On the Paladin thing - I'm fine with the language in the UA:
"If a Paladin willfully violates their oath and shows no sign of repentance, the consequences might be more serious. At the DM’s discretion, an impenitent Paladin might be forced to take a more appropriate subclass or even to abandon the class and adopt another one."
I particularly like this because it (a) gives a better default option beyond "Paladin falls and becomes a weak fighter" which is what we got in prior editions/Pathfinder, and (b) it applies just as easily to paladins who rise from an evil subclass into something more honorable or righteous. Oathbreaker meanwhile was very limited in application, only applied in one direction, had restrictive fluff etc. I agree the whole subclass shoulld be excised entirely. If we want to keep the mechanics from it, they should be replaced with a different Oath that better encompasses what it actually does, e.g. Oath of Treachery or something.
I guess my view is that without a patron, there is no pact, and without a pact it's not a warlock. And the pact is an agreement between two parties. Without the second party, it's simply not a warlock.
my expectation is that the patron flavor will come with their "baby pact", but the meat and potatoes will start to come online at level 3 when you start getting your pact boons. I think invocations will slide to 3 as well, so no more 2 levels of warlock for eldritch blast spam shennanigans. If EB is a class feature that scales on warlock level that single EB bolt isn't going to be nearly as impressive as it can be now scaling on character level, which means less hex pops. I think that change alone will solve /most/ power game moves centered on warlock, and I am nearly certain they will do that.
I think warlock 1 will remain basically what it is now, with eldritch blast becoming a class feature that scales on your warlock level rather than a cantrip scaling on your class level. I'm torn on whether I think the features like healing light for celestial or dark one's blessing make it as part of the baby pact, but I think they will be. I don't think EB stands up on it's own as a feature definitive enough. Without /something/ a warlock 1/2 would just be a weak rogue or ranger. Expanded spells, probably come online at level 3 along with invocations. That will make me sad for celestial (I loved healing with my celestial lock at low levels), but it is what it is.
The true hope that I have here is that hexblade completely goes away and most of those features are rolled into blade pact. Blade pact is an awesome idea but outside some edge builds practically requires hexblade. Being able to do some sort of melee other patron warlock I think would be really spicy and fun.
They might mirror the ranger a bit more and get Hex concentration free which is a pretty snazzy perk at level 1. Though I did suggest in my play test its too good for level 1 if they are trying to dissuade dips. And I also hope hexblade goes away and is rolled into pact of the blade, it felt like a patch and you sort of felt locked into hex blade if you wanted to actually get value out of pact of the blade unless you were going for some off kilter build.
Honestly the need to run Hexblade seems overstated imo. It's a little more MAD to run blade with a different patron, but if you're planning to focus on making weapon attacks you won't need as much CHA as opposed to STR or DEX, there's plenty of Warlock spell options that don't use your casting stat (like Hex), and most of the support comes from invocations. The only one of those related to CHA also has a level 12 requirement, which is a bit late in the game for what I always hear is the most common level range. Hexblade allows for a bit more optimization, sure, but it's not hard to put together a fair melee build without it. Plus, you can already get Medium Armor and Shield proficiency at level 1 with your background feat in 1D&D, so I expect fewer gish builds will be handing them out going forward.
I agree that it /is/ overstated and that you /can/ build a blade lock without hexblade, you're putting yourself behind the 8 ball to an extent. There's very little that a traditional bladelock can do that a hexblade can't do better. I think the better solution would have been adding the hex blade features to blade pact rather than making hexblade a patron. I don't know why they went the path they did, but my hope is that the roll hexblade into blade pact and be done with it. That's just a personal opinion though
Eh, honestly the biggest support Hexblade gives is its spell list, which doesn't really lend itself to rolling into a core class feature. Beyond that, Hex Warrior is nice but hardly essential. Nearly every other gish or half caster build in the game gets by with separate stats for casting and weapon attacks, so swapping that is nice but not make-or-break. Likewise, they've already got answers for the profs and 1D&D already makes it easy for any build to pick them up at level 1 now. Plus, even with Hexblades getting a bunch of the Smite spells, there's also a smite invocation that comes out ahead on damage and includes a pretty nice no save rider effect. Yes, Hexblade will probably the most optimized bladelock build possible, but imo I think the performance bump is a bit overstated.
Most other gishes are not casters built around a consistent DPR/control from a cantrip model.
I guess my view is that without a patron, there is no pact, and without a pact it's not a warlock. And the pact is an agreement between two parties. Without the second party, it's simply not a warlock.
my expectation is that the patron flavor will come with their "baby pact", but the meat and potatoes will start to come online at level 3 when you start getting your pact boons. I think invocations will slide to 3 as well, so no more 2 levels of warlock for eldritch blast spam shennanigans. If EB is a class feature that scales on warlock level that single EB bolt isn't going to be nearly as impressive as it can be now scaling on character level, which means less hex pops. I think that change alone will solve /most/ power game moves centered on warlock, and I am nearly certain they will do that.
I think warlock 1 will remain basically what it is now, with eldritch blast becoming a class feature that scales on your warlock level rather than a cantrip scaling on your class level. I'm torn on whether I think the features like healing light for celestial or dark one's blessing make it as part of the baby pact, but I think they will be. I don't think EB stands up on it's own as a feature definitive enough. Without /something/ a warlock 1/2 would just be a weak rogue or ranger. Expanded spells, probably come online at level 3 along with invocations. That will make me sad for celestial (I loved healing with my celestial lock at low levels), but it is what it is.
The true hope that I have here is that hexblade completely goes away and most of those features are rolled into blade pact. Blade pact is an awesome idea but outside some edge builds practically requires hexblade. Being able to do some sort of melee other patron warlock I think would be really spicy and fun.
They might mirror the ranger a bit more and get Hex concentration free which is a pretty snazzy perk at level 1. Though I did suggest in my play test its too good for level 1 if they are trying to dissuade dips. And I also hope hexblade goes away and is rolled into pact of the blade, it felt like a patch and you sort of felt locked into hex blade if you wanted to actually get value out of pact of the blade unless you were going for some off kilter build.
Honestly the need to run Hexblade seems overstated imo. It's a little more MAD to run blade with a different patron, but if you're planning to focus on making weapon attacks you won't need as much CHA as opposed to STR or DEX, there's plenty of Warlock spell options that don't use your casting stat (like Hex), and most of the support comes from invocations. The only one of those related to CHA also has a level 12 requirement, which is a bit late in the game for what I always hear is the most common level range. Hexblade allows for a bit more optimization, sure, but it's not hard to put together a fair melee build without it. Plus, you can already get Medium Armor and Shield proficiency at level 1 with your background feat in 1D&D, so I expect fewer gish builds will be handing them out going forward.
I agree that it /is/ overstated and that you /can/ build a blade lock without hexblade, you're putting yourself behind the 8 ball to an extent. There's very little that a traditional bladelock can do that a hexblade can't do better. I think the better solution would have been adding the hex blade features to blade pact rather than making hexblade a patron. I don't know why they went the path they did, but my hope is that the roll hexblade into blade pact and be done with it. That's just a personal opinion though
Eh, honestly the biggest support Hexblade gives is its spell list, which doesn't really lend itself to rolling into a core class feature. Beyond that, Hex Warrior is nice but hardly essential. Nearly every other gish or half caster build in the game gets by with separate stats for casting and weapon attacks, so swapping that is nice but not make-or-break. Likewise, they've already got answers for the profs and 1D&D already makes it easy for any build to pick them up at level 1 now. Plus, even with Hexblades getting a bunch of the Smite spells, there's also a smite invocation that comes out ahead on damage and includes a pretty nice no save rider effect. Yes, Hexblade will probably the most optimized bladelock build possible, but imo I think the performance bump is a bit overstated.
Are you kidding? Do you realize how many Paladins and Swords Bards dip 1 level into Hexblade just for Hex Warrior?!? 2 levels if they want Agonizing Blast for a ranged option. It’s so common it’s practically a meme.
Which again falls into the area of optimizing, not necessity.
Who brought up “necessity,” we’re talking about how the subclass is actually used.
I guess my view is that without a patron, there is no pact, and without a pact it's not a warlock. And the pact is an agreement between two parties. Without the second party, it's simply not a warlock.
my expectation is that the patron flavor will come with their "baby pact", but the meat and potatoes will start to come online at level 3 when you start getting your pact boons. I think invocations will slide to 3 as well, so no more 2 levels of warlock for eldritch blast spam shennanigans. If EB is a class feature that scales on warlock level that single EB bolt isn't going to be nearly as impressive as it can be now scaling on character level, which means less hex pops. I think that change alone will solve /most/ power game moves centered on warlock, and I am nearly certain they will do that.
I think warlock 1 will remain basically what it is now, with eldritch blast becoming a class feature that scales on your warlock level rather than a cantrip scaling on your class level. I'm torn on whether I think the features like healing light for celestial or dark one's blessing make it as part of the baby pact, but I think they will be. I don't think EB stands up on it's own as a feature definitive enough. Without /something/ a warlock 1/2 would just be a weak rogue or ranger. Expanded spells, probably come online at level 3 along with invocations. That will make me sad for celestial (I loved healing with my celestial lock at low levels), but it is what it is.
The true hope that I have here is that hexblade completely goes away and most of those features are rolled into blade pact. Blade pact is an awesome idea but outside some edge builds practically requires hexblade. Being able to do some sort of melee other patron warlock I think would be really spicy and fun.
They might mirror the ranger a bit more and get Hex concentration free which is a pretty snazzy perk at level 1. Though I did suggest in my play test its too good for level 1 if they are trying to dissuade dips. And I also hope hexblade goes away and is rolled into pact of the blade, it felt like a patch and you sort of felt locked into hex blade if you wanted to actually get value out of pact of the blade unless you were going for some off kilter build.
Honestly the need to run Hexblade seems overstated imo. It's a little more MAD to run blade with a different patron, but if you're planning to focus on making weapon attacks you won't need as much CHA as opposed to STR or DEX, there's plenty of Warlock spell options that don't use your casting stat (like Hex), and most of the support comes from invocations. The only one of those related to CHA also has a level 12 requirement, which is a bit late in the game for what I always hear is the most common level range. Hexblade allows for a bit more optimization, sure, but it's not hard to put together a fair melee build without it. Plus, you can already get Medium Armor and Shield proficiency at level 1 with your background feat in 1D&D, so I expect fewer gish builds will be handing them out going forward.
I agree that it /is/ overstated and that you /can/ build a blade lock without hexblade, you're putting yourself behind the 8 ball to an extent. There's very little that a traditional bladelock can do that a hexblade can't do better. I think the better solution would have been adding the hex blade features to blade pact rather than making hexblade a patron. I don't know why they went the path they did, but my hope is that the roll hexblade into blade pact and be done with it. That's just a personal opinion though
Eh, honestly the biggest support Hexblade gives is its spell list, which doesn't really lend itself to rolling into a core class feature. Beyond that, Hex Warrior is nice but hardly essential. Nearly every other gish or half caster build in the game gets by with separate stats for casting and weapon attacks, so swapping that is nice but not make-or-break. Likewise, they've already got answers for the profs and 1D&D already makes it easy for any build to pick them up at level 1 now. Plus, even with Hexblades getting a bunch of the Smite spells, there's also a smite invocation that comes out ahead on damage and includes a pretty nice no save rider effect. Yes, Hexblade will probably the most optimized bladelock build possible, but imo I think the performance bump is a bit overstated.
Are you kidding? Do you realize how many Paladins and Swords Bards dip 1 level into Hexblade just for Hex Warrior?!? 2 levels if they want Agonizing Blast for a ranged option. It’s so common it’s practically a meme.
Which again falls into the area of optimizing, not necessity.
Who brought up “necessity,” we’re talking about how the subclass is actually used.
I think I did earlier on, but not in the its absolutely necessary way but that players seem semi forced into hex blade if pact of the blade is where they want to go. Can people go MAD with a pact of the blade build, sure. But its generally less effective than either hexblade or just eldritch blast spam. Which is the difference between a gish lock and gish bard. A bards non leveled spell option is vicious mockery not a clast of force which shoves and slows the enemy for solid damage. So a bards sword swinging doesn't have to compete with much.
I guess my view is that without a patron, there is no pact, and without a pact it's not a warlock. And the pact is an agreement between two parties. Without the second party, it's simply not a warlock.
my expectation is that the patron flavor will come with their "baby pact", but the meat and potatoes will start to come online at level 3 when you start getting your pact boons. I think invocations will slide to 3 as well, so no more 2 levels of warlock for eldritch blast spam shennanigans. If EB is a class feature that scales on warlock level that single EB bolt isn't going to be nearly as impressive as it can be now scaling on character level, which means less hex pops. I think that change alone will solve /most/ power game moves centered on warlock, and I am nearly certain they will do that.
I think warlock 1 will remain basically what it is now, with eldritch blast becoming a class feature that scales on your warlock level rather than a cantrip scaling on your class level. I'm torn on whether I think the features like healing light for celestial or dark one's blessing make it as part of the baby pact, but I think they will be. I don't think EB stands up on it's own as a feature definitive enough. Without /something/ a warlock 1/2 would just be a weak rogue or ranger. Expanded spells, probably come online at level 3 along with invocations. That will make me sad for celestial (I loved healing with my celestial lock at low levels), but it is what it is.
The true hope that I have here is that hexblade completely goes away and most of those features are rolled into blade pact. Blade pact is an awesome idea but outside some edge builds practically requires hexblade. Being able to do some sort of melee other patron warlock I think would be really spicy and fun.
They might mirror the ranger a bit more and get Hex concentration free which is a pretty snazzy perk at level 1. Though I did suggest in my play test its too good for level 1 if they are trying to dissuade dips. And I also hope hexblade goes away and is rolled into pact of the blade, it felt like a patch and you sort of felt locked into hex blade if you wanted to actually get value out of pact of the blade unless you were going for some off kilter build.
Honestly the need to run Hexblade seems overstated imo. It's a little more MAD to run blade with a different patron, but if you're planning to focus on making weapon attacks you won't need as much CHA as opposed to STR or DEX, there's plenty of Warlock spell options that don't use your casting stat (like Hex), and most of the support comes from invocations. The only one of those related to CHA also has a level 12 requirement, which is a bit late in the game for what I always hear is the most common level range. Hexblade allows for a bit more optimization, sure, but it's not hard to put together a fair melee build without it. Plus, you can already get Medium Armor and Shield proficiency at level 1 with your background feat in 1D&D, so I expect fewer gish builds will be handing them out going forward.
I agree that it /is/ overstated and that you /can/ build a blade lock without hexblade, you're putting yourself behind the 8 ball to an extent. There's very little that a traditional bladelock can do that a hexblade can't do better. I think the better solution would have been adding the hex blade features to blade pact rather than making hexblade a patron. I don't know why they went the path they did, but my hope is that the roll hexblade into blade pact and be done with it. That's just a personal opinion though
Eh, honestly the biggest support Hexblade gives is its spell list, which doesn't really lend itself to rolling into a core class feature. Beyond that, Hex Warrior is nice but hardly essential. Nearly every other gish or half caster build in the game gets by with separate stats for casting and weapon attacks, so swapping that is nice but not make-or-break. Likewise, they've already got answers for the profs and 1D&D already makes it easy for any build to pick them up at level 1 now. Plus, even with Hexblades getting a bunch of the Smite spells, there's also a smite invocation that comes out ahead on damage and includes a pretty nice no save rider effect. Yes, Hexblade will probably the most optimized bladelock build possible, but imo I think the performance bump is a bit overstated.
Are you kidding? Do you realize how many Paladins and Swords Bards dip 1 level into Hexblade just for Hex Warrior?!? 2 levels if they want Agonizing Blast for a ranged option. It’s so common it’s practically a meme.
Which again falls into the area of optimizing, not necessity.
Who brought up “necessity,” we’re talking about how the subclass is actually used.
I think I did earlier on, but not in the its absolutely necessary way but that players seem semi forced into hex blade if pact of the blade is where they want to go. Can people go MAD with a pact of the blade build, sure. But its generally less effective than either hexblade or just eldritch blast spam. Which is the difference between a gish lock and gish bard. A bards non leveled spell option is vicious mockery not a clast of force which shoves and slows the enemy for solid damage. So a bards sword swinging doesn't have to compete with much.
That assumes the player wants to spend two or three of their Invocations on EB, in which case they're unlikely to have gone Pact of the Blade since you're looking at about that many to get it running at full gish. Besides, if you're planning to run a Blade, then obviously you aren't interested in casting EB a lot, so why take Invocations for it? Again, I'm aware Hexblade is less MAD, but purely in terms of weapon damage and casting score, a bladelock is no different from pretty much any other gish. You're making that build because you want to be making weapon attacks instead of using cantrips, so the theoretical alternative performance of an EB build seems like a non-sequitur unless we're only looking at raw DPR, which is not my preferred method because that get too much like an MMO.
I guess my view is that without a patron, there is no pact, and without a pact it's not a warlock. And the pact is an agreement between two parties. Without the second party, it's simply not a warlock.
my expectation is that the patron flavor will come with their "baby pact", but the meat and potatoes will start to come online at level 3 when you start getting your pact boons. I think invocations will slide to 3 as well, so no more 2 levels of warlock for eldritch blast spam shennanigans. If EB is a class feature that scales on warlock level that single EB bolt isn't going to be nearly as impressive as it can be now scaling on character level, which means less hex pops. I think that change alone will solve /most/ power game moves centered on warlock, and I am nearly certain they will do that.
I think warlock 1 will remain basically what it is now, with eldritch blast becoming a class feature that scales on your warlock level rather than a cantrip scaling on your class level. I'm torn on whether I think the features like healing light for celestial or dark one's blessing make it as part of the baby pact, but I think they will be. I don't think EB stands up on it's own as a feature definitive enough. Without /something/ a warlock 1/2 would just be a weak rogue or ranger. Expanded spells, probably come online at level 3 along with invocations. That will make me sad for celestial (I loved healing with my celestial lock at low levels), but it is what it is.
The true hope that I have here is that hexblade completely goes away and most of those features are rolled into blade pact. Blade pact is an awesome idea but outside some edge builds practically requires hexblade. Being able to do some sort of melee other patron warlock I think would be really spicy and fun.
They might mirror the ranger a bit more and get Hex concentration free which is a pretty snazzy perk at level 1. Though I did suggest in my play test its too good for level 1 if they are trying to dissuade dips. And I also hope hexblade goes away and is rolled into pact of the blade, it felt like a patch and you sort of felt locked into hex blade if you wanted to actually get value out of pact of the blade unless you were going for some off kilter build.
Honestly the need to run Hexblade seems overstated imo. It's a little more MAD to run blade with a different patron, but if you're planning to focus on making weapon attacks you won't need as much CHA as opposed to STR or DEX, there's plenty of Warlock spell options that don't use your casting stat (like Hex), and most of the support comes from invocations. The only one of those related to CHA also has a level 12 requirement, which is a bit late in the game for what I always hear is the most common level range. Hexblade allows for a bit more optimization, sure, but it's not hard to put together a fair melee build without it. Plus, you can already get Medium Armor and Shield proficiency at level 1 with your background feat in 1D&D, so I expect fewer gish builds will be handing them out going forward.
I agree that it /is/ overstated and that you /can/ build a blade lock without hexblade, you're putting yourself behind the 8 ball to an extent. There's very little that a traditional bladelock can do that a hexblade can't do better. I think the better solution would have been adding the hex blade features to blade pact rather than making hexblade a patron. I don't know why they went the path they did, but my hope is that the roll hexblade into blade pact and be done with it. That's just a personal opinion though
Eh, honestly the biggest support Hexblade gives is its spell list, which doesn't really lend itself to rolling into a core class feature. Beyond that, Hex Warrior is nice but hardly essential. Nearly every other gish or half caster build in the game gets by with separate stats for casting and weapon attacks, so swapping that is nice but not make-or-break. Likewise, they've already got answers for the profs and 1D&D already makes it easy for any build to pick them up at level 1 now. Plus, even with Hexblades getting a bunch of the Smite spells, there's also a smite invocation that comes out ahead on damage and includes a pretty nice no save rider effect. Yes, Hexblade will probably the most optimized bladelock build possible, but imo I think the performance bump is a bit overstated.
Are you kidding? Do you realize how many Paladins and Swords Bards dip 1 level into Hexblade just for Hex Warrior?!? 2 levels if they want Agonizing Blast for a ranged option. It’s so common it’s practically a meme.
Which again falls into the area of optimizing, not necessity.
Who brought up “necessity,” we’re talking about how the subclass is actually used.
I think I did earlier on, but not in the its absolutely necessary way but that players seem semi forced into hex blade if pact of the blade is where they want to go. Can people go MAD with a pact of the blade build, sure. But its generally less effective than either hexblade or just eldritch blast spam. Which is the difference between a gish lock and gish bard. A bards non leveled spell option is vicious mockery not a clast of force which shoves and slows the enemy for solid damage. So a bards sword swinging doesn't have to compete with much.
That assumes the player wants to spend two or three of their Invocations on EB, in which case they're unlikely to have gone Pact of the Blade since you're looking at about that many to get it running at full gish. Besides, if you're planning to run a Blade, then obviously you aren't interested in casting EB a lot, so why take Invocations for it? Again, I'm aware Hexblade is less MAD, but purely in terms of weapon damage and casting score, a bladelock is no different from pretty much any other gish. You're making that build because you want to be making weapon attacks instead of using cantrips, so the theoretical alternative performance of an EB build seems like a non-sequitur unless we're only looking at raw DPR, which is not my preferred method because that get too much like an MMO.
I'm assuming the non pact of the blade player will spend less on EB than the pact of the blade player will put into pact of the blade. Just agonizing will put them on a close to even field as a non optimized blade pact with multiple invocations towards it. And the "theoretical alternative performance of an EB build" is incredibly important towards this discussion, warlocks play differently than bards or wizards so this effects them differently. The core design of a warlock is they have a base DPR they can sustain without leveled spells which is why they only get 2 spells per short rest. If the pact of the blade is providing less than that base DPR with MAD it is a issue. A bard or wizard is trying to match up or exceed standard cantrip damage as they are full casters with tons of leveled spells and therefore don't have to rely on it for their normal actions.
I guess my view is that without a patron, there is no pact, and without a pact it's not a warlock. And the pact is an agreement between two parties. Without the second party, it's simply not a warlock.
my expectation is that the patron flavor will come with their "baby pact", but the meat and potatoes will start to come online at level 3 when you start getting your pact boons. I think invocations will slide to 3 as well, so no more 2 levels of warlock for eldritch blast spam shennanigans. If EB is a class feature that scales on warlock level that single EB bolt isn't going to be nearly as impressive as it can be now scaling on character level, which means less hex pops. I think that change alone will solve /most/ power game moves centered on warlock, and I am nearly certain they will do that.
I think warlock 1 will remain basically what it is now, with eldritch blast becoming a class feature that scales on your warlock level rather than a cantrip scaling on your class level. I'm torn on whether I think the features like healing light for celestial or dark one's blessing make it as part of the baby pact, but I think they will be. I don't think EB stands up on it's own as a feature definitive enough. Without /something/ a warlock 1/2 would just be a weak rogue or ranger. Expanded spells, probably come online at level 3 along with invocations. That will make me sad for celestial (I loved healing with my celestial lock at low levels), but it is what it is.
The true hope that I have here is that hexblade completely goes away and most of those features are rolled into blade pact. Blade pact is an awesome idea but outside some edge builds practically requires hexblade. Being able to do some sort of melee other patron warlock I think would be really spicy and fun.
They might mirror the ranger a bit more and get Hex concentration free which is a pretty snazzy perk at level 1. Though I did suggest in my play test its too good for level 1 if they are trying to dissuade dips. And I also hope hexblade goes away and is rolled into pact of the blade, it felt like a patch and you sort of felt locked into hex blade if you wanted to actually get value out of pact of the blade unless you were going for some off kilter build.
Honestly the need to run Hexblade seems overstated imo. It's a little more MAD to run blade with a different patron, but if you're planning to focus on making weapon attacks you won't need as much CHA as opposed to STR or DEX, there's plenty of Warlock spell options that don't use your casting stat (like Hex), and most of the support comes from invocations. The only one of those related to CHA also has a level 12 requirement, which is a bit late in the game for what I always hear is the most common level range. Hexblade allows for a bit more optimization, sure, but it's not hard to put together a fair melee build without it. Plus, you can already get Medium Armor and Shield proficiency at level 1 with your background feat in 1D&D, so I expect fewer gish builds will be handing them out going forward.
I agree that it /is/ overstated and that you /can/ build a blade lock without hexblade, you're putting yourself behind the 8 ball to an extent. There's very little that a traditional bladelock can do that a hexblade can't do better. I think the better solution would have been adding the hex blade features to blade pact rather than making hexblade a patron. I don't know why they went the path they did, but my hope is that the roll hexblade into blade pact and be done with it. That's just a personal opinion though
Eh, honestly the biggest support Hexblade gives is its spell list, which doesn't really lend itself to rolling into a core class feature. Beyond that, Hex Warrior is nice but hardly essential. Nearly every other gish or half caster build in the game gets by with separate stats for casting and weapon attacks, so swapping that is nice but not make-or-break. Likewise, they've already got answers for the profs and 1D&D already makes it easy for any build to pick them up at level 1 now. Plus, even with Hexblades getting a bunch of the Smite spells, there's also a smite invocation that comes out ahead on damage and includes a pretty nice no save rider effect. Yes, Hexblade will probably the most optimized bladelock build possible, but imo I think the performance bump is a bit overstated.
Are you kidding? Do you realize how many Paladins and Swords Bards dip 1 level into Hexblade just for Hex Warrior?!? 2 levels if they want Agonizing Blast for a ranged option. It’s so common it’s practically a meme.
Which again falls into the area of optimizing, not necessity.
Who brought up “necessity,” we’re talking about how the subclass is actually used.
I think I did earlier on, but not in the its absolutely necessary way but that players seem semi forced into hex blade if pact of the blade is where they want to go. Can people go MAD with a pact of the blade build, sure. But its generally less effective than either hexblade or just eldritch blast spam. Which is the difference between a gish lock and gish bard. A bards non leveled spell option is vicious mockery not a clast of force which shoves and slows the enemy for solid damage. So a bards sword swinging doesn't have to compete with much.
That assumes the player wants to spend two or three of their Invocations on EB, in which case they're unlikely to have gone Pact of the Blade since you're looking at about that many to get it running at full gish. Besides, if you're planning to run a Blade, then obviously you aren't interested in casting EB a lot, so why take Invocations for it? Again, I'm aware Hexblade is less MAD, but purely in terms of weapon damage and casting score, a bladelock is no different from pretty much any other gish. You're making that build because you want to be making weapon attacks instead of using cantrips, so the theoretical alternative performance of an EB build seems like a non-sequitur unless we're only looking at raw DPR, which is not my preferred method because that get too much like an MMO.
I'm assuming the non pact of the blade player will spend less on EB than the pact of the blade player will put into pact of the blade. Just agonizing will put them on a close to even field as a non optimized blade pact with multiple invocations towards it. And the "theoretical alternative performance of an EB build" is incredibly important towards this discussion, warlocks play differently than bards or wizards so this effects them differently. The core design of a warlock is they have a base DPR they can sustain without leveled spells which is why they only get 2 spells per short rest. If the pact of the blade is providing less than that base DPR with MAD it is a issue. A bard or wizard is trying to match up or exceed standard cantrip damage as they are full casters with tons of leveled spells and therefore don't have to rely on it for their normal actions.
Warlock is also unique among classes in that it is designed for MCing, and to tempt players to continuing with it as long as they dare until their patron demands something too heinous of them and they must make a choice. Honestly, it always felt weird to me that warlock was a base class, that you can start at level 1. Narratively it always seemed more like something you'd pick up part way through a campaign.
I guess my view is that without a patron, there is no pact, and without a pact it's not a warlock. And the pact is an agreement between two parties. Without the second party, it's simply not a warlock.
my expectation is that the patron flavor will come with their "baby pact", but the meat and potatoes will start to come online at level 3 when you start getting your pact boons. I think invocations will slide to 3 as well, so no more 2 levels of warlock for eldritch blast spam shennanigans. If EB is a class feature that scales on warlock level that single EB bolt isn't going to be nearly as impressive as it can be now scaling on character level, which means less hex pops. I think that change alone will solve /most/ power game moves centered on warlock, and I am nearly certain they will do that.
I think warlock 1 will remain basically what it is now, with eldritch blast becoming a class feature that scales on your warlock level rather than a cantrip scaling on your class level. I'm torn on whether I think the features like healing light for celestial or dark one's blessing make it as part of the baby pact, but I think they will be. I don't think EB stands up on it's own as a feature definitive enough. Without /something/ a warlock 1/2 would just be a weak rogue or ranger. Expanded spells, probably come online at level 3 along with invocations. That will make me sad for celestial (I loved healing with my celestial lock at low levels), but it is what it is.
The true hope that I have here is that hexblade completely goes away and most of those features are rolled into blade pact. Blade pact is an awesome idea but outside some edge builds practically requires hexblade. Being able to do some sort of melee other patron warlock I think would be really spicy and fun.
They might mirror the ranger a bit more and get Hex concentration free which is a pretty snazzy perk at level 1. Though I did suggest in my play test its too good for level 1 if they are trying to dissuade dips. And I also hope hexblade goes away and is rolled into pact of the blade, it felt like a patch and you sort of felt locked into hex blade if you wanted to actually get value out of pact of the blade unless you were going for some off kilter build.
Honestly the need to run Hexblade seems overstated imo. It's a little more MAD to run blade with a different patron, but if you're planning to focus on making weapon attacks you won't need as much CHA as opposed to STR or DEX, there's plenty of Warlock spell options that don't use your casting stat (like Hex), and most of the support comes from invocations. The only one of those related to CHA also has a level 12 requirement, which is a bit late in the game for what I always hear is the most common level range. Hexblade allows for a bit more optimization, sure, but it's not hard to put together a fair melee build without it. Plus, you can already get Medium Armor and Shield proficiency at level 1 with your background feat in 1D&D, so I expect fewer gish builds will be handing them out going forward.
I agree that it /is/ overstated and that you /can/ build a blade lock without hexblade, you're putting yourself behind the 8 ball to an extent. There's very little that a traditional bladelock can do that a hexblade can't do better. I think the better solution would have been adding the hex blade features to blade pact rather than making hexblade a patron. I don't know why they went the path they did, but my hope is that the roll hexblade into blade pact and be done with it. That's just a personal opinion though
Eh, honestly the biggest support Hexblade gives is its spell list, which doesn't really lend itself to rolling into a core class feature. Beyond that, Hex Warrior is nice but hardly essential. Nearly every other gish or half caster build in the game gets by with separate stats for casting and weapon attacks, so swapping that is nice but not make-or-break. Likewise, they've already got answers for the profs and 1D&D already makes it easy for any build to pick them up at level 1 now. Plus, even with Hexblades getting a bunch of the Smite spells, there's also a smite invocation that comes out ahead on damage and includes a pretty nice no save rider effect. Yes, Hexblade will probably the most optimized bladelock build possible, but imo I think the performance bump is a bit overstated.
Are you kidding? Do you realize how many Paladins and Swords Bards dip 1 level into Hexblade just for Hex Warrior?!? 2 levels if they want Agonizing Blast for a ranged option. It’s so common it’s practically a meme.
Which again falls into the area of optimizing, not necessity.
Who brought up “necessity,” we’re talking about how the subclass is actually used.
I think I did earlier on, but not in the its absolutely necessary way but that players seem semi forced into hex blade if pact of the blade is where they want to go. Can people go MAD with a pact of the blade build, sure. But its generally less effective than either hexblade or just eldritch blast spam. Which is the difference between a gish lock and gish bard. A bards non leveled spell option is vicious mockery not a clast of force which shoves and slows the enemy for solid damage. So a bards sword swinging doesn't have to compete with much.
That assumes the player wants to spend two or three of their Invocations on EB, in which case they're unlikely to have gone Pact of the Blade since you're looking at about that many to get it running at full gish. Besides, if you're planning to run a Blade, then obviously you aren't interested in casting EB a lot, so why take Invocations for it? Again, I'm aware Hexblade is less MAD, but purely in terms of weapon damage and casting score, a bladelock is no different from pretty much any other gish. You're making that build because you want to be making weapon attacks instead of using cantrips, so the theoretical alternative performance of an EB build seems like a non-sequitur unless we're only looking at raw DPR, which is not my preferred method because that get too much like an MMO.
I'm assuming the non pact of the blade player will spend less on EB than the pact of the blade player will put into pact of the blade. Just agonizing will put them on a close to even field as a non optimized blade pact with multiple invocations towards it. And the "theoretical alternative performance of an EB build" is incredibly important towards this discussion, warlocks play differently than bards or wizards so this effects them differently. The core design of a warlock is they have a base DPR they can sustain without leveled spells which is why they only get 2 spells per short rest. If the pact of the blade is providing less than that base DPR with MAD it is a issue. A bard or wizard is trying to match up or exceed standard cantrip damage as they are full casters with tons of leveled spells and therefore don't have to rely on it for their normal actions.
Warlock is also unique among classes in that it is designed for MCing, and to tempt players to continuing with it as long as they dare until their patron demands something too heinous of them and they must make a choice. Honestly, it always felt weird to me that warlock was a base class, that you can start at level 1. Narratively it always seemed more like something you'd pick up part way through a campaign.
Personally I hate Warlock dips because they're usually just about optimizing a build and rarely if ever actually acknowledge the pact. Really, I think they just need to more strongly classify multiclassing as a "if the DM allows it" option, rather than having your character just magically gain a whole new subset of knowledge on a level up so long as they have the ability scores for it.
I guess my view is that without a patron, there is no pact, and without a pact it's not a warlock. And the pact is an agreement between two parties. Without the second party, it's simply not a warlock.
my expectation is that the patron flavor will come with their "baby pact", but the meat and potatoes will start to come online at level 3 when you start getting your pact boons. I think invocations will slide to 3 as well, so no more 2 levels of warlock for eldritch blast spam shennanigans. If EB is a class feature that scales on warlock level that single EB bolt isn't going to be nearly as impressive as it can be now scaling on character level, which means less hex pops. I think that change alone will solve /most/ power game moves centered on warlock, and I am nearly certain they will do that.
I think warlock 1 will remain basically what it is now, with eldritch blast becoming a class feature that scales on your warlock level rather than a cantrip scaling on your class level. I'm torn on whether I think the features like healing light for celestial or dark one's blessing make it as part of the baby pact, but I think they will be. I don't think EB stands up on it's own as a feature definitive enough. Without /something/ a warlock 1/2 would just be a weak rogue or ranger. Expanded spells, probably come online at level 3 along with invocations. That will make me sad for celestial (I loved healing with my celestial lock at low levels), but it is what it is.
The true hope that I have here is that hexblade completely goes away and most of those features are rolled into blade pact. Blade pact is an awesome idea but outside some edge builds practically requires hexblade. Being able to do some sort of melee other patron warlock I think would be really spicy and fun.
They might mirror the ranger a bit more and get Hex concentration free which is a pretty snazzy perk at level 1. Though I did suggest in my play test its too good for level 1 if they are trying to dissuade dips. And I also hope hexblade goes away and is rolled into pact of the blade, it felt like a patch and you sort of felt locked into hex blade if you wanted to actually get value out of pact of the blade unless you were going for some off kilter build.
Honestly the need to run Hexblade seems overstated imo. It's a little more MAD to run blade with a different patron, but if you're planning to focus on making weapon attacks you won't need as much CHA as opposed to STR or DEX, there's plenty of Warlock spell options that don't use your casting stat (like Hex), and most of the support comes from invocations. The only one of those related to CHA also has a level 12 requirement, which is a bit late in the game for what I always hear is the most common level range. Hexblade allows for a bit more optimization, sure, but it's not hard to put together a fair melee build without it. Plus, you can already get Medium Armor and Shield proficiency at level 1 with your background feat in 1D&D, so I expect fewer gish builds will be handing them out going forward.
I agree that it /is/ overstated and that you /can/ build a blade lock without hexblade, you're putting yourself behind the 8 ball to an extent. There's very little that a traditional bladelock can do that a hexblade can't do better. I think the better solution would have been adding the hex blade features to blade pact rather than making hexblade a patron. I don't know why they went the path they did, but my hope is that the roll hexblade into blade pact and be done with it. That's just a personal opinion though
Eh, honestly the biggest support Hexblade gives is its spell list, which doesn't really lend itself to rolling into a core class feature. Beyond that, Hex Warrior is nice but hardly essential. Nearly every other gish or half caster build in the game gets by with separate stats for casting and weapon attacks, so swapping that is nice but not make-or-break. Likewise, they've already got answers for the profs and 1D&D already makes it easy for any build to pick them up at level 1 now. Plus, even with Hexblades getting a bunch of the Smite spells, there's also a smite invocation that comes out ahead on damage and includes a pretty nice no save rider effect. Yes, Hexblade will probably the most optimized bladelock build possible, but imo I think the performance bump is a bit overstated.
Are you kidding? Do you realize how many Paladins and Swords Bards dip 1 level into Hexblade just for Hex Warrior?!? 2 levels if they want Agonizing Blast for a ranged option. It’s so common it’s practically a meme.
Which again falls into the area of optimizing, not necessity.
Who brought up “necessity,” we’re talking about how the subclass is actually used.
I think I did earlier on, but not in the its absolutely necessary way but that players seem semi forced into hex blade if pact of the blade is where they want to go. Can people go MAD with a pact of the blade build, sure. But its generally less effective than either hexblade or just eldritch blast spam. Which is the difference between a gish lock and gish bard. A bards non leveled spell option is vicious mockery not a clast of force which shoves and slows the enemy for solid damage. So a bards sword swinging doesn't have to compete with much.
That assumes the player wants to spend two or three of their Invocations on EB, in which case they're unlikely to have gone Pact of the Blade since you're looking at about that many to get it running at full gish. Besides, if you're planning to run a Blade, then obviously you aren't interested in casting EB a lot, so why take Invocations for it? Again, I'm aware Hexblade is less MAD, but purely in terms of weapon damage and casting score, a bladelock is no different from pretty much any other gish. You're making that build because you want to be making weapon attacks instead of using cantrips, so the theoretical alternative performance of an EB build seems like a non-sequitur unless we're only looking at raw DPR, which is not my preferred method because that get too much like an MMO.
I'm assuming the non pact of the blade player will spend less on EB than the pact of the blade player will put into pact of the blade. Just agonizing will put them on a close to even field as a non optimized blade pact with multiple invocations towards it. And the "theoretical alternative performance of an EB build" is incredibly important towards this discussion, warlocks play differently than bards or wizards so this effects them differently. The core design of a warlock is they have a base DPR they can sustain without leveled spells which is why they only get 2 spells per short rest. If the pact of the blade is providing less than that base DPR with MAD it is a issue. A bard or wizard is trying to match up or exceed standard cantrip damage as they are full casters with tons of leveled spells and therefore don't have to rely on it for their normal actions.
Warlock is also unique among classes in that it is designed for MCing, and to tempt players to continuing with it as long as they dare until their patron demands something too heinous of them and they must make a choice. Honestly, it always felt weird to me that warlock was a base class, that you can start at level 1. Narratively it always seemed more like something you'd pick up part way through a campaign.
Personally I hate Warlock dips because they're usually just about optimizing a build and rarely if ever actually acknowledge the pact. Really, I think they just need to more strongly classify multiclassing as a "if the DM allows it" option, rather than having your character just magically gain a whole new subset of knowledge on a level up so long as they have the ability scores for it.
I mean, technically multiclassing is an optional rule, not standard. Every multiclass is “if the DM allows it.”
I generally dislike multi classing but if you do it at the get go like level 1/1 fighter/rogue to represent like a scout or something I'm fine with it. But 5 levels in suddenly learning how to be a wizard seems weird to me without some work. Backstory wise usually some dude is a apprentice for years but once you are leveling up you can figure it out in 2 weeks. One of those game mechanics trumps story situations, as a DM I leave it up to the player to navigate that in a way that is satisfying to them. Me as a player I try to represent it with background choices and in game downtime activities or how they are role played during the adventure effectively showing something like a years long apprenticeship culminating x levels later with the mult class.
I guess my view is that without a patron, there is no pact, and without a pact it's not a warlock. And the pact is an agreement between two parties. Without the second party, it's simply not a warlock.
my expectation is that the patron flavor will come with their "baby pact", but the meat and potatoes will start to come online at level 3 when you start getting your pact boons. I think invocations will slide to 3 as well, so no more 2 levels of warlock for eldritch blast spam shennanigans. If EB is a class feature that scales on warlock level that single EB bolt isn't going to be nearly as impressive as it can be now scaling on character level, which means less hex pops. I think that change alone will solve /most/ power game moves centered on warlock, and I am nearly certain they will do that.
I think warlock 1 will remain basically what it is now, with eldritch blast becoming a class feature that scales on your warlock level rather than a cantrip scaling on your class level. I'm torn on whether I think the features like healing light for celestial or dark one's blessing make it as part of the baby pact, but I think they will be. I don't think EB stands up on it's own as a feature definitive enough. Without /something/ a warlock 1/2 would just be a weak rogue or ranger. Expanded spells, probably come online at level 3 along with invocations. That will make me sad for celestial (I loved healing with my celestial lock at low levels), but it is what it is.
The true hope that I have here is that hexblade completely goes away and most of those features are rolled into blade pact. Blade pact is an awesome idea but outside some edge builds practically requires hexblade. Being able to do some sort of melee other patron warlock I think would be really spicy and fun.
They might mirror the ranger a bit more and get Hex concentration free which is a pretty snazzy perk at level 1. Though I did suggest in my play test its too good for level 1 if they are trying to dissuade dips. And I also hope hexblade goes away and is rolled into pact of the blade, it felt like a patch and you sort of felt locked into hex blade if you wanted to actually get value out of pact of the blade unless you were going for some off kilter build.
Honestly the need to run Hexblade seems overstated imo. It's a little more MAD to run blade with a different patron, but if you're planning to focus on making weapon attacks you won't need as much CHA as opposed to STR or DEX, there's plenty of Warlock spell options that don't use your casting stat (like Hex), and most of the support comes from invocations. The only one of those related to CHA also has a level 12 requirement, which is a bit late in the game for what I always hear is the most common level range. Hexblade allows for a bit more optimization, sure, but it's not hard to put together a fair melee build without it. Plus, you can already get Medium Armor and Shield proficiency at level 1 with your background feat in 1D&D, so I expect fewer gish builds will be handing them out going forward.
I agree that it /is/ overstated and that you /can/ build a blade lock without hexblade, you're putting yourself behind the 8 ball to an extent. There's very little that a traditional bladelock can do that a hexblade can't do better. I think the better solution would have been adding the hex blade features to blade pact rather than making hexblade a patron. I don't know why they went the path they did, but my hope is that the roll hexblade into blade pact and be done with it. That's just a personal opinion though
Eh, honestly the biggest support Hexblade gives is its spell list, which doesn't really lend itself to rolling into a core class feature. Beyond that, Hex Warrior is nice but hardly essential. Nearly every other gish or half caster build in the game gets by with separate stats for casting and weapon attacks, so swapping that is nice but not make-or-break. Likewise, they've already got answers for the profs and 1D&D already makes it easy for any build to pick them up at level 1 now. Plus, even with Hexblades getting a bunch of the Smite spells, there's also a smite invocation that comes out ahead on damage and includes a pretty nice no save rider effect. Yes, Hexblade will probably the most optimized bladelock build possible, but imo I think the performance bump is a bit overstated.
Are you kidding? Do you realize how many Paladins and Swords Bards dip 1 level into Hexblade just for Hex Warrior?!? 2 levels if they want Agonizing Blast for a ranged option. It’s so common it’s practically a meme.
Which again falls into the area of optimizing, not necessity.
Who brought up “necessity,” we’re talking about how the subclass is actually used.
I think I did earlier on, but not in the its absolutely necessary way but that players seem semi forced into hex blade if pact of the blade is where they want to go. Can people go MAD with a pact of the blade build, sure. But its generally less effective than either hexblade or just eldritch blast spam. Which is the difference between a gish lock and gish bard. A bards non leveled spell option is vicious mockery not a clast of force which shoves and slows the enemy for solid damage. So a bards sword swinging doesn't have to compete with much.
That assumes the player wants to spend two or three of their Invocations on EB, in which case they're unlikely to have gone Pact of the Blade since you're looking at about that many to get it running at full gish. Besides, if you're planning to run a Blade, then obviously you aren't interested in casting EB a lot, so why take Invocations for it? Again, I'm aware Hexblade is less MAD, but purely in terms of weapon damage and casting score, a bladelock is no different from pretty much any other gish. You're making that build because you want to be making weapon attacks instead of using cantrips, so the theoretical alternative performance of an EB build seems like a non-sequitur unless we're only looking at raw DPR, which is not my preferred method because that get too much like an MMO.
I'm assuming the non pact of the blade player will spend less on EB than the pact of the blade player will put into pact of the blade. Just agonizing will put them on a close to even field as a non optimized blade pact with multiple invocations towards it. And the "theoretical alternative performance of an EB build" is incredibly important towards this discussion, warlocks play differently than bards or wizards so this effects them differently. The core design of a warlock is they have a base DPR they can sustain without leveled spells which is why they only get 2 spells per short rest. If the pact of the blade is providing less than that base DPR with MAD it is a issue. A bard or wizard is trying to match up or exceed standard cantrip damage as they are full casters with tons of leveled spells and therefore don't have to rely on it for their normal actions.
Warlock is also unique among classes in that it is designed for MCing, and to tempt players to continuing with it as long as they dare until their patron demands something too heinous of them and they must make a choice. Honestly, it always felt weird to me that warlock was a base class, that you can start at level 1. Narratively it always seemed more like something you'd pick up part way through a campaign.
Personally I hate Warlock dips because they're usually just about optimizing a build and rarely if ever actually acknowledge the pact. Really, I think they just need to more strongly classify multiclassing as a "if the DM allows it" option, rather than having your character just magically gain a whole new subset of knowledge on a level up so long as they have the ability scores for it.
I mean, technically multiclassing is an optional rule, not standard. Every multiclass is “if the DM allows it.”
Yes, but it's largely considered to be an automatic option; that's why I said "more strongly". It's in the same section as feats, and when was the last time you heard of a DM disallowing feats in general? Pretty sure quite a few of these big overhauls are to address complaints of overpowered dips, and it would go so much smoother if they just moved the multiclass info to the DMG or otherwise did something to more strongly indicate the ball is in the DM's court when it comes to whether or not multiclassing is possible.
The classes determines whether I like to multi-class or not. I'm currently playing a MC warlock|wizard (not the best combo, but hey) and it works well for what I ask of it. I've previously played a bard|lock that worked well, and a sorlock that I didn't like as much. For warlocks in particular, I typically like to dip into another spell caster. I just like having a few extra low level spell slots to work with. I typically don't view warlocks as spell casters, I view them as archers so a delay on a feature here or there has little impact on what I am trying to focus on.
Warlock dips on the other hand? I didn't like how the warlock dip slowed my sorcerer progression. He, I viewed as a spell caster and delaying my upgraded spells for the sake of having really reliable cantrip damage and better armor was a bad choice. I'd not make that mistake again.
As for my current character, the wizlock, his patron is far from ignored; she's fairly central to who he is and I've worked with the DM quite a bit to tweak things and fit her in so we're both comfortable with her. The wizard part is also part of the story. After making his pact, he was sent to study with a wizard so he could be monitored, and that wizard is one of the DMs more important NPCs. At level 2, I took wizard 1 as he was able to put his lessons together. His study of traditional, scholarly arcane magic is important to his patron, and she pushes him to continue his wizardly studies, even as he progresses as a warlock. Eventually, he'll pick up a second and maybe third level of wizard but that's quite a ways down the road. With a wizard as my "dip" and a 13 int, I think very few people are going to mistake this character as having a power gamer MC dip lol. Once I get my hands on a brazier I'll be able to summon my imp familiar, which my patron will be inhabiting. I'll literally have the little devil riding around on my shoulder giving me advice, so she's very much going to not be forgotten lol
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
The dumb thing about the hexlock dip is that it's actually better as a dip than as a main option. A warlock who dumps Charisma still has a number of perfectly viable builds (say, hex and armor of agathys), whereas a bard or paladin is really crippling themselves by ignoring Charisma.
I suspect the value of the hexblade dip is a lot reduced by the fact that One D&D lets you use a first level feat to learn Shillelagh, though.
The dumb thing about the hexlock dip is that it's actually better as a dip than as a main option. A warlock who dumps Charisma still has a number of perfectly viable builds (say, hex and armor of agathys), whereas a bard or paladin is really crippling themselves by ignoring Charisma.
I suspect the value of the hexblade dip is a lot reduced by the fact that One D&D lets you use a first level feat to learn Shillelagh, though.
Why Shillelagh? If we're purely talking Gish weapon attack damage vs cantrip damage, keep in mind that most cantrips are all or nothing and can't benefit from damage modifiers from magic weapons, and that's before you account for things like a Flametongue sword. And only a few cantrips go beyond d8 damage die, so ability mods already mean that even at level 11 you'll probably average more damage with any of the d8 or higher weapons than with a cantrip. Really, Gish builds in general are a bit fiddly, and if there was any mistake in design it was making Hexblade so good that you get other CHA gishes dipping into it just for the level 1 feature.
Also, Paladins only sorta-kinda need high CHA, they do pretty well for themselves simply with class feature smites. Spellcasting can easily be an afterthought with them. Alternatively, with heavy armor, shields, and a decent non-spell healing pool, they don't necessarily need the same kind of CON investment that a Fighter or Barbarian does.
The dumb thing about the hexlock dip is that it's actually better as a dip than as a main option. A warlock who dumps Charisma still has a number of perfectly viable builds (say, hex and armor of agathys), whereas a bard or paladin is really crippling themselves by ignoring Charisma.
I suspect the value of the hexblade dip is a lot reduced by the fact that One D&D lets you use a first level feat to learn Shillelagh, though.
Why Shillelagh? If we're purely talking Gish weapon attack damage vs cantrip damage, keep in mind that most cantrips are all or nothing and can't benefit from damage modifiers from magic weapons, and that's before you account for things like a Flametongue sword. And only a few cantrips go beyond d8 damage die, so ability mods already mean that even at level 11 you'll probably average more damage with any of the d8 or higher weapons than with a cantrip. Really, Gish builds in general are a bit fiddly, and if there was any mistake in design it was making Hexblade so good that you get other CHA gishes dipping into it just for the level 1 feature.
Also, Paladins only sorta-kinda need high CHA, they do pretty well for themselves simply with class feature smites. Spellcasting can easily be an afterthought with them. Alternatively, with heavy armor, shields, and a decent non-spell healing pool, they don't necessarily need the same kind of CON investment that a Fighter or Barbarian does.
They only sorta-kinda need high Charisma until they reach 6th level, at which point one of their best features (as well as one of the best features in the whole game) relies entirely on Charisma.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
The dumb thing about the hexlock dip is that it's actually better as a dip than as a main option. A warlock who dumps Charisma still has a number of perfectly viable builds (say, hex and armor of agathys), whereas a bard or paladin is really crippling themselves by ignoring Charisma.
I suspect the value of the hexblade dip is a lot reduced by the fact that One D&D lets you use a first level feat to learn Shillelagh, though.
Why Shillelagh? If we're purely talking Gish weapon attack damage vs cantrip damage, keep in mind that most cantrips are all or nothing and can't benefit from damage modifiers from magic weapons, and that's before you account for things like a Flametongue sword. And only a few cantrips go beyond d8 damage die, so ability mods already mean that even at level 11 you'll probably average more damage with any of the d8 or higher weapons than with a cantrip. Really, Gish builds in general are a bit fiddly, and if there was any mistake in design it was making Hexblade so good that you get other CHA gishes dipping into it just for the level 1 feature.
Also, Paladins only sorta-kinda need high CHA, they do pretty well for themselves simply with class feature smites. Spellcasting can easily be an afterthought with them. Alternatively, with heavy armor, shields, and a decent non-spell healing pool, they don't necessarily need the same kind of CON investment that a Fighter or Barbarian does.
They only sorta-kinda need high Charisma until they reach 6th level, at which point one of their best features (as well as one of the best features in the whole game) relies entirely on Charisma.
The Aura is okay, but until endgame you can easily only end up hitting one other player with it, and a +3 mod is simple to hit with point buy even in a MAD split build. It's still excessive to waste a feat grabbing Shillelagh just to avoid the split in scores.
Why Shillelagh? If we're purely talking Gish weapon attack damage vs cantrip damage, keep in mind that most cantrips are all or nothing and can't benefit from damage modifiers from magic weapons, and that's before you account for things like a Flametongue sword.
Shillelagh isn't a damaging cantrip, it just lets you use any club or quarterstaff, including a magic staff, using your spellcasting stat and with a base damage die of a d8. It scales really poorly for a druid because druids don't get extra attack, but it's perfectly competitive for armorer artificer, sword/valor bard, paladin, or bladesinger wizard, turning any of them from MAD to SAD. All normal weapon enhancements are available for staff and club type weapons, and there's a few useful staff-specific options (anyone can use a staff of striking, a bladesinger can also use staff of power, staff of thunder and lightning, and staff of the magi).
I would note that it's a first level feat, so it's not competing with an ASI.
Why Shillelagh? If we're purely talking Gish weapon attack damage vs cantrip damage, keep in mind that most cantrips are all or nothing and can't benefit from damage modifiers from magic weapons, and that's before you account for things like a Flametongue sword.
Shillelagh isn't a damaging cantrip, it just lets you use any club or quarterstaff, including a magic staff, using your spellcasting stat and with a base damage die of a d8. It scales really poorly for a druid because druids don't get extra attack, but it's perfectly competitive for armorer artificer, sword/valor bard, paladin, or bladesinger wizard, turning any of them from MAD to SAD. All normal weapon enhancements are available for staff and club type weapons, and there's a few useful staff-specific options (anyone can use a staff of striking, a bladesinger can also use staff of power, staff of thunder and lightning, and staff of the magi).
I would note that it's a first level feat, so it's not competing with an ASI.
Still wasting a feat that could go to doing something more helpful to just slightly bumping damage. It's not hard to balance stats for a MAD build, you just don't get to play around with a side bonus.
we now have a full page of content that has almost nothing to do with the summit. There are other threads for such topics. please, try to get back on track.
we now have a full page of content that has almost nothing to do with the summit. There are other threads for such topics. please, try to get back on track.
This went off topic page 1. I think there are only 6 post that are on topic. This may be because no one who was at the summit has posted any YouTube videos about the summit. I read about it on EN World and that’s all the info I got and that’s from one perspective. I didn’t bother with news from people who weren’t there. Even if their information is mostly correct they aren’t journalist so it comes off as rumor videos and they give a lot of their personal opinions so I can’t watch those for very long.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
On the Paladin thing - I'm fine with the language in the UA:
"If a Paladin willfully violates their oath and shows no sign of repentance, the consequences might be more serious. At the DM’s discretion, an impenitent Paladin might be forced to take a more appropriate subclass or even to abandon the class and adopt another one."
I particularly like this because it (a) gives a better default option beyond "Paladin falls and becomes a weak fighter" which is what we got in prior editions/Pathfinder, and (b) it applies just as easily to paladins who rise from an evil subclass into something more honorable or righteous. Oathbreaker meanwhile was very limited in application, only applied in one direction, had restrictive fluff etc. I agree the whole subclass shoulld be excised entirely. If we want to keep the mechanics from it, they should be replaced with a different Oath that better encompasses what it actually does, e.g. Oath of Treachery or something.
Most other gishes are not casters built around a consistent DPR/control from a cantrip model.
Who brought up “necessity,” we’re talking about how the subclass is actually used.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I think I did earlier on, but not in the its absolutely necessary way but that players seem semi forced into hex blade if pact of the blade is where they want to go. Can people go MAD with a pact of the blade build, sure. But its generally less effective than either hexblade or just eldritch blast spam. Which is the difference between a gish lock and gish bard. A bards non leveled spell option is vicious mockery not a clast of force which shoves and slows the enemy for solid damage. So a bards sword swinging doesn't have to compete with much.
That assumes the player wants to spend two or three of their Invocations on EB, in which case they're unlikely to have gone Pact of the Blade since you're looking at about that many to get it running at full gish. Besides, if you're planning to run a Blade, then obviously you aren't interested in casting EB a lot, so why take Invocations for it? Again, I'm aware Hexblade is less MAD, but purely in terms of weapon damage and casting score, a bladelock is no different from pretty much any other gish. You're making that build because you want to be making weapon attacks instead of using cantrips, so the theoretical alternative performance of an EB build seems like a non-sequitur unless we're only looking at raw DPR, which is not my preferred method because that get too much like an MMO.
I'm assuming the non pact of the blade player will spend less on EB than the pact of the blade player will put into pact of the blade. Just agonizing will put them on a close to even field as a non optimized blade pact with multiple invocations towards it. And the "theoretical alternative performance of an EB build" is incredibly important towards this discussion, warlocks play differently than bards or wizards so this effects them differently. The core design of a warlock is they have a base DPR they can sustain without leveled spells which is why they only get 2 spells per short rest. If the pact of the blade is providing less than that base DPR with MAD it is a issue. A bard or wizard is trying to match up or exceed standard cantrip damage as they are full casters with tons of leveled spells and therefore don't have to rely on it for their normal actions.
Warlock is also unique among classes in that it is designed for MCing, and to tempt players to continuing with it as long as they dare until their patron demands something too heinous of them and they must make a choice. Honestly, it always felt weird to me that warlock was a base class, that you can start at level 1. Narratively it always seemed more like something you'd pick up part way through a campaign.
Personally I hate Warlock dips because they're usually just about optimizing a build and rarely if ever actually acknowledge the pact. Really, I think they just need to more strongly classify multiclassing as a "if the DM allows it" option, rather than having your character just magically gain a whole new subset of knowledge on a level up so long as they have the ability scores for it.
I mean, technically multiclassing is an optional rule, not standard. Every multiclass is “if the DM allows it.”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I generally dislike multi classing but if you do it at the get go like level 1/1 fighter/rogue to represent like a scout or something I'm fine with it. But 5 levels in suddenly learning how to be a wizard seems weird to me without some work. Backstory wise usually some dude is a apprentice for years but once you are leveling up you can figure it out in 2 weeks. One of those game mechanics trumps story situations, as a DM I leave it up to the player to navigate that in a way that is satisfying to them. Me as a player I try to represent it with background choices and in game downtime activities or how they are role played during the adventure effectively showing something like a years long apprenticeship culminating x levels later with the mult class.
Yes, but it's largely considered to be an automatic option; that's why I said "more strongly". It's in the same section as feats, and when was the last time you heard of a DM disallowing feats in general? Pretty sure quite a few of these big overhauls are to address complaints of overpowered dips, and it would go so much smoother if they just moved the multiclass info to the DMG or otherwise did something to more strongly indicate the ball is in the DM's court when it comes to whether or not multiclassing is possible.
The classes determines whether I like to multi-class or not. I'm currently playing a MC warlock|wizard (not the best combo, but hey) and it works well for what I ask of it. I've previously played a bard|lock that worked well, and a sorlock that I didn't like as much. For warlocks in particular, I typically like to dip into another spell caster. I just like having a few extra low level spell slots to work with. I typically don't view warlocks as spell casters, I view them as archers so a delay on a feature here or there has little impact on what I am trying to focus on.
Warlock dips on the other hand? I didn't like how the warlock dip slowed my sorcerer progression. He, I viewed as a spell caster and delaying my upgraded spells for the sake of having really reliable cantrip damage and better armor was a bad choice. I'd not make that mistake again.
As for my current character, the wizlock, his patron is far from ignored; she's fairly central to who he is and I've worked with the DM quite a bit to tweak things and fit her in so we're both comfortable with her. The wizard part is also part of the story. After making his pact, he was sent to study with a wizard so he could be monitored, and that wizard is one of the DMs more important NPCs. At level 2, I took wizard 1 as he was able to put his lessons together. His study of traditional, scholarly arcane magic is important to his patron, and she pushes him to continue his wizardly studies, even as he progresses as a warlock. Eventually, he'll pick up a second and maybe third level of wizard but that's quite a ways down the road. With a wizard as my "dip" and a 13 int, I think very few people are going to mistake this character as having a power gamer MC dip lol. Once I get my hands on a brazier I'll be able to summon my imp familiar, which my patron will be inhabiting. I'll literally have the little devil riding around on my shoulder giving me advice, so she's very much going to not be forgotten lol
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
The dumb thing about the hexlock dip is that it's actually better as a dip than as a main option. A warlock who dumps Charisma still has a number of perfectly viable builds (say, hex and armor of agathys), whereas a bard or paladin is really crippling themselves by ignoring Charisma.
I suspect the value of the hexblade dip is a lot reduced by the fact that One D&D lets you use a first level feat to learn Shillelagh, though.
Why Shillelagh? If we're purely talking Gish weapon attack damage vs cantrip damage, keep in mind that most cantrips are all or nothing and can't benefit from damage modifiers from magic weapons, and that's before you account for things like a Flametongue sword. And only a few cantrips go beyond d8 damage die, so ability mods already mean that even at level 11 you'll probably average more damage with any of the d8 or higher weapons than with a cantrip. Really, Gish builds in general are a bit fiddly, and if there was any mistake in design it was making Hexblade so good that you get other CHA gishes dipping into it just for the level 1 feature.
Also, Paladins only sorta-kinda need high CHA, they do pretty well for themselves simply with class feature smites. Spellcasting can easily be an afterthought with them. Alternatively, with heavy armor, shields, and a decent non-spell healing pool, they don't necessarily need the same kind of CON investment that a Fighter or Barbarian does.
They only sorta-kinda need high Charisma until they reach 6th level, at which point one of their best features (as well as one of the best features in the whole game) relies entirely on Charisma.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
The Aura is okay, but until endgame you can easily only end up hitting one other player with it, and a +3 mod is simple to hit with point buy even in a MAD split build. It's still excessive to waste a feat grabbing Shillelagh just to avoid the split in scores.
Shillelagh isn't a damaging cantrip, it just lets you use any club or quarterstaff, including a magic staff, using your spellcasting stat and with a base damage die of a d8. It scales really poorly for a druid because druids don't get extra attack, but it's perfectly competitive for armorer artificer, sword/valor bard, paladin, or bladesinger wizard, turning any of them from MAD to SAD. All normal weapon enhancements are available for staff and club type weapons, and there's a few useful staff-specific options (anyone can use a staff of striking, a bladesinger can also use staff of power, staff of thunder and lightning, and staff of the magi).
I would note that it's a first level feat, so it's not competing with an ASI.
Still wasting a feat that could go to doing something more helpful to just slightly bumping damage. It's not hard to balance stats for a MAD build, you just don't get to play around with a side bonus.
we now have a full page of content that has almost nothing to do with the summit. There are other threads for such topics. please, try to get back on track.
This went off topic page 1. I think there are only 6 post that are on topic. This may be because no one who was at the summit has posted any YouTube videos about the summit. I read about it on EN World and that’s all the info I got and that’s from one perspective. I didn’t bother with news from people who weren’t there. Even if their information is mostly correct they aren’t journalist so it comes off as rumor videos and they give a lot of their personal opinions so I can’t watch those for very long.