D&D (2024) The new warlock (Packet 7)

[Mistwell]

I would guess it’s because of the pact boons being invocations in this packet. Because some invocations now rely on having other invocations as prerequisites, so if you took pact of the blade at 1st level, then took thirsting blade at 5th level, they don’t want you swapping out pact of the blade at 6th and being left with an invocation you no longer meet the prerequisite for.

You know, that sounds like the likely explanation. Thanks!

 

[OB1]

While the 70% issue is very real, emphasizing it here probably overstates the community and developers' appetite for restrictions on multiclassing.

While a desire for such restrictions comes up often on this forum, it's not something I've ever encountered "in the wild". Nor do I recall the developers ever expressing the view that such restrictions would be desirable. Meanwhile, popular actual plays feature plenty of multiclass characters that wouldn't be possible under a more restrictive ruleset.

Many players, myself included, enjoy the current system of freeform multiclassing. I understand that other players have strongly felt objections to it, but I don't see the evidence that these objections (let alone views of how to address them) are shared by even a simple majority of the community.

My only concern with multi-classing is when classes have features reduced or changed because of multi-class concerns. I personally have no issue with the current multi-class rules (and I rarely see single level dips into classes in my games), but I do have a concern that some of the nice class design we are seeing in packet 7 could be changed due to the existence of multi-class (I'm thinking about the new EB + Invocation that Warlocks get at level 1).

My first choice would be for WotC to ignore potential powergame MC combos completely when designing (let the powergamers powergame), with my second choice being to change MC rules. Changing classes to fit with existing MC rules would be a distant last place.

 

[Shardstone]

I wish every class had the same depth and width as the Warlock does in mechanical design.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

While the 70% issue is very real, emphasizing it here probably overstates the community and developers' appetite for restrictions on multiclassing.

I'm a little confused. My core thesis is neither the developers nor the community would be sufficiently keen to apply restrictions to multi-classing.

Many players, myself included, enjoy the current system of freeform multiclassing. I understand that other players have strongly felt objections to it, but I don't see the evidence that these objections (let alone views of how to address them) are shared by even a simple majority of the community.

I think the real pity is 5E doesn't have a proper multiclassing system like 1E/2E/4E, personally, just the glorified dual-classing of 3E.

I wish every class had the same depth and width as the Warlock does in mechanical design.

For real.

Warlocks were the best-designed class in 5E by some margin. 5E would be literally a better game if the concepts used to build them (not the exact mechanics, the general ideas) had also been used for some of the other classes. Particularly the Incantation structure.

 

[Amrûnril]

My only concern with multi-classing is when classes have features reduced or changed because of multi-class concerns. I personally have no issue with the current multi-class rules (and I rarely see single level dips into classes in my games), but I do have a concern that some of the nice class design we are seeing in packet 7 could be changed due to the existence of multi-class (I'm thinking about the new EB + Invocation that Warlocks get at level 1).

My first choice would be for WotC to ignore potential powergame MC combos completely when designing (let the powergamers powergame), with my second choice being to change MC rules. Changing classes to fit with existing MC rules would be a distant last place.

I do think multiclass balance is worth striving for, but I agree it shouldn't come at the cost of the single class experience. As for multiclass rule changes, I think levers like class level vs. character level ability scaling can solve issues more precisely than restrictions on class choice, in addition to preserving flexibility in character building. And in many cases where multiclass imbalances stem from imbalances in the underlying abilities (Twin Spell or Moon Druid lv2, for instance), resolving those issues should improve both single class and multiclass play.

 

[cranberry]

Having pact boons as invocations feels thematically weird to me, and weakens the warlock because you now have to expend an invocation "slot" to get it. But I guess it was easier to include them as invocations rather than come up with three new ones.

 

[Veltharis ap Rylix]

Having pact boons as invocations feels thematically weird to me, and weakens the warlock because you now have to expend an invocation "slot" to get it. But I guess it was easier to include them as invocations rather than come up with three new ones.

You spend an invocation slot to get one of the pacts, but the playtest version also gives you two extra invocation slots - a total of 10 at level 20, as opposed to 8 in the '14 warlock.

If you're focusing on a single pact, you're coming out an invocation ahead, and you can pick up a second (albeit without any upgrades) and still be on par with what you can get currently.

 

[TwoSix]

Warlocks were the best-designed class in 5E by some margin. 5E would be literally a better game if the concepts used to build them (not the exact mechanics, the general ideas) had also been used for some of the other classes. Particularly the Incantation structure.

Agreed. Most of my favorite homebrew work features Invocation like choices (a small menu of class/subclass specific options picked from regularly) as a defining class feature.

 

[mellored]

Warlocks were the best-designed class in 5E by some margin.

Artificers are kind of similar.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Artificers are kind of similar.

They're not quite as well-considered imho. It's definitely true there are similarities, but I feel like WotC consciously tried to make them something different mechanically but they mostly just made them clunkier. I really hope they get a slick redesign for the 2024 era of D&D because they're dangerously close to being a cool class, just mechanically not there (I've played one and had a good time but all 5E classes are at least 7/10, except a couple where specific subclasses are so bad the actually drag the score down but that's like, probably less than five subclasses).