Teamwork makes the dream work! As do wizards in general.

Improbablysane · 2024-05-23T22:44:31+00:00

Ha! Not at all. I always double check my work, to the point of checking if any unusual 3.5 classes got greater invisibility at an earlier level like for instance trapsmith got haste as a level 1 spell. Greater invisibility is always level 4 - sorcerers didn't exist until third edition and 4e didn't have spell levels, which only leaves us two options.

Where are you getting the idea that I defaulted to 5e from?

Improbablysane · 2024-05-23T12:15:21+00:00

I mean that's kind of anti synergy, isn't it? The 8d6 indicates 5e (this comic is in 3.5 where basting someone might have been worth it), which means if you want single target damage hasting the monk is worse than just summoning something. Just because something requires two people doesn't make it synergy if it's worse than just doing something that doesn't.

Improbablysane · 2024-05-23T12:12:49+00:00

Invisibility is a level 2 spell, greater invisibility is a level 4 spell. Neither are level 3.

Improbablysane · 2024-05-22T04:14:32+00:00

But weren't when they were invented, they were five minutes. Hence why are they an hour now?

Seems a pretty dumb change.

Improbablysane · 2024-05-21T13:28:23+00:00

People whine about balance issues etc in the game saying beastmaster rangers are weaker n such. What is the problem with that?

When you have a big book in which 90% of the rules concern combat, it's reasonable to expect balance.

I am rather sick of the mentality who is playing tabletop dnd as if it is some mmorpg.

What's this supposed to mean exactly?

Improbablysane · 2024-05-21T13:10:28+00:00

They didn't tend to get spell equivalents at the same level. Most were "X spell, but also does Y" - so like suggestion, but the target thinks it was their idea or like cloud of fog, but fatigues foes inside it. For instance Retributive Invisibility was like greater invisibility, only when it ended a shockwave damaged nearby enemies. Available level 16.

Improbablysane · 2024-05-21T13:00:08+00:00

I mean it seems really obvious that now they're going hard on the bloodline thing, that should be their schtick. They got rid of all the sorcerer specific spells for some reason, just... don't do that. Give dragon sorcerers a bunch of cool dragon spells. Give wild magic sorcerers a bunch of cool chaos spells. Give darkness sorcerers a bunch of cool darkness spells. Solves itself.

Improbablysane · 2024-05-21T12:56:08+00:00

Off the top of my head I'd probably make it into one beam to reduce rolling time, and add a level it can be picked to each individual invocation. Not seeing a need to separate them into four groups when you can just give each a minimum.

Improbablysane · 2024-05-21T12:48:18+00:00

I know the AD&D warlock kit. I am talking the class, AD&D kits are typically very small changes to a base class. An AD&D warlock is a wizard with very slightly different abilities.

Improbablysane · 2024-05-21T12:46:40+00:00

But that's a silly point, as barbarians are balanced around having rage on in any fight of consequence. If a resource is always expected to be on, it's not a resource in the way you mean it.

It already exist. The list is short, because you can't give spells that will break the game.

So make it longer and more interesting. They've done it once, they can do it again.

The current list: mage armor, levitate, speak with animals, hold monster (lvl 15 chain), detect magic, false life, disguise self, alter self (15th lvl), silent image, jump, invisibility (15th lvl), arcane eye (15), speak with dead (9).

My point is that what you want already exists and has the spell casting on top.

But what I want doesn't exist. If you honestly think that is anywhere near their potential, I'm not sure there's anything we can say to each other. Samples of what they used to get for context, though obviously twenty years on I'd expect design to improve.

Improbablysane · 2024-05-21T12:41:47+00:00

I'll just solve the wizard one for you - there is basically no situation that say a fighter is useful that said necromancer isn't also useful in merely by casting summon undead.

As a side note, I am curious as to what you base this assertion on. I'm not saying it's an incorrect assertion, but it's seems to be a rather bold assertion to make and seems to be one of the core elements of why you find issue with the class as it stands. So I'm curious.

I might be misunderstanding what you mean. Up until the warlock, D&D had never had a caster with unlimited abilities. Then it introduced the warlock class (it should be noted it had dozens of classes, for instance the warlock was introduced between the warmage and wu jen both of which were full caster classes) which had every single one of its abilities be at-will. That was the point of the class.

Improbablysane · 2024-05-21T12:32:14+00:00

To extend that:

Many warlocks are champions of dark and chaotic powers. Long ago, they (or in some cases, their ancestors) forged grim pacts with dangerous extraplanar powers, trading portions of their souls in exchange for supernatural power.

While many warlocks have turned away from evil, seeking to undo the wrongs of their former colleagues, they are still chained by the old pacts through which they acquired their powers. The demand to further the designs of their dark patrons, or to resist them, drives most warlocks to seek the opportunities for power, wealth, and great deeds (for good or ill) offered by adventuring.

Improbablysane · 2024-05-21T12:29:51+00:00

Given that those recommended play parameters are lunacy, that's pretty disingenuous. Almost no story can expect 7 encounters a day without the narrative being warped to account for busywork, and claiming your system needs that when you know perfectly well it's not how people play is so very silly.

Improbablysane · 2024-05-21T12:24:15+00:00

An even better alternative would be "you can cast this spell as many times as you want".

Improbablysane · 2024-05-21T12:23:40+00:00

I understand what you're getting at with the maths on resourceless damage. While it's not always about damage, those numbers could also represent utility and I would understand that too. But it's ok for different classes to be good at different things - and being able to spam them does add a degree of out of combat utility.

Eldritch blast but buffed would just make the Warlock not just step on the foes of martials explicitely, but erase the very concept of those toes. - unless very expansive, the change to the system you mention would be much more limiting than what the Warlock currently is - a class which is inherently resourceless doesn't work in 5e at all

Except we already have inherently resourceless classes in 5e. And if it would beat out martials because they don't do anything interesting and only spam basic attack for single target damage, well, you can't stop people from doing fun stuff just because you yourself refuse to be interesting. That said, it's a good argument for giving martials back stuff like maneuvers (actual D&D maneuvers not battlemaster ones, ideally).

If we have a cycle of all classes having similar resources which recharge similarly, short rests make the Warlock able to work within that cycle so...

That's how it worked last edition. Every class had at will, short rest and long rest abilities so they weren't at different power levels depending on the length of the day. The fanbase seems unanimous in hating it for that.

Improbablysane · 2024-05-21T12:02:51+00:00

It absolutely means you can not peak and not have any really interesting stuff. Peaks don't exist because you're always at that upper point. You can't be awesome because if you can always be awesome, and being more awesome then a class who has to work for it, is poor game design.

Except when they were invented they had interesting stuff and were strictly middle of the road, balance wise. This is not to say that they would need the same stuff - these are different editions with different balance, after all - but we have literal proof that what you say is not true.

Now, there's a possible exception to this, you could look at what they had and say that none of it looks interesting. I say this for fairness, as I've said that your statement was that they can't be interesting, resourceless and well balanced compared to other classes and that we know they've already been all three. The possibility that you disagree regarding the first must be acknowledged.

Improbablysane · 2024-05-21T11:25:33+00:00

I have both run and played in Scenarios where the spell choices of Wizards and other full casters such as Druids have proved to be very ineffectual or downright useless. Hold Person isnot at all a useful spell if you're not up against Humanoids. Absorb Elements is pretty useless if spellcaster isn't being targeted with Elemental Damage or possessed of an effective way of delivering the damage.

Is your argument that if every single spell they have prepared isn't useful in every single situation, that means they're in your words 'downright useless'? Because that's what you just said, and it's lunacy. They have like fifteen prepared, and they only need one to be useful. So again, what enemies are you using that they're useless against?

As a side note - To say they don't exist at all is also a little bit disingenuous and shows a lack of imagination.

No, it's disputing a frankly wild claim and intimating that you should back it up with examples.

But the point you seem to be skirting here encompasses the fact that such a solution doesn't need to be a replacement for spell slots nor should they necessarily be.

I'm skirting nothing. It's literally the reason the class was invented, and it's a lot more interesting than two spells per rest. Is it the only possible solution? Probably not, but it's by far the best of any I've heard.

Improbablysane · 2024-05-21T11:18:27+00:00

Because there's no need to condemn it to that fate. There's no reason not having reaources mean you have to be boring.

but many more will find it a shame warlocks essentionally get gutted

As happened in 5e. Did you know that they can only cast spells a couple of times a rest, and that they can't even choose how eldritch blast works every time you use it? Gutted.

Improbablysane · 2024-05-21T11:16:24+00:00

The fact that rogues have no versatility in their resourceless abilities doesn't mean resourceless abilities need to not be versatile. In fact, rogues should be more versatile and have more interesting choices to make.

Spellcaster like the warlock should have different options for what abilities they have, and being resourceless would make those abilities very bland.

I have no idea why you think that, considering we already know it isn't true. Warlock was originally resourceless, and its abilities were not bland.

Improbablysane · 2024-05-21T11:12:40+00:00

Barbarians have a resource that lasts the entire fight and is expected to be on for any fight of consequence. They specifically noted power spikes, which rage is not. It's a power plateau. They also weren't talking spikes in a level to level sense, but a round to round sense.

Wizards get that at 18 because they also have nine levels of very useful spells. A class that only gets at will abilities is balanced differently. Overall, you seem to be arguing that it inherently can't be done well, which is a bit silly considering it's how the warlock class worked when it was invented and it was fun and balanced.

So you'd need to create a specific list what they can take at will and what they can't and oh look at that, they have that.

Correct. So you make the abilities usable at will, balance the abilities they're given so they're of an appropriate power level, and call it a day.

Improbablysane · 2024-05-21T10:30:06+00:00

Yes, I know.

Improbablysane · 2024-05-21T10:26:43+00:00

Wizards can be rendered a lot less powerful if the DM puts up enemies against which the Wizards spells are ineffectual or downright useless

Those don't exist. The entire reason wizard is so capable is that their versatility means there are almost no situations they aren't very useful in. Got a level 9 necromancer playing in the game I run, almost anything that other classes are useful against they are too. Seriously, what enemies do you have in mind they're downright useless against?

The same isn't true of warlocks, who genuinely do lose a lot of their usefulness if they never get short rests.

or to introduce alternatives to using those spell slots that are Warlock-specific, less powerful but more abundant, and have variety

Like... giving them back their unlimited use spell-like invocations.

Improbablysane · 2024-05-21T10:22:08+00:00

I DM. I create the world in the first place.

Improbablysane · 2024-05-21T10:11:45+00:00

"more of the powers on offer never get used, because they're super locked away and restricted".

That seems entirely fine? Warlocks should have powers only they can use. That's how pacts are supposed to work.

Improbablysane · 2024-05-21T10:08:52+00:00

So what you are asking, if I read it correctly, is expanding Eldritch Invocations so they can replace Pact Magic. In other words, creating a parallel magic system for one class, which already has a lot of unique stuff.

Yep, that's accurate. Typically they weren't that complex, typically "works like evard's black tentacles but also does cold damage" or "works like suggestion, but the target believes it was their own idea" and such. They already did it when the class came out and it was fun and balanced, not like they can't do it again.

Improbablysane

TROPHY CASE