When you find a class that consistently & repeatedly contains features & ambiguous munchkiny type wording It's WotC's turn to step up & admit their mistake with an errata.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E Philosophy: Devil's Sight
- Thread starter merwins
- Start date
The "Well you could just use the SA/advice from crawford's 5+ year old tweet" is one people in this very thread have repeatedly brought up is an example of a non MC problem. The fact that people were talking about it long before I even posted to the thread lends weight to the need for its inclusion in errata.
On the MC front... Of course WotC gets credit for the completely unforeseeable need to actually errata "Eldritch Invocations (p. 110). The following sentence has been added to the end of the first paragraph: “A level prerequisite refers to your level in this class." that absolutely nobody could have predicted as problematic.... but they lose any good will they gain in the process & more for not doing the same kind of clarification of what "spell slots" are covered with Page107's "You regain all expended spell slots when you finish a short or long rest".... what 12 dimensional chess champion could possibly predict that one. That chest deep hole digs itself across the planet when you consider the utterly predictable attempts at coffeelock nonsense that resulted from Aspect of the Moon in XgE. That hole goes on to through time & space when you consider that every cantrip in the game scales by adding extra dice rather than attacks, every extra attack class feature includes words like "in this class" after some of 3.5's lessons, and Eldritch blast was changed from a class feature in 3.5* that scaled based on warlock level to the only cantrip in the game that gets extra attacks along with the ability to add a statmod to those attacks among other things.
On its own warlock isn't problematic & generally interesting to have at the table on the very rare(bordering on legendary or artifact levels of rarity tbh) case I see one that isn't just low tier1 & not a scorlock yet, but there is too much uncorrected "oops" on par with bad homebrew on WotC's part to be coincidence & I'm quite sick of the player vrs gm bad blood/animosity that results in needing to make these rulings again and again at the AL tables I run at a local FLGS rather than just saying "here's the errata, don't keep being mad at me for WotC's mistake".
Yes multiclassing is "optional" and a GM could deny all multiclassing, but that's an absurd suggestion that admits warlock is so deliberately broken in a MC environment that it alone causes MC problems.
* 4e had it as an at will power & didn't really have multiclassing so much as a handful or classes that pretended they were multiclass so it doesn't matter what it was then.
That isn't a serious issue. I mean, "do you have full vision in dim light" is the only question. Whatever.
I explicitly stated non-MC.
So there are no serious non-MC issues with Warlock?
Thanks.
Nobody is talking about nerfing any of the half dozen non MC 5e warlock PCs. The problems with warlock's ambiguity are well known to everyone except wide eyed newbies, munchkins ho know better but are attempting to play dumb, and most importantly WotC.
So, when I asked a question about "serious non-MC issues", why did you post a wall of text without saying "there are no serious non-MC warlock issues"?
I gave you one, you not feeling like it's serious enough is irrelevant to the fact that it exists. Furthermore the two are intertwined and people use one to dismiss the other as people have done in this very thread.
clearstream
(He, Him)
I have three answers for you. Maybe you will find one of them pleasing?
A) Magically!
B) Darkness is a localised taint or corruption of light. Having passed through the tainted zone, the light is bright once more.
C) Consistent with a non-scientific view of light, we say that light permeates empty spaces whenever the sun (or another lit thing) is about. It does not travel from A to B. Light is at A, and it is at B. So the light found where the Darkness is, is blotted out. That has no bearing on light found at the bottom of a well. Light does not fill spaces hidden behind concrete things from the point of view of the lit thing that inspired it. No one really knows why, but perhaps one day it will turn out to be important.
A and C are essentially the same: we don't know that our real world assumptions should apply. Conversely, B attempts to meet real world physics halfway.
clearstream
(He, Him)
I have mixed feelings about that. On the one hand, what is the value of provoking debate at the table? On the other hand, different groups interpret things differently anyway, for all kinds of reasons, so perhaps creating space for them to all feel okay about what they are doing is a good thing?
There's two reactions to this & they depend on the type of table.
In my non-AL games it's a complete nonissue & everyone but one nameless munchkin who refused to stop passing off gestalt as MC accepts it with some variant of "yea that would be pretty broken otherwise"....
The problem violently rears it's ugly head at my AL tables where I'm explicitly not supposed to be making house rules and engaging in creative interpretations outside strict RAW & the narrow rulings WotC sets down so wide eyed newbies & cackling munchkins come equipped with ammunition & enough credibility to sway doubts in other players who might not know better & it's not fair to those other players to sit through the GM stopping the game to come off as the bad guy telling Bob that things don't work that way. I live in a fairly large & densely populated area so those FLGS AL tables can be pretty reliably filled with a random assortment of rotating folks none of the regular gms or players know & those unknown folks can frequently be a majority where a particularly stubborn pr persuasive munchkin can turn them off to returning.
I've run lmop, CoS, stk, & embers as open AL tables at a nearby FLGS (some of those more than once) & have had that no good "debate" come up repeatedly in each run. Sometimes I catch it early, usually due to acting like a helicopter parent & reminding people before they are about to deliberately misinterpret unforgivably misleading wording. Other times I catch it only after saying things like "how do you have that many level x spell slots at your level?", "no a level 3/3 scorlock does not have any third level slots", or "no I dn't care what aspect of the moon says... it doesn't let you take eight short rests during a long rest & you can't have more sorcery points/spell slots than are granted by your sorcerer level even if it did" and similar. In all of those cases, a newer player can be turned off by the whole thing or worse be encouraged to act like the same twinky munchkin because some gm didn't notice & call Bob on his shenanigans only to be disappointed by what might seem like an arbitrary & capricious ruling after watching Bob dominate.
Similar Threads
