|
Warlock seems like it'd be okay in a campaign that doggedly follows the 6-8 combat encounters per day, 2 encounters per rest paradigm, but I've never played in a campaign that was anything even close to that. The split between characters that use short rest resources and those that use long rest resources just hasn't worked out well in my experience.Bhodi posted:I've come to really, really hate the concentration mechanic. I get why it was created but it's such a goddamned wet blanket.
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 20:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 01:14 |
|
|
All the cool spells that aren't just blasting people anyway. Now that I think about it is a bit silly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 20:47
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:My friends playing his first ever 5e campaign and is doing a warlock for 2 levels then all wizard after that and it sounds pretty good to be able to blast away while still getting all the wizard versatility (albeit a bit later) Eldritch Blast keys off CHA so it'll be either subpar blasting or subpar Wizard casting (on top of the 2 level delay).
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 22:59
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Eldritch Blast keys off CHA so it'll be either subpar blasting or subpar Wizard casting (on top of the 2 level delay). Without the CHA Invocation isn't it still more damage than a Wizard firebolt?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 23:02
|
|
|
Pussy Quipped posted:Without the CHA Invocation isn't it still more damage than a Wizard firebolt?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 23:04
|
|
|
Pussy Quipped posted:Without the CHA Invocation isn't it still more damage than a Wizard firebolt? Probably not, no. They are both 1d10 scaling at the same rate. Unless you add damage per hit from some other source, they will be identical.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 23:06
|
|
|
If they get level 2, they could knockback with it which is something, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 23:08
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:If they get level 2, they could knockback with it which is something, I guess. But they still MAD.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 23:09
|
|
|
Yeah I think he dumped Cha because EB doesn't add an ability score modifier from what I can tell
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 23:13
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Yeah I think he dumped Cha because EB doesn't add an ability score modifier from what I can tell
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 23:14
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Yeah I think he dumped Cha because EB doesn't add an ability score modifier from what I can tell EB adds an ability score modifier to damage *if* you take the Invocation for it. Otherwise its the same damage scaling as Firebolt. But at lower accuracy because that keys off CHA.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 23:15
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Eldritch Blast keys off CHA so it'll be either subpar blasting or subpar Wizard casting (on top of the 2 level delay). Toshimo posted:Probably not, no. They are both 1d10 scaling at the same rate. Unless you add damage per hit from some other source, they will be identical. EB is still better because it's a multiattack instead of more dice on hit, but yeah if you're not getting the invocation why do it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 23:17
|
|
|
Tbf I grabbed it with a feat so just my pally has a decent ranged option.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 23:20
|
|
|
mango sentinel posted:EB is still better because it's a multiattack instead of more dice on hit, but yeah if you're not getting the invocation why do it? If you aren't adding a bonus per-hit, the single attack is better because it's easier to get owlvantage on 1 attack roll than several.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 23:20
|
|
|
You can't use your spellcasting int modifier for the attack roll of a warlock cantrip ? Multiclassing is such a mess and he probably shouldn't have done it with his first 5e char
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 23:27
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:You can't use your spellcasting int modifier for the attack roll of a warlock cantrip ? No. Spells (including cantrips) always use the attribute modifier of the source class.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 23:28
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:You can't use your spellcasting int modifier for the attack roll of a warlock cantrip ? Nope.  But, really, multiclassing is pretty simple this edition. Just make them read the exactly 2 pages of rules on it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2019 23:30
|
|
|
Nutsngum posted:So a random change of discussion here. I find myself never using my spells (hexblade) because there may be a more dangerous fight around the corner. The spell I've gotten most use out of is Create bonfire.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 00:36
|
|
|
I played a Tomelock to level 4 a couple years ago and really enjoyed having a lot of cantrips. Made heavy use of Presditigitation, Thaumaturgy and Druidcraft, as well as Invisibility. I had fun with it but likely wouldn't go for a Warlock now. Probably next time I make a character it'll be a Sorlock or Palasorc or whatever the name is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 00:54
|
|
|
Warlock is far and away my favorite class, but the way our DM plays we basically get through 1 fight per session and we always get a long rest after it so I might as well just play a wizard or sorcerer. I love the flavor of the class and its spells so I probably won't stop making them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 01:51
|
|
|
Conspiratiorist posted:Warlocks are reliable DPR (well, their EB+AB+Hex B&B is comparable to featless martials at least), so properly built they have alright competence, and in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king (if everyone else is playing pure martials, they certainly bring in a lot of utility alongside their damage), but it's a very terribly designed and generally boring class held together by flavor text. I have been contemplating multiclassing into Cleric for the utility from here on. My character is also a dwarf so I wont have any speed reduction whilst wearing heavy armour which is a pretty big AC increase (was my first ever character so Dwarf warlock and 8 in Dex  ). Plus from a flavour level becoming a cleric for my patron feels like a pretty decent segue into it. Its a tiny bit MAD but seeing as I have no need to put any ASI into strength or intelligence Its not so bad. Just a thought at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 02:23
|
|
. This lack of real customization is even more egregious on bladelock, who can't spare any EIs at all towards utility.
|
Where's the best online place to find games that aren't PBP? I've checked the recruitment thread and r/lfg, but unfortunately I haven't been able to find any recruiting games that do D&D 4e. (This isn't an attempt to start any edition wars, just the specific version I'd like to find a game for)
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 02:58
|
|
|
In 5e, it will take a 10 int fighter on average 10 rounds to pass the check, and many fighters likely have 8 int which makes it impossible. It won't last for up to 80 minutes like the AD&D one but 10 minutes is still pretty harsh.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 04:10
|
|
|
SirSamVimes posted:Where's the best online place to find games that aren't PBP? I've checked the recruitment thread and r/lfg, but unfortunately I haven't been able to find any recruiting games that do D&D 4e. (This isn't an attempt to start any edition wars, just the specific version I'd like to find a game for) Like local games? https://www.iamgamefor.com/
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 04:19
|
|
|
I like the way 4e did effects like this, with it getting worse each round. I imagine it would be pretty easy to homebrew something similar. 1st round could be half movement, 2nd round could be no movement, disadvantage on attack, third fail would be the full or something else.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 04:20
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:In 5e, it will take a 10 int fighter on average 10 rounds to pass the check, and many fighters likely have 8 int which makes it impossible. It won't last for up to 80 minutes like the AD&D one but 10 minutes is still pretty harsh. What are you talking about here? I am looking around the page and I can't figure out what this is in reference to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 04:23
|
|
|
Azhais posted:Like local games? Sorry, I meant more online games, but preferably over call or real time text chat instead of pbp.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 04:24
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:What are you talking about here? I am looking around the page and I can't find what this is in reference to. Oh oops, forgot to hit refresh, it's the maze spell.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 04:24
|
|
|
I love 5e warlocks, if only for the flavor. I've never actually played one past level 3 because Adventurer's League around my area is trash, and I'm the only person in my circle of friends willing to DM, so no playing for me. I always hear about Bladelocks though and I've been curious about how a Bladelock is supposed to be built/handled in regards to Hexblades existing, since I like reading up on that sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 10:37
|
|
|
I find what makes or breaks the warlock as interesting to play is whether you picked up the Invocation that gives you Silent Image at will. An at will illusionist (preferably with thaumaturgy for sfx to back it up) is more fun than most wizard illusionists. There's always something you can do on any given turn.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 21:42
|
|
|
neonchameleon posted:I find what makes or breaks the warlock as interesting to play is whether you picked up the Invocation that gives you Silent Image at will. An at will illusionist (preferably with thaumaturgy for sfx to back it up) is more fun than most wizard illusionists. There's always something you can do on any given turn. Totally agree. All the Cha skills and Dex skills plus illusions, and solid damage output makes you a good rogueish illusionist. Plus Hexblade for nice AC makes you on par with the rest of the martials, with some support spellcasting. You're not a real caster, but you're never short of helpful things to do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 23:04
|
|
|
It'd be a lot easier for invocations to make Warlock fun if Agonizing Blast weren't more or less mandatory for games with a normal or higher amount of combat and/or if the pacts just came with one of their associated invocations for free or something. You basically either take stuff for maximum effectiveness or take fun creative things and hope your DM doesn't squelch their use, because you're not getting it all together until well past when most campaigns will be done. I feel like the next time I DM if I really wanna encourage a warlock to do fun exciting things I'd put some of the funsies invocations on a magic item.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2019 23:38
|
|
|
So just ran a 12 hour game of Dragonheist and it went really really well! We all had the day off from work so we were able to run a full day game. Introduced everyone's patrons, some objects from the past etc. I did want to warn some people about one thing though the first Zent mission you go on has you up against a drow gunslinger and holy BALLS is it too tricky for level 2 characters. To start with the guy has 18 AC and even though he flees at half health even getting a hit in is unlikely. It's fortunate that one of my characters had specifically been putting in the work to build up faction connections elsewhere and was willing to burn renown to bring someone in to help otherwise it would probably have been a party wipe. . Of course my game is a bit more focuses on role playing rather than min max, so it might work differently for other folks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2019 10:06
|
|
|
So, I've been thinking, something that I hit a lot in 1-off games is that we'll come up on something, (a statue, a locked door, a magic field, etc.) and the DM will be like "Somebody give me an Arcana/History/Investigation/Strength check", and we'll all roll like a pile of dice because PC1 is aiding PC2 for advantage and there's a guidance or something and just through sheer number of dice rolled across 7 people, someone is bound to roll high enough, so the actual ability scores and proficiencies and all seem meaningless. It's also hella dumb, because the DM often has no response to us failing than "I guess you can try it again". Like, what are some good suggestions for breaking out of this cycle?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 01:47
|
|
|
Establish a one-and-done rule: the group can nominate the single best person to roll the check, but they're the only one that can roll, and they can't retry. This also assumes that the DM has a plan in place for if you fail - if they didn't, then you shouldn't be rolling to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 01:59
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:This also assumes that the DM has a plan in place for if you fail - if they didn't, then you shouldn't be rolling to begin with. Trust me I hate this poo poo. What's worse is when they don't have a plan in place if you succeed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 02:21
|
|
|
I’ve been playing in the Lone Wolf let’s play thread and the default failure condition for not having the right skill in a critical juncture is an extra fight you could otherwise bypass. For non critical stuff you typically just miss out on a bonus consumable and keep going. Seems like a good way to go for the DM who doesn’t want to put in a lot of effort for unused paths.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 03:24
|
|
|
Toshimo posted:So, I've been thinking, something that I hit a lot in 1-off games is that we'll come up on something, (a statue, a locked door, a magic field, etc.) and the DM will be like "Somebody give me an Arcana/History/Investigation/Strength check", and we'll all roll like a pile of dice because PC1 is aiding PC2 for advantage and there's a guidance or something and just through sheer number of dice rolled across 7 people, someone is bound to roll high enough, so the actual ability scores and proficiencies and all seem meaningless. It's also hella dumb, because the DM often has no response to us failing than "I guess you can try it again". Like, what are some good suggestions for breaking out of this cycle? You roll the dice only if there's a plan for if you succeed or fail. If there's something that is optional like that then i let people who it would make sense to roll. e.g. if it's a demon summoning ritual i let people with religion proficiency roll, but also if someone's backstory is that they are a demon hunter but for some reason don't have proficiency they can roll too. If it's a puzzle that they need to solve to progress i just pick someone who could believably know the information and say that they know it. It doesn't matter but it makes them feel a bit special like yeah go me i rolled a ranger and now we learnt something about this abandoned campsite because of me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 03:28
|
|
|
What Gradenko said, with extras: One person may roll, once. One other person may assist with the one roll. One spell can apply to the one roll. The group must agree that once they've failed at a roll like this, they will move on. The DM must agree not to gate the rest of the adventure behind this kind of roll. That should take care of most of it. Something else to think about: DM makes it clear to the players that a) they will not call for checks that are impossible to pass, b) they will make it clear when something is impossible to do, and c) will make it clear when this means "not yet /not unless / not today / not without" and when it means "no this isn't part of the game". Players agree not to try to get around this by asking to roll in different ways. Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 03:33 on Jan 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 03:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 01:14 |
|
|
nelson posted:I’ve been playing in the Lone Wolf let’s play thread and the default failure condition for not having the right skill in a critical juncture is an extra fight you could otherwise bypass. For non critical stuff you typically just miss out on a bonus consumable and keep going. Seems like a good way to go for the DM who doesn’t want to put in a lot of effort for unused paths. What is the goal of having the extra fights? Is it to make it less likely that they would survive/be able to reach the end before giving up? I'm not sure i would want to put in trash fights because TPK/giving up before the end of the dungeon because they rolled bad and had to fight twice as many things as i planned for doesn't seem that fun. AlphaDog posted:What Gradenko said, but with extras: I like letting everyone with proficiency roll because if two people have heavily overlapping specialities i feel like they should get something out of it, as it has the opportunity cost of lacking in some other area. A group of 5 wizards should probably be better at arcana checks than the group with 4 barbs and 1 wizard. CJ fucked around with this message at 03:35 on Jan 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2019 03:32
|
|