D&D 5E Class Discussion

[Yosharian]

Yeah attacking the Barbarian class is weird because 5E's Barb is actually a good class for the first time in the history of D&D

Not Wizard tier, but a very good martial class

 

[Cryomancer]

Barbarians can get almost all of this.

super mobility

All Barbs have improved mobility but Eagle Totem Barb can fly in bursts

strike so hard that he can ignore most armor,

AC is chance-to-hit and Barbarians can give themselves at-will advantage on all their attacks, so they're better at "ignoring armor" than other classes

auras,

Certain subclasses get these

superhuman strength

They get advantage on all Str checks and can break the attribute cap on Str at level 20

supernatural powers like a "warcry" which makes weaklings flee in terror

Berserkers get this

Resistances to poison and disease

Bear Totem gets this (and resistance to almost all other damage).

Seems like 5e did a amazing job with Barbarians.

Not Wizard tier, but a very good martial class

Would you consider a Warlock tier?

IMHO, WoTC should put a optional rule restricting the Wizards spellbook to a research theme. So instead of wizards, we will get necromancers, hydromancers, pyromancers, diviners, etc. Warlocks has a very limited spell selection, sorcerers at lv 20 only known 15 spells, druids are limited by the circle. Clerics by the domain, but wizards can learn literally every spell in the game. And of course, it would be a optional rule. Those who don't like don't need to play with it.

 

[Yosharian]

Warlock tier? Uhh Warlocks are kinda average really. Unless your DM gives you short rests freely. They're good at dealing damage with Eldritch Blast but they don't have much else going for them.

Barbs are good at what they do, it's just that Wizards get to cast stuff like Forcecage and Wall of Force and stuff like that that just breaks the fucking game

Warlocks are significantly better if you have easy access to short rests though

 

[Lawntoilet]

Seems like 5e did a amazing job with Barbarians.
Would you consider a Warlock tier?

Warlock tier? Uhh Warlocks are kinda average really. Unless your DM gives you short rests freely. They're good at dealing damage with Eldritch Blast but they don't have much else going for them.

Barbs are good at what they do, it's just that Wizards get to cast stuff like Forcecage and Wall of Force and stuff like that that just breaks the fucking game

Warlocks are significantly better if you have easy access to short rests though

Warlocks get more utility powers and then start to get more broken, like any caster, when they get level 7+ spells.
But yeah you could say Warlocks and Barbs are comparably good in that they are very effective at their role (Warlock = "archer," Barb = melee combat).

 

[Yosharian]

Ok apparently Warlocks actually get Forcecage? So I guess they are pretty good at later levels, it's just that Wizards get to cast so many more spells

 

[Poseidon00]

There are some builds that abuse Warlocks and Sorcerer powers together to get way more spells than normal, but other than that 5e warlocks are pretty meh. Everything unique about them was stripped out in 5e. Honestly even 4e did it better. Now you can't even have a cool Spelljammer patron, they had to go with muh Elder Evils.

 

[Yosharian]

You can fix Warlock pretty easily though with some homebrew. I think it's a neat class, just too many stupid limitations on the spellcasting

 

[Poseidon00]

Just like in 3e, there shouldn't be any limitations to their spellcasting imo. That was one of their defining features as a class, unlimited but ultimately weaker spells and better saves and hit points to survive long enough to make use of it. They should have leaned into those aspects which made it stand out rather than trying to create another Wizard/Sorc variant.

 

[CodexTotalWar]

I'd also argue it's hard to nail down exactly where warlock tier is, because the class is so modular compared to the others. On top of feats, subclasses, and spells, you also have invocations and pacts - and not all of them are made equal. E.g. by default, Warlocks normally don't get to use much of their magic outside of combat, since you desperately want to save your slots. But this gets flipped on its head if you're a Tomelock with the Ancient Book invocation - and suddenly you're the most versatile ritual caster in the party.

In a direct comparison with Barbarians, I would have to rate Warlocks higher simply because you're almost always relevant, whereas Barbarians simply don't get to play in certain scenarios (e.g. flying + ranged enemies, nasty effects targeting WIS/CHA/INT saves).


Also, on a more meta-level, casters will always out power creep martials as any edition ages. I think 5E is at a point where their tier-list is significantly caster favored.

Each sourcebook adds feats, spells (and invocations for Warlocks) that every caster (including the old subclasses) can use. Old martials subclasses realistically only get to use the new feats - you only really benefit from the power creep by committing to making a new character, assuming the new subclasses are OP. And even then, you still lag due to not benefiting from all the spell power creep (since casters get new OP subclasses too).

Case-in-point: Warlocks used to suffer from not having great AOE options (hence why the Fiend was great since it gave you Fireball). Then they added Synaptic Static (5th level spell) which basically gave Warlocks a fantastic AOE damage and CC option in one spell, dealing the rarely resisted psychic damage, and targeting the weakest save (INT) in the game.

 

[Harthwain]

While we all enjoyed the imbalances of the 2nd edition - I don't think its realistic to expect them to allow Mages to outclass everyone else so dramatically for decades and multiple editions.

Then play 4e. The most balanced D&D edition ever. Balance is often against immersion and fun. Ranged combat in general is lackluster in 99,9% of modern CRPG's exactly due balance cultism.

Imagine if GURPS technomancer had this balance cultism "I with a fast swinging blade can't compete with the water mage who is throwing geysers, summoning elementals and developing a magical line of production. Nor with a hitman with a .338 lm sniper rfifle capable of OHKilling a human a mile away, lets nerf all tech and magery in the game". Quite the contrary. People who don't wanna high tech or high magic, go play no magical/low tech games...

DnD is a group game focused on interactivity. This is the purpose of a spell-casting class: to offer tools the others classes don't have access to. What you want is for casters to be the most important characters in the game. That's completely different kind of game though, something akin to Archmage Raises (in concept, at least). A caster can be fun even with relatively low-level reality-manipulation magic (invisibility, fly, open locks, etc.), because it offers a lot of possibilities.

One of my coolest moments when playing BG2 was casting a spell that opens a lock on a door in Athkatla, meaning I was breaking the law as I didn't have the license. Since it was my first time the mage has warned me about it, which made me come to the office in order to sort out the whole magic license situation. This was an amazing moment, because me casting forbidden magic instantly reaffirmed the whole "We don't cast spells in Athkatla" narrative we're given early in the game. At the same time it shows that a mage can be useful in certain situations (like, when you need to have a lock opened and you don't have a thief or said thief is bad at opening locks).

Just like in 3e, there shouldn't be any limitations to their spellcasting imo. That was one of their defining features as a class, unlimited but ultimately weaker spells and better saves and hit points to survive long enough to make use of it. They should have leaned into those aspects which made it stand out rather than trying to create another Wizard/Sorc variant.

Limitations are good if handled properly. Having weaker spells, better saves and more hit points is boring. Asking a question "What price are you willing to pay to cast that spell?" makes for an interesting proposition.

 

[Cryomancer]

e, there shouldn't be any limitations to their spellcasting imo. That was one of their defining features as a class, unlimited but ultimately weaker spells and better saves and hit points to survive long enough to make use of it.

Actually, you are confunding 3.5e warlocks with nwn2 warlocks which are nerfed to oblivion. Warlocks invocations aren't weaker than sorcerer spells. In fact, are often stronger versions. For eg, world of change in P&P is a save or be permanently transformed into a lowly toad, which is stronger than feeblemind and can be used at will. Chilling tentacles, pick the black tentacles and adds a 2d6 damage, and the spell has a BAB of caster level + 8 to hit and you can prepare tons of then before even starting the battle since you don't need to worry about spell slots.

And the shadowmaster epic feat for warlock allow him to cast shades at will. Do you know what it means? Every conjuration spell up to tier 8 at will. If people think that kineticists are OP on kingmaker, they never saw a epic level warlock on 3.5e... The closest thing to it in a video game is the PRC for nwn1.

Note that on 2e, there was a Wich subkit which had spell slots like any wizard and got the knowledge from a outsider patron. 5e warlock is a mix between 2e and 3.5e.

Ok apparently Warlocks actually get Forcecage?

IMHO the greatest problem of force cage is that "This spell can’t be dispelled by dispel magic."

It literally removes one of the best spell counters. And if lesser spells require concentration, it should require concentration too.

 

[Tuco Benedicto Pacifico]

When I was soloing BG2:EE on Legacy of Bhaal, I fingered the demon lord on the underdark like he was a succubus.

I think I've seen some hentai with a similar plot point.

 

[NJClaw]

S0rcererV1ct0r it's hard to give you an accurate and extensive reply because you say so many things that don't make any sense (about 5E obviously. I know I can be a giant autist, but I don't want to attack you personally).

Wrong. A lv 1 warlock can with small chance OHK another lv 1 warlock. But a lv 4 warlock, can't OHK a lv 4 warlock even maximizing the rolls. HP growth is far greater than damage growth.

While this can be a true statement, it's completely irrelevant because in 5E monsters and encounters work differently than previous editions. In 3.5 you could build an enemy of an appropriate CR with character classes, but in 5E this is no longer true. A level 4 Warlock is not an appropriate challenge for another level 4 Warlock, that's why the lethality in a warlock vs. warlock duel can be (in general) fairly low, but this says nothing about the general lethality of the whole game. It's exactly like saying that 3.x is a low lethality game because a goblin can't one-shot a level 15 character; yeah, no shit, it's not an appropriate challenge for that character.

Without even addressing the specifics of how CR works, it's easy to see how lethal this game actually is (at least before the highest levels):

1 - a level 1 Warlock should have around 9 or 10 HP, 11 if built with a race that boosts Constitution. Now let's see the potential damage output of a couple of CR 1 monsters: the giant toad can dish out 2d10 + 2 damage in a single round (average: 13), the tiger can deal 1d10 + 1d8 + 6 (average: 16), the bugbear deals 2d8 + 2d6 + 2 damage in the first round of combat (average: 18). They can all take down the character in a single round.

2 - a level 4 Warlock should have around 24, 27, or 30 HP. Now let's see the potential damage output of a couple of CR 4 monsters: an ettin can deal 4d8 + 10 in a single round (average: 28), an elephant can dish out 3d8 + 3d10 + 12 damage in a single round (average: 42 damage), a wereboar can deal 6d6 + 6 (average: 27 damage). So, on average, only the sturdiest Warlock possible will be able to survive a single round of combat (and we are talking about a Dwarf Warlock that put his highest score in Constitution).

 

[Thac0]

Warlock is above average in 5e, depending on Eldritch Invocation, Pact and Boon choices it can even be Wizard tier.

The average casting lock gets quite many high level spell casts a day, but practically no low level casts. To counteract that he has a solid baseline ranged attack, roughly comparable to that of a martial.
(1d10+3 compared to 1d8+5 means only 1 average damage less)

The warlock is not really a fullcaster, he is a highly flexible halfcaster where Eldritch Blast and Agonizing Blast replace Extra Attack progression. Unless you choose super busted Hexblade of course who is definitly T1/Wizard Tier.

Also some of the invocations are pretty meme and good choices can significantly boost your power.
Darkness/Devil Eyes is well known cheese
Fiendish Vigor and Armor of Shadows are surprisingly strong early and you can swap them later
Misty Visions and Many Faces are amazing roleplay/interaction tools giving you strong noncombat level 1 spells AS CANTRIPS.

The "cast another high level spell 1/day" are basically the baseline below the good ones. Even with those boring ones Warlock is ok.

 

[Yosharian]

No way is Warlock anywhere near Wizard tier. No matter what you pick.

 

[Tuco Benedicto Pacifico]

As far as I know (and this is all hearsay since I never played a single session of D&D 5th edition) the Hexblade warlock in particular is considered one of the most overpowered subclasses?

 

[Yosharian]

As far as I know (and this is all hearsay since I never played a single session of D&D 5th edition) the Hexblade warlock in particular is considered one of the most overpowered subclasses?

Yup, Hexblade is op because it gives so much stuff at level 1, including CHA to-hit and to-damage

 

[Cryomancer]

All of this warlock talk... This is my opinion about warlock. And note, I an talking about P&P warlock, not the nwn2 which has no powerful invocations and a bugged eldritch blast.

No way is Warlock anywhere near Wizard tier. No matter what you pick.

Actually, on 3.5e, is. And stronger in SOME situations. Word of Change is a at will "save or be screwed" IMO stronger than flesh to stone, chilling tentacles who can dish 2d6 cold + d6 + 4 damage per round, dealing about the same damage of a incendiary cloud on average, with grapple routine and a BAB of CL + 8.Fly and teleport at will with no cost.

He can even at low level, get a "the dead walk" invokation which allows him to have a ENDLESS army of undead with no limitation on spellslots, something which no necromancer specialized wizard can ever do.

And on epic levels, Shadowmaster feat allow to have 50% concealment which can't be dispelled and cast SHADES at will, essentially, giving ALL conjuration spells up to tier 8 available and at will.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

And on 2e, warlocks and witches was a wizard subkit which learned their magic from a outsider patron. So, they are obviously "wizard tier".

is a low lethality game because a goblin can't one-shot a level 15 character; yeah, no shit, it's not an appropriate challenge for that character.

A goblin shaman with a scroll of flesh to stone or similar spell can. Unlikely but can. hu3hu3hu3hu3 JK

 

[Yosharian]

Dude move on from 3.5e. We are posting in the godamn BG3 thread. Stop living in the past.

 

[Yosharian]

Also a lot of the things in that meme are just flat out wrong

 

[Cryomancer]

Dude move on from 3.5e. We are posting in the godamn BG3 thread. Stop living in the past.

All of my point is that warlocks was great on previous edition. 5e picks invocations from 3.5e but nerfs a lot. And picks the spell slots from 2e and also nerfs a lot... Talking about warlocks in BG3, my greatest problem with they is that due how long rests are unlimited, the hp bloat and etc, warlocks are far less powerful.

They could also add more cool warlock pacts, GOO, Archfey and the Fiend are IMO the most boring ones...

Also a lot of the things in that meme are just flat out wrong

Example?

 

[Yosharian]

1) Isn't difficult to understand at all.
2) Does have unique spells, and also has many unique features such as a patron, automatic access to unique familiars, etc
3) Doesn't need a spell book, even Pact of the Tome Warlocks don't need one, just helps them cast more spells

 

[Ninjerk]

Hide Warlock Threads

Ignore Warlock Posts

Do Not Reply to Warlock Posters

 

[Takamori]

I know Paladins are loltier almost fighter tier in 3.5 even with the book of Exalted Cheese(Deeds) and Complete Champion , but how are they in 5e? At least in Pathfinder they managed to do something interesting and mitigate the status madness.

Yet I still picked Inquisitor due to flexible spell casting and the ability to build a solid melee damage dealer with the class.

 

[Lawntoilet]

I know Paladins are loltier almost fighter tier in 3.5 even with the book of Exalted Cheese(Deeds) and Complete Champion , but how are they in 5e? At least in Pathfinder they managed to do something interesting and mitigate the status madness.

Yet I still picked Inquisitor due to flexible spell casting and the ability to build a solid melee damage dealer with the class.

Mechanically, Paladins are really good in 5e. They are still fairly MAD, but they're probably the best martial class.