D&D (2024) Dear Team WotC: Better Pact Magic Fixes

[mellored]

I feel like that's not really equivalent to 4 spell levels, the best class features in the game.

Warlocks can still cast the same level spells that the wizard can with Mystic Arcanum.

Just not as often.
And they get Eldritch Blast instead.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Warlocks can still cast the same level spells that the wizard can with Mystic Arcanum.

Just not as often.

Which are the same Invocations they 'traded'. So they trade back at a deficit? How is that fair?

And they get Eldritch Blast instead.

Woohoo. The same cantrip they already had.

 

[Charlaquin]

Respectfully, I disagree. Pact Magic is not elegant, just different for difference's sake, and it has all the flaws that JC and many other people have mentioned.

It’s perfectly reasonable to disagree, but I think the preponderance of homebrew classes based on the warlock’s resource structure are a strong indication that a lot of people do find it very elegant.

I don't mean this as dishonoring fans of Pact Magic, but Pact Magic itself is not worthy of "honor".

I feel like this must be a regional dialect thing, because two people now have totally misconstrued my use of the verb honor. The Warlock has a mechanical identity that is distinct from other casters. Changing them to some variety of Vancian caster would remove that distinct identity, and I think that would be a bad thing. That’s all I meant.

The designers gave it a noble try in 2014, but it has proven itself to suck for the pacing and shared narrative of the game, and so it warrants being explored for trying a new tact.

Well, it has proven to suck for some groups. It has also proven to work wonderfully for other groups. I think it is possible to change it in a way that addresses the problems the former groups have experienced, without doing away with what the latter groups like about it. That’s what I meant about “honoring the class’s mechanical identity.” I don’t think any form of Vancian magic will be able to succeed in that goal though.

I also like the Short Rest as-is. But certain things should not be tied to Short Rests (like the entire functionality of Pact Magic, though recharging a few spell slots are ok, like Arcane Recovery like a Wizard).

Look, some people don’t like daily resource management. I think giving those people one spellcasting class that they can play and enjoy is important.

To me, "Vancian" magic is D&D magic, and it can be played with and tweaked in all kinds of ways. It is not boring for spellcasting classes to share the same universal mechanic.

Yes. It is. Maybe not for you, but for myself and a lot of others.

I think it is better for the narrative and health of the game. For instance, I dislike spellpoint/mana systems and I'm glad they are not in the core game. But I am fine with how the Sorcerer utilizes sorcery points to play with the concept, as that doesn't break D&D's "Vancian" magic system, rather gives it a unique tweak for the Sorcerer.

Bully for you, but a lot of people dislike Vancian magic. Giving them an option for a caster who doesn’t rely on it is important.

All that said, if they can redesign Pact Magic in way that doesn't recharge on a short rest (without changing the 1-hour short rest itself which I like), that also lets Warlocks keep a bit of big bang of higher level spells at proper spell levels, that is worth exploring too. Below is one suggestion I have that lets Warlocks get the same power-level of spells at the appropriate spell levels:

1. Warlocks could choose between Cha, Int, and Wis for their spellcasting ability modifier. That does not define the Pact Boon they choose at 1st level. Want to be an Int-based Pact of the Blade? That's fine. (Is Con-based spellcasting too powerful as a SAD option?)
2. Warlock gets 1 Pact Spell slot for each spell level at the level that a primary spellcaster would get that spell level (A 1st-level slot at 1st level, a 2nd-level slot at 3rd, all the way up to a 9th level slot at 17th). The Warlock chooses the spell they like, and it stays that way, however they can "prepare" different pact spells by communing with their Pact Object (blade, tome, or familiar) at the end of a long rest. Those spell slots recharge on a long rest (there is no short rest mechanic in this system). This means they would get up to 9 "daily" spells from this ability at 17th level (more from Patron spells later). Because of the number of pact spells they will get (even more from Patron Spells), these do not auto-upcast, and can only be upcast if they are prepared into the appropriate spell slot ahead of time (you could prepare multiple fireballs in higher level slots).
3. Due to the change in power level, Mystic Arcanum might no longer grant new spells in this paradigm, as it is effectively rolled into Pact Magic. But if balance determines it can add 1 extra spell slot for 6th through 9th for the cost of a Mystic Arcanum, that could be fine (though I doubt that having access to two 8th and 9th level spell slots per day would fly).
4. At 3rd level, Patron Spells add new Pact Spells, adding 1 more daily spell slot for each spell level (expanding up to 5th level) for specific spells on a list (these Patron Spells can also be used in place of normally prepared Pact Spells of the same level). Maybe as another ability at 3rd level, in addition to the Patron Subclass, they get a lesser "Commune With Patron" ability that allows the Warlock to commune for an "Arcane Recovery-like effect" to get some spent spell levels back, as a nod to the "short rest" functionality. It also reinforces their connection to the Pact holder for acquiring power.

In this rough design, Warlocks don't get as many spells overall compared to a full caster, but they ultimately get 2 spells of each spell level up to 5th (with a few more spell levels from Arcane Recovery), and they still get up to 9th level spells, and they still get their Invocations (which might be abilities, short rest, or long rest spells), and still get their Pact Cantrips. The Warlock's power level access would be on par with full spellcasters at the same levels.

With this design, an 11th level warlock would have 11 daily spells just from Pact Magic (2 spells each for spell levels 1-5, and a 6th level spell). They also get to recharge up to 5 levels of spells on a short rest, once per long rest. They also have 6 Eldritch Invocations to tweak their Warlock's theme.

I don’t like it. This would still force Warlock players to have to manage a bunch of spell slots of a bunch of different levels, which is something many of us specifically want to avoid.

 

[mellored]

Which are the same Invocations they 'traded'. So they trade back at a deficit? How is that fair?

I agree that warlocks could use more invocations or other features.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I agree that warlocks could use more invocations or other features.

Like, say, 4 levels of spellcasting.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Respectfully, I disagree. Modern pseudo-Vancian magic is not elegant and is laden down with flaws. I consider pact magic to be more elegant than modern pseudo-Vancian magic. This is not a high bar.

Pact magic has a different set of flaws, some of which can be fixed (like the short rest issues). And it scratches a slightly different itch.

To me modern pseudo-Vancian magic is closer to the 3.5 Psionics system than it is to classic Gygaxo-Vancian magic. (Actual Vancian magic as used by Jack Vance is closer to warlock casting with the extremely limited slots but you'd have to prepare one spell into one slot).

It absolutely is boring for all spellcasting classes to have to share the same universal mechanic, especially when that method is so inelegant as modern pseud-Vancian magic. The point of a class based system is that different people can get different things. That several groups can share it is fine. That all other methods are considered BadWrongFun is a horrible thing for the health of the game.

A mechanic is a mechanic, and different mechanics appeal to different people, that is true. You're not wrong for liking Pact Magic for your personal character.

When I say "not elegant" I mean how it fits into a shared storytelling game. My definition of elegant "requires" that it fits into the pacing of the game. Pact Magic would only be elegant if all classes worked that way (like 4E). I have never played a 5e campaign where the Warlock wasn't at odds with the rest of the other PCs over resting. Not one. Class mechanics shouldn't be the thing the party argues about. They should argue about urgency and motive and choices.

While people call full caster spellcasting "Vancian" it really isn't. It is actually D&D magic, and that is not going away. That is the baseline that all magic must compare to, and work with (but not necessarily mirror). Maybe I'm lucky because I like D&D magic.

I think Warlocks can work. They obviously work well enough to be liked (and even preferred by some), but I think we can all agree that they need tweaked to fix the pacing problems. The trick is doing so without changing short or long rests themselves, or breaking the balance.

As mentioned in my previous post, I can get behind a 3rd level lesser "Commune With Patron" ability that allows the Warlock to commune for an "Arcane Recovery-like effect" to refresh their Pact Spells, as a nod to the "short rest" functionality. But on top of that, I think it would be more interesting if there were a greater cost the more you used it throughout the day. It would also reinforces their connection to the Pact holder for acquiring power.

In this paradigm, Pact Magic works much like it does, but they are not "short rest/encounter" powers. They are daily powers, that you can recharge by communing with your Patron, through your Pact Object, for 10 minutes. But every time you engage in that Communion after the [Nth] time, you get some some sort of penalty or diminishing return.

What do you think?

 

[mellored]

Like, say, 4 levels of spellcasting.

Nah.

We already have 2 arcane full casting classes. Let warlocks be different.

 

[Neonchameleon]

A mechanic is a mechanic, and different mechanics appeal to different people, that is true. You're not wrong for liking Pact Magic for your personal character.

When I say "not elegant" I mean how it fits into a shared storytelling game. My definition of elegant "requires" that it fits into the pacing of the game. Pact Magic would only be elegant if all classes worked that way (like 4E). I have never played a 5e campaign where the Warlock wasn't at odds with the rest of the other PCs over resting. Not one. Class mechanics shouldn't be the thing the party argues about. They should argue about urgency and motive and choices.

I see where we are talking at cross purposes here. I find elegance to fit the ease of use by the players to also be important.

Having one level of spells, a single spell pool, and a short list is elegant and far far more elegant than a lot of spells over multiple levels. The 5e Short Rest = One Hour mechanics are not elegant because for all I call a short rest a lunch break an hour is a long lunch.

There is nothing actively inherent to the Pact Magic mechanic that means that it must be tied to the inelegant short rests and numerous people, including me, have made suggestions to break the link including a limited daily use warlock specific ritual. This would avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

As mentioned in my previous post, I can get behind a 3rd level lesser "Commune With Patron" ability that allows the Warlock to commune for an "Arcane Recovery-like effect" to refresh their Pact Spells, as a nod to the "short rest" functionality. But on top of that, I think it would be more interesting if there were a greater cost the more you used it throughout the day. It would also reinforces their connection to the Pact holder for acquiring power.

In this paradigm, Pact Magic works much like it does, but they are not "short rest/encounter" powers. They are daily powers, that you can recharge by communing with your Patron, through your Pact Object, for 10 minutes. But every time you engage in that Communion after the [Nth] time, you get some some sort of penalty or diminishing return.

What do you think?

I think we're more or less in agreement here. Keep the basic pact magic, change the recharge part of it because short rests do not work properly in 5e.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Nah.

We already have 2 arcane full casting classes. Let warlocks be different.

Or deal with the real problem and delete the wizard.

Everything fun can't be done because their ever-widening butts are already in the slot.

 

[Reef]

Ok, so here is an out there suggestion (and I can already hear the screaming…heh):

If I understand correctly, the game expects most parties to get 2 short rests between long rests. This means a warlock can use their entire allotment of Pact Magic three times between long rests in an ideal situation.

So, how about we leave everything about Pact Magic the exact way it is. However, instead of recharging on a short rest, warlocks get triple the slots and recharge on a long rest.

Right now, a 5th level Warlock gets 2 max level slots, recharge on a short. Instead, they would get 6 max level slots, recharge on a long.

The amount of spells they can cast should be the same, without the warlock being dependent on begging for short rests, so it shouldn’t step on any other classes toes. This still means the Warlock needs to watch their resources, but frees them to Nova along with the other characters if needed. And they won’t be hindered if they are in an adventure that makes Short Rests prohibitive. Also, it removes the need to invent new abilities like “Channel Patron” or the like.

Anyway, just spitballing here. But if I’m right, the math works out the same, keeps the Pact Magic flavour, and removes the recharge angst.