D&D (2024) Warlock spell poll.

[DEFCON 1]

A third of the people here on EN Word say they want classes rolled back and condensed into like 4 Class options and subclasses taking care of all the variations.

A third of the people here say they want to expand the number of classes to like 20-30 so that every single niche idea gets its own spotight and game mechanics.

And the last third of people here are fine just keeping things relatively the same.

We all know which third WotC is going along with for the 2024E book, right?

 

[Remathilis]

A third of the people here on EN Word say they want classes rolled back and condensed into like 4 Class options and subclasses taking care of all the variations.

A third of the people here say they want to expand the number of classes to like 20-30 so that every single niche idea gets its own spotight and game mechanics.

And the last third of people here are fine just keeping things relatively the same.

We all know which third WotC is going along with for the 2024E book, right?

To be honest, I find the "I would combine X" chatter tiresome. We know WotC isn't going to tinker with the number of classes or their general composition (though they are fine with messing with mechanics). There will be no SuperMage class. Barbarian isn't going to be a subclass of Fighter. I know people have preferences, but most of these conversations would be more productive if we skip past the "justify its existence" part and go to the "this is going to be in the PHB, what form should it take?" Part.

 

[TwoSix]

To be honest, I find the "I would combine X" chatter tiresome. We know WotC isn't going to tinker with the number of classes or their general composition (though they are fine with messing with mechanics). There will be no SuperMage class. Barbarian isn't going to be a subclass of Fighter. I know people have preferences, but most of these conversations would be more productive if we skip past the "justify its existence" part and go to the "this is going to be in the PHB, what form should it take?" Part.

This. We all know there are a thousand and one ways we could roll up all the tropes and narratives contained within the Wizard/Warlock/Sorcerer arcanous trio and then divide them back into various combinations of class, subclass, and mechanics.

But we got what we got. They're aren't going to invent brand new classes at this point. The only overarching design question to decide is whether short rest limited resources are worth saving. All the other questions about warlock are just polishing.

 

[Neonchameleon]

But we got what we got. They're aren't going to invent brand new classes at this point. The only overarching design question to decide is whether short rest limited resources are worth saving. All the other questions about warlock are just polishing.

I disagree. You can save the warlock without saving the short rest by decoupling Pact Magic from short rests and giving it another recharge mechanic

 

[TwoSix]

I disagree. You can save the warlock without saving the short rest by decoupling Pact Magic from short rests and giving it another recharge mechanic

I mean, sure, but to my mind a secondary recharge mechanic that’s roughly “per-encounter” or “X times per long rest, takes a minute or two” is pretty much just “short rests done right”.

So I think we’re agreeing conceptually just not semantically.

 

[Remathilis]

I'm still not sure that conceptually pact magic is worth saving. I've seen all the reasons and fixes and I realize there are people who aren't going to agree with me on this. If the warlock is supposed to be as powerful as full caster (9th level spells, two short rests or more worth spell slots) let them be full casters. If that is too powerful, then let them be a half caster.

I realize that's not going to sit well with some, but much like I don't want a bunch of kludgy fixes, stipulations and workarounds added to wild shape just to retain the option to use MM statblocks, I don't want a bunch of complications added just to fix the one spellcaster in the game that doesn't work like all the others. For many that's a feature, but for me that's a hindrance.

Pact magic was an interesting attempt at an alternative casting system. I don't think it worked like the designers wanted. And with D&D opting further to play it safe in design and make the game (especially the PHB) easier to access, the few benefits it gave aren't worth the number of downsides.

IMHO, ymmv and all that.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I realize that's not going to sit well with some, but much like I don't want a bunch of kludgy fixes, stipulations and workarounds added to wild shape just to retain the option to use MM statblocks, I don't want a bunch of complications added just to fix the one spellcaster in the game that doesn't work like all the others. For many that's a feature, but for me that's a hindrance.

And I consider there being only "one spellcaster in the game that doesn't work like all the others" to be a damning indictment of a class-based game. The single biggest benefit of a class based system is that you can tailor it so different people can get what they want at the same time because that's what the class does. And if you're not doing that a class based system becomes an arbitrary set of RP restrictions and a sub-optimal form of point buy.

I'm of the strongly held belief that the Warlock, Bard, Artificer, and probably Sorcerer should all have their own casting systems. And that OneD&D playing it so safe is to its detriment.

 

[Gadget]

I can see all three variations working, given the right design. WOTC seems to be moving to more uniform, homogeneous design around common game mechanics. I worry that all arcane casters using the same spell list (with a few class specific add-ons) will start to feel a little too samey. On the other hand, that might make it a little easier to balance.

I could live with the playtest Warlock, but I think it needs a bit more adjustments. Having to spend most of your invocations just to get some high level spell options back feels like a tax, even if the pact boons granted an Invocation and a half from the get go. Also, some of the level requirements on the invocations that grant you at-will abilities are a bit much; you shouldn't have to be that high of a level to get at will jump or levitate (or Alter Self, come to think of it). If I was to keep the current design, I would alter the patron spells so that come in at full caster level progression. This will give the Warlock back some of the limited, high level spell slots back that they are missing while keeping with the subclass flavor. It would also free up some invocations.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

And I consider there being only "one spellcaster in the game that doesn't work like all the others" to be a damning indictment of a class-based game. The single biggest benefit of a class based system is that you can tailor it so different people can get what they want at the same time because that's what the class does. And if you're not doing that a class based system becomes an arbitrary set of RP restrictions and a sub-optimal form of point buy.

I'm of the strongly held belief that the Warlock, Bard, Artificer, and probably Sorcerer should all have their own casting systems. And that OneD&D playing it so safe is to its detriment.

And I think that D&D spell/magic system is a Strength of the system, rooted in history, proven to be successful, and there shouldn't be alternative magic systems at all in the Core game, just tweaks.

Let 3rd Parties create alternate systems. If they are popular, then good for them, they cracked the code and deserve the money coming their way. If there is an amazing Psion (or a Spellpoint caster) made by a 3rd party, play it. If it is so easy, fans can advocate for those great classes so others can play with them, right? If it already exists, Wizards can't copy it wholesale, so why compete. Or is it not easy? So many people have completely different views on what a Psion should be, and if people aren't going to agree, why demand that Wizards try to make something that will never get 70% approval?

All that said, I think Wizards will try again with Psionics in the future. It's a proud nail of a puzzle, that some designers would love to "get right." But it's not core, and it needs to have the right property to be released with, for context. If not Dark Sun, and if not Eberron (psionics are still not main-screen Eberron), then what? Maybe an alternate campaign/rulebook that leans into Psionics as the main "magic" like a pseudo sci-fi or a weird-fantasy campaign, or a dark modern investigative horror like Dark*Matter from Alternity. At least that gives reason for it to be developed to not mirror D&D Magic, so it can be its own comprehensive thing.

 

[Neonchameleon]

And I think that D&D spell/magic system is a Strength of the system, rooted in history, proven to be successful, and there shouldn't be alternative magic systems at all in the Core game, just tweaks.

Which is of course why the current D&D magic system is in fact the 3rd edition Psionics system. With flexing slots between levels (it used to be called augments) and having a number of slots and spells prepared, but not 1:1. (This is part of the issue with what the Psionic fans want; the ones who want the 3rd edition versions already have the mechanics all present in the Aberrant Mind).

So many people have completely different views on what a Psion should be, and if people aren't going to agree, why demand that Wizards try to make something that will never get 70% approval?

Because the "70% approval" is an arbitrary threshold. And not what I consider a good one for a class. I'd far rather have a wider range of classes and races, all appealing to different people rather than a homogenous midddle and about 20% of fans left with nothing.