about encounters, and getting the right amount in a "day". That's a point I can agree with. Especially with tables that take longer than average for some fights and/or have limited time (or worse a party that wants 5MWDs). But making the Warlock OP under the designed work-load isn't the solution. The solution is trying to do things to encourage the more standard day, or a larger overhaul of every-class (at the very lest Warlocks, Monks, Fighters and Rogues). It's not just Warlocks that have problems with too few short rests. Every martial feels weaker when LR classes aren't properly taxed over a day. And Monks certainly care as much about short rests as Warlocks.

[Skrum]

But making the Warlock OP under the designed work-load isn't the solution. The solution is trying to do things to encourage the more standard day, or a larger overhaul of every-class (at the very lest Warlocks, Monks, Fighters and Rogues).

Not to pick on you, especially because I think we largely agree, but overhauling several classes seems way harder lol

It's not just Warlocks that have problems with too few short rests. Every martial feels weaker when LR classes aren't properly taxed over a day. And Monks certainly care as much about short rests as Warlocks.

Yes-ish. The monk def needs frequent short rests early in their career, but Ki scales fast enough that by level 8 or so, monks have some staying power. They also have less of their resources tied up in Ki - that's obviously their 5th gear, but they can still do monk stuff without it (or at least spending minimal amounts).

The warlock is suffers from a lack of scaling - they are at their relative WEAKEST in the 6-10 level range, which my general sense tells me is where a lot of play ends up happening. Further, their almost total lack of defensive features really starts to bite them at those level ranges, where monsters generally get a lot more threatening.
--------------------------
If I was going to do an "overhaul" of 5e, I would favor getting rid of short rests entirely and moving existing short rest powers to either encounter-based powers or long rest powers. I.e., weaken them and make them available every encounter, or strengthen them/give more uses and have them come back on a long rest. The fighter and monk in particular lend themselves very well to encounter-based powers basically as-printed. The idea being, let the DM not think about short rests and abilities that the character will *probably* have in most encounters and just say yes, you always have these powers.

The warlock though...well guaranteed 2 top-level spells every encounter is too much lol. I never gave the idea a huge amount of work, but I feel there's a solution somewhere in there.

[Psyren]

Why can't people who think Warlocks are under-powered just give Warlocks a free 1/LR short rest?

Isn't this what Magical Cunning is trying to do?

Your argument is basically it's a problem for you and you don't care if your proposed fix makes it a problem for others because they can just house-rule it. That's a bad argument.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm trying to find a compromise both sides can agree on. I think PM + 1/3 casting + invocations is such a compromise.

As for WotC, I am not sure there is any real proof there are a lot of complaints that the 2014 is extremely under-powered. As the first fix was arguable a straight nerf (that was my thought), and their second attempt is a very slight buff to spellcasting while bringing some other sub-par abilities up to par. Both taken together suggests they are trying to avoid making Warlocks much stronger while trying to address the concerns about spell slots in some playgroups.

I agree that UA5 was a nerf, but I think it could have been iterated on. It's thrown out now so it's moot anyway, though.

UA7 is a bandaid, nothing more, though I like most of the invocations. (Blade Pact is way overtuned though.)

[GeneralVryth]

Not to pick on you, especially because I think we largely agree, but overhauling several classes seems way harder lol

I am never someone who has mined being picked on/disagreed with as long as both side are listening. If WotC wanted to change the goal, to 1 short rest per LR, or even mandate only 1 per, and let it take less or more time as needed. I don't think it would even take that much overhauling. In fact it seems like they are slowly moving in that direction since the logical solution in many cases is to do something similar to the Fighter's Second Wind. You gain X uses per LR and regain 1 per SR. For Warlocks you could pretty easily double their pact slots and then have them regain only half on a short rest. The approach works with most abilities and even plays nicer with 5MWD parties.

Yes-ish. The monk def needs frequent short rests early in their career, but Ki scales fast enough that by level 8 or so, monks have some staying power. They also have less of their resources tied up in Ki - that's obviously their 5th gear, but they can still do monk stuff without it (or at least spending minimal amounts).

The warlock is suffers from a lack of scaling - they are at their relative WEAKEST in the 6-10 level range, which my general sense tells me is where a lot of play ends up happening. Further, their almost total lack of defensive features really starts to bite them at those level ranges, where monsters generally get a lot more threatening.
--------------------------
If I was going to do an "overhaul" of 5e, I would favor getting rid of short rests entirely and moving existing short rest powers to either encounter-based powers or long rest powers. I.e., weaken them and make them available every encounter, or strengthen them/give more uses and have them come back on a long rest. The fighter and monk in particular lend themselves very well to encounter-based powers basically as-printed. The idea being, let the DM not think about short rests and abilities that the character will *probably* have in most encounters and just say yes, you always have these powers.

The warlock though...well guaranteed 2 top-level spells every encounter is too much lol. I never gave the idea a huge amount of work, but I feel there's a solution somewhere in there.

The problem with "encounter" powers, at least with how they work in 5e (on initiative role), is they can be kind of gamey from the bag of rats problem. It's almost certainly easier to reduce the length of short rests and just say you only get X per day (I have always kind of liked 10 minutes for a length since that is standard ritual length, I think short rest having overlap with them so you can ritual cast or short rest, works out nicely). The biggest reason for not having a limit in the number of SRs per LR when you have a short SR length, is the various abilities that heal and recharge on a short rest. It would be easy to rapidly heal.

Finally, you're right Warlocks tend to feel weak in the 6 to 10 range, that's because their slot progression follows playing tiers instead of doing the math for a 1/3 spell point equivalent per short rest. If they did the latter their progression should look like:

	Short	
Level	Slots	Spell Lvl
1	1	1
2	1	1
3	2	2
4	2	2
5	2	3
6	2	3
7	3	4
8	3	4
9	3	5
10	3	5
11	3	5
12	3	5
13	3	5
14	3	5
15	3	5
16	3	5
17	3	5
18	4	5
19	4	5
20	4	5

And what do you know, it puts the extra slot at 7, and pushes back the 4th slot by a level to 18.

Edit to add:

Isn't this what Magical Cunning is trying to do?

Yep, but it's not usable in combat, and it's only 1 slot. So it's not nearly as powerful as just giving them lots of additional slots.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm trying to find a compromise both sides can agree on. I think PM + 1/3 casting + invocations is such a compromise.

I agree that UA5 was a nerf, but I think it could have been iterated on. It's thrown out now so it's moot anyway, though.

UA7 is a bandaid, nothing more, though I like most of the invocations. (Blade Pact is way overtuned though.)

PM + 1/3 is not really a compromise though. At least as long the standard adventuring day is the standard, it completely blows away the capabilities of other full casters, and that's without counting invocations at all. If you were to completely trade invocations for 1/3 casting then maybe it would be close assuming a strongly curated spell list. But invocations are half of what make the Warlock interesting. The power and limitations of Pact Magic are the other half, 1/3 casting completely removes the limitations of Pact Magic and makes it all power, on top of other power.

Now there is argument to made the standard adventuring day should no longer be the standard but that effects more than the Warlock, and if that is the world in which a suggestion is being made it needs to be clearly stated, because the number of SRs has a huge effect on the power of Warlocks.

[Oramac]

With your suggestion you need to ask why you feel it's important that Warlocks get some 1st level slots?

Because I want to contribute more than Eldritch Blast to the first and second encounter of the day while saving my big guns for the Boss Battle. If I have a couple low level slots, I can use those for [pick a spell] while saving my high level pact slots for when I truly need them. There's no point burning a high level slot on a few goblins when I know the demilich is probably around the corner.

I agree that UA5 was a nerf, but I think it could have been iterated on. It's thrown out now so it's moot anyway, though.

UA7 is a bandaid, nothing more, though I like most of the invocations. (Blade Pact is way overtuned though.)

And herein lies the problem. I believe UA5 was the best proposed fix thus far. It was not perfect by any means, no argument there, but it was leaps and bounds better than the Magical Cunning band-aid we have in UA7.

As the saying goes: "You can please some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all the people all the time."

[diplomancer]

Because I want to contribute more than Eldritch Blast to the first and second encounter of the day while saving my big guns for the Boss Battle. If I have a couple low level slots, I can use those for [pick a spell] while saving my high level pact slots for when I truly need them. There's no point burning a high level slot on a few goblins when I know the demilich is probably around the corner.

Why do you need more than Eldritch Blast+AB+RB on " a few goblins"? That's a good enough contribution, probably better than a level 1 slot as an action after tier 1. No, let us not kid ourselves. This is about Shield (and secondarily Absorb Elements and Silvery Barbs). An action for a level 1 slot is usually not a good trade-in from tier 2 on. And it's not like if you feel that it is absolutely necessary to have Shield that you don't have options either. 2 levels of Sorcerer would give you more casting of Shields than other full casters get on most adventuring days.

One thing that could also be done is rewrite some spells to make them better if upcast. For exmaple, protection from Good and Evil is a great 1st level slot when applicable, but it doesn't upcast. If it did for one more target/slot level, it would still be a decent option even at higher levels.

And herein lies the problem. I believe UA5 was the best proposed fix thus far. It was not perfect by any means, no argument there, but it was leaps and bounds better than the Magical Cunning band-aid we have in UA7.

As the saying goes: "You can please some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all the people all the time."

I think it's pretty clear that UA5 Warlock was rejected by an overwhelming majority of the community, and good riddance (it was, iirc, the only one that they did not mention the score it got at all, not even the ballpark). Sucks to be in the minority, but it is what it is. I agree UA7 is a bandaid, but at least it's going in the right direction (I'd think it would be simpler, and not too unbalanced, to just double the slots and have them recover half of it once a day with a one-minute ritual).

[Oramac]

Why do you need more than Eldritch Blast+AB+RB on " a few goblins"? That's a good enough contribution, probably better than a level 1 slot as an action after tier 1. No, let us not kid ourselves. This is about Shield (and secondarily Absorb Elements and Silvery Barbs). An action for a level 1 slot is usually not a good trade-in from tier 2 on. And it's not like if you feel that it is absolutely necessary to have Shield that you don't have options either. 2 levels of Sorcerer would give you more casting of Shields than other full casters get on most adventuring days.

Please don't put words in my mouth. It is not at all about shield. It is about contributing to the party. Plenty of spells don't scale well or at all, and low level slots are good for them. And sometimes I don't NEED a spell to scale. Take charm person, for instance. Why would I want to burn a high level slot on a scaled up charm person if I'm only talking to one guy? There's tons of uses for a few low level slots not related to shield.

[Zevox]

I agree UA7 is a bandaid, but at least it's going in the right direction (I'd think it would be simpler, and not too unbalanced, to just double the slots and have them recover half of it once a day with a one-minute ritual).

I could get behind something like that. Don't know if it would need tweaking to keep the power level appropriate, but that's far more in line with the kind of solution I'd like to see to the problem.

[diplomancer]

Please don't put words in my mouth. It is not at all about shield. It is about contributing to the party. Plenty of spells don't scale well or at all, and low level slots are good for them. And sometimes I don't NEED a spell to scale. Take charm person, for instance. Why would I want to burn a high level slot on a scaled up charm person if I'm only talking to one guy? There's tons of uses for a few low level slots not related to shield.

For whatever reason you want to have low level slots, multiclassing solves it. Single-classing any of the other casters also solves it. I would not be opposed either to invocations that give low level slots. What I would be opposed is to take away from the general power budget of the class to give those low level slots, because that will have to come from somewhere, and not all players who play Warlocks are interested in those low level slots (I imagine most aren't, or they would play other classes or multi-class).

I could get behind something like that. Don't know if it would need tweaking to keep the power level appropriate, but that's far more in line with the kind of solution I'd like to see to the problem.

I think it's too strong in a 5 MAD day. But I couldn't care less about tables who play that unbalanced variant, may they be happy playing it, as long as it does not interfere with how I play the game. And for all other tables, it is both simple and effective in accomplishing the goal of letting Warlocks get their expected power level each day.

[Psyren]

Yep, but it's not usable in combat, and it's only 1 slot. So it's not nearly as powerful as just giving them lots of additional slots.

Restoring slots mid-combat is a Sorcerer thing; nobody else *should* be able to do that.

PM + 1/3 is not really a compromise though. At least as long the standard adventuring day is the standard, it completely blows away the capabilities of other full casters, and that's without counting invocations at all. If you were to completely trade invocations for 1/3 casting then maybe it would be close assuming a strongly curated spell list. But invocations are half of what make the Warlock interesting. The power and limitations of Pact Magic are the other half, 1/3 casting completely removes the limitations of Pact Magic and makes it all power, on top of other power.

I did the comparison above and I'm just not seeing how it blows away other full casters. Having zero 3rd-level slots at level 7 (as one example) is a big deal. Never getting more than one 6th or 7th-level slot, and never being able to use them to upcast, is a big deal. Having the worst spell list of any full caster is a big deal.

Now there is argument to made the standard adventuring day should no longer be the standard but that effects more than the Warlock, and if that is the world in which a suggestion is being made it needs to be clearly stated, because the number of SRs has a huge effect on the power of Warlocks.

A world in which the Warlock gets both SRs is beneficial for the other casters too. My goal behind them getting 1/3 casting is to give them resources they can use for utility and defense rather than forcing them to beg for those SRs even after casting simple things like Shield or Enhance Ability.

I think it's pretty clear that UA5 Warlock was rejected by an overwhelming majority of the community, and good riddance (it was, iirc, the only one that they did not mention the score it got at all, not even the ballpark). Sucks to be in the minority, but it is what it is. I agree UA7 is a bandaid, but at least it's going in the right direction (I'd think it would be simpler, and not too unbalanced, to just double the slots and have them recover half of it once a day with a one-minute ritual).

4 pact slots being available in a single encounter is a bit much.

For whatever reason you want to have low level slots, multiclassing solves it. Single-classing any of the other casters also solves it. I would not be opposed either to invocations that give low level slots. What I would be opposed is to take away from the general power budget of the class to give those low level slots, because that will have to come from somewhere, and not all players who play Warlocks are interested in those low level slots (I imagine most aren't, or they would play other classes or multi-class).

Multiclassing doesn't solve anything for 2014 Warlock beyond allowing other classes to dip for Blade or EB or smite fuel. Warlock's actual casting progression isn't furthered by MCing at all, you're just left with one side or the other being a vestigial limb.

[diplomancer]

4 pact slots being available in a single encounter is a bit much.

I agree, but it's only a real problem in a 5-MAD or mostly 5-MAD table. In most regular tables, Warlocks will still be pacing themselves. If they don't and go all out in an encounter and then are reduced to EB+AB/RB for the rest of the day, I don't think that is too much of an issue.

Multiclassing doesn't solve anything for 2014 Warlock beyond allowing other classes to dip for Blade or EB or smite fuel. Warlock's actual casting progression isn't furthered by MCing at all, you're just left with one side or the other being a vestigial limb.

It gives them low level slots, which seems for some people to be something they absolutely need to have in order to make a character they enjoy playing.. The Sorcerer multiclass, in particular, gives them a LOT of low level slots in most adventuring days. Yes, with a significant delay on higher level features. But if you want to be a Warlock with low level slots, the path exists, it's just not for free.

[Oramac]

multiclassing solves it.

And what of the people who don't want to multiclass? They just get to go pound sand? Not everyone is a min-maxing math nerd like us on this forum. The idea is to fix the shortcomings, both concrete and perceived, within the class itself. To say "multiclassing solves it" is without a doubt the worst argument I've yet heard against the idea.

Now, that being said, the multiclassing rules themselves have a myriad of issues as well, and were I able I would steer WOTC towards fixing them before taking a look at any one class.

[diplomancer]

And what of the people who don't want to multiclass? They just get to go pound sand?

They get to play a different class, one of the 5 different full caster classes that have native access to those slots. Or any of the 3 half-caster classes, who also have those low level slots. Or one of the two 1/3rd caster subclasses who also have access to those slots. That is 10 out of 13 classes that can easily have access to those slots, so that shoud be sufficient.

Or, as I've suggested, they get to spend invocations on them if they want to. What they don't get is to take away from the general power budget of the class so that they get those low level slots, when this suggested solution has already been rejected by the majority of the community.

[Oramac]

when this suggested solution has already been rejected by the majority of the community.

You and GeneralVryth have rejected it. That's hardly the majority of the community. Hell, that's not even the majority of this thread.

As for the power budget of the class, it takes nothing from that. The whole idea is that it replaces the Magical Cunning feature, plus a couple invocations. None of that changes the budget.

In any case, I'm done arguing with you. You've made your position clear, and I certainly won't change that. So I won't try.

[diplomancer]

You and GeneralVryth have rejected it. That's hardly the majority of the community. Hell, that's not even the majority of this thread.

I guess you missed the video where the developers laughed nervously about the reception of the community of UA5 warlock. You know, the one you've said you preferred.

As for the power budget of the class, it takes nothing from that. The whole idea is that it replaces the Magical Cunning feature, plus a couple invocations. None of that changes the budget.

Well, but it IS changing the budget. It's changing the "get one extra slot of your highest level" that the Magical Cunning feature is, to "get up to 4 1st level slots". I agree that invocations, as long as they are well balanced, don't mess with the budget, and have also stated that I'm not opposed to this solution.

Warlocks are designed to have a few big slots. Any change to that design should come from optional invocations, not from having fewer of those big slots just so people who want more low level slots can get them. These people have 10 other classes to choose from, not to mention multiclassing, if that's what they want.

[Oramac]

I guess you missed the video where the developers laughed nervously about the reception of the community of UA5 warlock. You know, the one you've said you preferred.

I'll break my statement to say that I was talking about my proposed change below. If you were talking about the UA5 1/2 caster version, then we were speaking of two different things. In such a case, yes, I'm well aware that nearly everyone rejected UA5. Sadly, UA7 does very little to address the issue.

Obviously, the names & numbers (class level, spell level, amount) would need tweaking, but I think something like this would work much better while maintaining the warlock flavor. I'm just spitballing here, so don't be too harsh. :D

Spoiler: Class Feature: Mystical Magic

Show

Class Feature

At 2nd level, your Patron has bestowed upon you a limited amount of power that is more readily available to you. You gain two 1st level spell slots. You may use these spell slots to cast spells as normal, however you only regain these spell slots upon completion of a Long Rest.

At 9th level, you gain a third spell slot of 1st level, and at 15th level, you gain a fourth spell slot of 1st level.

Spoiler: Invocation: Advanced Mystical Magic

Show

Invocation

Prerequisite: 5th Level Warlock

Your Patron has shown you even deeper magical secrets. You gain two spell slots of 2nd level. These spell slots follow the rules of your Mystical Magic feature.

Spoiler: Invocation: Perfect Mystical Magic

Show

Invocation

Prerequisite: 9th Level Warlock; Advanced Mystical Magic invocation

Your Patron has shown you even deeper magical secrets. You gain one spell slot of 3rd level. This spell slot follows the rules of your Mystical Magic feature.

[diplomancer]

I'll break my statement to say that I was talking about my proposed change below. If you were talking about the UA5 1/2 caster version, then we were speaking of two different things.

I think they should all be invocations, and that no fixed power budget of the class should be allotted to low level slots. I believe the proposed invocations are about balanced powerwise, though the 3rd level slot one is ambiguous about how it works. Do you get one 3rd level slot at 9th and a second 3rd level slot at 15? Or is it more than that?

In such a case, yes, I'm well aware that nearly everyone rejected UA5. Sadly, UA7 does very little to address the issue.

The problem here is that people disagree on what "the issue" is. Some people believe Warlocks should have access to low level slots. Others believe that they should get more Pact Magic slots, or easier way of recovering them. Those are two different issues.

I don't believe there is an issue with Warlocks not having native access to low level slots, as there are plenty of classes who do, and plenty of ways for Warlocks to get a few of those slots as well if they want to. Having them as optional invocations is probably the best way to keep everyone happy. You see, the nice thing about invocations is that, if I don't want it or don't think it fits the character I have in mind, I don't have to take them.

[Psyren]

It gives them low level slots, which seems for some people to be something they absolutely need to have in order to make a character they enjoy playing.. The Sorcerer multiclass, in particular, gives them a LOT of low level slots in most adventuring days. Yes, with a significant delay on higher level features. But if you want to be a Warlock with low level slots, the path exists, it's just not for free.

I think 1/3 casting is balanced without forcing Warlocks who want low level slots to delay/forego all their class features for the privilege.

The problem here is that people disagree on what "the issue" is. Some people believe Warlocks should have access to low level slots. Others believe that they should get more Pact Magic slots, or easier way of recovering them. Those are two different issues.

I don't believe there is an issue with Warlocks not having native access to low level slots, as there are plenty of classes who do, and plenty of ways for Warlocks to get a few of those slots as well if they want to. Having them as optional invocations is probably the best way to keep everyone happy. You see, the nice thing about invocations is that, if I don't want it or don't think it fits the character I have in mind, I don't have to take them;

My issue with the invocations route is that it still doesn't make Warlock any good at multiclassing beyond being a dip factory. But if invocations that grant slots are the only possible option I think they might be able to make that work, even if I see it as a worse option.

[diplomancer]

I think 1/3 casting is balanced without forcing Warlocks who want low level slots to delay/forego all their class features for the privilege.

I wouldn't be opposed to it in principle, but in practice it would mean taking something away (I do believe it would be too powerful otherwise, and simple spell point math can show that, at least with the expected 2 sr/day). Probably they would take away invocations, so might as well just make it invocations, so that those who have no interest in those slots can skip them instead of having to have them and paying for it with less invocations.

My issue with the invocations route is that it still doesn't make Warlock any good at multiclassing beyond being a dip factory. But if invocations that grant slots are the only possible option I think they might be able to make that work, even if I see it as a worse option.

I mean, you could just write the invocations in a way that the extra slots could be considered "spellcasting slots" for the purpose of multiclassing.

For example, a very unrefined idea:

3 invocations, that have each other as prerequisites (i.e, you can't switch one for the other)

1st one is available at level 3, and gives you the Spellcasting feature as if you were a level 1 caster (i.e, 2 1st level slots)
2nd one is available at level 7, and gives you the Spellcasting Feature as if you were a level 3 caster
3rd one is available at level 12, and gives you the Spellcasting Feature as if you were a level 5 caster.

This pretty much follows the 1/3 caster progression, with a slight adaptation at level 12 since you don't get invocations at level 13. Could even have a 4th one at level 18 for Spellcasting as a level 7 caster.

[Oramac]

I think they should all be invocations, and that no fixed power budget of the class should be allotted to low level slots. I believe the proposed invocations are about balanced powerwise, though the 3rd level slot one is ambiguous about how it works. Do you get one 3rd level slot at 9th and a second 3rd level slot at 15? Or is it more than that?

I'm not sure I follow the question. The way I wrote them, you'd get four 1st level spell slots over the course of your career (2 @ 2nd level, 3 @ 9th level, 4 @ 15th level). You then gain two 2nd level spell slots at 5th level with the "Advanced" invocation, and one 3rd level slot at 9th level with the "Perfect" invocation. You never gain a second 3rd level spell slot.

Clearly the language would need to be cleaned up, and...

You see, the nice thing about invocations is that, if I don't want it or don't think it fits the character I have in mind, I don't have to take them;

...I fully agree with this as well. I like invocations so much that I've used them in a few of my homebrew classes.

The only downside to making ALL of them invocations is that you still have the problem of Magical Cunning, which is underwhelming, at best.

[diplomancer]

I'm not sure I follow the question. The way I wrote them, you'd get four 1st level spell slots over the course of your career (2 @ 2nd level, 3 @ 9th level, 4 @ 15th level). You then gain two 2nd level spell slots at 5th level with the "Advanced" invocation, and one 3rd level slot at 9th level with the "Perfect" invocation. You never gain a second 3rd level spell slot.

Clearly the language would need to be cleaned up, and...

Oh, got it. I thought the clause "These spell slots follow the rules of your Mystical Magic feature." meant that you'd get more slots at later levels, as with the Mystical Magic feature.

...I fully agree with this as well. I like invocations so much that I've used them in a few of my homebrew classes.

The only downside to making ALL of them invocations is that you still have the problem of Magical Cunning, which is underwhelming, at best.

Magical cunning is a bandaid that "replaces" the Rod of the Pact Keeper bandaid. Feature could be simply eliminated if they brought forward a bit the 3rd slot, to around level 8. Another possible solution, a small boost to Warlock, would be that any invocation that gives 1 casting/LR of a particular spell does not cost a Warlock slot to cast it.