How does everyone feel about the feat and spell changes for 2024?
I'll start out with Sentinel. It seems like the change from "make an attack" to "hit with an attack" will make it rather unpopular. At this point my party is made up of several high AC players. Our DM doesn't seem to target the squishies more often. One of us flies and hasn't been targeted much either. The word attack negates every spell that requires a save as well and doesn't trigger the OA. This was always the case. My DM noted, the last time we played, that the word "creature" is there as well. There is no definition in the 2014 rules. But things like constructs would not trigger the OA. Has this feat been nerfed?
Dual wielder should have kept the +1 to AC. You are holding 2 weapons. That should give you some protection, shielding, from attacks. Also, you can only use one light and one melee weapon now. Dual wielder was always inferior to other damage-based feats. I think just wielding a 2-handed weapon would out gun this feat at some point, at level 5? Now, Great weapon master will add your PB without a penalty.
Shillelagh. I noticed they got rid of "weapon becomes magical". The new damage die increases at certain levels are overpowered in my opinion. At most it should be a D10 at level 5 one-handed. The fact that WotC never addressed swinging a quarterstaff with two hands using Shillelagh is interesting. I said in another thread that if they would allow the Polearm master OA to be set to a D8, I would be happy with that. How many fighters, barbarians, and paladins will be running around with a QS or club and a shield? I am, combined with Pam.
Witch bolt should have changed. They should have made a roll necessary for the bonus action. In exchange, make the initial target targetable again and/or make a different target targetable if cover or range breaks the spell and is fixed. Use a BA for those so that the BA attack can't happen on that turn. You have to concentrate on the spell. Every time you're hit you need to roll to keep it up anyway. I do like the fact the "automatic" attack is now a BA.
I'm not a big spell caster, one kill so far with my Warlock. He may never see combat again. What's your opinion on the 2024 feats and spells?
Constructs are creatures, so they can trigger the reaction attack from Sentinel. This has always been the case in 5e D&D.
Witch Bolt seems fine to me. The automatic damage doesn't scale with the spell slot level, and it's relatively easy for the ongoing effect to be broken. Requiring you to roll an attack each time would make it less useful than just casting a cantrip multiple times, especially for Warlocks.
[...] My DM noted, the last time we played, that the word "creature" is there as well. There is no definition in the 2014 rules. But things like constructs would not trigger the OA. Has this feat been nerfed? [...]
wagnarokkr answered this, but there's also a definition in the Rules Glossary, where Construct is listed as one of the different Creature Types in the game.
[...] Shillelagh. I noticed they got rid of "weapon becomes magical". [...]
Well, now if the attack deals damage, it can be Force damage. Also, as mentioned in some threads:
[...] The 2024 rules updates largely removed this type of non-magical-only damage resistance, and features and items that used to make an attack's damage count as magical mostly now change the damage type to either Force or Radiant instead. [...]
Related threads about removing non-magical resistances in monsters:
In regard to Dual Wielder, I think it is stronger than the 2014 version since it allows a character to make three (or more) attacks per round, but it's not immediately obvious that this is how it works. Those potential attacks are:
Those granted by the attack action. Usually one attack, but potentially more with features like Extra Attack or the Warlock's Thirsting Blade.
The extra attack of the Light property which, if you can make use of the Nick weapon Mastery, makes this attack part of the Attack action and not a bonus action.
The bonus action attack granted by the Enhanced Dual Wielding feature of the Dual Wielder feat. Although this is triggered by making an attack with a light weapon, it is not the same thing as the extra attack granted by the Light weapon property.
I also think you're absolutely right that using a 2-handed weapon would (maybe still does) outclass two weapon fighting if it weren't for the pretty specific interaction between Nick and Enhanced Dual Wielding.
@wagnarokkr I should have been more specific, instead of using "construct". Floating lutes were used in one battle. I don't know if a lute is a construct. One of them attacked an ally and I was told I couldn't use the AoO on it. I asked about the lute and the enemy who cast it and didn't get a ruling.
Here's what I was planning for my Warlock. 1st turn would be Witch bolt, followed by the Bonus action WB attack. Is that possible under the rules? I think 2014 and 2024 say you can't use the BA until the next turn. All other turns, barring complications, would be Eldritch blast and then BA WB. There are only 2 BA cantrips in the game. I'm not sure what cantrips you can just keep casting w/ your BA. Again, you are already concentrating on WB. Having 2 other ways to cancel it seems unfair. I am trying to make it less easy to break. I wasn't clear there. Getting rid of those and rolling to hit seems like a decent compromise. If I ever play him again, I will make that offer to my DM.
@Tarodnet We are still running 2014 rules so no definition for "creatures" exists. Does force damage make a weapon magical? They did have both "makes the weapon magical" and the force damage option in the 2014 description, redundant or on purpose?
@El_Jefe You'd have to take the two-weapon fighting style feat to add a damage mod to the bonus attack. Plus, the style says you have to use a light weapon to add that mod. Nick does not say that can add the mod to it. It's may not be as powerful as some may think. Although I think the feat might override the style, otherwise there's a conflict here... Maybe you can't add your mod to either the Nick or the BA.
@Tarodnet We are still running 2014 rules so no definition for "creatures" exists.
Well, they were listed among the creature types in the 2014 MM as well (page 6)
Does force damage make a weapon magical?
I don't think so. Just to say, I got your point from the beginning, but I wanted to bring up one possible reason for the change.
They did have both "makes the weapon magical" and the force damage option in the 2014 description, redundant or on purpose?
Is that right? This is the 2014 spell's description:
The wood of a club or quarterstaff you are holding is imbued with nature's power. For the duration, you can use your spellcasting ability instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls of melee attacks using that weapon, and the weapon's damage die becomes a d8. The weapon also becomes magical, if it isn't already. The spell ends if you cast it again or if you let go of the weapon.
@El_Jefe You'd have to take the two-weapon fighting style feat to add a damage mod to the bonus attack. Plus, the style says you have to use a light weapon to add that mod. Nick does not say that can add the mod to it. It's may not be as powerful as some may think. Although I think the feat might override the style, otherwise there's a conflict here... Maybe you can't add your mod to either the Nick or the BA.
I know this reply wasn't for me, but I like the following summary from Plaguescarred if it helps:
To me the investments are consequent when wielding two weapons;
Unitiated Wielder: 1 attack with a Light weapon as Attack Action, 1 extra attack with a different Light weapon as a Bonus Action with no damage mod.
Nick Master: 1 attack with a Light weapon and 1 extra attack with a different Light weapon as Attack Action with no damage mod.
Two-Weapon Fighter: 1 attack with a Light weapon, 1 extra attack with a different Light weapon as a Bonus Action with no damage mod.
Dual Wielder: 1 attack with a Light weapon as Attack Action, 1 extra attack with a different non-Two Handed melee weapon as a Bonus Action with no damage mod.
Nick Master Two-Weapon Fighter: 1 attack with a Light weapon as Attack Action and 1 extra attack with a different Light weapon as Attack Action with no damage mod.
Dual Wielder Two-Weapon Fighter: 1 attack with a Light weapon as Attack Action, 1 extra attack with a different non-Two Handed melee weapon as a Bonus Action with no damage mod.
Dual Wielder Nick Mastery: 1 attack with a Light weapon and 1 extra attack with a different Light weapon as Attack Action with no damage mod., 1 extra attack with a different non-Two Handed melee weapon as a Bonus Action with no damage mod.
Two-Weapon Fighter Dual Wielder Nick Master: 1 attack with a Light weapon and 1 extra attack with a different Light weapon as Attack Action, 1 extra attack with a different non-Two Handed melee weapon as a Bonus Action with no damage mod.
Already answered above but Constructs have always been valid targets of the Sentinel feat, uncertain how anybody could be confused on this. the easiest way to determine if something is a creature is, does it have a stat block? If it has a stat block then it's a creature. Sentinel was one of the most potentially overpowered feats in 2014, more so in the Sentinel + Polearm Master combination it was infamous for.
As for Sentinel, in 2014 it would work hit or miss, but only so long as the target in question didn't also have the sentinel feat, so while it is now only against attacks that hit, it is now irrelevant if the target hit also has the sentinel feat or not.
--- Dual Wielder
is now a half-feat, meaning you many builds cam get their +4 Dexterity at level 4 (increasing your AC, Dex saves and Initiative) while still getting the benefits of Dual Wield. Given how Dual Wielder synergies with Nick, it's very powerful on some classes and builds. Rogue, Ranger, Paladin & Fighter can all potentially benefit from Dual Wielder tho I'd recommend it more for Rogue and Ranger.
--- Shillelagh
Since most magical weapons now deal force, it isn't needed to make the weapon force. Magical weapons are now more used for other class features and feats, for example Pact of the Blade. Since Pact of the Blade only needs a bonus action to pact bind a weapon now, what would happen if a caster used Shillelagh and then used Pact of the Blade on it? Sure it seems pointless but these changes avoid these types of weird issues that were needless. Overall this is a better change.
--- Witch Bolt
Well for a few early levels it's worth using, later game... it's just a concentration hog, not really worth using.
Really, there are better improved spells that even Witch Bolt, lest people not forget about True Strike that was in a worse position than Witch Bolt in 2014 and now is in a better position than Witch Bolt in 2024. There are legitimate builds that reliant on True Strike now, heck it's a great way to build a College of Valor bard for example.
---- Overall
Mechanically 2024 is better than 2014, flavour wise... 2014 is better than 2024. Which is to say that 2024 is the healthier option but it tastes bland while 2014 is chocolate, not healthy but it just has a better flavour to it. That is my opinions of 2014 vs. 2024. Class balance was definitely more off in 2014 but classes were a bit more distinct while in 2024 that has lessened to some degree (except Ranger, who is behind), most of the classes now feel a bit closer together, spell casters still end out stronger but there has been some effort to reduce the gap.
Just to add on to the last part: I agree that 2014 had more flavor and I feel a little bad for those just starting DnD with 2024 because they have to dig a little harder (and be told that they can) to find the 50 years of flavor history to cannibalize from if 2024 is a little too bland. I think this is most obvious in the Monster Manual. They shifted what type of information they give for each of the monsters; pretty considerably, in some cases. This is not a problem if you remember a lot of the "monster lore" from previous editions, or even 2014, but there's a lot of past information that is simply not there if 2024 is the only book you have.
Most of the feats are objectively better because you get an ASI with them. Yes, the sentinel actions were better before, but I didn't think it was strong before, too situational.
TWF is different now, as already discussed. Again, you got a +1 to Str/Dex.
Witch Bolt is fine, hardly over-tuned, it's concentration, so using it is a huge opportunity cost. At least it's useful now.
Shillelagh is fine as well, it isn't OP. The main problem is you can't use it with the magic swords you find, so it needs to get stronger as you level. Magic weapon doesn't matter any more, mobs don't have immunity to non-magic weapons so this whole idea is gone.
PAM is much better, tho if you use Shillelagh to use your casting stat it's mostly a wasted ASI. It still allows the bogus 1-handed use with a shield (a quarterstaff in one had is just a sorry spear).
I categorically disagree with those who talk about taste in 2014, compared to the previous editions, even the 4th edition, what we got in the 5th edition (2014) is tasteless and very problematic.
Since most magical weapons now deal force, it isn't needed to make the weapon force. Magical weapons are now more used for other class features and feats, for example Pact of the Blade. Since Pact of the Blade only needs a bonus action to pact bind a weapon now, what would happen if a caster used Shillelagh and then used Pact of the Blade on it? Sure it seems pointless but these changes avoid these types of weird issues that were needless. Overall this is a better change.
Shillelagh doesn't make the weapon magical, the way that Magic Weapon makes the weapon magical, or that a Shadow Blade is magical. As such, I would rule that a mundane club or quarterstaff with Shillelagh cast on it wouldn't qualify to be bonded as a Pact of the Blade weapon.
It's also mostly unnecessary; Shillelagh doesn't have the "...worth 1SP or more" requirement that spells like True Strike or Booming Bladehave. So conjure a Club or Quarterstaff with the Pact of the Blade Invocation, and keep it around. Then, if you want the higher base damage at higher levels, the option to use Force Damage, (or if the way you acquired Shillelagh provides a superior Spellcasting Modifier), when combat starts, cast Shillelagh on it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
🎵I'm on top of the world, looking down on creation, wreaking death and devastation with my mind.
As the power that I've found erupts freely from the ground, I will cackle from the top of the world.🎵
I categorically disagree with those who talk about taste in 2014, compared to the previous editions, even the 4th edition, what we got in the 5th edition (2014) is tasteless and very problematic.
This is a comparison of 2014 to 2024, it's not regarding the longer duration of D&D, I'd agree with you that flavor in 5E has been reduced overall but further so going into 2024.
It's also mostly unnecessary; Shillelagh doesn't have the "...worth 1SP or more" requirement that spells like True Strike or Booming Bladehave. So conjure a Club or Quarterstaff with the Pact of the Blade Invocation, and keep it around.
Nothing in pact of the blade says the conjured item has a value or 1SP or less, it just says you conjure a version of that base weapon, Club and Quarterstaff have values and so a pact weapon would "retain" that value.
If you follow the rules on casting components strictly (and I know that many don't), then Shillelagh is much less practical. Unless you're a druid or ranger, your other hand needs to be empty in order for you to cast the spell.
It's also mostly unnecessary; Shillelagh doesn't have the "...worth 1SP or more" requirement that spells like True Strike or Booming Bladehave. So conjure a Club or Quarterstaff with the Pact of the Blade Invocation, and keep it around.
Nothing in pact of the blade says the conjured item has a value or 1SP or less, it just says you conjure a version of that base weapon, Club and Quarterstaff have values and so a pact weapon would "retain" that value.
While admittedly not strictly defined in the PHB, I would consider "worth" on an object to be an abstraction based "What would an average person who wants the object, in full knowledge of its capabilities and properties, but is not in immediate pressing need of the object, be willing to pay for it?" and consider the prices in the PHB and the DMG to be set on that basis.
It's certainly possible to acquire the items for more than that amount, or less than that amount, or even free in play, but that doesn't change the "worth." A diamond you got from robbing a caravan is still worth 300gp even if you didn't buy it, as long as it is a perfectly good, perfectly real, normal diamond. Similarly, just because I'm willing to give you 10,000 gp right now to get a tiny diamond stud off you right now because I need to cast the Revivify spell on the Archduke, that doesn't automatically make that tiny diamond a valid spell component.
And in that light, I would not consider a Pact-conjured weapon to be worth even 1SP, because unlike the weapon you might buy at Laylee's Quarterstaff Club, if I give you that Pact-conjured club, it will disappear in one minute if you take it more than five feet away from me. And a normal person who knew that, wouldn't pay 1SP for that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
🎵I'm on top of the world, looking down on creation, wreaking death and devastation with my mind.
As the power that I've found erupts freely from the ground, I will cackle from the top of the world.🎵
It's also worth pointing out, I think, that there's little reason for the 1 sp restriction to exist at all if it weren't intended to exclude things like pact weapons, Shadow Blade, etc.
While admittedly not strictly defined in the PHB, I would consider "worth" on an object to be an abstraction based "What would an average person who wants the object, in full knowledge of its capabilities and properties, but is not in immediate pressing need of the object, be willing to pay for it?" and consider the prices in the PHB and the DMG to be set on that basis.
It's certainly possible to acquire the items for more than that amount, or less than that amount, or even free in play, but that doesn't change the "worth." A diamond you got from robbing a caravan is still worth 300gp even if you didn't buy it, as long as it is a perfectly good, perfectly real, normal diamond. Similarly, just because I'm willing to give you 10,000 gp right now to get a tiny diamond stud off you right now because I need to cast the Revivify spell on the Archduke, that doesn't automatically make that tiny diamond a valid spell component.
And in that light, I would not consider a Pact-conjured weapon to be worth even 1SP, because unlike the weapon you might buy at Laylee's Quarterstaff Club, if I give you that Pact-conjured club, it will disappear in one minute if you take it more than five feet away from me. And a normal person who knew that, wouldn't pay 1SP for that.
The problem is, there is no rules that at all says it works this way, the rules say you conjure the weapon and we know that the base weapon has a value, the pact weapon does too. So the RAW here is pretty simple, now you can say that you do not follow that and homebrew your own system for value and that is fine, I am just going over what the rules actually contain, which is not always inline with common sense.
However, another way I would say that pact weapons in fact do have value, let's imagine you sold something extremely expensive like a Holy Avenger to a King and let's say you sold it for 100,000G. The king misses a very small mark on this sword, after all it's not exactly a common weapon to be coming across. Well a day later you smash a sapphire, why? Because you used that Sapphire to cast Drawmij's Instant Summons on the Holy Avenger previously. Don't worry about the why of this, the simple question is, does the Holy Avenger have no value? It's going to disappear later. Well this is the same as a pact weapon, except a pact weapon has even less signs that it is going to disappear. Ultimately the pact weapon will disappear after 1 minute of you moving more than 5 foot away from it but until that point, it appears just the same as the weapon you conjured, so if you conjured a greatsword, it is a greatsword and a merchant buying it would purchase it for the same amount of money as a greatsword...
does every merchant know about these tricks? Probably not, A king would probably have a diviner or some other type of court magician look at the Holy Avenger given the value in question and they might detect the deception however the average merchant is not going to be dealing with warlocks so often that merchandise disappears well, and it would be obvious who did it, so unless you have disguise self up, you'll be on wanted posters everywhere. Perhaps one or two warlocks here or there might have done it but really it's not the type of petty crime that Warlocks would get into normally.
The problem is, there is no rules that at all says it works this way, the rules say you conjure the weapon and we know that the base weapon has a value, the pact weapon does too. So the RAW here is pretty simple, now you can say that you do not follow that and homebrew your own system for value and that is fine, I am just going over what the rules actually contain, which is not always inline with common sense.
Unless the effect that conjures something explicitly says it has a value I'm not sure I'd give it one.
The problem is, there is no rules that at all says it works this way, the rules say you conjure the weapon and we know that the base weapon has a value, the pact weapon does too. So the RAW here is pretty simple, now you can say that you do not follow that and homebrew your own system for value and that is fine, I am just going over what the rules actually contain, which is not always inline with common sense.
Unless the effect that conjures something explicitly says it has a value I'm not sure I'd give it one.
If a summon/conjure spell doesn't say it gives the summon/conjured creature HP, would you not give it HP? There is simply no reason to assume that value is not inherited in the same way. Most do state it but Find Familiar doesn't, so does a cat from Find Familiar have HP? There is no rule that says it doesn't. Ultimately in anything like this, if it's referring to a specific object/creature, you assume everything is assumed from that object/creature unless the spell/interaction specifies other wise, Pact of the Blade does not specify otherwise for value.
Now if we were talking about a spell like Shadow Blade, which creates a weapon which is a specific weapon that lacks a value/cost, then you have a conjured weapon with no value, however Pact weapon simply states you summon "a Simple or Martial Melee weapon of your choice", if you summon a greatsword, you summon a greatsword. A greatsword has an associated cost, it has a value, nothing in pact weapon says it does not have a value.
It's also worth pointing out, I think, that there's little reason for the 1 sp restriction to exist at all if it weren't intended to exclude things like pact weapons, Shadow Blade, etc.
According to Jeremy Crawford, the reason was to force people to use and actual weapon and not a component pouch or spell focus. See the following tweets.
How does everyone feel about the feat and spell changes for 2024?
I'll start out with Sentinel. It seems like the change from "make an attack" to "hit with an attack" will make it rather unpopular. At this point my party is made up of several high AC players. Our DM doesn't seem to target the squishies more often. One of us flies and hasn't been targeted much either. The word attack negates every spell that requires a save as well and doesn't trigger the OA. This was always the case. My DM noted, the last time we played, that the word "creature" is there as well. There is no definition in the 2014 rules. But things like constructs would not trigger the OA. Has this feat been nerfed?
Dual wielder should have kept the +1 to AC. You are holding 2 weapons. That should give you some protection, shielding, from attacks. Also, you can only use one light and one melee weapon now. Dual wielder was always inferior to other damage-based feats. I think just wielding a 2-handed weapon would out gun this feat at some point, at level 5? Now, Great weapon master will add your PB without a penalty.
Shillelagh. I noticed they got rid of "weapon becomes magical". The new damage die increases at certain levels are overpowered in my opinion. At most it should be a D10 at level 5 one-handed. The fact that WotC never addressed swinging a quarterstaff with two hands using Shillelagh is interesting. I said in another thread that if they would allow the Polearm master OA to be set to a D8, I would be happy with that. How many fighters, barbarians, and paladins will be running around with a QS or club and a shield? I am, combined with Pam.
Witch bolt should have changed. They should have made a roll necessary for the bonus action. In exchange, make the initial target targetable again and/or make a different target targetable if cover or range breaks the spell and is fixed. Use a BA for those so that the BA attack can't happen on that turn. You have to concentrate on the spell. Every time you're hit you need to roll to keep it up anyway. I do like the fact the "automatic" attack is now a BA.
I'm not a big spell caster, one kill so far with my Warlock. He may never see combat again. What's your opinion on the 2024 feats and spells?
We are all in danger!
Constructs are creatures, so they can trigger the reaction attack from Sentinel. This has always been the case in 5e D&D.
Witch Bolt seems fine to me. The automatic damage doesn't scale with the spell slot level, and it's relatively easy for the ongoing effect to be broken. Requiring you to roll an attack each time would make it less useful than just casting a cantrip multiple times, especially for Warlocks.
pronouns: he/she/they
wagnarokkr answered this, but there's also a definition in the Rules Glossary, where Construct is listed as one of the different Creature Types in the game.
Well, now if the attack deals damage, it can be Force damage. Also, as mentioned in some threads:
Related threads about removing non-magical resistances in monsters:
- Opinions about removal of resistances and immunities from 2024 Monster Manual?
- Question about monster ressitance in 2024
Regarding Witch Bolt, this recent thread has interesting takes on it: Is Witch Bolt Overpowered? [2024]
In regard to Dual Wielder, I think it is stronger than the 2014 version since it allows a character to make three (or more) attacks per round, but it's not immediately obvious that this is how it works. Those potential attacks are:
I also think you're absolutely right that using a 2-handed weapon would (maybe still does) outclass two weapon fighting if it weren't for the pretty specific interaction between Nick and Enhanced Dual Wielding.
@wagnarokkr I should have been more specific, instead of using "construct". Floating lutes were used in one battle. I don't know if a lute is a construct. One of them attacked an ally and I was told I couldn't use the AoO on it. I asked about the lute and the enemy who cast it and didn't get a ruling.
Here's what I was planning for my Warlock. 1st turn would be Witch bolt, followed by the Bonus action WB attack. Is that possible under the rules? I think 2014 and 2024 say you can't use the BA until the next turn. All other turns, barring complications, would be Eldritch blast and then BA WB. There are only 2 BA cantrips in the game. I'm not sure what cantrips you can just keep casting w/ your BA. Again, you are already concentrating on WB. Having 2 other ways to cancel it seems unfair. I am trying to make it less easy to break. I wasn't clear there. Getting rid of those and rolling to hit seems like a decent compromise. If I ever play him again, I will make that offer to my DM.
@Tarodnet We are still running 2014 rules so no definition for "creatures" exists. Does force damage make a weapon magical? They did have both "makes the weapon magical" and the force damage option in the 2014 description, redundant or on purpose?
@El_Jefe You'd have to take the two-weapon fighting style feat to add a damage mod to the bonus attack. Plus, the style says you have to use a light weapon to add that mod. Nick does not say that can add the mod to it. It's may not be as powerful as some may think. Although I think the feat might override the style, otherwise there's a conflict here... Maybe you can't add your mod to either the Nick or the BA.
We are all in danger!
Well, they were listed among the creature types in the 2014 MM as well (page 6)
I don't think so. Just to say, I got your point from the beginning, but I wanted to bring up one possible reason for the change.
Is that right? This is the 2014 spell's description:
I know this reply wasn't for me, but I like the following summary from Plaguescarred if it helps:
--- Sentinel
Already answered above but Constructs have always been valid targets of the Sentinel feat, uncertain how anybody could be confused on this. the easiest way to determine if something is a creature is, does it have a stat block? If it has a stat block then it's a creature. Sentinel was one of the most potentially overpowered feats in 2014, more so in the Sentinel + Polearm Master combination it was infamous for.
As for Sentinel, in 2014 it would work hit or miss, but only so long as the target in question didn't also have the sentinel feat, so while it is now only against attacks that hit, it is now irrelevant if the target hit also has the sentinel feat or not.
--- Dual Wielder
is now a half-feat, meaning you many builds cam get their +4 Dexterity at level 4 (increasing your AC, Dex saves and Initiative) while still getting the benefits of Dual Wield. Given how Dual Wielder synergies with Nick, it's very powerful on some classes and builds. Rogue, Ranger, Paladin & Fighter can all potentially benefit from Dual Wielder tho I'd recommend it more for Rogue and Ranger.
--- Shillelagh
Since most magical weapons now deal force, it isn't needed to make the weapon force. Magical weapons are now more used for other class features and feats, for example Pact of the Blade. Since Pact of the Blade only needs a bonus action to pact bind a weapon now, what would happen if a caster used Shillelagh and then used Pact of the Blade on it? Sure it seems pointless but these changes avoid these types of weird issues that were needless. Overall this is a better change.
--- Witch Bolt
Well for a few early levels it's worth using, later game... it's just a concentration hog, not really worth using.
Really, there are better improved spells that even Witch Bolt, lest people not forget about True Strike that was in a worse position than Witch Bolt in 2014 and now is in a better position than Witch Bolt in 2024. There are legitimate builds that reliant on True Strike now, heck it's a great way to build a College of Valor bard for example.
---- Overall
Mechanically 2024 is better than 2014, flavour wise... 2014 is better than 2024. Which is to say that 2024 is the healthier option but it tastes bland while 2014 is chocolate, not healthy but it just has a better flavour to it. That is my opinions of 2014 vs. 2024. Class balance was definitely more off in 2014 but classes were a bit more distinct while in 2024 that has lessened to some degree (except Ranger, who is behind), most of the classes now feel a bit closer together, spell casters still end out stronger but there has been some effort to reduce the gap.
Just to add on to the last part: I agree that 2014 had more flavor and I feel a little bad for those just starting DnD with 2024 because they have to dig a little harder (and be told that they can) to find the 50 years of flavor history to cannibalize from if 2024 is a little too bland. I think this is most obvious in the Monster Manual. They shifted what type of information they give for each of the monsters; pretty considerably, in some cases. This is not a problem if you remember a lot of the "monster lore" from previous editions, or even 2014, but there's a lot of past information that is simply not there if 2024 is the only book you have.
Most of the feats are objectively better because you get an ASI with them. Yes, the sentinel actions were better before, but I didn't think it was strong before, too situational.
TWF is different now, as already discussed. Again, you got a +1 to Str/Dex.
Witch Bolt is fine, hardly over-tuned, it's concentration, so using it is a huge opportunity cost. At least it's useful now.
Shillelagh is fine as well, it isn't OP. The main problem is you can't use it with the magic swords you find, so it needs to get stronger as you level. Magic weapon doesn't matter any more, mobs don't have immunity to non-magic weapons so this whole idea is gone.
PAM is much better, tho if you use Shillelagh to use your casting stat it's mostly a wasted ASI. It still allows the bogus 1-handed use with a shield (a quarterstaff in one had is just a sorry spear).
I categorically disagree with those who talk about taste in 2014, compared to the previous editions, even the 4th edition, what we got in the 5th edition (2014) is tasteless and very problematic.
Shillelagh doesn't make the weapon magical, the way that Magic Weapon makes the weapon magical, or that a Shadow Blade is magical. As such, I would rule that a mundane club or quarterstaff with Shillelagh cast on it wouldn't qualify to be bonded as a Pact of the Blade weapon.
It's also mostly unnecessary; Shillelagh doesn't have the "...worth 1SP or more" requirement that spells like True Strike or Booming Bladehave. So conjure a Club or Quarterstaff with the Pact of the Blade Invocation, and keep it around. Then, if you want the higher base damage at higher levels, the option to use Force Damage, (or if the way you acquired Shillelagh provides a superior Spellcasting Modifier), when combat starts, cast Shillelagh on it.
🎵I'm on top of the world, looking down on creation, wreaking death and devastation with my mind.
As the power that I've found erupts freely from the ground, I will cackle from the top of the world.🎵
Charisma Saving Throw: DC 18, Failure: 20d6 Psychic Damage, Success: Half damage
This is a comparison of 2014 to 2024, it's not regarding the longer duration of D&D, I'd agree with you that flavor in 5E has been reduced overall but further so going into 2024.
2014 Shillelagh does, 2024 does not.
Nothing in pact of the blade says the conjured item has a value or 1SP or less, it just says you conjure a version of that base weapon, Club and Quarterstaff have values and so a pact weapon would "retain" that value.
If you follow the rules on casting components strictly (and I know that many don't), then Shillelagh is much less practical. Unless you're a druid or ranger, your other hand needs to be empty in order for you to cast the spell.
While admittedly not strictly defined in the PHB, I would consider "worth" on an object to be an abstraction based "What would an average person who wants the object, in full knowledge of its capabilities and properties, but is not in immediate pressing need of the object, be willing to pay for it?" and consider the prices in the PHB and the DMG to be set on that basis.
It's certainly possible to acquire the items for more than that amount, or less than that amount, or even free in play, but that doesn't change the "worth." A diamond you got from robbing a caravan is still worth 300gp even if you didn't buy it, as long as it is a perfectly good, perfectly real, normal diamond. Similarly, just because I'm willing to give you 10,000 gp right now to get a tiny diamond stud off you right now because I need to cast the Revivify spell on the Archduke, that doesn't automatically make that tiny diamond a valid spell component.
(Humorous aside, from Order of the Stick #677, "This never happens to Jiminy Cricket")
And in that light, I would not consider a Pact-conjured weapon to be worth even 1SP, because unlike the weapon you might buy at Laylee's Quarterstaff Club, if I give you that Pact-conjured club, it will disappear in one minute if you take it more than five feet away from me. And a normal person who knew that, wouldn't pay 1SP for that.
🎵I'm on top of the world, looking down on creation, wreaking death and devastation with my mind.
As the power that I've found erupts freely from the ground, I will cackle from the top of the world.🎵
Charisma Saving Throw: DC 18, Failure: 20d6 Psychic Damage, Success: Half damage
It's also worth pointing out, I think, that there's little reason for the 1 sp restriction to exist at all if it weren't intended to exclude things like pact weapons, Shadow Blade, etc.
pronouns: he/she/they
The problem is, there is no rules that at all says it works this way, the rules say you conjure the weapon and we know that the base weapon has a value, the pact weapon does too. So the RAW here is pretty simple, now you can say that you do not follow that and homebrew your own system for value and that is fine, I am just going over what the rules actually contain, which is not always inline with common sense.
However, another way I would say that pact weapons in fact do have value, let's imagine you sold something extremely expensive like a Holy Avenger to a King and let's say you sold it for 100,000G. The king misses a very small mark on this sword, after all it's not exactly a common weapon to be coming across. Well a day later you smash a sapphire, why? Because you used that Sapphire to cast Drawmij's Instant Summons on the Holy Avenger previously. Don't worry about the why of this, the simple question is, does the Holy Avenger have no value? It's going to disappear later. Well this is the same as a pact weapon, except a pact weapon has even less signs that it is going to disappear. Ultimately the pact weapon will disappear after 1 minute of you moving more than 5 foot away from it but until that point, it appears just the same as the weapon you conjured, so if you conjured a greatsword, it is a greatsword and a merchant buying it would purchase it for the same amount of money as a greatsword...
does every merchant know about these tricks? Probably not, A king would probably have a diviner or some other type of court magician look at the Holy Avenger given the value in question and they might detect the deception however the average merchant is not going to be dealing with warlocks so often that merchandise disappears well, and it would be obvious who did it, so unless you have disguise self up, you'll be on wanted posters everywhere. Perhaps one or two warlocks here or there might have done it but really it's not the type of petty crime that Warlocks would get into normally.
Unless the effect that conjures something explicitly says it has a value I'm not sure I'd give it one.
If a summon/conjure spell doesn't say it gives the summon/conjured creature HP, would you not give it HP? There is simply no reason to assume that value is not inherited in the same way. Most do state it but Find Familiar doesn't, so does a cat from Find Familiar have HP? There is no rule that says it doesn't. Ultimately in anything like this, if it's referring to a specific object/creature, you assume everything is assumed from that object/creature unless the spell/interaction specifies other wise, Pact of the Blade does not specify otherwise for value.
Now if we were talking about a spell like Shadow Blade, which creates a weapon which is a specific weapon that lacks a value/cost, then you have a conjured weapon with no value, however Pact weapon simply states you summon "a Simple or Martial Melee weapon of your choice", if you summon a greatsword, you summon a greatsword. A greatsword has an associated cost, it has a value, nothing in pact weapon says it does not have a value.
Sage Advice for 2014: https://www.sageadvice.eu/does-the-monetary-value-of-the-component-now-negate-being-able-to-use-your-pact-of-the-blade-weapon-or-shadow-blade-in-conjunction-with-booming-blade/
I see nothing in 2024 that changes how this works and advice in 2014 was that Pact of the Blade DOES inherit everything, including cost/value.
According to Jeremy Crawford, the reason was to force people to use and actual weapon and not a component pouch or spell focus. See the following tweets.
https://x.com/jeremyecrawford/status/1327125727360245761
https://x.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1326586049888362496
https://x.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1326925328267177984