Two more things about the warlock: - The Pact of Blade with WIS spellcasting ability makes multiclassing Cleric and Warlock really nice, using the WIS as melee attack ability without quarterstaff/shillelagh - It's not possible anymore to use an heavy weapon as pact of the blade
For the sorcerer capstone, you neglected the fact that sorcerers can now also cast Wish in the flexible way without running the risk of losing the ability to cast it forever. So (unless they nerf Wish) with enough downtime, a sorcerer can summon as much money as they like, grant the party permanent resistance to every damage type, and who knows what else.
@@tuomasronnberg5244it's at lvl 18. But yes your point stands. Not many parties get to high levels. All class cap stones are moved to lvl18 and lvl20 is now Epic Boon
@@TheDragonOfWhi Of course, by that argument, capstones don't matter at all. But in a world where Barbarians get +2 to two ability scores, fighters get one extra attack, warlocks get to cast Hex for free, and wizards get a couple third-level spell slots per short rest, the Super Wish for sorcerers feels rather off-kilter.
Regarding Arcane Eruption. Also remember Sorcerers have a nice cheap metamagic that you can re-roll any dice you want up to your spellcasting mod for 1 sorcerer point. Now before you want to re-roll those 1s or 2s. Maybe now you don't. Decisions, decisions.
I'm just concerned that this means no more support going forward for the 5e warlock. I know I can Still play the old one, and I'm sure the 3rd party support will still be there, but there I Do not believe there will be OFFICIAL support for the 5e warlock anymore.
Note that you cant modify an already modified spell, as it removes the arcane tag and adds the wizard spell. Create spell requires the arcane tag. So only one effect can be changed on an one given spell
"At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a Spell Slot of 5th level or higher, you can choose an additional spell modification for each slot level above 4th." While you can't remodify an already modified spell, you could go back to the original spell and just use a higher level spell slot to do more effects.
Can you make scrolls of this kind? , and now since its the norm for all wizards to modify , do wizards sell these? , can my wizard request for $ a custom one? . It may be a way if you have the money but not the time. And can a pact of the tome warlock who choused the wizard list get these modified spells to ritual?
I think I'm much happier with this as a draft ruleset for playtesting than I would be if this were the final version. It feels like there's a good final version that can be reached from here by tweaking rather than overhauling.
I feel like the solution to shorts rests is to have more abilities that come back on it, not less. Give every class something they get on a SR. Most classes already do. Also make it actually short - 30 minutes tops.
100% It also bothers me when sub-classes for things like fighter and warlock have all their features on a long rest. If a class is supposed to lean toward short rests, then the sub-classes should reflect that.
Currently every class (ignoring subclasses) has some resource tied to a short rest, with 4 exceptions. Bard's Inspiration at first isn't but recharges on a short rest at 5th level. Sorcerers have nothing until their 20th level capstone in which they get 4 sorcery points. Rogues, same as sorcerers, get a new ability at 20th level that refreshes on a short rest. Rangers on the other hand do not have any resource.
I absolutely agree that spells are the biggest contributor to the Martial/Caster divide and toning back the most egregiously powerful ones will do more to balance things than removing slots or limiting preparations.
@@xdelite8082 I mean, Silvery Barbs was released like... 3 years ago, dude. They can't go back in time and fix the original release. But we've seen some spell nerfing already, with Banishment and a few others, so there's hope Silvery Barbs will be addressed in the future.
Yes, but also no. Two things that Treant didn't discuss, yet was (somewhat) discussed here: 1. Spells can be unique. Many of the better spells are not numerically better than what martials can do, they instead do fun things that martials can't do. Nerfing these spells doesn't really make sense - they either exist or they don't. You can make them higher Spell Level, which essentially just means they don't exist until they do - it delays them. Now Fireball? Yeah, that can be nerfed in a meaningful way. Teleport? Web? Not really. 2. Removing one child's toys does not make another child feel better (unless they are malicious little shi... ahem). Making casters feel bad isn't the solution. Making martials feel good is. So the answer is not that we need to nerf spells in general (some do need sorting out though, like Simulacrum), but instead to give martials new things and avenues to explore. Monster encounters should be made more interesting too, and giving new things to martials may bleed over some here (since most monsters are essentially martials).
@@Dannihilate Thanks, it was starting at high level, but that is not what I asked for. At some point, it would be nice to see an all-wizard party using the rules from the new releases discussed here.
The irony is that a lot of the Pact Boons bake in their invocation taxes (Thirsting blade, Investment of the chain master) into the class - Which is great! The biggest issue with that is that those were must-takes that didn't allow for creative wiggle room in Eldritch Invocations. Then they butchered all that progress by making Mystic Arcanum as Invocations, and past a certain point they're not even choices. If you have a choice on an invocation that lets you cast a 9th level spell, and an invocation that lets you cast alter self a few times per day, guess what - that isn't really a choice.
I feel like 5e warlock gets a bad rep. Its a genuinely well balanced class with plenty of variety even within subclasses. Literally like one more spell slot and it would be perfect
I had pretty much the exact same reaction to the Sorcerer. "I love this! That looks great! Interesting, I can't wait to try that out. *stares at Twinned Spell* What the hell happened here?" Overall it looks awesome I just hope Twinned Spell is restored after the community input.
Honestly, the wizard really excites me, since I used to play an archmage, but always felt like they should have some sort of unique magic, since they kind of were a magical scientist. I do hope they put a limiter on how often you can do this instead of the GM having to manage time and gold in a more strict manner though, since we basically played that last campaign no money at all.
Same... gold is a terrible limiting factor. I'd leave it as is but put a hard cap of X number of created spells in your spellbook(s) that scales up with wizard class level. (More incentive to avoid broken multiclass dips in the bargain.) That way a wizard would end up with a few very specialized modified spells, whereas sorcerers would get to modify any spell on the fly by expending some resources.
I would replace the GP amount with something rare for each modification to Create Spell. If you want to create this new spell, you need exotic ingredients. Which leads to adventuring. To seek. 👍
@@rodneygriffin7666 That's a brilliant idea, actually. Still not a fan of handing off balance to the DM. DM "buy-in" features so often feel bad. But your idea would be how I'd choose to run it at my table if it were to be printed as is.
@@juliendrainville7131 Or add some extra cost to it? Like: for every two alterations to a spell the spell has to be cast by a higher spell slot? Or: every alteration consumes one of your prepared slots, so a fireball with 3 permanent alterations consumes 4 of your prepared spells (the numbers need to be balanced in a more sensible manner)..
Pretty much my exact thoughts. Despite how powerful it was, the 5e wizard never excited me from a flavor perspective. If they find the right balance & keep this framework I'd actually play them more.
I agree with you both on your take on a spellsword class, it's such a cool archetype. Granted, we had the eldritch knight, the bladesinger and the hexblade, but none of them had the feeling I was looking for, so I created my own hb class, the incantator. It has some features of the ek, the war magic wizard and the blood hunter, right now I think it works cool but it needs more playtesting.
They could just do a base class called "Eldritch Knight" with older edition class names, Duskblade, Beguiler, Sword Singer, Hexblade, etc so you are the melee and magic gish
Tying the core class mechanic to short rest has been a problem for years because of how tables interact with resting mechanics. Every table gets Long Rest, now every table uses Short Rest, especially tables that only have one or two encounters a day which is way more common than you'd think. Invocations do need super tuned up and we definitely need options from Tasha's brought forward
I've always preferred sorcerer over wizard, and I'm routinely surprised that most people prefer the wizard. The 5e Wizard is just boring, pablum. Even crappy sorcerer sub classes are better.
I think new Twinned is useless now. Say you cast hold person and fail. Well now you can recast it without expending another slot, spend 2 points, and its succeeds this time! But you could have just used new Heightened for the same cost, and inflict disadvantage on ALL saves from the spell, and it only took a single turn instead of dedicating two precious turns trying to get that one spell off.
@@kdaviper Yes, but it has to be the same spell and you're still using two turns to do it, I believe. For a first level it is cheaper, but say you're casting a 4th or 5th level crowd control. Well now twinned is getting expensive and heightened still only 2. Honestly don't know why they made heightened both cheaper and work for all subsequent saves, seems a bit much.
Crawford explained the issue with Twinned Spell's power. It was basically a combination of a better Quickened Spell and converting sorcery points to a spell slot at the same time at a significant discount. Keeping it as is would require a massive increase in sorcery point cost. Also, Warlocks are WAY better in this version. A lot of invocations got rolled into their pact boon, so if you juggle the mystic arcanums as you level up, you basically get all the invocations you would normally want, plus have about 75-90% of the effective spell slots of a full caster. Don't focus on the half caster chart on the class, because a lot of the Warlock spellcasting is not in that chart. Plus, Warlocks being so dependent on short rests, well beyond any other class, was bad design. They were either massively powerful or pathetically weak depending on how the rest of the party rested.
THANK YOU!!! So many people are losing over “loss of identity” when I think the idea of warlocks being the only half caster with access to higher level spells is SO unique! Treantmonk has a great video breaking down just how much more powerful this version is than the current version. Invocations are still there, they’re still powerful and unique, and they allow more customization than ever before. If you don’t want higher level spells, choose a utility or flavor option instead. If you want higher level spells, they’re still available, you just have more lower level options.
I wouldn't call having access to the best cantrip in the game with so many features to increase damage and utility as "pathetically weak" Warlocks can pump out the damage and CC without using a single spell slot.
Warlocks are not a lot better. They are crappy now. And no being dependent on short rests was not bad design, it was far superior design to the current mess with long rest casters.
Making them half casters made the most sense, especially with that signature spell of theirs: "Eldritch Heavy Crossbow" basically meaning they were just taking a better attack action every turn. There was a reason they were the sustained damage floor for optimizers and powerbuilders. Nevermind how swingy they were because of short rest opportunities
@@ZeoffArcaneOfficial I agree, if we just changed the name or “flavor” of EB to a weapon, they’re essentially just equivalent to a fighter with the ability to add a d6 to every attack and do one or two spell effects twice per short rest. I think a lot of people are getting really caught up on the fact that these things are “spells” when the actual mechanical effects aren’t exceptionally powerful
I think Hex is once per turn so it is equally viable with the Blade. This is why Lifedrinker states Necrotic Damage and doesn't specify damage from only Lifedrinker. EDIT: Turns out it does state it has to be from this invocation, my bad. But I think they should allow it and I also feel the Blade pact should automatically give you advantage against concentration checks against melee damage.
Lifedrinker states "necrotic damage with this invocation" so it doesn't also heal with Hex damage. I would much prefer it if it does. I do like how Hex on a bladelock isn't falling as far behind with the new hex though.
@@matthewmiller1847 You are right, I'm sorry. I do feel like they should allow it. I also feel that the blade pact should give you advance on concentration checks against meele attacks automatically.
Very interested in this new warlock design and I'm actually going to playtest it tonight for a one shot! I highly recommend watching the D&D video with Jeremy Crawford discussing the changes as my initial reaction was also not super positive but he makes some great points, in that if Warlock is a full caster they will have to tone down many of their powerful unique features, which could possibly diminish the strength of their updated pack boons and invocations. Additionally, with this play test many of the pact boon specific invocations are built into the boon itself giving more room to pick up mystic arcanum invocations for higher lvl spells. I do agree that warlocks could just get an extra spell slot or 2, but personally I don't mind the half caster approach if they just get a few more invocations or their own unique spell slot progression. But certainly I'll see how things go tonight, Cheers!
Your point on twinned spell being powerful but that power mostly being about the other party members is so true. I have found this playing the comander fighter. The subclass you created is powerful but it buffs the rest of the team and it is awesome!
Honestly, i would've preferred the Artificer be kept in as the Arcane half-caster and the Warlock retain their Pact Magic. It's such a unique feature and deserves to stay!
A possible rework for Mystic Arcanum is we spend 2 spell slots to cast a Mystic Arcanum. This can only be done once per long rest for each spell level and the Mystic Arcanum level would be according to your Warlock level. Basically at level 20 this would take 8 spell slots to cast 6th to 9th level spells taking up more than half your spell slots
Also the thing with Warlocks is they already can get additional spells through invocations and that can cover a lot of their spell utility. A warlock can cast disguise self or mage armor all day if they want. I think they could give 1 more spell slot and help cover some more utility in their invocations. Maybe give them access to two spells they can only use one once a day but they have more options in those invocations then.
You will never use any of those spells because most of them use up spell slots and the Invocation space is tight as is without having invocations eat up the spell slots. Disguise Self is a cool gimmick, and Mage Armor can be replaced with better armor. The Half Caster approach is just better, all around.
Both of those are first level spells, and Mage Armor already has a duration of 8 hours, so barring dispels, you are casting it /maybe/ 2 more times a day. Or you can be a wizard and just make a ritual version of each, 10min to cast without any slots! Or be a sorceror and just use a sp to cast them. Or have 50gp and get a scroll. Or 100gp and get a common magic item that duplicates the spells.
If they make the warlock use the spell point system by default they could give them more casting without changing much. We used them on a couple warlocks. They are loving it, at lv 5 they can cast up to 6 casts of 1st level spells, or 3 lv2s or 2 lv 3's or any combination flexibly and it just works well.
i think the thing i'm most exited about is the changes in the wizard. i think some of the things should be "controled" like said like when you upcast modify spell the new spell is one lvl higher... or something like that to control it
On the spellcasting changes, we don't really know that they reverted the way spells are locked to spell slot level. If you notice, all of the casters that received that version of spellcasting had the cleric style of preparing. That means every time they gained a higher tier of spell levels in 5e, they could prepare all of those higher level spells as long as it was within their preparing limits. In cotrast, the wizard is a prepared caster, but they are locked to 2 new spells per level, so at most they can prepare 2 higher level spells whenever they gain a higher tier, and would have to hunt for new spells to gain more, or wait for another level up. The sorcerer and warlock were kept as known-type casters, so they weren't fit for the limitation. The bard, however, went from know-type to cleric-like preparing. It's possible that change was only meant for cleric-like type of preparing, to limit these classes from preparing like six 2nd level spells when they are only like level 3. The wizard, sorcerer and warlock didn't fit the category, so they could just not have got the same limitation.
One thing to note about invocations counts between versions, they might "effectively" be the same... Like the 2014 version got 8 true invocations, and 4 Mystic Arcanum features for 12 "effective" invocations, while the UA5 version gets 9 true invocations, the pact cantrip upgrades at level 5, the level 3 subclass spell usage, and the Contact Patron feature at level 11 to also get 12 "effective" invocations...
@@Psychomaniac14 true, and I would like to see some invocations that "count as taking Mystic Arcanum for an xth level spell" and/or some higher level Warlock exclusive spells that can only be accessed via an Invocation. That said, the cantrip upgrades are still on par with other non-Mystic Arcanum invocations, particularly the invocations you can access at level 5, meaning it should be valid to include the pact cantrip upgrades as "locked-in invocations" when comparing the overall power of the class between the 2014, and UA5 versions. If you want to argue/complain that there is an "illusion of choice" problem for invocation selection at higher levels for the UA5 Warlock, I would agree with you there.
@@codebracker your warlock spell list for acranums is a joke. There was like 1 good spell throghout the 6,7,8 and 9th levels. New spell list is a wizard's spell list which is AWESOME. New warlock is much more fun and versatile
I think if the Warlock got like 14-15 invocations over their career, then they work fine as is. I like that Mystic Arcanum are optional invocations, we just need to increase the number of invocations to account for a warlock who wants to feel like a full spellcaster and also have cool unique invocations.
It feels like you have the choice for what you want your Warlock to focus on: more spellcasting or less spellcasting with more utility. The Warlock being a 1/2 caster, 3/4 caster, or full caster depending on what you want it to be is really cool to me. I definitely agree they need more invocations too- maybe 10-12 overall.
It would depend on what those invocations are. One of the problems that came up in surveys is that people were not using the spell slots at all and just hoarding them as a just in case measure so never actually casting spells. The players were worried they wouldn't have the slots available when they needed them for that next big encounter.
Perhaps bring back the original no innate spell casting warlock, plug a boosted spellcasting ability into the pact of the tome? That way you get your Jedi-type hexblades, your PF Summoner-like Chainlocks and a 5e-style Warlock Tomelock?
I disagree entirely, I love that warlocks have to choose whether they customize their character through Mystic Arcanum spell selection or through regular invocations. The problem for me is that almost all of the invocations need a massive boost in order to compete with Mystic Arcanum, or TBH just to be interesting at all now that the Warlock is a half caster.
I agree that a lot more invocations would help, but pair that with a dozen more invocations that give you at-will powers. If the D&D people want to turn warlocks into half casters, they should commit to it and make them like other half casters, who "do X but also cast spells." Rangers do outdoorsy things and also cast spells. Artificers do magic items and also cast spells. Warlocks should be the guys who do invocations and also cast spells. But in order for that to work it has to be things they can do consistently, not just another set of resources they can run out of now that they have weaker spells and no recharging on a short rest.
@@codebracker I think they at least need another invocation and mystic arcanum option at level 3 so they can get access to level 2 spells in line with full casters (if the player is interested in going that route).
@@Rolling_with_Hope well you already get access to the free subclass spell at lvl 3, which is basically another arcanum, except you can pock any spell from your subclass list instead of just 1
16:19 see, i'd keep 5e's twin spell but use 1dnd's version (as shown here) as a homebrew metamagic called "echo spell" as that seems more fitting for this version
@@JJV7243 nah 5e twinspell is fine just the way it is. the balance is in the sorcery points. the higher the spell you use the less points you have for other meta magic (or other things) unless you use spell slots for points. theres quite a bit of uses for SP so using up to half on one meta magic might not be the best idea in some cases. though if they absolutely had to "nerf" it, i'd have a small wild magic table attached (to the use if metamagic in general, really). since you're bending the weave of magic outside its normal usage its plausible side effects could happen.. could be good, bad, or just weird.
I really hope they revert the twin spell idea. I love it the way it is, twinning guiding bolts on enemies or healing words on my allies. (Divine Soul, only sorcerer type I've played.) As it stands with the proposed changes, I would never use it and my poor girl would lose a lot of her identity as a blaster/healer depending on what's needed at the time. She also has one level of cleric (life domain) for the boost to healing which has been invaluable so far. Having every class not get a subclass till level 3 hurts, but also makes sense. It wouldn't allow my character to work as well as she does, since I have no intention of taking any more levels of cleric. It would cut back on some of the multiclass dips we have right now which is probably healthier for the game even though it would negatively affect my current character.
It was more taking away the ability to cast 2 leveled spells with 1 action. Of course players want to be OP and bend the rules. Devs not to concerned about feelings as they are making rules for a balanced combat.
@@jessesellers9346 yes im aware of what its doing and as i said, i would not remove that ability. as i said, i'd keep that and keep this new version but have the new version under a new name.
When I casted Twin disintegrate on 2 ancient dragons and killing 1 was a huge moment and was such a slim chance of happening. I really hope they dont keep this Twin meta magic like this
Again it was the pact and the unique spell list that made the warlock cool with all the tenticles and dark stuff, limited but you could customise the spells with the invocations. Our DM did add the pact spells as well as the sorcer spells to those known anyway. Don't think I'd play a Warlock on the new system as it's lost the uniqueness whch was it's draw. Of course I'm really excited to try a Wizard, although we'd never get enough gold to do much with the spells.
I was hoping for Rogue to be stronger as it's my favourite character type but it was weak before and now it's worse. One thing I'd do would be move Investigation and perception to dex for a rogue, were meant to be finding traps but the wizard and cleric used to outdo me every time.
I mean all classes can heal on a short rest, the problem is that getting all your spellslots back is a lot more power then any other class gets from a short reat
@@codebracker exactly the problem, if other classes had worth while stuff come back in short rests it wouldn't be like pulling teeth to get the warlock their slots back.
I personally think that sprinkling Mystic Arcanum throughout the Warlock (Levels 3, 7, 13, and 17), that gives a spell (and corresponding slot that you could use to upcast another spell) that the warlock can change on level up would make the half caster work well.
The new Warlock's balance level is fine, and you lose a lot fewer invocations than it might seem due to the retraining rules. And Mystic Arcanum plus the other Invocations feels suitably unique. But what I feel WotC should have done (okay, what they should have *actually* done is make every class short rest-based, but that's just not in the cards; it's long rest or bust at this point for like half a dozen reasons) is bring the Mystic chassis out of storage and reuse some of its ideas. Fundamentally what this would do is tie spells known to Invocations as a big packet. So you still get a very unique feeling class that feels very thematic by making all their spells viscerally *come* from the Pact. Like, straight-up give Warlocks full casting progression (points based casting is part of the Psionic identity, and I'm not at all suggesting the Mystic be resurrected almost whole-cloth), and then to avoid the OPness of combining that with passive Invocation powers, limit how many can be active at a time with a "stance" mechanic, eg by picking 1-2 of your Invocations to be active as a 1-10 minute activity (which would also greatly curtail the number of possible mechanical interactions that need to be balanced against each other, further throttling the class from the super high potential this chassis could achieve without careful design). Or something to that general effect. It's a more extreme change, but it brings in a lot of classic flavour from the Binder in 3.5, does a better job (IMO) of tying the mechanics to the lore, doesn't feel as viscerally silly as the current revision, and solves the core design problem of making the Warlock into a long rest class.
I think the push away from the Short Rest was more about balance. Features that recharged on a Short Rest would be more or less potent, depending on how often your group did Short Rests, and each group does Short Rests differently. So, in a group that *never* Short Rests, the Warlock was awful. In one that took 3-4 a day, it was amazing. Putting everything on Long Rest means WotC doesn’t need to worry about balancing things based on something all groups did differently.
They could've fixed this by simply letting short rests not be interrupted by light activity such as walking. That way, you just auto short rest whenever the party has a long walk or travel time.
I think what we really needed was short rest mechanics for every class, a shorter rest of 10 minutes (like in 4e), and a limit to the number of rests in a day.
I really appreciated your commentary on the sorcerer. It’s my favorite class. What they did with the Twinned Spell feature was a crime since it mostly promoted more cooperative play over all. I just wish you guys commented on turning sorcerer class features into spells that actively use a valuable resource to the character themselves. It just feels like they made it look like they gave the Sorcerer more than they really did in reference to the later class features. Overall, great video and I love your content.
As a Wizard main, I love the new options presented. As a DM, I am scared of them. But above both of those feelings, I thin that the Wizard abilities should not be listed as spells. It just doesn't make sense to me, just encode them as Class Abilities fully rather than grouping them up with actual spells! It feels wonky, because I don't see people choosing not to cast them as reactions.
I actually have the opposite situation to what you described at 5:00 where my bard (rip) had 5 1st level spells and only one 4th and 5th level spells. 8:00 subclass spells could be fixed similarly to how warlocks and divine sorcerer works currently, where they add spells to the list you prepare from but not give it to you prepared. Also if you like the subclass for it's features and not the spells, you can prepare more spells that you like. Wizards, the targeting mod nullifies the evocation subclass' 6th level ability. Ignoring material components is already there with component pouches and various foci. Ignoring Verbal and Somatic treads on the subtle spell, and also removes ways of dealing with spell casters. Oh you bound and gagged them as a precaution? You cast Silence? Doesn't matter. Are they ignored most of the time in combat anyways? In my party yes, but theres a difference between a homebrew convenience and a written negation is enough to not sit right with me. I agree with others that the power divide is from spells and not class abilities. (I also think cantrips should scale slower than they do) In the future, I want to see less grouping of BPS in resistances. It provides more variance to monsters and also to weapon choice or choices, since you will probably want a variety of damage types.
I love the new changes to the Warlock. I've never played or DM'd at a table that gets more than 2 short rests per 24 hours, and my experiences with Warlock are exactly like what Jeremy Crawford described in the video about this playtest: Warlocks horde their spell slots and barely use them or risk disrupting the flow of the adventuring day by constantly asking the party to rest. Also, the Warlock was already a half-caster in terms of its spell progression and spell slot availability, and this change just brings it in line with how other half-casters work. I understand wanting the Warlock to feel unique from other casters, but keeping it the only class that gets its spell slots back on a short rest isn't what should distinguish the Warlock from other casters. Its Invocations and other class abilities should. That said, I'm not fully on board with the change to Mystic Arcanum. It's tough that the Warlock would have to choose between it and other Invocations, but I also think that just giving them all of their Mystic Arcanum spells for free is too much. Perhaps there's a middle ground, like 1 or 2 more total Invocations, or giving them 3rd and 4th level Mystic Arcanum spells for free, but requiring the use of Invocations for 5th level Mystic Arcanum and higher?
So the issue with twinned spell is that it breaks the rules of concentration so perhaps a decent necessary nerf would be getting disadvantage on twinned spell concentration checks
I like the idea of the warlock having slower spell progression as a base but with the option of making build decisions to go either more magical or more physical but this version is weird... Maybe if Mystic Arcanum wasn't a Invocation but rather stayed similar to how it is in 5e just starting earlier...
The more I look at it and think about it, the more OK with it I personally am, honestly. I'd just tweak the ways the Pact Boon abilities work a bit. I'd make the Pact Weapon Cantrip a Bonus Action. My Warlock player has always summoned her Pact Weapon as a Bonus Action, anyway lol. I'd rework the Pact Familiar to be a Cantrip that's one action to summon as it is, but change the way the Familiar worked. I'd change it so it uses your Casting Modifier for Attack and Damage Rolls, and has a d6 damage die for its Eldritch Strike attack. This attack also counts as magical. Also, at Level 5, it can make a second attack. As for its HP, make it 5 + double your Warlock Level instead. Book of Shadows works just fine. Maybe have a Level 5 upgrade be "Urgent Ritual" that allows you to finish Ritual Casting in 2 minutes instead of 10. That for me would make it being a half-caster work, even without the Mystic Arcanum.
I like your idea of reigning back the powerful spells, not the classes themselves. It's really a list of 10 or 15 spells that create most the divide between casters and martials. No one's complaining that Arcane Lock is too good, it's Wall of Force, Force Cage, Counterspell, Hypnotic Pattern, Mass Suggestion, etc. Take a look at those specific spells, rebalance them, and suddenly things are in a pretty good place.
I always say I think the easiest thing to do to fix the warlock. Is to give them a mystic arcanum every two levels. So they'll get a first level second third fourth and so on mystic arcanum which will give them slightly more spell slots
Completely agree on Short Rest being 10m (With a limit of 1hr between). I put in my play test survey, the problem isn't the short rest, but it's implementation. For a few years now our group has used a fixed/modified SR of 10m and it's never a problem to get a SR on both a Warlock and now an Apothecary. A dungeon crawl recently I had several (5 IIRC) possible opportunities to use a SR, then a couple more chances after leaving before the day ended. Party searches a room, casts a ritual, analyses some writing, talks to someone. There are many activities that take 10+ minutes. Each one an opportunity. Unless a party is never searching a location, casting ritual spells, or simply ignoring time, there's plenty of opportunity for someone to catch a quick SR. "Hey, while he does that, I'll take a breather and keep an eye out. Fighter: Good idea I'll join you." Party never has to wait and usually even if we're pushing from a deadline, they still pause to do some of these activities and you can catch a quick rest. Fix the SR, not nuke it, then for the warlock +1 slot and invocation.
I actually love the new Warlock. I love that it gets to cast more spells, I like all the little improvements they made to Pact Boon, and I really feel like it hasn't lost anything from its identify.
I totally agree. I like a more caster... Well, caster with more versatility to cast spells. My first Warlock was with a "flavor first" kind of DM, on a time-travel campaign where we were running around "fixing" issues and became enemies of at least 3 factions. I was a Pact of the Fiend with Pact Weapon, An AC of 14 and +1 in constitution (because of balancing STR, CON and CHA). Every fight, my character fell to 0 HP. I barely could cast spells with 2 spell slots and short rest came with heavy consequences (because 3 factions were hunting our asses). I hate that campaign. I felt useless, online campaign suck, and the DM didn't allow me to change weapon type (from melee to range) or multiclass into paladin because it didn't fit with the flavor. And it didn't help the fact that there was a Paladin and a Wizard doing whatever I was doing but way better. If I had this version of the Warlock, I would had a blast (no pun intended) with more versatility and I would have felt useful.
Said this elsewhere before, but I think both current and old Warlock are very interesting but poorly designed classes and the new Warlock doesn't have any reason to exist. The theme of a Warlock is cool. Invocations are neat. What everyone wants out of "the pact caster" is so different that it can't be served by one class, no matter how customisable it is. I have 2 solutions, one is a half-measure and the other is very extreme but I think it would be better for the game overall. First solution: Warlocks regain slots in combat. Tie it to the pact, so, for example: - Bladelock regains slots when dealing damage in melee. - Tomelock blinds themselves to stare into their book and constantly regenerate slots. - Chainlock damages themselves to gain slots (this brings back Constitution Warlocks from 4e and evokes the popular idea of blood magic). Balance it out by giving Warlock very few spell slots, so they rely on this constant flow. Theoretically, this makes Warlocks just as good in the 6-rest day as they are in a super-deadly 1-big-fight day as their slot recharge isn't dependant on dropping out of combat to rest. They can actually be balanced more in-line with long-rest classes. Second solution: Delete the Warlock. Move most of the invocations, pact stuff, patrons and class features into feats. That way your Wizard can be a "Warlock" by taking the Fiendish Patron feat and an Invocation feat, so can your Sorcerer, or maybe even your Fighter or Paladin. How about a Great-Old-One Rogue who stole an ancient book of eldritch secrets? Or a Druid bound to an Archfey with a chain familiar? Maybe your Barbarian's rage manifests as a Blade Pact weapon or your Long Death Monk has an Undead Patron. I'd probably make the Invocation feat flexible. Have it either give the choice of 2 invocations or 1 invocation and a +1 to a stat. Most invocations are worth less than a feat and you might only want to snipe 1. I think this best way to serve the identity of the Warlock. Part 2 of this solution is to replace the Warlock with a new arcane 1/2 caster. Easiest solution is to make Hexblade it's own full class, it basically functions as one anyway. Swordmage is the 4e equivalent, but it filled a tanking role that may tread on Paladin's toes a bit too much. That said, "Sword Wizard" is clearly a popular concept, what with the Hexblade, Eldritch Knight and Bladesinger existing. I'm sure people would be happy with a full class serving that fantasy. Mage Hand Press/Middle Finger of Vecna had a cool Battlemage class that expanded upon Warlock's "weapon fighter, but the weapon is a cantrip" idea, with features that made all the cantrips pretty viable weapon alternatives. I personally think this would be the more interesting way to go and would fully distinguish it from Ranger and Paladin while leaving the Eldritch Knight/Bladesinger niche undisturbed.
Strong t-shirt game. Thumbs up for that alone. I honestly didn't like that packet, but by the time it came out, I was already on the way out. The overall approach to classes is not one I agree with, and it is very hazy and uneven in places and really, with few exceptions, the only tweaks have been focused on combat encounters... already the most robustly supported of encounters, but as soon as you look at the classes in the context of other types of encounters, huge issues persist. When it comes with the wizards in particular, as you mention, there is no caveat on how much rewards and downtime impacts their power level. And we still have no firm idea of how the spells themselves are being rebalanced, so with the existing language of spells - things are more unfun for the other players at the table. Instead of the "short resters" disrupting the flow of the game, it will now be the wizards urging more downtime since it benefits them by such a wider margin - and we have yet to see one thing about the Bastion system. So far, the sum of the parts do not feel greater than the parts themselves. and very few of the changes really feel justifiable in disrupting the environment with this new release level.
I dont understand the clamoring for more warlock spell slots. Most of the warlock action economy revolves around eldritch blast, having limited spell slots never felt like it ever dragged me down in combat. Removing the thing that makes them unique to turn them in to worse wizards isnt the solution.
The problem si the pact of blade, they need worse spellcasting if 5e wants to reduce the division between martial and casters, with the excetion of 4e that all class palyed almost the same, i never heard of an arcane gish with 9lvl progession before 5e, bard became one of the best class already jsut with that even with little supprot to the martial side, hexblade and blade singer fucked the balance in the end. But i liked how pact magic was so unique and shos mecanhicaly how warlock magic was different
@@thomad4 the quesiton is,what they wnat of warlock? warlock in 3e was less a caster and more a eldertich blast cannon that altered eldrith blast effects sometimes, in 4e he was more close to a caster but in essentials they fused hexblade with it, making it a gish. So is warlock a gish class, a full caster, a cantrip caster, a tempalte to the 3 ideas?
@@thomad4 Then play a sorcerer or wizard. Limited spell slots is part of the current identity of the warlock as "arcane artillery." If they get worse spells they can cast more often, what is the benefit? You are going to end up using eldritch blast most of the time anyway.
I think a lot of people are missing the big picture when it comes to the warlock and if they were to actually play this version, they would like it. A lot of the invocations, at least three of them off the top of my head, have now been included into the pacts. So saying that you have to use half of your invocations to get the higher level spells isn’t the full picture when you consider that you’re going to get other invocations, such as Agonizing blast, for free if you use that pact by choosing the new cantrips.
The Warlock is not that hard to fix. Pact spell slots come back a maximum of twice per day no matter how they are restored. The class gets a ritual that lasts the normal time of 10 minutes to restore those slots as an option. Pact slots equals proficiency bonus. Put Mystic Arcanum 6-9 back on the class features table. Sounds like how Warlocks will work at my table.
If you're going to limit how often pact slots come back per day, then why even have them recharge on a short rest? Just give more of them per day. I've never been a big fan of "x per day you can get more spell slots." Why not just give those extra spell slots in the first place? No, if you're going to have things that recharge on a short rest, then just commit to it and have them recharge on a short rest. The great thing about the warlock is that it has theoretically unlimited spell slots per day, which takes the frustration out of the resource management of casters. In practice warlocks might actually end up casting fewer spells per day than a wizard, but knowing that I can always get those slots back by resting for a bit makes me less restricted, and that makes the game more fun. To me, anyway, although I know not everyone feels this way.
I’m not sure if I like the new warlock, but I love the divorcing of the spell slots from a short rest. I played from warlock 1-9 over about two years and for about half a year at the end my entire existence was ‘okay that’s my one spell slot used, better save the next one for the next combat we’re not gonna get a short rest for’. Which I know if worst case but I’ll happily take a change that removes that very feels bad situation.
Fun twist: Steal the wizard's book when they don't have Scribe Spell prepared. They have now lost the ability to copy spells into a spellbook or create a replacement book. So they now have to buy 2 scrolls of Scribe Spell so they can cast it with the first scrool to scribe the second spell. I betcha those scrolls will have an artificially inflated price.
gosh I wish they would just implement the battlemaster as martial spells or whatever that the martials can pick from. I'm lukewarm about weapon masteries and would much rather see a more 4e style martial abilities pool. As you two have said, bake the battlemaster into the fighter core class and give barbs and rangers limited access to that pool (or a separate list I guess). I wish more classes had access to infusion/invocation like powers lists.
The only thing that really changed for Wizards is that they spelled out how the things are done and you can swap spell mid-day. You could already Scribe Spell and Create Spell and Modify Spell. Just now it is more than just a line saying you can. When things are made more clear people are able to abuse it more. I don't mind a mid-day spell swap and I like that they are spelling out HOW the spell creation works. Nerfing the spells is where the most shrinking of the divide is going to happen.
Will say, we have been running with short rests as 10 minutes for a long time and it has basically fixed the short rest issue completely. Dont get rid of short rest make it 10 min!
The thing I think everyone is missing about the new Warlock is that spellcasting is being used more for character expression. The way the Pact Boons, Eldritch Invocations, and Mystic Arcana all interact now, you can bring just about any character concept to life. The half caster base may seem bad, but without that adjustment, the class would be super busted.
The main issue is it gets rid of something core to the warlocks identity and i really want other new official or unofficial classes to have a short rest caster to model after. Like a nature themed intelligence short rest caster called the witch. What about making it so pact magic recovers similar to arcane recovery, once per long rest at the end of a short rest regain all pact slots? now it doesnt matter if the party takes 10 or 1 short rest.
@@russelldavis1359 the real problem is that warlocks getting all their soellslots back on a short rest is way nore power then any other class gets from a short rest
Pact Magic was a neat concept on paper, but at least from my experience and second hand knowledge, Warlock was always just a dip because of it. The way they changed it, makes it much more appealing to take all the way up now. I do want to add emphasis on the fact that the way all the moving parts work, you can make any character you want with much more detail. Your Pact Boon not only gives you three archetypes to choose from, each come with their corresponding “must have” invocation built in, and with the ability to choose your primary ability score, you have better influence over your skill selections. Then you have so many different choices with which to craft a unique character in a way no other class can. Bottom line, I already have way more ideas than I will have games to try them in with just this class. lol
@@codebracker That's why i suggested limiting it to only one short rest per long rest granting the recharge. Fighter would still get 10 action surges if the table short rested that many times
While I’m not suggesting one should base a class on settings like Star Wars the thing that most convinced me there needed to be a spellblade was how poorly Jedi can be made in D&D (I know what I said) but also that the very idea of the class excites me from a purely fantasy perspective
I understand the mechanics of the new Warlock, but it's just lost so much of the flavour from Pact Magic. These new Warlocks _work_ but they're just way less cool now.
I respect your opinion, but I don’t understand what about the new version is less flavorful to you. Could you help me understand why you feel the flavor is different just because the mechanics are more streamlined? From my perspective, if you want your mechanics flavored, just flavor them at the table. Especially if changing the flavor results in a mechanically weaker option than other version.
@@jordanprice6457 The mechanical difference creates a different and unique way to play, as well as emphasizing that the warlock is different and otherworldly. They're granted limited power by their patron that replenishes far more rapidly than other casters, but they also don't control how powerful that magic is, which I think is a wonderful synergy of mechanics and theme. Making them into a half-caster that you _could_ build out with invocations just feels less on theme, and less interesting to me.
I don't get how it loses any of its flavor. The new Warlock still has Invocations, it still has Mystic Arcanum ahead of schedule, and it still has a pact boon. Balance aside, do we really think having the Warlock operate on short rests is the cornerstone of the class identity?
@@DarkDefender1024 It's that I feel like a warlock, by the nature of how they attain their power, should have idiosyncrasies in how they use that power. It's a caster, but you have to think differently because you don't have a ton of slots but you can replenish them easily, and you upcast everything to a certain level whether you want to or not. I like that it's different, not that it's better or worse. I like a lot of what's here, but I really like pact magic for the feel of it and am disappointed in it being replaced with the same sort of casting that everything else has.
@@gargonovich I also like the idea of idiosyncrasies with the way the magic is implemented, but does the ability to still cast high level spells without using spell slots just not scratch that itch for you? It’s okay if it doesn’t, but I personally really enjoy that. It seems to me the automatic upcasting is important here too. I saw another comment that suggested having this half caster progression but with one or two “pact slots” that do scale at the full rate and come back on a short rest. How does that sound to you? I think that could be an effective way to fix the problem of using an invocation to cast the higher spells, while still getting music arcanum.
I feel like pact magic could be kept and short rests could still be eliminated with a rule similar to this: "A warlock can regain his spell slots by conducting a ritual that takes 10 minutes. He may do this a number of times equal to his proficiency bonus per day." And this rule could be tweaked. Maybe its a number of times equal to half your proficiency bonus rounded up, or its a number of times as determined by a leveling table, etc.
New Twinned isn't worse than all the other options. Full stop. It's now on par with the rest of the niche options like Extend or Distant. Options you might choose on some builds to use with some spells, rather than what it was before, an auto-pick that literally everyone took on every build because it was ten times better than any other option. I do however agree with Chris over at Treantmonk's Temple that it should be renamed something like "Repeat Spell" to more accurately describe what it does.
id still take extend and distant over new twin. casting an extended 8 hour spell gives you a free buff every morning and distant lets you touch things 30 feet away. casting a spell twice in a row is something that I already can do and not something I would waste my once per turn ability on. theres a way to balance old twin without changing it. Repeat spell would be cool if I could copy any spell in the last round because at least then it would give me access to different spell lists.
I honestly wish the warlock was modeled after the 3E original. I wanted to turn into a swarm of bats or rats. To have eldritch blast attached to an attack roll for the original smite! I wish eldritch blast could change shape from chains to cones or fireball sized radius. Oh how I miss you 3E warlock 😢
Honetsly, the more I hear you and others talking about One DnD... the more I'm thinking I'll stick with 5E and homebrew with my peeps for each campaign. THis just seems like a case of fixing one issues just to cause three or four new issues. I don't personally don't have time for the BS anymore. Keep up the good work Gentlemen. Infomation is power and you're making us all super-heroes.
I'm fine with moving away from short rests. For warlock I think with only a couple of small changes it could have fixed warlock's issues with spellcasting and reliance on short rests all the while keeping what kept the class unique. I like a good amount of the warlock's changes, but there's also a lot I dislike. Also if any class in the PHB should be the arcane half-caster it should be bard. I like the direction they took with sorcerer and wizard, but I do get the concerns with the latter.
One thing I do like is that, especially as a new player, I was never really that interested in playing a sorcerer. To me it was always just “wizard but more complicated yet worse.” I like how with these changes, that distinction between the sorcerer’s innate talent and the wizard’s trained skill. The focus on the contrast of sorcerer’s ability to change their spell’s aspect on a dime and the wizard’s ability to make more, greater, and permanent changes when given enough time and resources. I in general, like almost all changes to these classes. When it comes to warlocks I pretty much agree with everything in the video. The changes to the pact boons are great; it made pact weapon the objectively worst boon (for anyone but Hexblade) into something really viable. I like warlocks can now have thematic spells without sacrificing getting the great picks from the general spell list. The change in their spell casting REALLY drags it down for me though. Like I said, I love all the other changes, but if given the choice between having all of the ones presented or none at all, I would 100% choose none. I think they really need to go back to the drawing board with that
I really like Treantmonk's analysis of the warlock changes and their example warlock build using these playtest rules: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-I11LOEFj0A8.html. I also think that the issue of having enough invocations with mystic arcanum becomes less of an issue when you remember that some of the previous "must-have" invocations are now baked into the pact-boons. Thirsting blade (extra attack) is now baked into pact of the blade, agonizing blast is essentially baked into pact of the tome, and voice of the chain master (not a must-have like the other 2, but still) is baked into pact of the chain. I do agree that another invocation or 2 would be great, but these baked in invocations do help. Looking forward to seeing where the future play-test versions of the class go!
Although that’s true they didn’t have other pact boon invocations what happened to investment of the chain specifically being able to grant resistance to familiar. What happened to improved pact weapon. What happened to far scribe, chains of carceri, the hex invocations, and they didn’t improve invocations such as fiendish vigor or eyes of the rune keeper. False life could scale every 5 levels and eyes of the tune keep could scale to tongues. I just hate how little thought they put into invocations. In my opinion invocations are warlock main feature and this new warlock suggest that. They should treat like it’s is their main feature
So it's one step forward and only fifteen steps back, not one step forward and twenty steps back. Doesn't change the fact that the new warlock is a pile of garbage.
For the Warlock, WOTC should've taken notes from your Apothecary class and just added a couple more spell slots to their total amount instead of making them a half caster. Maybe even scale the slots in the same way as well
For Warlocks we could maybe change it that instead of a short rest it recharges on a 1 minute ritual similar to Eldritch Master but restrict it to twice per long rest. The Mystic Arcanum stay the same as 5e. We increase the number of Invocations to 10. And Mystic Arcanum Invocations are changed to something like "Minor Arcanum" and they are restricted upto level 5 spells and you can choose them at the levels that Half-Casters get them.
All these hoops to jump through just to keep a more complicated form of magic. I get that we've become used to it & it's now seen as part of their identity, but much like with Wildshape something needed to change & I think going in the direction of a more uniform/easily understandable game is much better.
@@malmasterson3890 I would also be fine with the Full Caster progression with Half Caster Number of slots. I am also fine with the Half Caster as it is as long as the Invocations are made better.(Not necessarily stronger but more significant and thought out with the current system)
@Aadhar Mendiratta I think buffing the weaker invocations is the right way to go from here, along with the weaker boons. Again, there's no need to overcomplicate it.
@@malmasterson3890 Yeah, for me personally The Warlock is all about the Invocations, this is where all the flavour can come from. As long as the Invocations are awesome and you can pick them at least over 5th or 6th level spells, I am fine with it.
The new sorcerer capstone is beyond stupidly broken. Monty: "I like it!" Edit: they also said how too much gold and downtime with the wizard becomes a problem... But didn't address what the capstone sorcerer can do with downtime.
I mean, yes, but also it's a capstone ability and most people don't play that long at higher levels so at that point who really cares if it's broken. It's crazy and fun like I've heard high level play tends to be. With wizards though, as long as they've got gold then they can technically start pulling off some Create Spell BS as soon as they reach 9th level, and imo that is way too early to start breaking things to that degree.
I think the solution to the warlock issue is to gave ONE spell slot which is your pact slot. This one resets on short rest and scales in lvl the same as in the phb. Then on top of that you have a standard half caster progression.
I actually like that idea. If they want to get rid of short rest warlocks can just get a feature like arcane recovery that lets you recharge that slot however many time between long rest
I think the new warlock is perfectly fine if you give them an ability like arcane master which grants them level 7, 8, 9 Mystic Arcanum for free. That and/or better choices for MA. More at will utility spells are cool stuff nobody else can do
I do wish Tome also got CHA as a spellcasting modifier, esp as it's supposed to be the more "magical" pact. Like a paladin making a pact for more potent magic or a sorcerer trying to supplement their more instinctive magic with study.
Paladins nor Sorcerers make sense to use a tome. None of them studied the magic (or the source) they use. For those cases you have chain (that resembles more the sorcerer innate spellcasting) or blade pacy (for the paladin). On top of that, it should be clear that multiclass is taken into account in desing but is not (and it shouldn't) be a priority.
After thinking about the warlock changes for a few days now, I don't think they're as bad as I initially thought. It still needs some work. Maybe giving a "Mystic Arcanum" every 4 or 5 levels, and if you want to get more of a full caster feel you could take more as invocations.
Twin Spell needed a nerf, but I agree, killing it is too far. I'd say that the increase to cost is a good start. Add a concentration check against your own spellcasting DC at the beginning of every turn, and I think you've balanced it out pretty well.
The Wizard's biggest, most powerful feature was its spell list. Now Sorcerer and Warlock both have the Wizard's spell list. I don't see Create, Modify, or even Scribe Spell making it through the playtest as-is, so while the current rules are giving Wizards a bump, I think the net result will be a significant nerf, when compared to Sorcerer, and perhaps even Warlock. Being able to modify spells slightly isn't that interesting to me- if it was, I would play a sorcerer!- and the current implementation means I would never use it, because my DMs never know quite how much or when to give out gold. Not to mention that I already make my own homebrew spells, and putting a price tag on Create Spell will probably be enough to convince at least some DMs to start charging me for the privilege. Losing Wizards' special sauce- their unique spell list- has kind of killed my interest in the class. I've played five of them over the years, and the 5e implementation is by far my favorite class. I probably wouldn't have started playing D&D at all if Wizards weren't an option. And now… I'm not really interested in them at all.
Yeah! Totally agree! Why no one can see that one thing that make Wizard powerful is gone, or more correct is transferred to all Arcane casters. If they keep changing to the sorcerer’s, wizard totally needed some bump, or it becomes just "worst sorceress". Yeah, some option in Modify Spell little broken in hands of experience players, I think it just needed to match a Metamagic options, end maybe adding some more options. For example I think it was be a rely cool option to give damage to spell that normally do not do damage (not big maybe like 1d6 or even 1d4 per spell slot) , and make spells that do not apply conditions ,apply them for one round ( not broken ones like incapacitated or paralyzed and tide to damage type ( necrotic - feared or poisoned, cold - entangled or disadvantage for next attack or slow(- 10ft to the speed) , fire - blind or fear, thunder - stun, fear or deafened, lighting - take away reaction or disadvantage for next attack , poison - charm or poisoned and something like that),
@@JJV7243 I like the idea of wizards being able to dramatically outperform everyone else given enough time and information, and I think Create / Modify spell slightly leans in that direction. And that's good. But it isn't enough. Replace all gold costs with time costs, force Wizards to make more limited choices such that foreknowledge of what they're up against becomes more important, and we're golden. But this… isn't it. ---to expound on those ideas--- I think gold should be swapped for equally onerous time costs because time is much, much more reliable a resource than is gold. You could spend a year and a half playing through Curse of Strahd, months and months in character, and either end up with ~1000gp, or lots of gold and nowhere to spend it. But /time/ is universal. You don't have to collect it or cash it in; it's in every campaign setting. If the DM wants to limit it, make things more dire- force the wizard to make choices about what they're going to prepare or change. That's a much, much easier level to pull than "okay find a merchant with a 6,000gp spellcasting focus". I think the other time-based or preparation-based changes should be subclass features. Abjurers should get specific proofs against specific things, but doing so requires sufficient time that they can't practically form enough wards for everything. Each of them would only have a limited domain, based on existing magic items: detection, poison, disease, etc. Scribes wizards (my favorite) already have something slightly like this, although, again, it's based on gold: scribing scrolls. It's much cheaper for them, and it means that, given enough time, they have a looot of options. And that's good! That's precisely the kind of thing they should be able to do.
All the spellcasting classes have gotten an "invisible" boost. There are now only three types/lists of spells. So, a Paladin can pick spells that in 5th edition was only on the cleric spell list. An example is Smite spells and Healing spells are religious spell Not just Cleric. So, in One D&D you can have your Cleric come up and Smite a creature using a 9th level spell slot. Or...if no one takes a Cleric, the Paladin can now fill the Healer roll for the party. Some arcane spells were limited to Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock or Bard only, now all of the Arcane spells is on a single list and can be chosen by any Arcane spellcaster.
WOTC has indicated that they're likely gonna make Smite spells Paladin exclusive (as they already did with Find Steed) so the Cleric doesn't eat their lunch. As for the arcane spell list, we saw right away that they limited Bards' access to the full list. It was kind of hilarious that it was the first example we saw and it immediately contradicted the spirit of the shared lists. The other 3 are definitely true, though. Even the Dungeon Dudes were always like "But Wizards get those juicy high level spells" well, now so does everyone else on that list.
The official video made it clear that Twin Spell as it was, was unbalanced, that you got to turn your sorcery points into a spell slot, but then get a free quickened spell aspect of it. It was quite clearly imbalanced, it was the most common meta magic option selected and used as a result. It would need to change to costing 2 sorcery points plus spell slot for it to get even close to balance, but then also being able to concentrate on two things at once would still make it a bit unbalanced. As for the invocations, you'll need to look closer when critiquing the count. They increased the count, yes there are 4 mystic arcanum, BUT the Pacts have received some prior things that used to be invocations, like what they now automatically get at level 5. This is clearly written in the material Book of Ancient Secrets is now automatic with Book of Shadows spell Thirsting Blade is now automatic with Pact Weapon spell Voice of the Chain Master is now automatic with Pact Familiar spell. So in the Playtest you get 1 more invocation total BUT also gives you 1 automatically. So that's a net positive of 2. Which allows for The mystic Arcanum option. Now, yes, there are four, but you are not required to get all four. And you can also take it earlier and apply it to other levels, in fact you can get it once and keep scaling it. Other invocations were removed because they can be included in mystic arcanum. While I'm not really a fan of how they did things like that, the total number of invocations isn't the problem. The spell slots like a half caster sucks but you're definitely misunderstanding a bunch here. The problem with the short rest is it isn't structured. You say "let's have it be 10 minutes" I view it more as 1-2 hours. The problem lies with the short rest basically being a nearly full charge for the Warlock where others need a long rest, and while others "won't be grumpy" may be true, that doesn't mean things are balanced. While I don't agree with WotC's attempt at a solution. I disagree with your Hex concern as well. It was a basically a half caster before, the only major difference now, and it is major, is the pact magic. The fact that your spells don't automatically cast at the highest available slot does take a lot of flavor away. I'm quite surprised with how much I disagree with you on this since I also don't like this Warlock. Maybe I am just now seeing the style of the channel but it seems you're just wanting things to be more and more powerful and anything taken away from a class or scaled down makes you feel like its pointless to play now.
Wizard's cannot alter spells more than once! Modify spell can only be used on an Arcane spell. When they save a modified spell with Create Spell the new spell loses the Arcane tag and gains the wizard tag. There are still many broken ways to modify spell mainly with the does not affect ally adjustment: Meteor Swarm, Sleet Storm, Ice Strom, Hypnotic Pattern, Fireball, Wall of Fire, Cloudkill! Also this particular modification steps on sorcerers toes alot. Unbreakable concentration is strong but you can still just down the wizard and it doesn't make other classes feel like they lost a feature.
Me too! Those bans are so evil. They ban a perfectly harmless form of art on top of banning trans people from existing in public. It's straight up genocide
The packs should open different magic spell slots progress and get rid of mystic arcenda. Make pack of the blade half caster, make the pack of the chain half spells equal to taking 4-5 spells slots more as if they took those eldritch invocation. And pack of the tome as if they took all 9 invocation to get those spell slots.
I actually love the new version of the warlock. I understand it takes some of the uniqueness of the class away, but warlock still retains it main flavour through patrons and eldritch invocations.
I like the new pack boom system but I don't like the half casting thing, just keep the pack magic system the way it was and just give one or two extra spell slots. I recently got the rod of pack keeper, which allows me to get a spell slot back once per long rest if I take an action to do so and just having that one spell slot makes me feel like I can be a little less conservative with my spell uses already.
