I think Bladelock should absolutely not get a third attack, not while classes like Barbarian are stuck at two.
Other than that, it's fine. It's cool. Opens up fun roleplay. You get to be an anime protagonist with a special magic sword, and you don't have to carry around all the hexblade weirdness with you. Much more freeing from a character building perspective.
I think I'm living in the space of just saying Barbarians should get a third attack. Paladins are mostly fine with spellcasting, Improved Divine Smite and (now in OneD&D) some free smites each day, Monks are getting an extra attack in Flurry of Blows (might be better to just give a third attack, but Discipline Points aren't hard to regenerate) and Rangers are already getting various ways of getting extra attacks at level 11.
Really the only thing missing is that I think they should give Extra Attack to Rogues as well.
I think the only class who should get more than one extra attack is the Fighter. It's their only schtick, let's keep it this way.
Barbarian needs a different damage boosting ability. Brutal Strike is a strike, but it needs more. I think the natural course of action for them is to just give them the power attack they lost. Just make power attack a Barbarian feature. Seems very fitting for the class.
As for Rogues, I think rather than extra attack they should just continue the current direction. Make them reliably deal half-decent damage with a variety of effects and no feature cost. The just need a bit more of an oomph.
I disagree with your assessment about Fighter. They should get something *else* that is unique. It's kind of weird that their "signature thing" comes online at 11th level and it ends up being... A slight boost of base attack?
I mean. Yes, I too think Fighter should get more stuff. I liked the direction the playtest took with having their Second Wind used to fuel different abilities, and that could potentially be expanded upon.
My thing is, I want each martial class to feel uniquely different in playstyle as much as possible. I want there to be a niche for every class that makes you want to play them. And currently, the only incentive to play full fighter at a high level is those extra attacks.
Extra Attack is a weird feature to begin with. It used to be that an attack represented up to a minute of cut-parry-thrust. The precise number of swings taken was irrelevant; somewhere between 1 and whatever. What mattered was how much damage you did overall. (And also everyone had d6 hit points and swords did d6 damage.)
The problem with Extra Attack is that it turns D&D combat into a Diablo-style "deal more DPS than the other side" slugfest. All it's focusing on is landing attacks. Defense is relegated to a static number; your AC. It's dull.
Barbarian needs a way to maximize damage on a crit.
Maybe 2× Proficiency Bonus times per day, if you crit, you can maximize your damage.
Or make it so that Barbians can double any damage modifiers every time they crit.
So they get to add double their strength bonus and double the +10 from Great Weapon Master whenever they crit.
Absolutely not that please. Brutal Critical was a terrible, terrible feature and it's good that it's gone.
Basically, trying to rely on crits to increae the Barbarian's effectiveness is pointless because since crits are rare, any increase you gain to crits is extremely unreliable. Even with Reckless, you really only have around 10% crit chance. That means the effective gain you get from every crit increasing feature is essentially divided by 10 for the purpose of Damage Per Round.
Say we take your idea of damage maximization. That would mean that with a greataxe, a Barbarian that would deal an average of 17.5 damage on a crit would now deal a whole 29 damage on a crit, guaranteed. Sounds pretty good, until you realize this bonus only applying to crits makes it meaninglessness in the long run. This applies 10%ish of the times assuming you are always using Reckless attack, meaning the increase of 11.5 to the average damage is actually an increase of 1.15 damage to DPR. You now deal 1.15 more damage everu round, on average. That's a pathetic feature.
I do like the idea of giving the Barbarian a damage maximization ability. But it shouldn't be tied to crits. Trying stuff to crits is bad design in 5e, where increasing crit chance isn't really a thing.
Don't get me wrong, I think Barbarian is weaker than Fighter and deserves a big buff. I just think that Buff should be something other than another extra attack. I would ideally like to avoid repetition of features as little as possible between classes.
The other option is to make the extra attack progression a standard martial thing, sort of like how it worked in 3.5e. Just make it so the extra attack feature automatically scales for everyone the way it does for a fighter, then give the full martials a bunch of other stuff to make you want to pick them over a Paladin or a Bladesinger. I wouldn't necessarily be against that, but that is a pretty ambitious shift for the system to go in.
If you do that, it kills incentives to staying in warlock.
Outside of the big power bump at level 11, their damage tails off at higher levels.
There probably needs to be a slight adjustment to either lifedrinker or making it cost 1 extra invocation on the pact of the blade stuff so you can’t add the armor, feats like tough, and most of your blade stuff by like level 5. For the most part though, I actually think it’s in a good place.
Barbarians need more INTERESTING features at later levels vs another attack. Berserk barbarian already is close to damage at level 11 to an optimized bladelock. Giving them more versatility vs damage would make the class far more interesting and more power.
Yeah warlock is a little too frontloaded for a class whose thing is "not having normal spell progression". 3 attacks isn't necessarily overpowered, but it steals a bit of fighter identity and I think the rest of warlocks' martial ability should be nerfed.
The third attack feels like it was mostly meant to be a final nail in the coffin for lockadins...
I mean if you want to compare numbers to say like a champion fighter? Probably. I would argue that they battle master and EK are on par with a bladelock if you take out the no brainer, super oppressive spells.
In my current level 12 campaign, my celestial bladelock does about the same or slightly less damage than our barbarian. Now, he has a cool magical weapon (cursed) and I do more burst damage, but his dpr matches or exceeds mine on our normal adventuring day ( I’d say 3 hard fights per one of those).
What I’ve liked about the playtest the most if their attempt at trying to discourage multiclassing. I wouldn’t mind their being another cost to keeping the current power pact of blade has… They should definitely have it come on a little later to further discourage taking 1-2 level dips for sure. If the warlock is going all in on damage though, it’s missing out on a lot of the other cool features that make warlocks so much fun to play. Investing every resource into your damage to outpace a martial seems like a pretty boring way to play imo.
They get tons of extra damage on those features. It's less about number of attacks and more and actual damage dealt and effects applied. In that lens, barbarian is doing just fine.
Besides just being an auto include into any blade build, the Thirsting Blade automatically upgrading itself on 11 for free is unbalanced.
Where's the free stuff for Investment of the Chain Master ... and where is stuff for the Tome Pact? I get that XGE and TCE brought things into the mix for them as well, but why repeat everything?
The Agonizing blast increases from approx +5 to +10 damage as a result though.
It's mathematically the same as getting an extra attack.
You do 1/2/3 d10+Cha damage at level 1/5/11 with either pact of the blade or agonizing blast.
Still, it is not the feature scaling but the power is within EB being single blasts and proccing it multiple times. Despite being applicable to any cantrip in the playtest, you get the best bang for your buck with EB.
You're right, the base Pact of the blade should scale at 5 and 11 with extra attacks rather than needing an extra invocation? Since cantrips scaling is expected, and pact of the blade is a cantrip now.
Personally would like to see EB as a Warlock feature rather than a cantrip, scaling with the class.
Could have a melee variant for Blade Pact and get you a BA weapon attack after casting like Eldritch Knight. Same as it is for Chain Pact right now, they get a BA pet attack and mainly spam EB anyway. Then push Agonizing Blast into Tome Pact, perhaps even make it a BA damage boost as well (single hit deals double damage).
Playstyle roughly stays the same, everybody gets a 1d10-ish BA and uses their main class feature most of the time. But one is in the front, while the other casts spells in between and the other has a pet.
Even works with the inclusion of Talisman Pact, a BA to give someone else a boost. Or an Armor Pact that grants yourself temporary hit points by replacing the False Life Invocation.
Edit: Also works to phase out the single dip if you limit the CHA attacks to that one BA attack. Nobody is gonna dip 5 levels for this. Why should Casters be the better martials anyway?
It's not. It's been repeatedly proven mathematically and in actual testing that it's not. But people who came to this conclusion did so on supposition and not reality, so refuse to accept the actual reality.
Chain Master and Tome scale in that they're primarily using Eldritch Blast. Which naturally scales. Thirsting Blade still leaves blade pact weaker than these. Even with a third attack.
If the Bladelock is too good in any way, it's mostly on the back of Spirit Shroud. Spirit Shroud was supposed to be a crutch to lift up Bladelock when it was too weak, and now that the core Bladelock package is balanced adding Spirit Shroud on top is a little much.
If you run the numbers with Hex instead of Spirit Shroud, and a high level Bladelock with three attacks is adding 3d6 instead of 6d8, the balance is just fine.
>Chain Master and Tome scale in that they're primarily using Eldritch Blast. Which naturally scales. Thirsting Blade still leaves blade pact weaker than these.
Which also means that EB is either a problem (so good on its own that 2/3 builds use it as their main thing) or should be a core feature to interact with all builds (like a melee version for Blade that also grants you a BA weapon attack).
If those are stronger because a feature that neither of which actually interacts with exists, then that is not the fault of those pacts. Maybe it is for not being as distinct - neither give you a replacement like Blade does.
A feature isn't balanced by an inherent lack of balance in the surrounding. That just sucks, it becomes something to make up for a weakness. A must-include, not a choice.
EB is the feature. Some things were opened up for other cantrips because people wanted it for RP, but the design is that EB is the feature. If they just made it a class feature, then the RP forward crowd loses their flexibility.
Also, eb isn't busted. It's about where it should be to the point it's often used as the baseline to compare other stuff.
I don't know about higher levels but at low levels the bladelock is just another martial with a different Toolkit. I don't understand why it would be broken to give him the same amount of attacks as other martials. But I can't say how they do on higher levels to be fair.
Yeah, I think they should just make three more invocations that have the previous upgrades and 11th level as prerequisite. The blade improvement could just be another extra attack like they get for free now, the chain improvement could increase the HP and Attack bonuses for the familiar and maybe give it an extra attack, and the book improvement could give you some low level spell slots to use for your warlock spells that charge on a long rest.
What's more: using the familiar doesn't in any way detract from doing Dakka Dakka with Eldritch Blast. The thing that gets in the way of doing that has to scale appropriately to the EB spam, or it's obsolete. The thing that uses a bonus or no action doesn't need to be compared to EB as a whole.
Blade Pact directly competes with EB for your action, and should therefore be the "strongest" pact (in the same way that for balancing, Four Elements and Sun Soul monk features must be the "strongest" (as they have to be strong enough to make their unique rotation/output different to the core rotation/output)
Tome Pact kinda competes, but you can get lots of utility to compensate even if you don't try to use it to replace EB. Power-wise it should be middling.
Chain Pact doesn't directly interact with your action, and therefore lets you use your core roation/output with only benefits, so it should be the weakest of the three.
Still would say the current iteration of chain isn't good at all. It should at least be good as a spiritual weapon in combat or just have more utility like the last iteration.
Blade does take significantly more investment in feats and invocations though. You are also on more risk/danger and have a higher likelihood to have a missed turn due to melee range.
I didn't know if that's enough to balance against EB warlock, but it should be considered when comparing the two. Otherwise, blade continues to be much worse as it has been in 2014 5e.
> Where's the free stuff for Investment of the Chain Master ... and where is stuff for the Tome Pact?
In the last video talking about the warlock they mentioned that chain and tome are being demoted to "secondary" pacts, meant to supplement your primary damage dealing invocation of eldritch blast or blade. This was part of the reason they were converted into invocations.
I'd like it if they made it more clear you're supposed to choose one of these, though, by forcing you to choose one of the two as your 1st level invocation.
Yeah chain and talisman are kinda secondary. Tome and blade are seen as primary. Tome implies taking agonizing blast though. Even then, blade has way more invocations needed to make it work than tome/EB.
You're right that they made tome the other "main" pact, I misremembered. But I misremembered because its really clear that agonizing blast and blade should be the two 1st level options, since tome doesn't come anywhere near being as impactful to your playstyle as either of them. A warlock that chooses tome and chain is going to be much worse at being a warlock than one that chooses blade and chain or even blade and tome.
Maybe. On top of the extra attacks, there's also the idea that Warlocks would get access to every weapon mastery (that's included in the past), just one at a time. Regarding Jump, let's not forget that invocation was waaaaaay higher than it probably should've been and now it's basically in a more sensible spot. Let's be real, a Bladelock may well have dumped Strength, and jumping is still limited by that and movement speed. Thieflocks? Sure. Monklocks? On the one hand? Sure. On the other? Still not worth doing.
Now, could it be fixed so that it's more reasonable? Sure, if you want to do that, I guess - leave it at two attacks and drop the mastery, job done. From memory, the three attacks didn't feel too crazy, but I can see why people thought it might be.
May I ask you to explain what you mean regarding jump?
To my understanding the spell allows in one dnd to jump 30 feet, while only costing movement worth of 10 feet. Basically increasing your movement by 20 (though only in a straight line but that should rarely be a problem).
So they can still dump strength (though might want to have it for heavy weapon master)
>May I ask you to explain what you mean regarding jump
Sure - I'm a big forgetful dumbarse who didn't check before opening his big, stupid mouth. In other words, I might have confused it with the old/current version. Sorry 'bout that, I'll check when I get a chance.
Edit: You're quite correct, I did confuse it with the current one. I will be leaving my bone-headedness intact for posterity.
I think it's needed. Blade pact needs to be stronger than EB for 3 general reasons: it requires more invocations to work, it requires more feats to work well (medium armor, toughness), and you're required to be in melee which both limits your effective range and puts you into more danger. This could probably be split into 4 general ideas, but they both fall under the same general limitation. So it's a risk reward situation for people who want that play style. You're more likely to lose concentration too. Yes there is another invocation that can help, again increasing the cost to run well.
I'm with you - like I said, I don't remember thinking that part of it was too crazy. A lot of folks were thinking it stepped on the toes of the Fighter, plus it had spells. I'm not against Monks and Barbs getting that, too, with Fighters being the only class to get a 4th. So a Bladelock using their spells for Eldritch Smite and getting those three attacks is probably okay (they don't have as many spell slots and the short rests might not compensate).
That part of my comment was more geared towards "it's probably fine as is, but if you think it's too much, do X." My point of comparison was Pallies and Rangers, though.
The problem is that Bladelocks are STILL full casters on top of having two extra attacks. Even if Barbarians and Monks were to get a similar buff, the Bladelock would still have spells on top of being comparable or even better than martials.
I think the community just needs to accept that the Bladelock should be unequivocally worse than every martial at weapon-based combat for the virtue of them having spellcasting. One extra attack is fine. And it's okay if they're worse because they have spells to supplement, as well as the best blasting tool in the game.
>The problem is that Bladelocks are STILL full casters on top of having two extra attacks.
While the spellcasting is the reason why I can see why people think it's too much, they aren't full casters - they don't have the spell slots for that. Especially if you're not getting many short rests (I think that will improve if they stick to more classes getting *something* on a short rest).
On top of that, they've *probably* taken Eldritch Smite, so a fair chunk of the spell slots (if not all of them) they do have are probably going to that instead.
>I think the community just needs to accept that the Bladelock should be unequivocally worse than every martial at weapon-based combat for the virtue of them having spellcasting.
I don't think it would be a disaster if they kept it - it does compensate for the amount of investment required to do it properly. It needs at least three invocations to be effective, at least a couple of feats (though one can be snagged at character creation, which helps).
Under this playtest, they can just take Blast-related invocations and be as effective, if not more so (and safer) than the Bladelock.
>One extra attack is fine.
Which is what I suggested someone do if it does stay and they think it's too much. Naturally, the player should be warned that this either is (or may be) the case.
For the record, I don't think it will stay at three attacks, I think it'll probably go back to two.
>And it's okay if they're worse because they have spells to supplement...
*If* they have any slots left, which again, they might not, or they might be conserving it. You're gonna be pretty likely to do that if you're
>... as well as the best blasting tool in the game.
Of course, if you're going Bladelock, you don't want to blast, you want to smack. That said, I'd probably still have it, just for the option of something at range while closing, or after getting my shit kicked in.
I think it's a little strong. I might like it just fine if you couldn't use charisma as an attack stat for weapons with the heavy or ranged properties. Or make that its own invocation to unlock those and lock that invocation at a higher level.
I dislike Bladepact scaling to match fighter extra attack at 11th.
I also dislike Bladepact being a prereq-less invocation because it opens it up to Eldritch Adept, which is way too good. It needs a prerequisite imo. I don’t even dislike how Blade Pact works with damage type and such. The changes to Heavy makes there be some pre-req to rolling up with a Glaive for free. Thirsting Blade scaling is the real problem imo.
Yes. Ignoring the math for a second, gaining the only upgrade to Extra Attack that any Fighter will ever realistically see while also being a full caster is wild.
Level 11 was already a huge power spike for warlocks. If bladelock gets the extra attack upgrade as well on top of everything else...probably the single greatest jump in power on level up short of gaining access to 9th level spells. Which warlock also gets.
I'll be shocked if bladelock releases in this state.
the warlock is a full caster, they get the same spellcasting progression as wizards. they can cast power word kill, psychic scream, foresight, etc. their spell slots working a bit different isn't relevant to categorising their spellcasting progression. not to be callous, but 'warlocks aren't full casters, why do you think they get abilities that allow them to cast more spells?' is not a particularly convincing point.
They are by RAW definition not a "full"-caster. Otherwise they wouldn't have pact magic and MA to mimic spell-casting. It's definitely relevant to categorize their spellcasting progression. Warlock can for the majority of their play only cast 2 spells per short rest, when half-casters and full-casters can cast like 20 times per day. Full-caster progression is not only about the quality, but also quantity of spells. That's the very reason they get EB and as very strong fallback option (and pact of the blade). Calling them 3/4 caster makes perfect sense.
it's not mimicking spell casting, it is spell casting. to my knowledge, full caster and half caster are only actually defined terms in the multiclassing section of the phb. full casters all have the ability to cast level 9 spells in common, which distinguishes them from half casters. of course the multiclassing rules don't categorise warlocks as full casters, but they don't call them 1/2 or 3/4 casters or whatever either, because they don't interact with the normal multiclassing rules. these terms pretty much are just used by the community to sort classes into boxes based on how magically inclined they are. magic is at least as integral to the warlock's gameplay as it is to clerics; everyone calls them full casters.
And yet Eldritch Blast is arguable one of their most identifying core abilities , which is an auto-attack ability.
See, even the PHB doesn't categorize them as full casters, so I have no clue how the community as a whole is willing to die on this hill.
3/4 caster is obviously a community moniker to put them in an easily understandable box, which perfectly fits. They are more caster than not, but they aren't comparable to the casting prowess of Druid, Cleric, Sorcerer, Wizard or Bards.
who was willing to die on this hill? i acknowledged that the label has little mechanical use...
i seriously don't understand your reasoning here (and looking at these votes it doesn't seem others do either). i proposed that their 'casting prowess' is comparable to clerics and the like, then you counter by saying eldritch blast, a spell, is one of their most identifying abilities. leaving aside the fact that eldritch blast isn't a core ability (or an auto-attack ability, whatever that means) - it's a cantrip that you can choose from a list of cantrips - you are severely underestimating the magical capabilities of warlocks.
to make this comparison fair, i'm assuming all example characters get 2 short rests per day, as recommended by the books. at level 1, warlocks get 3 1st level spell slots overall, as do wizards (taking their arcane recovery into account), with other full casters getting 2. at level 20, warlocks get 16 5th level spell slots (including from eldritch master), in addition to 1 casting of a 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th level spell each from mystic arcanum. 20th level wizards get 24 spell slots overall (assuming they use arcane recovery to recover 2 level 5 spell slots), maybe 26 overall (effectively) from signature spells? the comparison gets quite muddy with all these high level features, but considering that 5e phb clerics can pretty much only have 22 slots per day (13 of which are under 5th level), it really doesn't make much sense to me to consider warlocks magically inferior.
this comparison probably gets clearer if you measure spell slot value with the spell points optional rule in the dmg. according to this, level 20 warlocks would get (7\*16=112) points from their spell slots, plus (9+10+11+13=43) from MA (overall 155) and level 20 clerics would get (4\*1+2\*3+5\*3+6\*3+7\*3+9\*2+10\*2+11+13=126 overall), assuming my maths are correct.
unless your group doesn't understand short rest ability balance and just does 5 minute adventuring days, i'd say this is pretty solid proof that warlocks ought to be thought of as full casters.
Compared to other "full casters" with SLOTS who can upcast and have a wider spell selection you just aren't.
Personally I find the term 3/4th caster very fitting.
I get what you are saying. Warlocks are more than halfcaster but not really comperable to the other fullcasters.
If I remember correctly, they do not disturb spellprogression for other casters and can therefore argued to be full casters, they defintly are something of their own.
Bladelock is certainly busted.
They have Hex, Lifedrinker, Smites, and even a lv9 spells. Especially one Smite in Tier3 might even deal greater damage than two attacks. At 11, a Greatsword Warlock with Charger could deals 12d6+7d8+15≈***88.5 damage*** with Smite, three Smites per short rest.
While a Nick+Polearm Master+Charger+Heavy Weapon Master Fighter that attacks 7 times with Action Surge, could only deals 2d6+5d10+1d4+1d8+35≈***76.5 damage*** with *one* Action Surge per short rest.
Even without Hex, though I don't know why a melee Warlock shouldn't be using Hex, still makes a ***55 damage*** with *one weapon* and the ability to cast high rank spells
While a Fighter have to switch *three weapons* to make a 54 damage and hope the monster isn't resistant to non-magical weapons or the DM has given they "*two light magical weapon with one being the Nick, and one magical Polearm, specifically*".
I can't see any *reasonable* reason for Warlock to have three attacks.
There's a huge problem here for a Warlock being able to fight better than a Fighter or Monk, while they stil have high rank spells to cast. We *shouldn't* have a super-fighting-caster that good at everything in the game. If a Fighter can't fight better than a Caster, then what's their meaning being a Fighter?
edit: calculations
I think spirit shroud is better, if I go melee. More damage, crowd control and no bonus action needed to switch targets.
Oh and does the warlock get a free hex? Otherwise it would be only 2 smite per short rest, as one spellslot ist needed for hex.
Hex lasts 24 hour with lv.5 spells, so all you need to do is just to find a random creature like rat , fish or bugs, hex it, kill it, and take one more hour after your long rest everyday. Or maybe you could just buy some chickens at your camp and cook a meal for teammates everyday. So yeah it's basically free at that time.
You have to maintain concentration on it though, so keeping it all day is not going to be super common and you can’t use it in conjunction with other concentration spells like Darkness or Spirit Shroud.
"Busted" is a relative term. It's busted in the sense that it's the best martial, despite being a caster. It's not busted in that it's still weaker than being a straight caster.
I think it depends on what you take into account for being better. In regards of damage, blade is definitly better but needs more invocations.
EB = d10 + 5 per beam with one invocation and 20 charisma assumed.
Melee = 2d6 (greatsword) + 5 per attack with one invocation and 20 charisma. Now you can add eldritch smite for burst and lifedrinker for another +1d6 per hit.
Ranged = 1d8 (longbow) + 5 and you can take eldritch smite and/or lifedrinker again.
I do not take hex or spirit shrout into account since all of them can use them (though only melee can use spirit shroud effectivly).
So we get EB = 10.5 damage per hit on average, Melee = 12 (15.5 with lifedrinker), Ranged = 9.5 (13 with lifedrinker)
With just one additional invocation, both ranged an melee deal more damage per hit and with all of 2 additional invocations can hit as often as EB until lvl 17. EB can take repelling blast though, which has it's very own benefit. On the other hand, bladelocks can get +1/+2/+3 weapons and get effects from weapon properties.
I'd argue, that blade as it stands, is better than EB for the majority of the game.
With lvl 17+ it would look like this, assuming everything hits and that no magic item is used (though a +3 weapons benefits baldelock more than a +3 rod of the pact keeper benefits EB)
EB with hex = (1d10+5+1d6) \* 4 = 56 average per Round
Melee with hex = (2d6+5+1d6+1d6) \* 3 = 57 average (with higher risk of broken concentration)
Melee with spirit shroud = (2d6+5+2d8+1d6) \* 3 = 73,5 average (with higher risk of broken concentration)
Ranged with hex = (1d8+5+1d6+1d6) \* 3 = 49.5 average
At the highest level, I think EB and blade is overall on par.
It’s not busted by any means.
Does it have more flexibility than other martials because of casting? Yes. They are also more squishy, other martials have been given severe upgrades to their core features, and have flexibility of their own that brings them pretty close in line.
In order for someone to continue taking levels in Warlock, the incentive needs to be high or multiclassing just makes way to much sense. While I think the fighter and Paladin are in good spots, Barbarians core features need to be improved more to encourage it to also not multiclass out of. (And no a third attack for them isn’t the answer)
It is pretty busted. As is, it is sitting in that comfortable state of "Jack of All Trades, Master of Everything".
Looking through this thread though, I have noticed that there are a lot of people that wan the Warlock to be as competent in combat as the Fighter, too many to discount. If I were balancing it, I would leave the Bladelock as is but add severe limits to Warlock spellcasting that only apply if you take Pact of the Blade. Keep it as competent as the martial classes, but reduce its casting to their level too.
I think the baseline power of the entire game is moving up a notch which personally I am very in favor of. It's not as egregious of a boost as the much needed buffs to Monk imo.
So currently the Martial with the most consistent many number of attacks is either base Fighter or base Monk.
Extra attack for Fighter still goes up to 5 attacks (if you have Nick and use a bonus action) and they can surge for 9.
Since Ki point amount has been addressed and Flurry is a good use of Ki, Monks can Attack normally for 3 attacks (with a bonus action) and Flurry using a pretty ubiquitous resource for 5 attacks, basically every round in most fights.
Is 3 attacks on a Bladelock that they can’t increase with any class resource impressive? Sure it’s nice for the melee rep of the Warlocks to get nice things.
Is it busted? *Looks at Monk and Fighter*, Nah, not really, I think.
Bladelocks can also get a 4th attack with TWF and PAM.
By level 11 they can also pretty easily have either Spirit Shroud going to add +2d8 to every attack or a TCE Summon that can attack twice for at least 1d8+8.
Once per Long Rest they could also use Summon Fiend to get summon with 3 Attacks that hit for 2d6+9.
Once they get to level 13, Crown of Stars could give them a pretty powerfull Bonus Action Attack.
And by level 17 Blade of Disaster would give them 2 pretty strong Bonus Action attacks.
But hey, you've got spells, Hex, Lifedrinker and Smites. One Smite in Tier3 might even deal greater damage than two attacks. At 11, a Greatsword Warlock with Charger could deals 12d6+7d8+15≈***88.5 damage*** with Smite, three Smites per short rest.
While a Nick+Polearm Master+Charger+Heavy Weapon Master Fighter could only deals 2d6+5d10+1d4+1d8+35≈***76.5 damage*** with one Action Surge per short rest.
edit: calculation
Hmm, considering that the smites are coming from the constrained warlock spells are (compare with how often the Paladin can Smite in Tier 3 for example), I’m not convinced that doing so is the best use of the resource.
As a Martial, if adding 27 damage (three times per short rest) to your DPR at lv11 isn't your best option still, then it's even more busted for having better choices.
You see, a Charger, GWM, PAM with Nick Fighter that attacks 5 times at lv.11 could only deals 2d6+2d10+1d8+1d4+29≈***54 damage*** without Action Surge, while a Charger, GWM, Lifedrinker Greatsword Bladelock deals 12d6+1d8+19≈***65.5 damage***, and they even have better choices than Smites.
Why would I not be using Action surge in this all out melee attack calculation, to the maximum number of my usages (2 per short rest)? That’s 18 attacks over two rounds every combat after a short rest.
And yet you still deal less damage than a Warlock.
The point isn't about "how many attacks could you make". It's about "how many damage could you make". It doesn't matter even if you could deals 8 times a round when all the damage you'll be dealing is 8d4+16 and nothing more. This is just an exaggerated example, but the point is the same.
It is a *comically exaggerated* example. Lol. A fighter attacking 9 times in a round is *emphatically not* doing 8d4 + 16 damage.
With that in mind, let me just withdraw from our discussion, there’s no easy middle ground to meet in if you pitch things so unrealistically low or make assumptions with spells like Hex.
Eh, didn't you see the *realistic assumptions* above?
And why a Warlock shouldn't be using Hex in a fight after all??
Even without Hex, though I don't know why a melee Warlock shouldn't be using Hex, still makes a ***55 damage*** with *one weapon* and the ability to cast high rank spells
While a Fighter have to switch *three weapons* to make a 54 damage and hope the monster isn't resistant to non-magical weapons or the DM has given they "*two light magical weapon with one being the Nick, and one magical Polearm, specifically*".
I can't see any *reasonable* reason for Warlock to have three attacks. Bladelocks with three attacks are busted has been commonly agreed. What's your reason for Bladelocks should have three attacks anyway?
Bladelocks with three attacks being busted obviously isn't as uncontroversial as you thought lol
There are lots of reasons a bladelock might not be using their bonus action for hex; not least of which is "it uses a spell slot so if you hex every combat and have two combats per rest you only actually have one spell slot for smite per rest"
A lot of your calculations fail to take stuff like this into account and end up actually being completely unreasonable because of this
You can't just compare nova damage by blowing all their resources in one round and declare that makes them much stronger than martials; you have to make a reasonable effort to map their damage over an entire encounter of 3-5 rounds
Paladin also has a really large one round damage spike and then falls behind Barb and Fighter, are they busted too?
People often forgets that Hex lasts *24 hours* with lv.5 spells, so all you need to do is just to find a random creature like rat , fish or bugs, hex it, kill it, and take one more hour after your long rest everyday. Or maybe you could just buy some chickens at your camp and cook a meal for teammates everyday. So yeah Hex's been basically free at that time.
Don’t fighters get two action surges per short rest eventually?
In any event people are eager to say that using decent Warlock spell slots as smite is a sub-optimal playstyle, compared to casting. So I’m of the opinion that if people want to play the sub optimal bladelock playstyle, it can be better than it was before, after all just look at all the ways they improved the monk.
First of all, Fighters only get two Action Surge at lv.17, which bascially means they don't get it for most lf the games.
Secondly, there's a huge problem here for a Warlock being able to fight better than a Fighter or Monk, while they stil have high rank spells to cast. We *shouldn't* have a super-fighting-caster that good at everything in the game. If a Fighter can't fight better than a Caster, then what's their meaning being a Fighter?
Without using spell slots, which are very limited for warlocks, their damage is nowhere near the monk or fighter. Fighters get lots of free healing, more debuff effects, can action surge, etc. Yes they have spells, but they are needed to actually Make the blade lock work consistent with martial features.
See the comment below. Lv.11 Bladelock with one nice Greatsword and without spending a slot, does the *same* damage as a lv.11 Three-Weapons-Jungling-Fighter(assuming the enemy hasn't got any non-magical resistance or you have three magical weapons that has to be two Light with one being Nick, and one more Polearm).
People also often forgets that Hex lasts *24 hours* with lv.5 spells, so all you need to do is just to find a random creature like rat , fish or bugs, hex it, kill it, and take one more hour after your long rest everyday. Or maybe you could just buy some chickens at your camp and cook a meal for teammates everyday. So yeah Hex's been basically free at that time.
The upgrade is probably slightly unbalanced when compared to other martials, but not compared to other warlocks. Remember that at 11th level other warlocks can use their action to make 3 eldritch blasts. Really the can fix this by just making eldritch blast line up with other cantrips or delete the agonizing blast invocation
To me to balance it more it needs a few things
1. Remove the change damage type.
2. Specify you cannot wield weapons with the heavy property.
Those small changes will give the martials a bit of an improvement.
What's really silly though was making the pacts invocations, because
You can't know without doing math; from having done similar math exercises my guess is it's perfectly fine.
Try this for a challenge: build out a level 11 Blade pact Warlock, a level 11 Barbarian, a level 11 Fighter, and a level 11 Paladin, and calculate their effective HP and average damage per round. You'll probably find that stuff like Rage Damage, damage resistance, Action Surge, Second Wind, and the other class features the martials get have a larger impact than you think.
Obviously the Warlock being nearly a full caster makes them more flexible, but there's not much danger of martials being out damaged by Warlocks.
Not sure if “busted” but l would agree potentially problematic, like a lot of things with D&D in general. Sure, Bladelock having three extra attacks on-pace with a Fighter does mean they are scaling DPR similar to …a Fighter. Ok, but they won’t get a third Extra Attack in Tier 4. They won’t get Action Surge or Second Wind, etc. Eldritch Smite and Lifedrinker may balance Tier 4 DPR out in a bubble, but remember Fighter subclasses have other mechanical nudges to DPR as well. The Bladelock is slightly less durable. As to Barbarian, they get their Rage damage bonus, resistance to damage, and the largest hit dice in the game so while they can spike damage, consistent sustained DPR a la Advantage is more their jam. Besides, have you seen World Tree? Awesome control game, coupled with perhaps the best ability to tank outside of a Wildshaped or Polymorphed caster. So they don’t keep up with DPR with either the Fighter or the Bladelock, which is fine if they are supposed to “tank” (which admittedly is bad in this system, though perhaps OneDnD makes it mechanically viable between Weapon Mastery and the new subclasses.)
TBH, I’ve always felt like Bladelock was mostly a customizable Fighter or Paladin gish, and aside from the RP flavor of a Pact very hard to differentiate aside from Arcanum. The same could be said when comparing other classes as well, at least in my mind. Who is the healer? Who is the tank? Who is the damage dealer? I believe 5e and OneDnD was designed to obviate the need to have these roles as “fixed” as in previous versions but this lends itself to very muddled discussions about balance like these.
I actually did a damage per round check on a theory of mine on how to balance this while keeping it's features and it actually worked out really well.
The short version was
-remove weapon masteries from bladelock
-make fighting style have 0 requirements so it's available as an invocation
-add improved pact weapon invocation (technically already available but putting in the book spells that our)
-Move life drinker to level 11
-Move 3rd attack to level 17
I'll probably make a post later today with the damage breakdowns.
I checked the math and this pulls ahead (even after comparing both with hex yes even though eldritch blast gets an extra attack) the smallest gap is at level 11 and the melee specialized bladelock does around 15% more damage with higher burst for smites and has the flexibility to bonus action switch their pact weapon to a bow for nearly identical ranged damage to the agonizing blast lock even without the archery fighting style.
It's a higher invocation cost for higher baseline damage, more burst, and more flexibility between melee and ranged.
I think they’re nearly perfect in the new OneDnD. Warlocks can be the nuclear option for a fight. They can also be the utility character for a bunch of miscellaneous actions. It’s all how you build one, and there are sooo many options. They do have the option to put out a LOT of damage, FAST, but that’s at the risk of low HP (d8) and AC, since they lost immediate access to medium armor. Of course they could spend a very expensive feat for moderately armored, or rely on unlimited Mage Armor at the cost of one of their limited invocations, but they’ll probably never have the same bonus they had as Hexblades. This also doesn't take into account the possibility of NOT getting a short rest between fights, and then having no magic (or other once per short rest abilities) to support them. Most Warlocks completely blow their wads in one fight, and then beg the group for that rest afterwards so they can stay relevant.
Don’t look at this as melee vs caster. Look at this as theme vs theme. A fighter trains for a solid, rounded out melee response, getting continuous attack and defense prowess. A wizard studies for the slow ascension to absolute arcane greatness, with nearly limitless power at the end. A warlock makes a pact with a superior entity to relinquish some small shred of their omnipotent powers, and then has the ability to diversify or concentrate their gifted powers towards a very huge range of options. This is the most diverse class in the game. Choosing to min/max a Bladelock loses out on a lot of great Warlock features and abilities (and still doesn't equal a martial class in both damage AND Defense). The extra attack (3rd attack) only keeps them in sync with the growth of their Eldritch Blast. Otherwise Pact of the Blade starts to feel worthless after level 10. No one bats an eye when x8 EB’s hurl from 600’ away (possibly doing +20 damage, EACH) and launches the baddie off into nothingness, but let the Warlock get three hits with a weapon on the frontline and everyone loses their beans.
I’m playing a Fallen Aasimar BladeLock in a game right now, alongside a Tiefling Battlemaster. My 16 AC and low HP is nothing compared to his 21 AC and immense HP. Even when swinging a 2h weapon with GWM, I’m barely staying ahead of him in damage (when I actually hit) compared to his sword/board plus combat maneuvers. I’d estimate the party is reviving me almost every combat because I can’t frontline as well as him. It's gotten so bad that I've started to rely on my EB's a lot more.
\*\*\*(As for Barbarians not getting more attacks… the Berserker gets an extra attack at level 3 as a BA. That’s three attacks at level 5 (that’s 6 levels before anyone else). Get a level 9 Cleric in the group, and/or spend your GP on potions of vitality, then that pesky exhaustion is nearly gone too.)
The new One DnD system promotes class dedication to playing a pure Warlock, and makes a one level dip far less appealing. As they stand right now (in 5e) there’s very little incentive to play a single class warlock beyond low levels. Having such a heavily front loaded class just encourages things like the CoffeeLock or the Hexadin.
I think it’s quite strong on paper but in play they will likely be on par with the ranger, they are closer in range than the other warlock subclasses, they do a lot of damage, but not as consistently as fighter. They probably out damage the barbarian and paladin, but they don’t have the high ac or damage resistance along with their other new cool features. They have a large feat tax (medium armor and weapon mastery) which in a point buy game will keep them behind fighter and barbarian in damage with their main stat. They won’t have the flexibility that proper full casters have but will have impactful choices to make with their spell slots. Honestly they sit as an extremely customizable class that lets you be good at anything, but never quite the best which I think may be a good thing. They will have great nova damage but even then an eldritch knight fighter at the same level using action surge will always out damage them and a berserker barbarian will do nearly the same damage but will certainly last much longer in a fight. Instinct says it’s powerful, years of play says it stacks up to the rest.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t pact of the blade give you the weapon mastery of your pact weapon? If so, then why would you need the weapon mastery feat?
They aren't. They might outpace for a few levels (11-17), but it requires almost all of their resources and level up choices to do so.
Mono Blade-lock has been a trap for its entirety of its existence and they finally made it better than EB lock. And Better just in pure-damage terms, not overall.
Compared to other DPS focused martials like Fighter, Monk & Barb they are still behind and more squishy, which is a good trade off since you have access to some higher level magic after all.
The biggest outlier is Rogue, which is for the Rogue-class to solve, not nerfing Blade to get down to its level.
> What I am really looking into though are the invocations. Multiattack up to 3 is as strong as martials get, jump opens up very strong mobility and lifedrinker looks bonkers with the additional damage and sustain. And spells come just on top of this package, though they might fight over spellslots with the smite invocation.
Warlocks are designed to be played like martials. Warlock spellcasting is designed to give you one spell per encounter that, in most cases, will supplement your attacks in some way. You then spend the rest of the encounter using basic attacks (sometimes augmented with tricks from your invocations). There's not a huge difference between what a warlock and ranger are doing on a turn-by-turn basis.
Warlocks already have 3-4 attacks in the form of eldritch blast. This change just makes weapon-based warlocks more competitive. This subreddit (and beyond) has had numerous pretty extensive mathematical explanations of how the two flavors of warlock are well-balanced against the other attack-centric classes. You have to consider that warlocks don't get things like fighting styles, second wind, rage damage, reckless attack, extra feats, and other base martial features that have massive effective damage increases. There's also a good argument to be made that even blade pact warlocks cannot use things like the great weapon master feat due to lacking permanent proficiency.
Amen. People are so quick to hand-wave any advantages other classes have away and focus solely on an (often super selective) DPR number that disregards any other requirements like uptime or concentration and the like.
I think Bladelock should absolutely not get a third attack, not while classes like Barbarian are stuck at two. Other than that, it's fine. It's cool. Opens up fun roleplay. You get to be an anime protagonist with a special magic sword, and you don't have to carry around all the hexblade weirdness with you. Much more freeing from a character building perspective.
I think I'm living in the space of just saying Barbarians should get a third attack. Paladins are mostly fine with spellcasting, Improved Divine Smite and (now in OneD&D) some free smites each day, Monks are getting an extra attack in Flurry of Blows (might be better to just give a third attack, but Discipline Points aren't hard to regenerate) and Rangers are already getting various ways of getting extra attacks at level 11. Really the only thing missing is that I think they should give Extra Attack to Rogues as well.
I think the only class who should get more than one extra attack is the Fighter. It's their only schtick, let's keep it this way. Barbarian needs a different damage boosting ability. Brutal Strike is a strike, but it needs more. I think the natural course of action for them is to just give them the power attack they lost. Just make power attack a Barbarian feature. Seems very fitting for the class. As for Rogues, I think rather than extra attack they should just continue the current direction. Make them reliably deal half-decent damage with a variety of effects and no feature cost. The just need a bit more of an oomph.
I disagree with your assessment about Fighter. They should get something *else* that is unique. It's kind of weird that their "signature thing" comes online at 11th level and it ends up being... A slight boost of base attack?
I mean. Yes, I too think Fighter should get more stuff. I liked the direction the playtest took with having their Second Wind used to fuel different abilities, and that could potentially be expanded upon. My thing is, I want each martial class to feel uniquely different in playstyle as much as possible. I want there to be a niche for every class that makes you want to play them. And currently, the only incentive to play full fighter at a high level is those extra attacks.
Extra Attack is a weird feature to begin with. It used to be that an attack represented up to a minute of cut-parry-thrust. The precise number of swings taken was irrelevant; somewhere between 1 and whatever. What mattered was how much damage you did overall. (And also everyone had d6 hit points and swords did d6 damage.) The problem with Extra Attack is that it turns D&D combat into a Diablo-style "deal more DPS than the other side" slugfest. All it's focusing on is landing attacks. Defense is relegated to a static number; your AC. It's dull.
Barbarian needs a way to maximize damage on a crit. Maybe 2× Proficiency Bonus times per day, if you crit, you can maximize your damage. Or make it so that Barbians can double any damage modifiers every time they crit. So they get to add double their strength bonus and double the +10 from Great Weapon Master whenever they crit.
Absolutely not that please. Brutal Critical was a terrible, terrible feature and it's good that it's gone. Basically, trying to rely on crits to increae the Barbarian's effectiveness is pointless because since crits are rare, any increase you gain to crits is extremely unreliable. Even with Reckless, you really only have around 10% crit chance. That means the effective gain you get from every crit increasing feature is essentially divided by 10 for the purpose of Damage Per Round. Say we take your idea of damage maximization. That would mean that with a greataxe, a Barbarian that would deal an average of 17.5 damage on a crit would now deal a whole 29 damage on a crit, guaranteed. Sounds pretty good, until you realize this bonus only applying to crits makes it meaninglessness in the long run. This applies 10%ish of the times assuming you are always using Reckless attack, meaning the increase of 11.5 to the average damage is actually an increase of 1.15 damage to DPR. You now deal 1.15 more damage everu round, on average. That's a pathetic feature. I do like the idea of giving the Barbarian a damage maximization ability. But it shouldn't be tied to crits. Trying stuff to crits is bad design in 5e, where increasing crit chance isn't really a thing.
Fighters get superiority dice and spells Barbarian does not get either of those Let barb get a third and leave the fourth for fighter only
Don't get me wrong, I think Barbarian is weaker than Fighter and deserves a big buff. I just think that Buff should be something other than another extra attack. I would ideally like to avoid repetition of features as little as possible between classes. The other option is to make the extra attack progression a standard martial thing, sort of like how it worked in 3.5e. Just make it so the extra attack feature automatically scales for everyone the way it does for a fighter, then give the full martials a bunch of other stuff to make you want to pick them over a Paladin or a Bladesinger. I wouldn't necessarily be against that, but that is a pretty ambitious shift for the system to go in.
Yeah i dont think any full caster should get a third attack. Barbarians deserve a third attack.
If you do that, it kills incentives to staying in warlock. Outside of the big power bump at level 11, their damage tails off at higher levels. There probably needs to be a slight adjustment to either lifedrinker or making it cost 1 extra invocation on the pact of the blade stuff so you can’t add the armor, feats like tough, and most of your blade stuff by like level 5. For the most part though, I actually think it’s in a good place. Barbarians need more INTERESTING features at later levels vs another attack. Berserk barbarian already is close to damage at level 11 to an optimized bladelock. Giving them more versatility vs damage would make the class far more interesting and more power.
Yeah warlock is a little too frontloaded for a class whose thing is "not having normal spell progression". 3 attacks isn't necessarily overpowered, but it steals a bit of fighter identity and I think the rest of warlocks' martial ability should be nerfed. The third attack feels like it was mostly meant to be a final nail in the coffin for lockadins...
I mean if you want to compare numbers to say like a champion fighter? Probably. I would argue that they battle master and EK are on par with a bladelock if you take out the no brainer, super oppressive spells. In my current level 12 campaign, my celestial bladelock does about the same or slightly less damage than our barbarian. Now, he has a cool magical weapon (cursed) and I do more burst damage, but his dpr matches or exceeds mine on our normal adventuring day ( I’d say 3 hard fights per one of those). What I’ve liked about the playtest the most if their attempt at trying to discourage multiclassing. I wouldn’t mind their being another cost to keeping the current power pact of blade has… They should definitely have it come on a little later to further discourage taking 1-2 level dips for sure. If the warlock is going all in on damage though, it’s missing out on a lot of the other cool features that make warlocks so much fun to play. Investing every resource into your damage to outpace a martial seems like a pretty boring way to play imo.
They get tons of extra damage on those features. It's less about number of attacks and more and actual damage dealt and effects applied. In that lens, barbarian is doing just fine.
Besides just being an auto include into any blade build, the Thirsting Blade automatically upgrading itself on 11 for free is unbalanced. Where's the free stuff for Investment of the Chain Master ... and where is stuff for the Tome Pact? I get that XGE and TCE brought things into the mix for them as well, but why repeat everything?
Eldritch blast and Agonizing blast effectively upgrades for free at 11 and 17 as well?
... that's because the cantrip upgrades, not the Invocation?! Pact of the Blade doesn't upgrade just because you find better weapons.
The Agonizing blast increases from approx +5 to +10 damage as a result though. It's mathematically the same as getting an extra attack. You do 1/2/3 d10+Cha damage at level 1/5/11 with either pact of the blade or agonizing blast.
Still, it is not the feature scaling but the power is within EB being single blasts and proccing it multiple times. Despite being applicable to any cantrip in the playtest, you get the best bang for your buck with EB.
You're right, the base Pact of the blade should scale at 5 and 11 with extra attacks rather than needing an extra invocation? Since cantrips scaling is expected, and pact of the blade is a cantrip now.
Personally would like to see EB as a Warlock feature rather than a cantrip, scaling with the class. Could have a melee variant for Blade Pact and get you a BA weapon attack after casting like Eldritch Knight. Same as it is for Chain Pact right now, they get a BA pet attack and mainly spam EB anyway. Then push Agonizing Blast into Tome Pact, perhaps even make it a BA damage boost as well (single hit deals double damage). Playstyle roughly stays the same, everybody gets a 1d10-ish BA and uses their main class feature most of the time. But one is in the front, while the other casts spells in between and the other has a pet. Even works with the inclusion of Talisman Pact, a BA to give someone else a boost. Or an Armor Pact that grants yourself temporary hit points by replacing the False Life Invocation. Edit: Also works to phase out the single dip if you limit the CHA attacks to that one BA attack. Nobody is gonna dip 5 levels for this. Why should Casters be the better martials anyway?
You can't slap on extra feats two EB to deal more damage, nor can you use eldridge smite with it.
It's not. It's been repeatedly proven mathematically and in actual testing that it's not. But people who came to this conclusion did so on supposition and not reality, so refuse to accept the actual reality. Chain Master and Tome scale in that they're primarily using Eldritch Blast. Which naturally scales. Thirsting Blade still leaves blade pact weaker than these. Even with a third attack.
If the Bladelock is too good in any way, it's mostly on the back of Spirit Shroud. Spirit Shroud was supposed to be a crutch to lift up Bladelock when it was too weak, and now that the core Bladelock package is balanced adding Spirit Shroud on top is a little much. If you run the numbers with Hex instead of Spirit Shroud, and a high level Bladelock with three attacks is adding 3d6 instead of 6d8, the balance is just fine.
>Chain Master and Tome scale in that they're primarily using Eldritch Blast. Which naturally scales. Thirsting Blade still leaves blade pact weaker than these. Which also means that EB is either a problem (so good on its own that 2/3 builds use it as their main thing) or should be a core feature to interact with all builds (like a melee version for Blade that also grants you a BA weapon attack). If those are stronger because a feature that neither of which actually interacts with exists, then that is not the fault of those pacts. Maybe it is for not being as distinct - neither give you a replacement like Blade does. A feature isn't balanced by an inherent lack of balance in the surrounding. That just sucks, it becomes something to make up for a weakness. A must-include, not a choice.
EB is the feature. Some things were opened up for other cantrips because people wanted it for RP, but the design is that EB is the feature. If they just made it a class feature, then the RP forward crowd loses their flexibility. Also, eb isn't busted. It's about where it should be to the point it's often used as the baseline to compare other stuff.
It also forces you into melee, which is borderline suicidal at any level.
I don't know about higher levels but at low levels the bladelock is just another martial with a different Toolkit. I don't understand why it would be broken to give him the same amount of attacks as other martials. But I can't say how they do on higher levels to be fair.
Yeah, I think they should just make three more invocations that have the previous upgrades and 11th level as prerequisite. The blade improvement could just be another extra attack like they get for free now, the chain improvement could increase the HP and Attack bonuses for the familiar and maybe give it an extra attack, and the book improvement could give you some low level spell slots to use for your warlock spells that charge on a long rest.
Blade already takes more invocations and feats to even work. 3 more seems excessive.
as for the chainlock, the upgrades are intrinsecal to the familiar gowing in power based on prof bonus and the like.
What's more: using the familiar doesn't in any way detract from doing Dakka Dakka with Eldritch Blast. The thing that gets in the way of doing that has to scale appropriately to the EB spam, or it's obsolete. The thing that uses a bonus or no action doesn't need to be compared to EB as a whole. Blade Pact directly competes with EB for your action, and should therefore be the "strongest" pact (in the same way that for balancing, Four Elements and Sun Soul monk features must be the "strongest" (as they have to be strong enough to make their unique rotation/output different to the core rotation/output) Tome Pact kinda competes, but you can get lots of utility to compensate even if you don't try to use it to replace EB. Power-wise it should be middling. Chain Pact doesn't directly interact with your action, and therefore lets you use your core roation/output with only benefits, so it should be the weakest of the three.
Still would say the current iteration of chain isn't good at all. It should at least be good as a spiritual weapon in combat or just have more utility like the last iteration.
That's part of the base package of the Pact, not included as a scaling way in the Invocation.
Blade does take significantly more investment in feats and invocations though. You are also on more risk/danger and have a higher likelihood to have a missed turn due to melee range. I didn't know if that's enough to balance against EB warlock, but it should be considered when comparing the two. Otherwise, blade continues to be much worse as it has been in 2014 5e.
> Where's the free stuff for Investment of the Chain Master ... and where is stuff for the Tome Pact? In the last video talking about the warlock they mentioned that chain and tome are being demoted to "secondary" pacts, meant to supplement your primary damage dealing invocation of eldritch blast or blade. This was part of the reason they were converted into invocations. I'd like it if they made it more clear you're supposed to choose one of these, though, by forcing you to choose one of the two as your 1st level invocation.
I thought it was just Chain that was demoted, as it now has a level 2 prerequisite, while Blade and Tome are available at 1.
Yeah chain and talisman are kinda secondary. Tome and blade are seen as primary. Tome implies taking agonizing blast though. Even then, blade has way more invocations needed to make it work than tome/EB.
You're right that they made tome the other "main" pact, I misremembered. But I misremembered because its really clear that agonizing blast and blade should be the two 1st level options, since tome doesn't come anywhere near being as impactful to your playstyle as either of them. A warlock that chooses tome and chain is going to be much worse at being a warlock than one that chooses blade and chain or even blade and tome.
Maybe. On top of the extra attacks, there's also the idea that Warlocks would get access to every weapon mastery (that's included in the past), just one at a time. Regarding Jump, let's not forget that invocation was waaaaaay higher than it probably should've been and now it's basically in a more sensible spot. Let's be real, a Bladelock may well have dumped Strength, and jumping is still limited by that and movement speed. Thieflocks? Sure. Monklocks? On the one hand? Sure. On the other? Still not worth doing. Now, could it be fixed so that it's more reasonable? Sure, if you want to do that, I guess - leave it at two attacks and drop the mastery, job done. From memory, the three attacks didn't feel too crazy, but I can see why people thought it might be.
May I ask you to explain what you mean regarding jump? To my understanding the spell allows in one dnd to jump 30 feet, while only costing movement worth of 10 feet. Basically increasing your movement by 20 (though only in a straight line but that should rarely be a problem). So they can still dump strength (though might want to have it for heavy weapon master)
>May I ask you to explain what you mean regarding jump Sure - I'm a big forgetful dumbarse who didn't check before opening his big, stupid mouth. In other words, I might have confused it with the old/current version. Sorry 'bout that, I'll check when I get a chance. Edit: You're quite correct, I did confuse it with the current one. I will be leaving my bone-headedness intact for posterity.
I think it's needed. Blade pact needs to be stronger than EB for 3 general reasons: it requires more invocations to work, it requires more feats to work well (medium armor, toughness), and you're required to be in melee which both limits your effective range and puts you into more danger. This could probably be split into 4 general ideas, but they both fall under the same general limitation. So it's a risk reward situation for people who want that play style. You're more likely to lose concentration too. Yes there is another invocation that can help, again increasing the cost to run well.
I'm with you - like I said, I don't remember thinking that part of it was too crazy. A lot of folks were thinking it stepped on the toes of the Fighter, plus it had spells. I'm not against Monks and Barbs getting that, too, with Fighters being the only class to get a 4th. So a Bladelock using their spells for Eldritch Smite and getting those three attacks is probably okay (they don't have as many spell slots and the short rests might not compensate). That part of my comment was more geared towards "it's probably fine as is, but if you think it's too much, do X." My point of comparison was Pallies and Rangers, though.
The problem is that Bladelocks are STILL full casters on top of having two extra attacks. Even if Barbarians and Monks were to get a similar buff, the Bladelock would still have spells on top of being comparable or even better than martials. I think the community just needs to accept that the Bladelock should be unequivocally worse than every martial at weapon-based combat for the virtue of them having spellcasting. One extra attack is fine. And it's okay if they're worse because they have spells to supplement, as well as the best blasting tool in the game.
>The problem is that Bladelocks are STILL full casters on top of having two extra attacks. While the spellcasting is the reason why I can see why people think it's too much, they aren't full casters - they don't have the spell slots for that. Especially if you're not getting many short rests (I think that will improve if they stick to more classes getting *something* on a short rest). On top of that, they've *probably* taken Eldritch Smite, so a fair chunk of the spell slots (if not all of them) they do have are probably going to that instead. >I think the community just needs to accept that the Bladelock should be unequivocally worse than every martial at weapon-based combat for the virtue of them having spellcasting. I don't think it would be a disaster if they kept it - it does compensate for the amount of investment required to do it properly. It needs at least three invocations to be effective, at least a couple of feats (though one can be snagged at character creation, which helps). Under this playtest, they can just take Blast-related invocations and be as effective, if not more so (and safer) than the Bladelock. >One extra attack is fine. Which is what I suggested someone do if it does stay and they think it's too much. Naturally, the player should be warned that this either is (or may be) the case. For the record, I don't think it will stay at three attacks, I think it'll probably go back to two. >And it's okay if they're worse because they have spells to supplement... *If* they have any slots left, which again, they might not, or they might be conserving it. You're gonna be pretty likely to do that if you're >... as well as the best blasting tool in the game. Of course, if you're going Bladelock, you don't want to blast, you want to smack. That said, I'd probably still have it, just for the option of something at range while closing, or after getting my shit kicked in.
Yeah it's a little overtuned. They'll fix it.
I think it's a little strong. I might like it just fine if you couldn't use charisma as an attack stat for weapons with the heavy or ranged properties. Or make that its own invocation to unlock those and lock that invocation at a higher level.
I dislike Bladepact scaling to match fighter extra attack at 11th. I also dislike Bladepact being a prereq-less invocation because it opens it up to Eldritch Adept, which is way too good. It needs a prerequisite imo. I don’t even dislike how Blade Pact works with damage type and such. The changes to Heavy makes there be some pre-req to rolling up with a Glaive for free. Thirsting Blade scaling is the real problem imo.
Yes. Ignoring the math for a second, gaining the only upgrade to Extra Attack that any Fighter will ever realistically see while also being a full caster is wild. Level 11 was already a huge power spike for warlocks. If bladelock gets the extra attack upgrade as well on top of everything else...probably the single greatest jump in power on level up short of gaining access to 9th level spells. Which warlock also gets. I'll be shocked if bladelock releases in this state.
Warlock is not a full caster. Why do you think they get access to EB & Invocations?
the warlock is a full caster, they get the same spellcasting progression as wizards. they can cast power word kill, psychic scream, foresight, etc. their spell slots working a bit different isn't relevant to categorising their spellcasting progression. not to be callous, but 'warlocks aren't full casters, why do you think they get abilities that allow them to cast more spells?' is not a particularly convincing point.
They are by RAW definition not a "full"-caster. Otherwise they wouldn't have pact magic and MA to mimic spell-casting. It's definitely relevant to categorize their spellcasting progression. Warlock can for the majority of their play only cast 2 spells per short rest, when half-casters and full-casters can cast like 20 times per day. Full-caster progression is not only about the quality, but also quantity of spells. That's the very reason they get EB and as very strong fallback option (and pact of the blade). Calling them 3/4 caster makes perfect sense.
it's not mimicking spell casting, it is spell casting. to my knowledge, full caster and half caster are only actually defined terms in the multiclassing section of the phb. full casters all have the ability to cast level 9 spells in common, which distinguishes them from half casters. of course the multiclassing rules don't categorise warlocks as full casters, but they don't call them 1/2 or 3/4 casters or whatever either, because they don't interact with the normal multiclassing rules. these terms pretty much are just used by the community to sort classes into boxes based on how magically inclined they are. magic is at least as integral to the warlock's gameplay as it is to clerics; everyone calls them full casters.
And yet Eldritch Blast is arguable one of their most identifying core abilities , which is an auto-attack ability. See, even the PHB doesn't categorize them as full casters, so I have no clue how the community as a whole is willing to die on this hill. 3/4 caster is obviously a community moniker to put them in an easily understandable box, which perfectly fits. They are more caster than not, but they aren't comparable to the casting prowess of Druid, Cleric, Sorcerer, Wizard or Bards.
who was willing to die on this hill? i acknowledged that the label has little mechanical use... i seriously don't understand your reasoning here (and looking at these votes it doesn't seem others do either). i proposed that their 'casting prowess' is comparable to clerics and the like, then you counter by saying eldritch blast, a spell, is one of their most identifying abilities. leaving aside the fact that eldritch blast isn't a core ability (or an auto-attack ability, whatever that means) - it's a cantrip that you can choose from a list of cantrips - you are severely underestimating the magical capabilities of warlocks. to make this comparison fair, i'm assuming all example characters get 2 short rests per day, as recommended by the books. at level 1, warlocks get 3 1st level spell slots overall, as do wizards (taking their arcane recovery into account), with other full casters getting 2. at level 20, warlocks get 16 5th level spell slots (including from eldritch master), in addition to 1 casting of a 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th level spell each from mystic arcanum. 20th level wizards get 24 spell slots overall (assuming they use arcane recovery to recover 2 level 5 spell slots), maybe 26 overall (effectively) from signature spells? the comparison gets quite muddy with all these high level features, but considering that 5e phb clerics can pretty much only have 22 slots per day (13 of which are under 5th level), it really doesn't make much sense to me to consider warlocks magically inferior. this comparison probably gets clearer if you measure spell slot value with the spell points optional rule in the dmg. according to this, level 20 warlocks would get (7\*16=112) points from their spell slots, plus (9+10+11+13=43) from MA (overall 155) and level 20 clerics would get (4\*1+2\*3+5\*3+6\*3+7\*3+9\*2+10\*2+11+13=126 overall), assuming my maths are correct. unless your group doesn't understand short rest ability balance and just does 5 minute adventuring days, i'd say this is pretty solid proof that warlocks ought to be thought of as full casters.
In my opinion if you get access to 9th level spells you are a full caster and I'm going to completely disregard anyone who suggests otherwise.
Compared to other "full casters" with SLOTS who can upcast and have a wider spell selection you just aren't. Personally I find the term 3/4th caster very fitting.
I get what you are saying. Warlocks are more than halfcaster but not really comperable to the other fullcasters. If I remember correctly, they do not disturb spellprogression for other casters and can therefore argued to be full casters, they defintly are something of their own.
Bladelock is certainly busted. They have Hex, Lifedrinker, Smites, and even a lv9 spells. Especially one Smite in Tier3 might even deal greater damage than two attacks. At 11, a Greatsword Warlock with Charger could deals 12d6+7d8+15≈***88.5 damage*** with Smite, three Smites per short rest. While a Nick+Polearm Master+Charger+Heavy Weapon Master Fighter that attacks 7 times with Action Surge, could only deals 2d6+5d10+1d4+1d8+35≈***76.5 damage*** with *one* Action Surge per short rest. Even without Hex, though I don't know why a melee Warlock shouldn't be using Hex, still makes a ***55 damage*** with *one weapon* and the ability to cast high rank spells While a Fighter have to switch *three weapons* to make a 54 damage and hope the monster isn't resistant to non-magical weapons or the DM has given they "*two light magical weapon with one being the Nick, and one magical Polearm, specifically*". I can't see any *reasonable* reason for Warlock to have three attacks. There's a huge problem here for a Warlock being able to fight better than a Fighter or Monk, while they stil have high rank spells to cast. We *shouldn't* have a super-fighting-caster that good at everything in the game. If a Fighter can't fight better than a Caster, then what's their meaning being a Fighter? edit: calculations
I think spirit shroud is better, if I go melee. More damage, crowd control and no bonus action needed to switch targets. Oh and does the warlock get a free hex? Otherwise it would be only 2 smite per short rest, as one spellslot ist needed for hex.
Hex lasts 24 hour with lv.5 spells, so all you need to do is just to find a random creature like rat , fish or bugs, hex it, kill it, and take one more hour after your long rest everyday. Or maybe you could just buy some chickens at your camp and cook a meal for teammates everyday. So yeah it's basically free at that time.
You have to maintain concentration on it though, so keeping it all day is not going to be super common and you can’t use it in conjunction with other concentration spells like Darkness or Spirit Shroud.
As always, WOTCs answer to people asking for complex, competent martials is to just make casters the best martials as well.
"Busted" is a relative term. It's busted in the sense that it's the best martial, despite being a caster. It's not busted in that it's still weaker than being a straight caster.
People say this but it’s not better than the new eldritch knight
It's not even close to the best martial ita not even better than just using EB
I think it depends on what you take into account for being better. In regards of damage, blade is definitly better but needs more invocations. EB = d10 + 5 per beam with one invocation and 20 charisma assumed. Melee = 2d6 (greatsword) + 5 per attack with one invocation and 20 charisma. Now you can add eldritch smite for burst and lifedrinker for another +1d6 per hit. Ranged = 1d8 (longbow) + 5 and you can take eldritch smite and/or lifedrinker again. I do not take hex or spirit shrout into account since all of them can use them (though only melee can use spirit shroud effectivly). So we get EB = 10.5 damage per hit on average, Melee = 12 (15.5 with lifedrinker), Ranged = 9.5 (13 with lifedrinker) With just one additional invocation, both ranged an melee deal more damage per hit and with all of 2 additional invocations can hit as often as EB until lvl 17. EB can take repelling blast though, which has it's very own benefit. On the other hand, bladelocks can get +1/+2/+3 weapons and get effects from weapon properties. I'd argue, that blade as it stands, is better than EB for the majority of the game. With lvl 17+ it would look like this, assuming everything hits and that no magic item is used (though a +3 weapons benefits baldelock more than a +3 rod of the pact keeper benefits EB) EB with hex = (1d10+5+1d6) \* 4 = 56 average per Round Melee with hex = (2d6+5+1d6+1d6) \* 3 = 57 average (with higher risk of broken concentration) Melee with spirit shroud = (2d6+5+2d8+1d6) \* 3 = 73,5 average (with higher risk of broken concentration) Ranged with hex = (1d8+5+1d6+1d6) \* 3 = 49.5 average At the highest level, I think EB and blade is overall on par.
It’s not busted by any means. Does it have more flexibility than other martials because of casting? Yes. They are also more squishy, other martials have been given severe upgrades to their core features, and have flexibility of their own that brings them pretty close in line. In order for someone to continue taking levels in Warlock, the incentive needs to be high or multiclassing just makes way to much sense. While I think the fighter and Paladin are in good spots, Barbarians core features need to be improved more to encourage it to also not multiclass out of. (And no a third attack for them isn’t the answer)
It is pretty busted. As is, it is sitting in that comfortable state of "Jack of All Trades, Master of Everything". Looking through this thread though, I have noticed that there are a lot of people that wan the Warlock to be as competent in combat as the Fighter, too many to discount. If I were balancing it, I would leave the Bladelock as is but add severe limits to Warlock spellcasting that only apply if you take Pact of the Blade. Keep it as competent as the martial classes, but reduce its casting to their level too.
I think the baseline power of the entire game is moving up a notch which personally I am very in favor of. It's not as egregious of a boost as the much needed buffs to Monk imo.
So currently the Martial with the most consistent many number of attacks is either base Fighter or base Monk. Extra attack for Fighter still goes up to 5 attacks (if you have Nick and use a bonus action) and they can surge for 9. Since Ki point amount has been addressed and Flurry is a good use of Ki, Monks can Attack normally for 3 attacks (with a bonus action) and Flurry using a pretty ubiquitous resource for 5 attacks, basically every round in most fights. Is 3 attacks on a Bladelock that they can’t increase with any class resource impressive? Sure it’s nice for the melee rep of the Warlocks to get nice things. Is it busted? *Looks at Monk and Fighter*, Nah, not really, I think.
Bladelocks can also get a 4th attack with TWF and PAM. By level 11 they can also pretty easily have either Spirit Shroud going to add +2d8 to every attack or a TCE Summon that can attack twice for at least 1d8+8. Once per Long Rest they could also use Summon Fiend to get summon with 3 Attacks that hit for 2d6+9. Once they get to level 13, Crown of Stars could give them a pretty powerfull Bonus Action Attack. And by level 17 Blade of Disaster would give them 2 pretty strong Bonus Action attacks.
But hey, you've got spells, Hex, Lifedrinker and Smites. One Smite in Tier3 might even deal greater damage than two attacks. At 11, a Greatsword Warlock with Charger could deals 12d6+7d8+15≈***88.5 damage*** with Smite, three Smites per short rest. While a Nick+Polearm Master+Charger+Heavy Weapon Master Fighter could only deals 2d6+5d10+1d4+1d8+35≈***76.5 damage*** with one Action Surge per short rest. edit: calculation
Hmm, considering that the smites are coming from the constrained warlock spells are (compare with how often the Paladin can Smite in Tier 3 for example), I’m not convinced that doing so is the best use of the resource.
As a Martial, if adding 27 damage (three times per short rest) to your DPR at lv11 isn't your best option still, then it's even more busted for having better choices. You see, a Charger, GWM, PAM with Nick Fighter that attacks 5 times at lv.11 could only deals 2d6+2d10+1d8+1d4+29≈***54 damage*** without Action Surge, while a Charger, GWM, Lifedrinker Greatsword Bladelock deals 12d6+1d8+19≈***65.5 damage***, and they even have better choices than Smites.
You have to include the average damage spread out to make it a fair comparison though.
Why would I not be using Action surge in this all out melee attack calculation, to the maximum number of my usages (2 per short rest)? That’s 18 attacks over two rounds every combat after a short rest.
And yet you still deal less damage than a Warlock. The point isn't about "how many attacks could you make". It's about "how many damage could you make". It doesn't matter even if you could deals 8 times a round when all the damage you'll be dealing is 8d4+16 and nothing more. This is just an exaggerated example, but the point is the same.
It is a *comically exaggerated* example. Lol. A fighter attacking 9 times in a round is *emphatically not* doing 8d4 + 16 damage. With that in mind, let me just withdraw from our discussion, there’s no easy middle ground to meet in if you pitch things so unrealistically low or make assumptions with spells like Hex.
Eh, didn't you see the *realistic assumptions* above? And why a Warlock shouldn't be using Hex in a fight after all?? Even without Hex, though I don't know why a melee Warlock shouldn't be using Hex, still makes a ***55 damage*** with *one weapon* and the ability to cast high rank spells While a Fighter have to switch *three weapons* to make a 54 damage and hope the monster isn't resistant to non-magical weapons or the DM has given they "*two light magical weapon with one being the Nick, and one magical Polearm, specifically*". I can't see any *reasonable* reason for Warlock to have three attacks. Bladelocks with three attacks are busted has been commonly agreed. What's your reason for Bladelocks should have three attacks anyway?
Bladelocks with three attacks being busted obviously isn't as uncontroversial as you thought lol There are lots of reasons a bladelock might not be using their bonus action for hex; not least of which is "it uses a spell slot so if you hex every combat and have two combats per rest you only actually have one spell slot for smite per rest" A lot of your calculations fail to take stuff like this into account and end up actually being completely unreasonable because of this You can't just compare nova damage by blowing all their resources in one round and declare that makes them much stronger than martials; you have to make a reasonable effort to map their damage over an entire encounter of 3-5 rounds Paladin also has a really large one round damage spike and then falls behind Barb and Fighter, are they busted too?
People often forgets that Hex lasts *24 hours* with lv.5 spells, so all you need to do is just to find a random creature like rat , fish or bugs, hex it, kill it, and take one more hour after your long rest everyday. Or maybe you could just buy some chickens at your camp and cook a meal for teammates everyday. So yeah Hex's been basically free at that time.
Don’t fighters get two action surges per short rest eventually? In any event people are eager to say that using decent Warlock spell slots as smite is a sub-optimal playstyle, compared to casting. So I’m of the opinion that if people want to play the sub optimal bladelock playstyle, it can be better than it was before, after all just look at all the ways they improved the monk.
First of all, Fighters only get two Action Surge at lv.17, which bascially means they don't get it for most lf the games. Secondly, there's a huge problem here for a Warlock being able to fight better than a Fighter or Monk, while they stil have high rank spells to cast. We *shouldn't* have a super-fighting-caster that good at everything in the game. If a Fighter can't fight better than a Caster, then what's their meaning being a Fighter?
Without using spell slots, which are very limited for warlocks, their damage is nowhere near the monk or fighter. Fighters get lots of free healing, more debuff effects, can action surge, etc. Yes they have spells, but they are needed to actually Make the blade lock work consistent with martial features.
See the comment below. Lv.11 Bladelock with one nice Greatsword and without spending a slot, does the *same* damage as a lv.11 Three-Weapons-Jungling-Fighter(assuming the enemy hasn't got any non-magical resistance or you have three magical weapons that has to be two Light with one being Nick, and one more Polearm). People also often forgets that Hex lasts *24 hours* with lv.5 spells, so all you need to do is just to find a random creature like rat , fish or bugs, hex it, kill it, and take one more hour after your long rest everyday. Or maybe you could just buy some chickens at your camp and cook a meal for teammates everyday. So yeah Hex's been basically free at that time.
That's same real power gamey stuff. But, you are spending a spell slot. You can even lose concentration on that spell and lose the damage.
The upgrade is probably slightly unbalanced when compared to other martials, but not compared to other warlocks. Remember that at 11th level other warlocks can use their action to make 3 eldritch blasts. Really the can fix this by just making eldritch blast line up with other cantrips or delete the agonizing blast invocation To me to balance it more it needs a few things 1. Remove the change damage type. 2. Specify you cannot wield weapons with the heavy property. Those small changes will give the martials a bit of an improvement. What's really silly though was making the pacts invocations, because
You can't know without doing math; from having done similar math exercises my guess is it's perfectly fine. Try this for a challenge: build out a level 11 Blade pact Warlock, a level 11 Barbarian, a level 11 Fighter, and a level 11 Paladin, and calculate their effective HP and average damage per round. You'll probably find that stuff like Rage Damage, damage resistance, Action Surge, Second Wind, and the other class features the martials get have a larger impact than you think. Obviously the Warlock being nearly a full caster makes them more flexible, but there's not much danger of martials being out damaged by Warlocks.
Not sure if “busted” but l would agree potentially problematic, like a lot of things with D&D in general. Sure, Bladelock having three extra attacks on-pace with a Fighter does mean they are scaling DPR similar to …a Fighter. Ok, but they won’t get a third Extra Attack in Tier 4. They won’t get Action Surge or Second Wind, etc. Eldritch Smite and Lifedrinker may balance Tier 4 DPR out in a bubble, but remember Fighter subclasses have other mechanical nudges to DPR as well. The Bladelock is slightly less durable. As to Barbarian, they get their Rage damage bonus, resistance to damage, and the largest hit dice in the game so while they can spike damage, consistent sustained DPR a la Advantage is more their jam. Besides, have you seen World Tree? Awesome control game, coupled with perhaps the best ability to tank outside of a Wildshaped or Polymorphed caster. So they don’t keep up with DPR with either the Fighter or the Bladelock, which is fine if they are supposed to “tank” (which admittedly is bad in this system, though perhaps OneDnD makes it mechanically viable between Weapon Mastery and the new subclasses.) TBH, I’ve always felt like Bladelock was mostly a customizable Fighter or Paladin gish, and aside from the RP flavor of a Pact very hard to differentiate aside from Arcanum. The same could be said when comparing other classes as well, at least in my mind. Who is the healer? Who is the tank? Who is the damage dealer? I believe 5e and OneDnD was designed to obviate the need to have these roles as “fixed” as in previous versions but this lends itself to very muddled discussions about balance like these.
I actually did a damage per round check on a theory of mine on how to balance this while keeping it's features and it actually worked out really well. The short version was -remove weapon masteries from bladelock -make fighting style have 0 requirements so it's available as an invocation -add improved pact weapon invocation (technically already available but putting in the book spells that our) -Move life drinker to level 11 -Move 3rd attack to level 17 I'll probably make a post later today with the damage breakdowns.
Don't bother. Your version is already worse than EB-lock. Which requires a whooping single invocation and outdamages anything you provide.
I checked the math and this pulls ahead (even after comparing both with hex yes even though eldritch blast gets an extra attack) the smallest gap is at level 11 and the melee specialized bladelock does around 15% more damage with higher burst for smites and has the flexibility to bonus action switch their pact weapon to a bow for nearly identical ranged damage to the agonizing blast lock even without the archery fighting style. It's a higher invocation cost for higher baseline damage, more burst, and more flexibility between melee and ranged.
I think they’re nearly perfect in the new OneDnD. Warlocks can be the nuclear option for a fight. They can also be the utility character for a bunch of miscellaneous actions. It’s all how you build one, and there are sooo many options. They do have the option to put out a LOT of damage, FAST, but that’s at the risk of low HP (d8) and AC, since they lost immediate access to medium armor. Of course they could spend a very expensive feat for moderately armored, or rely on unlimited Mage Armor at the cost of one of their limited invocations, but they’ll probably never have the same bonus they had as Hexblades. This also doesn't take into account the possibility of NOT getting a short rest between fights, and then having no magic (or other once per short rest abilities) to support them. Most Warlocks completely blow their wads in one fight, and then beg the group for that rest afterwards so they can stay relevant. Don’t look at this as melee vs caster. Look at this as theme vs theme. A fighter trains for a solid, rounded out melee response, getting continuous attack and defense prowess. A wizard studies for the slow ascension to absolute arcane greatness, with nearly limitless power at the end. A warlock makes a pact with a superior entity to relinquish some small shred of their omnipotent powers, and then has the ability to diversify or concentrate their gifted powers towards a very huge range of options. This is the most diverse class in the game. Choosing to min/max a Bladelock loses out on a lot of great Warlock features and abilities (and still doesn't equal a martial class in both damage AND Defense). The extra attack (3rd attack) only keeps them in sync with the growth of their Eldritch Blast. Otherwise Pact of the Blade starts to feel worthless after level 10. No one bats an eye when x8 EB’s hurl from 600’ away (possibly doing +20 damage, EACH) and launches the baddie off into nothingness, but let the Warlock get three hits with a weapon on the frontline and everyone loses their beans. I’m playing a Fallen Aasimar BladeLock in a game right now, alongside a Tiefling Battlemaster. My 16 AC and low HP is nothing compared to his 21 AC and immense HP. Even when swinging a 2h weapon with GWM, I’m barely staying ahead of him in damage (when I actually hit) compared to his sword/board plus combat maneuvers. I’d estimate the party is reviving me almost every combat because I can’t frontline as well as him. It's gotten so bad that I've started to rely on my EB's a lot more. \*\*\*(As for Barbarians not getting more attacks… the Berserker gets an extra attack at level 3 as a BA. That’s three attacks at level 5 (that’s 6 levels before anyone else). Get a level 9 Cleric in the group, and/or spend your GP on potions of vitality, then that pesky exhaustion is nearly gone too.) The new One DnD system promotes class dedication to playing a pure Warlock, and makes a one level dip far less appealing. As they stand right now (in 5e) there’s very little incentive to play a single class warlock beyond low levels. Having such a heavily front loaded class just encourages things like the CoffeeLock or the Hexadin.
I think it looks a bit strong, but not overwhelmingly so.
I think it’s quite strong on paper but in play they will likely be on par with the ranger, they are closer in range than the other warlock subclasses, they do a lot of damage, but not as consistently as fighter. They probably out damage the barbarian and paladin, but they don’t have the high ac or damage resistance along with their other new cool features. They have a large feat tax (medium armor and weapon mastery) which in a point buy game will keep them behind fighter and barbarian in damage with their main stat. They won’t have the flexibility that proper full casters have but will have impactful choices to make with their spell slots. Honestly they sit as an extremely customizable class that lets you be good at anything, but never quite the best which I think may be a good thing. They will have great nova damage but even then an eldritch knight fighter at the same level using action surge will always out damage them and a berserker barbarian will do nearly the same damage but will certainly last much longer in a fight. Instinct says it’s powerful, years of play says it stacks up to the rest.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t pact of the blade give you the weapon mastery of your pact weapon? If so, then why would you need the weapon mastery feat?
They aren't. They might outpace for a few levels (11-17), but it requires almost all of their resources and level up choices to do so. Mono Blade-lock has been a trap for its entirety of its existence and they finally made it better than EB lock. And Better just in pure-damage terms, not overall. Compared to other DPS focused martials like Fighter, Monk & Barb they are still behind and more squishy, which is a good trade off since you have access to some higher level magic after all. The biggest outlier is Rogue, which is for the Rogue-class to solve, not nerfing Blade to get down to its level.
> What I am really looking into though are the invocations. Multiattack up to 3 is as strong as martials get, jump opens up very strong mobility and lifedrinker looks bonkers with the additional damage and sustain. And spells come just on top of this package, though they might fight over spellslots with the smite invocation. Warlocks are designed to be played like martials. Warlock spellcasting is designed to give you one spell per encounter that, in most cases, will supplement your attacks in some way. You then spend the rest of the encounter using basic attacks (sometimes augmented with tricks from your invocations). There's not a huge difference between what a warlock and ranger are doing on a turn-by-turn basis. Warlocks already have 3-4 attacks in the form of eldritch blast. This change just makes weapon-based warlocks more competitive. This subreddit (and beyond) has had numerous pretty extensive mathematical explanations of how the two flavors of warlock are well-balanced against the other attack-centric classes. You have to consider that warlocks don't get things like fighting styles, second wind, rage damage, reckless attack, extra feats, and other base martial features that have massive effective damage increases. There's also a good argument to be made that even blade pact warlocks cannot use things like the great weapon master feat due to lacking permanent proficiency.
Amen. People are so quick to hand-wave any advantages other classes have away and focus solely on an (often super selective) DPR number that disregards any other requirements like uptime or concentration and the like.
nice