D&D 5E Insights into Warlock Invocation Design

MechaTarrasque · Apr 11, 2017

I saw this on Sage Advice, and thought it might be of interest: With Warlock invocations, what was the balancing process there? ( http://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/04/11/__trashed-4/). The basic question is jump vs. disguise self, and Jeremy has some interesting comments like:

We expect a class to excel at the things that it excels at in its literary, folk tale, and cinematic inspirations.

In its inspirations, the warlock is cunning, even deceptive. Disguise self is thematically nondisruptive for it.

Super jumps (effectively a speed increase) appear in a few of the warlock's inspirations. Not a regular element.

When we don't want something to be common to a class, we push it to a higher level or omit it entirely.

Class fantasy overrides almost everything else in our design. To us, a class must fulfill its archetype.

Gadget · Apr 11, 2017

I get what they're saying, but they are also adding 'system mastery' into the equation by adding in sub-par choices to dis-incentivize 'non-thematic' options. Better to just omit the option than to include it in a stunted form.

jgsugden · Apr 12, 2017

I'd love to see some metrics on which invocations are selected and when they are taken.... There are 32 invocations in the PHB and I bet half of them rarely, if ever, see use.

Xeviat · Apr 12, 2017

I'm curious about their thoughts on the balance between the offensive invocations and the more utility invocations.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FormerlyHemlock · Apr 13, 2017

JeremyECrawford said:
Super jumps (effectively a speed increase)

Argh! Perfect example of why Crawford's Tweeting is so frustrating: Crawford does not understand his own ruleset! Jumping in 5E consumes regular movement; Jump, as written, is not in any way a speed increase.

This is exactly why I have learned to just ignore anything Crawford says on Twitter except inasmuch as it gives insight into design intentions. Only changes to the actual rules text (i.e. errata for the next printing) carry any weight with me.

Now we have to ask ourselves whether whoever wrote Jump ALSO misunderstood the jumping rules. If so, that might explain why the spell is so underpowered.

Fanaelialae · Apr 16, 2017

Gadget said:
I get what they're saying, but they are also adding 'system mastery' into the equation by adding in sub-par choices to dis-incentivize 'non-thematic' options. Better to just omit the option than to include it in a stunted form.

I don't see where system mastery plays into it. He's saying that at-will Jump is a 9th level option for warlocks instead of a 2nd level option like at-will Disguise Self, because jumping is less thematically central to the concept of what a warlock is. Unless the warlock were to also have a 9th level (or lower) option that allows for at-will Fly (which is flat-out superior to jumping in every way), it's not a matter of system mastery. Whether the prerequisite for it is 2nd level or 9th, it's equally an option for any 9th level character who has not yet taken it.

That isn't to say that I think it's a good option. Jump is definitely on the low end of the power scale as far as 1st level spells are concerned, bordering on the point where it might not be problematic as an actual cantrip. The fact that it exists as an invocation at all may be a case of system mastery, but having it at 9th rather than 2nd level isn't, in my opinion.

I think Crawford's tweet is interesting.

Gadget · Apr 17, 2017

Fanaelialae said:
I don't see where system mastery plays into it. He's saying that at-will Jump is a 9th level option for warlocks instead of a 2nd level option like at-will Disguise Self, because jumping is less thematically central to the concept of what a warlock is. Unless the warlock were to also have a 9th level (or lower) option that allows for at-will Fly (which is flat-out superior to jumping in every way), it's not a matter of system mastery. Whether the prerequisite for it is 2nd level or 9th, it's equally an option for any 9th level character who has not yet taken it.

That isn't to say that I think it's a good option. Jump is definitely on the low end of the power scale as far as 1st level spells are concerned, bordering on the point where it might not be problematic as an actual cantrip. The fact that it exists as an invocation at all may be a case of system mastery, but having it at 9th rather than 2nd level isn't, in my opinion.

I think Crawford's tweet is interesting.

You prove my point. Jump as an invocation at all is 'borderline' as you say. It might be worth while at 2nd level (that is probably a discussion for another thread), but by 9th level it is ridiculous. Why give them a bum option at 9th level due to it not being as 'thematic'? How about give them a 'thematic' option that's worth taking? Thus the 'system mastery' complaint I made. Now if it was not a 'thematic' option but still a competitive option at 9th level, that would be another thing entirely. If, say Absorb Elements was offered as an invocation at 9th level because the designers felt it was not as 'thematic' as Disguise Self, then well enough.

Eubani · Apr 18, 2017

Hemlock said:
Argh! Perfect example of why Crawford's Tweeting is so frustrating: Crawford does not understand his own ruleset! Jumping in 5E consumes regular movement; Jump, as written, is not in any way a speed increase.

This is exactly why I have learned to just ignore anything Crawford says on Twitter except inasmuch as it gives insight into design intentions. Only changes to the actual rules text (i.e. errata for the next printing) carry any weight with me.

Now we have to ask ourselves whether whoever wrote Jump ALSO misunderstood the jumping rules. If so, that might explain why the spell is so underpowered.

I think this example may help explain what he was getting at:
A D

B_C

Now with Jump you can leap from Ledge A to D, but with normal movement you need to climb down to B (1/2 speed) then walk to C and then Climb up to D (1/2 speed). So with this sort of example or even jumping up to a ledge you are moving faster. His example was right but was poorly explained.

FormerlyHemlock · Apr 18, 2017

Eubani said:
I think this example may help explain what he was getting at:
A D

B_C

Now with Jump you can leap from Ledge A to D, but with normal movement you need to climb down to B (1/2 speed) then walk to C and then Climb up to D (1/2 speed). So with this sort of example or even jumping up to a ledge you are moving faster. His example was right but was poorly explained.

Color me extremely skeptical that the extreme (and almost-always-irrelevant) corner-case involving ledges and cliffs was what he meant all along by "speed increase." Why would THAT come up in the context of highly-disruptive abilities[1]? If your campaign is THAT full of cliffs and ledges, two things are true: (1) Shoving enemies off cliffs with Athletics Expertise becomes amazingly good; and (2) you're probably playing Super Mario Brothers, not a normal D&D campaign.

The smart money says he made that up after the fact to save face. But even if that's what he had in mind all along, it still shows why he shouldn't Tweet rules answers: nobody would EVER have gotten his (purported) Ruling As Intended from the words he wrote in his tweet. A communication platform that misleads instead of clarifying isn't worth paying attention to.

[1] If you really want to make the point about ledges, do it this way: "Super-jumping is effectively a speed increase for melee combatants in extremely rough, broken terrain." But in the context of highly-disruptive abilities, that is self-refuting because it immediately prompts the question, "How common is extremely rough, broken terrain?" Answer: usually not very.

Eubani · Apr 18, 2017

Hemlock said:
Color me extremely skeptical that the extreme (and almost-always-irrelevant) corner-case involving ledges and cliffs was what he meant all along by "speed increase." Why would THAT come up in the context of highly-disruptive abilities? If your campaign is THAT full of cliffs and ledges, two things are true: (1) Shoving enemies off cliffs with Athletics Expertise becomes amazingly good; and (2) you're probably playing Super Mario Brothers, not a normal D&D campaign.

The smart money says he made that up after the fact to save face. But even if that's what he had in mind all along, it still shows why he shouldn't Tweet rules answers: nobody would EVER have gotten his (purported) Ruling As Intended from the words he wrote in his tweet. A communication platform that misleads instead of clarifying isn't worth paying attention to.

I believe the example I gave is what he meant, whether his reasoning has any merit is another creature entirely. Personally I think he overestimated the value of the ability which caused a bad design decision. Also I wonder if they learned anything at all from the Ivory Tower design fiasco of 3.X?

In fact thinking about this line of thought I think 5e feats revisit the 3.x Ivory Tower Design fiasco. For those who do not what that is it was when the designers created weak mechanics such as the feat Toughness (+3 HP in 3.X) and strong suchas the feat Spellcasting Prodigy (+2 to spellcasting stat for DC and bonus spells in 3.x). This in turn grants great advantage to those with good system mastery but punishes those who are new, more casual or have less analyzation skills. Quite a few articles were written about this (one notably from Monte Cook) so it is quite easy to google.

D&D 5E Insights into Warlock Invocation Design

MechaTarrasque

Hero

Gadget

Adventurer

jgsugden

Legend

Xeviat

Hero

FormerlyHemlock

Hero

Fanaelialae

Legend

Gadget

Adventurer

Eubani

Legend

FormerlyHemlock

Hero

Eubani

Legend

Similar Threads