I know there have been several posts about this, but I wanted to share my vision for improving the Warlock half-caster. Warlock is my favorite class, and I have tried to be as unbiased and consistent as possible in balancing it.
My current opinion is that it is too punishing to want to be a "full caster" Warlock, since you have to use 4-7 Mystic Arcanum Invocations to simulate a full caster. On the other hand, Pact of the Blade Warlocks (aka Bladelocks) seem much stronger because they don't have to use as many Invocations to do what they want as a "non-magic-focused martial character", plus they have access to a lot of spell slots that they didn't have before.
Just as the Ranger and Paladin are martial and half-caster classes (Primordial magic and Divine magic, respectively), my idea was for the Warlock to be a martial and half-caster class of Arcane magic, but with the versatility to "abandon" their martial characteristics and go the full casting route.
To solve this, my solution would be
- Give more benefits to characters who choose Mystic Arcanum multiple times.
- Create more invocations that focus on the Pact of the Blade to encourage players to get invocations other than Mystic Arcanum.
The changes to Mystic Arcanum:
"You receive a Pact slot and use it to cast the CHOOSED MAGIC with that invocation. You regain all expended Pact Slots when you finish a Long Rest"
You may spend a Pact slot to cast a magic you know of level 5 or lower. This spell will always be cast at the highest possible level according to the following table:
This change is intended to provide flexibility to the warlock spellcaster. Since a Pact slot is tied to a Mystic Arcanum-acquired spell, you would have to choose between casting that spell or upcasting a lesser spell you know. Maybe the idea is too strong and needs balancing, but it would bring the best of both worlds: the multiple spell slots of this new release and the burst that the 2014 PHB warlocks had when using lower level spells.
But I understand that this opens up space for bladelocks to try to abuse this and take Mystic Arcanum multiple times to get big bursts with spells and guaranteed dps with pact weapon damage. For this to work, bladelocks would have to have new Invocations to pick up that are as good as picking up a spell with Mystic Arcanum.
Examples (all of the following Invocations have Pact of the Blade feature as a prerequisite): - You deal the extra damage from Hex on all damage rolls made with the Pact Weapon (warlock lvl 17 idk); - You gain an additional attack for your Pact Weapon. (Warlock lvl 13); - You can use the Weapon Mastery of your weapon summoned with Pact Weapon. (warlock lvl 5);
These are just a few examples, perhaps very strong ones, of invocations that would benefit the bladelock to the point that he wouldn't even want to get many instances of Mystic Arcanum. Ultimately, my goal was not for bladelocks to not take Mystic Arcanum, but for them to split between good features and high level spells. In the same way, players who focus on spellcasting would feel more rewarded for taking it multiple times.
What lack of identity? I've played a tomelock in 3 playtest games, and it really feels very warlock. I don't think it lacks identity.
Regarding the Mystic Arcanum tax, although I agree that it's a bit annoying having to invest all Eldritch Invocations into it to feel like a full caster, it's not really a "punishment" either. You choose the spell you want, which allows you to customize your warlock through the spells you choose. Would it be okay if it was a spell slot? Yes, definitely. I would like to see that. But if they don't, the warlock works just fine. I have had a great time with the warlock. At no time have I felt inferior to my partners (a bladelock warlock who only took a couple Mystic Arcanum and felt much more Gish than the old hexblade, a new wizard and a new fighter).
I understand that there are people who try the new warlock and don't like it for whatever reason. But I don't think it lacks identity, that it loses customization or that it is mechanically worse than the 2014 warlock. This new tomelock seemed much more fun and versatile than the previous one. It can improve? Sure, this is a playtest. I would like, as I said, that mystic arcanum gives you a spell slot. And I would also like book of shadow to scale in a way that allows you to choose level 2 (say level 11) and level 3 (say level 17) rituals.
What lack of identity? I've played a tomelock in 3 playtest games, and it really feels very warlock. I don't think it lacks identity.
Regarding the Mystic Arcanum tax, although I agree that it's a bit annoying having to invest all Eldritch Invocations into it to feel like a full caster, it's not really a "punishment" either. You choose the spell you want, which allows you to customize your warlock through the spells you choose. Would it be okay if it was a spell slot? Yes, definitely. I would like to see that. But if they don't, the warlock works just fine. I have had a great time with the warlock. At no time have I felt inferior to my partners (a bladelock warlock who only took a couple Mystic Arcanum and felt much more Gish than the old hexblade, a new wizard and a new fighter).
I understand that there are people who try the new warlock and don't like it for whatever reason. But I don't think it lacks identity, that it loses customization or that it is mechanically worse than the 2014 warlock. This new tomelock seemed much more fun and versatile than the previous one. It can improve? Sure, this is a playtest. I would like, as I said, that mystic arcanum gives you a spell slot. And I would also like book of shadow to scale in a way that allows you to choose level 2 (say level 11) and level 3 (say level 17) rituals.
Tomelock doesn't fee like a warlock. It feels like a half ass wizard.
What lack of identity? I've played a tomelock in 3 playtest games, and it really feels very warlock. I don't think it lacks identity.
Regarding the Mystic Arcanum tax, although I agree that it's a bit annoying having to invest all Eldritch Invocations into it to feel like a full caster, it's not really a "punishment" either. You choose the spell you want, which allows you to customize your warlock through the spells you choose. Would it be okay if it was a spell slot? Yes, definitely. I would like to see that. But if they don't, the warlock works just fine. I have had a great time with the warlock. At no time have I felt inferior to my partners (a bladelock warlock who only took a couple Mystic Arcanum and felt much more Gish than the old hexblade, a new wizard and a new fighter).
I understand that there are people who try the new warlock and don't like it for whatever reason. But I don't think it lacks identity, that it loses customization or that it is mechanically worse than the 2014 warlock. This new tomelock seemed much more fun and versatile than the previous one. It can improve? Sure, this is a playtest. I would like, as I said, that mystic arcanum gives you a spell slot. And I would also like book of shadow to scale in a way that allows you to choose level 2 (say level 11) and level 3 (say level 17) rituals.
Tomelock doesn't fee like a warlock. It feels like a half ass wizard.
No? And how does a warlock feel? This level 11 warlock can mechanically talk to his patron, for example. Something that the other did not have encapsulated in its mechanics. Doesn't that make you feel like a warlock? Doesn't it feel like warlock that his features come from a pact? Feeling like a warlock is having a couple of spell slots and recharging them every short rest? Is that being a warlock?
This warlock is much more warlock than the other. And the main reason is the level 11 feature (which should win much sooner, I'm telling you as well).
But anyway, perhaps all these discussions are wrong from the very core. Perhaps the community should decide on what makes a Warlock a Warlock. Yes pact, sure, but what else do they expect. Tomelock has a book of shadows, a dark grimoire. Sure, it's a book, so you might think of a Wizard, but to me that's the most Warlock thing there could be. Well, other than pact of the chain.
Anyway, Warlock is clearly not intended to be a full caster. Neither were they that in the previous edition. It's quite clear WotC prefer you to be a cantrip spammer, with a few nice spells to add occasionally. You don't compare a Paladin to a Cleric, do you?
Besides, if you could just play a Warlock and have more HP, actual armour and weapon proficiencies, the best cantrip in the game and a lot of customisation and STILL be equal to a Sorcerer or Wizard in terms of casting magic, why would anyone play a Sorcerer or Wizars? Metamagic? A few extra utility spells the Warlock gets to cast indefinitely? Yeah sure.
And if those options you suggested for Blade were incorporated into the game, why would anyone ever play a Fighter over a Warlock?
Rangers will always lose to a Fighter in terms of fighting and always lose to Druids in terms of spellcasting, but they beat each in the other field. That's the idea of a half-caster that WotC also applied for a Warlock. And if the Warlock became a full caster instead, to keep things balanced they'd have to strip them of most of their abilities, and THEN Warlocks would lose their identity.
What lack of identity? I've played a tomelock in 3 playtest games, and it really feels very warlock. I don't think it lacks identity.
Regarding the Mystic Arcanum tax, although I agree that it's a bit annoying having to invest all Eldritch Invocations into it to feel like a full caster, it's not really a "punishment" either. You choose the spell you want, which allows you to customize your warlock through the spells you choose. Would it be okay if it was a spell slot? Yes, definitely. I would like to see that. But if they don't, the warlock works just fine. I have had a great time with the warlock. At no time have I felt inferior to my partners (a bladelock warlock who only took a couple Mystic Arcanum and felt much more Gish than the old hexblade, a new wizard and a new fighter).
I understand that there are people who try the new warlock and don't like it for whatever reason. But I don't think it lacks identity, that it loses customization or that it is mechanically worse than the 2014 warlock. This new tomelock seemed much more fun and versatile than the previous one. It can improve? Sure, this is a playtest. I would like, as I said, that mystic arcanum gives you a spell slot. And I would also like book of shadow to scale in a way that allows you to choose level 2 (say level 11) and level 3 (say level 17) rituals.
Just wanna ask, how does it feel as a bladelock without shield, d10 hit die, and only being capable of using one-handed weapons? To me, it feels like someone in WotC holds a deep personal grudge at bladelocks and makes sure they stay inferior to paladins.
Bladelocks can use non-heavy weapons, so any melee weapon without the heavy property. The single best weapon with that limitation is, obviously, the double-bladed scimitar, but being an Eberron weapon it requires your DM's indulgence. Otherwise a versatile weapon like the longsword/battle axe/warhammer.
But even the Bladelock is an arcane caster with Eldritch Blast, and it most definitely has Shield. Paladins are the premier martial striker. Nothing in the martial block really compares to them, even with the nerfs WotC have hit them with.
Warlocks, even Hexblade, didn't compare to them in head to head damage, so why expect it of them now?
What lack of identity? I've played a tomelock in 3 playtest games, and it really feels very warlock. I don't think it lacks identity.
Regarding the Mystic Arcanum tax, although I agree that it's a bit annoying having to invest all Eldritch Invocations into it to feel like a full caster, it's not really a "punishment" either. You choose the spell you want, which allows you to customize your warlock through the spells you choose. Would it be okay if it was a spell slot? Yes, definitely. I would like to see that. But if they don't, the warlock works just fine. I have had a great time with the warlock. At no time have I felt inferior to my partners (a bladelock warlock who only took a couple Mystic Arcanum and felt much more Gish than the old hexblade, a new wizard and a new fighter).
I understand that there are people who try the new warlock and don't like it for whatever reason. But I don't think it lacks identity, that it loses customization or that it is mechanically worse than the 2014 warlock. This new tomelock seemed much more fun and versatile than the previous one. It can improve? Sure, this is a playtest. I would like, as I said, that mystic arcanum gives you a spell slot. And I would also like book of shadow to scale in a way that allows you to choose level 2 (say level 11) and level 3 (say level 17) rituals.
Just wanna ask, how does it feel as a bladelock without shield, d10 hit die, and only being capable of using one-handed weapons? To me, it feels like someone in WotC holds a deep personal grudge at bladelocks and makes sure they stay inferior to paladins.
It's because the Arcane spell list is vastly superior to the Divine one. Paladins get SMITE because their spells aren't that great so they can afford tons of slots for SMITE. A Bladelock is a true gish where their spells are better than any SMITE would be - Shield, Find Familiar, Magic Missile, Hideous Laughter, Sleep, Misty Step, Mirror Image, Blur, Web, Levitate, Haste, Fireball, Counterspell, Thunderstep, Polymorph, Dimension Door, Bigby's Hand, Wall of Force.
The main problem with the UA warlock is that the Invocations other than Mystic Arcanum really aren't good enough to compete with high level Arcane spells. So even though you don't HAVE to take Mystic Arcanums with Invocations, it's hard to see why you wouldn't - I mean what would you take instead?
Bladelocks can use non-heavy weapons, so any melee weapon without the heavy property. The single best weapon with that limitation is, obviously, the double-bladed scimitar, but being an Eberron weapon it requires your DM's indulgence. Otherwise a versatile weapon like the longsword/battle axe/warhammer.
But even the Bladelock is an arcane caster with Eldritch Blast, and it most definitely has Shield. Paladins are the premier martial striker. Nothing in the martial block really compares to them, even with the nerfs WotC have hit them with.
Warlocks, even Hexblade, didn't compare to them in head to head damage, so why expect it of them now?
Depends on your criteria. If you assume ~ 10 rounds of combat and 1 SR per adventuring day then Hexblade matches almost exactly with Sword-and-Board Paladin in terms of damage.
Just wanna ask, how does it feel as a bladelock without shield, d10 hit die, and only being capable of using one-handed weapons? To me, it feels like someone in WotC holds a deep personal grudge at bladelocks and makes sure they stay inferior to paladins.
The 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells are pretty good balm I'd say!
You can get shields via Lessons of the First Ones.
It's because the Arcane spell list is vastly superior to the Divine one. Paladins get SMITE because their spells aren't that great so they can afford tons of slots for SMITE. A Bladelock is a true gish where their spells are better than any SMITE would be - Shield, Find Familiar, Magic Missile, Hideous Laughter, Sleep, Misty Step, Mirror Image, Blur, Web, Levitate, Haste, Fireball, Counterspell, Thunderstep, Polymorph, Dimension Door, Bigby's Hand, Wall of Force.
The main problem with the UA warlock is that the Invocations other than Mystic Arcanum really aren't good enough to compete with high level Arcane spells. So even though you don't HAVE to take Mystic Arcanums with Invocations, it's hard to see why you wouldn't - I mean what would you take instead?
Problem number 1 - not enough invocations supporting Pact of the Blade, or going into melee range in general. We need invocations for durability. Not Fiendish Resilience - 5-8 temp HP for the price of an action is kind of a joke, it needs a rework.
The 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells are pretty good balm I'd say!
You can get shields via Lessons of the First Ones.
Problem number 2 - that's half of your invocations. Bladelock had to give up half of invocations as a tax to function at all, and this feels like this tax again. One way to approach it is to consider four MAs a pseudo-fullcaster choice, then we should have strong alternatives for those who want a more gishy experience. Another is to give warlocks their free high level Mystic Arcanums back. I'm a glutton, I want both, and I have no shame about it... At least they could've reintroduced Eldritch Smite and Cloak of Flies.
Though I got an even wilder idea, that actually makes sense. Let the pact boon be the subclass, not patron, so you could have a clear Occultist (Mystic Arcanums and all rituals), Hexblade (all melee features), and Summoner (chainlock on steroids) subclasses, while a choice of patron at 1st level would determine your bonus spells and grant access to extra patron-specific invocations.
But anyway, perhaps all these discussions are wrong from the very core. Perhaps the community should decide on what makes a Warlock a Warlock. Yes pact, sure, but what else do they expect. Tomelock has a book of shadows, a dark grimoire. Sure, it's a book, so you might think of a Wizard, but to me that's the most Warlock thing there could be. Well, other than pact of the chain.
Anyway, Warlock is clearly not intended to be a full caster. Neither were they that in the previous edition. It's quite clear WotC prefer you to be a cantrip spammer, with a few nice spells to add occasionally. You don't compare a Paladin to a Cleric, do you?
Besides, if you could just play a Warlock and have more HP, actual armour and weapon proficiencies, the best cantrip in the game and a lot of customisation and STILL be equal to a Sorcerer or Wizard in terms of casting magic, why would anyone play a Sorcerer or Wizars? Metamagic? A few extra utility spells the Warlock gets to cast indefinitely? Yeah sure.
And if those options you suggested for Blade were incorporated into the game, why would anyone ever play a Fighter over a Warlock?
Rangers will always lose to a Fighter in terms of fighting and always lose to Druids in terms of spellcasting, but they beat each in the other field. That's the idea of a half-caster that WotC also applied for a Warlock. And if the Warlock became a full caster instead, to keep things balanced they'd have to strip them of most of their abilities, and THEN Warlocks would lose their identity.
What you said is true, but I think we should look at it from a different perspective. I don't think WoTC wanted the Warlock to be a cantrip spammer, they gave him more spell slots so he wouldn't be so dependent on cantrips.
Ignoring subclasses, both Ranger and Paladin have access to Fighting Styles, Extra Attack, and Spell Casting by default in their kit. The Warlock only gets Extra Attack with Pact of the Blade and doesn't even have access to Fighting Styles, making him a "worse" fighter than the other two. The build of these two classes is much more limited compared to the Warlock.
If you look at feats per level, ignoring subclasses, Rangers and Paladins have little "real" choice, both get specific feats per level that cannot be changed, while Warlocks basically get Eldritch Invocations as feats per level. There is no way to put the Warlock in the same place as the other half-casters, because his kit was designed to give him flexibility between being a martial fighter, a battle-mage-like, and a full caster.
This flexibility of the Warlock also turns out to be his flaw, and that is a lack of identity. Either you make him fully capable of being a decent pseudo-full caster/martial artist, or you make him follow a "specific path" like the Ranger and the Paladin.
What lack of identity? I've played a tomelock in 3 playtest games, and it really feels very warlock. I don't think it lacks identity.
Regarding the Mystic Arcanum tax, although I agree that it's a bit annoying having to invest all Eldritch Invocations into it to feel like a full caster, it's not really a "punishment" either. You choose the spell you want, which allows you to customize your warlock through the spells you choose. Would it be okay if it was a spell slot? Yes, definitely. I would like to see that. But if they don't, the warlock works just fine. I have had a great time with the warlock. At no time have I felt inferior to my partners (a bladelock warlock who only took a couple Mystic Arcanum and felt much more Gish than the old hexblade, a new wizard and a new fighter).
I understand that there are people who try the new warlock and don't like it for whatever reason. But I don't think it lacks identity, that it loses customization or that it is mechanically worse than the 2014 warlock. This new tomelock seemed much more fun and versatile than the previous one. It can improve? Sure, this is a playtest. I would like, as I said, that mystic arcanum gives you a spell slot. And I would also like book of shadow to scale in a way that allows you to choose level 2 (say level 11) and level 3 (say level 17) rituals.
Not trying to discount your hands-on experience, but what level(s) did you play at? The gap between a half-caster and a full caster is going to widen as levels increase, so I'm curious what your feel is at higher level play.
The main problem with the UA warlock is that the Invocations other than Mystic Arcanum really aren't good enough to compete with high level Arcane spells. So even though you don't HAVE to take Mystic Arcanums with Invocations, it's hard to see why you wouldn't - I mean what would you take instead?
I wouldn't say, but that's not entirely new. Most of the time, when you get a choice in DnD (mechanics), you don't get a choice in DnD (mechanics). There are always things that are simply objectively than anything else. For example, if you play a Fighter, why would you ever pick a shortbow? It has less damage and less damage. The gold cost and weight hardly matter. Finally, they introduced weapon masteries, so in theory, you might pick it to apply vex instead of slow. But at level 7, you can apply vex to longbows too, so that becomes irrelevant. So will you play with a shortbow for 7 levels before swapping? No, most people will just take the longbow anyway. The only exception is if you're playing a small race and therefore, you can't use longbows. But then... you hardly see small fighters, and if you do, they'll go melee most of the time.
For Warlock, if Mystic Arcanum is that much better than anything else, people will take it. It's not a tax in any way more than taking Fireball for a Wizard is. They don't have to, but they do. Even if they don't like the spell and it doesn't fit their theme, most Wizards will take it because... well, Fireball. I saw nobody complaining about Agonizing Blast being a tax despite knowing that all Warlocks will take it. The only exception will be Tomelocks, who can swap it at level 5 thanks to their tome feature. Lastly, a Warlock might take any other utility invocation if they feel their party manages damage well enough. I mean, sure, high-level utility spells are pretty cool, but nobody will take 1/day Teleport over at will Detect Magic, unless you actually expect to Teleport very often.
Problem number 1 - not enough invocations supporting Pact of the Blade, or going into melee range in general. We need invocations for durability. Not Fiendish Resilience - 5-8 temp HP for the price of an action is kind of a joke, it needs a rework.
There are 3. 4 actually, but nobody will take Armour of Shadows now that you can get med armour. The rest of your survivability should come from your spells. Now that Warlocks have more spell slots, Shield is a viable option, as well as countless other defensive spells which would never see use by Warlocks because they don't scale, and Warlocks had only 2 spell slots.
Problem number 2 - that's half of your invocations. Bladelock had to give up half of invocations as a tax to function at all, and this feels like this tax again. One way to approach it is to consider four MAs a pseudo-fullcaster choice, then we should have strong alternatives for those who want a more gishy experience. Another is to give warlocks their free high level Mystic Arcanums back. I'm a glutton, I want both, and I have no shame about it... At least they could've reintroduced Eldritch Smite and Cloak of Flies.
Yeah, one can't have all. I would also like to have 10 attacks for Fighters per turn, but someone told me it's too strong. Don't know what's their problem, it's just some dice. Your invocations are meant to be used on that. Just like Paladins are meant to use their spell slots on smites, as well as spells. They would always appreciate more, but that's what they get. As for Eldritch Smite, it is a bit unfortunate, but now that the Warlock has more spell slots, that would basically turn them into better Paladins, so obviously that had to go. But again, since the Warlocks have many spell slots, they can spend them on small spells instead. And of course, EB, which allows a wounded bladelock to retreat and remain effective at range.
Though I got an even wilder idea, that actually makes sense. Let the pact boon be the subclass, not patron, so you could have a clear Occultist (Mystic Arcanums and all rituals), Hexblade (all melee features), and Summoner (chainlock on steroids) subclasses, while a choice of patron at 1st level would determine your bonus spells and grant access to extra patron-specific invocations.
And what about other subclasses? What about the entire flavour of the Warlock, which is supposed to be a pact with some higher power? That makes no sense. We don't call a Fighter with a bow an archer because that's a different subclass, but because it's a different playstyle. That's what the pact boons are supposed to offer.
What you said is true, but I think we should look at it from a different perspective. I don't think WoTC wanted the Warlock to be a cantrip spammer, they gave him more spell slots so he wouldn't be so dependent on cantrips.
Ignoring subclasses, both Ranger and Paladin have access to Fighting Styles, Extra Attack, and Spell Casting by default in their kit. The Warlock only gets Extra Attack with Pact of the Blade and doesn't even have access to Fighting Styles, making him a "worse" fighter than the other two. The build of these two classes is much more limited compared to the Warlock.
If you look at feats per level, ignoring subclasses, Rangers and Paladins have little "real" choice, both get specific feats per level that cannot be changed, while Warlocks basically get Eldritch Invocations as feats per level. There is no way to put the Warlock in the same place as the other half-casters, because his kit was designed to give him flexibility between being a martial fighter, a battle-mage-like, and a full caster.
This flexibility of the Warlock also turns out to be his flaw, and that is a lack of identity. Either you make him fully capable of being a decent pseudo-full caster/martial artist, or you make him follow a "specific path" like the Ranger and the Paladin.
Whether they wanted it or not, EB remains 1d10+ability score and multiplies the damage at higher levels. All other cantrips for all other classes scale their damage, but not as effectively as this. 1d10+ability score, at range, is effectively better than all martial weapons too. I don't see myself playing a Warlock and picking levelled spells for damage. Only for defence/Control, or maybe a single good AoE spell in case that's needed.
Warlock isn't supposed to do everything at once. If they go for fighting with a weapon, they're put on par with their counterparts with the extra attack and Hex. The Warlock has a completely different spell list that achieves completely different things. But other than that, their spellcasting abilities if you go Bladelock are matched, but a Warlock has enough invocations to get Mystic Arcanums or free spells to completely outperform the other two in that regard. Moreover, the other two rely on their spells directly for damage. Especially the Paladin. So yeah, a Warlock is a "worse" fighter, but he is better in different fields. Do you want all classes to be the same? Because that's extremely boring.
And yes, as you say, the Warlock is very flexible. That's a good thing. That's not a lack of identity, it is the identity. Having a bit of each world, being able to specialise where you want to and actually personalise your character. To further emphasize this, they literally gave Warlocks the ability to pick between three different ability scores to be their main ability score. Personalising your character, and not only by flavouring features, is something I highly appreciate.
This game is supposed to be a roleplaying game, but how am I supposed to roleplay a specific character if their abilities make no sense? What if I want to play some agile brawler who uses their fists? I'd take the monk, right? Because they are the class for being agile and using your fists. But suddenly all my features are weirdly spiritual, and I wanted to be a pirate drowning in booze, damnit. I don't meditate. The best next option is a Rogue with Tavern Brawler, but that feat sucks, and fists (and improvised weapons) don't count as finesse weapons, so no sneak attack. A fighter with the Unarmed Fighting fighting style? Now I lose all the agility I wanted.
Meanwhile, the current Warlock allows for fulfilling many different fantasies because they're highly versatile. Yes, they require you to make a pact, so much like the monk, it demands some flavour, but at least Warlocks won't be carbon copies of each other, but they'll have the option to be actually interesting characters BOTH mechanically and RP-wise.
There are 3. 4 actually, but nobody will take Armour of Shadows now that you can get med armour. The rest of your survivability should come from your spells. Now that Warlocks have more spell slots, Shield is a viable option, as well as countless other defensive spells which would never see use by Warlocks because they don't scale, and Warlocks had only 2 spell slots.
Except paladin and ranger have spells, too. Access to arcane spell list is not some kind of OP feature that puts the class above others and makes it necessary to nerf it. Not to mention that warlock is a half caster and therefore can't blast for any competitive damage.
Yeah, one can't have all. I would also like to have 10 attacks for Fighters per turn, but someone told me it's too strong. Don't know what's their problem, it's just some dice. Your invocations are meant to be used on that. Just like Paladins are meant to use their spell slots on smites, as well as spells. They would always appreciate more, but that's what they get. As for Eldritch Smite, it is a bit unfortunate, but now that the Warlock has more spell slots, that would basically turn them into better Paladins, so obviously that had to go. But again, since the Warlocks have many spell slots, they can spend them on small spells instead. And of course, EB, which allows a wounded bladelock to retreat and remain effective at range.
How in the hell are they supposed to be better than paladins when they have weaker HP, no shield or heavy armor proficiency, and no ability to use a two-handed weapon? No crazy saving throw aura, no healing spells and dedicated healing feature on top of it, no immunities. Oh, right, they have this elite VIP access to the mighty Arcane spell list which by itself it much more powerful than anything of the same level, especiallly given the fact that it wasn't designed for healing or support.
And what about other subclasses? What about the entire flavour of the Warlock, which is supposed to be a pact with some higher power? That makes no sense. We don't call a Fighter with a bow an archer because that's a different subclass, but because it's a different playstyle. That's what the pact boons are supposed to offer.
Turn on your imagination. If the patron is chosen at 1st level and the terms of the pact at 3rd, it alleviates the problem of "but what am I before level 3 if I don't have a pact?" that some people whined about. You pick a patron at level 1 and choose the flavor, then you can choose how you serve, what role your patron wants you to fulfil. There's much more than those original three pact boons. You could be an artifact collector, a possessed host, an eldritch assassin of patron's rivals, a planar messenger/courier with supreme mobility and communication...
No shield, no shield, no shield. Blah. A shield is a 1st level feat which you can immediately refund with your first invocation. And unlike the Paladin, the Bladelock isn't choosing between their casting stat and their melee stat (or their ranged stat)! And unlike both the Paladin AND the old Warlock, this one has a bunch of 1st-level slots they can use on arcane things like the Shield spell too. Or Armor of Agathys. Or False Life. They're fine.
As far as blasting - Warlock has the best damage cantrip in the game, and competitive blasting from the Arcane List all the way up with the right Arcana selection. Or they could just throw their spear or trident etc. They're fine.
I prefer the Patron as the subclass rather than the Pact Boon. I like being a bladelock at 1st level, as well as not being locked into one specific flavor of patron to do that. The same goes for tomelock and chainlock.
What lack of identity? I've played a tomelock in 3 playtest games, and it really feels very warlock. I don't think it lacks identity.
Regarding the Mystic Arcanum tax, although I agree that it's a bit annoying having to invest all Eldritch Invocations into it to feel like a full caster, it's not really a "punishment" either. You choose the spell you want, which allows you to customize your warlock through the spells you choose. Would it be okay if it was a spell slot? Yes, definitely. I would like to see that. But if they don't, the warlock works just fine. I have had a great time with the warlock. At no time have I felt inferior to my partners (a bladelock warlock who only took a couple Mystic Arcanum and felt much more Gish than the old hexblade, a new wizard and a new fighter).
I understand that there are people who try the new warlock and don't like it for whatever reason. But I don't think it lacks identity, that it loses customization or that it is mechanically worse than the 2014 warlock. This new tomelock seemed much more fun and versatile than the previous one. It can improve? Sure, this is a playtest. I would like, as I said, that mystic arcanum gives you a spell slot. And I would also like book of shadow to scale in a way that allows you to choose level 2 (say level 11) and level 3 (say level 17) rituals.
Just wanna ask, how does it feel as a bladelock without shield, d10 hit die, and only being capable of using one-handed weapons? To me, it feels like someone in WotC holds a deep personal grudge at bladelocks and makes sure they stay inferior to paladins.
There's a bladelock in my party (by the way, we've played level 9, 10 and 11 so far, someone else was asking), and it feels like a gish. There is also a fighter, and the bladelock didn't feel less effective.
By the way, I saw in the thread that someone was worried because the bladelock doesn't have healing spells. I understand that your concern is because you can't heal yourself. Well, my partner chose lifedrinker, and it really is a bit of a weak invocation. The extra d6 damage is fine, since it applies to every hit from your Pact Weapon. But the healing is marginal. At level 9+ 1d6 healing per turn has hardly any impact. That is something that I have seen that has to be adjusted, and I will say so in the survey.
I have also seen that someone was worried about the shield. My partner uses a shield, what I don't know is if he got it with one of his free feats (human or background) or with lessons of the first one. The problem with the shield is that it takes up one hand, which is a problem you have to solve with warcaster. And it is logical that you have to invest resources in that. You are good in melee, with the arcane list to protect you. You are SAD. You have big pockets full of tricks. Do you also want to use a shield? Well, invest your resources in that. In my opinion you don't need it. But if you want it, you can have it.
No shield, no shield, no shield. Blah. A shield is a 1st level feat which you can immediately refund with your first invocation. And unlike the Paladin, the Bladelock isn't choosing between their casting stat and their melee stat (or their ranged stat)! And unlike both the Paladin AND the old Warlock, this one has a bunch of 1st-level slots they can use on arcane things like the Shield spell too. Or Armor of Agathys. Or False Life. They're fine.
As far as blasting - Warlock has the best damage cantrip in the game, and competitive blasting from the Arcane List all the way up with the right Arcana selection. Or they could just throw their spear or trident etc. They're fine.
I prefer the Patron as the subclass rather than the Pact Boon. I like being a bladelock at 1st level, as well as not being locked into one specific flavor of patron to do that. The same goes for tomelock and chainlock.
Having to waste a feat on something that other comparable class just has for free is not good. Besides, to gain proficiency with shield, you'd have to take Lightly Armored feat, in which case two out of three parts of the feat would be wasted, since warlock already has light and medium armor training. Yes, I agree that warlock has the advantage of being SAD, but the thing with Divine spell list is that there's a plenty of spells that don't factor spellcasting ability modifier at all (Bless, Divine Favor, Shield of Faith, all smite spells, etc.), that's how paladin spellcasting mostly works. A paladin can have lousy Cha score and still cast a decent part of their repertoire at full potential. Warlock being able to rely on spell save DC is more or less a compensation for not having healing or many support spells.
Blasting is when you drop 8d6 damage upon everything in a 20 ft radius at character level 5. That's blasting. It's what only fullcasters are capable of. Half-casters don't catch up, they use their other half to do damage and their caster half to buff and support it.
Swapping patron and pact boon keeps you the freedom of matching the bladelock with any patron. Thing is, right now, WotC have to cram a lot into the basic pact boon "cantrip" (with its level 5 upgrade being basically a whole other feature) and still leave some out in mandatory invocations like Lifedrinker. That stuff could be organized in a more true to purpose way as a subclass. Just put the mechanics and functionality into subclass, and leave the flavor and customization to choosing patron spell list at level 1 and invocations along the way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I know there have been several posts about this, but I wanted to share my vision for improving the Warlock half-caster. Warlock is my favorite class, and I have tried to be as unbiased and consistent as possible in balancing it.
| Warlock level | Spell level |
|-----------------------|------------------|
| 5th-6th | 3rd |
| 7th-8th | 4th |
| 9th+ | 5th |
This change is intended to provide flexibility to the warlock spellcaster. Since a Pact slot is tied to a Mystic Arcanum-acquired spell, you would have to choose between casting that spell or upcasting a lesser spell you know. Maybe the idea is too strong and needs balancing, but it would bring the best of both worlds: the multiple spell slots of this new release and the burst that the 2014 PHB warlocks had when using lower level spells.
But I understand that this opens up space for bladelocks to try to abuse this and take Mystic Arcanum multiple times to get big bursts with spells and guaranteed dps with pact weapon damage. For this to work, bladelocks would have to have new Invocations to pick up that are as good as picking up a spell with Mystic Arcanum.
Examples (all of the following Invocations have Pact of the Blade feature as a prerequisite):
- You deal the extra damage from Hex on all damage rolls made with the Pact Weapon (warlock lvl 17 idk);
- You gain an additional attack for your Pact Weapon. (Warlock lvl 13);
- You can use the Weapon Mastery of your weapon summoned with Pact Weapon. (warlock lvl 5);
These are just a few examples, perhaps very strong ones, of invocations that would benefit the bladelock to the point that he wouldn't even want to get many instances of Mystic Arcanum. Ultimately, my goal was not for bladelocks to not take Mystic Arcanum, but for them to split between good features and high level spells. In the same way, players who focus on spellcasting would feel more rewarded for taking it multiple times.
What lack of identity? I've played a tomelock in 3 playtest games, and it really feels very warlock. I don't think it lacks identity.
Regarding the Mystic Arcanum tax, although I agree that it's a bit annoying having to invest all Eldritch Invocations into it to feel like a full caster, it's not really a "punishment" either. You choose the spell you want, which allows you to customize your warlock through the spells you choose. Would it be okay if it was a spell slot? Yes, definitely. I would like to see that. But if they don't, the warlock works just fine. I have had a great time with the warlock. At no time have I felt inferior to my partners (a bladelock warlock who only took a couple Mystic Arcanum and felt much more Gish than the old hexblade, a new wizard and a new fighter).
I understand that there are people who try the new warlock and don't like it for whatever reason. But I don't think it lacks identity, that it loses customization or that it is mechanically worse than the 2014 warlock. This new tomelock seemed much more fun and versatile than the previous one. It can improve? Sure, this is a playtest. I would like, as I said, that mystic arcanum gives you a spell slot. And I would also like book of shadow to scale in a way that allows you to choose level 2 (say level 11) and level 3 (say level 17) rituals.
Tomelock doesn't fee like a warlock. It feels like a half ass wizard.
No? And how does a warlock feel? This level 11 warlock can mechanically talk to his patron, for example. Something that the other did not have encapsulated in its mechanics. Doesn't that make you feel like a warlock? Doesn't it feel like warlock that his features come from a pact?
Feeling like a warlock is having a couple of spell slots and recharging them every short rest? Is that being a warlock?
This warlock is much more warlock than the other. And the main reason is the level 11 feature (which should win much sooner, I'm telling you as well).
Chainlocks be like: Am I a joke to you?
But anyway, perhaps all these discussions are wrong from the very core. Perhaps the community should decide on what makes a Warlock a Warlock. Yes pact, sure, but what else do they expect. Tomelock has a book of shadows, a dark grimoire. Sure, it's a book, so you might think of a Wizard, but to me that's the most Warlock thing there could be. Well, other than pact of the chain.
Anyway, Warlock is clearly not intended to be a full caster. Neither were they that in the previous edition. It's quite clear WotC prefer you to be a cantrip spammer, with a few nice spells to add occasionally. You don't compare a Paladin to a Cleric, do you?
Besides, if you could just play a Warlock and have more HP, actual armour and weapon proficiencies, the best cantrip in the game and a lot of customisation and STILL be equal to a Sorcerer or Wizard in terms of casting magic, why would anyone play a Sorcerer or Wizars? Metamagic? A few extra utility spells the Warlock gets to cast indefinitely? Yeah sure.
And if those options you suggested for Blade were incorporated into the game, why would anyone ever play a Fighter over a Warlock?
Rangers will always lose to a Fighter in terms of fighting and always lose to Druids in terms of spellcasting, but they beat each in the other field. That's the idea of a half-caster that WotC also applied for a Warlock. And if the Warlock became a full caster instead, to keep things balanced they'd have to strip them of most of their abilities, and THEN Warlocks would lose their identity.
Varielky | Emma
Just wanna ask, how does it feel as a bladelock without shield, d10 hit die, and only being capable of using one-handed weapons? To me, it feels like someone in WotC holds a deep personal grudge at bladelocks and makes sure they stay inferior to paladins.
Bladelocks can use non-heavy weapons, so any melee weapon without the heavy property. The single best weapon with that limitation is, obviously, the double-bladed scimitar, but being an Eberron weapon it requires your DM's indulgence. Otherwise a versatile weapon like the longsword/battle axe/warhammer.
But even the Bladelock is an arcane caster with Eldritch Blast, and it most definitely has Shield. Paladins are the premier martial striker. Nothing in the martial block really compares to them, even with the nerfs WotC have hit them with.
Warlocks, even Hexblade, didn't compare to them in head to head damage, so why expect it of them now?
It's because the Arcane spell list is vastly superior to the Divine one. Paladins get SMITE because their spells aren't that great so they can afford tons of slots for SMITE. A Bladelock is a true gish where their spells are better than any SMITE would be - Shield, Find Familiar, Magic Missile, Hideous Laughter, Sleep, Misty Step, Mirror Image, Blur, Web, Levitate, Haste, Fireball, Counterspell, Thunderstep, Polymorph, Dimension Door, Bigby's Hand, Wall of Force.
The main problem with the UA warlock is that the Invocations other than Mystic Arcanum really aren't good enough to compete with high level Arcane spells. So even though you don't HAVE to take Mystic Arcanums with Invocations, it's hard to see why you wouldn't - I mean what would you take instead?
Depends on your criteria. If you assume ~ 10 rounds of combat and 1 SR per adventuring day then Hexblade matches almost exactly with Sword-and-Board Paladin in terms of damage.
The 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells are pretty good balm I'd say!
You can get shields via Lessons of the First Ones.
Problem number 1 - not enough invocations supporting Pact of the Blade, or going into melee range in general. We need invocations for durability. Not Fiendish Resilience - 5-8 temp HP for the price of an action is kind of a joke, it needs a rework.
Problem number 2 - that's half of your invocations. Bladelock had to give up half of invocations as a tax to function at all, and this feels like this tax again. One way to approach it is to consider four MAs a pseudo-fullcaster choice, then we should have strong alternatives for those who want a more gishy experience. Another is to give warlocks their free high level Mystic Arcanums back. I'm a glutton, I want both, and I have no shame about it... At least they could've reintroduced Eldritch Smite and Cloak of Flies.
Though I got an even wilder idea, that actually makes sense. Let the pact boon be the subclass, not patron, so you could have a clear Occultist (Mystic Arcanums and all rituals), Hexblade (all melee features), and Summoner (chainlock on steroids) subclasses, while a choice of patron at 1st level would determine your bonus spells and grant access to extra patron-specific invocations.
What you said is true, but I think we should look at it from a different perspective. I don't think WoTC wanted the Warlock to be a cantrip spammer, they gave him more spell slots so he wouldn't be so dependent on cantrips.
Ignoring subclasses, both Ranger and Paladin have access to Fighting Styles, Extra Attack, and Spell Casting by default in their kit. The Warlock only gets Extra Attack with Pact of the Blade and doesn't even have access to Fighting Styles, making him a "worse" fighter than the other two. The build of these two classes is much more limited compared to the Warlock.
If you look at feats per level, ignoring subclasses, Rangers and Paladins have little "real" choice, both get specific feats per level that cannot be changed, while Warlocks basically get Eldritch Invocations as feats per level. There is no way to put the Warlock in the same place as the other half-casters, because his kit was designed to give him flexibility between being a martial fighter, a battle-mage-like, and a full caster.
This flexibility of the Warlock also turns out to be his flaw, and that is a lack of identity.
Either you make him fully capable of being a decent pseudo-full caster/martial artist, or you make him follow a "specific path" like the Ranger and the Paladin.
Not trying to discount your hands-on experience, but what level(s) did you play at? The gap between a half-caster and a full caster is going to widen as levels increase, so I'm curious what your feel is at higher level play.
I wouldn't say, but that's not entirely new. Most of the time, when you get a choice in DnD (mechanics), you don't get a choice in DnD (mechanics). There are always things that are simply objectively than anything else. For example, if you play a Fighter, why would you ever pick a shortbow? It has less damage and less damage. The gold cost and weight hardly matter. Finally, they introduced weapon masteries, so in theory, you might pick it to apply vex instead of slow. But at level 7, you can apply vex to longbows too, so that becomes irrelevant. So will you play with a shortbow for 7 levels before swapping? No, most people will just take the longbow anyway. The only exception is if you're playing a small race and therefore, you can't use longbows. But then... you hardly see small fighters, and if you do, they'll go melee most of the time.
For Warlock, if Mystic Arcanum is that much better than anything else, people will take it. It's not a tax in any way more than taking Fireball for a Wizard is. They don't have to, but they do. Even if they don't like the spell and it doesn't fit their theme, most Wizards will take it because... well, Fireball. I saw nobody complaining about Agonizing Blast being a tax despite knowing that all Warlocks will take it. The only exception will be Tomelocks, who can swap it at level 5 thanks to their tome feature. Lastly, a Warlock might take any other utility invocation if they feel their party manages damage well enough. I mean, sure, high-level utility spells are pretty cool, but nobody will take 1/day Teleport over at will Detect Magic, unless you actually expect to Teleport very often.
There are 3. 4 actually, but nobody will take Armour of Shadows now that you can get med armour. The rest of your survivability should come from your spells. Now that Warlocks have more spell slots, Shield is a viable option, as well as countless other defensive spells which would never see use by Warlocks because they don't scale, and Warlocks had only 2 spell slots.
Yeah, one can't have all. I would also like to have 10 attacks for Fighters per turn, but someone told me it's too strong. Don't know what's their problem, it's just some dice. Your invocations are meant to be used on that. Just like Paladins are meant to use their spell slots on smites, as well as spells. They would always appreciate more, but that's what they get. As for Eldritch Smite, it is a bit unfortunate, but now that the Warlock has more spell slots, that would basically turn them into better Paladins, so obviously that had to go. But again, since the Warlocks have many spell slots, they can spend them on small spells instead. And of course, EB, which allows a wounded bladelock to retreat and remain effective at range.
And what about other subclasses? What about the entire flavour of the Warlock, which is supposed to be a pact with some higher power? That makes no sense. We don't call a Fighter with a bow an archer because that's a different subclass, but because it's a different playstyle. That's what the pact boons are supposed to offer.
Varielky | Emma
Whether they wanted it or not, EB remains 1d10+ability score and multiplies the damage at higher levels. All other cantrips for all other classes scale their damage, but not as effectively as this. 1d10+ability score, at range, is effectively better than all martial weapons too. I don't see myself playing a Warlock and picking levelled spells for damage. Only for defence/Control, or maybe a single good AoE spell in case that's needed.
Warlock isn't supposed to do everything at once. If they go for fighting with a weapon, they're put on par with their counterparts with the extra attack and Hex. The Warlock has a completely different spell list that achieves completely different things. But other than that, their spellcasting abilities if you go Bladelock are matched, but a Warlock has enough invocations to get Mystic Arcanums or free spells to completely outperform the other two in that regard. Moreover, the other two rely on their spells directly for damage. Especially the Paladin. So yeah, a Warlock is a "worse" fighter, but he is better in different fields. Do you want all classes to be the same? Because that's extremely boring.
And yes, as you say, the Warlock is very flexible. That's a good thing. That's not a lack of identity, it is the identity. Having a bit of each world, being able to specialise where you want to and actually personalise your character. To further emphasize this, they literally gave Warlocks the ability to pick between three different ability scores to be their main ability score. Personalising your character, and not only by flavouring features, is something I highly appreciate.
This game is supposed to be a roleplaying game, but how am I supposed to roleplay a specific character if their abilities make no sense? What if I want to play some agile brawler who uses their fists? I'd take the monk, right? Because they are the class for being agile and using your fists. But suddenly all my features are weirdly spiritual, and I wanted to be a pirate drowning in booze, damnit. I don't meditate. The best next option is a Rogue with Tavern Brawler, but that feat sucks, and fists (and improvised weapons) don't count as finesse weapons, so no sneak attack. A fighter with the Unarmed Fighting fighting style? Now I lose all the agility I wanted.
Meanwhile, the current Warlock allows for fulfilling many different fantasies because they're highly versatile. Yes, they require you to make a pact, so much like the monk, it demands some flavour, but at least Warlocks won't be carbon copies of each other, but they'll have the option to be actually interesting characters BOTH mechanically and RP-wise.
Varielky | Emma
Except paladin and ranger have spells, too. Access to arcane spell list is not some kind of OP feature that puts the class above others and makes it necessary to nerf it. Not to mention that warlock is a half caster and therefore can't blast for any competitive damage.
How in the hell are they supposed to be better than paladins when they have weaker HP, no shield or heavy armor proficiency, and no ability to use a two-handed weapon? No crazy saving throw aura, no healing spells and dedicated healing feature on top of it, no immunities. Oh, right, they have this elite VIP access to the mighty Arcane spell list which by itself it much more powerful than anything of the same level, especiallly given the fact that it wasn't designed for healing or support.
Turn on your imagination. If the patron is chosen at 1st level and the terms of the pact at 3rd, it alleviates the problem of "but what am I before level 3 if I don't have a pact?" that some people whined about. You pick a patron at level 1 and choose the flavor, then you can choose how you serve, what role your patron wants you to fulfil. There's much more than those original three pact boons. You could be an artifact collector, a possessed host, an eldritch assassin of patron's rivals, a planar messenger/courier with supreme mobility and communication...
No shield, no shield, no shield. Blah. A shield is a 1st level feat which you can immediately refund with your first invocation. And unlike the Paladin, the Bladelock isn't choosing between their casting stat and their melee stat (or their ranged stat)! And unlike both the Paladin AND the old Warlock, this one has a bunch of 1st-level slots they can use on arcane things like the Shield spell too. Or Armor of Agathys. Or False Life. They're fine.
As far as blasting - Warlock has the best damage cantrip in the game, and competitive blasting from the Arcane List all the way up with the right Arcana selection. Or they could just throw their spear or trident etc. They're fine.
I prefer the Patron as the subclass rather than the Pact Boon. I like being a bladelock at 1st level, as well as not being locked into one specific flavor of patron to do that. The same goes for tomelock and chainlock.
There's a bladelock in my party (by the way, we've played level 9, 10 and 11 so far, someone else was asking), and it feels like a gish. There is also a fighter, and the bladelock didn't feel less effective.
By the way, I saw in the thread that someone was worried because the bladelock doesn't have healing spells. I understand that your concern is because you can't heal yourself. Well, my partner chose lifedrinker, and it really is a bit of a weak invocation. The extra d6 damage is fine, since it applies to every hit from your Pact Weapon. But the healing is marginal. At level 9+ 1d6 healing per turn has hardly any impact. That is something that I have seen that has to be adjusted, and I will say so in the survey.
I have also seen that someone was worried about the shield. My partner uses a shield, what I don't know is if he got it with one of his free feats (human or background) or with lessons of the first one. The problem with the shield is that it takes up one hand, which is a problem you have to solve with warcaster. And it is logical that you have to invest resources in that. You are good in melee, with the arcane list to protect you. You are SAD. You have big pockets full of tricks. Do you also want to use a shield? Well, invest your resources in that. In my opinion you don't need it. But if you want it, you can have it.
Having to waste a feat on something that other comparable class just has for free is not good. Besides, to gain proficiency with shield, you'd have to take Lightly Armored feat, in which case two out of three parts of the feat would be wasted, since warlock already has light and medium armor training. Yes, I agree that warlock has the advantage of being SAD, but the thing with Divine spell list is that there's a plenty of spells that don't factor spellcasting ability modifier at all (Bless, Divine Favor, Shield of Faith, all smite spells, etc.), that's how paladin spellcasting mostly works. A paladin can have lousy Cha score and still cast a decent part of their repertoire at full potential. Warlock being able to rely on spell save DC is more or less a compensation for not having healing or many support spells.
Blasting is when you drop 8d6 damage upon everything in a 20 ft radius at character level 5. That's blasting. It's what only fullcasters are capable of. Half-casters don't catch up, they use their other half to do damage and their caster half to buff and support it.
Swapping patron and pact boon keeps you the freedom of matching the bladelock with any patron. Thing is, right now, WotC have to cram a lot into the basic pact boon "cantrip" (with its level 5 upgrade being basically a whole other feature) and still leave some out in mandatory invocations like Lifedrinker. That stuff could be organized in a more true to purpose way as a subclass. Just put the mechanics and functionality into subclass, and leave the flavor and customization to choosing patron spell list at level 1 and invocations along the way.