# Warlock



## doctorbadwolf

Soon, we will almost certainly see the Druid and Paladin, but after that, we will either see the Mages or the Warriors. I'm hoping for Mages, because I think they are going to be the most changed of the PHB classes. 

Which brings me to my favorite mage, the Warlock. 

We know that subclass is coming in at third level even for classes that currently get them earlier, with something else coming in at that earlier level. 

I think that we will see level 1 Pact Boon, and level 3 Patron, and I _hope_ that this will mean that the class feels a little more focused on the pact boon, ie how the character uses their power, than on the patron. If we are very lucky, they might even add in a pact of the rod or stave, cauldron or chalice, and perhaps something like a lantern or candle? Ritual tools, in other words. 

What changes do we think might come to existing mechanics, keeping in mind they aren't going to invalidate anything in xanathar's or tasha's, unless it's easy to errata like when they reprinted Bladesinger in Tasha's. 

I think we might see Chain changed to give a familiar that has a summon spell style statblock rather than reference statblocks in the MM. I wish we could see Blade changed to simply change one warlock cantrip of your choice or eldritch blast specifically into a melee spell attack using the reach and properties of your pact weapon, and just not update the invocation that gives extra attack. It still allows Hexblade to be an even better gish, as it gets medium armor, shields, and makes it's attacks with the attack action, just update it to give extra attack. 

Tome is perfect as it is. I love a Hexblade Tome Warlock. You're fully dependent on the weapon cantrips, but that's fine because you're awesome. 

I think they will change some of the invocations from 1/LR using a spell slot to just 1/LR. 

What do y'all think?


----------



## Yaarel

A rod (or cane or staff) is a symbol of authority, perhaps especially because it is a tool of punishment.

Some shamanic customs use the cane to focus concentration on punishing a troublesome nature being.

Perhaps the Warlock Rod Pact can deal psychic damage to a target, including an extraplanar creature that is in the Border Ethereal or Astral Wildspace, or in the Material Plane if attacking from the Ethereal or Astral.


----------



## MechaTarrasque

I think it is likely that the pact boons will be like cleric's holy order, you get one at 2 and another at 9, maybe even a third one via epic boon at 20.  I could see some more boons, personally I would like a pact music instrument.  I have doubts about it happening in the PHB, though.

The arcane spell list (as opposed to the warlock spell list) reduces the value of invocations that let you cast spells.   I think most of the "cast a spell using a spell slot" invocation will be to add 6th level or higher primal or divine spells to your list (you will get 1-5 from the patron lists).  That leaves a lot of space for pact boon support invocations at lower levels.

Given the "not useful in combat"/"too powerful out of combat" view that seems fairly common on the chainlock, I think there is potential for changing the chainlock by stealing the hexblade's minion.  You get a combat minion that you can power up by disposing of an enemy (dedicating it to your patron; my design goal for the warlock is that your PC may be a good person, but he/she is still using *BAD* guy toys to do it).


----------



## Yaarel

When converting Warlock spell slots into spell point, and smoothing out the lumps of each new slot, it works out to:

Spell Points = Level + 1
Spell Cost = Spell Slot

So, for example, a Level 2 Warlock has 3 Spell Points. It costs 2 points to cast a Slot 2 spell, such as _Misty Step_.

These Spell Points refresh at each Short Rest.



This Short-Rest Spell Point system is so simple and intuitive − and balances so robustly even for the highest slots, like Slot 8 and Slot 9 − I hope it becomes the default for all spell casters.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

MechaTarrasque said:


> I think it is likely that the pact boons will be like cleric's holy order, you get one at 2 and another at 9, maybe even a third one via epic boon at 20.



I could see that.


MechaTarrasque said:


> I could see some more boons, personally I would like a pact music instrument.  I have doubts about it happening in the PHB, though.



Music as part of occult ritual is pretty widespread, so I could easily see it. My alt warlock has a “bell” ritual tool, with ritual tools replacing pact boons.


MechaTarrasque said:


> The arcane spell list (as opposed to the warlock spell list) reduces the value of invocations that let you cast spells.   I think most of the "cast a spell using a spell slot" invocation will be to add 6th level or higher primal or divine spells to your list (you will get 1-5 from the patron lists).  That leaves a lot of space for pact boon support invocations at lower levels.



I disagree. The warlock will have arcane spells except for 1 or more schools, and likely invocations that let you grab spells from those schools.


MechaTarrasque said:


> Given the "not useful in combat"/"too powerful out of combat" view that seems fairly common on the chainlock, I think there is potential for changing the chainlock by stealing the hexblade's minion.  You get a combat minion that you can power up by disposing of an enemy (dedicating it to your patron; my design goal for the warlock is that your PC may be a good person, but he/she is still using *BAD* guy toys to do it).



I could see the chain familiar being boostable like that, but I am also certain it will still work with the existing non-phb invocations.


----------



## mellored

Probably won't happen but...  Making pact magic (and Mystic Arcanum) invocations instead of a spell slot would fix number of multiclass issues, as well as add flexibility to the class.  Increase the number of invocations according of course.

Probably will happen... Eldritch Blast (+agonizing blast) will likely a warlock feature, scaling by warlock level, not a cantrip.

So...

1: Eldritch Blast, Eldritch Invocations (including pact magic).
2: Pact Boon (chain, blade, tome)
3: Patrons

Chainlock gets a combat minion like the Battle Smith.  Upgradable with invocations.

Blade should be armor and a melee Eldritch Blast (i.e. scaling by warlock level, not generic use Cha.  Also benefits from invocations).  If you have a magic weapon, you can add the effects on a hit.

Tome gets a bonus pact magic invocation, changeable after a long rest (short rest with an invocation).


----------



## MechaTarrasque

The warlock will be an arcane caster, but I suspect they will get some primal and divine spells from the patron as pact spells (unless they go with pact spells don't count toward your warlock spells known, in which case the lists will be pretty full without any other spell list; a body can dream...).  I think you guys are reading too much into the bard and ranger and paying insufficient attention to the cleric when worrying about spell schools.

That being said for level 7 or above spells, I am not seeing any 5e spells that either aren't already arcane or that I don't expect to be arcane that would seem like good fits for the warlock, so I retract that suggestion.


----------



## mellored

More specifically...

Pact Magic: level 1 invocation
Select a arcane spell with a level equal to or less than half your warlock level (minimum 1).  You can cast the spells without expending a spell slot at a spell level equal to half your warlock level (minimum 1). Once you cast either of these spells in this way, you can’t cast that spell in this way again until you finish a short or long rest. You can also cast the spells using spell slots you have of the appropriate level.
You can take this invocation multiple times, but must select a different spell each time.

And if there is any other particular non-arcane spell that should be warlock (Armor of Agathys), they can just be an invocation too.


----------



## mellored

Oh, also.  Warlocks should do more curses.  So make Hex a default, and then get patron specific hexes.

1: Eldritch Blast, Hex (+1d4 damage, -1d4 skill checks, cast again after the target dies or a short rest), Eldritch Invocation
2: Pact Boon (chain, blade, tome)
3: Patrons (Improved Hex).

I.e. 
Archfey Hex.  When you hit a target of your hex, you can teleport them 5'.  Disadvantage on perception checks.
Infernal Hex.  Increase the damage to 1d8 fire damage.  Spontaneously combustion on death.
Celestial.  An ally gains temporary hit points equal to your hex damage.  Damage can be non lethal.
...


----------



## doctorbadwolf

mellored said:


> Probably won't happen but...  Making pact magic (and Mystic Arcanum) invocations instead of a spell slot would fix number of multiclass issues, as well as add flexibility to the class.  Increase the number of invocations according of course.
> 
> Probably will happen... Eldritch Blast (+agonizing blast) will likely a warlock feature, scaling by warlock level, not a cantrip.
> 
> So...
> 
> 1: Eldritch Blast, Eldritch Invocations (including pact magic).
> 2: Pact Boon (chain, blade, tome)
> 3: Patrons
> 
> Chainlock gets a combat minion like the Battle Smith.  Upgradable with invocations.
> 
> Blade should be armor and a melee Eldritch Blast (i.e. scaling by warlock level, not generic use Cha.  Also benefits from invocations).  If you have a magic weapon, you can add the effects on a hit.
> 
> Tome gets a bonus pact magic invocation, changeable after a long rest (short rest with an invocation).



I don’t understand the idea of making pact magic an invocation rather than just keeping it how it is?


mellored said:


> Oh, also.  Warlocks should do more curses.  So make Hex a default, and then get patron specific hexes.
> 
> 1: Eldritch Blast, Hex (+1d4 damage, -1d4 skill checks, cast again after the target dies or a short rest), Eldritch Invocation
> 2: Pact Boon (chain, blade, tome)
> 3: Patrons (Improved Hex).
> 
> I.e.
> Archfey Hex.  When you hit a target of your hex, you can teleport them 5'.  Disadvantage on perception checks.
> Infernal Hex.  Increase the damage to 1d8 fire damage.  Spontaneously combustion on death.
> Celestial.  An ally gains temporary hit points equal to your hex damage.  Damage can be non lethal.
> ...



Patron curses are unlikely, I think, because then all supplemental subclasses either suck or need errata. They could add invocations for it, though. 

I have said before I think warlocks should get hex like rangers get hunters mark and then also a warlock’s curse feature that lets you do extra stuff whenever you curse a target, which includes hex, various other spells that describe themselves as a curse, Hexblades curse, etc. 

I’d tie them to pact boon rather than patron, so if you have a tome, you get some super mage-y extra effect, Blade gets THP when the target takes damage, chain allows the familiar to deal extra damage to the target as well, and errata Talisman to allow you to heal an ally when a cursed target hits 0hp.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

MechaTarrasque said:


> my design goal for the warlock is that your PC may be a good person, but he/she is still using *BAD* guy toys to do it)



I respect this, but I’m glad it isn’t the design goal of the class as it is written now, because it’s not what I want from the class. It’s definitely one way to play the class, obviously, but all my warlocks since 3.5 have been people who break the rules of magic, hacking the code of arcane formulae, invoking and binding power into themselves and their tools, etc, and thier patron is either a mentor (usually with ambiguous personal goals and priorities) or a being they called into a circle of invocation and sacrificed something in exchange for the knowledge of how to bypass the structures and rules that bind other spellcasters.


----------



## mellored

doctorbadwolf said:


> I don’t understand the idea of making pact magic an invocation rather than just keeping it how it is?



You can't use them for smite, sorcerer points, or crono wizard casting cat nap.
Also, it just allows you to customize more.  If you just want to Eldritch Blast, you can ignore the spells.  Or if you want more spells, you can get them.


doctorbadwolf said:


> Patron curses are unlikely, I think, because then all supplemental subclasses either suck or need errata. They could add invocations for it, though.



Fair.
Archfey Hex could work as an invocation.



doctorbadwolf said:


> I have said before I think warlocks should get hex like rangers get hunters mark and then also a warlock’s curse feature that lets you do extra stuff whenever you curse a target, which includes hex, various other spells that describe themselves as a curse, Hexblades curse, etc.



Agreed.  Warlocks should curse stuff.  Both for in and out of combat.


doctorbadwolf said:


> I’d tie them to pact boon rather than patron, so if you have a tome, you get some super mage-y extra effect, Blade gets THP when the target takes damage, chain allows the familiar to deal extra damage to the target as well, and errata Talisman to allow you to heal an ally when a cursed target hits 0hp.



Seems more flavorful to have them as part of your patron than the pact.

But hey.  Archfey's Hex and Blade's Hex can both be invocations.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

mellored said:


> You can't use them for smite, sorcerer points, or crono wizard casting cat nap.



IMO it’s a mistake to design classes around locking out multiclass “cheese”. 


mellored said:


> Also, it just allows you to customize more.  If you just want to Eldritch Blast, you can ignore the spells.  Or if you want more spells, you can get them.



It’s a *huge *increase in complexity, for a fairly small boost in customization, IMO. 


mellored said:


> Fair.
> Archfey Hex could work as an invocation.
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Warlocks should curse stuff.  Both for in and out of combat.
> 
> Seems more flavorful to have them as part of your patron than the pact.
> 
> But hey.  Archfey's Hex and Blade's Hex can both be invocations.



Yeah I also think the pact boon should hold more of the class’s focus than it does, anyway, so just different priorities and goals.


----------



## mellored

doctorbadwolf said:


> IMO it’s a mistake to design classes around locking out multiclass “cheese”.



Lots of design choices are made with the assumption that spells are daily things.   Like ring of spell storing.


doctorbadwolf said:


> It’s a *huge *increase in complexity, for a fairly small boost in customization, IMO.



Not sure how it's more complex.  Pick a spell, cast it 1/short rest at 1/2 your warlock level.

Seems less complicated overall IMO, since you drop the entire multiclass pact magic paragraph.

I mean, I litterally copied it from the Fey Touched feat.  Though the new wording from the playtest is a bit cleaner.  This if from the Tiefling/Elf.

Select an arcane spell of half your warlock level (minimum 1).  You can cast the spell at a spell level equal to your warlock level (minimum 1).
Once you cast the Spell with this invocation, you can’t cast that Spell with it again until you finish a Shory or Long Rest; however, you can cast the Spell using any Spell Slots you have of the appropriate level.


----------



## mellored

Well...  I just realized that my particular wording would let warlocks cast foresight per short rest... 

So maybe not that exactly wording, and even if not an invocation.  Something along those lines that avoids "slots" would be good.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles

My take:

lvl 1: Patron extra spells, Eldritch blast, Pact magic
lvl 2: Invocations
lvl 3: Pact Boons (archetypes)


So yeah, the warlock 3rd level archetypes are not based on the Patron, but on the boon they get from them. 
In order to do so, I'd take the Boon-specific Invocations to create the archetypes' features and instead take the old archetypes' features and use them as Patron-specific Invocations.


----------



## Knight_Marshal

The patron has to be 1st level or the warlock has no powers. They can give minor things at 1st and the main part of the features can start at third.

The same problem is going to be with sorcerers. Without their subclass, the have no powers.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

mellored said:


> Lots of design choices are made with the assumption that spells are daily things.   Like ring of spell storing.



Sure. They aren’t the basic Spellcasting model of a whole class. 


mellored said:


> Not sure how it's more complex.  Pick a spell, cast it 1/short rest at 1/2 your warlock level.
> 
> Seems less complicated overall IMO, since you drop the entire multiclass pact magic paragraph.



I don’t care about multiclassing. It is not important when designing the fundamentals of a class. 


mellored said:


> I mean, I litterally copied it from the Fey Touched feat.  Though the new wording from the playtest is a bit cleaner.  This if from the Tiefling/Elf.
> 
> Select an arcane spell of half your warlock level (minimum 1).  You can cast the spell at a spell level equal to your warlock level (minimum 1).
> Once you cast the Spell with this invocation, you can’t cast that Spell with it again until you finish a Shory or Long Rest; however, you can cast the Spell using any Spell Slots you have of the appropriate level.



And then to have the same level of Spellcasting as a 2014 warlock, you spend have to track each one on its own, you can’t cast the same spell twice (a decrease in versatility), and you can easily end up with way more Spellcasting than is balanced for short rest spell recharge unless there is a detailed mechanism to avoid that, which then obviates every supposed benefit from dropping spell slots. 


mellored said:


> Well...  I just realized that my particular wording would let warlocks cast foresight per short rest...
> 
> So maybe not that exactly wording, and even if not an invocation.  Something along those lines that avoids "slots" would be good.



Nah, slots are good. 


Tales and Chronicles said:


> My take:
> 
> lvl 1: Patron extra spells, Eldritch blast, Pact magic
> lvl 2: Invocations
> lvl 3: Pact Boons (archetypes)
> 
> 
> So yeah, the warlock 3rd level archetypes are not based on the Patron, but on the boon they get from them.
> In order to do so, I'd take the Boon-specific Invocations to create the archetypes' features and instead take the old archetypes' features and use them as Patron-specific Invocations.



While interesting, we know they won’t do this, because it is very incompatible with the supplements. 


Knight_Marshal said:


> The patron has to be 1st level or the warlock has no powers. They can give minor things at 1st and the main part of the features can start at third.
> 
> The same problem is going to be with sorcerers. Without their subclass, the have no powers.



Well that just isn’t true. Warlock doesn’t have to get all thier power directly from the patron. There is a whole thread about it right now. 

The sorcerer doesn’t have to have obvious signs of what the source of their power is in order to have said power.


----------



## mellored

doctorbadwolf said:


> I don’t care about multiclassing. It is not important when designing the fundamentals of a class.



Half the reasons why they are moving subclasses to level 3 is because of multiclassing.
You might not care, but it matters to the game.

Also, I don't see a problem with more short rest spells.  Warlocks already have plenty of at-will spells, so can already do far more casting than anyone else.  It's not an issue.

Anyways, probably won't happen, as they seem to be avoiding changes.


Knight_Marshal said:


> The patron has to be 1st level or the warlock has no powers. They can give minor things at 1st and the main part of the features can start at third.



The other half the reason they moved subclasses to 3 is to reduce option overload.

So no patron choice at 1.
Also, I kind of like the flavor of not knowing exactly who your made the pact with.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

mellored said:


> Half the reasons why they are moving subclasses to level 3 is because of multiclassing.
> You might not care, but it matters to the game.



Got any source on that? I’ve not heard nor read any such thing. 


mellored said:


> Also, I don't see a problem with more short rest spells.  Warlocks already have plenty of at-will spells, so can already do far more casting than anyone else.  It's not an issue.



The at will casting is carefully chosen, not just “pick any level 1 spell, it’s at will now”. 


mellored said:


> Anyways, probably won't happen, as they seem to be avoiding changes.



Thank goodness for that.


----------



## mellored

doctorbadwolf said:


> Got any source on that? I’ve not heard nor read any such thing.



One of the videos.  Possibly on the cleric.



doctorbadwolf said:


> The at will casting is carefully chosen, not just “pick any level 1 spell, it’s at will now”.



The whole warlock spell list is carefully chosen to be ones that suitable for a short rest cast.

So yea.  Probably not the best idea to allow _*any*_ arcane spell to be short rest cast.  But that's true for "slots" or otherwise.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

mellored said:


> One of the videos.  Possibly on the cleric.



I’m not gonna have time for a 20 minute video I’ve already watched at the moment, but I don’t recall any statement that multiclassing cheese is a major motivator in giving all classes the same subclass levels. 


mellored said:


> The whole warlock spell list is carefully chosen to be ones that suitable for a short rest cast.
> 
> So yea.  Probably not the best idea to allow _*any*_ arcane spell to be short rest cast.  But that's true for "slots" or otherwise.



Then you have to curate, at which point what are you actually gaining?


----------



## mellored

doctorbadwolf said:


> I’m not gonna have time for a 20 minute video I’ve already watched at the moment, but I don’t recall any statement that multiclassing cheese is a major motivator in giving all classes the same subclass levels.



It was 1 of 2 reasons.


doctorbadwolf said:


> Then you have to curate, at which point what are you actually gaining?



Fixing multiclass issues.
And providing more build flexibility.

What are you actually losing?


----------



## Charlaquin

doctorbadwolf said:


> I respect this, but I’m glad it isn’t the design goal of the class as it is written now, because it’s not what I want from the class. It’s definitely one way to play the class, obviously, but all my warlocks since 3.5 have been people who break the rules of magic, hacking the code of arcane formulae, invoking and binding power into themselves and their tools, etc, and thier patron is either a mentor (usually with ambiguous personal goals and priorities) or a being they called into a circle of invocation and sacrificed something in exchange for the knowledge of how to bypass the structures and rules that bind other spellcasters.



Frankly, this interpretation better differentiates warlocks from clerics of evil deities.


----------



## Charlaquin

doctorbadwolf said:


> I’m not gonna have time for a 20 minute video I’ve already watched at the moment, but I don’t recall any statement that multiclassing cheese is a major motivator in giving all classes the same subclass levels.



He goes on much longer about the first reason, which he says is the bigger one: that subclass is too big of a decision to ask players to make before they’ve gotten to play the class at all. But he does go on to say that the second reason is that the classes that get their subclass at 1st levels are most frequently involved in “multiclass combinations that people kind of grit their teeth about.”


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Charlaquin said:


> He goes on much longer about the first reason, which he says is the bigger one: that subclass is too big of a decision to ask players to make before they’ve gotten to play the class at all. But he does go on to say that the second reason is that the classes that get their subclass at 1st levels are most frequently involved in “multiclass combinations that people kind of grit their teeth about.”



That’s what I remembered, but that doesn’t fit what I’m reading in this thread. That isn’t “multiclassing breaks the game”, which is what would need to be the case to do something as drastic as making warlock Spellcasting into invocations. 

A warlock/Paladin isn’t actually stronger than a single class Paladin. A Bard/Paladin worries me more, but even it still loses a lot by multiclassing, and gains…slightly more divine smites per day, which isn’t a big deal. 



mellored said:


> It was 1 of 2 reasons.



Not really. The other reason is explicitly the bigger, so “multiclass combinations” can’t be half the reason, and he doesn’t indicate at all that it’s a major balance issue, just that such classes tend to be involve in combinations that people don’t like. They aren’t going to get rid of pact magic over that. 


mellored said:


> Fixing multiclass issues.



Not really. A normal full caster is a better MC for the Paladin. 


mellored said:


> And providing more build flexibility.
> 
> What are you actually losing?



Actual flexibility in play, for one thing. You’re proposing a system whereby you have invocation taxes in order to play like a spellcaster, and where you have 3.5 style “you have one use of charm person, and one use only”. That is less flexible than spell slots.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

Charlaquin said:


> Frankly, this interpretation better differentiates warlocks from clerics of evil deities.



Yep, that’s another reason I prefer it.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

@mellored i don’t know why I’m being so aggro about this. I apologize. 

I think that an invocations and cantrips only setup could work if we drop the idea of regularly using short rest recharge spells altogether, give the class ritual casting automatically, and increase the number of long rest and at-will invocations. 

But I do beleive that essentially giving the class the ability to take Fey touched a bunch of times in order to rack up a decent spell list is more complex and less flexible _in play_ than pact magic is.


----------



## mellored

doctorbadwolf said:


> They aren’t going to get rid of pact magic over that.



I never suggested getting rid of it.
Just rewording it to not combine with multiclassing.


doctorbadwolf said:


> Not really. A normal full caster is a better MC for the Paladin.



Hexblade's Cha to attack is main the issue for paladins, and getting a decent ranged attack.
Short rest smite just make the deal even sweeter.

Though I expect Smite to change a bit.  Paladins in general could use a nerf.


doctorbadwolf said:


> Actual flexibility in play, for one thing. You’re proposing a system whereby you have invocation taxes in order to play like a spellcaster



Again, with an appropriate number of extra invocations.
i.e.  3 slots at level 11 -> 3 extra invocations at level 11.
You can spend those 3 on Pact Magic and have the same spells you have now.

Maybe throw in one extra one, as Warlocks could use a little more power IMO.


----------



## mellored

doctorbadwolf said:


> @mellored i don’t know why I’m being so aggro about this. I apologize.



No worries.  I got plenty of patience.  And it's changing your favorite class, so not a big surprise.


doctorbadwolf said:


> I think that an invocations and cantrips only setup could work if we drop the idea of regularly using short rest recharge spells altogether, give the class ritual casting automatically, and increase the number of long rest and at-will invocations.



Per the playtest.

*If you have a Spell prepared that has the Ritual tag, you can cast that Spellas a Ritual. A special feature is no longer required for Ritual casting.*

Seems like that one will stick.


doctorbadwolf said:


> But I do beleive that essentially giving the class the ability to take Fey touched a bunch of times in order to rack up a decent spell list is more complex and less flexible _in play_ than pact magic is.



Well, it's not like I playtested this.  And obviously my wording needs work.

Also, they might do something else to fix the multiclass "slot" issues.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

mellored said:


> I never suggested getting rid of it.
> Just rewording it to not combine with multiclassing.



Well, making it optional, then. 


mellored said:


> Hexblade's Cha to attack is main the issue for paladins, and getting a decent ranged attack.
> Short rest smite just make the deal even sweeter.



But that isn’t even fixed by changing pact magic. 


mellored said:


> Though I expect Smite to change a bit.  Paladins in general could use a nerf.



I don’t really think they need a nerf, but I do hope they make smite separate from spell slots. It’s always a shame when a player mistakenly thinks it’s the best use of all their slots. 


mellored said:


> Again, with an appropriate number of extra invocations.
> i.e.  3 slots at level 11 -> 3 extra invocations at level 11.
> You can spend those 3 on Pact Magic and have the same spells you have now.



Okay, but unless you can only spend those 3 on pact magic and you…have to, then it’s possible to just spend most of your invocations on pact magic, and end up just a weird halfway 3.5 style wizard thing. 


mellored said:


> Maybe throw in one extra one, as Warlocks could use a little more power IMO.



Sure. 


mellored said:


> No worries.  I got plenty of patience.  And it's changing your favorite class, so not a big surprise.






mellored said:


> Per the playtest.
> *If you have a Spell prepared that has the Ritual tag, you can cast that Spellas a Ritual. A special feature is no longer required for Ritual casting.*
> 
> Seems like that one will stick.



Yeah my idea was before the announcement, so it’s a little more odd in a one D&D enviroment, but basically I toyed with a warlock that gets ritual casting and cantrips _only. _


mellored said:


> Well, it's not like I playtested this.  And obviously my wording needs work.
> 
> Also, they might do something else to fix the multiclass "slot" issues.



Yeah I think the fix is more likely to come in other classes, but we will see.


----------



## mellored

doctorbadwolf said:


> Okay, but unless you can only spend those 3 on pact magic and you…have to, then it’s possible to just spend most of your invocations on pact magic,



Yup.  More build options.


doctorbadwolf said:


> and end up just a weird halfway 3.5 style wizard thing.



Ah... ok, i understand your point about in combat flexibility.  Fair.


doctorbadwolf said:


> I toyed with a warlock that gets ritual casting and cantrips _only. _



It depends on the spell.

I mean, at-will burning hands or magic missile is fine, maybe 2 spell levels behind your max.
But hypnotic pattern should be short rest.
And foresight needs to be daily.

All of which (and more) could be done with invocations.  And already kind of are.  Just not short rest ones.

"You can also cast _water breathing_ without expending a spell slot. You regain the ability to do so when you finish a long rest."

"You can cast _speak with animals_ at will, without expending a spell slot."

Though this list really should be consolidated.

Pact Cantrip.  Select one of the following spells.  You can cast it at-will without spending material components.
Mage Armor
Speak with Animals
Levitate (level 9)
Detect Magic
False Life
Disguise Self
Alter Self (level 15)
...


----------



## doctorbadwolf

mellored said:


> Yup.  More build options.
> 
> Ah... ok, i understand your point about in combat flexibility.  Fair.






mellored said:


> It depends on the spell.
> 
> I mean, at-will burning hands or magic missile is fine, maybe 2 spell levels behind your max.
> But hypnotic pattern should be short rest.
> And foresight needs to be daily.
> 
> All of which (and more) could be done with invocations.  And already kind of are.  Just not short rest ones.
> 
> "You can also cast _water breathing_ without expending a spell slot. You regain the ability to do so when you finish a long rest."
> 
> "You can cast _speak with animals_ at will, without expending a spell slot."
> 
> Though this list really should be consolidated.



Sure, i have no big issue with the spell invocations that exist now, the point of my idea in another thread was to have a mostly at-will warlock whose limited abilities were all opt-in. It’s more (potentially) complex, but also potentially as simple as the rogue. 


mellored said:


> Pact Cantrip.  Select one of the following spells.  You can cast it at-will without spending material components.
> Mage Armor
> Speak with Animals
> Levitate (level 9)
> Detect Magic
> False Life
> Disguise Self
> Alter Self (level 15)
> ...



I prefer the evocative names per spell invocation.


----------



## mellored

doctorbadwolf said:


> I prefer the evocative names per spell invocation.



I mean, yes.  evocative names are good.
But also your printing "at will, without expending a spell slot or material components." 13 times.  That's a lot of page space taken up that could be used foe more invocations.

Maybe do both?

Pact Cantrip. Select one of the following. You gain a spell and can cast it at-will without spending material components.
Armor of Shadows: Mage Armor
Beast Speach: Speak with Animals
Ascendant Step (level 9): Levitate
...


----------



## mellored

doctorbadwolf said:


> Sure, i have no big issue with the spell invocations that exist now,



But you still do have an issue if they where short rest?
Or should the long rest casting give in-combat flexibility?


doctorbadwolf said:


> the point of my idea in another thread was to have a mostly at-will warlock whose limited abilities were all opt-in.



So...  Pact Magic is also opt-in (invocation) then?


----------



## doctorbadwolf

mellored said:


> I mean, yes.  evocative names are good.
> But also your printing "at will, without expending a spell slot or material components." 13 times.  That's a lot of page space taken up that could be used foe more invocations.
> 
> Maybe do both?
> 
> Pact Cantrip. Select one of the following. You gain a spell and can cast it at-will without spending material components.
> Armor of Shadows: Mage Armor
> Beast Speach: Speak with Animals
> Ascendant Step (level 9): Levitate
> ...



I’m okay with the page space usage tbh. 

But I also just prefer less “neat” game design, so I’m not surprised when my preferences aren’t shared around here.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

mellored said:


> But you still do have an issue if they where short rest?
> Or should the long rest casting give in-combat flexibility?
> 
> So...  Pact Magic is also opt-in (invocation) then?



It’s a totally separate idea. If the player wants to be a “real” spellcaster, rather than just having a few daily powers that happen to be spells, they can play a normal warlock.

Edit: part of the idea is they gain 3 ritual tools over time, start with a familiar and ritual casting, and gain more at-will magic than anyone else, and make Eldritch Blast more malleable.


----------



## mellored

doctorbadwolf said:


> I’m okay with the page space usage tbh.



Quick count gives me 54 invocations
13 are at-will spells.
14 are long rest.

Consolidation would reduce page count by half.  That's not just a few extra lines.


doctorbadwolf said:


> But I also just prefer less “neat” game design, so I’m not surprised when my preferences aren’t shared around here.



IMO, it's less about "neat" exactly, and more about how long it takes to read them.  Signal to noise ratio.

And the less times I have to read the same thing, the more times I can spend playing the game.

I mean.  Here.  I'll copy it 13 times.

You can cast _...  _at will, without expending a spell slot.
You can cast _...  _at will, without expending a spell slot.
You can cast _...  _at will, without expending a spell slot.
You can cast _...  _at will, without expending a spell slot.
You can cast _...  _at will, without expending a spell slot.
You can cast _...  _at will, without expending a spell slot.
You can cast _...  _at will, without expending a spell slot.
You can cast _...  _at will, without expending a spell slot.
You can cast _...  _at will, without expending a spell slot.
You can cast _...  _at will, without expending a spell slot.
You can cast _...  _at will, without expending a spell slot.
You can cast _...  _at will, without expending a spell slot.
You can cast _...  _at will, without expending a spell slot.

I'll spare you the long rest ones.


----------



## MechaTarrasque

doctorbadwolf said:


> I respect this, but I’m glad it isn’t the design goal of the class as it is written now, because it’s not what I want from the class. It’s definitely one way to play the class, obviously, but all my warlocks since 3.5 have been people who break the rules of magic, hacking the code of arcane formulae, invoking and binding power into themselves and their tools, etc, and thier patron is either a mentor (usually with ambiguous personal goals and priorities) or a being they called into a circle of invocation and sacrificed something in exchange for the knowledge of how to bypass the structures and rules that bind other spellcasters.



"Magic hacker" is a great idea, but it is kind of crowded with the sorcerers who arguably have a better narrative fit and the arcane spell thieves who have the ideal mechanism for it (if your PC lives long enough to get it).  

Given how often D&D creates (or recreates) new fiends, undead, aberrations, and even fey, "bad guy toys" seems like a sustainable design space for years if not decades to come (definitely better than the poor paladin would be if they were the "good guy toys" class that had to live off the slim pickings of new or recreated celestials).


----------



## UngeheuerLich

mellored said:


> *If you have a Spell prepared that has the Ritual tag, you can cast that Spellas a Ritual. A special feature is no longer required for Ritual casting.*
> 
> Seems like that one will stick.




This alone makes the ranger a more likable class. 
When I chose ritual caster for my rogue, I would have chosen ranger if that had been an option.


----------



## MechaTarrasque

Not to derail the thread, but I was thinking that it would be nice if there were fighter and rogue subclasses, like the eldritch knight and spell thief, but warlock-related instead of wizard related (maybe getting invocations instead of spells).  I think that would better fit the tropes of "sucker who picks up a magic sword that is making him kill people" (more of a Glen Cook soul-sucking sword story than a Michael Morcock one) or a "thief who makes a bad deal for magic" than trying to fit those into the warlock.  I also figure a fighter with some warlock toys will end up being a better straight up melee type than the bladelock will be, while still letting you get that warlock feel.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

MechaTarrasque said:


> Not to derail the thread, but I was thinking that it would be nice if there were fighter and rogue subclasses, like the eldritch knight and spell thief, but warlock-related instead of wizard related (maybe getting invocations instead of spells).  I think that would better fit the tropes of "sucker who picks up a magic sword that is making him kill people" (more of a Glen Cook soul-sucking sword story than a Michael Morcock one) or a "thief who makes a bad deal for magic" than trying to fit those into the warlock.  I also figure a fighter with some warlock toys will end up being a better straight up melee type than the bladelock will be, while still letting you get that warlock feel.



I get where you're coming from, but to me the point of the warlock is stories like that. 

Still, I do wish that more subclasses spoke to more different other classes rather than wizard.


----------



## mellored

There are 3 invocations that recharge on a short or long rest.  One of them even has concentration.

So maybe it's not such a long shot they will do it that way.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

mellored said:


> There are 3 invocations that recharge on a short or long rest.  One of them even has concentration.
> 
> So maybe it's not such a long shot they will do it that way.



Oh for sure there will still be short or long rest invocations. 

I must admit I'm losing motivation to care about one dnd with the ogl 1.1 reporting. I hope that wotc comes out with a statement that doesn't make me want to never send them money again, but at this point I just don't want to put energy into a game that is published by a company I might very soon not want to support.


----------

