D&D 5E Convince me we're doing the Warlock wrong

[Shadowdweller00]

Yeah, on that score: It should be noted that the Warlock has access to a VAST array of options and spells that are just not very efficient due to the number of spells slots that they are limited to. For example - Dissonant whispers is a great 1st level bard spell. But because it is single target, it is a miserably inefficient Warlock spell (access granted by GOO) in most cases.

 

[Herobizkit]

I feel like I'm the only person who plays warlock because they ooze flavour... or maybe I'm one of the few who doesn't try to min/max for highest possible dee-pee-ess.

A warlock isn't a primary caster. A pre-Pact warlock is a bag o'tricks (not unlike the sorcerer) who is able to pick Invocations and cantrips to best mould his persona (he IS Charisma-based). A feylock hexblade should play and feel a LOT different than a Old One warlock with the Chain Pact (the one with the familiar).

Is a warlock's casting dependent on short rests? Sure. Does a warlock need to cast said spells every combat? Probably not. Does a ranged Warlock spam Eldritch Blast? He sure does!

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I feel like I'm the only person who plays warlock because they ooze flavour... or maybe I'm one of the few who doesn't try to min/max for highest possible dee-pee-ess.

They aren't mutually exclusive. I consider it more of a design failure of the class that you can get more fun toys AND perform better by multiclassing into bard or sorcerer than staying warlock to 20. I've tried to alleviate that somewhat with house rules (free eldritch blast, agonizing blast, pact spells are known spells, recharge spells 1/day with a 1 minute ritual at 7th).

 

[DEFCON 1]

They aren't mutually exclusive. I consider it more of a design failure of the class that you can get more fun toys AND perform better by multiclassing into bard or sorcerer than staying warlock to 20. I've tried to alleviate that somewhat with house rules (free eldritch blast, agonizing blast, pact spells are known spells, recharge spells 1/day with a 1 minute ritual at 7th).

See, I wouldn't even consider that a "design failure". I personally see no reason why getting to level 20 in a particular class is the "best" or "rightest" way to play a character. A character's personality or who a character is comes out of how the character is played, not how it is built. So if you have a particular character you want to play storywise... however you choose to build it mechanically to me is completely fine. If that means taking some mechanics from the bard or sorcerer to make your character more "warlocky" in your opinion... then I say great! And if it means you have to wipe off the fluff of the bard or sorcerer to do so... to me that's absolutely fine as well. There are many different ways to build a character both storywise *and* mechanically, and no way is better or more pure than another.

It's the same way someone might feel their "ultimate ranger" would be 20 levels of Champion fighter with the Outlander background. Is that bad design? Not from where I'm sitting. I've also tried making the case all the time that if the Battle Master fighter's specific maneuvers to choose from doesn't produce a "warlord" type of character you're looking for... take the War Cleric mechanics and wipe all the "divine" and "magic" fluff off of it and make your "warlord" that way.

The game mechanics are just rules and numbers. There's no story that can't be wiped off of them. So once you figure out what your character's story is... take whatever mechanics you want as you go along that best exemplifies it. And never think you or the designers are "doing it wrong" by making that choice.

 

[Lord Vangarel]

Thanks for the replies everyone.

I think the Warlock more than perhaps any of the other classes we've played relies on getting short rests. Therefore the solution is in game to ensure that short rests are available. In a big multi-part combat scene where one encounter potentially follows on the heels of the previous one getting an hours break jars with the fiction of the scene. The solution would seem to either shorten the short rest or give away a free short rest in these situations. This allows the recharge mechanic to kick in without jarring the storyline.

 

[Flamestrike]

Thanks for the replies everyone.

I think the Warlock more than perhaps any of the other classes we've played relies on getting short rests. Therefore the solution is in game to ensure that short rests are available. In a big multi-part combat scene where one encounter potentially follows on the heels of the previous one getting an hours break jars with the fiction of the scene. The solution would seem to either shorten the short rest or give away a free short rest in these situations. This allows the recharge mechanic to kick in without jarring the storyline.

Exactly how I handle it.

Look to be granting 2-3 short rests per long rest (approx every 2-3 encounters). Hand waive them if you need to (make a short rest an unspecified period of time at the DM's discretion between a few minutes to an hour, where the players have a chance for a quick breather, bind wounds, check the map, swig from the waterskins, etc). Even in the most pitched of real world battles, soldiers get the chance to take a quick nap, grab a bite to eat, catch breath and so forth whenever they can.

This will address your balance issues with the class.

 

[Mirtek]

design failure of the class that you can get more fun toys AND perform better by multiclassing into bard or sorcerer than staying warlock to 20.

So the barbarian is a design failure because he's only hitting things all the time?

 

[TwoSix]

They aren't mutually exclusive. I consider it more of a design failure of the class that you can get more fun toys AND perform better by multiclassing into bard or sorcerer than staying warlock to 20. I've tried to alleviate that somewhat with house rules (free eldritch blast, agonizing blast, pact spells are known spells, recharge spells 1/day with a 1 minute ritual at 7th).

Honestly, I've always considered Pathfinder's and 5e's hedging on multiclassing to be a design flaw. If you're going to build in Lego-block style class levels into the system, why the constant urge to punish people for playing with them? I'd much rather see a system where the class level goes to 20 but the class levels only go up to 10. (For one, it wold let people actually try out interesting capstones.)

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

So the barbarian is a design failure because he's only hitting things all the time?

Nope, it does what it says on the can, and you aren't much better off swapping to another class if you want to hit things and take a pounding. With warlock, you don't get a lot for sticking with it for the long haul. You get your third spell slot at 11th level...

Warlock is pretty front loaded and reduced to eldrtich blast spam quickly in fights. Which you can do more or less just as well ditching the class and grabbing a whole full caster suite of daily spells to layer on your EB spam and 2 slots/rest.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

To re-iterate just a little: if you are looking at warlock as more than a combat pillar class, ie, you are examining its potential in the exploration and interaction pillars, it is a great class. Plus in combat it is a good striker.

The only "problem" is that we aren't told that that is how it plays anywhere. Once I understood it, I got pretty excited about the class. It isn't underpowered.

And as has been said, it is short rest--and hence campaign and DM--dependent.