5e warlock was totally fine before they introduced Hexblade, it should go back to that, just like how 5e was totally fine before the blade cantrips.
They could have solved the blade pact problem by deleting the blade pact, but as long as it exists, it should be made into a credible choice.
Blade Pact is 100% viable without having casting stat for attach & damage rolls. Ranger and Paladin are 100% viable without having their casting stat for attack and damage rolls so why wouldn't Blade-lock be? There are tons of good spells Warlocks can take that don't depend at all on your casting stat. Goodness, even the melee-cleric is viable without either Extra Attack or casting stat for attack and damage rolls.
Blade Pact is 100% viable without having casting stat for attach & damage rolls. Ranger and Paladin are 100% viable without having their casting stat for attack and damage rolls so why wouldn't Blade-lock be?
Because they never actually cast spells that have attack rolls or saves? Ranger and Paladin are fundamentally "fighters with a bit of magic splashed on top to buff themselves", but neither core bladelock core abilities nor spell list favors that design for pact of the blade.
5e warlock was totally fine before they introduced Hexblade, it should go back to that, just like how 5e was totally fine before the blade cantrips.
They could have solved the blade pact problem by deleting the blade pact, but as long as it exists, it should be made into a credible choice.
I'd be fine with that. Or just change it so its a pact to use eldritch blast in melee(crossbow expert feat basically) with some invocations based on melee combat. It would likely need a bit more to balance with the others pacts. But for example I don't think warlocks should gain any armor proficiency, and armor of shadows should just be baked in. You made a pact for arcane power, you shouldn't need armor. But maybe their mage armor spell provided 15 base AC, add a max dex benefit if necessary. Or give them a +2AC but not compatible with shields and just describe it as using eldritch energy to deflect attacks.
A relatively simple implementation of pact of the blade that works and doesn't have much dip potential is something like:
Eldritch Strike
You may use a weapon as a focus for your eldritch blast. If you do so:
If the weapon is melee weapon, eldritch blast becomes a melee spell attack, using the weapon's reach.
You may choose to do the weapon's damage type, instead of force damage.
Eldritch blast is considered an attack with that weapon, and thus benefits from effects (such as a magic weapon) that apply to weapon attacks.
That's perfectly good (you can use eldritch blast in melee, and if you're using a magic weapon you get to apply the weapon's damage bonuses as well as its attack bonuses) but not really relevant as a dip.
Either using casting stat for weapon attacks should be a feat available to everyone equally, or it shouldn't be included anywhere. I personally would choose the latter. 5e warlock was totally fine before they introduced Hexblade, it should go back to that, just like how 5e was totally fine before the blade cantrips. Both of these just help casters infringe on the role of martials which is bad for the game.
I dunno if I'd drop the blade cantrips entirely; personally I like them, but they need to be rebalanced. The only drawback to the current versions is limiting your number of attacks, but on classes that only get one anyway, who cares? Plus cantrip scaling means they do plenty of damage anyway. And then they released stuff like Bladesinger for whom that wasn't even a problem!
By all means give me the ability to light my sword on fire early on or whatever, but they should be balanced against shillelagh with comparatively minor benefits, e.g- green-flame blade might just change the damage type to fire, and deal casting modifier in secondary spill damage, and booming blade would just be a d6 + modifier trap damage, but with no scaling.
Since everybody's getting the ability to swap out cantrips in OneD&D it doesn't matter if some cantrips aren't as good later in the game, as we have spells like flame blade and shadow blade for later (though hopefully flame blade will be improved).
As someone who has taken advantage of the blade cantrips in various ways , I have to say, scaling down the blade cantrips to be closer to Shillelagh wouldn't hurt my feelings at all.
The other option for the blade cantrips is: don't put them on the Arcane Spell list. Make them entirely class or subclass specific, and make them only scale with class level. Though, now that a few smite spells are available via Magic Initiate on the Divine list ... you could almost just do away with the Blade cantrips and make people burn spell slots if they want to magically enhance their regular attack.
A relatively simple implementation of pact of the blade that works and doesn't have much dip potential is something like:
Eldritch Strike
You may use a weapon as a focus for your eldritch blast. If you do so:
If the weapon is melee weapon, eldritch blast becomes a melee spell attack, using the weapon's reach.
You may choose to do the weapon's damage type, instead of force damage.
Eldritch blast is considered an attack with that weapon, and thus benefits from effects (such as a magic weapon) that apply to weapon attacks.
That's perfectly good (you can use eldritch blast in melee, and if you're using a magic weapon you get to apply the weapon's damage bonuses as well as its attack bonuses) but not really relevant as a dip.
So, scaling with Warlock level, you get up to four attacks with 1d10 force damage, based on your CHA modifier, along with any melee weapon benefits (including potentially smite spells, divine smite, eldritch smite, hex, hunter's mark, subclass bonus damage benefits, bonus damage dealt by the weapon, etc.?)
This seems like it could be a little excessive... Even if you're only a 5th level Warlock you're still going to get two such attacks. Why wouldn't a Paladin or Ranger want that over their own Extra Attack? And why would anyone stick to being a Fighter, when they're no longer the only class that gets up to 4 weapon attacks in their turn?
Though, now that a few smite spells are available via Magic Initiate on the Divine list ...
I would not bet on that staying the case. They didn't have class-specific lists prior to this UA, and it was pretty clearly a reaction to archetypal spells being placed on generic lists.
Either using casting stat for weapon attacks should be a feat available to everyone equally, or it shouldn't be included anywhere. I personally would choose the latter. 5e warlock was totally fine before they introduced Hexblade, it should go back to that, just like how 5e was totally fine before the blade cantrips. Both of these just help casters infringe on the role of martials which is bad for the game.
I dunno if I'd drop the blade cantrips entirely; personally I like them, but they need to be rebalanced. The only drawback to the current versions is limiting your number of attacks, but on classes that only get one anyway, who cares? Plus cantrip scaling means they do plenty of damage anyway. And then they released stuff like Bladesinger for whom that wasn't even a problem!
By all means give me the ability to light my sword on fire early on or whatever, but they should be balanced against shillelagh with comparatively minor benefits, e.g- green-flame blade might just change the damage type to fire, and deal casting modifier in secondary spill damage, and booming blade would just be a d6 + modifier trap damage, but with no scaling.
Since everybody's getting the ability to swap out cantrips in OneD&D it doesn't matter if some cantrips aren't as good later in the game, as we have spells like flame blade and shadow blade for later (though hopefully flame blade will be improved).
As someone who has taken advantage of the blade cantrips in various ways , I have to say, scaling down the blade cantrips to be closer to Shillelagh wouldn't hurt my feelings at all.
The other option for the blade cantrips is: don't put them on the Arcane Spell list. Make them entirely class or subclass specific, and make them only scale with class level. Though, now that a few smite spells are available via Magic Initiate on the Divine list ... you could almost just do away with the Blade cantrips and make people burn spell slots if they want to magically enhance their regular attack.
One of my biggest gripes with those spells is you almost feel obligated to take them as a rogue as it just makes your sneak attack better. I mean not only will your sneak attack do more damage but you can apply a movement trap on your enemy all while you can withdraw as a bonus action.
A relatively simple implementation of pact of the blade that works and doesn't have much dip potential is something like:
Eldritch Strike
You may use a weapon as a focus for your eldritch blast. If you do so:
If the weapon is melee weapon, eldritch blast becomes a melee spell attack, using the weapon's reach.
You may choose to do the weapon's damage type, instead of force damage.
Eldritch blast is considered an attack with that weapon, and thus benefits from effects (such as a magic weapon) that apply to weapon attacks.
That's perfectly good (you can use eldritch blast in melee, and if you're using a magic weapon you get to apply the weapon's damage bonuses as well as its attack bonuses) but not really relevant as a dip.
So, scaling with Warlock level, you get up to four attacks with 1d10 force damage, based on your CHA modifier, along with any melee weapon benefits (including potentially smite spells, divine smite, eldritch smite, hex, hunter's mark, subclass bonus damage benefits, bonus damage dealt by the weapon, etc.?)
This seems like it could be a little excessive... Even if you're only a 5th level Warlock you're still going to get two such attacks. Why wouldn't a Paladin or Ranger want that over their own Extra Attack? And why would anyone stick to being a Fighter, when they're no longer the only class that gets up to 4 weapon attacks in their turn?
Nope. It's a melee spell attack, so not eligible for things like smites.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
A relatively simple implementation of pact of the blade that works and doesn't have much dip potential is something like:
Eldritch Strike
You may use a weapon as a focus for your eldritch blast. If you do so:
If the weapon is melee weapon, eldritch blast becomes a melee spell attack, using the weapon's reach.
You may choose to do the weapon's damage type, instead of force damage.
Eldritch blast is considered an attack with that weapon, and thus benefits from effects (such as a magic weapon) that apply to weapon attacks.
That's perfectly good (you can use eldritch blast in melee, and if you're using a magic weapon you get to apply the weapon's damage bonuses as well as its attack bonuses) but not really relevant as a dip.
So, scaling with Warlock level, you get up to four attacks with 1d10 force damage, based on your CHA modifier, along with any melee weapon benefits (including potentially smite spells, divine smite, eldritch smite, hex, hunter's mark, subclass bonus damage benefits, bonus damage dealt by the weapon, etc.?)
This seems like it could be a little excessive... Even if you're only a 5th level Warlock you're still going to get two such attacks. Why wouldn't a Paladin or Ranger want that over their own Extra Attack? And why would anyone stick to being a Fighter, when they're no longer the only class that gets up to 4 weapon attacks in their turn?
I may be reading it wrong but since its a melee spell attack I suspect a lot of those benefits would disappear. It is basically just eldritch blast in melee that can get reach and do slashing/bludgeoning/piercing instead of force. And if the weapon happens to be +2 you get +2 to attack and damage. So for example it wont work with the charge feat, it wont get weapon masteries even if you pick them up, I don't think smites work with melee spell attacks, so no smites etc.
A relatively simple implementation of pact of the blade that works and doesn't have much dip potential is something like:
Eldritch Strike
You may use a weapon as a focus for your eldritch blast. If you do so:
If the weapon is melee weapon, eldritch blast becomes a melee spell attack, using the weapon's reach.
You may choose to do the weapon's damage type, instead of force damage.
Eldritch blast is considered an attack with that weapon, and thus benefits from effects (such as a magic weapon) that apply to weapon attacks.
That's perfectly good (you can use eldritch blast in melee, and if you're using a magic weapon you get to apply the weapon's damage bonuses as well as its attack bonuses) but not really relevant as a dip.
So, scaling with Warlock level, you get up to four attacks with 1d10 force damage, based on your CHA modifier, along with any melee weapon benefits (including potentially smite spells, divine smite, eldritch smite, hex, hunter's mark, subclass bonus damage benefits, bonus damage dealt by the weapon, etc.?)
This seems like it could be a little excessive... Even if you're only a 5th level Warlock you're still going to get two such attacks. Why wouldn't a Paladin or Ranger want that over their own Extra Attack? And why would anyone stick to being a Fighter, when they're no longer the only class that gets up to 4 weapon attacks in their turn?
Nope. It's a melee spell attack, so not eligible for things like smites.
"Eldritch blast is considered an attack with that weapon, and thus benefits from effects (such as a magic weapon) that apply to weapon attacks."
That implies to me that anything you could leverage via the weapon in hand will apply to the attacks.
the UA proved warlocks are more fun with wizard spells included. it's a forgone conclusion that it would also be fun to use up spell slots for extra damage in melee. like a fun, fun paladin. and yes it would make more sense to have mage armor baked in rather than some mundane animal hides. this all makes sense, but it's nothing unique.
4e proved that players shouldn't always get what reads as obviously fun and easy. soft corners and beige pallets and everybody stuff blurred together. safe, bland stuff.
i would really rather keep blade pact and melee. i would like to do things as a warlock that no other class does. instead of smites for damage and stacking AC for avoidance is there something else? where the creativity? maybe a pact weapon that doesn't leave cuts in skin but instead glides through to deliver patron's flavor of damage direct to flesh and bone. or the weapon delivers a jinx of disadvantage and promise of psychic damage reprisal. how about an invocation that allows the warlock to use CHA for grapple where a success makes them invisible and undetectable to the attacker. maybe instead of mage armor there's whirls of shadow/refracted light/madness that impose half cover, make you seem a few steps out of reach (must spend 10ft of movement), and open attackers to attacks of opportunity if they attempt to reach through. something that sounds like combat from the perspective of a bunch of tricks and short cuts to power rather than the result of practice or innate grace.
Fiends may be evil by default, but evil creatures can still have complex motivations; I've played an evil character in a campaign who was actually one of the most rational and practical characters in the group, and less bloodthirsty than some of the chaotic neutral characters.
That's because most 'chaotic neutral' characters are actually chaotic evil and either in denial or trying to hide it from the DM.
In any case, the problem isn't that a pact with a fiend would require the PC to be evil. The problem is that a fiend wouldn't offer a pact unless something about the pact served its interests.
While that’s true, it’s not necessary that the tasks required of the PC will themselves be evil tasks. It may be a mutual benefit, such as defeating a common enemy, and that common enemy is also evil.
Which is fine for a backstory, but does it work great at level 3,
That assumes the “1st level patron and third level patron aren’t the same being” interpretation, as opposed to the “warlock deals with the patrons underlings until 3rd level, but the 3rd level patron was their patron all along” interpretation. The latter works just fine all through the levels.
“I swear generic vengeance is different than I am going to hunt down and kill the dark knight , something the party has no interest in.”
Thats the DM’s job: to be sure the backstories and side plots all work together into the story as a whole. If the DM is giving out, or approving, quests that don’t matter to the plot and party, then the DM is failing the entire game group.
It does not matter if its the same of different patrons, you are still making a pact with a patron at level 3. A new deal. That is weird design for the game.
That (different 1st and 3rd level patrons) is ONE of the interpretations of the OneD&D Warlock RAW. It is not the sole interpretation of the RAW. If the "different patrons" explanation doesn't work for you, then go with the alternate interpretation that is actually written into the RAW as well: It was the same patron all along.
Fiends may be evil by default, but evil creatures can still have complex motivations; I've played an evil character in a campaign who was actually one of the most rational and practical characters in the group, and less bloodthirsty than some of the chaotic neutral characters.
That's because most 'chaotic neutral' characters are actually chaotic evil and either in denial or trying to hide it from the DM.
In any case, the problem isn't that a pact with a fiend would require the PC to be evil. The problem is that a fiend wouldn't offer a pact unless something about the pact served its interests.
While that’s true, it’s not necessary that the tasks required of the PC will themselves be evil tasks. It may be a mutual benefit, such as defeating a common enemy, and that common enemy is also evil.
Which is fine for a backstory, but does it work great at level 3,
That assumes the “1st level patron and third level patron aren’t the same being” interpretation, as opposed to the “warlock deals with the patrons underlings until 3rd level, but the 3rd level patron was their patron all along” interpretation. The latter works just fine all through the levels.
“I swear generic vengeance is different than I am going to hunt down and kill the dark knight , something the party has no interest in.”
Thats the DM’s job: to be sure the backstories and side plots all work together into the story as a whole. If the DM is giving out, or approving, quests that don’t matter to the plot and party, then the DM is failing the entire game group.
It does not matter if its the same of different patrons, you are still making a pact with a patron at level 3. A new deal. That is weird design for the game.
That (different 1st and 3rd level patrons) is ONE of the interpretations of the OneD&D Warlock RAW. It is not the sole interpretation of the RAW. If the "different patrons" explanation doesn't work for you, then go with the alternate interpretation that is actually written into the RAW as well: It was the same patron all along.
And yet, same or different you are still making another pact with them at that point. Just because I use the same broker to buy my second house doesn't change that I now have 2 mortgages. It is a design asking for a good DM to not screw it up.
Fiends may be evil by default, but evil creatures can still have complex motivations; I've played an evil character in a campaign who was actually one of the most rational and practical characters in the group, and less bloodthirsty than some of the chaotic neutral characters.
That's because most 'chaotic neutral' characters are actually chaotic evil and either in denial or trying to hide it from the DM.
In any case, the problem isn't that a pact with a fiend would require the PC to be evil. The problem is that a fiend wouldn't offer a pact unless something about the pact served its interests.
While that’s true, it’s not necessary that the tasks required of the PC will themselves be evil tasks. It may be a mutual benefit, such as defeating a common enemy, and that common enemy is also evil.
Which is fine for a backstory, but does it work great at level 3,
That assumes the “1st level patron and third level patron aren’t the same being” interpretation, as opposed to the “warlock deals with the patrons underlings until 3rd level, but the 3rd level patron was their patron all along” interpretation. The latter works just fine all through the levels.
“I swear generic vengeance is different than I am going to hunt down and kill the dark knight , something the party has no interest in.”
Thats the DM’s job: to be sure the backstories and side plots all work together into the story as a whole. If the DM is giving out, or approving, quests that don’t matter to the plot and party, then the DM is failing the entire game group.
It does not matter if its the same of different patrons, you are still making a pact with a patron at level 3. A new deal. That is weird design for the game.
That (different 1st and 3rd level patrons) is ONE of the interpretations of the OneD&D Warlock RAW. It is not the sole interpretation of the RAW. If the "different patrons" explanation doesn't work for you, then go with the alternate interpretation that is actually written into the RAW as well: It was the same patron all along.
And yet, same or different you are still making another pact with them at that point. Just because I use the same broker to buy my second house doesn't change that I now have 2 mortgages. It is a design asking for a good DM to not screw it up.
It doesn't say you're making a new pact with a new patron. It does not say you're making a new pact with the old patron. It says nothing at all about making a new pact at 3rd level.
It says that at 3rd level you gain access to a subclass, based on your pact. That could be your 1st level pact with your 1st level patron. It also describes other ways to interpret it.
It doesn't ever say it IS or MUST BE a new/different pact than the one you have/had at 1st level.
Tell that to Paladins who have had a similar problem with oaths since the start of 5e
To be fair, Paladins don't get an "oath boon" before swearing their oaths, it's more like at 1st- and 2nd- level they're "just" holy warriors, then they swear the oath that really shapes the type of holy warrior they will become.
The problem for Pact Boons is it's named for something that hasn't happened yet, so it just needs to be renamed. Though they could call the 5th-level upgrades "Pact Upgrade" or something, and change the flavour a bit so it's no longer "Your patron gave you this cool book" to "You discovered this cool book and it calls to you, but you don't yet know why" or something; make it mysterious so that choosing the patron (and confirming the pact) is answering the question.
In this way it's up to you if you were always in a pact (and just didn't really know it), the patron was just giving you a taste of the power and you signed the deal in response, or you sought it out in the first place etc. Open-ended flavour should always be the goal for character stuff IMO.
Wait, what?! So lay on hands, spell casting and divine smites come from a source that is not the same as a Paladin vows its oath?! What makes them a holy warrior?
Wait, what?! So lay on hands, spell casting and divine smites come from a source that is not the same as a Paladin vows its oath?! What makes them a holy warrior?
That's up to you; they can still be worshippers of a particular deity or ideal, they just haven't sworn an oath yet, or an oath of the form required to gain a sub-class. We need the same for a Warlock so it's up to the player if they're still in the "shopping around" stage, working with a particular patron in an informal arrangement, being baited by said entity etc. until they finally formalise that pact.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Tell that to Paladins who have had a similar problem with oaths since the start of 5e
To be fair, Paladins don't get an "oath boon" before swearing their oaths, it's more like at 1st- and 2nd- level they're "just" holy warriors, then they swear the oath that really shapes the type of holy warrior they will become.
The problem for Pact Boons is it's named for something that hasn't happened yet, so it just needs to be renamed. Though they could call the 5th-level upgrades "Pact Upgrade" or something, and change the flavour a bit so it's no longer "Your patron gave you this cool book" to "You discovered this cool book and it calls to you, but you don't yet know why" or something; make it mysterious so that choosing the patron (and confirming the pact) is answering the question.
In this way it's up to you if you were always in a pact (and just didn't really know it), the patron was just giving you a taste of the power and you signed the deal in response, or you sought it out in the first place etc. Open-ended flavour should always be the goal for character stuff IMO.
Wait, what?! So lay on hands, spell casting and divine smites come from a source that is not the same as a Paladin vows its oath?! What makes them a holy warrior?
it's up to the player and dm to collaborate on a character to ensure they have plausible reasons for being with this party and agreeing to go on that quest.
it's up to the player and dm to collaborate on a character to ensure they have plausible reasons behind their starting powers.
you can skip either of these, but it's not a complicated box to check before taking your gift/skill/heritage/curse/shame/power out into the world.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
Maybe could be solved just by granting using some of the pact features, like using you spell stat, with 2 levels of Warlock. OK the Warlock would not have it at level 1, but level 1 is a bypass level.
The problem with the warlock dip issue right now is bladelocks being online at level 1. It makes the 1 level dip too good for true casters
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Blade Pact is 100% viable without having casting stat for attach & damage rolls. Ranger and Paladin are 100% viable without having their casting stat for attack and damage rolls so why wouldn't Blade-lock be? There are tons of good spells Warlocks can take that don't depend at all on your casting stat. Goodness, even the melee-cleric is viable without either Extra Attack or casting stat for attack and damage rolls.
Because they never actually cast spells that have attack rolls or saves? Ranger and Paladin are fundamentally "fighters with a bit of magic splashed on top to buff themselves", but neither core bladelock core abilities nor spell list favors that design for pact of the blade.
I'd be fine with that. Or just change it so its a pact to use eldritch blast in melee(crossbow expert feat basically) with some invocations based on melee combat. It would likely need a bit more to balance with the others pacts. But for example I don't think warlocks should gain any armor proficiency, and armor of shadows should just be baked in. You made a pact for arcane power, you shouldn't need armor. But maybe their mage armor spell provided 15 base AC, add a max dex benefit if necessary. Or give them a +2AC but not compatible with shields and just describe it as using eldritch energy to deflect attacks.
A relatively simple implementation of pact of the blade that works and doesn't have much dip potential is something like:
That's perfectly good (you can use eldritch blast in melee, and if you're using a magic weapon you get to apply the weapon's damage bonuses as well as its attack bonuses) but not really relevant as a dip.
As someone who has taken advantage of the blade cantrips in various ways , I have to say, scaling down the blade cantrips to be closer to Shillelagh wouldn't hurt my feelings at all.
The other option for the blade cantrips is: don't put them on the Arcane Spell list. Make them entirely class or subclass specific, and make them only scale with class level. Though, now that a few smite spells are available via Magic Initiate on the Divine list ... you could almost just do away with the Blade cantrips and make people burn spell slots if they want to magically enhance their regular attack.
So, scaling with Warlock level, you get up to four attacks with 1d10 force damage, based on your CHA modifier, along with any melee weapon benefits (including potentially smite spells, divine smite, eldritch smite, hex, hunter's mark, subclass bonus damage benefits, bonus damage dealt by the weapon, etc.?)
This seems like it could be a little excessive... Even if you're only a 5th level Warlock you're still going to get two such attacks. Why wouldn't a Paladin or Ranger want that over their own Extra Attack? And why would anyone stick to being a Fighter, when they're no longer the only class that gets up to 4 weapon attacks in their turn?
I would not bet on that staying the case. They didn't have class-specific lists prior to this UA, and it was pretty clearly a reaction to archetypal spells being placed on generic lists.
One of my biggest gripes with those spells is you almost feel obligated to take them as a rogue as it just makes your sneak attack better. I mean not only will your sneak attack do more damage but you can apply a movement trap on your enemy all while you can withdraw as a bonus action.
Nope. It's a melee spell attack, so not eligible for things like smites.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I may be reading it wrong but since its a melee spell attack I suspect a lot of those benefits would disappear. It is basically just eldritch blast in melee that can get reach and do slashing/bludgeoning/piercing instead of force. And if the weapon happens to be +2 you get +2 to attack and damage. So for example it wont work with the charge feat, it wont get weapon masteries even if you pick them up, I don't think smites work with melee spell attacks, so no smites etc.
"Eldritch blast is considered an attack with that weapon, and thus benefits from effects (such as a magic weapon) that apply to weapon attacks."
That implies to me that anything you could leverage via the weapon in hand will apply to the attacks.
the UA proved warlocks are more fun with wizard spells included. it's a forgone conclusion that it would also be fun to use up spell slots for extra damage in melee. like a fun, fun paladin. and yes it would make more sense to have mage armor baked in rather than some mundane animal hides. this all makes sense, but it's nothing unique.
4e proved that players shouldn't always get what reads as obviously fun and easy. soft corners and beige pallets and everybody stuff blurred together. safe, bland stuff.
i would really rather keep blade pact and melee. i would like to do things as a warlock that no other class does. instead of smites for damage and stacking AC for avoidance is there something else? where the creativity? maybe a pact weapon that doesn't leave cuts in skin but instead glides through to deliver patron's flavor of damage direct to flesh and bone. or the weapon delivers a jinx of disadvantage and promise of psychic damage reprisal. how about an invocation that allows the warlock to use CHA for grapple where a success makes them invisible and undetectable to the attacker. maybe instead of mage armor there's whirls of shadow/refracted light/madness that impose half cover, make you seem a few steps out of reach (must spend 10ft of movement), and open attackers to attacks of opportunity if they attempt to reach through. something that sounds like combat from the perspective of a bunch of tricks and short cuts to power rather than the result of practice or innate grace.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
That (different 1st and 3rd level patrons) is ONE of the interpretations of the OneD&D Warlock RAW. It is not the sole interpretation of the RAW. If the "different patrons" explanation doesn't work for you, then go with the alternate interpretation that is actually written into the RAW as well: It was the same patron all along.
And yet, same or different you are still making another pact with them at that point. Just because I use the same broker to buy my second house doesn't change that I now have 2 mortgages. It is a design asking for a good DM to not screw it up.
It doesn't say you're making a new pact with a new patron. It does not say you're making a new pact with the old patron. It says nothing at all about making a new pact at 3rd level.
It says that at 3rd level you gain access to a subclass, based on your pact. That could be your 1st level pact with your 1st level patron. It also describes other ways to interpret it.
It doesn't ever say it IS or MUST BE a new/different pact than the one you have/had at 1st level.
Wait, what?! So lay on hands, spell casting and divine smites come from a source that is not the same as a Paladin vows its oath?! What makes them a holy warrior?
That's up to you; they can still be worshippers of a particular deity or ideal, they just haven't sworn an oath yet, or an oath of the form required to gain a sub-class. We need the same for a Warlock so it's up to the player if they're still in the "shopping around" stage, working with a particular patron in an informal arrangement, being baited by said entity etc. until they finally formalise that pact.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
it's up to the player and dm to collaborate on a character to ensure they have plausible reasons for being with this party and agreeing to go on that quest.
it's up to the player and dm to collaborate on a character to ensure they have plausible reasons behind their starting powers.
you can skip either of these, but it's not a complicated box to check before taking your gift/skill/heritage/curse/shame/power out into the world.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
Maybe could be solved just by granting using some of the pact features, like using you spell stat, with 2 levels of Warlock. OK the Warlock would not have it at level 1, but level 1 is a bypass level.
The problem with the warlock dip issue right now is bladelocks being online at level 1. It makes the 1 level dip too good for true casters
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha