D&D (2024) Warlock spell poll.

[kilpatds]

That said, the changes we've seen with every class do far shows that they view compatibility as "you can play use older supplements with little or no conversion", not "things will have 1:1 compatibly". They aren't reinventing the wheel, but that doesn't mean they won't change the tires and replace the hubcaps.

But if I can't translate my character(s) at all usefully ... (and I can't).

The 3e warlock style was "EB all the things in combat, and do infinite-low-level-utility-magic for out-of-combat lols".
The 4e warlock style was "EB some of the things, but you get powers just like everyone else, They're just grimdark themed"
The 5.0e warlock style is "Cast one big-concentration spell that lasts the whole combat and really impacts it, then just EB all the things the rest of the time."
The 5.5e warlock style is ... ... ? Kinda closer to the 3e version, but not really?

That the style changed means the character/characterization changed. My character can't be converted cleanly. That's a break of compatibility I really don't like. You can totally make a viable Warlock class on the proposed chassis... but it's not a 5.0e warlock that I've been playing. It just can't do the same things.

 

[Parmandur]

But if I can't translate my character(s) at all usefully ... (and I can't).

The 3e warlock style was "EB all the things in combat, and do infinite-low-level-utility-magic for out-of-combat lols".
The 4e warlock style was "EB some of the things, but you get powers just like everyone else, They're just grimdark themed"
The 5.0e warlock style is "Cast one big-concentration spell that lasts the whole combat and really impacts it, then just EB all the things the rest of the time."
The 5.5e warlock style is ... ... ? Kinda closer to the 3e version, but not really?

That the style changed means the character/characterization changed. My character can't be converted cleanly. That's a break of compatibility I really don't like. You can totally make a viable Warlock class on the proposed chassis... but it's not a 5.0e warlock that I've been playing. It just can't do the same things.

Well, you could always just keep using the 2014 version with these new rules.

 

[kilpatds]

Well, you could always just keep using the 2014 version with these new rules.

As someone who was around for the 3.0 -> 3.5 transition ...

"I don't believe you" (DMs won't allow that/games will convert wholesale/etc)

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

But if I can't translate my character(s) at all usefully ... (and I can't).

The 3e warlock style was "EB all the things in combat, and do infinite-low-level-utility-magic for out-of-combat lols".
The 4e warlock style was "EB some of the things, but you get powers just like everyone else, They're just grimdark themed"
The 5.0e warlock style is "Cast one big-concentration spell that lasts the whole combat and really impacts it, then just EB all the things the rest of the time."
The 5.5e warlock style is ... ... ? Kinda closer to the 3e version, but not really?

That the style changed means the character/characterization changed. My character can't be converted cleanly. That's a break of compatibility I really don't like. You can totally make a viable Warlock class on the proposed chassis... but it's not a 5.0e warlock that I've been playing. It just can't do the same things.

I don't think "conversion" should be the goal of "compatibility". Just the ability to play at the same table. I just look at different warlocks has having different pacts and abilities. No different than having different subclasses that change the playstyle (Like a GOO warlock plays different than Celestial Warlock, or a Wild Magic Sorcerer working differently than a Draconic Sorcerer.)

I think you should be able to play your 2014 warlock as is. And if you want to make a new warlock, choose between campaign-approved books, whether 2014, 2024, LevelUp, or some other 3rd party option. Pick the one that suits your playstyle best. And I think the messaging to DMs should be... "While you are the final arbiter of the rules of your campaign, it would go a long way to allow players play the versions of classes they like, as long as it is not too disruptive."

For example, no matter how they finalize the design in the playtest, I will not be playing a druid that requires me to scrape the MM for stats. But others can!

 

[Parmandur]

As someone who was around for the 3.0 -> 3.5 transition ...

"I don't believe you" (DMs won't allow that/games will convert wholesale/etc)

I learned to play in that era, we mixed stuff constantly, and this time it is easier based on the changes proposed thus far.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm not an expert on the subject, but I always thought the definition of a "full caster" was one that could cast spells all the way up to 9th level, while "half casters" topped out at 4th or 5th. The old Pact Magic and this new UA spell progression stop at 5th level, but Mystic Arcanum (both the 2014 version and this UA version) allows the Warlock to get up to 9th level spells.

That's one definition. If it's the one you use then they are. But I think it's also inarguable that Mystic Arcanum is far far less flexible than real spell slots and if you expect a warlock to play like any other full caster you're in for disappointment.

 

[mamba]

But if I can't translate my character(s) at all usefully ... (and I can't).

you are not supposed to translate them, you simply keep them as is (with minor tweaks)

 

[Remathilis]

That's one definition. If it's the one you use then they are. But I think it's also inarguable that Mystic Arcanum is far far less flexible than real spell slots and if you expect a warlock to play like any other full caster you're in for disappointment.

I think part of the problem is that the warlock has the illusion of being a caster on paper. 9th level spells, spell slots, etc. On paper, it looks like a wizard with a funky spell progression and it's not. It really should play like a magical rogue; a lot of at will or use/day abilities topped with a reliable damaging attack.

Were I designing 6e, I'd move the warlock to the Expert category with rogue. I'd ditch pact magic (and spellcasting in general) for invocations galore and a EB that acts more like a sneak attack beam. Then I'd make an arcane trickster like sub or feature (tome?) To allow some spells. All their magic would be tied to invocations like 3e's was.

But WotC thinks the warlock is a mage, so it should at least make the effort to look like one.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think part of the problem is that the warlock has the illusion of being a caster on paper. 9th level spells, spell slots, etc. On paper, it looks like a wizard with a funky spell progression and it's not. It really should play like a magical rogue; a lot of at will or use/day abilities topped with a reliable damaging attack.

This IMO only applies when the only paradigms you have are caster and not. To me the warlock clearly looks like itself. How well it performs is situational based on rests but when it's performing it's good and it can seriously overperform. All it needs to be itself properly is have that performance curve smoothed out; an average of less than one rest really underperforms and an average of more than two really overperforms.

 

[Parmandur]

I think part of the problem is that the warlock has the illusion of being a caster on paper. 9th level spells, spell slots, etc. On paper, it looks like a wizard with a funky spell progression and it's not. It really should play like a magical rogue; a lot of at will or use/day abilities topped with a reliable damaging attack.

Were I designing 6e, I'd move the warlock to the Expert category with rogue. I'd ditch pact magic (and spellcasting in general) for invocations galore and a EB that acts more like a sneak attack beam. Then I'd make an arcane trickster like sub or feature (tome?) To allow some spells. All their magic would be tied to invocations like 3e's was.

But WotC thinks the warlock is a mage, so it should at least make the effort to look like one.

But by the math the 2014 has a similar and quite potentially higher casting potential to the normal full casters over a typical Adventure Day. But it's more rest dependent, which is what the 2024 proposal aims to fix.