D&D 5E Is Warlock broken?

[CapnZapp]

I have played plenty of melee Warlocks and I can vouch for the effectiveness of what you have planned, although in spite of that, I still wouldn't recommend it.
It is a cheesy tactic that gets pretty old pretty fast - not just for you but for everyone involved. If you abuse it, it is likely that the enemies will all start showing up with inexplicable Devil's Sight powers and render the combo useless (that is what happened to me and I don't really blame the DM for it).

I agree.

Darkness may be effective, but it is a huge disruption.

Basically, it can shut down the expectations on how many monsters act and perform in combat. It can (and probably will) mess with the ability of the other players to do their thing.

I can definitely understand it will get old fast.

Just because you can do it, and that it is effective, doesn't mean you should do it.

Used sparingly, Darkness is not a problem.

If I had a player spamming Darkness every other fight, I would probably restrict it, or at least ask the player to find another favorite tactic.

Compare minion-spamming. Yes the rules allow it without any special restrictions. No, you can't use it if you don't understand you have to use it sparingly.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

You have advantage when attacking a blind person because their blindness has reduced their defenses - they aren't very good at evading attacks that they cannot see.
It doesn't matter if you are blind or not, their defenses are still penalized.

I feel like it's a side effect of getting rid of numerical penalties and replacing them with dis/advantage, the major problem of which is that it only comes in one degree. I think most games that use opposed rolls would have darkness penalize the attacker more than it penalizes the defender, but 5E simply isn't built that way.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I think its rather telling that virtually all the responces here are, "Oh, no! There's no problem with Eldritch Blast!"

I will be the first to admit that I prefer the 4e curse-centric warlock (especially if the pactblade and binder warlock's ally was added to the mix) then the eldritch blast-focused one. If hex was a spamable limited duration cantrip (until your next turn, the target takes 1d6 necrotic damage when hit with an attack and has disadvantage on checks using one score of your choice, at level 5 you can target 2 creatures with hex, at level 11 3 creatures, and at level 17 4 creatures) with invocations similar to agonizing blast and repulsing blast, I would never look at eldritch blast, but that isn't how it is in 5e.

Right now eldritch blast is the tax you pay so that the warlock can do a bunch of other neat stuff when the party isn't facing down 100 goblins or zombies.

 

[TwoSix]

You seem to know my preferences well. I'd actually like to play a highly-charismatic spellcaster, but without having to worry so much over spell slots. Something easy, with lots of at-will or quickly-spamable abilities that don't require a lot of management and maintenance. Doubly preferred if it's a class that has a really RP-rich backstory. Have any suggestions?

I think warlock is definitely the right class for that concept, it just needs a bit of a boost. Ideally that would come in the form of more varied and stronger invocations. A pact boon that gives you more invocations would be nice, for example. Folding the pact boon specific invocations into the pact boon itself would be a solid power-up, and give the warlock room for more flexible invocations, as well. The "once per long rest" invocations shouldn't require a spell slot. Some invocations that grant multiple related abilities at-will would be nice (I mean, I think the beast speech invocation could have been folded into something else, maybe a conjure animals once per long rest, or a wildshape-like ability to turn into a low-CR creature at-will.)

Edit: I'd also point out I'd be more than willing to trade in eldritch blast to get those things. I'd rather be a full trickster than a magic archer with a few extra tricks.

 

[MostlyDm]

In combat, the warlock plays much more like a fighter than a wizard. He has one of the best basic attacks in the game (4th attack comes online faster than the Fighter, it deals *force* damage, it has baked in battlefield control, it just has so much going for it), and has a small array of tricks to bust out when needed. He's mostly Battlemaster without easy access to -5/+10.

Out of combat the warlock can have a nice suite of cool abilities the fighter can only dream of. Illusion and exploration magic, for example.

But the warlock is not a full caster. You're not the only person I've seen who didn't really understand the class prior to choosing it, and ended up dissatisfied. It's a little counterintuitive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sacrosanct]

If I had a player spamming Darkness every other fight, I would probably restrict it, or at least ask the player to find another favorite tactic.

IMO, that would be a bad thing. For one, these things typically take care of themselves. Not all PCs can see in darkness, so someone using that tactic would screw with the other PCs' plans, and players would resolve it on their own without DM intervention. That's actually how my level 8 shadowmonk dies. The warlock with darkness moved and ended up exposing me. The monsters went next, and I was the only one not in the darkness, so I was the only target. Became a pincushion with haste.

Secondly, and probably more importantly, if players are doing something in accordance with the rules for a while, and you as the DM arbitrarily change it in the middle of a campaign, that never goes over well.

 

[CapnZapp]

Hah. Seems wrong to me, and I will house rule my way for my table.

It seems to me that two blinded (not blind, no Daredevil shenanigans) people flailing at each other are more likely to miss each swing than if they were both able to see (which is what this ruling suggests - that two blinded people are in fact equally as effective at hitting one another as they would be if they weren't blinded). Each to their own. I'll continue to rule that both sides suffer disadv and watch the comedy slapstick unfold.

The important point is that both foes are treated equally, and that neither gets advantage.

Having advantage and disadvantage cancel each other out is to me more of a pragmatic expediency to keep fights moving along.

If I had a light fight and a dark fight proceeding simultaneously, having both dark fighters attack at disadvantage is not such a bad idea.

It would mean the dark fight takes longer to resolve, which would let the winner of the light fight take action while the dark fight still is in progress.

But if everyone is acting in darkness there's no reason to keep the disadvantage. Allow ad and disad to cancel out to speed up play.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

The game does have weak spots.

Of course it does. Are you trying for "Unnecessary statement of the year"?

Some are so weak that a patch-up would be very welcome.

Here is where I disagree. I see very little in 5e that falls outside of acceptable variance.

And since I've seen (and/or played) beastmaster rangers, warlocks, and even a frenzied barbarian (sticking to the three being targeted in this thread), and I still say the above, now what? Maybe 5e happens to be targeted to my specific predilections? Or I've avoided filtering my opinions through previous edition baggage? Or maybe I went into it without some set of rigid preconceived notions? Or what?

 

[Eric V]

Of course it does. Are you trying for "Unnecessary statement of the year"?


Here is where I disagree. I see very little in 5e that falls outside of acceptable variance.

And since I've seen (and/or played) beastmaster rangers, warlocks, and even a frenzied barbarian (sticking to the three being targeted in this thread), and I still say the above, now what? Maybe 5e happens to be targeted to my specific predilections? Or I've avoided filtering my opinions through previous edition baggage? Or maybe I went into it without some set of rigid preconceived notions? Or what?

To be fair, isn't "Or maybe I don't have as good an understanding of class variance/balance as I think I do?" also a possible statement you might make?

 

[Bacon Bits]

Arcane Recovery and Ki meditation are things which require a short rest. You cannot activate them unless you're taking a short rest.

Which does not change the fact that the game has to expressly tell you that you can use those abilities during a short rest.

Concentration is something that you can always do, unless it's specifically shut down (by unconsciousness, for example). In terms of energy expenditure and focus, it's a lot like standing upright.

You can't travel and short rest, right? So, in a very real sense walking and short resting at the same time isn't possible. Long rests even explicitly mentions that walking disqualifies you. Difficulty or complexity of the task is not relevant. You could be riding a horse and you still can't short rest. It's not even clear to me if you should be allowed to short rest if you're riding in a stagecoach (and, hey, maybe that's right -- you ever feel "rested" after a long car trip or plane flight?).

If a player asks a DM what he or she can do during a short rest, the DM should respond, "Rest." If a DM asks you what you're doing during a short rest, your responses should be limited to, "Resting," and, "Resting and $AbilityAllowedInShortRest." Any other game-progressing activity should probably disqualify you.