Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sadrik" data-source="post: 6382363" data-attributes="member: 14506">I think the theme is very good for warlocks. Though ultimately a bit derivative of clerics (worship/patron).For mechanics, I selected poor for three reasons.<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Warlocks do not multi-class well with other casters. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Warlocks are too dependent on short rests to be effective. If the DM and other players are ok taking a short rest when possible all the time, warlocks become effective. When the group must push on (due to other players or DM) they lose a great deal of effectiveness.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Warlock invocations that cost a spell slot to use are almost not even on the list of options they are so bad.</li> </ol>For me, these above three things make the warlock the weakest class in 5e. Despite that they drip with flavor and so will still get played. It is unlike the bard who has mechanically sucked (in 3e) and the flavor was very niche (weak) so saw little play.I agree with you but I was trying to be less subjective. This was a way to define the parameters so that a consensus could be formed or at least nearly so. The assumption is the core four classes are the core of the D&D experience and the other classes are derivatives of those core four in some way or another. Yes it makes an assumption that the core four are in some way the best, but I think most people would agree that they should be at least in theme and concept.So if one class feels very close to another one thematically it would be weak. If it feels unique and or drips flavor it should be average (because it is a derivative of the core class). I know that likely flies differently than some would think. However there is a proponent for every class and someone would say strong theme for each class. This at least tries to break that down a bit and perhaps make it only slightly less subjective.</blockquote>

Verification