D&D 5E Warlock UA predictions?

[Parmandur]

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.



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.



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.



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.

But the PHB does warn that multiclassing may be wonky, with overoptimal and suboptimal choices. Working as advertised.

Sent from my BLU LIFE XL using EN World mobile app

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

Eldritch Blast and hex isn't as good as it seems.

The multi-attack nature of the cantrip is nice, in that it allows multiple applications of hex's bonus damage (especially on crits), but it also allows for multiple opportunities to miss, especially if the multi-classed character's CHA is 13.

Hex is great (especially if you have allies who like grappling or shoving), but a warlock who is hexing is not going to be using blur or fly or haste or similar, and they are not going to be readying a spell.

Hex can also be defeated by simply having the hexed creature run away and never come back.

Devilsight, on the other hand, is an issue. I think it should have a higher level requirement (warlock 7 maybe).

 

[CapnZapp]

But the PHB does warn that multiclassing may be wonky, with overoptimal and suboptimal choices. Working as advertised.

Yeah... no.

You don't get a free pass for creating a new edition of D&D and then quickly at the end slap a disclaimer "might not work" onto it as if that would absolve the designers from having to take responsibility for their work.

You will still get all the flak for broken rules combos, and deservedly so.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

No new thread needed, because I'll simply agree that no, the Warlock UA will not adress this.

Also, setting up hex is not something I see a single-classed Warlock to ever do. She simply doesn't have enough spells to spend on relatively minor damage boosts like that.

Sure Sorlocks spewing 1d10+5+d6 Eldritch Blasts left and right is overpowered, but fixing this highly specific case with a general rule is probably not the best way to go about it. If one of my players showed interest in this mc combo, I would probably just ask him to abstain.

Darkness plus Devils Sight means the Warlock shoots with advantage, while anyone running into the darkness attacks the Warlock at disadvantage. A fairly nice buff spell, but nothing game breaking. You will simply have to be harsh here - I know my inclination would be for monsters to be confused by this blob of darkness, but since that makes the strategy too good, just have them rush the darkness.

Also, again the matter of spell slots. My Warlock player likes it when the other players cast Darkness, but she could never justify reserving one of her precious few slots for such a non-deciding spell.

Again, I really honestly think it is the Sorlock that is broken, not the Warlock. But it should be easy to dissuade the player from this mc combo, such as by having the Warlock's Patron threatening to withdraw powers if the character doesn't stay "on the path", for example.

 

[Mercule]

b) Devil's Sight plus darkness being a combination that can really warp a lot of encounters.

Interesting. As a DM, I thought this was a glorious combination. Since it effectively neutralized the rest of the PCs, as well, it wasn't used a ton. It was no more an "instant win" than some of what the Wizard could do.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I want some crazy Pythagorean mathematics cultists who work with Modrons, too!

Other than the Modrons bit, I kinda like the idea of a character concept that's based on a cult-like (mis?)understanding of mathematics, although a different term would be needed. I don't even have any ideas (yet) about what those abilities would be, but I love the idea of a character that looks at every situation not as a matter of monsters and magic and might, but of probabilities and geometries and theorems.

Maybe the capstone could be something that momentarily uses alternative geometries* so that, for example, an enemy strikes himself or ends up in his own area-effect spell.

*Yeah yeah yeah...Riemann and Bolyai, etc. I know. Everybody here knows. It's ok, you is still smart.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Bacon Bits]

Interesting. As a DM, I thought this was a glorious combination. Since it effectively neutralized the rest of the PCs, as well, it wasn't used a ton. It was no more an "instant win" than some of what the Wizard could do.

Yeah... until multiple PCs do it. Saw it at an Adventurer's League where everyone had at least 2 levels of Warlock. Was not interested.

 

[Mercule]

Yeah... until multiple PCs do it. Saw it at an Adventurer's League where everyone had at least 2 levels of Warlock. Was not interested.

That's a group dysfunction, not a player dysfunction. As a DM, I'd either say "No," flat out, or I'd make the patron(s) of such critical importance that they'd probably regret it.

I mean, what are the odds of five (or so) Warlocks getting together, anyway. If it's all the same patron, then it makes total sense that his enemies would focus on neutralizing such a potential asset. If it's different patrons, that's a recipe for either cross purposes between PCs or some PCs being treated like uppity pawns.

It would suck in an AL game where, by my understanding, it's hard to say "No". In a home game, though, that'd be kinda fun -- in a sadistic way.

 

[Guest 6801328]

As long as it's clear that some subsystems, like Multi-classing and Feats, are optional and up to the discretion of the DM, then I don't see a problem with the caveat that some combinations are going to be especially potent. As LowKey points out, it gets harder and hard to prevent, so rather than hobble the designers by a strict requirement that nothing is unbalancing, I'd rather have a fence around the parts that are (in theory) well balanced, and then a number of other optional parts that are subject to looser requirements.

Which seems to be the case.