Invocations aren't very powerful. They have the most limited spell selection and spell list. Paladins have a ton of stuff to make them as powerful or more powerful overall than most classes. Ranger is a bit weak overall. They do what they're supposed to do in the game. The paladin in our game does pretty good nova damage. The reality is At Will damage is mostly wasted until the big fights.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 5E What is Warlock’s At-will damage As Intended?
- Thread starter Sword of Spirit
- Start date
Invocations aren't very powerful. They have the most limited spell selection and spell list. Paladins have a ton of stuff to make them as powerful or more powerful overall than most classes. Ranger is a bit weak overall. They do what they're supposed to do in the game. The paladin in our game does pretty good nova damage. The reality is At Will damage is mostly wasted until the big fights.
brehobit
Explorer
Looking at ranged rogue vs. Warlock. I'm assuming the rogue always has a sneak attack target (which isn't going to be true) while I vary if the warlock has hex up. The numbers in () are the damage if the blast only can add once.
I think it's fair to say that the rogue will have a sneak attack more often than the warlock will have hex up. Given the initial damage relationship, I'd say that the intent was that warlock with hex would track rogue. At level 5 even with the more limited rule of once-per-blast the warlock is ahead of the rogue (+3). It's +8 with RAW. But level 5 is a really nice one for the warlock. Level 9 is a bit more fair. And there it is something closer to a tie. At level 17 things are very much weighted in the warlock's favor. At a point when the warlock has a significant number of non-at-will options. (Lots of quite powerful spells)
Basic theme: it all depends on which you think has the stronger package of other options. I'd claim it's something of a tie for a while, but nothing compares to casting higher-level spells (though if doing that, the warlock is unlikely to have hex up that much). I'd say both work, but RAW is probably a bit on the high side.
Suggested rule: The stat damage should be nerfed to apply only on a per-target basis. If you shoot 4 rays at one person, they get the bonus only once. If you shoot at 4 different targets, you get bonus to each. I think it's a good compromise.
Code:
[B]
Level Rogue Warlock Warlock
no hex hex[/B]
1 10 5.5 9
3 13.5 8.5 12
5 18 19 (15) 26 (21)
9 26 21 (16) 28 (23)
11 29.5 32.5 (22.5) 43 (33)
17 40 42 (27) 56 (41)I think it's fair to say that the rogue will have a sneak attack more often than the warlock will have hex up. Given the initial damage relationship, I'd say that the intent was that warlock with hex would track rogue. At level 5 even with the more limited rule of once-per-blast the warlock is ahead of the rogue (+3). It's +8 with RAW. But level 5 is a really nice one for the warlock. Level 9 is a bit more fair. And there it is something closer to a tie. At level 17 things are very much weighted in the warlock's favor. At a point when the warlock has a significant number of non-at-will options. (Lots of quite powerful spells)
Basic theme: it all depends on which you think has the stronger package of other options. I'd claim it's something of a tie for a while, but nothing compares to casting higher-level spells (though if doing that, the warlock is unlikely to have hex up that much). I'd say both work, but RAW is probably a bit on the high side.
Suggested rule: The stat damage should be nerfed to apply only on a per-target basis. If you shoot 4 rays at one person, they get the bonus only once. If you shoot at 4 different targets, you get bonus to each. I think it's a good compromise.
Last edited:
Pickles JG
First Post
I think the whole comparison is off as Warlocks are more like Archery Ranger's than anything else.
They get Hex vs Hunter's Mark and do d10 damage not d8 but are -2 to hit. I dunno if the +2 to hit was taken into account in the average DPR.
Rangers can take crossbow mastery if they need to want to get d10 damage. They also get to use the feat that may be broken, Sharpshooter instead of Spell Sniper. They get more damage abilities with the hunter path though the 11th level one is poor cf a straight extra attack.
Their spells work differently but Warlocks are not really full casters.
1) If they are Hexing then they get one other spell per short rest until 11th level.
2) 2 short rests per day in not the average it's more like the limit - how many times do you get more than 2 short rests a day? IME hardly ever but you get 1 or none frequently. So Warlocks get about 2 spells per day until 10th level (more if they can maintain Hex over a rest).
3) Their slots above 5th level are more limited than pure Vancian - they get precisely one spell of each level ever & cannot downgrade their higher level slots. So they had better pick generally useful ones & even then they will not always get good value out of their slots.
4) 20th level comparisons are generally irrelevant to the game which is mostly played at levels 3 -12 or so.
If you really think warlocks are too good when they add CHA to damage for each Eldritch Blast you probably also ought to nerf Rangers & everyone else with multiple attacks for that matter.
They get Hex vs Hunter's Mark and do d10 damage not d8 but are -2 to hit. I dunno if the +2 to hit was taken into account in the average DPR.
Rangers can take crossbow mastery if they need to want to get d10 damage. They also get to use the feat that may be broken, Sharpshooter instead of Spell Sniper. They get more damage abilities with the hunter path though the 11th level one is poor cf a straight extra attack.
Their spells work differently but Warlocks are not really full casters.
1) If they are Hexing then they get one other spell per short rest until 11th level.
2) 2 short rests per day in not the average it's more like the limit - how many times do you get more than 2 short rests a day? IME hardly ever but you get 1 or none frequently. So Warlocks get about 2 spells per day until 10th level (more if they can maintain Hex over a rest).
3) Their slots above 5th level are more limited than pure Vancian - they get precisely one spell of each level ever & cannot downgrade their higher level slots. So they had better pick generally useful ones & even then they will not always get good value out of their slots.
4) 20th level comparisons are generally irrelevant to the game which is mostly played at levels 3 -12 or so.
If you really think warlocks are too good when they add CHA to damage for each Eldritch Blast you probably also ought to nerf Rangers & everyone else with multiple attacks for that matter.
Jefe Bergenstein
Legend
Brehobit, are you taking into account crossbow expert/sharpshooter for the rogue? That's a big chunk of damage they're potentially leaving on the table.
Agonizing blast is fine as is. What probably isnt fine is how much you get from a 2 level dip in warlock, and that it feels like you're more powerful by not sticking with warlock and going bard/sorcerer instead. I made eldritch blast a class feature (opening up a cantrip slot and preventing it from being poached) and gave agonizing blast for free, since it really seems needed to make the class function worth a damn.
Agonizing blast is fine as is. What probably isnt fine is how much you get from a 2 level dip in warlock, and that it feels like you're more powerful by not sticking with warlock and going bard/sorcerer instead. I made eldritch blast a class feature (opening up a cantrip slot and preventing it from being poached) and gave agonizing blast for free, since it really seems needed to make the class function worth a damn.
Jaron Mortimer
First Post
I'd like to point out that a crossbow focused fighter can VASTLY outstrip a Warlock on DPR, especially when we get to talking about Feats and/or magic items
For comparison, i'll do a level 20 warlock with Agonizing blast and 20 Cha and Hex and a Level 20 fighter with 20 Dex and the Archery Combat style.
Without feats, We're looking at 1d10+5+1d6, 4 times, each with +11 to hit for the Warlock, and 1d8+5, 4 times, each with +13 to his for the Fighter. Pretty unbalanced.
Now, lets add in a couple feats, which the fighter should get in spades.
Warlock has Spell sniper and War caster, allowing him to negate cover and extend his range. He still gets 4 shots, dealing 1d10+5+1d6 damage a piece and hitting on a +11. By comparison, the Fighter gets Crossbow Master and Sharpshooter, allowing him to Fire his crossbow multiple times per round, fire in melee, and ignore cover, as well as the -5 attack +10 Damage ability. That shifts him to 4 shots, dealing 1d10+5 (with a heavy crossbow) damage per shot, this time at a +13. Additionally, though, he can choose to shoot at a +8 to deal 1d10+15 damage per shot, something the warlock just cannot do.
Point being, the +cha to each beam is powerful, but not anywhere near gamebreaking. Fighters have the potential to outpace you no matter what.
For comparison, i'll do a level 20 warlock with Agonizing blast and 20 Cha and Hex and a Level 20 fighter with 20 Dex and the Archery Combat style.
Without feats, We're looking at 1d10+5+1d6, 4 times, each with +11 to hit for the Warlock, and 1d8+5, 4 times, each with +13 to his for the Fighter. Pretty unbalanced.
Now, lets add in a couple feats, which the fighter should get in spades.
Warlock has Spell sniper and War caster, allowing him to negate cover and extend his range. He still gets 4 shots, dealing 1d10+5+1d6 damage a piece and hitting on a +11. By comparison, the Fighter gets Crossbow Master and Sharpshooter, allowing him to Fire his crossbow multiple times per round, fire in melee, and ignore cover, as well as the -5 attack +10 Damage ability. That shifts him to 4 shots, dealing 1d10+5 (with a heavy crossbow) damage per shot, this time at a +13. Additionally, though, he can choose to shoot at a +8 to deal 1d10+15 damage per shot, something the warlock just cannot do.
Point being, the +cha to each beam is powerful, but not anywhere near gamebreaking. Fighters have the potential to outpace you no matter what.
Sword of Spirit
Legend
Forgive me if I'm missing something (maybe I'm dense), but what I'm seeing repeatedly is almost an entire disregard for everything about warlock except their at-will damage. Other class features matter.
You may not like the other class features. You may not care about the other class features. Or we may all be stuck into the 3e-4e mindset that warlocks are strikers (which is an assumption that may not actually hold for 5e). But the class obviously was designed to take into account the other class features. It doesn't make any sense to disregard other class features. The entire point I'm making is, "given all the other stuff warlock's get, are they supposed to also have at-will damage on par with some of the best at-will damage classes in the book?"
Now, I freely admit that the design intent answer might be "yes, we didn't consider their other features on par with similar classes, and very high at-will damage is part of the class's balance." But I haven't seen any arguments addressing the details that are needed to establish that. The only argument I can actually agree with is that their spellcasting is less flexible in some ways. Given 2 short rests per/day and pact of the Tome (and my comparison in previous post baked that in and accounted for it in comparisons) their spellcasting is about as powerful as other classes. If you compare the list of class abilities (from my last post) to the other classes, warlocks don't look to me like they are lagging. If flexibility in spellcasting matters, then flexibility in class features matters also. The space that is taken up by pre-defined class abilities in other classes (the table in my previous post), is "design your own" for warlock.
But are the rogue's other class features as good as the warlocks? If the warlock massively outstrips rogue in everything but at-will damage, it seems unbalanced for them to be keeping up with a rogue's at-will damage.
This is actually an excellent point of comparison. Warlocks have the same HD and armor as rogues, and don't have need of weapons. If a warlock's at-will damage is roughly comparable to that of a rogue--are their other class features equivalent?
I mean, I'm just not seeing it. All of those invocations, the subclass abilities, 9th level spellcasting. Can anyone make me an argument that a warlock's class features outside of their at-will damage, are roughly equivalent to a rogues?
You may not like the other class features. You may not care about the other class features. Or we may all be stuck into the 3e-4e mindset that warlocks are strikers (which is an assumption that may not actually hold for 5e). But the class obviously was designed to take into account the other class features. It doesn't make any sense to disregard other class features. The entire point I'm making is, "given all the other stuff warlock's get, are they supposed to also have at-will damage on par with some of the best at-will damage classes in the book?"
Now, I freely admit that the design intent answer might be "yes, we didn't consider their other features on par with similar classes, and very high at-will damage is part of the class's balance." But I haven't seen any arguments addressing the details that are needed to establish that. The only argument I can actually agree with is that their spellcasting is less flexible in some ways. Given 2 short rests per/day and pact of the Tome (and my comparison in previous post baked that in and accounted for it in comparisons) their spellcasting is about as powerful as other classes. If you compare the list of class abilities (from my last post) to the other classes, warlocks don't look to me like they are lagging. If flexibility in spellcasting matters, then flexibility in class features matters also. The space that is taken up by pre-defined class abilities in other classes (the table in my previous post), is "design your own" for warlock.
But are the rogue's other class features as good as the warlocks? If the warlock massively outstrips rogue in everything but at-will damage, it seems unbalanced for them to be keeping up with a rogue's at-will damage.
This is actually an excellent point of comparison. Warlocks have the same HD and armor as rogues, and don't have need of weapons. If a warlock's at-will damage is roughly comparable to that of a rogue--are their other class features equivalent?
I mean, I'm just not seeing it. All of those invocations, the subclass abilities, 9th level spellcasting. Can anyone make me an argument that a warlock's class features outside of their at-will damage, are roughly equivalent to a rogues?
I'm generally OK with warlocks high at-will DPS, but my players are suggesting only giving the CHA once per person rather than per bolt. So let the warlock split up the bolts to hit different people, and they get cha each time, but they cant get it every time to blast down the one guy. That seems like a halfway point between the two arguments.
Class comparisons always feel like comparing apples to ham, lasers, an Audi A3, bizarre pornography of the 1920's and Chinese New Year in Laos.
I'm not interested in playing a Warlock during any campaign with a healthy amount of combat because they look dreadfully boring. What am I going to do next round? Hmm Eldritch Blast?
Warlocks are great in heavy RP campaigns and at that point, if they are a little overpowered in round to round combat who cares? They're more likely to be affected (see: Killed) by decisions during the RP than the combat.
I think the problem with the spell (more so than most cantrips) is the 2 level dip for a 300m and/or 4x pushback and/or Cha modifier to a non warlock class. Sure it's a bit MAD for classes other than the Bard and Paladin but it's ridiculously powerful to get that much control of the battlefield at will even without much Cha bonus.
If I saw any shenanigans like that consistently at my table I would swap/change the invocations into level 7-9.
I'm not interested in playing a Warlock during any campaign with a healthy amount of combat because they look dreadfully boring. What am I going to do next round? Hmm Eldritch Blast?
Warlocks are great in heavy RP campaigns and at that point, if they are a little overpowered in round to round combat who cares? They're more likely to be affected (see: Killed) by decisions during the RP than the combat.
I think the problem with the spell (more so than most cantrips) is the 2 level dip for a 300m and/or 4x pushback and/or Cha modifier to a non warlock class. Sure it's a bit MAD for classes other than the Bard and Paladin but it's ridiculously powerful to get that much control of the battlefield at will even without much Cha bonus.
If I saw any shenanigans like that consistently at my table I would swap/change the invocations into level 7-9.
Sword of Spirit
Legend
So I was thinking of demonstrating the kind of logical argument I'm soliciting by giving the best argument for RAW Agonizing Blast that I can myself create.
First, I look at the Invocations that allow you to cast a spell once per day using a warlock spell slot. Pretty much everyone agrees these are crap. Why would WotC even make those? What were they trying to avoid by not just letting you cast them once per day period?
It's also worth noticing that an inordinate number of the combat spells on the warlock's list are duration based spells that require concentration, thus limiting the warlock to using hex OR another duration-based combat spell, but not both. So why not let the warlock actually make use of his spells? Why require him to either use default eldritch blast plus spells, or hex and not cast other spells?
It seems to me that the combined function of these limitations might be to limit the warlock to a very small number of combat spells between rests. You have to use a limited number of spell slots on them, and if you are using slots on them, you aren't using hex because you can't concentrate on more than one spell at a time.
If that were in fact the intent, then it would seem they felt that limitation were necessary to balance other aspects of a warlock's combat capability. Since there aren't any particularly strong combat capabilities other than a warlock's at-will attack (eldritch blast) they might have been looking at eldritch blast as especially strong compared to other caster classes' at-will cantrips, and hence in need of balancing by limiting access to other combat spells.
That could very well mean that Agonizing Blast RAW is intended, and a warlock is intended to be in a forced choice scenario to choose between either using Agonizing Blast and hex to have a great at-will attack in a battle, with only a couple other useful things to use occasionally (like a fighter) or to be casting some buffs or debuffs and using a less effective at-will attack, more like another spellcaster. Since they can't do quite as well as a fighter in at-will attack and defense (being squishier), and they can't do quite as well as other casters in the spells department (having a more limited range of options), the versatility of choice is where their power is deriving from.
If that is the case, then it appears to me that warlock is a quite strong class. You have a lot of out of combat flexibility and utility through Invocations and Pact Boon features, and in combat you have decent flexibility (though not as much as some other casters) with good damage (higher than other casters) through taking the spell route, or you have great at-will damage by taking the hex route, plus you have the flexibility of switching between those two routes according as the situation demands.
So that's my best argument. It's also why I'm on the fence. I'm not sure if it is too good. If the designers were to tell me, "Yeah, that's exactly what we were going for," then I'd trust that they are right and it isn't too good. Without them weighing in, I'm really left on the fence. I'd probably try to split the difference (say Agonizing Blast adds half your Charisma modifier to each hit, for instance), and allow Invocation spells to be used once per day without spell slots, but again, I just can't say.
So can anyone strengthen that argument for Agonizing Blast RAW? Or can anyone with an "in" bug Jeremy Crawford for a response on RAI?
(And again, thanks for the thoughts.)
First, I look at the Invocations that allow you to cast a spell once per day using a warlock spell slot. Pretty much everyone agrees these are crap. Why would WotC even make those? What were they trying to avoid by not just letting you cast them once per day period?
It's also worth noticing that an inordinate number of the combat spells on the warlock's list are duration based spells that require concentration, thus limiting the warlock to using hex OR another duration-based combat spell, but not both. So why not let the warlock actually make use of his spells? Why require him to either use default eldritch blast plus spells, or hex and not cast other spells?
It seems to me that the combined function of these limitations might be to limit the warlock to a very small number of combat spells between rests. You have to use a limited number of spell slots on them, and if you are using slots on them, you aren't using hex because you can't concentrate on more than one spell at a time.
If that were in fact the intent, then it would seem they felt that limitation were necessary to balance other aspects of a warlock's combat capability. Since there aren't any particularly strong combat capabilities other than a warlock's at-will attack (eldritch blast) they might have been looking at eldritch blast as especially strong compared to other caster classes' at-will cantrips, and hence in need of balancing by limiting access to other combat spells.
That could very well mean that Agonizing Blast RAW is intended, and a warlock is intended to be in a forced choice scenario to choose between either using Agonizing Blast and hex to have a great at-will attack in a battle, with only a couple other useful things to use occasionally (like a fighter) or to be casting some buffs or debuffs and using a less effective at-will attack, more like another spellcaster. Since they can't do quite as well as a fighter in at-will attack and defense (being squishier), and they can't do quite as well as other casters in the spells department (having a more limited range of options), the versatility of choice is where their power is deriving from.
If that is the case, then it appears to me that warlock is a quite strong class. You have a lot of out of combat flexibility and utility through Invocations and Pact Boon features, and in combat you have decent flexibility (though not as much as some other casters) with good damage (higher than other casters) through taking the spell route, or you have great at-will damage by taking the hex route, plus you have the flexibility of switching between those two routes according as the situation demands.
So that's my best argument. It's also why I'm on the fence. I'm not sure if it is too good. If the designers were to tell me, "Yeah, that's exactly what we were going for," then I'd trust that they are right and it isn't too good. Without them weighing in, I'm really left on the fence. I'd probably try to split the difference (say Agonizing Blast adds half your Charisma modifier to each hit, for instance), and allow Invocation spells to be used once per day without spell slots, but again, I just can't say.
So can anyone strengthen that argument for Agonizing Blast RAW? Or can anyone with an "in" bug Jeremy Crawford for a response on RAI?
(And again, thanks for the thoughts.)
Similar Threads
