No, its not. Mearls has said *his* rulings are meant as how he would rule it. Crawford is answering based on what they RAW says and what they wanted to RAW to mean. There is no "WotC Rules Police" searching you out, but to ignore Crawford's input is about the same as ignoring the PHB.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E Convince me we're doing the Warlock wrong
- Thread starter Lord Vangarel
- Start date
No, its not. Mearls has said *his* rulings are meant as how he would rule it. Crawford is answering based on what they RAW says and what they wanted to RAW to mean. There is no "WotC Rules Police" searching you out, but to ignore Crawford's input is about the same as ignoring the PHB.
Here's the thing. If you "jump ship" into bard or sorcerer, you are no longer playing a warlock. You're now playing a bard or a sorcerer with access to Agonizing-Eldritch Blast.
The warlock isn't designed to be a blaster class like the Sorcerer outside of Eldrtich Blast. Nor are they quite enchanters or beguiler style magic users. They use a lot of "curses." The vast majority of their magic revolves around somehow inflicting "status ailments" on targets. From the art and description of the class, there's a huge "wicked witch" theme to it.
I'm not going to deny that, as written, the warlock has a LOT of issues. Thematically, its my favorite class. Mechanically, its a huge mess. Really, the warlock needed more public playtesting - such a huge design shift should have been given more feedback for the feel of the class.
Anyways, back on point. The warlock class does have a focus, even if the mechanics are a pain. By multiclassing out, you're throwing off that focus for a different one. The class is more than Eldritch Blast. A shame that so much of the mechanics make that difficult to tell.
Which I suspect would lead to brokenness. Already, we've got the Sorlock that abuses the way pact magic and eldritch blast work to be far more powerful than any other caster in the game. If you made all the warlock work the same way, we're moving into potential abuse territory.
Do whatever you want at your tables, but I hardly think that's the intent of the game.
Jefe Bergenstein
Legend
I'm not playing "a warlock", I'm playing Khalil ibn Rasul, who is the sum of his abilities and personality. A class isn't a descriptor of a character, just an ability package. The spells granted from bard can be just as easily fluffed to come from my patron's teachings as those few additional ones gained from going through a bunch of warlock levels.
I'd argue they work best as magical tricksters with a nice blast. IMO the two best invocations after Agonizing Blast are the at-will disguise self and silent image, which add a lot to their non-combat fun (or combat even). They are a charisma based class, which lends itself well to social situations too.
Also they dont use a "lot" of curses, in terms of curses thrown (some kind of debilitating cantrip would be cool, like vicious mockery). For the bulk of the campaign, they use 2 per short rest, which is heavily DM/story dependent on when you get them. And you still get that as a warlock 3/bard X. Except you get more options when the DM doesnt slow down the pace to let you take an hour nap twice a day. Giving an ability to refresh spells once a day as a 5 minute ritual would be a good patch.
Agreed. They should have publicly playtested all the classes. It's not a bad skeleton (and is in fact what I would use for a warlord), but it feels like a lot of dead levels and many of the invocations are just terrible.
What do you think if we moved the "once per long rest" invocations to once per short rest?
It's more that it works if the DM doesn't unwittingly sabotage it. The game is designed on the expectation of 6-8 encounters and 2 short rests (give or take) per day. If the DM prevents the party from taking that many short rests, it will cripple warlocks, just as wizards are crippled if forced to go through 15 encounters without a long rest. Conversely, if the DM allows a short rest after every encounter, warlocks will become overpowered, much like the wizard who's allowed to work 15-minute days.
Jefe Bergenstein
Legend
Except 6-8 encounters just doesn't occur naturally IMX. Maybe in dungeon crawling, but wilderness exploration? Traveling? City intrigue? Classes who get all their abilities up front are just in a superior position. It's better to have the option to whup ass in a single hard fight than be solid in a bunch of chump encounters. Plus I don't like running lower stakes weak encounters just to pad out the day. Even then, a warlock multiclass can contribute about as well as a warlock because so much power is tied to eldritch blast and not enough oopmh baked into the warlock's class abilities.
Sure, you can change the rest speed (I do for these reasons). But again, it's DM dependent, and lots of DM's are afraid to deviate from the expected standard.
ad_hoc
(they/them)
Pacing is one of the most important aspects of DMing. I wish there was more focus on it. A few pages on pacing models would help a lot.
You missed the point by about, oh, five hundred miles. The sorcerer has a definitive feel for the class built into its mechanics. The wizard has a certain feel in its mechanics. The same with the bard, cleric, druid, ranger, paladin, you get the idea.
Those mechanics do shape the way the game plays and feels. If you have a class who's spells primarily involve curses, it will have an impact on the game from someone who's magic tends to revolve around illusions and enchantments.
You can design your character's story any way you want to your heart's content, but that doesn't change that the warlock class does have a definitive flavor and feel of its own that you CANNOT get by multiclassing to bard and playing that after you get Eldritch Blast at 2. Yes, the bard gives you more spells a day. They do not get the warlock spell list, the invocations, the class abilities.
Like it or not, mechanics and story are intertwined together. They inform each other, and help shape each other. It affects the options your character has.
The simple truth of the matter is that your Khalil WILL be different if you play as a pure bard, a pure warlock, or a hybrid of the two. It might not affect the background and personality, but it will affect your actions as well as how others respond to said actions. Trying to suggest that all classes are interchangable, like you are, is doing a major disservice.
Maybe you are confused, thinking that bards and warlocks are simply "another variation on arcane trickster." The fey patron kind of are, since that's a classical fey thing in D&D, going back to elves and the Illusionist class. Same thing with the bard and their magic. But the warlock class, as a whole, is not. Fiend, GOO, Vestige, Sorcerer-King, all the different patrons feel differently in a way that's not simply "another class with different spell mechanics."
Jefe Bergenstein
Legend
No, I just disagreed with you, which is valid. Opinions arent right or wrong. And I don't think there's much of a playstyle feel to the warlock from its mechanics other than "do something interesting, spam eldritch blast and hope for a short rest".
What curses? Hex? That's really there to speed up killing a target. Junk spells like ray of enfeeblement and sickness? Bards have essentially the same amount of curse options, and can cast more per day. Vicious Mockery, Dissonant Whispers, Tasha's Laughter, Hold Person, Cutting Words etc. The bard is every bit of the debuffer the warlock is, if not more.
You still get the good ones, and early on. If the later invocations were actually awesome, it might change. But they just aren't. The pact familiar doesn't scale, the hexblade is a mechanical mess where you struggle to break even, and tome is just more spells, same as you get from multiclassing. You still have the patron bond even if you multiclass, which is the main flavor you get from warlock, just without being saddled with a watered down class.
Sure, you have some mechanical difference, but the core concept and feel can be largely the same, AND more effective.
Ahrimon
Bourbon and Dice
New invocations :
Icy Skewer: If you hit with your pact blade your opponent has disadvantage on attacks against you until the end of your next turn.
Piercing Shard: Your attack with your pact blade does additional frost and psychic damage equal to your charisma modifier if you hit. You are considered invisible to the target until the start of your next turn. You may not use this invocation again until you complete a rest.
Soul Eater: Once per turn your attack with your pact blade does necrotic damage.
Blazing Doom of the Void: Your attack with your pact place does additional fire and necrotic damage equal to your charisma modifier if you hit. You gain advantage on your next attack against that target. You may not use this again until you complete a rest.
Icy Skewer: If you hit with your pact blade your opponent has disadvantage on attacks against you until the end of your next turn.
Piercing Shard: Your attack with your pact blade does additional frost and psychic damage equal to your charisma modifier if you hit. You are considered invisible to the target until the start of your next turn. You may not use this invocation again until you complete a rest.
Soul Eater: Once per turn your attack with your pact blade does necrotic damage.
Blazing Doom of the Void: Your attack with your pact place does additional fire and necrotic damage equal to your charisma modifier if you hit. You gain advantage on your next attack against that target. You may not use this again until you complete a rest.
Spoken like someone who's never actually played a warlock long term. Have you?
