D&D 5E [poll] Warlock Satisfaction Survey

[Sacrosanct]

I''ve seen this complaint, and I don't get it. That's like griping that an eldritch knight uses his weapons too much. They get, like, NO spells. What else are they supposed to do in a fight?

Well, I think your basic premise is flawed in that you're assuming a warlock is supposed to do as much DPR as any other class. I.e., maybe a warlock doesn't have to be good at combat in the first place (maybe because they do a bunch of really cool things out of combat). Secondly, maybe there are things to be "good" at combat other than DPR. Polymorphing objects to affect the battle. Or silent image. Or confusion. Or hold monster. And you still do have spell slots if you really needed them.

Speaking of things I don't get, I don't get this idea that unless you're doing X DPR per round, you can't do anything in combat. Creativity and role playing don't stop when combat starts.

 

[ccs]

Mechanically speaking, I don't care for their multiclassing (which isn't a problem about Warlocks per-say), or how 2/3 pacts are overshadowed by the other one. Yes, 3 extra cantrips+ all the ritual spells ever, is better than both invisible imps and summoning your own melee weapon.

Well, I guess this depends upon how you make characters.
For my own warlock, Bree Burrfoot, 1/2ling warlock (chain pact, fey patron) +3 spells & all the rituals would be a TERRIBLE fit. It's integral to the character that she's a Fey/chain lock with a psuedo-dragon familiar. This shapes everything about her. Including her reason to adventure.

I can imagine effective tomelocks. I can not imagine Bree as one....

 

[Immoralkickass]

It's a great question, and one I'll answer with another: why was a caster class designed with only one option to use in a fight? A fighter can use a variety of weapons. A rogue has a variety of both weapons and options. Why design a class that has only one good tactic?

Removing Eldritch blast makes a warlock player think outside the box. If you want to just press the "b" button repeatedly, play a video game.

I don't force anybody to take any class.

Your opinions are stupid. If a warlock does nothing but spam Eldritch Blast, that's a problem with the player, not the class. Warlocks don't function the same as other casters with full spell slot progression, so they can't spam spells like them. If you find me spamming only EBs in fights, its probably because your enemies aren't threatening enough. The bigger problem is a player who thinks the only spell worth spending their slots on is Hex.

Why the hate on spamming the same attacks? Most martials do that all the time. Is it a problem that a Champion Fighter spams his greatsword on every enemy? Or a hunter ranger who spams bolts/arrows no matter what he/she is fighting?

 

[Aldarc]

The class is very well designed and most patron are really interesting.

1) I think bladelock should have an invocation that allows for a melee Eldritch blast.
2) To improve the chainlock, I think its just matter of adding more touch spells to use tru your familiar.
3) Tome is really good, I just like it less than the others.

Tome should have access to an invocation that grants an additional pact spell slot to further drive home that it is the more caster-oriented one. Warlocks should also have an invocation similar to the bard's magical secrets to emphasize that they "steal" magic.

There's something about eldritch blast that just rubs me the wrong way. I wish they would change it somehow. I like the meachanics of pact magic, but I think that they should start with at least one more slot

Make it tied to class level more like a rogue's sneak attack?

 

[pukunui]

I am mostly happy with the warlock. I don't like the invocations that let you cast a spell 1/day with a spell slot. Those suck.

It would be nice if there were more options for pact of the chain beasties that fit the newer patrons. Like maybe a crawling claw for the Undying patron from SCAG, and maybe a gazer for the GOO patron.

Also, I miss some of the creepiness from the 3e warlock ... like being able to detach your eyeball and have it go roaming around on its own so you can spy on people.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Well, I think your basic premise is flawed in that you're assuming a warlock is supposed to do as much DPR as any other class. I.e., maybe a warlock doesn't have to be good at combat in the first place (maybe because they do a bunch of really cool things out of combat). Secondly, maybe there are things to be "good" at combat other than DPR. Polymorphing objects to affect the battle. Or silent image. Or confusion. Or hold monster. And you still do have spell slots if you really needed them.

Speaking of things I don't get, I don't get this idea that unless you're doing X DPR per round, you can't do anything in combat. Creativity and role playing don't stop when combat starts.

Remind me again... why shouldn't their damage be better than guys who get vastly more spells and utility? Because they aren't going to be better than them on that front, so exactly what point does the class have other than "crappy wizard/lore bard"?

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

It's a great question, and one I'll answer with another: why was a caster class designed with only one option to use in a fight? A fighter can use a variety of weapons. A rogue has a variety of both weapons and options. Why design a class that has only one good tactic?

Removing Eldritch blast makes a warlock player think outside the box. If you want to just press the "b" button repeatedly, play a video game.

I don't force anybody to take any class.

Just like removing weapons and armor makes a fighter think! Brilliant design. Take away EB and you basically have poor man's bard. Less utility, skills and spells. A paragon of design!

They have a great cantrip because its their fallback from having so few spells. The fault was not making it a class feature.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Remind me again... why shouldn't their damage be better than guys who get vastly more spells and utility? Because they aren't going to be better than them on that front, so exactly what point does the class have other than "crappy wizard/lore bard"?

Again, you're caught up in placing value only in damage. If you can't think beyond that, there isn't much point in talking because we're so far apart. And you and I have a different idea of "vastly", because warlocks get their spells recharged on short rests and have lots of invocations that add plenty of utility and extra spell casting capability. And even if the warlock is behind the wizard in that regard for sake of argument, the solution isn't necessarily "moar damage". There are many other ways in which the battlefield can be impacted outside of DPR.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Again, you're caught up in placing value only in damage. If you can't think beyond that, there isn't much point in talking because we're so far apart. And you and I have a different idea of "vastly", because warlocks get their spells recharged on short rests and have lots of invocations that add plenty of utility and extra spell casting capability. And even if the warlock is behind the wizard in that regard for sake of argument, the solution isn't necessarily "moar damage". There are many other ways in which the battlefield can be impacted outside of DPR.

But that's their shtick. It's been their shtick since the class came into existence. Strong, at will, magic damage and some magic utility on the side. They get good damage because they have less to offer in the utility field than someone with a huge spell list and not shackled to a recharge mechanic that is at the whim of adventure pacing. Unless you hand out 3 "short rest tokens" usable as a free action every long rest, short rest is a disadvantage because you don't have the option of going all out if you need it. An invocation to let you case Bane with a spell slot once a day isn't overcoming the utility a lore bard would offer in place.

Yes, you can impact the battlefield outside of DPR. There's no reason they shouldnt ALSO have good DPR, considering their impact is lower in other areas.

I swear, you guys would gripe about rogue's being forced into "sneak attackers" next to prove your "rp'er than thou" creds.

 

[Sacrosanct]

But that's their shtick. It's been their shtick since the class came into existence.

This isn't true either. Warlocks came into existence as a class in 2e (DM's Option Spells and Magic). Their shtick was the ability to cast spells at a higher level at the risk of attracting their pact creature and gradually transforming into a demonic creature in 5 stages of progression. It was not specific to damage at all.

3e, or 4e may have focused on DPR blasters, but it's not true to say it has been that way since their existence.

I swear, you guys would gripe about rogue's being forced into "sneak attackers" next to prove your "rp'er than thou" creds.

Weak strawman arguments don't help the strength of your argument at all.