First, I'd agree that martials in general need 3 attacks by level 11, and the fighter needs something in addition to offset the removal of that feature. Fighter and Barbarian I think should both get +1 dice increases to the base damage of their weapon. Rangers and Paladins can go on without these since they've got either more utility, durability or ability to nova damage.
Second, and to break with the opinion here, I think the Blade-lock should maintain the 3rd attack to offset the ranged abilities of Agonizing Blast. Having played a melee-focused Bladelock I've felt they wind up best as sorts of glass cannons. Powerful damage potential, but vulnerable in the thick of things where a melee-focused Warlock most wants to be.
One thing I think we're failing to take into consideration here is the lower survivability of the Warlock. The Paladin may not be able to keep up damage wise here (and I think that does need rectified by giving all martials a 3rd attack) but the paladin bonus to saves and immunity to effects is going to put the paladin in a much better position to keep doing that damage compared to the warlock. If you're not taking into account the chances that a character is in fighting shape to maintain that damage you're not accounting for the whole picture, and a glass cannon alike a melee warlock will look more powerful than it actually is.
PAM is a problem in general IMO, I love the reaction attack as both thematic to how polearms were historically used and powerwise it is a comparable bump to other feats, but the BA attack puts it a step above everything else which is bad. But in this case both the Paladin and Warlock are benefiting from it, so it alone won't really solve the power disparity with Warlock being a better martial and a better spellcaster than any half caster.
The third attack is absolutely where the gap in power is coming from here, and to be honest I consider it utterly ridiculous for a Warlock to get more weapon attacks than a Freaking Barbarian! If they are going to give warlock a 3rd attack at 11, they must give that 3rd attack to Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, and Monk as well. (and thus Fighter will need a new additional class feature to keep up with everyone else also getting a 3rd attack like they do).
While they both have polearm master the lock gets more out of it than the pally does.
So I get why people are uncomfortable with 3 attacks at 11th. Warlock is more of a caster and it feels weird that they are making more attacks then most martials. That said, Warlock already was able to do that. Eldritch Blast is basically just a Heavy Crossbow. You can make 3 Eldritch Blast attacks at 11th level. If we remove the 3rd attack we are potentially making PoB a low level only feature.
Sidenote: While it's not a problem now as you can't replace your invocations on a level up, there MAY be weird interactions between Feats and PoB if it returns (which I think they should). If you remove PoB you actually lose the pre-requisite of the feats you already took. It's kind of an interesting dilemma now that Pact Boons are invocations.
So I get why people are uncomfortable with 3 attacks at 11th. Warlock is more of a caster and it feels weird that they are making more attacks then most martials. That said, Warlock already was able to do that. Eldritch Blast is basically just a Heavy Crossbow. You can make 3 Eldritch Blast attacks at 11th level. If we remove the 3rd attack we are potentially making PoB a low level only feature.
Sidenote: While it's not a problem now as you can't replace your invocations on a level up, there MAY be weird interactions between Feats and PoB if it returns (which I think they should). If you remove PoB you actually lose the pre-requisite of the feats you already took. It's kind of an interesting dilemma now that Pact Boons are invocations.
EB doesn't benefit from Lifedrinker though, and EB doesn't synergize with feats. PoB already gets 3 attacks per turn from level 5 because of PAM. It also gets 1d6 added to each of those attacks, so without the 3rd attack you have:
PoB = 2d10+1d4+3d6+3*CHA + 3*1d6(Hex) or + 3*2d8 (Spirit Shroud) = 49.5 or 60 (ignoring chance to hit and ignoring Weapon Masteries) vs EB = 3d10+3*CHA + 3*1d6 (Hex) = 42 (ignoring chance to hit)
Thus without the 3rd attack and without Weapon Masteries (which also increases PoB damage), PoB is already out damaging EB at level 11.
So I get why people are uncomfortable with 3 attacks at 11th. Warlock is more of a caster and it feels weird that they are making more attacks then most martials. That said, Warlock already was able to do that. Eldritch Blast is basically just a Heavy Crossbow. You can make 3 Eldritch Blast attacks at 11th level. If we remove the 3rd attack we are potentially making PoB a low level only feature.
Sidenote: While it's not a problem now as you can't replace your invocations on a level up, there MAY be weird interactions between Feats and PoB if it returns (which I think they should). If you remove PoB you actually lose the pre-requisite of the feats you already took. It's kind of an interesting dilemma now that Pact Boons are invocations.
EB doesn't benefit from Lifedrinker though, and EB doesn't synergize with feats. PoB already gets 3 attacks per turn from level 5 because of PAM. It also gets 1d6 added to each of those attacks, so without the 3rd attack you have:
PoB = 2d10+1d4+3d6+3*CHA + 3*1d6(Hex) or + 3*2d8 (Spirit Shroud) = 49.5 or 60 (ignoring chance to hit and ignoring Weapon Masteries) vs EB = 3d10+3*CHA + 3*1d6 (Hex) = 42 (ignoring chance to hit)
Thus without the 3rd attack and without Weapon Masteries (which also increases PoB damage), PoB is already out damaging EB at level 11.
Again, you're ignoring that the Warlock is spending a feat to get there and putting themselves into danger by going melee. The EB warlock has the ability to keep their concentration spells up without the risk of getting in the face of more dangerous melee threats. While the bladelock has been spending their time on straight damage the EB warlock is utilizing multi-target spells, hex, and battlefield control. The bladelock needs the 3rd attack at 11 to maintain parity with the full suite of Warlock powers, not just EB.
Again, you're ignoring that the Warlock is spending a feat to get there and putting themselves into danger by going melee. The EB warlock has the ability to keep their concentration spells up without the risk of getting in the face of more dangerous melee threats. While the bladelock has been spending their time on straight damage the EB warlock is utilizing multi-target spells, hex, and battlefield control. The bladelock needs the 3rd attack at 11 to maintain parity with the full suite of Warlock powers, not just EB.
The blade lock can stand at range and use battlefield control spells first too, and then run in and clobber the paralyzed enemy for 4 critical hits to deal 120 damage.
So what if they have to spend a feat? It is a good feat, and with Adv on concentration saving throws + 10ft reach so they don't need to be "in the face" of the enemies (or a pile of free Misty Steps to run away if you're a Fey lock) they aren't in that much danger. Certainly not enough to warrant double damage compared to the ranged warlock.
Again, you're ignoring that the Warlock is spending a feat to get there and putting themselves into danger by going melee. The EB warlock has the ability to keep their concentration spells up without the risk of getting in the face of more dangerous melee threats. While the bladelock has been spending their time on straight damage the EB warlock is utilizing multi-target spells, hex, and battlefield control. The bladelock needs the 3rd attack at 11 to maintain parity with the full suite of Warlock powers, not just EB.
The blade lock can stand at range and use battlefield control spells first too, and then run in and clobber the paralyzed enemy for 4 critical hits to deal 120 damage.
So what if they have to spend a feat? It is a good feat, and with Adv on concentration saving throws + 10ft reach so they don't need to be "in the face" of the enemies (or a pile of free Misty Steps to run away if you're a Fey lock) they aren't in that much danger. Certainly not enough to warrant double damage compared to the ranged warlock.
How is the Warlock using battlefield control spells and smites in the same encounter?
And sure, if you assume that your targets fail their saving throws you can make the math come out however you'd like.
It's a feat that reduces their primary ability score progression, which reduces their overall chance to hit, amount on damage and save dc's. Your character has put off 20 in their casting stat, necessary to get those high DC's you're assuming. An EB Warlock doesn't need to compete with the damage of a melee bladelock, EB gives you the distance and protection to cast spells that a melee build doesn't. And if you think +3 and advantage is enough to maintain concentration on spells while being a melee target at 11th level I invite you to examine average monster damage at that level.
The extra 10ft of reach is negligible in the face of most battlefields. Not nothing, but there's a huge difference between dancing in and out of melee range from 10 feet and attacking from behind a line of dedicated warriors. The "pile" of Misty Step actions last two combats at best, and if you're spending a bonus action to Misty Step away you can't also be spending a bonus action on the additional attack.
Sure, with this very specific build you're throwing out a lot more damage than an EB Warlock; but throwing out damage is all you're doing.
Again, you're ignoring that the Warlock is spending a feat to get there and putting themselves into danger by going melee. The EB warlock has the ability to keep their concentration spells up without the risk of getting in the face of more dangerous melee threats. While the bladelock has been spending their time on straight damage the EB warlock is utilizing multi-target spells, hex, and battlefield control. The bladelock needs the 3rd attack at 11 to maintain parity with the full suite of Warlock powers, not just EB.
The blade lock can stand at range and use battlefield control spells first too, and then run in and clobber the paralyzed enemy for 4 critical hits to deal 120 damage.
So what if they have to spend a feat? It is a good feat, and with Adv on concentration saving throws + 10ft reach so they don't need to be "in the face" of the enemies (or a pile of free Misty Steps to run away if you're a Fey lock) they aren't in that much danger. Certainly not enough to warrant double damage compared to the ranged warlock.
How is the Warlock using battlefield control spells and smites in the same encounter?
And sure, if you assume that your targets fail their saving throws you can make the math come out however you'd like.
It's a feat that reduces their primary ability score progression, which reduces their overall chance to hit, amount on damage and save dc's. Your character has put off 20 in their casting stat, necessary to get those high DC's you're assuming. An EB Warlock doesn't need to compete with the damage of a melee bladelock, EB gives you the distance and protection to cast spells that a melee build doesn't. And if you think +3 and advantage is enough to maintain concentration on spells while being a melee target at 11th level I invite you to examine average monster damage at that level.
The extra 10ft of reach is negligible in the face of most battlefields. Not nothing, but there's a huge difference between dancing in and out of melee range from 10 feet and attacking from behind a line of dedicated warriors. The "pile" of Misty Step actions last two combats at best, and if you're spending a bonus action to Misty Step away you can't also be spending a bonus action on the additional attack.
Sure, with this very specific build you're throwing out a lot more damage than an EB Warlock; but throwing out damage is all you're doing.
1) My original balance argument doesn't rely on any DCs, but by level 12 you have a +5 modifier + PAM easily. The "math" works out as Bladelock > EBlock in terms of damage with only 2 attacks from thirsting blade at level 11, and Bladelock >> EBlock in terms of damage with 3 attacks from thirsting blade at level 11. Even if both of them are concentrating on the same spell. Because the baseline damage is off:
PoB = 2d10+1d4+3d6+3*CHA (no spells) = 39 DPR EB = 3d10+3*CHA (no spells) = 31.5 DPR
2) at level 11 warlocks have 3 spell slots so they can spend 1 on a buff / control spell and have 2 left over to smite with. 3) A d8 hit die can absolutely survive in melee for several rounds on average they survive 1 round fewer than a d10 hit die if they just stand there taking the same hits, so you only need to spend 1 misty step per combat or run our of melee once (e.g. after you've knocked the enemy prone from a Eldritch Smite) to have equal survivability of a paladin. 4) There are tons of enemies with ranged attacks, flight, burrow, or just high movement that can easily get past a line of martials to hit the back lines, being able to incapacitate enemies e.g. with spells like the warlock has, it a better damage reduction than anything paladin has.
A Celestial Bladelock is now a better paladin than a Paladin.
Again, you're ignoring that the Warlock is spending a feat to get there and putting themselves into danger by going melee. The EB warlock has the ability to keep their concentration spells up without the risk of getting in the face of more dangerous melee threats. While the bladelock has been spending their time on straight damage the EB warlock is utilizing multi-target spells, hex, and battlefield control. The bladelock needs the 3rd attack at 11 to maintain parity with the full suite of Warlock powers, not just EB.
The blade lock can stand at range and use battlefield control spells first too, and then run in and clobber the paralyzed enemy for 4 critical hits to deal 120 damage.
So what if they have to spend a feat? It is a good feat, and with Adv on concentration saving throws + 10ft reach so they don't need to be "in the face" of the enemies (or a pile of free Misty Steps to run away if you're a Fey lock) they aren't in that much danger. Certainly not enough to warrant double damage compared to the ranged warlock.
How is the Warlock using battlefield control spells and smites in the same encounter?
And sure, if you assume that your targets fail their saving throws you can make the math come out however you'd like.
It's a feat that reduces their primary ability score progression, which reduces their overall chance to hit, amount on damage and save dc's. Your character has put off 20 in their casting stat, necessary to get those high DC's you're assuming. An EB Warlock doesn't need to compete with the damage of a melee bladelock, EB gives you the distance and protection to cast spells that a melee build doesn't. And if you think +3 and advantage is enough to maintain concentration on spells while being a melee target at 11th level I invite you to examine average monster damage at that level.
The extra 10ft of reach is negligible in the face of most battlefields. Not nothing, but there's a huge difference between dancing in and out of melee range from 10 feet and attacking from behind a line of dedicated warriors. The "pile" of Misty Step actions last two combats at best, and if you're spending a bonus action to Misty Step away you can't also be spending a bonus action on the additional attack.
Sure, with this very specific build you're throwing out a lot more damage than an EB Warlock; but throwing out damage is all you're doing.
1) My original balance argument doesn't rely on any DCs, but by level 12 you have a +5 modifier + PAM easily. The "math" works out as Bladelock > EBlock in terms of damage with only 2 attacks from thirsting blade at level 11, and Bladelock >> EBlock in terms of damage with 3 attacks from thirsting blade at level 11. Even if both of them are concentrating on the same spell. Because the baseline damage is off:
PoB = 2d10+1d4+3d6+3*CHA (no spells) = 39 DPR EB = 3d10+3*CHA (no spells) = 31.5 DPR
2) at level 11 warlocks have 3 spell slots so they can spend 1 on a buff / control spell and have 2 left over to smite with. 3) A d8 hit die can absolutely survive in melee for several rounds on average they survive 1 round fewer than a d10 hit die if they just stand there taking the same hits, so you only need to spend 1 misty step per combat or run our of melee once (e.g. after you've knocked the enemy prone from a Eldritch Smite) to have equal survivability of a paladin. 4) There are tons of enemies with ranged attacks, flight, burrow, or just high movement that can easily get past a line of martials to hit the back lines, being able to incapacitate enemies e.g. with spells like the warlock has, it a better damage reduction than anything paladin has.
A Celestial Bladelock is now a better paladin than a Paladin.
1) 7.5 damage per round is absolutely worth not getting into melee for. Many enemies at that level can get around obstacles and party members to get at the EB, but there's an opportunity cost that isn't there if the warlock is in melee. CR 11 enemies have average hp >230, 8dpr isn't going to make or break anything at this level.
2) And nothing left over for the next two combats before a short rest. An EB focused warlock can keep the blasts going all day after without additional costs, a melee focused one is going to be in a much more dangerous position.
3&4) The difference is more than hit dice. Paladins have incredibly potent defensive abilities at this tier that a Warlock can't match unless they've used one of their few remaining resources on a potent defensive spell like Shadow of Moil, or have tossed of a hold monster or hypnotic pattern and crossed their fingers. And while the bladelock has scooted off to cover their butts that fee's the opponent up to go after a more vulnerable caster or cleric. I'm not equating the paladin to an MMO "tank" position, but they have more to offer than the exactingly built for damage bladelock.
EB doesn't benefit from Lifedrinker though, and EB doesn't synergize with feats. PoB already gets 3 attacks per turn from level 5 because of PAM. It also gets 1d6 added to each of those attacks, so without the 3rd attack you have:
PoB = 2d10+1d4+3d6+3*CHA + 3*1d6(Hex) or + 3*2d8 (Spirit Shroud) = 49.5 or 60 (ignoring chance to hit and ignoring Weapon Masteries) vs EB = 3d10+3*CHA + 3*1d6 (Hex) = 42 (ignoring chance to hit)
Thus without the 3rd attack and without Weapon Masteries (which also increases PoB damage), PoB is already out damaging EB at level 11.
PAM is the only method you have to noticeable outpace EB with Lifedrinker.
GWM: 6d6 + 2* Cha(5) + Pro(4) + Hex(2d6) OR SS(4d8) = 42 or 53 TWF: 3d8 + 3d6 + 2*Cha(5) + Hex(3d6) OR SS(6d8) = 44.5 OR 61 EB: 3d10 + 3*Cha(5) + Hex(3d6) OR SS(6d8) = 42 OR 58.5
Remember that all of these are using 2 additional invocations and a feat in order to deal like 2 more damage (7 for PA). They also don't scale at level 17.
Meanwhile if we drop Lifedrinker and use the new Thirsty Blade: GWM: 6d6 + 3* Cha(5) + Pro(4) + Hex(3d6) OR SS(6d8) = 50.5 or 67 TWF: 4d8 + 3*Cha(5) + Hex(4d6) OR SS(8d8) = 47 OR 69
Stronger yes, but the actual resource cost actually seems worth it.
Warlocks can't take Polearm Master. They don't have proficiency with Martial Weapons. You're proficient with your Pact Weapon, but that doesn't count for feats.
Warlocks can't take Polearm Master. They don't have proficiency with Martial Weapons. You're proficient with your Pact Weapon, but that doesn't count for feats.
I think it's likely that the restriction will be changed into "the Weapon Mastery feature." Regardless, on second read-through, Pact of the blade doesn't even grant that. Just access to the mastery of the boon. So all our discussion was indeed wasted lol! Thanks for pointing it out!
Warlocks can't take Polearm Master. They don't have proficiency with Martial Weapons. You're proficient with your Pact Weapon, but that doesn't count for feats.
I think it's likely that the restriction will be changed into "the Weapon Mastery feature." Regardless, on second read-through, Pact of the blade doesn't even grant that. Just access to the mastery of the boon. So all our discussion was indeed wasted lol! Thanks for pointing it out!
I love the idea that Warlocks can't get weapon feats. This is funny. I want to keep it that way, it actually solves the issue.
More ways the new Pact of the Blade is broken, even at range PotB is better than EB so you should always be taking PotB with this new -lock: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PPVtdVC3B4
Warlocks can't take Polearm Master. They don't have proficiency with Martial Weapons. You're proficient with your Pact Weapon, but that doesn't count for feats.
If that's the intent they need to spell it out, because that's not what it says. These feats have "proficiency with ANY martial weapon" as their prerequisite, not all martial weapons, and Pact of the Blade does in fact give you proficiency with a martial weapon.
Warlocks can't take Polearm Master. They don't have proficiency with Martial Weapons. You're proficient with your Pact Weapon, but that doesn't count for feats.
If that's the intent they need to spell it out, because that's not what it says. These feats have "proficiency with ANY martial weapon" as their prerequisite, not all martial weapons, and Pact of the Blade does in fact give you proficiency with a martial weapon.
Only when you summon it. However, yes it needs to be either "you can't take this" intent wise or "You can" intent wise and fix it accordingly.
More ways the new Pact of the Blade is broken, even at range PotB is better than EB so you should always be taking PotB with this new -lock: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PPVtdVCPact.
It turns out that when you have an ideal situation where nothing goes wrong you can tune your damage to be higher than every other class.
However if you listen to his build; his example character has a 14 constitution, R2+2 concentration saves, an AC of 17 and casts no defensive spells; ever. It's not a build for a character that should expect to live very long. ((Edited to remove pretty tasteless joke))
The rules do need to be clarified however. Way too many people thinking this qualifies for feats designed for martial characters.
First, I'd agree that martials in general need 3 attacks by level 11, and the fighter needs something in addition to offset the removal of that feature. Fighter and Barbarian I think should both get +1 dice increases to the base damage of their weapon. Rangers and Paladins can go on without these since they've got either more utility, durability or ability to nova damage.
Second, and to break with the opinion here, I think the Blade-lock should maintain the 3rd attack to offset the ranged abilities of Agonizing Blast. Having played a melee-focused Bladelock I've felt they wind up best as sorts of glass cannons. Powerful damage potential, but vulnerable in the thick of things where a melee-focused Warlock most wants to be.
One thing I think we're failing to take into consideration here is the lower survivability of the Warlock. The Paladin may not be able to keep up damage wise here (and I think that does need rectified by giving all martials a 3rd attack) but the paladin bonus to saves and immunity to effects is going to put the paladin in a much better position to keep doing that damage compared to the warlock. If you're not taking into account the chances that a character is in fighting shape to maintain that damage you're not accounting for the whole picture, and a glass cannon alike a melee warlock will look more powerful than it actually is.
While they both have polearm master the lock gets more out of it than the pally does.
So I get why people are uncomfortable with 3 attacks at 11th. Warlock is more of a caster and it feels weird that they are making more attacks then most martials. That said, Warlock already was able to do that. Eldritch Blast is basically just a Heavy Crossbow. You can make 3 Eldritch Blast attacks at 11th level. If we remove the 3rd attack we are potentially making PoB a low level only feature.
Sidenote: While it's not a problem now as you can't replace your invocations on a level up, there MAY be weird interactions between Feats and PoB if it returns (which I think they should). If you remove PoB you actually lose the pre-requisite of the feats you already took. It's kind of an interesting dilemma now that Pact Boons are invocations.
EB doesn't benefit from Lifedrinker though, and EB doesn't synergize with feats. PoB already gets 3 attacks per turn from level 5 because of PAM. It also gets 1d6 added to each of those attacks, so without the 3rd attack you have:
PoB = 2d10+1d4+3d6+3*CHA + 3*1d6(Hex) or + 3*2d8 (Spirit Shroud) = 49.5 or 60 (ignoring chance to hit and ignoring Weapon Masteries)
vs
EB = 3d10+3*CHA + 3*1d6 (Hex) = 42 (ignoring chance to hit)
Thus without the 3rd attack and without Weapon Masteries (which also increases PoB damage), PoB is already out damaging EB at level 11.
Again, you're ignoring that the Warlock is spending a feat to get there and putting themselves into danger by going melee. The EB warlock has the ability to keep their concentration spells up without the risk of getting in the face of more dangerous melee threats. While the bladelock has been spending their time on straight damage the EB warlock is utilizing multi-target spells, hex, and battlefield control. The bladelock needs the 3rd attack at 11 to maintain parity with the full suite of Warlock powers, not just EB.
The blade lock can stand at range and use battlefield control spells first too, and then run in and clobber the paralyzed enemy for 4 critical hits to deal 120 damage.
So what if they have to spend a feat? It is a good feat, and with Adv on concentration saving throws + 10ft reach so they don't need to be "in the face" of the enemies (or a pile of free Misty Steps to run away if you're a Fey lock) they aren't in that much danger. Certainly not enough to warrant double damage compared to the ranged warlock.
How is the Warlock using battlefield control spells and smites in the same encounter?
And sure, if you assume that your targets fail their saving throws you can make the math come out however you'd like.
It's a feat that reduces their primary ability score progression, which reduces their overall chance to hit, amount on damage and save dc's. Your character has put off 20 in their casting stat, necessary to get those high DC's you're assuming. An EB Warlock doesn't need to compete with the damage of a melee bladelock, EB gives you the distance and protection to cast spells that a melee build doesn't. And if you think +3 and advantage is enough to maintain concentration on spells while being a melee target at 11th level I invite you to examine average monster damage at that level.
The extra 10ft of reach is negligible in the face of most battlefields. Not nothing, but there's a huge difference between dancing in and out of melee range from 10 feet and attacking from behind a line of dedicated warriors. The "pile" of Misty Step actions last two combats at best, and if you're spending a bonus action to Misty Step away you can't also be spending a bonus action on the additional attack.
Sure, with this very specific build you're throwing out a lot more damage than an EB Warlock; but throwing out damage is all you're doing.
1) My original balance argument doesn't rely on any DCs, but by level 12 you have a +5 modifier + PAM easily. The "math" works out as Bladelock > EBlock in terms of damage with only 2 attacks from thirsting blade at level 11, and Bladelock >> EBlock in terms of damage with 3 attacks from thirsting blade at level 11. Even if both of them are concentrating on the same spell. Because the baseline damage is off:
PoB = 2d10+1d4+3d6+3*CHA (no spells) = 39 DPR
EB = 3d10+3*CHA (no spells) = 31.5 DPR
2) at level 11 warlocks have 3 spell slots so they can spend 1 on a buff / control spell and have 2 left over to smite with.
3) A d8 hit die can absolutely survive in melee for several rounds on average they survive 1 round fewer than a d10 hit die if they just stand there taking the same hits, so you only need to spend 1 misty step per combat or run our of melee once (e.g. after you've knocked the enemy prone from a Eldritch Smite) to have equal survivability of a paladin.
4) There are tons of enemies with ranged attacks, flight, burrow, or just high movement that can easily get past a line of martials to hit the back lines, being able to incapacitate enemies e.g. with spells like the warlock has, it a better damage reduction than anything paladin has.
A Celestial Bladelock is now a better paladin than a Paladin.
1) 7.5 damage per round is absolutely worth not getting into melee for. Many enemies at that level can get around obstacles and party members to get at the EB, but there's an opportunity cost that isn't there if the warlock is in melee. CR 11 enemies have average hp >230, 8dpr isn't going to make or break anything at this level.
2) And nothing left over for the next two combats before a short rest. An EB focused warlock can keep the blasts going all day after without additional costs, a melee focused one is going to be in a much more dangerous position.
3&4) The difference is more than hit dice. Paladins have incredibly potent defensive abilities at this tier that a Warlock can't match unless they've used one of their few remaining resources on a potent defensive spell like Shadow of Moil, or have tossed of a hold monster or hypnotic pattern and crossed their fingers. And while the bladelock has scooted off to cover their butts that fee's the opponent up to go after a more vulnerable caster or cleric. I'm not equating the paladin to an MMO "tank" position, but they have more to offer than the exactingly built for damage bladelock.
PAM is the only method you have to noticeable outpace EB with Lifedrinker.
GWM: 6d6 + 2* Cha(5) + Pro(4) + Hex(2d6) OR SS(4d8) = 42 or 53
TWF: 3d8 + 3d6 + 2*Cha(5) + Hex(3d6) OR SS(6d8) = 44.5 OR 61
EB: 3d10 + 3*Cha(5) + Hex(3d6) OR SS(6d8) = 42 OR 58.5
Remember that all of these are using 2 additional invocations and a feat in order to deal like 2 more damage (7 for PA). They also don't scale at level 17.
Meanwhile if we drop Lifedrinker and use the new Thirsty Blade:
GWM: 6d6 + 3* Cha(5) + Pro(4) + Hex(3d6) OR SS(6d8) = 50.5 or 67
TWF: 4d8 + 3*Cha(5) + Hex(4d6) OR SS(8d8) = 47 OR 69
Stronger yes, but the actual resource cost actually seems worth it.
Warlocks can't take Polearm Master. They don't have proficiency with Martial Weapons. You're proficient with your Pact Weapon, but that doesn't count for feats.
I think it's likely that the restriction will be changed into "the Weapon Mastery feature." Regardless, on second read-through, Pact of the blade doesn't even grant that. Just access to the mastery of the boon. So all our discussion was indeed wasted lol! Thanks for pointing it out!
I love the idea that Warlocks can't get weapon feats. This is funny. I want to keep it that way, it actually solves the issue.
A similar benefit to the heavy weapons requiring Str 13 to weild without disadvantage rule; building in real costs to stretching your build too far.
Can't believe I missed it either, but agree that it neatly solves it.
More ways the new Pact of the Blade is broken, even at range PotB is better than EB so you should always be taking PotB with this new -lock: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PPVtdVC3B4
If that's the intent they need to spell it out, because that's not what it says. These feats have "proficiency with ANY martial weapon" as their prerequisite, not all martial weapons, and Pact of the Blade does in fact give you proficiency with a martial weapon.
Only when you summon it. However, yes it needs to be either "you can't take this" intent wise or "You can" intent wise and fix it accordingly.
It lasts indefinitely (barring one of the three things that can end it) so having it up when you take the feat is trivial.
It turns out that when you have an ideal situation where nothing goes wrong you can tune your damage to be higher than every other class.
However if you listen to his build; his example character has a 14 constitution, R2+2 concentration saves, an AC of 17 and casts no defensive spells; ever. It's not a build for a character that should expect to live very long. ((Edited to remove pretty tasteless joke))
The rules do need to be clarified however. Way too many people thinking this qualifies for feats designed for martial characters.