Let's compare a level 9 Paladin with a level 9, bladepact, Warlock.
Warlock will take improved pact weapon, lifedrinker, eldritch smite, and agonizing blast. The fifth can be anything, maybe a 3rd level mystic arcanum for Hunger of Hadar. They'll wield a longsword two-handed for a d10 damage dice. With 14 dex and half plate they'll have 17AC. With two ASIs down they'll have 20 charisma.
At level 9 both Paladin and Warlock have level 3 spell slots to spend on smites, both can smite once per turn. The Warlock gets 2d8 to 4d8 force damage from an eldritch smite, Paladin gets 2d8 to 4d8 radiant damage from a divine smite.
Paladin will take polearm master and use a glaive, so they're capable of getting three attacks a turn. With another ASI they'll get their strength to 20. They will take full plate for 18AC although they'll probably take the defensive fighting style to get to 19AC.
If the Warlock expends a third level spell slot for Hex that's an additional 2d6 necrotic damage, once per turn.
Warlock gets (1d10 (weapon dice) +1 (improved pact weapon) +5 (charisma) + d6 (lifedrinker)) x 2 + 2d6 (hex) = 2d10 + 12 + 4d6, they can expend a spell slot for eldritch smite, as mentioned previously.
Paladin gets (1d10 (weapon dice) + 5 (strength)) x 2 + (1d4 (polearm master dice) + 5 (strength)) = 2d10 +15 +d4, again they can expend a spell slot for divine smite.
At level 9 damage for the Warlock (assuming all hits) ranges from 18 to 56, and damage for the Paladin ranges from 18 to 39. The Paladin does add another 3 to 24 damage at level 11 when it gets Radiant Strikes, so 21 to 63 damage.
So the bladepact Warlock is actually comparable to a polearm master Paladin, despite not having access to heavy weapons, thanks to the extra magical damage they add. The Paladin does have the option of taking great weapon master, for proficiency extra damage each turn, and sentinel, but at level 9 they'd only have one of those, and therefore still be at strength 19 for +4 instead of +5. Even if the Warlock drops improved pact weapon they only lose 2 damage top and bottom, 16 to 54.
Because they're limited to just one smite per turn, either divine smite or a smite spell, the Paladin's power spike has been pulled way down. If the Paladin gets spirit shroud, a bonus d8 radiant damage per hit at level 3, so does the Warlock.
With eldritch smite, and with smite spells and smite abilities excluding each other, the Warlock doesn't need anything from the Hexblade to still be pretty good at hitting things.
If you want healing you can just play a Celestial Warlock.
I think the way to calculated this puts the Paladin in a pretty bad light. The Warlock gets Hex, but the Paladin can't use Spirit Shroud?
Warlock gets (1d10 (weapon dice) +1 (improved pact weapon) +5 (charisma) + d6 (lifedrinker)) x 2 + 2d6 (hex) = 2d10 + 12 + 4d6, they can expend a spell slot for eldritch smite, as mentioned previously.
Paladin gets (1d10 (weapon dice) + 5 (strength) + 1d8 (Spirit Shroud)) x 2 + (1d4 (polearm master dice) + 5 (strength) + 1d8 (Spirit Shroud)) = 2d10 +15 + 1d4 + 3d8, again they can expend a spell slot for divine smite.
As an alternative to Spirit Shroud they can use Bless or Crusader's Mantle, which would also buff their allies adding additional damage from the Paladin's contributions.
Also Paladins will scale better for damage with feats, because they can use heavy weapons. Great Weapon Master and Weapon Mastery (Graze) will be available later. Also Radiant Strikes at 11th level as you mentioned.
Paladin's are way better melee damage dealers than Warlocks. Warlocks completely stomp them for ranged damage though.
Spirit Shroud is available to Warlocks too, and technically, because it's a Martial weapon that is not heavy, the Warlock can summon a double-bladed scimitar, though being Eberron that is DM dependent. I've never had one say no though.
That allows the level 9 Warlock to roll 2(2d4+5) + d4+5 + 3d6 + 3d8. It can also take Eldritch Smite for the same benefits as the Paladin.
5d4 + 15 + 3d6 + 3d8 gives a range from 26 to 77, plus the possibility of a 2d8 to 4d8 smite.
PAM GWM Paladin, forced to level 12 to max strength, so with radiant strikes and Spirit Shroud.
2(d10+5) + d4+5 + 3(d8) + 3(d8) + 4. That's a range from 28 to 91 damage.
Paladin is better.
As I've said before, I really don't see the point in giving up my ~150 damage a round Hexblade for a character than does around a third of that. To Jeremy I say, "This is not the Way."
Spirit Shroud is available to Warlocks too, and technically, because it's a Martial weapon that is not heavy, the Warlock can summon a double-bladed scimitar, though being Eberron that is DM dependent. I've never had one say no though.
That allows the level 9 Warlock to roll 2(2d4+5) + d4+5 + 3d6 + 3d8. It can also take Eldritch Smite for the same benefits as the Paladin.
5d4 + 15 + 3d6 + 3d8 gives a range from 26 to 77, plus the possibility of a 2d8 to 4d8 smite.
PAM GWM Paladin, forced to level 12 to max strength, so with radiant strikes and Spirit Shroud.
2(d10+5) + d4+5 + 3(d8) + 3(d8) + 4. That's a range from 28 to 91 damage.
Paladin is better.
As I've said before, I really don't see the point in giving up my ~150 damage a round Hexblade for a character than does around a third of that. To Jeremy I say, "This is not the Way."
Yeah, but then you're forgetting Devotion Pala's Sacred Weapon or Vengeance Pala's Vow of Enmity both making the Paladin significantly better at hitting their target.
Warlocks will lose damage, especially Bladelocks. I think it's because they want the Warrior group to be damage THE dealers. Spellcasters (Half or Full) have significantly more flexibility both in and out of combat compared to Warriors. Overall I think that's fine and reasonable.
UA Lifedrinker really is awful. Not sure what they were thinking there. The only use I can see for it is a bag-of-rats problem.
I think it's okay.
Vs. a 20 Cha 5e 'lock you lose 1.5 damage per hit on average, but can heal a d6 per round. Also you can get it at 9 now instead of 12. Still, it's competing with a Mystic Arcanum 5th level spell...
At level 9, 1d6 healing in combat is useless. Meanwhile out of combat, it's broken, because you can just wail on a farmer's sheep or something and never need to spend any party resources. It needs a redesign from both sides.
At level 9, 1d6 healing in combat is useless. Meanwhile out of combat, it's broken, because you can just wail on a farmer's sheep or something and never need to spend any party resources. It needs a redesign from both sides.
While I believe it should be better healing I dislike the argument that 1d6 healing is useless in combat at 9th level. Why? Because it’s not just 1d6 healing, it’s 1d6 per round. In a typical fight that’s 3d6 healing if you get a turn in all the rounds. This small healing could be the difference between, “I’m down,” and making death saves and “oh crap, I have 2 hp left” and making attacks on your next turn.
Also the out of combat exploits only happen when the DM lets that slide. Killing the farmers sheep messes with the towns economy. There might be a bounty on your head.
[...]or why Pact of the Blade can't be Intelligence based.[...]
My suspicion is that they don't want the bladesingers to dip into bladelock to be SAD, and break the subclass. He doesn't want a new hexadin, to understand us.
Which makes me wonder why they designed the bladelock so that you can hit with your spellcasting ability from level 1. I guess they didn't want to make it too weak just to avoid dips. It's the problem of multiclasses, which are a nightmare for class design.
I expect it was because they were tired of everyone and their sidekick taking 1 level of hexblade just so they could use CHA as their fighting AND spellcasting stat. Now, while there will still be a bunch of 1 level dips in to Bladelock to get that ability, at least they wont all be hexblades. Once Celestial Warlock is back, you'll probably see a lot of Celestial Pallocks on the good side, and Fiend Pallocks on the evil side.
I'm pretty sure if it was up to the designers, there would be no multiclassing. But it's such an extremely popular option that it would be suicide to remove it from the game. That's why multiclassing still exists, even though it no longer makes sense from a game design standpoint. Subclasses and feats already fill the need for one class with a bit of the mechanical flavor of another. But anyway, multiclassing isn't going away, so designers have to deal with that headache.
[...]or why Pact of the Blade can't be Intelligence based.[...]
My suspicion is that they don't want the bladesingers to dip into bladelock to be SAD, and break the subclass. He doesn't want a new hexadin, to understand us.
Which makes me wonder why they designed the bladelock so that you can hit with your spellcasting ability from level 1. I guess they didn't want to make it too weak just to avoid dips. It's the problem of multiclasses, which are a nightmare for class design.
I expect it was because they were tired of everyone and their sidekick taking 1 level of hexblade just so they could use CHA as their fighting AND spellcasting stat. Now, while there will still be a bunch of 1 level dips in to Bladelock to get that ability, at least they wont all be hexblades. Once Celestial Warlock is back, you'll probably see a lot of Celestial Pallocks on the good side, and Fiend Pallocks on the evil side.
You don't get any subclass features until level 3 of warlock so we'll just have a ton of 1 level dips with no subclass what so ever. All of them taking Find Familiar and Shield as their two spells known, Pact of the Blade, and [attack cantrips of their choice]
At level 9, 1d6 healing in combat is useless. Meanwhile out of combat, it's broken, because you can just wail on a farmer's sheep or something and never need to spend any party resources. It needs a redesign from both sides.
While I believe it should be better healing I dislike the argument that 1d6 healing is useless in combat at 9th level. Why? Because it’s not just 1d6 healing, it’s 1d6 per round. In a typical fight that’s 3d6 healing if you get a turn in all the rounds. This small healing could be the difference between, “I’m down,” and making death saves and “oh crap, I have 2 hp left” and making attacks on your next turn.
Also the out of combat exploits only happen when the DM lets that slide. Killing the farmers sheep messes with the towns economy. There might be a bounty on your head.
I was being a touch hyperbolic with "useless" but it's definitely far down the list of invocations I'd take, even as a bladelock. And "The DM can stop it" is not a defense for bad design, the DM shouldn't have to - infinite healing is clearly not something they want to be possible in the game.
At level 9, 1d6 healing in combat is useless. Meanwhile out of combat, it's broken, because you can just wail on a farmer's sheep or something and never need to spend any party resources. It needs a redesign from both sides.
While I believe it should be better healing I dislike the argument that 1d6 healing is useless in combat at 9th level. Why? Because it’s not just 1d6 healing, it’s 1d6 per round. In a typical fight that’s 3d6 healing if you get a turn in all the rounds. This small healing could be the difference between, “I’m down,” and making death saves and “oh crap, I have 2 hp left” and making attacks on your next turn.
Also the out of combat exploits only happen when the DM lets that slide. Killing the farmers sheep messes with the towns economy. There might be a bounty on your head.
I was being a touch hyperbolic with "useless" but it's definitely far down the list of invocations I'd take, even as a bladelock. And "The DM can stop it" is not a defense for bad design, the DM shouldn't have to - infinite healing is clearly not something they want to be possible in the game.
Not saying the DM can stop it. I’m saying there should be consequences for killing the local farmers sheep. Out of combat they literally have to seek out things to kill, but killing things that are not yours becomes a problem. Out of combat a wizard and now all warlocks can solve many social encounters with a fireball. They don’t because they know there will be consequences. Also most sheep will try to run.
UA Lifedrinker really is awful. Not sure what they were thinking there. The only use I can see for it is a bag-of-rats problem.
I think it's okay.
Vs. a 20 Cha 5e 'lock you lose 1.5 damage per hit on average, but can heal a d6 per round. Also you can get it at 9 now instead of 12. Still, it's competing with a Mystic Arcanum 5th level spell...
I want a small correction here, it is NOT competing with Mystic Arcanum 5th level spell. It is competing with Mystic Arcanum 3rd level spell at the level you just unlocked real 3rd level slots.
When it comes to invocations at level 9 we have to remember they aren't competing for the number 1 slot, they are competing for the number 4 and 5 slots. At 11 They are competing for the 5 and 6 slot.... so on and so forth. Making the cut isn't about being the best option, it is about being better than the 6th or 7th option. By the end it isn't about being the best option it is about being better than the 10th option.
The tricky thing with a Warlock's identity is that their core feature is almost not to have one, or more specifically, to let the player choose what that identity is. In 5e there is nothing really that's core to being a warlock other than having a pact, and pact magic itself, everything else is customisation options in the form of pacts and invocations. This means that in many ways a Warlock's strength is the same as a Wizard's, versatility, except that it's more about build versatility rather than preparation.
In 5e Warlocks are sort of full casters, as through Mystic Arcana they gained access to the same spell levels as a full caster (and at the same time). The main difference was pact magic slots being short rest bound, which sadly meant that many warlock players were discouraged from casting spells unless they knew they could take plenty of short rests. In the latter case a warlock could be as powerful as any full caster, but in practice you couldn't rely on that, and many campaigns rarely take short rests at all.
But the proposed change in the UA is weird to me; it makes the warlock a half caster but without a fixed other half, as by default they're not half martials. Pact of the Blade lets you build in that direction, but it lacks invocations to really take it all the way, so you'll never become a true half caster/half martial, as you'll probably end up having to take at least some mystic arcanums to fill out your invocations. Really they need to bring back some of the abandoned invocations to give us more martial options; Life Drinker is… fine but not amazing, but what I'd really like to see is a return of Relentless Hex, tweaked to trigger when you cast/transfer hex (to eliminate the bonus action clash it used to have).
I'd also like to see some of the other hex invocations return; Maddening Hex for one, but I'd also really like to see one that allows hex to be transferred without a target being dead first, as you could combo that with Relentless Hex so I could finally build the telporting bladey boi that Relentless Hex always promised but never delivered. To me hex is a much better candidate for a core feature to the warlock than eldritch blast, but it needs the invocations to build around it.
Speaking of which, I think one of the biggest challenges to warlock identity is eldritch blast; I don't like that WotC have made it a core feature of Warlocks because eldritch blast spam is something I've always disliked about the class. The reason people are lured into it is because so many invocations are explicitly for it, but instead of opening up the invocations for more variety, they've made eldritch blast a mandatory feature of the class, so they've effectively doubled down on one of the problems, rather than fixing it.
I'd much rather see eldritch blast become a weaker Arcane list cantrip anybody can take, but with invocations that let you build it back up to previous levels if cantrip spam is what you want, or do the same for other cantrips if you'd prefer to be a cold damage spammer, fire damage spammer etc. Things like Repelling Blast could work just as effectively on another cantrip for example, Agonizing Blast might need a rethink (maybe once per turn rather than per hit, but with scaled damage as you level)?
I've always viewed warlocks as an edgy toolkit; it should let you build a whole bunch of different things, and in 5e there are a number of appealing options, but they've never been well balanced, and pretty much everything wants eldritch and agonizing blast because what else are you going to take?
I'd also prefer a different form of spell slot scaling for Warlocks, so they don't end up stealing the Arcane half-caster spot from Artificer (which really needs to be made a core class rather than be an afterthought yet again).
The tricky thing with a Warlock's identity is that their core feature is almost not to have one, or more specifically, to let the player choose what that identity is. In 5e there is nothing really that's core to being a warlock other than [...]
Something I see a lot of ... is conflating role with identity. Warlocks have a TON of identity compared to Fighters and Wizards, and you touched on it right after the cutoff I made:
Their Pact (and Patron). Their Patron and Pact define who they compared to everyone else with a lot of seed for more identity. That's their identity. It's a lot of strong identity. When you meet a Warlock, you know they have (or had) a Patron, and that that Patron had a huge impact on who they are. Further, when you find out someone has/had a Patron, you know they're a Warlock. You might not know their role, but you know a key thing about their identity.
What Warlocks lack is a set defined role. They're a swiss army knife, in that you can make them fill a lot of different roles, and they inherently have no role that is exactly unique to them. Nor do they have a role that they primarily fit into or are pigeonholed into (like the way a Barbarian is very pigeonholed into being a melee oriented meat shield) ... aside from always having the option to be ranged attackers via Eldritch Blast.
Fighters and Wizards have a strong sense of their role, but a weak sense of inherent identity -- it has to be added almost entirely by their background, subclasses, and/or the player.
I'd also prefer a different form of spell slot scaling for Warlocks, so they don't end up stealing the Arcane half-caster spot from Artificer (which really needs to be made a core class rather than be an afterthought yet again).
I disagree, artificer is setting dependent, and overall poorly designed, making players dig through the DMG to figure out how Replicate magic Item works is antithetical to the new design philosophy. Warlock should take it's spot as the Arcane half-caster. The flavour and the handful of good mechanics of Artificer should be rolled into subclasses. Forge Cleric should get the Steel Defender from Battlesmith, a Warlock subclass should be created that mimics Artillerist (i.e. Eldritch Gunslinger), a Fighter subclass should get the Armourer special armours, and the alchemy Elixirs should be rolled into Druid.
I'd also prefer a different form of spell slot scaling for Warlocks, so they don't end up stealing the Arcane half-caster spot from Artificer (which really needs to be made a core class rather than be an afterthought yet again).
I disagree, artificer is setting dependent, and overall poorly designed, making players dig through the DMG to figure out how Replicate magic Item works is antithetical to the new design philosophy.
Since the reprint in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything it's not setting dependent.
I also don't see it being poorly designed, though it should have been rebalanced in Tasha's (Alchemist was already the weaker of the three Eberron sub-classes); while your complaint about the replication infusion is fair, they could easily fix that by simply getting rid of it and replacing it with a few more infusions to cover some of the common options (an ability scoring boosting infusion, something to help with carrying capacity, etc.).
I don't see any existing Artificer fans being happy with them becoming sub-classes of other classes; Artificer is very much its own thing and plenty of people love it (myself included).
I'd also prefer a different form of spell slot scaling for Warlocks, so they don't end up stealing the Arcane half-caster spot from Artificer (which really needs to be made a core class rather than be an afterthought yet again).
The ship has sailed for Artificer, they revealed the PHB races and classes at the content creator summit and Artificer didn't make the cut (same as Ardling.) I love the class but I can't deny it's a bit more complicated than the other core classes. It also has an outsize impact in low or no magic item games, which is an option they'd want in core.
The ship has sailed for Artificer, they revealed the PHB races and classes at the content creator summit and Artificer didn't make the cut (same as Ardling.) I love the class but I can't deny it's a bit more complicated than the other core classes. It also has an outsize impact in low or no magic item games, which is an option they'd want in core.
Is it that much more complicated than a Warlock? The only difference really is that infusions, unlike invocations, can be swapped more easily but otherwise those features are pretty similar, with Artificers having no equivalent to a pact boon; the most complicated element is one infusion allowing access to a wide range of magic items, but like I say the easiest solution to replicate item is to just throw that one away and swap it for some new infusions to make the surface area smaller.
I'm also not seeing the "outsize impact on low or no magic item games"? If a DM wants low-magic then Artificer is just another class that either isn't available to players, or will have stricter limits on what they can do (and how they can do it), this is no more problematic than full casters or other half casters, meanwhile infusions are easily spun into non-magical inventions if you want to reflavour them.
The ship has only sailed for Artificer if people don't make clear they want it in the PHB so it's finally not a second-class citizen of the game; I've said it in every feedback survey so far, enough people just need to do the same. I don't think it would take long to adapt Artificer for OneD&D anyway as other than replicate item I don't think there's anything major that needs changing except to make it an Arcane list caster, some small tweaks to tone some things down, and a boost or two to Alchemist (plus give it back some healing spells).
I'd also prefer a different form of spell slot scaling for Warlocks, so they don't end up stealing the Arcane half-caster spot from Artificer (which really needs to be made a core class rather than be an afterthought yet again).
I disagree, artificer is setting dependent, and overall poorly designed, making players dig through the DMG to figure out how Replicate magic Item works is antithetical to the new design philosophy.
Since the reprint in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything it's not setting dependent. I also don't see it being poorly designed, though it should have been rebalanced in Tasha's (Alchemist was already the weaker of the three Eberron sub-classes); while your complaint about the replication infusion is fair, they could easily fix that by simply getting rid of it and replacing it with a few more infusions to cover some of the common options (an ability scoring boosting infusion, something to help with carrying capacity, etc.).
I don't see any existing Artificer fans being happy with them becoming sub-classes of other classes; Artificer is very much its own thing and plenty of people love it (myself included).
While I do like Artificer a LOT, I could see it (the entire class) being both a subclass of Wizard, and a reworking of Forge Cleric. It would probably lose a lot of higher level functionality in the process (reducing everything to 4 subclass advancements), but I also think it would be more sensible. But I also liked the 3e system of item creation feats more than having it all shoved into a class.
Have Druids imbue magic into items via a subclass that works with runes (and revamping the 5e rune system a little), Clerics do it via the Forge Cleric working blessings and magic into the process of forging/crafting items, and Wizards doing something like binding spirits and magic into items. All 3 of them (mechanically) do something like the Infusion system, but aside from some basics, their infusions don't overlap.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think the way to calculated this puts the Paladin in a pretty bad light. The Warlock gets Hex, but the Paladin can't use Spirit Shroud?
Warlock gets (1d10 (weapon dice) +1 (improved pact weapon) +5 (charisma) + d6 (lifedrinker)) x 2 + 2d6 (hex) = 2d10 + 12 + 4d6, they can expend a spell slot for eldritch smite, as mentioned previously.
Paladin gets (1d10 (weapon dice) + 5 (strength) + 1d8 (Spirit Shroud)) x 2 + (1d4 (polearm master dice) + 5 (strength) + 1d8 (Spirit Shroud)) = 2d10 +15 + 1d4 + 3d8, again they can expend a spell slot for divine smite.
As an alternative to Spirit Shroud they can use Bless or Crusader's Mantle, which would also buff their allies adding additional damage from the Paladin's contributions.
Also Paladins will scale better for damage with feats, because they can use heavy weapons. Great Weapon Master and Weapon Mastery (Graze) will be available later. Also Radiant Strikes at 11th level as you mentioned.
Paladin's are way better melee damage dealers than Warlocks. Warlocks completely stomp them for ranged damage though.
Spirit Shroud is available to Warlocks too, and technically, because it's a Martial weapon that is not heavy, the Warlock can summon a double-bladed scimitar, though being Eberron that is DM dependent. I've never had one say no though.
That allows the level 9 Warlock to roll 2(2d4+5) + d4+5 + 3d6 + 3d8. It can also take Eldritch Smite for the same benefits as the Paladin.
5d4 + 15 + 3d6 + 3d8 gives a range from 26 to 77, plus the possibility of a 2d8 to 4d8 smite.
PAM GWM Paladin, forced to level 12 to max strength, so with radiant strikes and Spirit Shroud.
2(d10+5) + d4+5 + 3(d8) + 3(d8) + 4. That's a range from 28 to 91 damage.
Paladin is better.
As I've said before, I really don't see the point in giving up my ~150 damage a round Hexblade for a character than does around a third of that. To Jeremy I say, "This is not the Way."
Yeah, but then you're forgetting Devotion Pala's Sacred Weapon or Vengeance Pala's Vow of Enmity both making the Paladin significantly better at hitting their target.
Warlocks will lose damage, especially Bladelocks. I think it's because they want the Warrior group to be damage THE dealers. Spellcasters (Half or Full) have significantly more flexibility both in and out of combat compared to Warriors. Overall I think that's fine and reasonable.
UA Lifedrinker really is awful. Not sure what they were thinking there. The only use I can see for it is a bag-of-rats problem.
I think it's okay.
Vs. a 20 Cha 5e 'lock you lose 1.5 damage per hit on average, but can heal a d6 per round. Also you can get it at 9 now instead of 12. Still, it's competing with a Mystic Arcanum 5th level spell...
At level 9, 1d6 healing in combat is useless. Meanwhile out of combat, it's broken, because you can just wail on a farmer's sheep or something and never need to spend any party resources. It needs a redesign from both sides.
While I believe it should be better healing I dislike the argument that 1d6 healing is useless in combat at 9th level. Why? Because it’s not just 1d6 healing, it’s 1d6 per round. In a typical fight that’s 3d6 healing if you get a turn in all the rounds. This small healing could be the difference between, “I’m down,” and making death saves and “oh crap, I have 2 hp left” and making attacks on your next turn.
Also the out of combat exploits only happen when the DM lets that slide. Killing the farmers sheep messes with the towns economy. There might be a bounty on your head.
I expect it was because they were tired of everyone and their sidekick taking 1 level of hexblade just so they could use CHA as their fighting AND spellcasting stat. Now, while there will still be a bunch of 1 level dips in to Bladelock to get that ability, at least they wont all be hexblades. Once Celestial Warlock is back, you'll probably see a lot of Celestial Pallocks on the good side, and Fiend Pallocks on the evil side.
I'm pretty sure if it was up to the designers, there would be no multiclassing. But it's such an extremely popular option that it would be suicide to remove it from the game. That's why multiclassing still exists, even though it no longer makes sense from a game design standpoint. Subclasses and feats already fill the need for one class with a bit of the mechanical flavor of another. But anyway, multiclassing isn't going away, so designers have to deal with that headache.
You don't get any subclass features until level 3 of warlock so we'll just have a ton of 1 level dips with no subclass what so ever. All of them taking Find Familiar and Shield as their two spells known, Pact of the Blade, and [attack cantrips of their choice]
I was being a touch hyperbolic with "useless" but it's definitely far down the list of invocations I'd take, even as a bladelock. And "The DM can stop it" is not a defense for bad design, the DM shouldn't have to - infinite healing is clearly not something they want to be possible in the game.
Not saying the DM can stop it. I’m saying there should be consequences for killing the local farmers sheep. Out of combat they literally have to seek out things to kill, but killing things that are not yours becomes a problem. Out of combat a wizard and now all warlocks can solve many social encounters with a fireball. They don’t because they know there will be consequences. Also most sheep will try to run.
I want a small correction here, it is NOT competing with Mystic Arcanum 5th level spell. It is competing with Mystic Arcanum 3rd level spell at the level you just unlocked real 3rd level slots.
When it comes to invocations at level 9 we have to remember they aren't competing for the number 1 slot, they are competing for the number 4 and 5 slots. At 11 They are competing for the 5 and 6 slot.... so on and so forth. Making the cut isn't about being the best option, it is about being better than the 6th or 7th option. By the end it isn't about being the best option it is about being better than the 10th option.
The tricky thing with a Warlock's identity is that their core feature is almost not to have one, or more specifically, to let the player choose what that identity is. In 5e there is nothing really that's core to being a warlock other than having a pact, and pact magic itself, everything else is customisation options in the form of pacts and invocations. This means that in many ways a Warlock's strength is the same as a Wizard's, versatility, except that it's more about build versatility rather than preparation.
In 5e Warlocks are sort of full casters, as through Mystic Arcana they gained access to the same spell levels as a full caster (and at the same time). The main difference was pact magic slots being short rest bound, which sadly meant that many warlock players were discouraged from casting spells unless they knew they could take plenty of short rests. In the latter case a warlock could be as powerful as any full caster, but in practice you couldn't rely on that, and many campaigns rarely take short rests at all.
But the proposed change in the UA is weird to me; it makes the warlock a half caster but without a fixed other half, as by default they're not half martials. Pact of the Blade lets you build in that direction, but it lacks invocations to really take it all the way, so you'll never become a true half caster/half martial, as you'll probably end up having to take at least some mystic arcanums to fill out your invocations. Really they need to bring back some of the abandoned invocations to give us more martial options; Life Drinker is… fine but not amazing, but what I'd really like to see is a return of Relentless Hex, tweaked to trigger when you cast/transfer hex (to eliminate the bonus action clash it used to have).
I'd also like to see some of the other hex invocations return; Maddening Hex for one, but I'd also really like to see one that allows hex to be transferred without a target being dead first, as you could combo that with Relentless Hex so I could finally build the telporting bladey boi that Relentless Hex always promised but never delivered. To me hex is a much better candidate for a core feature to the warlock than eldritch blast, but it needs the invocations to build around it.
Speaking of which, I think one of the biggest challenges to warlock identity is eldritch blast; I don't like that WotC have made it a core feature of Warlocks because eldritch blast spam is something I've always disliked about the class. The reason people are lured into it is because so many invocations are explicitly for it, but instead of opening up the invocations for more variety, they've made eldritch blast a mandatory feature of the class, so they've effectively doubled down on one of the problems, rather than fixing it.
I'd much rather see eldritch blast become a weaker Arcane list cantrip anybody can take, but with invocations that let you build it back up to previous levels if cantrip spam is what you want, or do the same for other cantrips if you'd prefer to be a cold damage spammer, fire damage spammer etc. Things like Repelling Blast could work just as effectively on another cantrip for example, Agonizing Blast might need a rethink (maybe once per turn rather than per hit, but with scaled damage as you level)?
I've always viewed warlocks as an edgy toolkit; it should let you build a whole bunch of different things, and in 5e there are a number of appealing options, but they've never been well balanced, and pretty much everything wants eldritch and agonizing blast because what else are you going to take?
I'd also prefer a different form of spell slot scaling for Warlocks, so they don't end up stealing the Arcane half-caster spot from Artificer (which really needs to be made a core class rather than be an afterthought yet again).
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
Something I see a lot of ... is conflating role with identity. Warlocks have a TON of identity compared to Fighters and Wizards, and you touched on it right after the cutoff I made:
Their Pact (and Patron). Their Patron and Pact define who they compared to everyone else with a lot of seed for more identity. That's their identity. It's a lot of strong identity. When you meet a Warlock, you know they have (or had) a Patron, and that that Patron had a huge impact on who they are. Further, when you find out someone has/had a Patron, you know they're a Warlock. You might not know their role, but you know a key thing about their identity.
What Warlocks lack is a set defined role. They're a swiss army knife, in that you can make them fill a lot of different roles, and they inherently have no role that is exactly unique to them. Nor do they have a role that they primarily fit into or are pigeonholed into (like the way a Barbarian is very pigeonholed into being a melee oriented meat shield) ... aside from always having the option to be ranged attackers via Eldritch Blast.
Fighters and Wizards have a strong sense of their role, but a weak sense of inherent identity -- it has to be added almost entirely by their background, subclasses, and/or the player.
I disagree, artificer is setting dependent, and overall poorly designed, making players dig through the DMG to figure out how Replicate magic Item works is antithetical to the new design philosophy. Warlock should take it's spot as the Arcane half-caster. The flavour and the handful of good mechanics of Artificer should be rolled into subclasses. Forge Cleric should get the Steel Defender from Battlesmith, a Warlock subclass should be created that mimics Artillerist (i.e. Eldritch Gunslinger), a Fighter subclass should get the Armourer special armours, and the alchemy Elixirs should be rolled into Druid.
Since the reprint in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything it's not setting dependent.
I also don't see it being poorly designed, though it should have been rebalanced in Tasha's (Alchemist was already the weaker of the three Eberron sub-classes); while your complaint about the replication infusion is fair, they could easily fix that by simply getting rid of it and replacing it with a few more infusions to cover some of the common options (an ability scoring boosting infusion, something to help with carrying capacity, etc.).
I don't see any existing Artificer fans being happy with them becoming sub-classes of other classes; Artificer is very much its own thing and plenty of people love it (myself included).
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
The ship has sailed for Artificer, they revealed the PHB races and classes at the content creator summit and Artificer didn't make the cut (same as Ardling.) I love the class but I can't deny it's a bit more complicated than the other core classes. It also has an outsize impact in low or no magic item games, which is an option they'd want in core.
Is it that much more complicated than a Warlock? The only difference really is that infusions, unlike invocations, can be swapped more easily but otherwise those features are pretty similar, with Artificers having no equivalent to a pact boon; the most complicated element is one infusion allowing access to a wide range of magic items, but like I say the easiest solution to replicate item is to just throw that one away and swap it for some new infusions to make the surface area smaller.
I'm also not seeing the "outsize impact on low or no magic item games"? If a DM wants low-magic then Artificer is just another class that either isn't available to players, or will have stricter limits on what they can do (and how they can do it), this is no more problematic than full casters or other half casters, meanwhile infusions are easily spun into non-magical inventions if you want to reflavour them.
The ship has only sailed for Artificer if people don't make clear they want it in the PHB so it's finally not a second-class citizen of the game; I've said it in every feedback survey so far, enough people just need to do the same. I don't think it would take long to adapt Artificer for OneD&D anyway as other than replicate item I don't think there's anything major that needs changing except to make it an Arcane list caster, some small tweaks to tone some things down, and a boost or two to Alchemist (plus give it back some healing spells).
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
While I do like Artificer a LOT, I could see it (the entire class) being both a subclass of Wizard, and a reworking of Forge Cleric. It would probably lose a lot of higher level functionality in the process (reducing everything to 4 subclass advancements), but I also think it would be more sensible. But I also liked the 3e system of item creation feats more than having it all shoved into a class.
Have Druids imbue magic into items via a subclass that works with runes (and revamping the 5e rune system a little), Clerics do it via the Forge Cleric working blessings and magic into the process of forging/crafting items, and Wizards doing something like binding spirits and magic into items. All 3 of them (mechanically) do something like the Infusion system, but aside from some basics, their infusions don't overlap.