Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bacon Bits" data-source="post: 7023717" data-attributes="member: 6777737">Nope.  That's why I originally said, "I don't really see them doing anything to really fix my problems with the class."  However, I don't see why a UA for a class should contain class paths and nothing else.Definitely a matter for a different thread, but briefly, the core problems are a) eldritch blast is multi-hit, while hex and Agonizing Blast specify "per hit," coupled with b) Devil's Sight plus darkness being a combination that can really warp a lot of encounters.  Since you can get the first with 2 levels of the class both of those with 3 levels of the class... it's kind of irritating when people take Warlock just to do that.  I feel like the damage output from blast is manageable for single classed Warlocks because if they choose that they can't do much else, but multiclassed characters get a bunch of other abilities, and Devil's Sight/darkness is somewhat frustrating to deal with as a DM because it just never goes away.  And, I mean, I can't throw demons, devils, and helmed horrors at the party all the time.  If I encounter a problematic rule, I'd rather just change the rule rather than warping the entire campaign around one or two undesirable game mechanics.Given that that is precisely how optional rules are presented in the PHB and DMG, I really don't think that's the fault of the players.  Neither the PHB nor the DMG provides any guidance on the introduction of optional rules to the game.  There is some limited discussion within some optional rules for the type of game that might want to use the optional rule, but overall there's not much guidance at all.  If you don't know the game, is it really obvious that feats make characters significantly more powerful?  After all, feats cost you a valuable ASI.  It's not unreasonable to expect the benefit of the feat to compare well with an ASI, but that's simply not the case.No, cantrips scale with character level simply because the game expects all PCs to have a baseline damage boost at level 5, 11, and 16-17 or so.  In order to keep cantrips relevant at all, they have to scale with level.  The game doesn't say "caster level" because the game doesn't have that concept anymore.  The spells could easily have said "class level" and added a caveat for racial cantrips, but it's just simpler to use "character level."  Simplicity is one of the design pillars of 5e, so we end up with a lot of these "good enough" designs that work exactly correct in 90% of situations, are a bit weird but OK in 9% of situations, and are really pretty wonky, awkward, broken (non functional), or broken (overpowered) in 1% of situations.</blockquote>

Verification