D&D 5E Is Warlock broken?

[CapnZapp]

when boards everywhere have exploded with Ranger complaints to the point there's been not one but THREE different UA articles trying to "fix" the Ranger?

Funnily (or, I guess, not funny at all) none of those UA articles come even close to fixing what's actually broken.

I sure don't need esoteric Rangers with strange abilities that work wonky.

It remains to be seen if the devs will get it in time for the inevitable print Ranger: like the PHB ranger but with an animal companion that can act like, well, like any other creature in the entire game. An animal companion that's actually sturdy enough to survive the fights its Master deems "deadly". And for pete's sake, fix Hunter's Mark, so Drizzt can get his bonus damage die on his melee attacks even when taking damage and even though he's wielding two weapons and even though he's using his few spell slots for other stuff.

 

[CapnZapp]

The short rest mechanic certainly harms the class, just like it harms every other class that uses it.

This line of thought really amazes me.

I mean, I'm one of those DMs that struggle to get to 4 encounters per day, let alone 6 (or 8!).

Still, my minmaxing charopian players have all selected shortrest classes.

Go figure. Myself, I'm not so sure. Instead, I would phrase it the other way round: Any long rest class would be severely "harmed" by a play style that matches the 6-8 encounter expectation.

If it's a maximized choice to choose a shortrest class in my 1-4 encounter day campaign, imagine how my players could wreck somebody else's 5-8 encounter day campaigns...!

 

[CapnZapp]

Its your DM's fault. Tell him to do his job and stop being lazy.

You know Flamestrike, you really don't get to get away with shifting the blame from the designers onto the dungeon masters.

Anytime you do that, I get upset.

If the game is designed so lots and lots of DMs are "lazy" for not doing "their job", couldn't it simply be that the game is lazily designed, and that the ones not doing their job is the designers...?

TL;DR: Stop telling people they're lazy and not doing their job, Flamestrike! That might be a solution, but it's a shifty solution.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Is the warlock an outstanding combat class? No. They have at will damage that scales with the martial types although doesn't quite keep up (which is what Eldritch Blast is all about). They are a good enough combat class that you will never regret having on in your party but combat is not their forte.

But. By the same token that they are one of the weaker combat classes they are really good at the other two pillars.

Invocations? Invocations rock. Not the silly "Once per day you can add [Spell] to your list and use a spell slot to cast it". Those suck. The ones that rock are the "You can do things no one else can" invocations. The one that lets you cast Silent Image at will as a second level character - in short cast silent image over just about anything and subvert just about any encounter. The quick change artist Disguise Self at will for a specialist illusionist. Eyes of the Runekeeper in exploration so no matter how obscure the writing you can read it. The Devil's Sight. The ability to cast any ritual spell from any class giving you an interestingly large spell list.

Seriously, if you can't see how high CHA and the ability to cast illusions at will, utterly spamming them (and then adding the guidance cantrip) means that warlocks are a massively powerful social class I'm not sure I can spell it out for you - and access to every ritual as well as certain at will movement (levitation at level 9) is very useful for exploration, as is darkvision that trumps magical darkness. (The illusionist warlock works really well as a variant human with the actor feat).

 

[S'mon]

Is the warlock an outstanding combat class? No. They have at will damage that scales with the martial types although doesn't quite keep up (which is what Eldritch Blast is all about). They are a good enough combat class that you will never regret having on in your party but combat is not their forte.

But. By the same token that they are one of the weaker combat classes they are really good at the other two pillars.

Yeah, I think that's what we're seeing with Rebekah's warlock in our Shattered Star game which so far has had lots of exploration and a good bit of social alongside the combat (really nicely balanced campaign IMO!). Her Cthulu-pact warlock is only solid in combat, but good use of her powers & background means she very frequently shines at the social & investigation stuff.

OTOH my online sandbox 5e game is even less combat-centric than SS, more social, and the warlock there was very weak, for a few reasons - no eldritch blast, not particularly well chosen/used powers, and a Rogue PC with Expertise in Persuasion outshining him on the social stuff. Since he was killed by Shadows the player has been playing a Cleric from 8th-13th and everything has gone much better I think.

My feeling is that while it is very hard to play a Barbarian and not be at least very impressive, Warlock is hugely variable depending on the choice of powers, the approach to play, campaign content, GMing style etc.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That is a big issue with the Warlock, certianly. There are a lot of trap options (as mentioned anything that gives you a level appropriate spell to use as one of your two spell slots is almost certainly one). And you need to work to make them effective.

The Barbarian on the other hand has one trap option but it's huge. The Totem Barbarian is good out of the box; the Frenzied Barbarian can't get rid of its fatigue and people need to be steered away from it.

 

[CapnZapp]

Yeah, the poor Frenzy. Thanks Neon, it'd definitely on the shortlist of things needin' fixin'.

I guess people would object, but really, can't Wotc just drop the exhaustion? The frenzy barbarian would become a combat monster, but I have a hard time seeing it as better than Bear's damage resistance... at least the choice between berserk and totem wouldn't be the complete joke it is today.

 

[S'mon]

The Barbarian on the other hand has one trap option but it's huge. The Totem Barbarian is good out of the box; the Frenzied Barbarian can't get rid of its fatigue and people need to be steered away from it.

It's ok as long as he never actually Frenzies.

 

[S'mon]

Yeah, the poor Frenzy. Thanks Neon, it'd definitely on the shortlist of things needin' fixin'.

I guess people would object, but really, can't Wotc just drop the exhaustion? The frenzy barbarian would become a combat monster, but I have a hard time seeing it as better than Bear's damage resistance... at least the choice between berserk and totem wouldn't be the complete joke it is today.

In my online game the Altanian variant humans have an ability where Altanian Berserkers from level 5 can recover 1 level of exhaustion with a short rest 3/day. So RAW only at levels 3-4 where other PCs can't multi-attack. Works well IME. That game does not use Feats, I think if you use Feats then getting rid of the Exhaustion entirely would be ok as you say, since the sweetest Feat options like Polearm Master & Greatweapon Master grant bonus attacks anyway.

 

[Flamestrike]

You know Flamestrike, you really don't get to get away with shifting the blame from the designers onto the dungeon masters.

Anytime you do that, I get upset.

If the game is designed so lots and lots of DMs are "lazy" for not doing "their job", couldn't it simply be that the game is lazily designed, and that the ones not doing their job is the designers...?

TL;DR: Stop telling people they're lazy and not doing their job, Flamestrike! That might be a solution, but it's a shifty solution.

Its just my experience mate.

Its either lazy DMing (the DM didnt read the DMG, doesnt understand the 5 minute adventuring day, doesnt put any effort into policing time limits on his adventures - or place them in there for some reason) or an intentional choice by the DM (he flatly doesnt care about time limits or power disparities).

I find that all these (common) complaints by a certain section of 5E DMs pretty much come down to the above.

And the game does talk about short and long rest variance, the 5 minute AD, expected number of encounters and rests. It's all in the DMG. They also give you a few variants to mix it up as well.

I dont blame the system for being silent on it because its not. Its just that DM's dont turn their minds to the question, or simply cant be bothered (or intentionaly choose not to) enforce it.

There is an art to DMing 5E. I like that about it. It lets you (the DM) tinker with power of classes and encounters, without touching the classes or encounters. Simply adding or removing rests, or adding or removing encounters, or lengthening or shortening rests, lets you play around with class balance till you find a spot youre happy with.