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

[Flamestrike]

My point was, you describe these things as though they were entirely foreign and alien to D&D, when they are part and parcel of something you apparently hated. It just feels like Monte Cook's "what I like to call passive perception" all over again. You didn't like 4e, and I have neither right nor reason to tell you otherwise. But if you're going to describe something *exactly like* something in 4e, why reinvent the wheel? "Maybe we should bring back the idea of Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies, but make them more like individual classes or combinations of classes. Something in between those and 3e's Prestige Classes." That would have been both supremely respectful AND highlighting something you apparently like, even when it comes from something you don't.

Because for everything I liked about 4E, there was a ton of stuff I loathed. I was hoping for a more SWSE version of 4th, and were a lot closer to that feel with 5th than we were with 4th.

You liked 4th. I didnt. No need to get into the old edition wars here.

And for what its worth, I view the 5th edition method of 'paths' (archetypes) as being more elegant and better in its execution.

As for the "breakpoint to define your character," it's funny that you mention that, since WotC specifically tells us that experienced players will most likely want to skip those levels. I still wish they would have made the "training wheels" levels ACTUALLY optional, e.g. something that can be added for those who want it, rather than hardwired into the basal math of the game. What you consider a fun opportunity to differentiate your characters, I see as the game finally STARTING rather than languishing in "here's a character...that can't do crap!" (Yes, I know this is hyperbolic, but it's how I feel.)

How (one one hand) can you say WOTC invites you to skip levels 1-2 if you want, but on the other claim they are 'hardwired into the game'?

Looks to me that WOTC are saying that levels 1-2 are pretty much optional if that's what your group prefers.

Personally I like the grim and gritty nature (and fast and easy character creation rules, super quick combats, lethal nature and swift advancement) of levels 1-3. There is a lack of system mastery required that I haven't seen since the Basic set, yet the system offers 12 classes and around a total of 40 odd different archetypes. In addition to backgrounds and more races than any other PHB to date, there is a vast amount of variety in the core rules.

It feels like the DnD I know and grew up with.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

How (one one hand) can you say WOTC invites you to skip levels 1-2 if you want, but on the other claim they are 'hardwired into the game'?

Because then there are only 18 levels. You either get all 20 levels, including the training wheels, or you get less game.

Truly optional--without being deprecated--would be including the rules for "Apprentice" characters in the PHB, which (when completed) graduate you to a Level 1 (whatever). The Apprentice Warlock has no pact yet, only a patron. The Apprentice Wizard has not yet chosen a school, but has simple magic. The Apprentice Fighter hasn't chosen a style yet, but has picked up the basics of fighting. Etc. Instead, all characters have Training Wheels Levels 1 and 2. Either you play through them, or you don't, but either way they're part of the character's progression.

It is not possible to play a D&D 5e character that does not have two levels at the Apprentice Tier. Hence, hardwired. Your "options" are to play through those levels, or to skip playing them, but either way they happen. There is no option for them to never happen at all. That's what I want--and what I wanted all the way back during the playtest when they suggested their "apprentice" stuff to begin with.

Edit:
That said, this has gotten rather thoroughly off-topic. If you would like to continue the conversation in a more appropriate venue (a different thread or PM), I would be happy to.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If people HAD both things, there wouldn't be posts like this one.

Agreed...?

That's true. Perhaps the OP chose the class expecting to be a spell-slinger and was disappointed in what he got.

I believe it's actually the OP's friend, but close enough.

I compare this argument to what I've experienced with pre-4e Bards. People who used to roll Bards and say "their spells/melee are far below that of other classes" and I'd say "Well, yeah, they're not specialists." Full casters ARE specialists, in that magic is their main jam. Warlocks just... aren't. But they offer other abilities in lieu of a full spell progression and offer a degree of customization that is greater than "just spells/attack power".

And, as I have repeatedly tried to say, the fact that they "just...aren't" but aren't billed that way is where the problem comes from. Hence why I answered the OP as I did: "You aren't playing it wrong...or, perhaps, you are playing it wrong, because what you want isn't what you're playing." Also...t's not like I'm saying there's absolutely NOTHING you can do to customize a Warlock; that's...unrelated to my argument, in fact.

If you're concerned with being short-changed in abilities, flavour really isn't what you're building for. Seems only we role-players "get" that. You can build a character for both flavour and abilities, but one is going to take precedent... or you're playing a Bard.

False: It is entirely possible to want both, and you do not have to have any absolute preferences either way. I take a great deal of offense at being called a non-roleplayer, by the way. I'm just as much a member of this hobby as you, and I think it's incredibly rude to suggest that I'm not.

If I had to guess, probably because casters were still overpowering fighter abilities (Remember CoD from 3e?).

I do, but this doesn't match their rhetoric on the subject. They repeatedly stressed that it took them that long to get the feel of the Fighter class right. It wasn't that the class was strong or weak (though it was usually weak, and only once hit "too strong"--and even then, purely in damage output and nothing else). It's that it did not give players the experience they wanted. If mechanics are pure numbers with no emotional context, why did the Fighter's mechanical implementation matter for the "feel"?

And of course, the Warlock and Sorcerer are both Strikers in 4e, but the Sorcerer was just plain more damaging than the vanilla Warlock. But then they gave Warlock the Hexblade with and a slew of different flavours. Sorcerers just... shoot blasty spells.

Actually--and please forgive me if I'm wrong, as I only peruse charop things for advice, not to seriously optimize (because I do value both flavor and power more-or-less equally)--the Warlock was just as optimizable as the other Strikers, it just needed more effort; there's a graph commonly bandied about that hyperbolizes the difference. The Warlock was just trickier to optimize, not strictly lower-power, but in general yes, it traded "direct" damage for greater subtlety and/or inflicted conditions (all Arcane classes were a touch Controller-y, but Warlock more strongly than most; much like how all Divine classes are Leadery, but the Paladin moreso than the rest).

Except now, Sorcerers can mould what few spells they can cast via spell points and Warlocks... well... they're still nifty. But people who say that Hexblades aren't as good as Fighters and that Tome magic Warlocks aren't as good as Wizards... perhaps those players should be playing Fighters and Wizards and leave Warlocks alone.

I'll just leave it at this: You shouldn't have to make sacrifices for fluff. Everything should be fluffy, and everything should be empowered. There is no such thing as "when everyone is special, no one is special," because such a statement is inherently self-contradictory. (It only works by exploiting different senses of "special.") Fluff should be mandatory for every class, even if people choose not to do anything with it. Ability to affect the game world should be mandatory for every class, even if people choose not to do anything with it. If the designers expect all characters to be involved in combat, that too should be a mandatory skillset even if people do not decide to use it.

 

[Flamestrike]

Because then there are only 18 levels. You either get all 20 levels, including the training wheels, or you get less game.

My campaigns don't stop at 20th. Never have; the game always goes on until those PC's retire. Once played in a 5 year every weekend real time Rolemaster campaign that went to well over 60th level. I suggest looking at the epic boon section of the DMG to see what to do after 20th.

It is not possible to play a D&D 5e character that does not have two levels at the Apprentice Tier. Hence, hardwired. Your "options" are to play through those levels, or to skip playing them, but either way they happen. There is no option for them to never happen at all. That's what I want--and what I wanted all the way back during the playtest when they suggested their "apprentice" stuff to begin with.

They 'happen' when you create a character at 3rd as much as your characters birth does.

That said, this has gotten rather thoroughly off-topic. If you would like to continue the conversation in a more appropriate venue (a different thread or PM), I would be happy to.

Nah its cool man. Lets just agree to disagree and move on.

 

[Mephista]

If people HAD both things, there wouldn't be posts like this one.

.....

If you're concerned with being short-changed in abilities, flavour really isn't what you're building for. Seems only we role-players "get" that. You can build a character for both flavour and abilities, but one is going to take precedent... or you're playing a Bard.

You know, I consider myself to be more of a rp person than caring about mechanics, but even I find this to be woefully condescending. I'm playing a tiefling bladelock right now, and I'm getting annoyed with how much I feel that I need to invest in feats like Medium Armored and Warcaster just to make the class function at the same competency that, say, a Valor Bards get at the same level, let alone a War Cleric or Paladin! I'm glad that our game isn't likely to get past level 10 or so, because I don't see anything interesting for my character in the Mystic Arcanum until Foresight, and that's just for what amounts to a static boost to my attack and defense.


In my opinion, the only Pact Form that's really well worked out is the Book. I actually think that the book'lock is one of the most powerful (sub-)classes available in the game. I consider them to be the original-flavor warlock. Meanwhile, the Hexblade and "Binder" (which has nothing in common with the 3e Binder class) suffer from any number of issues (a lot).

I think that the 1/day spell invocations are a bad investment (they would be more attractive if they didn't take a spell slot), and the class as a whole would be far better off with more Invocations. While Agonizing Blast isn't a "tax" on every warlock, it is for the Tome, as well as the one that lets you use rituals. Extra Attack and the +CHA damage is a "tax" on the Hexblade. I don't consider these to be really optional additions to the class, leaving very little room for the actual customization. Remember, most games usually end around level 10 or so, give or take. That means that, until level 7, over halfway through the game you really only have one Invocation slot for choice.


I really think they erred on the side of caution too much in this case.

 

[Flamestrike]

You know, I consider myself to be more of a rp person than caring about mechanics, but even I find this to be woefully condescending. I'm playing a tiefling bladelock right now, and I'm getting annoyed with how much I feel that I need to invest in feats like Medium Armored and Warcaster just to make the class function at the same competency that, say, a Valor Bards get at the same level, let alone a War Cleric or Paladin! I'm glad that our game isn't likely to get past level 10 or so, because I don't see anything interesting for my character in the Mystic Arcanum until Foresight, and that's just for what amounts to a static boost to my attack and defense.

My one gripe with the Warlock is the Blade-lock. They take a fair bit of system mastery to get them running as smoothly as effectively as your straight blast-lock (and that includes taking manatory feat taxes) and thats poor design.

You either need to start with a level of Fighter for the AC (the simple method), or realise that the the DPR disparity from the class is down to the class being designed to inflict its damage by actually allowing yourself to get hit (soaking it via temp HP with dark ones blessing + armor of agathys and then resistance via fiendish resilience, coupled with Hellish rebuke and Armor of Agathys damage in return when you do get hit).

 

[Chocolategravy]

*slow clap* Well done. You managed to combine the "it's a tabletop, not an MMO!" snobbery with "roleplaying, not rollplaying!" snobbery. Impressive work. </sarcasm>

Ewww, you role-play with a tabletop? How flat.

Because then there are only 18 levels. You either get all 20 levels, including the training wheels, or you get less game.

Apprentice tier is levels 1-4, not 1-2. Many people like skipping the first 2 levels, many like skipping the first 3 or 4.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I...don't think that's actually what was being said, there. I think what was being said was, "The Warlock provides nothing that cannot be done more effectively, more simply, or more flexibly by a different casting class...once you have all the flavorful stuff." It's not that you SHOULD *always* make Warlocks go to 20 levels of the class, it's that there's little to nothing worth taking from it at those high levels.

It's incredibly frustrating to have these kinds of conversations almost guaranteed to be sidetracked by "jeez guys, ever heard of choosing flavor???" comments. Choosing flavor is what we WANT. We just don't want flavor to be a sacrifice for no good reason, since there are plenty of character concepts that never have to sacrifice one bit of power for their flavor. It's the unfairness of that--that some character concepts are just straight-up shortchanged compared to others--that drives us mad.

My point was that I think it was and is completely okay that there are multiple ways to get to what everyone wants. If someone feels like their particular "ultimate" warlock requires some bard or sorcerer levels to get the flavor, abilities, *and* power that they think it needs... then that's great! Nothing wrong with that!

But at the same time... while this particular person felt taking bard or sorcerer levels were necessary... another person might feel that the stuff you get when going straight Warlock 20 is also all that is needed to get their own "ultimate" warlock. Multiclassing is not necessary for this person.

That's why I said the current Warlock class wasn't a "design failure", because while one person might not think a straight Warlock 20 is the best way to get their "ultimate" warlock, another person might and does. And that's what great about the game... that you can take multiple build paths to get to exactly the type of character you think is the "ultimate" version of that character. And one build path isn't better or "more right" than any other.

The thing I was getting from some of the comments was that the warlock was badly designed because the only way to get a quality level 20 warlock was by taking bard or sorcerer levels. If that was in fact the point being made by those folks... then my point was that it was assuming what I felt was two incorrect things-- one, that that person's specific belief of what the build of Warlock "should" be was empirical fact (hence the use of the term "design failure")... and two, that by extension if that was how the class "should" have been designed in the first place, it implies that a Warlock 20 build is more important or better to get to the character concept and story of a warlock type of character than using a Warlock/Bard or a Warlock/Sorcerer multiclass. That a person *should* be able to go straight Warlock 20 to get to the "ultimate" warlock.

In the former, I'd disagree that a Warlock/Bard or Sorcerer multiclass is empirically the "best" warlock, because everyone's needs for the class are different and just because the poster felt a multiclass build was the best way to accomplish it, doesn't mean it's right or best for everyone else... and in the latter, I'd disagree that any one build is better or worse than another, and that there's nothing wrong (and in fact it should be encouraged) with building a character mechanically that best exemplifies who your character is (within reason of course, such that you aren't overpowering the rest of your party.) A straight 20 levels in one class isn't better *or* worse than multiclassing. One PC build isn't more "right" than another that way.

And this feeling is exactly why I'm all for considering "refluffing" to be a completely legitimate exercise to get the mechanics of your character to match up to your concept... and that also designing all-new sub-classes and classes and such to also get there is also a hearty thumbs-up! And that no one should think "needing" to do so is somehow producing a "lesser" character than another player that can build their PC strictly from what they can get from the book.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

And one build path isn't better or "more right" than any other.

If we always restrict our consideration to character personality and story, you're absolutely right. It is strictly impossible to value one path over another, because every story is "unique" (for a given definition of "unique" that can handle the stories having very similar natures, of course). But there are metrics on which one build path is better than another. E.g. "Does this build achieve what I want it to achieve?" Of course, "what I want it to do" is subjective, but whether it meets that goal can be objectively determined. It's like saying, "any one diet isn't better or 'more right' than another," when in truth there ARE diets that are better or more right, just "better" is context-dependent. E.g. an objectively superior diet for a person with celiac disease is one that excludes gluten; an objectively superior diet for a person with diabetes carefully controls blood sugar levels. There may be other such contexts, those are just the only two I know off the top of my head (and doing any kind of google search for "diets" is a non-starter, sadly).

And D&D comes with a super useful common context! Fights. The game *expects* you to fight. It's got too many resources sunk into the fighty options, and too many classes who do nothing but fighting (e.g. Fighter, Barbarian, debatably Paladin, certain builds of Rogue and Warlock...) to expect otherwise. Is the game all about fighting? Heck no. But that is a common context for characters. Another common context is using skills (regardless of the specific nature, though "social" and "environmental" are two useful, broad categories within "using skills"). Thus we have, inherently, two fundamental and empirical metrics for analyzing a character: how well do they perform their chosen behaviors in combat, and how well do they succeed at their chosen skills?

It would certainly seem--I have not done the testing, and don't really feel like doing so, so I cannot speak with 100% certainty--that both of these metrics suggest that, after a certain point (no later than Warlock 11, probably not earlier than level 5 or 6), a Warlock character *strictly* gains on both metrics by acquiring levels in a different casting class, presumably Sorcerer to make the ability mods line up (but Wizard could work as well). Furthermore, given that both are casting classes, no (or very little) refluffing is required. The Chaos Sorcerer works relatively well as a Fey thing (capricious!), and Dragon could work as an Infernal thing. GOO is harder but I sincerely doubt that an agreement couldn't be reached between DM and player, especially in light of the Favored Soul. And Wizards are the ultimate generalists, able to focus on any kind of magic they want.

One PC build isn't more "right" than another that way.

So you have said, but the ability to test success in combat and in skills says otherwise. Unless, again, you turn a totally blind eye to effectiveness and only consider story, in which case (to continue my diet analogy above), there's no "better" or "worse" foods to eat. There's just food you like and food you don't. But if you want to eat healthy, whatever that means for your particular context, then there absolutely is a "right" way to eat. That it is contextual does not make it "neither better nor worse" than other ways.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Ewww, you role-play with a tabletop? How flat.

Okay, I'll grant you that one. That's pretty funny.

Apprentice tier is levels 1-4, not 1-2. Many people like skipping the first 2 levels, many like skipping the first 3 or 4.

Ah, so they changed their minds. I had not read that particular section of the PHB and was going off the playtest statement that level 1-2 was "apprentice." That said, I don't really get why they're calling 1-4 "apprentice" when the obvious "you are not yet an adventurer" thing stops (for non-casters, anyway...) at level 3, when you select your archetype. Sounds--to me--like they're trying to make the "training wheels" seem like a more integral part of the game than they actually are.

Regardless though? Skipping (but still possessing) 4 levels is not better if I was already upset with skipping (but still possessing) 2.