D&D (2024) They butchered the warlock in the new packet

[Remathilis]

Don't forget the mount for the paladin pet! And, yeah, I think its fair to say that WotC hasn't quite grasped how they want gishes to work. Of course, its also fair to say that they haven't figured out quite how martials work either. But I do think they're getting closer with the martials, and they did a really good job with the paladin. Now, just have to repeat the feat across all the other classes.

There's one aspect of 5eR that really appeals to my aesthetics. We have 13 classes, three build types (martial, gish, full caster) and four power sources (divine, primal, arcane, jack). If you ignore sorcerer, you can kind of fit one of each class into each niche. Druid (primal caster), ranger (primal gish), barbarian (primal martial). And so on.

Of course, fitting everything nice and neat into boxes isn't the best for game design, but darn it. It appeals to my inner organizer freak.

It vaguely reminds me of 4e's attempt to define a class by power source and role, but with the difference being 5e is looser with each and it's less defined by class as much as build. Hence, less desire to grid fill.

And I absolutely agree that my inner organization freak appreciates that as well. Which is why I much prefer warlock magic being a half-caster over the much harder to parse system they had.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Its moving away from what one of the two playstyles I mentioned used to do, possibly others. There's more than one side to this.

One side that only has one class catering to it and has just had that class have its guts ripped out - and the other that already had two classes catering to it, has had a third tweaked to cater to it in the playtest, and now has a fourth almost entirely sacrificed upon its altar. So yes there is technically more than one side. But only one of the two sides has 100% of the classes catering to it about to have that capability removed. And one side already has an embarrassment of riches.

Flip that around, and... we already have three other Arcane full casters that effectively do the same thing the warlock does, and can generally do it better than the warlock does.

But we don't. I'm sorry, this is simply not true. We have full casters that have to play book keeper and juggle low level spell slots.

I wouldn't be quite as against making the warlock into a third full arcane caster as I am against making it a half-caster; I can understand the appeal of sacrificing your soul for full casting. But the simple fact of the matter is that the warlock's casting mechanics are both unique and strongly thematic, in terms of having cheated their way to power and not having the foundations and low level spell slots.

The big draw is that, in both cases... the warlock does it differently. Both as a pseudo-gish and a pseudo-full-caster.

But the warlock doesn't do things significantly differently when you make them a generic, off the peg half-caster. They do do things significantly differently when they have their own casting mechanics. There quite simply isn't a big difference between Eldritch Blast + Hex and Archery + Hunter's Mark. They just have different spell lists

I think this refusal to acknowledge that there's wildly divergent playstyles and multiple view points here is hurting the conversation.

And I think that the misrepresentations of what the issues are is hurting the conversation.

The artificer's problem is that its a half-caster with just a bunch of random spells, and hasn't bothered to try and integrate them in a similar manner that the Ranger and Paladin have. The point of half-caster is the synergy between the martial and caster aspects. The artificer lacks that.

Congratulations. You've just put your finger on what another problem with this half-assed half-caster is. It just now has a bunch of full caster spells cast through half-casting and has even less integration between the two than there was before (because the New Hex works with Pact Magic but not the new casting).

The warlock, meanwhile, has a number of synergies. Needs to be retuned since the 2014 release, but its there.

The warlock, meanwhile, had a number of synergies. Notably:

• Top level spells are meant to be showstoppers in their own right and thus don't need subtle synergies. Because those were the spells warlocks cast the relative lack of synergy didn't matter. The design was structurally sound
• Invocations are normally low level spells you can cast a lot of. This synergises well with the warlock chassis which has no low level spell slots. Meanwhile (and this is part of why I call this implementation half-assed) the warlock has a lot of low level slots, meaning those plus Invocations are gilding the lilly while it lacks the top level stuff
• Hex (and Armour of Agathys) used to scale with spell slot. This worked with warlocks. But with the breaking of pact magic these synergies have gone

This doesn't mean there are no synergies; for example shield is always good (but not as good as e.g. on an Armourer). The warlock now is actively less self-synergetic than the artificer. This isn't "retuning" it needs but an entire rewrite because the heart of the way those synergies worked has been torn out. (Parts do need retuning; neither defensive invocation for the warlock works as Mage Armour is pretty pointless and False Life doesn't scale and this has always been the case).

Like I said this implementation is half-assed. And it would take as much work to put in the needed synergies as it would to put them into the warlock.

 

[VenerableBede]

@Neonchameleon I'm impressed you still have the energy to keep debating this with people. Warlock in the playtest packet 5 sucks and completely misunderstands the class, ruining what was the best-designed 2014 class (solely with regards to the spellcasting change—other changes were positive). I've reached the point with people who just don't get that where I can't debate it anymore. I'll wait for the survey, give my honest thoughts, and hope the community is large enough to save the warlock.

 

[Mephista]

If things were as bad as you say, Neonchameleon, then there wouldn't be playtest reports of people enjoying the UA warlock. I understand that your preferred playstyle isnt' around anymore, but its clearly working for others. Especially the bladelock seems to be getting much love in the way of reviews.

I'm sorry, but for as much as you think the warlock is less synergestic, others are very much disagreeing with your claims. And, with all due respect, I am giving more weight to those playtest reports.

I feel for you that you hate the changes. And, I admit, its unlikely to passthe 80% threshold. Understanding where each other is coming from is good, though.

 

[VenerableBede]

We'll see what the final playtest report says after it goes live and finishes. Some loud people who have never liked warlock may rejoice now that it has been butchered. Other players who love what makes the warlock different may be praising what good changes there were (such as to Pact options), while being smart and not getting caught up in ugly Pact Magic vs Half Casting debates. There is no knowing for sure until we get the final playtest review.

For the record, there are also lots of playtest reports of people that can't stand the new warlock. That's why there's so much impassioned debate going on right now. If the playtest reports of people preferring the new warlock were as overwhelming as you suggest, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

 

[Neonchameleon]

If things were as bad as you say, Neonchameleon, then there wouldn't be playtest reports of people enjoying the UA warlock.

There are reports of people enjoying the Artificer. I've enjoyed the Artificer. That doesn't make the Artificer good. It means that it's functional and fulfils the fantasy at first while being almost entirely lacking in synergies, something which becomes more evident the more you play.

I'm sorry, but for as much as you think the warlock is less synergestic, others are very much disagreeing with your claims. And, with all due respect, I am giving more weight to those playtest reports.

Then put up. Show those synergies. Don't just assert that they exist. I've shown how the synergies of the 2014 warlock have been flushed down the toilet. Playtesting doesn't beat maths.

My claim about the current incarnation of the warlock and how it is bad even at what you claim it does is specific. This warlock has the same problems as the Artificer. It looks good and fulfils a fantasy at first. Which is why some of the playtest reporting is good as it was for the artificer. Because there are some good ideas in there. If you think that there are more synergies there, show them. Don't just assert "some people like it therefore there must be synergies". Because the same logic holds for the artificer. You can get a long way in playtesting out of a mix of vibes and not being fundamentally broken.

And this does absolutely nothing to rebut the other point - that the warlock is the only class that works as it does. And that there are now three half-casters that can archer even if you ditch this change and turn the warlock back. It's at this point as well catered to as actual full arcane casters (which the warlock wasn't and shouldn't be).

 

[Mephista]

Oh, I've never said its overwhelming at all - indeed, I've said that its unlikely to be overwhelming.

I am just saying that acting like everything is naughty word and only people who hate the class will be glad its "butchered" is counter productive. It just makes people defensive and upset.

Pact magic, in its current form, just doesn't work as intended for a ton of tables. Messing with short rests is not the answer either, despite claims that its a "simple solution" - there's tons of other things tied up with short rests. There needs to be tests for something new to replace it.

I bet you anything that, if they had pushed Pact Magic in its 2014 form into a playtest, we would not be anywhere close to an 80% pass. If it had been voted on, it would have been torn apart.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I bet you anything that, if they had pushed Pact Magic in its 2014 form into a playtest, we would not be anywhere close to an 80% pass. If it had been voted on, it would have been torn apart.

The same would have happened for any magic system they used.

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

Then put up. Show those synergies. Don't just assert that they exist. I've shown how the synergies of the 2014 warlock have been flushed down the toilet. Playtesting doesn't beat maths.

Have you seen @HammerMan thread? he is about to playtest 2 warlocks 1 multied with wizard 1 straight... I am looking forward to what he thinks after.

New playtest fighter and warlock

Yeah as cool as the new gaze is I can't see it making it to print. Literally the warlock could sit back in a lawn chair, be completely safe, yet provide its full suite of offense in a fight, by having spells come out of one of the other characters. That's just really crazy good. It mostly needs...

www.enworld.org

 

[Remathilis]

We'll see what the final playtest report says after it goes live and finishes. Some loud people who have never liked warlock may rejoice now that it has been butchered. Other players who love what makes the warlock different may be praising what good changes there were (such as to Pact options), while being smart and not getting caught up in ugly Pact Magic vs Half Casting debates. There is no knowing for sure until we get the final playtest review.

For the record, there are also lots of playtest reports of people that can't stand the new warlock. That's why there's so much impassioned debate going on right now. If the playtest reports of people preferring the new warlock were as overwhelming as you suggest, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

Keep in mind: there are plenty of people who are indifferent to something and won't voice pleasure or displeasure about it vocally. The vocal debate going on right now is between those who have a passionate interest in the debate, and much like the wild shape debate or the weapon mastery debate, the loudest voices are those on the opposition to change. There have been a few people on this board who have voiced either happiness, acceptance or indifference to the change. The question will be if they outnumber those who dislike or oppose the change. Right now, the opposing faction must get enough people to say "this is bad, change it back" that it overwhelms those who say "it's good" or "idc".

I'm not saying that's impossible. The death of ardling and obvious "back to the drawing board" response to wild shape shows there is definitely a chance WotC opts for a different route. I just don't think the voice of opposition is as loud or unified as it was in those two cases. I guess we'll see in a few months when Jeremy and Todd discuss this packet results.