Just about all of these ideas make the warlock's life needlessly complicated, or makes the warlock - already a mechanically terrible class - distinctly worse just to nerf the paladin.
The answer is simple. Either remove autogishing from the warlock or add it to the paladin. Done. Evil cheating baby-eating soul-corrupting Horrible Game-Ruining Munchkinism dealt with. Nobody cares about ANYTHING but making sure paladins have to stay MAD. It's the only reason anybody ever cares about nerfing warlock Tier 1 play into oblivion. So fix that.
Take away the warlock's autogishing, or give the damn paladin its own autogishing. Problem solved.
There are other threads for arguing about Warlock spellslots and whatnot, but I feel like there is one discussion that should be had about another major issue that comes up in other discussions all the time, and that is the fact that Warlocks are often relegated to a secondary class for other CHA classes to take few levels in to improve their own mechanics.
The latest round of Unearthed Arcana material has made Warlocks even more dippable than they are in 5th Edition. Right now the Pact of the Blade Invocation doesn't even have prequisites, so when combined with the Eldritch Adept feat, other classes don't even need to take a level in Warlock to get CHA for attacks.
So lets assume our goal is to make Warlocks less dippable, how should WotC go about doing it, without gimping early level Bladelocks by locking CHA for attacks at higher levels?
I spent some think pondering on this, and the best I could come up with is to reword the Pact of the Blade Eldritch Invocation so that you separate the Charisma for attacks and Charisma for damage rolls features, and allow adding Charisma to damage only once per turn (keep Charisma for all attack rolls). You would then reword the Thirsting Blade Invocation so that it allows you to add Charisma to the damage rolls of each of your attacks when using an Extra Attack feature.
wait wait, hold on. these are two different issues. is the goal to deny class levels to the uncommitted? or is the goal to deny pacts to the uninitiated?? see, because if you just want to keep people from dipping into 1 or 2 warlock levels, then that feat sorta solves most of MY issues. it also answers the question of "but what if some other class character makes a deal with a Power?" which turns out to be: you get a feat and that feat allows an invocation.
now, if the question is instead truly how to keep people from taking only a level or two of warlock and then scampering off, then require 13 CHA & 13 INT to multiclass. anything else forgets that they're already delaying progression in their main class which puts them behind the power curve already. most martial classes will find it easier to make a deal for the sword.
having said that, the pact of blade should not provide proficiencies for weapons until level 3 or so. same or later for weapons mastery in that pact. as for pact of the tome, it might need to reduce number of spells or move some things to a later level just because this spellcasting focus could be smuggled into some places which might enable exploit shenanigans yet unknown. pact of the chain is a familiar and those are already in magic initiate feat so, eh, leave it.
The point I was trying to make was that core Warlock features shouldn't be something that other classes get to access( and arguably be better with than pure Warlocks) with just 1 or 2 level dips, or heaven forbid, just by taking a feat and never taking any levels in Warlock at all.
I disagree with the part about no proficiencies before level 3, because to me it would sound stupid that your Patron essentially gives you a practice sword before you get to use the real weapon.
dipping warlock for power isn't so far different than the previous arcane dip craze for wizards to grab a familiar. certain players are going to do it anyway, so might as well give them a feat that's easier to balance for than dips. not to mention, i feel like some of the consternation over warlock dips is that patrons and pacts are supposed to be serious and life altering. that's potentially someone's life and research and obsession being narrowed down to a halloween costume.
as for the no new proficiencies, it's magic so anything makes sense. in my mind, you're giving form to shadow and that shadow's characteristics wouldn't change much with it's shape. therefore, a shadow of a maul and the shadow of a short sword would both swing similarly, both being light as wisps. a great boon to someone who might have learned to fight from reading a book. how is that any less plausible than having years worth of experience (to the point of mastery!) in any weapon you can think of and also you can summon that weapon and even change it (and the mastery) out between attacks? which of those seems more affordable from a level 1 beginning of your journey perspective? and which of those seems more tantalizing to actual warriors, the ones perhaps queuing to dip, who maybe don't see the danger behind the taboo because none is being represented (see paragraph one above)? if if there's no taboo, then the feat makes even more sense and now we should expect every guard and thug and bandit to have similar mastery.
Scale eldritch blast by class level, make pact of the blade a way to modify eldritch blast into melee.
While I agree this would perfectly fix everyone's scaling / power complaints (assuming they also get rid of Lifedrinker at the same time), it just isn't as interesting. But maybe that's what people want?
NO class or subclass gets a feature that lets them attack with a mental stat.
Battlesmith, Shillelagh, Astral Arms...
IMO the issue is not the concept of "autogishing" itself, rather it's the tradeoffs (or lack thereof.) Shillelagh requires activation and restricts your weapon, Astral Arms does the same and also requires a resource, Battle Ready is completely passive/constant and has no weapon restriction but requires a specific subclass (i.e. 3 levels) and likely an infusion slot. If Blade Pact had one or more of these restrictions it would be perfectly okay.
I think Kamchatmonk nailed the fix to pact of the blade. Make it a magic action so it doesn’t scale with extra attack, then thirsting blade becomes even more important.
PACT OF THE BLADE Prerequisite: None As a Bonus Action, you can trace arcane sigils in the air to conjure a pact weapon in your hand—a Simple or Martial melee weapon of your choice with which you bond—or create a bond with a magic weapon you touch. Until the bond ends, you have proficiency with the weapon, you can use its Mastery property, and you can use it as a spellcasting focus. You learn the Eldritch Strike. Your bond with the weapon ends if you use this feature’s Bonus Action again, if the weapon is more than 5 feet away from you for 1 minute or more, or if you die. A conjured weapon disappears when the bond ends.
ELDRITCH STRIKE As a Magic Action you make an attack with your pact weapon against a creature within the weapon’s range. You can use your Charisma modifier for the attack and damage rolls, instead of using Strength or Dexterity, and you can cause the weapon to deal Necrotic, Psychic, or Radiant damage or its normal damage type.
THIRSTING BLADE Prerequisite: Level 5+ Warlock, Pact of the Blade You can attack twice with your pact weapon, instead of once, when you use Eldritch Strike as a Magic action on your turn. You may target the same target with both attacks or choose different targets. You may also move between the attacks.
Scale eldritch blast by class level, make pact of the blade a way to modify eldritch blast into melee.
While I agree this would perfectly fix everyone's scaling / power complaints (assuming they also get rid of Lifedrinker at the same time), it just isn't as interesting. But maybe that's what people want?
The core problem is that you need to make sure the class is functional from level 1, but that opens up dipping. It's not really unique to warlocks, a lot of classes get you large bonuses from a one level dip. A lot of multiclassing problems would be solved by making characters start at level 2 or 3.
One thing I wonder is, why do classes have to be functional at level 1? I mean yeah they need to be able to move and attack but i assume you mean more than that by functional. Why can't it be level 3 where their full functionality kicks in. With the XP required it seems to me that levels 1-2 are like apprentice levels. Maybe classes should suck more at these levels. Let people skip to level 3 if they don't want to role play the struggles of sucking for 2 quick levels. This may be the old man in me, but back in my day a wizard started with 1d4 hit points and only got a con bonus if his con was 15 or higher with a max of +2 to their HP, they wore robes and only cast one single spell the whole day so it probably was not on a armor or shield spell. Heck maybe casters should only have cantrips at level 1 and gain their 1st level spells at level 3 with spell gain being at the same rate after that except for level 9 spells coming in at level 20. Not that will even happen but like I said why fully functional at level 1, why can't levels 1-2 be 1/2 functionality as you train through your apprentice levels.
Paladin, Ranger, Monk and even Barbarian exist in a strange place in D&D, where they require 2 ability scores instead of 1 (excluding Constitution).
Pretty sure Paladin can be fixed with a 1st level feat:
Spellblade's Focus
1st-level feat
prerequisite: Paladin, Warlock, Bard or Sorcerer
When you perform a weapon attack, you can perform the attack using Charisma instead of Strength when determining the Attack and Damage rolls.
Then the Charisma part of Pact of the Blade can be removed completely.
The only issue with this is that the Paladin then is going to sacrifice Strength for Dexterity. Medium armour for heavy armour, it is a slightly AC loss over going strength based.
One thing I wonder is, why do classes have to be functional at level 1?
Because people play games at level 1.
And games aren't allowed to have a point where the player is not perfection?
You assume everybody only plays a session or two where they kill ten rats to get to level three.
What about the DM who keeps his players at level 1 for fifteen sessions because he uses milestone and is a hardass? Should his players have to suffer with incomplete characters unable to Adventure?
Characters need to be able to Adventure at any level. First and second level D&D is already awful for this; a basic housecat can easily defeat and kill a first-level character in open combat if the dice say so. First-level characters are so fragile they cannot Adventure, which is why the book pressures people to accelerate unnaturally quickly to level three. Making those early proto-levels suck even harder isn't a valid answer for any question other than "how can I make my players suffer more?"
Paladin, Ranger, Monk and even Barbarian exist in a strange place in D&D, where they require 2 ability scores instead of 1 (excluding Constitution).
A ranger who goes pure Dex (ignoring Wisdom) is fine. A barbarian does pretty significantly want 14 Dex on top of Strength, but has no need to go above that.
The main problem with Paladin is that Aura of Protection really does demand good charisma. Make it a flat +1 or +2, with no charisma scaling, and you'd see the same desultory investment (12-14) in charisma that you see for rangers and wisdom.
One thing I wonder is, why do classes have to be functional at level 1?
Because people play games at level 1.
And games aren't allowed to have a point where the player is not perfection?
You assume everybody only plays a session or two where they kill ten rats to get to level three.
What about the DM who keeps his players at level 1 for fifteen sessions because he uses milestone and is a hardass? Should his players have to suffer with incomplete characters unable to Adventure?
Characters need to be able to Adventure at any level. First and second level D&D is already awful for this; a basic housecat can easily defeat and kill a first-level character in open combat if the dice say so. First-level characters are so fragile they cannot Adventure, which is why the book pressures people to accelerate unnaturally quickly to level three. Making those early proto-levels suck even harder isn't a valid answer for any question other than "how can I make my players suffer more?"
The game does not need to factor in your hyperbolic tables.
Paladin, Ranger, Monk and even Barbarian exist in a strange place in D&D, where they require 2 ability scores instead of 1 (excluding Constitution).
A ranger who goes pure Dex (ignoring Wisdom) is fine. A barbarian does pretty significantly want 14 Dex on top of Strength, but has no need to go above that.
The main problem with Paladin is that Aura of Protection really does demand good charisma. Make it a flat +1 or +2, with no charisma scaling, and you'd see the same desultory investment (12-14) in charisma that you see for rangers and wisdom.
A ranger who ignores wisdom still suffers from their spellcasting, as does a paladin with their charisma, mostly on spells with Save DCs. A barbarian can do pretty decently with 14 dex, more so if they use medium armour, since it just gets higher AC in the long run, but it's still weird that there is a class disparity of classes that are MAD and classes that are SAD.
Paladin, Ranger, Monk and even Barbarian exist in a strange place in D&D, where they require 2 ability scores instead of 1 (excluding Constitution).
Pretty sure Paladin can be fixed with a 1st level feat:
Spellblade's Focus
1st-level feat
prerequisite: Paladin, Warlock, Bard or Sorcerer
When you perform a weapon attack, you can perform the attack using Charisma instead of Strength when determining the Attack and Damage rolls.
Then the Charisma part of Pact of the Blade can be removed completely.
The only issue with this is that the Paladin then is going to sacrifice Strength for Dexterity. Medium armour for heavy armour, it is a slightly AC loss over going strength based.
I pretty sure they didn’t design Paladin thinking they would be giving everyone +5 to all their saving throws. Notice they have smites and many of their spells don’t use their Cha. A lot of them are linked to a weapon attack. If anything A SAD Paladin would lose spells that needed Cha, and have its Aura of protection set to an amount like +1, +2 at 12, +3 at 16.
A ranger who ignores wisdom still suffers from their spellcasting, as does a paladin with their charisma, mostly on spells with Save DCs.
That assumes you're actually casting spells with save DCs, which in my experience is rare for both rangers (I tend to see spells like hunter's mark, longstrider, pass without trace, spike growth, and conjure animals, none of which care about wisdom at all) and paladins (who just smite). UA does make it slightly more significant as some smite spells have important extra effects on a failed save, but even then they all do full damage regardless of save result and a bunch have no save.
One thing I wonder is, why do classes have to be functional at level 1?
Because people play games at level 1.
And games aren't allowed to have a point where the player is not perfection?
If classes are not supposed to have any distinctive strengths at level 1, then why bother with level 1? Make everyone start as level 1 commoner and everyone picks class only once they reach 2nd level.
One thing I wonder is, why do classes have to be functional at level 1?
Because people play games at level 1.
And games aren't allowed to have a point where the player is not perfection?
If classes are not supposed to have any distinctive strengths at level 1, then why bother with level 1? Make everyone start as level 1 commoner and everyone picks class only once they reach 2nd level.
Do you really honestly think that a first level Warlock who is not able to make weapon attacks using CHA has no distinctive strengths? Just on the most basic level in this playtest, they have a couple of cantrips (one of which most likely will be Eldritch Blast), an invocation (which could be used to buff Eldritch Blast or a variety of other flavorful abilities), and a spell slot that refreshes on a short rest. Just like every other class, they also get a feat. I'm sure there probably may be some classes in the playtest that start off with slightly more, but I don't see any level 1 characters of any class as having significant distinctive strengths beyond that.
You missed that Dudeicus was recommending removing most of those things from first level and punting them up to second, third, fourth, or even fifth level. Spellcasting for primary fullcaster classes wouldn't even kick in at all until third - your wizards and sorcerers would spend first and second levels swinging staves or daggers without the ability to use magic at all.
In such a system, yes, classes are not distinct from one another at first level, and the game is mostly nonfunctional at that level.
I think it really comes down to Eldritch blast. Agonizing blast on any other cantrip is fine and many subclasses give something similar anyway if a class wants to dip for it I say let them. PoTB is really only being dipped for 1 class and a couple bard subclasses and I think is a bit overblown as an issue. Making 5th level and above invocations better (there is a HUGE lack of 7th level and above invocations) can go a long way to making more levels of warlock more attractive.
(Seriously, level 7 has like 1 new invocation for warlocks to grab or they are grabbing the same stuff they got at 5, 9 has the pact specific ones, or again 1 new invocation, there is NOTHING new at 12 and only 1 new one at 15 and NOTHING new at 18.... high level invocations are outright missing)
Just about all of these ideas make the warlock's life needlessly complicated, or makes the warlock - already a mechanically terrible class - distinctly worse just to nerf the paladin.
The answer is simple. Either remove autogishing from the warlock or add it to the paladin. Done. Evil cheating baby-eating soul-corrupting Horrible Game-Ruining Munchkinism dealt with. Nobody cares about ANYTHING but making sure paladins have to stay MAD. It's the only reason anybody ever cares about nerfing warlock Tier 1 play into oblivion. So fix that.
Take away the warlock's autogishing, or give the damn paladin its own autogishing. Problem solved.
Please do not contact or message me.
dipping warlock for power isn't so far different than the previous arcane dip craze for wizards to grab a familiar. certain players are going to do it anyway, so might as well give them a feat that's easier to balance for than dips. not to mention, i feel like some of the consternation over warlock dips is that patrons and pacts are supposed to be serious and life altering. that's potentially someone's life and research and obsession being narrowed down to a halloween costume.
as for the no new proficiencies, it's magic so anything makes sense. in my mind, you're giving form to shadow and that shadow's characteristics wouldn't change much with it's shape. therefore, a shadow of a maul and the shadow of a short sword would both swing similarly, both being light as wisps. a great boon to someone who might have learned to fight from reading a book. how is that any less plausible than having years worth of experience (to the point of mastery!) in any weapon you can think of and also you can summon that weapon and even change it (and the mastery) out between attacks? which of those seems more affordable from a level 1 beginning of your journey perspective? and which of those seems more tantalizing to actual warriors, the ones perhaps queuing to dip, who maybe don't see the danger behind the taboo because none is being represented (see paragraph one above)? if if there's no taboo, then the feat makes even more sense and now we should expect every guard and thug and bandit to have similar mastery.
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!
While I agree this would perfectly fix everyone's scaling / power complaints (assuming they also get rid of Lifedrinker at the same time), it just isn't as interesting. But maybe that's what people want?
Battlesmith, Shillelagh, Astral Arms...
IMO the issue is not the concept of "autogishing" itself, rather it's the tradeoffs (or lack thereof.) Shillelagh requires activation and restricts your weapon, Astral Arms does the same and also requires a resource, Battle Ready is completely passive/constant and has no weapon restriction but requires a specific subclass (i.e. 3 levels) and likely an infusion slot. If Blade Pact had one or more of these restrictions it would be perfectly okay.
I think Kamchatmonk nailed the fix to pact of the blade. Make it a magic action so it doesn’t scale with extra attack, then thirsting blade becomes even more important.
PACT OF THE BLADE
Prerequisite: None
As a Bonus Action, you can trace arcane sigils in the air to conjure a pact weapon in your hand—a Simple or Martial melee weapon of your choice with which you bond—or create a bond with a magic weapon you touch. Until the bond ends, you have proficiency with the weapon, you can use its Mastery property, and you can use it as a spellcasting focus.
You learn the Eldritch Strike.
Your bond with the weapon ends if you use this feature’s Bonus Action again, if the weapon is more than 5 feet away from you for 1 minute or more, or if you die. A conjured weapon disappears when the bond ends.
ELDRITCH STRIKE
As a Magic Action you make an attack with your pact weapon against a creature within the weapon’s range. You can use your Charisma modifier for the attack and damage rolls, instead of using Strength or Dexterity, and you can cause the weapon to deal Necrotic, Psychic, or Radiant damage or its normal damage type.
THIRSTING BLADE
Prerequisite: Level 5+ Warlock, Pact of the Blade
You can attack twice with your pact weapon, instead of once, when you use Eldritch Strike as a Magic action on your turn. You may target the same target with both attacks or choose different targets. You may also move between the attacks.
Maybe, depends on how its written up.
One thing I wonder is, why do classes have to be functional at level 1? I mean yeah they need to be able to move and attack but i assume you mean more than that by functional. Why can't it be level 3 where their full functionality kicks in. With the XP required it seems to me that levels 1-2 are like apprentice levels. Maybe classes should suck more at these levels. Let people skip to level 3 if they don't want to role play the struggles of sucking for 2 quick levels. This may be the old man in me, but back in my day a wizard started with 1d4 hit points and only got a con bonus if his con was 15 or higher with a max of +2 to their HP, they wore robes and only cast one single spell the whole day so it probably was not on a armor or shield spell. Heck maybe casters should only have cantrips at level 1 and gain their 1st level spells at level 3 with spell gain being at the same rate after that except for level 9 spells coming in at level 20. Not that will even happen but like I said why fully functional at level 1, why can't levels 1-2 be 1/2 functionality as you train through your apprentice levels.
Because people play games at level 1.
And games aren't allowed to have a point where the player is not perfection?
Paladin, Ranger, Monk and even Barbarian exist in a strange place in D&D, where they require 2 ability scores instead of 1 (excluding Constitution).
Pretty sure Paladin can be fixed with a 1st level feat:
Then the Charisma part of Pact of the Blade can be removed completely.
The only issue with this is that the Paladin then is going to sacrifice Strength for Dexterity. Medium armour for heavy armour, it is a slightly AC loss over going strength based.
You assume everybody only plays a session or two where they kill ten rats to get to level three.
What about the DM who keeps his players at level 1 for fifteen sessions because he uses milestone and is a hardass? Should his players have to suffer with incomplete characters unable to Adventure?
Characters need to be able to Adventure at any level. First and second level D&D is already awful for this; a basic housecat can easily defeat and kill a first-level character in open combat if the dice say so. First-level characters are so fragile they cannot Adventure, which is why the book pressures people to accelerate unnaturally quickly to level three. Making those early proto-levels suck even harder isn't a valid answer for any question other than "how can I make my players suffer more?"
Please do not contact or message me.
A ranger who goes pure Dex (ignoring Wisdom) is fine. A barbarian does pretty significantly want 14 Dex on top of Strength, but has no need to go above that.
The main problem with Paladin is that Aura of Protection really does demand good charisma. Make it a flat +1 or +2, with no charisma scaling, and you'd see the same desultory investment (12-14) in charisma that you see for rangers and wisdom.
The game does not need to factor in your hyperbolic tables.
A ranger who ignores wisdom still suffers from their spellcasting, as does a paladin with their charisma, mostly on spells with Save DCs. A barbarian can do pretty decently with 14 dex, more so if they use medium armour, since it just gets higher AC in the long run, but it's still weird that there is a class disparity of classes that are MAD and classes that are SAD.
I pretty sure they didn’t design Paladin thinking they would be giving everyone +5 to all their saving throws. Notice they have smites and many of their spells don’t use their Cha. A lot of them are linked to a weapon attack. If anything A SAD Paladin would lose spells that needed Cha, and have its Aura of protection set to an amount like +1, +2 at 12, +3 at 16.
That assumes you're actually casting spells with save DCs, which in my experience is rare for both rangers (I tend to see spells like hunter's mark, longstrider, pass without trace, spike growth, and conjure animals, none of which care about wisdom at all) and paladins (who just smite). UA does make it slightly more significant as some smite spells have important extra effects on a failed save, but even then they all do full damage regardless of save result and a bunch have no save.
If classes are not supposed to have any distinctive strengths at level 1, then why bother with level 1? Make everyone start as level 1 commoner and everyone picks class only once they reach 2nd level.
Do you really honestly think that a first level Warlock who is not able to make weapon attacks using CHA has no distinctive strengths? Just on the most basic level in this playtest, they have a couple of cantrips (one of which most likely will be Eldritch Blast), an invocation (which could be used to buff Eldritch Blast or a variety of other flavorful abilities), and a spell slot that refreshes on a short rest. Just like every other class, they also get a feat. I'm sure there probably may be some classes in the playtest that start off with slightly more, but I don't see any level 1 characters of any class as having significant distinctive strengths beyond that.
You missed that Dudeicus was recommending removing most of those things from first level and punting them up to second, third, fourth, or even fifth level. Spellcasting for primary fullcaster classes wouldn't even kick in at all until third - your wizards and sorcerers would spend first and second levels swinging staves or daggers without the ability to use magic at all.
In such a system, yes, classes are not distinct from one another at first level, and the game is mostly nonfunctional at that level.
Please do not contact or message me.
I think it really comes down to Eldritch blast. Agonizing blast on any other cantrip is fine and many subclasses give something similar anyway if a class wants to dip for it I say let them. PoTB is really only being dipped for 1 class and a couple bard subclasses and I think is a bit overblown as an issue. Making 5th level and above invocations better (there is a HUGE lack of 7th level and above invocations) can go a long way to making more levels of warlock more attractive.
(Seriously, level 7 has like 1 new invocation for warlocks to grab or they are grabbing the same stuff they got at 5, 9 has the pact specific ones, or again 1 new invocation, there is NOTHING new at 12 and only 1 new one at 15 and NOTHING new at 18.... high level invocations are outright missing)