D&D (2024) Survey Launch | Player's Handbook Playtest 5 | Unearthed Arcana | D&D

[mamba]

And is it the fliers that are the problem and need to be changed or the adventures the problem that needs to be changed?

you can go either way, based on your preference. Personally I am no fan of fliers

Its one thing to believe that both are problematic in their own right, independently of each other, but your posts thus far imply you don't see a problem in the adventure design and would rather they be maintained as is, which is uh, a take lol.

if something interferes with common adventure design then that something is a problem doesn’t sound more controversial than that something being perfectly fine and no one knowing (or ignoring) how to properly create encounters

You and I both know you know thats not what I was saying.

I’d say it was an exaggeration to bring out the point

The issue is is that you're posting this as if you disagree with us when that is in fact the same point we're making; yes, adventures need to be redesigned.

I guess the difference is that I do not see the degree of change required by introducing fliers as a given, throwing out fliers instead is a perfectly valid and simple alternative

 

[mamba]

One of the pieces of feedback I gave during the survey was to have the Warlock revert back to the 2014 Pact Magic, triple the number of Spell Slots, and have the Spell Slots refresh on a Long Rest.

the 2014 progression is weird, I would not stick to it no matter what. They should have a range of spell levels, not 6 3rd level spells or whatever.

I’d probably stick with the 1DD progression but give fewer slots and unlock higher spell levels at the same time full casters get them, or simply make MA available earlier to get 2nd level spells earlier

 

[Remathilis]

One of the pieces of feedback I gave during the survey was to have the Warlock revert back to the 2014 Pact Magic, triple the number of Spell Slots, and have the Spell Slots refresh on a Long Rest.

I was considering experimenting with this in my own campaign. So does anybody have any theorycraft advice as to whether "tripling" is the right way to go? Should I only double them? Should I quadruple them?

So the warlock has 6 fireballs at 5th level but can't cast shield without massively overpaying for it? I don't think that's really all that balanced.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I think both major parts of the warlock could be better used by sharing them around.

Firstly I think that a Pact Magic-style Druid would be wonderful. It would still allow the druid to cast but allow them to put a lot more weight into the shapeshifting while keeping things like plagues and polymorphs. And shapeshifting's defensive and utility aspects could be given more weight rather than needing magic.

Second I think that an Invocation-and-half-cast style Bard could be an excellent thing. It would mean the bard didn't have the wiz-bang magic, just a lot of utility stuff that's more useful than it looks (which fits with the bard being a subtler caster) and they get stuff of their own but different bards are different. (Crawford's absolutely right that invocations and full casting would be too much).

It just allows for a bunch of interesting flavor without relying on using spellslots. Imagine if the Circles had their own sets of "Druid Secrets", which act as invocations. The same with Bards and Colleges, where you have individualized "Songs" that they can play, turning them on and off instead of having to use spellslots to do their music. Rangers would probably benefit the most, having a bunch of cool possibilities for "always-on" powers that Warlocks have, as well as a few big primal effects they can call on per short rest.



Honestly, if you want to fix Pact Magic, just allow use something like this:

Patron's Relief
The Warlock calls upon the Patron, and the Patron gives their aid. Once per day, a Warlock can call upon their Patron to refill their used spell slots. This takes 5 minutes.

You could probably replace any "Needs a short rest" with a 5-minute recharge time, and depending on how you want to flavor it just have it as a once-a-day thing or as many times as you need (like Martials).

 

[Neonchameleon]

One of the pieces of feedback I gave during the survey was to have the Warlock revert back to the 2014 Pact Magic, triple the number of Spell Slots, and have the Spell Slots refresh on a Long Rest.

I was considering experimenting with this in my own campaign. So does anybody have any theorycraft advice as to whether "tripling" is the right way to go? Should I only double them? Should I quadruple them?

As a warlock fan tripling is way OP and will make the primary casters feel like they wish they were warlocks. Doubling because you can use all at once is more than enough.

I've suggested recharging individual slots proficiency times per day as something that smooths the curve into its proper place.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

One of the pieces of feedback I gave during the survey was to have the Warlock revert back to the 2014 Pact Magic, triple the number of Spell Slots, and have the Spell Slots refresh on a Long Rest.

I was considering experimenting with this in my own campaign. So does anybody have any theorycraft advice as to whether "tripling" is the right way to go? Should I only double them? Should I quadruple them?

I think recharging them easily is the better way to go. Being able to blow 6 level 5 spell slots in one fight is very powerful.
What aboot:
Give each patron, or maybe each pact boon, a rule that is something like “when you do X, you regain 1 spell slot.”?

 

[Remathilis]

Honestly I went into that recent Warlock topic/debate pretty open, and after reading through I think I came down with the idea that we should have more Warlock-style casters rather than less. Bards and Druids are examples, especially after the recent movie didn't have them using spells at all (or barely; I may have missed one in there). Pact Magic comes across to me like PF2's Focus points but with their own twist, and it would be easy to come up with class-specific "invocations" for Bards and Druids... and hell, even Rangers and Paladins. I think it'd honestly be better to move away from Half (and definitely Third) casters and move towards systems that have a few spells that hit hard but a bunch of interesting powers to customize things out.

I don't think either would work as well as you think.

The game needs a primal spellcaster, and that for better or worse is the druid. Maybe if we had a shaman class to take over the role of primal spellcaster, druid could become a half-caster* with heightened wild shape acting like invocations, but I don't see a whole new class getting added into the game to make up for the loss of druid casting.

As for bard, part of the complaint about new warlock and artificer is they lack effective offensive power. A bard would basically be the artificer with an even worse spell list. The invocations of said bard (bard songs?) Would have to be hella good to make up for it. It's doable, but again I don't see time on their side.

Plus, you keep all the problems of pact magic (multi-class problems, slot hoarding) and spread them to others. I would rather a fix that moves the warlock in line with other casters rather than breaking other classes to match the warlock.

 

[Emberashh]

if something interferes with common adventure design then that something is a problem doesn’t sound more controversial than that something being perfectly fine and no one knowing (or ignoring) how to properly create encounters

It is indeed a take to assert with a straight face that official adventure design is both desirable, good, and the baseline that the game should revolve around.

Seems to me that you have an irrational hatred for flying PCs and have no qualms engaging in cognitive dissonance to assert that hatred.

You may clutch thine pearls at being accused of all that but I simply cannot believe you can be as interested in DND as you are and simultaneously believe that official adventure design is even remotely good when its universally panned, and deservedly so. Either you're carrying an extreme minority opinion (doubtful) or, as said, you're jumping through hoops to attack something you don't like for whatever reason.

I’d say it was an exaggeration to bring out the point

And as it happens, you instead missed (re: ignored) the point, which was that worrying about having perfect counters to all PC abilities in every single encounter is a waste of time, particularly given that doesn't really make for satisfying adventures anyway.

You want a healthy mix of encounters that challenge and don't challenge, and any mix inbetween. Variety matters, as does the need for players to actually feel that they aren't on a pointless treadmill. Those set piece battles are where you want to put that effort in, because those are going to be the ones that you aren't going to be resolving in half a round.

But even then, theres nothing saying that goblin duo can't be played in a way that can still challenge a flier; thats why the battle map itself is important. A flier with a longbow doesn't have that big of an advantage in a tiny cave that happens to have a cieling within the goblins shortbow range, but even then, different environmental objects can be used to even the odds, and the choices both sides have to make to try and tip the odds in their favor are what you actually want anyway.

A longbow flier that has to make considerations of where they place themselves in a tiny, crevice filled cave is better than them automatically winning because you put the battle in a blank white room.

Something I like to point out is that even lowly bandits can put up a threat against level 20 characters with the right battlemap, and if played with intelligence you can even make such an encounter just as consequential as 6 ancient whites in a blank room.

When you approach encounter design this way, you don't have to throw out PC abilities like flying, because it fundamentally isn't a given that those abilities negate all of the encounters difficulties.

 

[Vaalingrade]

if something interferes with common adventure design then that something is a problem doesn’t sound more controversial than that something being perfectly fine and no one knowing (or ignoring) how to properly create encounters

That's the problem. Common adventure design is the problem. That's D&D's secret: it's always been bad at teaching DMs how to design an adventure, Cap. That's why it's one of the only games that teaches DMs to hate and fear flight.

 

[Justice and Rule]

What Warlock-progression does is give you effective spells for your level without giving you all the power of the spell pyramid: you have your big stuff, but you don't have the extra lesser firepower and ability to waste slots on utility spells. Compared to half- or third-casters, I think it's more satisfying as a route because you're always getting powerful stuff rather than getting to the end game with stuff full-casters were getting 8 levels ago. It also a better fit for more esoteric casters who could use invocation-style powers to fit their flavor rather than trying to fit them to a weird spell progression.

I don't think either would work as well as you think.

The game needs a primal spellcaster, and that for better or worse is the druid. Maybe if we had a shaman class to take over the role of primal spellcaster, druid could become a half-caster* with heightened wild shape acting like invocations, but I don't see a whole new class getting added into the game to make up for the loss of druid casting.

That's fair enough on the Druid, though I think (especially with the movie) a case can be made for doing something that is far more flavorful with Druid powers by moving them away from just being spells.

As for bard, part of the complaint about new warlock and artificer is they lack effective offensive power. A bard would basically be the artificer with an even worse spell list. The invocations of said bard (bard songs?) Would have to be hella good to make up for it. It's doable, but again I don't see time on their side.

Yeah, but that's my point: Pact Magic-style casting with colorful invocations styled to the Bard could make up that ground. When you have a bunch of spell slots, you have to balance the spells you make for them around having multiple spell uses. With, say, "Songs" you could vary them between things you can just turn on and off, things that are limited by a once-a-day casting or even put things in there that could have a number of uses equal to proficiency, ability modifiers, etc. It just gives a whole lot of design room to run in compared to "Let's just turn it into a generic caster. That is the problem with things like the Artificer.

Plus, you keep all the problems of pact magic (multi-class problems, slot hoarding) and spread them to others. I would rather a fix that moves the warlock in line with other casters rather than breaking other classes to match the warlock.

Multiclass problems are a thing, but they are a thing with a broad number of classes. The way 5E does multiclassing is bad largely because to balance it you need to keep the lower levels deliberately kind of s#!%%y because you don't want it to become an easy auto-dip. If you want to fix things, fix the root of the problem rather than one of its many symptoms.