D&D 5E Is Warlock broken?

[SailorNash]

I've never played a warlock so I always like reading about other people 's experience. I'm a bit surprised that you felt that the tome invocation wasn't great but redundant. Can you elaborate on that?

Gladly! I knew I never would be as powerful as a Wizard, and frankly, I shouldn't be. But what I lacked in power I thought I'd make up for in reliability and versatility...I'd be able to cast a large number of lesser spells very often, almost "fire and forget" due to refreshes. The Pact Magic didn't work out quite so well due to the lack of rests, but the Tome feature surely would help make up for that major weakness.

In theory, it was exactly what I wanted. But in practice, with Wizards and Clerics being more popular classes, whenever something came up that fell into one of their backyards there was always someone else who could already do it. My class did reach out into their spell lists, but their fluff made them the best to deal with whatever situation required a quick religious spell, let's say. It made more character sense, even if mechanically it was all the same.

I did have two really fun bits, however...both due to dipping into Druid (the odd class we didn't have) for the cantrips. I almost single-handedly defended everyone against a werewolf as I was the only one who could manifest a magical weapon on the fly. And for Guidance, instead of just mentally adding +1d4, my Cthulhlock gladly offered anyone who desired a bit of his patron's wisdom...at some devious DM-derived price to be paid in full later. That part was just fluff, but they were asking for Far Realms magic to pry their brains open and force external knowledge into them, after all. It's a shame we all died too soon for anything to come of that...

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

Concentrating isn't something you're doing, though, any more than breathing is something you're doing. It's a non-action. Casting a spell of that duration is like putting on a hat, which someone might knock off of you when they attack but which otherwise stays in place.

 

[Mouseferatu]

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.

This has already been answered by the folks at WotC, as mentioned upthread; they've said specifically that you can concentrate over a short rest. Obviously you can always houserule as you like, but in terms of what the game intends, this has been clarified without ambiguity.

 

[S'mon]

Yes it does. It explicitly says that when you shorten long rests that spellcasters (in particular) will dominate, being able to blow spells at will (and conversely in the longer rest variant they will be nerfed the other way).

Where does it say this? I would really appreciate an accurate page reference or quote.

 

[Dausuul]

Yep, I'm saying that both parties are at disadvantage against one another. The comment I quoted seemed to say that if both sides are blind it cancels out and attacks on both sides are made normally without either adv or disadv. I disagree and say both sides suffer disadv. I'm not sure what clarification you are making? Sorry if I'm slow on the uptake.

The clarification is that blindness cripples your attacks and your defenses. If you are blind, you have disadvantage to hit enemies, because you can't see your target; and your enemies have advantage to hit you, because you can't see the attacks coming.

In the event that you and your opponent are both blind, you have disadvantage to hit your opponent (because you're blind), but you also have advantage to hit your opponent (because she's blind). Advantage cancels disadvantage and you attack normally.

Seems reasonable to me. You're swinging wildly, but your opponent is a sitting duck.

 

[Bacon Bits]

This has already been answered by the folks at WotC, as mentioned upthread; they've said specifically that you can concentrate over a short rest. Obviously you can always houserule as you like, but in terms of what the game intends, this has been clarified without ambiguity.

It's been answered by Mearls, who has made it clear he only answers with respect to how he'd rule at his table. His own responses have gone against Sage Advice before.

Not that I put much stock in Sage Advice, either.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Concentrating isn't something you're doing, though, any more than breathing is something you're doing. It's a non-action. Casting a spell of that duration is like putting on a hat, which someone might knock off of you when they attack but which otherwise stays in place.

Then you have a wildly different interpretation of Concentration than I do.

 

[Ancalagon]

Gladly! I knew I never would be as powerful as a Wizard, and frankly, I shouldn't be. But what I lacked in power I thought I'd make up for in reliability and versatility...I'd be able to cast a large number of lesser spells very often, almost "fire and forget" due to refreshes. The Pact Magic didn't work out quite so well due to the lack of rests, but the Tome feature surely would help make up for that major weakness.

The lack of short rests is a bit of a shame, because that could be easily fixed.

In theory, it was exactly what I wanted. But in practice, with Wizards and Clerics being more popular classes, whenever something came up that fell into one of their backyards there was always someone else who could already do it. My class did reach out into their spell lists, but their fluff made them the best to deal with whatever situation required a quick religious spell, let's say. It made more character sense, even if mechanically it was all the same.

It's a lot less fun to be able to "do special stuff" if other people can do it as well... I guess there wasn't much discussion between players in avoiding overlaps?

I did have two really fun bits, however...both due to dipping into Druid (the odd class we didn't have) for the cantrips. I almost single-handedly defended everyone against a werewolf as I was the only one who could manifest a magical weapon on the fly. And for Guidance, instead of just mentally adding +1d4, my Cthulhlock gladly offered anyone who desired a bit of his patron's wisdom...at some devious DM-derived price to be paid in full later. That part was just fluff, but they were asking for Far Realms magic to pry their brains open and force external knowledge into them, after all. It's a shame we all died too soon for anything to come of that...

Two very cool stories. But you all died... so tpk and new campaign?

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

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.

Yes, this. Darkness is only a 15' sphere and outside of 10' dungeon corridors (of which in my campaign so far, and LMOP aside, there hasn't been that many), darkness is generally a fairly localised effect that affects some but not all of the party/monsters, and moves with the caster. So there are as you say light fights and dark fights going on.

But that's my campaign, and how I view things. If others, or everyone else, disagrees, that's ok.

 

[Psikerlord#]

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.

I prefer to go old school on difficult to see and blindness - with a 33% and 66% miss chance respectively.