D&D 5E Warlock UA predictions?

[Leatherhead]

"Well, it's optional," is a really, really poor excuse for a broken rule. It neither changes my opinion, nor renders the game immune to the criticism. Warlock remains the primary source of multiclassing problems for us.

And why is this stupid argument so common on these boards?

Because people mistakenly assume "optional" means "plug and play". Meaning they think they can just plop it down into the game with no further effort and have it work perfectly, then get mad at the game devs because of operator error.

 

[Parmandur]

"Well, it's optional," is a really, really poor excuse for a broken rule. It neither changes my opinion, nor renders the game immune to the criticism. Warlock remains the primary source of multiclassing problems for us.

To quote myself:



The same argument applies to the multiclassing rules, and since one of the two problems I have with Warlock is multiclassing, the fact that multiclassing is an optional rule is irrelevant. It's legal at every table I've sat at, and it's legal at Adventurer's League tables as well. The only other problem we've encountered is that Fighter (Fighting Style, Action Surge), Rogue (Expertise, Cunning Action), and Life Cleric (Heavy Armor, Shields, Bless) are a bit more attractive for 1-2 level dips than anything else (save Warlock). All four of these classes are more frontloaded than the rest, but only Warlock has really gotten to problem levels.

Unless your argument is that we shouldn't complain about rules that we experience play problems with, in which case... well, I really don't have any interest in having such a conversation at all.

Finally, the topic here is, "What do you want from UA for the Warlock?" Why shouldn't I include my desires for the class in the context of the way I play the game? Indeed, how can I do anything but that? If you don't play that way, that's fine, but why should that inform my desires at all?

And why is this stupid argument so common on these boards?

*shrug* I haven't ever used the rules, or seen them used: they seem fiddley but hardly "broken" from reading them. This UA is for new class options, though, not new multiclassing rules, which may be something they tackle in the future: [MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION] has bandied about AD&D style multiclassing rules as a possibility.

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

 

[Pauln6]

Maybe they just need to tweak the text for eldritch blasts to Warlock level rather than character level but to read that if your character level is X+ but your Warlock level is less than X, reduce the number of eldritch blasts available by one (minimum 1).

For my part, the group I played with had two multiclass warlocks and one monk with a feat. Having three PCs just using eldritch blast every round became very dull so I switched mine out for firebolt.

As far as UA goes, I want a shadow pact that's all sneaky and sinister.

 

[gyor]

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...will-be-getting-with-the-Warlock-UA-coming-up

I beat you to this.

I got ninja'd.

 

[cbwjm]

I'm hoping we will see their take on the Sha'ir.

 

[tglassy]

Eldridge Blast is a cantrip. Anyone can take it with the Magic Initiate Feat. So it has to scale with character level. That's probably why cantrips scale with Character level instead of class level, because anyone can grab them. There are numerous ways for someone to grab a random cantrip from a random class. Hell, Spell Sniper gives you an attack cantrip. Having Eldridge Blast be a cantrip that only scales on Warlock level would be stupid, unless you made it a class feature instead of a cantrip. Like "At level 1, a Warlock knows the Eldridge Blast cantrip. Only Warlocks can use this cantrip", and then take it off the list of cantrips Warlocks can pick from.

 

[AmerginLiath]

In terms of what I expect? I wonder if we'll see more examples of previous edition concepts being reworking into subclasses of current classes – especially with the distinct yet variable chassis of the warlock. That we haven't seen something with the DNA of the sha'ir or the invoker yet makes me suspect that they might logically migrate to the warlock (as the binder and hexblade did in 4e). Among other new options (since UAs aren't just recycling old ideas), I wouldn't be surprised to see one of these.

(it makes a certain amount of sense to imagine a Pact of the Gen that would allow for spell-type invocations that could be changed on a long rest, for example)

 

[gweinel]

We saw a shaman under druid's guise but i prefer to see one with warlock's mechanics. Seems to me more relevant.

 

[Parmandur]

We saw a shaman under druid's guise but i prefer to see one with warlock's mechanics. Seems to me more relevant.

In 5E, there is always more than one way to akin a cat.

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

 

[Bacon Bits]

Is that anything a sub-class could fix? Sub-classes aren't known for taking abilities away from the parent class...

Nope. That's why I originally said, "I don't really see them doing anything to really fix my problems with the class." However, I don't see why a UA for a class should contain class paths and nothing else.

Perhaps a matter for a different thread, but what is your issue with multiclassing and Warlocks?

(I'm only aware of how they forgot to safeguard the Eldritch Blast from looting by other classes; if there ever was a single cantrip that should scale on class levels rather than character levels, it would be it)

Definitely a matter for a different thread, but briefly, the core problems are a) eldritch blast is multi-hit, while hex and Agonizing Blast specify "per hit," coupled with b) Devil's Sight plus darkness being a combination that can really warp a lot of encounters. Since you can get the first with 2 levels of the class both of those with 3 levels of the class... it's kind of irritating when people take Warlock just to do that. I feel like the damage output from blast is manageable for single classed Warlocks because if they choose that they can't do much else, but multiclassed characters get a bunch of other abilities, and Devil's Sight/darkness is somewhat frustrating to deal with as a DM because it just never goes away. And, I mean, I can't throw demons, devils, and helmed horrors at the party all the time. If I encounter a problematic rule, I'd rather just change the rule rather than warping the entire campaign around one or two undesirable game mechanics.

Because people mistakenly assume "optional" means "plug and play". Meaning they think they can just plop it down into the game with no further effort and have it work perfectly, then get mad at the game devs because of operator error.

Given that that is precisely how optional rules are presented in the PHB and DMG, I really don't think that's the fault of the players. Neither the PHB nor the DMG provides any guidance on the introduction of optional rules to the game. There is some limited discussion within some optional rules for the type of game that might want to use the optional rule, but overall there's not much guidance at all. If you don't know the game, is it really obvious that feats make characters significantly more powerful? After all, feats cost you a valuable ASI. It's not unreasonable to expect the benefit of the feat to compare well with an ASI, but that's simply not the case.

Eldridge Blast is a cantrip. Anyone can take it with the Magic Initiate Feat. So it has to scale with character level. That's probably why cantrips scale with Character level instead of class level, because anyone can grab them. There are numerous ways for someone to grab a random cantrip from a random class. Hell, Spell Sniper gives you an attack cantrip. Having Eldridge Blast be a cantrip that only scales on Warlock level would be stupid, unless you made it a class feature instead of a cantrip. Like "At level 1, a Warlock knows the Eldridge Blast cantrip. Only Warlocks can use this cantrip", and then take it off the list of cantrips Warlocks can pick from.

No, cantrips scale with character level simply because the game expects all PCs to have a baseline damage boost at level 5, 11, and 16-17 or so. In order to keep cantrips relevant at all, they have to scale with level. The game doesn't say "caster level" because the game doesn't have that concept anymore. The spells could easily have said "class level" and added a caveat for racial cantrips, but it's just simpler to use "character level." Simplicity is one of the design pillars of 5e, so we end up with a lot of these "good enough" designs that work exactly correct in 90% of situations, are a bit weird but OK in 9% of situations, and are really pretty wonky, awkward, broken (non functional), or broken (overpowered) in 1% of situations.