D&D (2024) I like the new Warlock

[tetrasodium]

Indeed. This reinforces my point that having a spell that they can cast that happens to be at the same level as the slots that an equivalent-level wizard has, does not make the Warlock any-where near as good a caster as the Wizard (a full caster.)

Why does warlock need to be "as good a caster as the wizard"? Warlock can not continue to be a core class and remain a class designed exclusively for someone like vin diesel

 

[mamba]

This reinforces my point that having a spell that they can cast that happens to be at the same level as the slots that an equivalent-level wizard has, does not make the Warlock any-where near as good a caster as the Wizard (a full caster.)

it isn’t, and it is not meant to be. But it can be about a 85% caster if that is what you focus your invocations on (the Warlock has other features to make up for the ‘gap’), or as little as a half-caster if you use none of them for MA.

In reality the Warlock will fall somewhere in the middle

 

[Mistwell]

OK. I am increasingly aware that you may not be an English speaker, but "cherry-picking" is generally regarded as a negative term.
Now, since you've thrown that insult twice, I'd like you to explain why you chose to use that particular slur, given that:

Now you're just being a dick and that's not worth responding to. You know you cherry picked. That's not an insult it's an ordinary retort. But given your "English speaker" comment, you're just being a jerk at this point and the rest of it was just more of that.

Uh. . . . That is the video that Neonchameleon is talking about.
There is no "other video."

There absolutely is a second video. I think we might be dealing with a Patreon-only vs YouTube issue. I started this thread literally pulling from the first video (though I didn't link to it because it was on Patreon.) It's hard for Patreon supporters to know if something shows up on YouTube for all because there is no notice that it's moved over to open.

 

[Remathilis]

The issue of using half-casting progression (we'll get to potentially spending your invocations on Mystic Arcanum later,) is that combined with the extreme power of powered-up Eldritch Blast, it is hardly ever worth actually casting a spell if just Eldritch Blasting again is an option.
This is what Neonchameleon is talking about by "what it does round-to-round".
You might not get any spells worth casting instead of EB until 9th level, as the campaign winds up, which is where you could start dropping fireballs. Until then, you may just be reduced to Hexing and spamming Eldritch Blast all the time in fights.

See, I was told I was playing a warlock wrong to expect them to be spellcasting more than once every other encounter. That they should be EBing or using an invocation every round until they pull their big trick out. Apparently I was wrong and they should be able to nearly match a full casters? I'm confused.

TM addresses this when he talks about an 11th level warlock having more levels of spells available than a 11th level wizard, but it's all tied up in level 5 spell slots, 2 short rests, and a MA. A lot of potential that requires very specific conditions to use properly. Use might use one of those 5th level slots to cast shield, but you overpaid your power budget fivefold to do it. That's like going to McDonald's with only hundred dollar bills, ordering a combo and telling them to keep the change.

The new system feels more like it's supposed to be a arcane/caster version of the paladin and ranger. Most of the time, you're attacking with your primary spammable, and you use your slots to do utility magic. MA is for Nova. If that's unacceptable, I can see a version closer to the bard (full caster, but spells limited to necromancy, conjuration, divination and enchantment) with pacts bringing more choice.

 

[Neonchameleon]

See, I was told I was playing a warlock wrong to expect them to be spellcasting more than once every other encounter. That they should be EBing or using an invocation every round until they pull their big trick out. Apparently I was wrong and they should be able to nearly match a full casters? I'm confused.

The assumptions were officially published. 6 encounters, 2 short rests per day. In my experience 4 encounters, and a short rest lunch break is more common. Either way I would expect a recharge for a warlock on average every other encounter. Which, yes, means that you get two spells per two encounters L 1-10. Or an average of one top tier spell per encounter. You don't expect to cast a levelled spell every encounter, but you do the majority (in reality I'd expect a 4 encounter adventuring day with a short rest to split 1/3 as often as 2/2, with 3/1 being rare). Getting two spells to cast every other encounter should on average be spellcasting more than once every other encounter.

TM addresses this when he talks about an 11th level warlock having more levels of spells available than a 11th level wizard, but it's all tied up in level 5 spell slots, 2 short rests, and a MA. A lot of potential that requires very specific conditions to use properly. Use might use one of those 5th level slots to cast shield, but you overpaid your power budget fivefold to do it. That's like going to McDonald's with only hundred dollar bills, ordering a combo and telling them to keep the change.

Yup. A warlock shouldn't be casting spells like Shield because they don't scale and don't fundamentally change the situation. The low level slot uses should be instead handled by Invocations.

A flaw in the implementation of the warlock is that both defensive invocations have problems; Mage Armour is a waste of an invocation slot on a light armour class, and False Life doesn't scale so it's great as a free spell at second level but a speedbump at tenth. Getting both spells wrong that way has the side effect of making the warlock probably the squishiest class in the game (wizards and sorcerers being able to Shield and Absorb Elements).

The new system feels more like it's supposed to be a arcane/caster version of the paladin and ranger. Most of the time, you're attacking with your primary spammable, and you use your slots to do utility magic. MA is for Nova. If that's unacceptable, I can see a version closer to the bard (full caster, but spells limited to necromancy, conjuration, divination and enchantment) with pacts bringing

We've already got an arcane half-caster version of the paladin and ranger. It's called the artificer and has synergy issues. "I sold my soul for mediocre casting" doesn't work thematically; the bard would be a better suggestion - but one of the key flaws of the bard and one reason why it works despite looking like a Caster+ is that its damage output is ... poor. Warlock was such a common multiclass because it patched this deliberate gap thanks to EB being a spell not a class feature.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Why does warlock need to be "as good a caster as the wizard"? Warlock can not continue to be a core class and remain a class designed exclusively for someone like vin diesel

I have no idea. I'm responding to the question of how good the new warlock is as a caster class.
If you can find someone in this thread arguing that the warlock should be as good a caster as a wizard, feel free to ask them?

Now you're just being a dick and that's not worth responding to. You know you cherry picked. That's not an insult it's an ordinary retort. But given your "English speaker" comment, you're just being a jerk at this point and the rest of it was just more of that.

You still have not explained what you mean by "cherry picking". I was literally giving the first example available that came to mind. If you meant it as simply an honest retort, then you should have no issues justifying it, should you?
Either you are unaware of what the phrase means and you just made an honest mistake out of ignorance, or you were fully aware that you were insulting another poster on these forums.

I have even asked why you believe that that example was cherry picked, and if there was another level that you would like me to use as an example instead. I'm really not sure what else I can do to accommodate you explaining yourself.

There absolutely is a second video. I think we might be dealing with a Patreon-only vs YouTube issue. I started this thread literally pulling from the first video (though I didn't link to it because it was on Patreon.) It's hard for Patreon supporters to know if something shows up on YouTube for all because there is no notice that it's moved over to open.

I really don't think that there is.
The video titled "Warlock: One Dnd is...GOOD?" is the one with the thumbnail saying "The New Warlock has Saved One D&D". Those are the "two" videos that people have been referring to in this thread.
It is just a difference between the words on the thumbnail and the actual title of the video unless Treantmonk has recently released two videos with the same title.

See, I was told I was playing a warlock wrong to expect them to be spellcasting more than once every other encounter. That they should be EBing or using an invocation every round until they pull their big trick out. Apparently I was wrong and they should be able to nearly match a full casters? I'm confused.

I mean firstly, if anyone tells you that "You're playing xxxxx wrong" on a facet of your character, they are almost guaranteed to be in the wrong themselves.

I've found that you get around a spell slot per fight, although obviously table customs around adventuring days can vary this. Between this, and if you don't think a fight is going to be too challenging, then you're probably doing other stuff, probably cantrip or weapon attacks, using magic items possibly.

If you think a fight is going to go downhill without it, you should probably use your slots to fend off imminent disaster if you can, since it is better if you run dry than the Cleric trying to keep everyone alive. Since your slots are automatically max level, you generally have some effective spells to throw.
You just don't have any of the mid-tier stuff other casters have: you're either blasting off a high-end spell or using an At-will attack or ability.
I've found it a nice combination: You can have a nice selection of stuff as powerful as the other casters to use at the top end, but less versatility, power, and complexity overall.

TM addresses this when he talks about an 11th level warlock having more levels of spells available than a 11th level wizard, but it's all tied up in level 5 spell slots, 2 short rests, and a MA. A lot of potential that requires very specific conditions to use properly. Use might use one of those 5th level slots to cast shield, but you overpaid your power budget fivefold to do it. That's like going to McDonald's with only hundred dollar bills, ordering a combo and telling them to keep the change.

The new system feels more like it's supposed to be a arcane/caster version of the paladin and ranger. Most of the time, you're attacking with your primary spammable, and you use your slots to do utility magic. MA is for Nova. If that's unacceptable, I can see a version closer to the bard (full caster, but spells limited to necromancy, conjuration, divination and enchantment) with pacts bringing more choice.

I already dislike how much the current warlock is pushed into EB+ AB +Hex all the time simply by it being made so powerful. For example Celestial Warlocks get a bonus to damage for Fire and Radiant, but it is still mechanically better to just carry on spamming Eldritch Blast than actually use Sacred Flame or similar.

 

[Remathilis]

I already dislike how much the current warlock is pushed into EB+ AB +Hex all the time simply by it being made so powerful. For example Celestial Warlocks get a bonus to damage for Fire and Radiant, but it is still mechanically better to just carry on spamming Eldritch Blast than actually use Sacred Flame or similar.

I have a suggestion: its called make warlocks a full caster and remove agonizing blast. But I'm pretty sure that's not in the cards.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Man this conversation is hard to follow. I'm only seeing about 10 of the last twenty posts. Edit: NVM, the last thirty posts

it isn’t, and it is not meant to be. But it can be about a 85% caster if that is what you focus your invocations on (the Warlock has other features to make up for the ‘gap’), or as little as a half-caster if you use none of them for MA.

In reality the Warlock will fall somewhere in the middle

But think this is exactly the frustration people are having. If you focus the majority of your invocation choices on spells, you get 85% of the other casters (and not even really that if you account for those casters having access to metamagic and modify/memorize spell). So if you go all in and use the majority of your class unique power... you can't quite reach what other casters can do.

And people want you to be able to do that. They want to be able to stay roughly on par as a Mage in the Mage group. And, again, what abilities can you get that actually compete with high level spells? Even 3rd level spells can be adventure defining at level 5.

 

[cbwjm]

I have a suggestion: its called make warlocks a full caster and remove agonizing blast. But I'm pretty sure that's not in the cards.

I think agonising blast is fine, it's eldritch blast that needs to change. I think it should be a force version of fire bolt and that all of the eldritch blast invocations should apply to all cantrips, let warlock players customise their playstyle without feeling like they "doing it wrong" by not taking eldritch blast.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I have no idea. I'm responding to the question of how good the new warlock is as a caster class.
If you can find someone in this thread arguing that the warlock should be as good a caster as a wizard, feel free to ask them?

I know I don't.

I really don't think that there is.
The video titled "Warlock: One Dnd is...GOOD?" is the one with the thumbnail saying "The New Warlock has Saved One D&D". Those are the "two" videos that people have been referring to in this thread.
It is just a difference between the words on the thumbnail and the actual title of the video unless Treantmonk has recently released two videos with the same title.

(Screenshot for proof).

I already dislike how much the current warlock is pushed into EB+ AB +Hex all the time simply by it being made so powerful. For example Celestial Warlocks get a bonus to damage for Fire and Radiant, but it is still mechanically better to just carry on spamming Eldritch Blast than actually use Sacred Flame or similar.

For the record I've run a skirmishy celestial tome warlock with Sacred Flame, Shileleagh, and Green Flame Blade - but even stacking all that only gets you near the curve until level 10. From levels 1-4 you absolutely do not need to go EB if you have Dex 14. From levels 5-10 you can avoid EB but you need to jump through hoops. From level 11+ it's almost impossible to compete.

Which is why one of the suggestions I've continually made is that all warlock subclasses should have their own alternative to EB. A strong at will spell that scales with their level, doesn't need Agonizing Blast, and encourages some mode of play. I'd love to see either the OG Hellish Rebuke (which was a rider to an At Will; hit them with your cantrip and if someone hurts you before the end of next turn the rebuke triggers), Gift to Avernus (sac hit points for a reroll to hit; not coincidently those hit points matched the THP from Dark One's Blessing), or something melee-ish for the Fiend.