In a different thread, I became convinced that Eldritch Blast should be a warlock class feature (a.k.a. a freebie), and in this one, I've decided that Agonizing Blast ought to be a freebie too. I want Eldritch Blast to be a special power for warlocks only, and Agonizing Blast is too good not to take. On this basis, I'm going to just fold the two together: Eldritch Blast in my game now adds Charisma modifier to damage, no invocation required, and Agonizing Blast no longer exists.
D&D 5E Convince me we're doing the Warlock wrong
- Thread starter Lord Vangarel
- Start date
Sword of Spirit
Legend
I didn't read most of the thread, but I want to offer some conclusions I've come to after my discussion over here (not necessary to read):
Conclusion: Warlocks are like two different classes outside of combat and inside of combat.
Outside of combat, a Pact of the Tome warlock is a like a full-caster. He isn't as flexible as the best full-casters, but his combination of cantrips, rituals, at-will invocations, and the ability to cast certain spells all day long if he takes short rests puts him on par with a full caster. The other types of warlocks are borderline/bottom of the barrel full casters outside of combat.
Inside combat a warlock is not a full caster. Their spell list and spell slots are designed to prevent this. This is why they have things like at-will invocations that replicate a 5th level spell, but the invocations that grant them additional combat spells are 1/day using a spell slot. Instead, inside combat they are designed to be mid-tier strikers. This is why they get the best attack cantrip, a damage adding invocation that is borderline overpowered, and hex.
In other words, they reduced their full-caster abilities to lower-tier (and mostly restricted them to out of combat), so that they could justify raising their in-combat striker ability to completely outclass all other full casters.
If they had the capability of a full-caster inside of combat, they would be highly overpowered because their at-will damage is much higher than any other full caster dreams of.
So that's what a warlock is. Borderline to lower-tier full-caster outside of combat; mid-tier striker inside of combat, and highly customizable play experience via invocations chosen.
It's different than every other class, but it definitely isn't underpowered.*
*Unless you pick Pact of the Blade, of course. Then you become both highly attribute dependent and magic item dependent just to keep up (forget about surpassing) with what you can get with nothing more than the basic Agonizing Blast + hex package (that you can still easily afford even with Pact of the Blade).
Conclusion: Warlocks are like two different classes outside of combat and inside of combat.
Outside of combat, a Pact of the Tome warlock is a like a full-caster. He isn't as flexible as the best full-casters, but his combination of cantrips, rituals, at-will invocations, and the ability to cast certain spells all day long if he takes short rests puts him on par with a full caster. The other types of warlocks are borderline/bottom of the barrel full casters outside of combat.
Inside combat a warlock is not a full caster. Their spell list and spell slots are designed to prevent this. This is why they have things like at-will invocations that replicate a 5th level spell, but the invocations that grant them additional combat spells are 1/day using a spell slot. Instead, inside combat they are designed to be mid-tier strikers. This is why they get the best attack cantrip, a damage adding invocation that is borderline overpowered, and hex.
In other words, they reduced their full-caster abilities to lower-tier (and mostly restricted them to out of combat), so that they could justify raising their in-combat striker ability to completely outclass all other full casters.
If they had the capability of a full-caster inside of combat, they would be highly overpowered because their at-will damage is much higher than any other full caster dreams of.
So that's what a warlock is. Borderline to lower-tier full-caster outside of combat; mid-tier striker inside of combat, and highly customizable play experience via invocations chosen.
It's different than every other class, but it definitely isn't underpowered.*
*Unless you pick Pact of the Blade, of course. Then you become both highly attribute dependent and magic item dependent just to keep up (forget about surpassing) with what you can get with nothing more than the basic Agonizing Blast + hex package (that you can still easily afford even with Pact of the Blade).
I would say that eldritch blast with built-in Agonizing Blast should come free with Pact of the Tome. Thirsting Blade and Lifedrinker should come free with Pact of the Blade. Then Pact of the Chain should give you, instead of a slightly beefier wizard familiar, a familiar with real... ah... teeth, that can be easily re-summoned if it dies.
Last edited:
Flamestrike
Legend
The DMG places the expected number of Short rests per day at 2-3. If your DM limits Short rests to 1-2 per day, then classes like the Monk, Warlock and Fighter lose out. Higher numbers of Short rests favor those classes.
Even with 2 short rests per day (plus the long rest in the morning) you get 6 spells per day (all cast at the highest level) from 2nd to 10th level. At 7th level you have 6 x 4th level spell slots per day, as opposed to a Wizard who only gains 1 x 4th level slot, 3 x 3rd level slots, 3 x 2nd level slots and 4 x 1st level slots (for a total of 11 slots).
11 slots of 1st to 4th level (and only 1 x 4th level slot) vs 6 slots, all cast at 4th level seems like a pretty fair exchange. Add on top of that invocations (a lot of at will abilitites) and the best cantrip in the game for DPR, a d8 hit dice, and the classes even out nicely.
At 11th level a Warlock get 9 spells per day (all cast at 5th level) plus a single 6th level spell from Mystic Arcanum, gaining an extra slot at 13th and 15th level (for a total of 9 5th level spells, and 1 6th, 7th and 8th level slot).
At 17th level (even with just 2 short rests per day) you have 12 x 5th level slots per day, plus 1 slot each of 6, 7, 8 and 9th level. By comparison a Wizard at the same level gains a total of 15 slots of 1st to 5th level (only 2 x 5th level slots per day), and one each of 6th level and up.
At the 2 short rests per day the classes balance perfectly with each other. More short rests favor the Warlock slightly, and less favor the Wizard.
Yeah this.
Another easy option is to simply allow an automatic short rest following every 2 encounters, or just do what I do and handwave them.
I personally dont play with the fixed 1 hour time limit for short rests. Resting is a meta consideration for the game (in relation to encounter balancing and resource management), and I use it as such. Short rests in my campaign are an arbitrarily small period of time (between 5 minutes and an hour) that the party takes a breather, binds wounds, checks the map, loots vanquised bodies, squares away post battle admin, refocusses and grabs a quick bite to eat or a swig of water.
For those of you with military experience, basically a quick re-org.
As a DM I allow two or three short rests (in between long rests) whenever PC resources are low and healing is needed (and it makes sense to take one). Sometimes I may allow more, sometimes I may allow less (to keep the PC's on their toes, and prevent abuse of the metagame). Occasionally I'll roll for a possible random encounter during them as well (to maintain tension).
If you dont allow 2-3 per day, you really mess with the balance of the game for Fighters, Warlocks and Monks, force your PC's to expend more resources via magical healing instead of expending HD, and screw with the CR ratings (rendering a TPK much more likely).
Last edited:
Jeff Albertson
Explorer
I find the Warlock to be gimmicky class that unfortunately found traction in 3rd Ed.
dm4hire
Explorer
I like the idea of recharge for the warlock, but understand the rest issue. I've played on both sides of the screen and sympathize with the OP's player, especially if combat becomes overwhelming due to a chained encounter.
One thought I had using the recharge would be to use the recharge from the MM; instead of recharge 5-6 on a d6, perhaps recharge 7-8 on d8.
One thought I had using the recharge would be to use the recharge from the MM; instead of recharge 5-6 on a d6, perhaps recharge 7-8 on d8.
I'd say you're doing it wrong but it is not your fault. What it comes down to is class selection, campaign and personal play style. If you are running a campaign that is mostly combat and skill checks some classes such as the battle master and wizard are going to shine and every rogue is going to choose AT or Assassin.
In heavy role play campaigns the warlock (and thief) is packed with powerful RP elements that can drive the story forward. A DM who is wise to this can capitalize on easy excuses for random plot hooks. Unfortunately the disadvantage of playing a pre-gen is that there are optimized levels for different stages. It negates the DM's advantage for plot hooks since they walk a fine line of giving to much information away about the current campaign and have to manage the player expectation of xp/loot per side quest.
In reflection it would have been nice if the PHB came with some guidance for players new to the edition and D&D in general that certain classes were a little more "advanced", playing exceptional with RP and Homebrew usage.
From a totally different perspective but one that agrees is:
D&D is for fun. If you aren't having fun do something different. I'm sure your GM would let you role up another character. Just don't do it so many times you piss everyone off. Fickle is fine for a character, but annoying from a player.
In heavy role play campaigns the warlock (and thief) is packed with powerful RP elements that can drive the story forward. A DM who is wise to this can capitalize on easy excuses for random plot hooks. Unfortunately the disadvantage of playing a pre-gen is that there are optimized levels for different stages. It negates the DM's advantage for plot hooks since they walk a fine line of giving to much information away about the current campaign and have to manage the player expectation of xp/loot per side quest.
In reflection it would have been nice if the PHB came with some guidance for players new to the edition and D&D in general that certain classes were a little more "advanced", playing exceptional with RP and Homebrew usage.
From a totally different perspective but one that agrees is:
D&D is for fun. If you aren't having fun do something different. I'm sure your GM would let you role up another character. Just don't do it so many times you piss everyone off. Fickle is fine for a character, but annoying from a player.
Last edited:
Warlocks are intended to be the oddball of casters, imo. They have both the ability spam everything (mage armor, eldritch blast, false life etc) and also be the most limited in casting (spells). The same intent seemed to be in 3rd edition. Like previously said, he could be classified to be the striker and dish out lots of damage, while having few aces in his sleeves.
Last edited:
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
OP: You're not doing it wrong. The Warlock just fundamentally sells itself as something it's not (which is, lamentably, another example of 3e's DNA showing up in 5e). @Sword of Spirit has the right of it--Warlocks simply aren't really casters in-combat. If you are expecting your contribution to combat to be spells, you're going to be disappointed by the Warlock. Ironically, another poster presented what I assume is exactly your problem as though it were the selling point of the class:
That is, with "almost" 1 spell per encounter, you pretty much flat-out cannot be defined by actual "spell" casting (e.g. not counting cantrips as "spells"), because there will be 1-3 encounters a day where you aren't able to use any "spells" at all...and that's if you never cast a single out-of-combat spell. (Admittedly, Warlocks have some ways to get a few at-will utility spells, but they're very constrained in terms of what's available.)
The problem is that the Warlock is sold as being "just another caster," in much the same way the Druid is sold as another caster. But the Druid very much still plays by the same rules as the Wizard does, while the Warlock is a very different beast. It comes close, though IMO not close enough, to being the "simple caster" option that WotC initially promised before dropping. You never have more than a handful of spells (reduced bookkeeping), and you have much of your power stored in passives, at-wills, orbasic attacks cantrips. Your spells are always of a specific power level. Etc.
Another way of putting this is that, although the Warlock eventually gets (some) access to spells of all levels, it should really be understood as closer to the Paladin, Ranger, and Eldritch Knight than it is to the Wizard, Sorcerer, or Druid. The Paladin in particular; Paladins do have spells, but actually casting spells in combat (other than to get a useful buff in) is something you would expect Paladins to rarely do. The Warlock stands right on the cusp between being a "half-caster" like the first three, and a "full caster" like the second three. (sort of where the early playtest Sorcerer was; god I wish they hadn't dropped that...).
I strongly suspect that what your friend "truly" wants is a Wizard, or perhaps a Sorcerer if mixing it up in melee is important, who dallies with dark forces or pursues forbidden paths to power. The fluff of the Warlock, but the mechanics of the Wizard. The problem is, the Warlock is not only not a Wizard, it cannot be a Wizard--it just doesn't have the tools. The 5e Warlock is a meleeist or "archer-with-spells," who can pull out a couple of powerful tricks now and then. She is not a master of all things arcane on the battlefield. She is not playing magic chess, weighing the pros and cons of sacrifices now or difficult positions later. It's a lot more like...magical checkers (draughts, for our UK siblings). It's on the same board, and has similar rules if you squint, but the strategy of it is very different and (generally speaking) vastly simplified.
So I guess I should amend my opening statement. You may in fact be doing the Warlock wrong: not because you're playing it wrong, but because the expectations it's held to cannot be met. To use a somewhat hyperbolic analogy, you've bought a Persian and you're profoundly disappointed that it doesn't play fetch, enjoy going on walks, bark, or lay its head on your lap and stare up at you with big soulful doggy eyes. (Though really in my experience Wizards are the ones more like cats...)
That is, with "almost" 1 spell per encounter, you pretty much flat-out cannot be defined by actual "spell" casting (e.g. not counting cantrips as "spells"), because there will be 1-3 encounters a day where you aren't able to use any "spells" at all...and that's if you never cast a single out-of-combat spell. (Admittedly, Warlocks have some ways to get a few at-will utility spells, but they're very constrained in terms of what's available.)
The problem is that the Warlock is sold as being "just another caster," in much the same way the Druid is sold as another caster. But the Druid very much still plays by the same rules as the Wizard does, while the Warlock is a very different beast. It comes close, though IMO not close enough, to being the "simple caster" option that WotC initially promised before dropping. You never have more than a handful of spells (reduced bookkeeping), and you have much of your power stored in passives, at-wills, or
Another way of putting this is that, although the Warlock eventually gets (some) access to spells of all levels, it should really be understood as closer to the Paladin, Ranger, and Eldritch Knight than it is to the Wizard, Sorcerer, or Druid. The Paladin in particular; Paladins do have spells, but actually casting spells in combat (other than to get a useful buff in) is something you would expect Paladins to rarely do. The Warlock stands right on the cusp between being a "half-caster" like the first three, and a "full caster" like the second three. (sort of where the early playtest Sorcerer was; god I wish they hadn't dropped that...).
I strongly suspect that what your friend "truly" wants is a Wizard, or perhaps a Sorcerer if mixing it up in melee is important, who dallies with dark forces or pursues forbidden paths to power. The fluff of the Warlock, but the mechanics of the Wizard. The problem is, the Warlock is not only not a Wizard, it cannot be a Wizard--it just doesn't have the tools. The 5e Warlock is a meleeist or "archer-with-spells," who can pull out a couple of powerful tricks now and then. She is not a master of all things arcane on the battlefield. She is not playing magic chess, weighing the pros and cons of sacrifices now or difficult positions later. It's a lot more like...magical checkers (draughts, for our UK siblings). It's on the same board, and has similar rules if you squint, but the strategy of it is very different and (generally speaking) vastly simplified.
So I guess I should amend my opening statement. You may in fact be doing the Warlock wrong: not because you're playing it wrong, but because the expectations it's held to cannot be met. To use a somewhat hyperbolic analogy, you've bought a Persian and you're profoundly disappointed that it doesn't play fetch, enjoy going on walks, bark, or lay its head on your lap and stare up at you with big soulful doggy eyes. (Though really in my experience Wizards are the ones more like cats...)
Last edited:
Similar Threads
