D&D (2024) I like the new Warlock

[Charlaquin]

And that’s completely fair. As you say, Like what you like. I’m not against trying to find a different solution or compromise that gives more spell slots while allowing for the unique feel of pact magic (or something similar), despite my rather passionate sounding post earlier.

How would you feel about my suggestion of copying the channel nature/divinity recovery method from the druid and paladin packet? A larger but still small number of uses (maybe spellcasting mod uses?), which you regain one of after a short rest and all of after a long rest?

But it’s a bit frustrating and disheartening that if I or others say we like the changes that we must not be a warlock fan. It very much comes off that we should just be ignored and not bother contributing to discussions. I highly doubt that is the intended message but it comes across that way, especially as conversations in other threads have continued on.

It’s definitely not the intent, it’s just hard to reconcile people who say they like the warlock but want to dramatically change its play pattern. It comes across sounding like you want to like the warlock, but its play pattern prevents you from doing so. Which I likewise assume is probably not your intent, but that’s what it sounds like.

 

[Reef]

The channel divinity comparison is cool. I'm not opposed to loosing the half-caster if you made pact magic recharging independent from short rests and more frequent. But I really love the other warlock features the new warlock gets (except for the stinker level 18 one), I'd really hate to see any of them go to protect pact magic.

I don’t see any reason they couldn’t keep Pact Magic and also some of the other changes. Best of both worlds!

 

[Charlaquin]

The channel divinity comparison is cool. I'm not opposed to loosing the half-caster if you made pact magic recharging independent from short rests and more frequent. But I really love the other warlock features the new warlock gets (except for the stinker level 18 one), I'd really hate to see any of them go to protect pact magic.

I don’t see why the other new features in this packet would have to go to protect pact magic. None of them conflict with pact magic in any way I can see.

 

[Bolares]

I don’t see why he other new features in this packet would have to go to protect pact magic. None of them conflict with pact magic in any way I can see.

I also don't see why, but they make some confusing decisions because of game balance sometimes...

 

[Charlaquin]

I like the pacts, I like the invocations, I like eldritch blast, those all play really well and are what define the warlock to me. The only draw back is how pact magic works today.

I think the problem is, the warlock’s cantrips and invocations are able to play the way they do in large part because of the limitations of pact magic. Warlocks are able to do a lot more on an at-will basis than other casters because they can’t do as much on a daily basis. That’s why without pact magic they had to become half casters instead of full casters. Their invocations and other at-will abilities eat up too much of their power budget to be balanced as full casters. Now instead of getting a few powerful spells a day in addition to their at-wills, they get several underpowered ones, which in my opinion is much worse.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yea, the idea has definitely grown on me since I suggested it yesterday. It's going to be one of my main points of feedback once the survey opens.

Honestly, the model of "2-4 uses per long rest, regain 1-2 uses per short rest" would be a pretty good default resource model across the system as a whole. Like, having full casters with a 2/2/2/2/2 progression at level 10, and recharging 1/1/1/1/1 every short rest is simple to understand and also pretty balanced, I'd say. (Assuming 2 SR per LR, of course.)

You were also the one who said you wanted spells to be treasure, right? I think if you made an RPG, I would play the hell out of it.

 

[Bolares]

I think the problem is, the warlock’s cantrips and invocations are able to play the way they do in large part because of the limitations of pact magic. Warlocks are able to do a lot more on an at-will basis than other casters because they can’t do as much on a daily basis. That’s why without pact magic they had to become half casters instead of full casters. Their invocations and other at-will abilities eat up too much of their power budget to be balanced as full casters. Now instead of getting a few powerful spells a day in addition to their at-wills, they get several underpowered ones, which in my opinion is much worse.

I agree with you here. That's a reason for my fear of them nerfing cantrips and invocations to keep pact magic. because they will not keep it as is, they will have to make it more frequent, and for that to work they'd have to drop some other feature of the class.
I if we keep it a half-caster, and find a more elegant way to do Mystic Arcanum, where it doesn't feel so much like a feat tax (an invocation tax in this case) would it work for the pro pact magic people?

 

[TwoSix]

You were also the one who said you wanted spells to be treasure, right? I think if you made an RPG, I would play the hell out of it.

Thank you, that's very flattering. Unfortunately, between my job, 4 kids, and 3 different campaigns running, my game design has to be limited to random bon mots on the interwebs.

 

[Charlaquin]

I agree with you here. That's a reason for my fear of them nerfing cantrips and invocations to keep pact magic. because they will not keep it as is, they will have to make it more frequent, and for that to work they'd have to drop some other feature of the class.

The thing is, most of these features are just slightly tweaked versions of what the 2014 warlock already does. They’re mostly QOL improvements, with maybe a tiny power boost fully in line with the general post-Tasha’s power creep. I think you could keep all of these changes except half casting, keep pact magic, and have a perfectly reasonable-powered class.

I if we keep it a half-caster, and find a more elegant way to do Mystic Arcanum, where it doesn't feel so much like a feat tax (an invocation tax in this case) would it work for the pro pact magic people?

No. Pact Magic is the number one reason to play a warlock for me. I’m open to tweaking how it works to try and alleviate the “I feel like I have to horde my spell slots so I never use them at all” problem, but making the warlock any variety of “Vancian” caster is an absolute dealbreaker for me.

 

[Charlaquin]

Thank you, that's very flattering. Unfortunately, between my job, 4 kids, and 3 different campaigns running, my game design has to be limited to random bon mots on the interwebs.

Totally understandable. But yeah, I think your game design sensibilities are well-aligned with my own.