Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6622437" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Breaking this down into three distinct answers, because I don't group them quite as you have here.1: Poorly conceived? No, I don't think the Warlock is a poor concept. I think it's a great concept. I'm not particularly sold on the &quot;massively short-rest dependent&quot; concept, same goes for the Battlemaster, but I've been persuaded that the Invocations actually pull a lot of weight.2: Poorly executed? Well, yes, but a lot of that is personal (see above about short rests).3: Poorly explained? Absolutely. I consider the Warlock emblematic of an unfortunate 3.x trait that 5e inherited, namely &quot;needless obscurantism.&quot; It may be accidental, it may be intentional--I neither know nor care. The class is obscure, the fluff expectations aren't actually borne out by the mechanics, and it doesn't clearly identify where its powers lie (Invocations are the meat of the class, the short-rest spell slots are for special occasions, the different Pacts aren't nearly as impactful on their own as you'd think, etc.)Also, I agree pretty much unequivocally with&nbsp; [MENTION=6786252]Mephista[/MENTION]'s post (immediately before this one). The 5e Warlock is trying to serve three or four different masters simultaneously, while keeping a foundation open for future masters as well.I'm honestly not sure how to fix the issue either. 4e made it work with multiple pacts and multiple patrons because baseline subclass features could be super meaty in that edition (and could be both subtractive and addative). With 5e, subclasses are too light and baselines are too heavy; without very careful management I'm not sure how one could have made all the different possibilities shake out correctly. Though there's always the (IMO not particularly great) excuse that &quot;experienced&quot; players should just start at level 3. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/ponder.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":hmm:" title="Hmmm&nbsp; &nbsp; :hmm:" data-shortname=":hmm:" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 6622437, member: 6790260"] Breaking this down into three distinct answers, because I don't group them quite as you have here. 1: Poorly conceived? No, I don't think the Warlock is a poor concept. I think it's a great concept. I'm not particularly sold on the "massively short-rest dependent" concept, same goes for the Battlemaster, but I've been persuaded that the Invocations actually pull a lot of weight. 2: Poorly executed? Well, yes, but a lot of that is personal (see above about short rests). 3: Poorly explained? Absolutely. I consider the Warlock emblematic of an unfortunate 3.x trait that 5e inherited, namely "needless obscurantism." It may be accidental, it may be intentional--I neither know nor care. The class is obscure, the fluff expectations aren't actually borne out by the mechanics, and it doesn't clearly identify where its powers lie (Invocations are the meat of the class, the short-rest spell slots are for special occasions, the different Pacts aren't nearly as impactful [I]on their own[/I] as you'd think, etc.) Also, I agree pretty much unequivocally with [MENTION=6786252]Mephista[/MENTION]'s post (immediately before this one). The 5e Warlock is trying to serve three or four different masters simultaneously, while keeping a foundation open for future masters as well. I'm honestly not sure how to fix the issue either. 4e made it work with multiple pacts and multiple patrons because baseline subclass features could be super meaty in that edition (and could be both subtractive and addative). With 5e, subclasses are too light and baselines are too heavy; without very careful management I'm not sure how one could have made all the different possibilities shake out correctly. Though there's always the (IMO not particularly great) excuse that "experienced" players should just start at level 3. :hmm: [/QUOTE]

Verification