D&D 5E Warlock Mechanics - The best representation of modern fantasy archetypes in Dnd

[DND_Reborn]

The Artificer is played by 1% and includes the three most popular subclasses. It's on the bottom of the infographic that Neonchameleon provided.

Thanks! I didn't notice it. My mistake.

 

[Scribe]

Or that other classes have not enough going for them, especially when the warlock isn't mechanically OP

In some cases, certainly, but then you get some of the examples were people still just want a 'basic fighter' and dont care for the customization right?

 

[Aldarc]

Combination of multiple factors, personally I think Warlock has too much going for it.

So does the Wizard, but there would be a mutiny if you messed with the Wizard.

 

[Scribe]

So does the Wizard, but there would be a mutiny if you messed with the Wizard.

I dont disagree, and people would not be happy if Warlock was nerfed at all as well.

 

[Aldarc]

I dont disagree, and people would not be happy if Warlock was nerfed at all as well.

I don't think that the Warlock needs a nerf so much as it does rearranging, such as its low level abilities (and how that interacts with multiclass) and the balancing of some of its pact boons and invocations. I've never seen anyone, for example, say that the single-class Warlock is OP. Usually people are complaining about the low-level dips for invocations or patron abilities like the Hexblade's +Cha to attack. But if you include the latter as part of the Bladelock or even push that to a level 5 feature, then it becomes less attractive for multiclassing. If Eldritch Blast becomes a Warlock feature rather than just a cantrip, then that also takes out some of the desire to dip.

 

[Neonchameleon]

In some cases, certainly, but then you get some of the examples were people still just want a 'basic fighter' and dont care for the customization right?

I've never argued that simple characters shouldn't exist.

The weird thing about the warlock is that in practice they make the best simple casters in 5e.

 

[DND_Reborn]

You are suggesting changes to the game - you want changes that will affect the wider D&D community.

Nope, just my games. Read my posts more carefully in the future please.

In short you literally want to remove them as classes from the game.

No, from (again) from my games.

You want to remove what people like and play from the game and utterly shred the class variety of the most popular spellcasting class because your tiny group differs from the mainstream.

Again, you are making what I said about my own games and experience and claiming (without proof) that I am saying that is how it has to be for everyone.

So thank you for proving my point.

No, I have consistently and constantly a point which is based on your reading meaning into things I never said. If I said them pull a quote.

And maybe you should realise that you shouldn't suggest changes to D&D as a whole based on your atypical group.

Again, I never suggested it for D&D as a whole...

If I were to have my way then I'd demote wizard to a subclass of sorcerer that uses intelligence for spellcasting - the sorcerers that gain their spells from the study of books.

Cool, do that in your games. And I'll do what I want in mine...

It represents a lot more of it than your table.

LOL I never said my table did represent them! Please stop making implications based on things I never actually said or quote where I said it.

No one said it didn't. However it is just a small minority (as seen by the explosive growth of D&D in recent years).

I never said you didn't say that. I was simply pointing out that the "wider D&D community" includes older, more experienced players as well. In fact, the "wider D&D community" includes players who don't even play 5E or use D&D Beyond.

Meanwhile the wizard is a long rest class with arcane spells that it prepares. It is utterly redundant in a game that also has sorcerers, clerics, full caster bards, and warlocks.

Well, we can just disagree on this easily enough. You only need one caster class IMO, the rest can all easily be subclasses of it.

And just so you know, Bards are full casters in my games either! Oh, the HORROR!!!

If we're taking classes out for being meh, take the redundant ones out first. Ditch the wizard. You might not personally like invocations - but people do and no other class has them. You might find the patrons very meh - but no other class has something that comes close. And the wizard subclasses ("I'm a book caster who's slightly better at a few spells") might be better than the pre-4e wizard subclasses (I can cast extra spells but they are exactly the same spells as any other wizard other than the ones I can't cast) but are still all boring.

Or ditch the Sorcerer and Warlock. With Tasha's, metamagic and invocations can be taken as feats, so now you don't even need to dip in to those classes to get those things--which both classes are primarily based on, respectively.

Wizards are the best over all spellcasters hands down. That is there "thing", they don't need anything more like Sorcerers and Warlocks.

FWIW, I like the concept of invocations, just IME some are so good people end up taking the same ones over and over again; and not just in my games, but in other games I've watched people play! The rest are so lackluster people simply don't take them IME. YMMV, of course.

But instead what you want downgraded from the status of a full class is simultaneously:

• The most popular spellcasting class according to the best data we have available (which is incomplete and unreliable so worthless. bad data has no use other than anecdotal at best, which is fine, but let's not pretend it is anything better...)
• The single class with the most interesting levelling experience (LOL, that is your opinion--which I am sure is shared by others, but hardly universal)
• The single class with the most mechanically varied characters (thanks to the Invocations and the Pact Boon) (invocations which anyone can have now and Pact Boons which really aren't anything special IMO)
• The class that works least like the other classes (the only short rest spellcasting class) (so Arcane Recovery and Natural Recovery--both short rest features which allow you to recover spells on a short rest... they are hardly unique, it is their "thing"--which is fine, but not unique really)
• Probably the spellcasting class with the greatest variety in their subclasses (oh, plah-eeze, I can't even dignify that with a response...)

(See bolded comments)

And somehow you want to downgrade this into a subclass.

Not only want to, but HAVE!!! Oh, the HORROR!!!

So, if you want to actually quote me for saying anything that (in context) implied I believed my preferences should be universally applied to the "wider D&D community", please do so. Otherwise, I have nothing further to say to you on the subject. Cheers.

 

[DND_Reborn]

So does the Wizard, but there would be a mutiny if you messed with the Wizard.

Slightly off topic, but I have stated repeatedly on this forum that I think Wizards should be nerfed, but I know I am in a minority on that.

I've never seen anyone, for example, say that the single-class Warlock is OP.

Me, neither. Their power-level is fine, it is their "ho-hum" nature that makes them less appealing to me. Although I will admit I really like the two new subclasses @Undrave has developed and I assisted on. Those have a more "cool factor" for me.

If Eldritch Blast becomes a Warlock feature rather than just a cantrip, then that also takes out some of the desire to dip.

Agreed. I think it should be, in the same way Hunter's Mark should be a Ranger feature, not a spell.

 

[Scribe]

Slightly off topic, but I have stated repeatedly on this forum that I think Wizards should be nerfed, but I know I am in a minority on that.

I dont know that you are in the minority on this, at least on the forum.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I dont know that you are in the minority on this, at least on the forum.

I don't know, people keep claiming nerfing the wizard would be akin to an all out revolt, so I figured I was...

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I actually find playing a wizard to be simpler than playing a warlock. As a a wizard I have so many spell slots and spells that I can just cast whatever I feel like, while as a warlock I really have to think carefully about how I best use my limited spells and slots.

The wizard is really only complicated if you have trouble remembering what your spells do.

 

[TwoSix]

The wizard is really only complicated if you have trouble remembering what your spells do.

To be fair, IME, this is lots and lots (and lots) of people.

 

[Aldarc]

IMHO, it's less an issue of whether the wizard is too complicated or not. It's more an issue for me that the wizard is too thematically broad and all-encompassing when it comes to arcane magic. A lot of the older drawbacks for the magic-user/wizard have also been removed over time while the overall power level has remained the same. I would narrow it down in terms of the class fantasy and what sort of spells best represent that class fantasy.

I would potentially do the same for the other arcane spell classes so that their niches were more distinct.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I would potentially do the same for the other arcane spell classes so that their niches were more distinct.

Yeah, that is a big issue IMO, which is why I prefer our revised spell lists, it helps with that a lot.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Nope, just my games. Read my posts more carefully in the future please.

Again, you are making what I said about my own games and experience and claiming (without proof) that I am saying that is how it has to be for everyone.

You literally said in so many words "Frankly, I would rather just remove both Warlocks and Sorcerers from the game, but they work well as the subclasses of Clerics and Wizards, so that is a happy compromise. "

If you mean you'd rather remove them from your games rather from the game meaning D&D as a wider thing then say that. Make your posts more clearly.

I never said you didn't say that. I was simply pointing out that the "wider D&D community" includes older, more experienced players as well. In fact, the "wider D&D community" includes players who don't even play 5E or use D&D Beyond.

And you're talking about things I didn't say. Experienced players who also play 5e are a part of the wider 5e community

Well, we can just disagree on this easily enough. You only need one caster class IMO, the rest can all easily be subclasses of it.

You need no classes in D&D and can go entirely classless. I don't know why you'd want to homogenise D&D and run everything through a blender destroying one of its main advantages over other games, in having a strong class system.

Or ditch the Sorcerer and Warlock. With Tasha's, metamagic and invocations can be taken as feats, so now you don't even need to dip in to those classes to get those things--which both classes are primarily based on, respectively.

Except they aren't. The Warlock in particular is an entire package - based on spells, pacts, pact boons, and invocations. All working together.

Wizards are the best over all spellcasters hands down. That is there "thing", they don't need anything more like Sorcerers and Warlocks.

In short wizards are the most basic spellcasters and the most generic spellcasters. And according to you they don't need subclasses because if they have subclasses then they simply aren't the best overall spellcasters, they are the best spellcasters in their area. Outside their school (and even inside in some cases) they aren't even the best with any given spell as the sorcerer can just add metamagic to the same spell.

And if you want to make something into the best generalist spellcaster then that's a gimmick. And it would make perfect and complete sense to make it a gimmick of sorcerer - the sorcerers who can learn an unlimited number of spells but only prepare a few at a time. So which is it?

To me the answer is simple. Wizards are the most flexible spellcasters and can change up their spells. And there s no good reason other than history that this can't be a sorcerer subclass. With the exception of the Bladesinger (which is OP) the wizard subclasses are thin and watery, with the lowlight being that the necromancer that's basically better with only a single spell.

FWIW, I like the concept of invocations, just IME some are so good people end up taking the same ones over and over again; and not just in my games, but in other games I've watched people play! The rest are so lackluster people simply don't take them IME. YMMV, of course.

I'm not disagreeing that over half the invocations could be removed and no one would miss a thing. One of the things I hope 5e does is gives them the boot. (In particular more than a quarter of spells in the PHB say "You can cast [a single spell] once using a warlock spell slot. You can't do so again until you finish a long rest." and are absolutely worthless and I don't know who thought anyone would give up an invocation to cast Mage Armour on themselves when warlocks are proficient in light armour). I'm honestly surprised I've never seen anyone cast Gaze of Two Minds.

Of the 14 invocations in Xanathar's all require either a pact boon or at least 5th level (some need higher) or Eldritch Blast. There's only one I've not heard anyone at least consider on a character of the right level (and that's not because Cloud of Flies is weak) and in Tasha's only one's a first level (and advantage on concentration checks is worth swiping) while half are Talisman-specific. No one looks at the 1/day Animate Dead.

But really the problem here is that PHB Invocations have about the hit rate of feats or spells. There are, I think, 14 allowed Invocations in the PHB at level 2 - of which six are obvious trash, three being replacable by a ritual, one by studded leather, one a spell slot, and one is weaker than the skilled feat, and three (plus two in Xanathar's) boost Eldritch Blast and all are taken by people always starting with Agonizing Blast. Of the remainder I haven't seen Gaze Of Two Minds for some unknown reason. But Fiendish Vigour isn't unknown and Devil's Sight, Misty Visions, and Mire the Mind are al IME pretty common. And I've even seen both Eyes of the Rune Keeper and Eldritch Sight even if both can be replaced by rituals.

So yes there are some reasons you see the same invocations all the time. There just aren't that many of them at low level that aren't obviously bad. And from what I can tell the majority of them that open up at higher level are tied to the pact boons. It's still better than literally any other class even if there should be more.

(See bolded comments)

What was I supposed to do? Laugh?

So, if you want to actually quote me for saying anything that (in context) implied I believed my preferences should be universally applied to the "wider D&D community", please do so. Otherwise, I have nothing further to say to you on the subject. Cheers.

When you say you something should be removed from the game that means for the wider community - the "the" is a definite article with the implications that it's only one. If you mean from your game then say that.

 

[Neonchameleon]

IMHO, it's less an issue of whether the wizard is too complicated or not. It's more an issue for me that the wizard is too thematically broad and all-encompassing when it comes to arcane magic. A lot of the older drawbacks for the magic-user/wizard have also been removed over time while the overall power level has remained the same. I would narrow it down in terms of the class fantasy and what sort of spells best represent that class fantasy.

I would potentially do the same for the other arcane spell classes so that their niches were more distinct.

I'd here compare and contrast the wizard to the sorcerer. Thematically I'd say the sorcerer can and should be broader than the wizard to the point that it would not significantly harm either the sorcerer or the wizard to make the Wizard an Int-using sorcerer subclass.

But individual sorcerers are all and without exception specialists. First they are made to specialise thematically and are highly specialised thanks to their subclass. (That pre-Tasha's sorcerer subclasses are bad is a whole different issue). Second their limited number of known spells forces them to specialise and pick only a few things to be good at; two sorcerers in different subclasses are likely to be very different unless there are only a tiny number of good spells anyway.

Meanwhile the big weakness of the wizard when it comes to specialisation is that if you swap their spellbooks then after a few days they almost become each other magically.

 

[Vaalingrade]

In other words, Warlock is popular because it’s an AEDU class in disguise.

The secret to good game design in D&D is to not tell the fans it's good game design.

Like drenching vegetables in sauce.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Speaking of which, I know a common critique is that the build-your-own-character approach is weakened by the strength of the eldritch blast spam build, and there’s some merit to that. It is pretty much the most optimal way to build a Warlock, in addition to being the most obvious. That said, I think the degree to which it outperforms other builds is not so extreme as to make this a big problem. Hopefully the 1D&D version will smooth this issue over a bit.

I actually wonder how WotC would "smooth over" the warlock, given their current design philosophy of emphasizing simplicity and PC power. The easiest way is to reduce the power of Eldritch Blast, but I don't think that would go over well with the fanbase they're trying to court. Maybe make all their options just as strong?

 

[DND_Reborn]

You literally said in so many words "Frankly, I would rather just remove both Warlocks and Sorcerers from the game, but they work well as the subclasses of Clerics and Wizards, so that is a happy compromise. "

If you mean you'd rather remove them from your games rather from the game meaning D&D as a wider thing then say that. Make your posts more clearly.

Or how about you don't read words into my posts that I actually didn't say? You can always ASK for clarification if it is unclear, you know.

I never said, "We should remove them from the game" or anything like you are implying, I said, "Frankly, I WOULD rather..." as in it is what I would do, not telling anyone else what THEY should do.

This was all just me expressing my opinion, and what I have done with my game. In no way, shape, or form did I ever tell anyone else what they should do or how to play their game or imply what "the wider D&D community" should do.

What was I supposed to do? Laugh?

Sure, I did.

Wait, actually, you DID laugh.

 

[TwoSix]

I actually wonder how WotC would "smooth over" the warlock, given their current design philosophy of emphasizing simplicity and PC power. The easiest way is to reduce the power of Eldritch Blast, but I don't think that would go over well with the fanbase they're trying to court. Maybe make all their options just as strong?

I'd remove Agonizing Blast, and add in a "once per turn" scaling damage effect as part of the class progression.