Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
Playing the Game
Play by Post
Living Worlds
Living 4th Edition
Proposal: Warlock At-Wills
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="elecgraystone" data-source="post: 4867468" data-attributes="member: 74232"><p>No. If you are DAMAGED, big difference. If we changed it to 'targeted before your next turn' is might be slightly more useful. This is what happens for me. </p><p> </p><p>#1 it does d6 damage. move to next round.</p><p>#2 I'm in melee. If it deals a d6 damage I get free damage from a OA. Still have to wait to see in extra damage kicks in. If I'm 'lucky' I take double damage and he gets an extra d6.</p><p>#3 it does d6 damage and I have to go out of my way to provoke attack. Either I'm missed and get no extra damage or I'm hit and take more than I deal in extra damage.</p><p> </p><p>In #1-#3 there was no reason to use it instead of Eldritch blast. So it sits unused in my sheet. Unlike all the other at wills, for me it's NEVER a better option, in ANY situation, to use it instead of Eldritch blast. As I said before, I'd spent a feat to swap to another warlock at will. I hate having this useless 'vestigial limb' taking up space.</p><p> </p><p>The reason for the proposal is really a secondary concern though. You agreed with covaithe saying 'I just really dislike messing with the basic mechanism of the class like this' right? But didn't we already do that by including the new at will? I'm just asking for it to be expanded to include replacing either of your starting at wills. Either way changes the basic mechanism of the class. And the patron HAS the at wills to give. I just can't believe every infernal pact is a carbon copy of each other.</p><p> </p><p>I hope you don't mind my debating you a bit since you just showed up. I just want to be sure I understand why you said no. Is it JUST because it alters the mechanics? I don't see anything mechanically unbalancing with this and I don't see fluff getting in the way.</p><p> </p><p>If it's just mechanics, don't we alter, change and ban those in every proposal? Granted it's normally to change the unbalanced to balanced, but is that a reason block a proposal that's balanced?</p><p> </p><p>let me post something from covaithe since you seem to agree with him on changing mechanics and it's about mechanics. it's from the '<strong>Weapon Training Feats are not Multi-Class Feats' </strong>proposal thread.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>This is altering the mechanics because you 'don't understand why WotC' did something. I don't understand why a warlock can't replace his pact at will. No one has shown me 'a concrete example of an overpowered build that would be made possible if we did this'. No one has said why it makes sense from a mechanical standpoint and WotC themselves has said they don't give a flying 'fudge' about the fluff. Is it just because it's about feats instead of a class? that doesn't make much sense to me.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="elecgraystone, post: 4867468, member: 74232"] No. If you are DAMAGED, big difference. If we changed it to 'targeted before your next turn' is might be slightly more useful. This is what happens for me. #1 it does d6 damage. move to next round. #2 I'm in melee. If it deals a d6 damage I get free damage from a OA. Still have to wait to see in extra damage kicks in. If I'm 'lucky' I take double damage and he gets an extra d6. #3 it does d6 damage and I have to go out of my way to provoke attack. Either I'm missed and get no extra damage or I'm hit and take more than I deal in extra damage. In #1-#3 there was no reason to use it instead of Eldritch blast. So it sits unused in my sheet. Unlike all the other at wills, for me it's NEVER a better option, in ANY situation, to use it instead of Eldritch blast. As I said before, I'd spent a feat to swap to another warlock at will. I hate having this useless 'vestigial limb' taking up space. The reason for the proposal is really a secondary concern though. You agreed with covaithe saying 'I just really dislike messing with the basic mechanism of the class like this' right? But didn't we already do that by including the new at will? I'm just asking for it to be expanded to include replacing either of your starting at wills. Either way changes the basic mechanism of the class. And the patron HAS the at wills to give. I just can't believe every infernal pact is a carbon copy of each other. I hope you don't mind my debating you a bit since you just showed up. I just want to be sure I understand why you said no. Is it JUST because it alters the mechanics? I don't see anything mechanically unbalancing with this and I don't see fluff getting in the way. If it's just mechanics, don't we alter, change and ban those in every proposal? Granted it's normally to change the unbalanced to balanced, but is that a reason block a proposal that's balanced? let me post something from covaithe since you seem to agree with him on changing mechanics and it's about mechanics. it's from the '[B]Weapon Training Feats are not Multi-Class Feats' [/B]proposal thread. This is altering the mechanics because you 'don't understand why WotC' did something. I don't understand why a warlock can't replace his pact at will. No one has shown me 'a concrete example of an overpowered build that would be made possible if we did this'. No one has said why it makes sense from a mechanical standpoint and WotC themselves has said they don't give a flying 'fudge' about the fluff. Is it just because it's about feats instead of a class? that doesn't make much sense to me. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
Playing the Game
Play by Post
Living Worlds
Living 4th Edition
Proposal: Warlock At-Wills
Top