D&D (2024) Survey Launch | Player's Handbook Playtest 5 | Unearthed Arcana | D&D

[Charlaquin]

Mine: At each level you’d have 2 “max level slots” like with pact magic, but also two max -1, and 1 or 2 max -2. Recharge once a day as 1 minute ritual.

So it’s basically long rest pact magic, adjust numbers as needed, and solves the “not enough slots” problem.

I don’t recall what JC said in the video but he mentioned soemthing as well.

That’s… Ok… I like the one minute ritual to recover spell slots, but limiting that to once per day instead of twice results in two fewer max level slots per day than 2014 warlocks (four fewer at 11th level, and six fewer at 17th), which I understand is meant to be compensated for by the max -1 and max -2 slots, but personally I’d prefer warlocks not to have to futz with different level spell slots. That’s part of the appeal of pact magic to me; no need to manage spell slots of different levels, you just always know they’re max level.

I don’t understand what’s wrong with just sticking to the current pact magic system, but replacing short rest recovery with a one minute ritual you can do twice per day. It would preserve the function pretty much identically for those who already like it, while removing short rest reliance for the people who have a problem with that.

 

[Charlaquin]

they should not, they recover per long rest, that is the premise for all of this

I thought @Parmandur was talking about the 2014 warlock. I was correcting his math (or so I thought), not making a statement about how I think the 2024 warlock ought to function.

I do think the 2024 warlock ought to be able to recover a number of spell slots without having to rely on long rests, but there’s no point in further arguing that point with you. Your perspective on this matter and mine are simply incompatible, and it’s clear no amount of debate is going to change that.

 

[Charlaquin]

if the only identity were that it casts spells at a different rhythm, that would not be worth keeping.

Of course it would, because people who don’t like daily resource management should be allowed to play casters too.

Moving everyone to long rests is much better.

No. It isn’t.

To me this has nothing to do with identity though, it is purely mechanical. Having a patron to get powers from and invocations are much more defining the identity for me.

A class’s mechanics are as much a part of its identity as its fluff. That’s why you don’t have fighters doing AoE fire damage X times per day.

 

[Horwath]

No. It isn’t.

If short rest stays at 1hr long, then I am happy that all short rest mechanics get the chopping block.

make it 1-5min long and we can talk about short rest mechanics.

They tried to add "when you roll initiative" recharge, which is basically saying; we frakked up completely with 1hr long rests and we cannot admit that 4E 5min rests were very good, so we will make up any nonsense mechanic just to avoid 5min short rests.


and what is roll for initiative?
I punch a party member for 1 damage? roll iniitative? yeah, power recharge for all that have that kind of mechanic at cost of 1HP.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The problem is that 5e currently has four recharge schedules: at will, when you roll initiative, Short rest and long rest. You're proposing a fifth that is unique to warlocks. I don't see how that fixes any of the other problems with the warlock, all it does is add another type of rest to the game.

It also has rituals and other events that take longer than a turn. And has proficiency times/day events. Which I've suggested using. Or multiple times per day events Barbarian Rage style, again which I've suggested using. Indeed these are actually expanding - see for example the new version of Second Wind in this exact same play packet. So no it's not adding anything in the way you claim it is.

And there are only a few other significant problems with the warlock:

1. Certain multiclassing interactions. This actively fixes the Coffeelock by hard-capping the amount of rests, and turning Eldritch Blast into a class feature fixes almost all the rest of them (they added back part of the Hexblade dip - by allowing Pact Weapon to use Extra Attack).
2. That the warlock has no working defensive invocations. Mage Armour on a light armour wearer would be a waste of a spell slot, never mind an Invocation, and False Life doesn't scale. So the warlock is the squishiest class in the game as they don't get heavy armour, Shield, Absorb Elements, or anything to make up for it. But you aren't going to fix bad invocations by changing the pact magic recharge mechanic.
3. The Invocations need cleaning up because there are a lot of bad ones. And more good ones would be a good thing. (Most of these have been cleaned up by dumping them into Mystic Arcanum).
4. Some people do not like it because it's different and because they personally do not like it they think no one should have it. This is not a problem with the warlock.

They spelled it out pretty clearly that they want warlocks to have 1. More spells and 2. Them to recharge at the same time as other casters. There is almost no scenario where having 2 scaling slots per recharge fits that description, even if the recharge is a bonus action in length 2/day.

None of which says the sort of change you want won't smash the class identity. The decision "You must force every class to work the same way" of course destroys the class identity of any interesting classes. The decision to enforce three and only three spell lists of course does terrible things to the bard's identity (The bard can't cast Heroism? Really?)

A big part of the warlock's class identity is that they have far and away objectively the simplest casting of any caster in the game at the table, and the casting that is far the least likely to have to worry about analysis paralysis (rivalled only by Smitey the Paladin). You only have a couple of slots to worry about and only have a very short spell list. But you aren't strapped for spells known in the way even the PHB Ranger is because you don't have to spread those spells out over multiple levels.

This really is putting the Warlock onto the Bed of Procrustes and deciding that it needs both to be stretched and to have its ankles cut off at the same time in order to fit.

 

[mamba]

Of course it would, because people who don’t like daily resource management should be allowed to play casters too.

they have daily management regardless, all this does is add the additional layer of short rests

No. It isn’t.

see above, also, just in the post before you wrote this is not worth debating over since we simply disagree

I am with you on that, we have different opinions and this won’t change. No one is stopping you from continuing to use the 5e Warlock, but I do not want to ruin the 1DD one by making him essentially identical to the 5e one. What is the point of a revision if you cannot make changes that people want (even if some do not)

A class’s mechanics are as much a part of its identity as its fluff. That’s why you don’t have fighters doing AoE fire damage X times per day.

I do not consider short rest spell recovery a worthwhile mechanic at all, it’s just a different frequency for doing what everyone else does as well in essentially the same way. MA on the other hand is a mechanic that is different and worth keeping (I could promote Warlock to full caster instead too, but that loses some distinction, so MA is an alternative to that)

My main gripe with short rests is it is better when everyone is on the same cycle (and as far as I am concerned, the longer that cycle is, the better). If everyone recovered their stuff on short rests instead to synchronize the cycles, Warlocks still lose that distinction.
So either way, this ‘mechanical’ distinction is going, and good riddance to it

 

[Remathilis]

A big part of the warlock's class identity is that they have far and away objectively the simplest casting of any caster in the game at the table, and the casting that is far the least likely to have to worry about analysis paralysis (rivalled only by Smitey the Paladin). You only have a couple of slots to worry about and only have a very short spell list. But you aren't strapped for spells known in the way even the PHB Ranger is because you don't have to spread those spells out over multiple levels.

I don't agree that a warlock is all that simple. First off, it requires a far deeper understanding of the upscaling spells rules, requires a lot of spell swapping every level to keep relevant, and you still have the "potion problem" of hoarding spell slots. I think they are rather complicated to play effectively, compared to a full caster who can survive just using the best blast spell of a given spell level. They are easier for you because you understand that interaction of spells and spell levels efficiently to juice the warlock, but the fact you know how to optimize doesn't make that true for a lot of players and groups.

IMHO, the allure of pact magic isn't simplicity or novelty, it's power. At level 10, you get potentially six 5th level spells. A standard caster get two. You can drop one level 5 spell each combat (assuming a guarantee of two fights and rest pattern). That is huge when done right, but it requires a lot of prep and buy in from the whole group to work. And when it doesn't, the warlock is weaker than if it had no spells at all.

I am perfectly fine with trading the potential of six level 5 spells per day for a more guaranteed split of low to high slots. We're never going to agree on this.

 

[mellored]

I’d be down with “as an action, whirlwind attack” type stuff. heck, give it the flavor that the fighter is just so deadly they can take out mooks in groups!

It's more that higher levels nearly always mean rolling more dice. And while it's fun to pull out a bucket of d6's now and again, it shouldn't be the norm.

like instead of rolling 8d6. You roll 2d6+20, with +5 for each additional spell slot.

Or the first time you hit a creature on a turn, you deal max damage.

Or combine multiple attacks into 1.

Doesn't have to be all the time, but speed up features should exsist.

 

[Chaosmancer]

And he said dragon wing is a lower level feature, but in both 2014 and playtest it is a Lv. 14 feature. I think he don't even remember what version of inner material they have made public.

Yeah, that utterly boggled me. Like, Fly is a 5th level feature. Why should a 14th level feature be even comparable to that?!

This fear of flight really confuses me.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I don't agree that a warlock is all that simple. First off, it requires a far deeper understanding of the upscaling spells rules,

No it doesn't. Whether to upscale a spell is something that any primary caster needs to make just about every time they cast a spell. The warlock doesn't need to juggle options.

requires a lot of spell swapping every level to keep relevant,

This isn't play at the table. Every 5e group I've had has levelled up between sessions when most people have time. Every 5e group I've had has also decided which spells the casters are going to cast at the table.

and you still have the "potion problem" of hoarding spell slots. I think they are rather complicated to play effectively, compared to a full caster who can survive just using the best blast spell of a given spell level.

If you're "just using the best blast spell of a given level" you're a wannabe warlock and probably underperforming the martials. Except warlocks you only worry about the best limited blast spell slot and Eldritch Blast. With a 7th level more normal caster when you want to blast you have to choose between the best 4th level blast spell, the best 3rd level blast spell, the best 2nd level blast spell, the best 1st level blast spell, and your best blast cantrip.

How, other than in the mind of someone who's spent literal decades playing wizards, is choosing between five separate levels of blast all of which do different things easier than just deciding "big limited use blast" or "at will zap"? And you still have the "potion problem"

Could this be improved with the warlock getting spells that scale better? Yes. But you are literally saying that it is easier to track five different types of blast, four of which have their own limited use pools, and which do different things than it is one limited use and one at will pool. This makes no sense.

I'd love for e.g. Hunger of Hadar to start as a first level spell with a 5ft radius that does d6 cold and d6 acid damage and scale up area and damage with the level it's cast at. Just as I'd love for the PHB to have not included a list of terrible invocations. But even with the clear lack of love and care given to the warlock (Hellish Rebuke not scaling I'm looking at you as another obvious case study) the warlock is still the simplest, easiest to play at the table,and arguably best feeling and most popular caster in the game.

IMHO, the allure of pact magic isn't simplicity or novelty, it's power.

Yes we get it. You do not like or click with the warlock. You click with it so little you think that six different options with five different limited use pools (as it is at level 10) is somehow simpler than two options with one limited use pool. You dislike it so much that you think having ten prepared spells that you re-choose when you level up is somehow more complicated than having fifteen prepared spells and a spell book of at least twenty three (and more if you are a cleric) that you re-choose every time you take a long rest.

We get you have literal decades of playing a wizard and it feels as if there is something missing when you are offered something simpler. What is missing is, to me and to many others, makework that is not and should not be required to play a caster. And that actively slows things down at the table.

I am perfectly fine with trading the potential of six level 5 spells per day for a more guaranteed split of low to high slots. We're never going to agree on this.

We certainly aren't going to agree that the tedious and pointless makework of tracking low level slots makes the experience of playing a non-warlock more annoying and actively worse if you can not accept that the tedious and pointless makework of tracking low level slots is to many annoying and one of the points of Invocations is so you don't have to put up with that crap. We aren't going to agree that the warlock is simpler if you continue to maintain that it's simpler to pick from five options with four separate but overlapping limited resource pool than it is to only have one (or possibly two) limited resource pools to track. We aren't going to agree that it's simpler to only have one version of a spell you can cast at a time is more complex than having multiple different versions you can cast through upcasting.