D&D (2024) They butchered the warlock in the new packet

[Remathilis]

The thing here is that I don't think many people are claiming that the 2014 warlock is broken-good. Decent, yes. Broken-good when compared to e.g. the wizard, no. And I don't think your D&Done warlock is in the league of your classic one.

Anyway, build critique:

• Armour of Shadows for the 2014 warlock with light armour is at best a "style invocation". When you can wear light armour for Dex +12 spending an entire invocation for Dex +13 is a waste. (It's even worse in the D&Done warlock where you can wear medium armour or even just spend a first level slot for Mage Armour). This is literally the worst invocation in the entire playtest packet; Fiendish Vigour (False Life At Will) is a far better choice if you want an invocation to make yourself tougher - and it doesn't have great scaling.
• Scorching ray barely does more damage than a two-bolt Eldritch Blast and it does the same thing.
• Arms of Hadar was a fine warlock spell at level 1 - but the upcast version is awful. It should be traded out for Hunger of Hadar at level 5 or 6
• Likewise Burning Hands for Fireball
• Not that you need either both Arms of Hadar and Burning Hands or Hunger of Hadar and Fireball as your messy AoE of choice.

So our 7th level "classic" warlock might instead know Hex, Misty Step, Blindness/Deafness, Invisibility, Fly, Fireball, Counterspell, Banishment. (The only one of these spells that doesn't scale is Misty Step); I don't think that this caster is any less well rounded than either of yours. And this ability to dump their out-leveled spells is one of the reasons the warlock doesn't lead to as much analysis paralysis and reading through spells a little lost as other casters.

The reason you'd do that is if you wanted to cast banishment four times in one fight. The warlock can't do that; part of the point of the warlock's mechanics is to cap their ability. And all Banishment really is in most cases is a save-or-don't-be-here spell. It's a spell to bring down on a boss monster.

Your analysis kinda shows that warlock isn't as beginner friendly as you made it out to be. Your spell swaps require a certain amount of optimization analysis (determining if upcasting a spell is better than getting a new one) that many newer or casual players don't always have. I intentionally avoided optimization for that very reason. (The other reason was an attempt to try and find options that were shared between both versions).

I'm sure the char-op boards could easily build a better warlock than I did. Tbh, I wasn't trying. Only to give an example of what a similar character might look like in both versions.

 

[Neonchameleon]

FYI: A 7th level sorcerer who converted all their spell slots to sorcery points, and then used them to create 4th level spell slots could cast banishment... 4 times max per day. In case you wonder how good two short rests are.

Also:
A 7th level sorcerer who does this isn't playing smart because you lose power when converting.

A 7th level sorcerer starts with seven sorcery points. A 7th level sorcerer who keeps their 4th level slot as a 4th level slot and converts three third level slots (9 sorcery points) plus three second level (6) plus 4 first level (4) has 19 spell points. If they then take the Twinned Spell spell they can cast Banishment five times in a single fight compared to the twice of a warlock. This is actually a viable "And stay away" possibility.

Does anyone know how twinned spell works with upcasting?

 

[Mephista]

I wouldn’t rule it out, but how you represent a feature internally in your VTT at a technical level does not need to match how the book describes it, as long as they function the same way.

Feats, skills and spells could all be versions of the same versatile VTT ‘template’, or they could all be distinct.

Probably not the VTT. But it was a thought so I thought I'd toss it out. I'm still banking on it being a Mage-Group thing. There's nothing that unites the three classes beyond being Arcane, and even the Bard and Artificer share that, so... they needed something.

 

[Nightfly]

No, you don't. Because warlocks are casters, and, unlike martials, get thing to do outside of combat. How do you deal with a warlock spending their spell slots in a social situation? Or how about The Wild Beyond the Witchlight, an adventure noted for its ability to avoid all combats and complete the story.

That system worked very well for casters in 4e, and it works very well in 13a. Admittedly, both those games draw a hard line between combat spells and utility spells that 5e will never have (and shouldn't). Even so, what I'm suggesting not only can be done but has been done, and many of us miss it. It's not as if granting fireball once per combat inevitably also grants Charm Person infinitely many times. That's very fixable.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Your analysis kinda shows that warlock isn't as beginner friendly as you made it out to be. Your spell swaps require a certain amount of optimization analysis (determining if upcasting a spell is better than getting a new one) that many newer or casual players don't always have. I intentionally avoided optimization for that very reason. (The other reason was an attempt to try and find options that were shared between both versions)

On the contrary. My analysis swaps optimisation analysis done between sessions with optimisation analysis done live at the table. Every single caster in the game other than the warlock has the determining if upcasting a spell is better than casting a different spell decision to make every time they cast a spell.

The warlock takes slightly longer to level up - but can do that between sessions when people have time rather than dragging the entire game to a screeching halt or feeling incredibly rushed when you have five other people looking at you - and 50% more spells than the warlock generally knows to decide between. If you think that deciding whether to upcast a spell is such a terribly onerous burden then surely your ideal is to not have people play non-casters at all?

And why in the name of the little black pig do you think that people find it harder and more intimidating to decide things between sessions when they level up than it takes them to repeatedly make the same decisions live at the table?

 

[Mephista]

Also:
A 7th level sorcerer who does this isn't playing smart because you lose power when converting.

A 7th level sorcerer starts with seven sorcery points. A 7th level sorcerer who keeps their 4th level slot as a 4th level slot and converts three third level slots (9 sorcery points) plus three second level (6) plus 4 first level (4) has 19 spell points. If they then take the Twinned Spell spell they can cast Banishment five times in a single fight compared to the twice of a warlock. This is actually a viable "And stay away" possibility.

Does anyone know how twinned spell works with upcasting?

This kind of illustrates why I find Font of Power such a headache. Why is creating a spell slot so much more expensive than its reverse?

And the new Twinned Spell doesn't allow you to share Concentrate on the twinned spell anymore, so your previous iteration of Banishment loses Concentration as the new one takes effect.

The real benefit of Twinned Spell is just Sorcery Point savings. Casting two fireballs would normally cost you two third level slots. With Twinned Spell, you can turn that third level slot into five points and cast fireball with three of those five, netting you two Sorcery Points over what you would have had. Assuming you want to cast fireball twice in a row, of course.

No idea if that means you can cast fireball with a forth level slot and then four sorcery points, or if you must use three. I'm guessing the former, but don't quote me on it.

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

It's far far worse than that because of level scaling. Invisibility cast by the 2014 warlock is cast at 4th level so works on three targets; by the D&Done warlock it only affects one. And there are other such differences.

good catch

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

Someone in the other thread pointed out that the Champion subclass in the playtest has an ability that can be used, quote, "once per combat".

HEY WOTC! If you're letting the "combat power" cat out of the bag, that is how you re-do the warlock right there.

yes please and thank you

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

Your analysis kinda shows that warlock isn't as beginner friendly as you made it out to be. Your spell swaps require a certain amount of optimization analysis (determining if upcasting a spell is better than getting a new one) that many newer or casual players don't always have. I intentionally avoided optimization for that very reason. (The other reason was an attempt to try and find options that were shared between both versions).

I'm sure the char-op boards could easily build a better warlock than I did. Tbh, I wasn't trying. Only to give an example of what a similar character might look like in both versions.

what you want to do is thread cap... to say "Hey the thread about people unhappy about the warlock here look you should be happy" /thread

 

[Mephista]

That system worked very well for casters in 4e, and it works very well in 13a. Admittedly, both those games draw a hard line between combat spells and utility spells that 5e will never have (and shouldn't). Even so, what I'm suggesting not only can be done but has been done, and many of us miss it. It's not as if granting fireball once per combat inevitably also grants Charm Person infinitely many times. That's very fixable.

It works in 4e and its clones (which includes 13Age), because that game revolves primarily around combat, often even the utilies. I say this as someone who loves playing 13Age.

That is simply untrue in 5e, demonstrably so with the example of Wild Beyond the Witchlight - an entire adventure that you can avoid all combat with. As much as some people like claiming that 5e is primarily about fighting and combat, there are official adventures and many parts in home games where you ... don't do combat. I remember once when my group spent three weekly sessions doing nothing but building a town. The group fighter ended up cutting down trees, the mages used Fly to run between towns and get food and clothes and starter seeds, etc.

As much as D&D loves its dungeons and monsters, there are just times when... D&D isn't about either. So planning a class that has any kind of non-combat inclination around combat ends up... not working. It works for the fighter, because the ability in question is a combat-only ability. It doesn't work for the warlock, because the warlock wants to do things outside of combat.