D&D General Frustating Misunderstandings About Warlocks

[Incenjucar]

A good chunk of people have a hard time keeping RPG information sorted, even for just one character. YouTube entertainers are generally focused in very different skillsets and are dealing with time crunches for feeding the algorithm and a myriad of other distractions, including other RPGs, and rarely do they have a ton of supporting structures.

A good, accurate analysis from one is a small miracle.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Sometimes reddit is useful. Sometimes they downvote anyone who dares question the legitimacy of bizarre weapon juggling routines. You gotta go into it with open eyes and double check everything yourself, if you want to get anything good. But that's the whole Internet, especially these days.

You got me there. You can no longer trust Google to answer a fact-based, real-world basic piece of information with the truth. I suppose that was always sort-of true with things like Wikipedia, but let's just say - I think the internet used to be closer to a place where you could find true information without too much effort. No longer. Which isn't to say that it doesn't still have its places of good information. You just gotta be very very careful.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I love Pointy Hat's videos normally.

But jeeeeez. Buddy.

Somehow missed that Agonizing Blast and repelling Blast can apply to any warlock cantrip.

Thinks Celestial Patron is a god when it very likely is not.

Thinks that anyone who doesn't like their agency being messed with should just not play the class at all. Weird stuff. There are many ways to play the class.

Maybe the worst one is that he claims that warlocks dont get high level spells.

Brother...you have to be more accurate than that if you are going to claim to be doing an analysis. That is a HUGE error.

The worst thing tho...all the people just nodding along like he has it all correct...

Oof. That's...super unfortunate. I usually like Hat's takes on things but if he's made such egregious errors I'm...not sure I wanna watch this one.

I will say, some of the things said here are crossed wires with 5.0 (e.g. the Agonizing/Repelling thing used to be tied to Eldritch Blast specifically), or with the idiotically-named "One D&D" playtest (where Warlocks did not get Eldritch Arcanum naturally and had to waste all of their high-level Invocations on it). So it's possible that he's gotten confused simply because Warlock is the class that's gotten a lot of minor under-the-hood changes.

He may also be drawing a very fine distinction between Eldrtich Arcanum and proper actual high-level spell slots. Because, technically speaking, you actually never get spell slots. You get the ability to cast those spells once each day...but those are not spell slots. Good example: A Warlock cannot cast counterspell as a 6th-9th level spell, ever, for any reason, because they don't have 6th-9th level spell slots. Period. Instead, they have what 3e would call a "spell-like ability" which allows them to cast one specific spell of each level 6th-9th, as they gain odd levels 11-17. Not having watched the video, I cannot know for sure if that's what he meant, but I suspect that that's what he's going for with that. What you have is not, properly speaking, "high level spells"--just like how an Invocation that lets you cast spell X once per day without expending a spell slot doesn't technically let you cast that spell in any other way unless it specifically says so.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You got me there. You can no longer trust Google to answer a fact-based, real-world basic piece of information with the truth. I suppose that was always sort-of true with things like Wikipedia, but let's just say - I think the internet used to be closer to a place where you could find true information without too much effort. No longer. Which isn't to say that it doesn't still have its places of good information. You just gotta be very very careful.

It's been this way for at least 15 years, probably longer. AI, and before it the podcast boom, and before that the (first) YT boom, have just made it really obvious that the internet is full of false starts and misleading stuff. I actually did a report on a related topic back in 2010/2011--the fact that the scientific community had been coasting on their hugely high popularity ratings for ages, but doubts were mounting and they weren't doing anything to address the problem. And then guess what happened? Yeah. The mis- and disinformation were always there. They've just gotten louder.

Or, if you prefer? The information pipeline is wider and has higher pressure, so significantly more information flows through it. But the % concentration of real info vs bull$#!% has not changed--so, as a result, you will experience more BS, even though you are also getting more info.

Sort of like a conversation I've had recently about a certain firearm-hoister and their fixed rate of misfire in a particular game system about locating paths

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The thing I appreciate about Treantmonk is, he shows his work. He correctly points out that, to analyze things like damage per round, you have to make some foundational assumptions. And Treantmonk discloses the assumptions he’s making and shows the math he does to reach his conclusions from those assumptions. I tend to disagree with most of the assumptions he makes, but since he discloses them, I can see where exactly his analysis is differing from my own, and I can take that into account.

I mean i guess, but his math is kinda all there is to his reasoning so it is usually more flawed than a take of someone playing the game a lot and going off vibes.

Yup he gives you a ballpark at least.

He messes the occasional build up.

More like he tells you what state the ballpark is in.

Yeah D&D sorts has that effect.
. Hes fairly good at tier lists and spotting exploits. At least his circle is anyway.

I disagree completely. His tier lists are generally bunk and his spotting of exploits reads like either someome so in the weeds of online analysis they forgot what dice even look like, or someone who thinks that rogues do too much damage. I haven't been impressex by his analysis since his 4e class guides. 4e suited him better. Much more defined by the math.

Oof. That's...super unfortunate. I usually like Hat's takes on things but if he's made such egregious errors I'm...not sure I wanna watch this one.

Yeah i struggled to watch all of it.

I will say, some of the things said here are crossed wires with 5.0 (e.g. the Agonizing/Repelling thing used to be tied to Eldritch Blast specifically), or with the idiotically-named "One D&D" playtest (where Warlocks did not get Eldritch Arcanum naturally and had to waste all of their high-level Invocations on it). So it's possible that he's gotten confused simply because Warlock is the class that's gotten a lot of minor under-the-hood changes.

He may also be drawing a very fine distinction between Eldrtich Arcanum and proper actual high-level spell slots. Because, technically speaking, you actually never get spell slots. You get the ability to cast those spells once each day...but those are not spell slots. Good example: A Warlock cannot cast counterspell as a 6th-9th level spell, ever, for any reason, because they don't have 6th-9th level spell slots. Period. Instead, they have what 3e would call a "spell-like ability" which allows them to cast one specific spell of each level 6th-9th, as they gain odd levels 11-17. Not having watched the video, I cannot know for sure if that's what he meant, but I suspect that that's what he's going for with that. What you have is not, properly speaking, "high level spells"--just like how an Invocation that lets you cast spell X once per day without expending a spell slot doesn't technically let you cast that spell in any other way unless it specifically says so.

That = having tyose spells. There is no sense in which the 2024 warlock doesnt have high level spells.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I mean i guess, but his math is kinda all there is to his reasoning so it is usually more flawed than a take of someone playing the game a lot and going off vibes.

More like he tells you what state the ballpark is in.

I disagree completely. His tier lists are generally bunk and his spotting of exploits reads like either someome so in the weeds of online analysis they forgot what dice even look like, or someone who thinks that rogues do too much damage. I haven't been impressex by his analysis since his 4e class guides. 4e suited him better. Much more defined by the math.

Yeah i struggled to watch all of it.

That = having tyose spells. There is no sense in which the 2024 warlock doesnt have high level spells.

But they don't have those slots. As said, I haven't watched the video. But that could be what he meant, even if he said it poorly or the like. Not having 6th-9th level slots is a significant way in which Warlocks are not the same as full casters.

And yes, this does in fact matter mechanically--mostly unhelpful, but occasionally helpful. In 5.5e, you cannot cast more than one spell using a spell slot in a single turn. This means you could cast a bonus action spell with one of your Warlock slots, and also cast one of your Mystic Arcanum spells in the same turn, because the Mystic Arcanum spell does not use a spell slot. However, you can never upcast your lower-level spells beyond 5th level, and you cannot even attempt to upcast any of your Mystic Arcanum spells.

This also gives (very, very minor) utility to those otherwise-crappy "you can cast <X spell> once per day without expending a spell slot" invocations, since they theoretically allow you to cast two spells in a single round.

 

[Charlaquin]

Oof. That's...super unfortunate. I usually like Hat's takes on things but if he's made such egregious errors I'm...not sure I wanna watch this one.

I will say, some of the things said here are crossed wires with 5.0 (e.g. the Agonizing/Repelling thing used to be tied to Eldritch Blast specifically), or with the idiotically-named "One D&D" playtest (where Warlocks did not get Eldritch Arcanum naturally and had to waste all of their high-level Invocations on it). So it's possible that he's gotten confused simply because Warlock is the class that's gotten a lot of minor under-the-hood changes.

He may also be drawing a very fine distinction between Eldrtich Arcanum and proper actual high-level spell slots. Because, technically speaking, you actually never get spell slots. You get the ability to cast those spells once each day...but those are not spell slots. Good example: A Warlock cannot cast counterspell as a 6th-9th level spell, ever, for any reason, because they don't have 6th-9th level spell slots. Period. Instead, they have what 3e would call a "spell-like ability" which allows them to cast one specific spell of each level 6th-9th, as they gain odd levels 11-17. Not having watched the video, I cannot know for sure if that's what he meant, but I suspect that that's what he's going for with that. What you have is not, properly speaking, "high level spells"--just like how an Invocation that lets you cast spell X once per day without expending a spell slot doesn't technically let you cast that spell in any other way unless it specifically says so.

This brings up an interesting point I hadn’t considered in 5.24 though. Since the one spell per turn restriction now only cares about if you cast the spell with a spell slot, that means a warlock could use a mystic arcanum spell and a non-cantrip bonus action spell in the same turn.

 

[Zardnaar]

This brings up an interesting point I hadn’t considered in 5.24 though. Since the one spell per turn restriction now only cares about if you cast the spell with a spell slot, that means a warlock could use a mystic arcanum spell and a non-cantrip bonus action spell in the same turn.

I knew that but didn't think it through to mystic arcanum. Had a lvl 13 warlock as well with true sight and force cage.

 

[Ashrym]

Casting a spell without a slot is a thing in 2024, and it's still casting a spell. Mystic Arcanum is definitely access to high level spells and I think it's silly to ignore them with a claim that spells only go up to 5th level for warlocks. Pact Magic goes up to 5th level spells and that's not the same thing just because the higher level spells are separated into a different ability in Mystic Arcanum.

What really caught my attention in the video was the focus on Pact Magic and ignoring Mystic Arcanum, and not going into Eldritch Invocations. There are many class that can cast spells. The draw in the class in in the invocations., which include a lot of at-will spell-like abilities if we're going to discuss spellcasting.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This brings up an interesting point I hadn’t considered in 5.24 though. Since the one spell per turn restriction now only cares about if you cast the spell with a spell slot, that means a warlock could use a mystic arcanum spell and a non-cantrip bonus action spell in the same turn.

Yep! The trick is primarily to pick the right spells for this. Non-Fey Warlocks (who can do this trick in the other direction, IIRC) would likely look to misty step, especially if they're a fragile Blade Pact user who needs to get away after smacking someone around. Hex is of course a reasonable if less-than-impressive option once you're level 11+. Genie gives you sanctuary, which pairs doubly well with something like a pre-cast blade ward (which is actually amazing in 2024, other than needing Concentration)--nearly unhittable and even if they do hit you they have to pass a save or (potentially) lose the action. The new Hexblade patron offers staggering smite, which might be a solid choice in the right context.

Alternatively, if we can pick any bonus-action spell (perhaps acquired through a feat or some other special source), arcane vigor is a possible option. Your magic weapon being innately upcast to 5th level means you always get a +2 weapon out of it, and it's not Concentration, so that could be powerful for a Blade warlock. Or if you're a support-focused Warlock--perhaps with Celestial patron--healing word wouldn't be a bad pick. (Really nice if you can pick up the Dragonlance feat Divinely Favored as your Origin feat.)