D&D (2024) I like the new Warlock

[Neonchameleon]

I mean, the votes are in on that topic. WOTC says the short rest should not be used for primary resource refreshing. A lot of people here have said they don't like it, which matches with nearly a decade of the feedback they're getting. I am open to some other solution, and I think WOTC might be open to it as well, but I think the short rest solution has gone out the window at this stage.

I am personally warming to the idea of 1-5 minutes of meditation to refresh, though I think there should be some limit on the number of times you can do that in a day based on some scaled progression.

I'm going to say that a warlock who isn't getting one refresh per day is a sad panda. A warlock who's getting a reliable two is making the wizard and sorcerer extremely jealous. So yes I fully agree with limitations. And with cutting the short rest solution.

My simple suggested rate that feels better the more I think about it would be recharge a single pact magic slot proficiency times per day with a short ritual. (Not the whole pact magic, just a single slot). This would significantly smooth the level scaling at level 11 and keep the warlock consistently just above a single full recharge worth, only briefly hitting two at levels 9-10 and only briefly falling to one at levels 2-4 (and warlocks are ahead of the casting curve at levels 2-3 anyway).

I think that that mixed with fixing the defensive invocations (a light armour wearer shouldn't even be offered Mage Armour as an invocation, and False Life at will is a great low level invocation but needs a scaling element while the warlock also needs a hellish rebuke invocation) the 2014 warlock would be fixed. And I like most of the other changes than pact magic (Pact of the Chain needs just a few tweaks, and pact of the tome is designed to with new casting)

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I like much of what I am seeing. Not everything, but much.

One thing that matters a lot to me is eldritch smite. Is that invocation for blade pact cut now?

And what about greatswords and heavy weapons for pact of the blade?

I am guessing they are dropping this since the number of spells increased but it works for paladins….

 

[mellored]

One thing that matters a lot to me is eldritch smite. Is that invocation for blade pact cut now?

Nothing to suggest it will be removed.
But it was a Xanarhar invocation, not a PHB invocation. This is just PHB stuff for now.

And what about greatswords and heavy weapons for pact of the blade?

"The weapon must lack the heavy property."

Which is ok to me. Leave some weapons to be Str only.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Nothing to suggest it will be removed.
But it was a Xanarhar invocation, not a PHB invocation. This is just PHB stuff for now.

"The weapon must lack the heavy property."

Which is ok to me. Leave some weapons to be Str only.

That last thought resonates…

My love of str blade locks will still have an advantage…assuming you can bond or summon with a heavy weapon

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Nothing to suggest it will be removed.
But it was a Xanarhar invocation, not a PHB invocation. This is just PHB stuff for now.

"The weapon must lack the heavy property."

Which is ok to me. Leave some weapons to be Str only.

Well now as I read it only 2 attacks a round if it’s not heavy…

And with no shield prof, it’s a one handed weapon only? Hope they rethink that

 

[Charlaquin]

I mean, the votes are in on that topic. WOTC says the short rest should not be used for primary resource refreshing.

When did they say that??

 

[Mistwell]

When did they say that??

In the video which accompanies this playtest

 

[Charlaquin]

In the video which accompanies this playtest

No they didn’t. I watched the video, what they said was that they had received a lot of feedback that people want the Warlock to be able to cast more spells. Short rests were not discussed at all.

 

[mellored]

No they didn’t. I watched the video, what they said was that they had received a lot of feedback that people want the Warlock to be able to cast more spells. Short rests were not discussed at all.

Yes, they mentioned it

At 4:40

 

[THEMNGMNT]

I hope you realize how this isn't making the counter-argument that you may think it is.

I'm not making a counter-argument and I'm not invested in this topic. I'm noting content in the packet that I thought you had overlooked based on your comment. I was trying to be helpful, genuinely.