...mechanics-hating thespians that thrive on broken, barely-functional characters so riddled with flaws it's amazing they haven't tripped over their own trauma, fallen down a pit, and died.
You reminded me of one game when my party, hardcore as they are, rolled their new characters, and by that I mean they rolled for everything. Race, class, background, ability scores. Even starting hit points, despite PHB letting you take a maximum without rolling at level 1. So one fella rolls a halfling cleric, and the all the stats are abysmal. He had a 4 in Con. Already starts coming up with a story of a sickly child surviving only thanks to prayers of his parents, et cetera. Rolls starting hit points. He didn't have to. Rolls 2. With a Con modifier of -3. A moment of silence, then I (DM) proclaim: "Stillborn". I think he actually laughed to tears that time. Good times.
We're simply comparing personal experience and perceptions, really. I have zero problems believing you re: your experiences with optimizers/min maxers. I'm glad that it's been positive and they've cared just as much about the RP aspect of the game as the mechanical side. That's ideal, really.
My experience has been the opposite. A very narrow and intense focus on mechanics and optimization, with only token efforts at RP. The folks I've known who are most invested in the game's mechanics are mostly concerned with the tactical aspects of the game; all of their characters feel the same, regardless of class or ancestry. A dwarven wizard doesn't feel any different from a half-orc ranger; the differences are purely mechanical or abilities, not in how they have the character make decisions, interact with others, or develop as the game goes along.
I don't doubt at all that your experience is as genuine as mine is. I mostly brought it up because I know a lot of people assume your experience is the default/expected/only reason to be engaged with the game's mechanics. At my table(s), people know the rules very well and use that knowledge to 1.) create mechanically interesting characters that mesh with interesting and unusual narratives, and 2.) know when, how, and why to selectively ignore rules to extract maximum engagement and awesomeness from the game. Heh, it's like they always say about painting and Picasso - Picasso was a master painter before he started breaking all the rules of painting, so he knew which rules he was breaking, why he was doing it, and what the end result would be. It's that intentionality I wish we could see more of in the game, people knowing precisely what they're doing and why they're doing it.
BTW, I'm not a wanna thespian and don't ask my players to be. I do want the players to make an effort to inject each character with distinct and meaningful personality, expressed mainly by the choices they make in the game, not by silly voices or grandstanding at the table. I'm certainly no aspiring voice actor (or actor of any other kind) - but I do strive to give personality to my campaign world, especially through the descriptions, words, and choices of the NPCs.
And really, the biggest issue with optimization/min maxing is what other posters have said: when it's just one or two people in the party, which thereby throws off game balance a LOT.
I like silly voices and grandstanding at the table. Putting on a performance for your fellow players can be a great way to enhance the D&D experience; my table's most memorable characters have mated an outlandish voice/persona to an effective mechanical build and interesting narrative decisions. It's by no means required, of course, someone can easily have an engaging and meaningful game of D&D told entirely in normal-voice third person, but I find it quite enjoyable to affect an accent and speak in my character's voice.
My problem is with people who think D&D is an Arte Forme (specifically with extra E's for added pretentiousness), that the purpose of the game is to be a Study of the Human State of Weakness, Vulnerability, and Pathos, and who are trying to turn the game into a Byronic tragedy instead of a fun game about adventuring in a fantasy land. People who're the ideological opposite of the Powergaming Math Munchkin and who are just as bad for D&D, but who often hold themselves up as the purest, truest, most ardent and proper enjoyers of the hobby and a standard of play to which everyone else should aspire. Which, let's be real: nobody else likes Bohemian Failure Monkeys.
It's one thing to make a decision you-the-player know is poor because it's something your character would do in the heat of a tense or difficult moment. It's quite another entirely to make a character whose sole and entire goal is to make nothing but poor decisions every single session until the TPK hits because you think a party flaming out and dying as ignoble failures is a more artistic story than adventuring in a fantasy land.
LOL, you're strawman is still just so ridiculous. Literally not one single table I have ever played at fits into any type of game or player you have ever described in these forums. I just have to wonder if you even live in the same reality as the rest of us. Here are the types of players I have encountered:
- Comedic Relief : they don't really care about pathos, character arcs, strategy, or character builds. They want to just relax, have fun, and roll some dice and explore an fantastical world filled with fantastical things. They usually make a character with one particular gimmick (often involving puns), and mostly just go with the flow enjoying unique and peculiar NPCs, cool looking character / location art, and finding creative solutions to problems (not necessarily involving combat).
- Character-focused : they want to RP as their character, making choices and decisions based on their characters ideas, goals, and interests rather than what is necessarily in the best interests of the party or what is the most powerful. They will take unusual spells because they fit the identity of their character, make suboptimal choices that make logical sense from the character's perspective, and may be a source of intra-party friction that leads to interesting RP moments.
- Button-touchers : they want to interact with the world the DM has made, if they see a button they press it, a door they go through it, a cursed item they put it on, a weird device they stick their hand in it. They love exploration, and discovering a narrative along the way, they usually make somewhat optimized characters because they want to be able to survive their experimentation but don't want to be so optimized that nothing ever goes wrong.
- Gamers : they want to progress the game and the narrative, some are completionists and try to do all the side quests as quickly and efficiently as possible, others are narrative focused and pursue the main plot while ignoring side quests. They usually create optimized characters who can succeed at stuff and often favour utility-focused characters so that the plot progresses quickly, rather than getting bogged down / stalled because the party can't figure out how to open a door. Their character usually has a singular clear driving motivation and they expect the DM to make the overarching plot fit with that motivation. (This seems closest to what you would consider "valid D&D players").
All of these players are equally valid and equally of worth to the game of D&D.
in this context, i think "spend more time spamming EB" refers to keeping up hex between battles. i don't have any experience whatsoever with high level sorcerers, but i do follow the leap that a high level sorc might have better things to do with their concentration. a high level warlock too, come to think of it.
Do they though? That hasn't been my experience with sorlocks. In an on-and-off pick up game we play we have a Sorlock and from level 3-15 they used Hex + EB spam 95% of their turns, and handily did more damage than any other character in the party unless the paladin was lucky enough to get a critical hit. The only other spells they cast were: Shield (all the time), Absorb Elements (occasionally), Haste (once or twice), Dimension Door (a couple times), Fly (once, out-of-combat), Counterspell (a few of times), Banishment (once), Misty Step (a few times). They had Hypnotic Pattern, Web, Wall of Force, and other good spells but they never ever used them. Now they've made it to level 16 their new go-to combo is Draconic Transformation + EB spam, instead of Hex + EB spam.
maybe a sorc kicked my pretend dog once because i really, really don't have an informed response to "[but] do they though?" a blindspot in my bailiwick. shrug. i just feel that dipping warlock for the lasers seems cynical. like ticking the "i do enough damage" checkbox to keep the table happy. like bringing walmart cookies to the bake sale (if that's not too catty thespian of me to say) or selling picasso prints at a maker fair or turning on the 'can't fall off the course' option in mario kart. you can do those things, but your imagination and abilities aren't really reflected in the results. again, i shrug.
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!
Honestly, Blade Pact swapping the weapon to CHA is a nice feather but not a game-changer. Paladins are almost inevitably going to go heavy armor, so they already need to invest in 15 STR regardless of what their attack stat is. Using point buy to start at 16 CHA as well, this could hypothetically free up ASI's from level 12 on for feats, CON, or secondary stats, but much like Monks and Rangers, there's really not a pressing need to take the casting stat past 16 to make the class perform well. Spell slot priority is given to Divine Smite, and secondary priority usually goes to buffs that don't depend on the casting stat. The main notable effect is that it makes it easier to get an extra +2 on Aura of Protection, but while the extra 10% to save odds is nice, it's not really paradigm shifting. Basically I agree that they're not trading away much, but imo performance-wise they're not gaining a ton either; slightly better DC that's rarely used, slightly better saves, and honestly about the same stat/feat flexibility for class performance as if they leveled STR to 20 while leaving CHA at 16. I don't think Pact of Blade needs to be nerfed because of this scenario.
To be absolutely clear - I think UA7 Blade Pact needs to be nerfed because it turns Bladelock into Fighter+ at the levels the majority of tables play at (1-14 or so), not because of any concerns I might have about Lockadin. Three attacks with one action + every Weapon Mastery in the game + bonus feats, all before subclass, should be the Fighter's territory - and they get all that alongside full spellcasting progression, cantrips, and a built-in magic weapon. All of that is just the base Warlock class on its own currently. It's way, way too much.
As for Lockadin, I agree that a lot of those will probably go 15 Str but that's not an exorbitant tradeoff; being proficient in Wis saves already, they can get away with dumping that, and still start the game with 14 Con, 10 Int/Dex, and 17 Cha. Or they can start with 16 Cha and shore up their off-stats even further.
I wasn’t saying it gives them no additional stat flexibility, just less. Been a while since I looked at the UA, so I can’t speak to what tuning Blade as a whole needs, I just don’t think they gain so much from using CHA as an attack stat that they need to be blocked from using polearms in conjunction with it.
I wasn’t saying it gives them no additional stat flexibility, just less. Been a while since I looked at the UA, so I can’t speak to what tuning Blade as a whole needs, I just don’t think they gain so much from using CHA as an attack stat that they need to be blocked from using polearms in conjunction with it.
I think polearm bladelocks should be possible, but personally I would want that to be the Hexblade's niche - much like a longbow/longsword monk is the Kensei's niche.
As things currently stand, Hexblade is completely useless now.
Honestly, Blade Pact swapping the weapon to CHA is a nice feather but not a game-changer. Paladins are almost inevitably going to go heavy armor, so they already need to invest in 15 STR regardless of what their attack stat is. Using point buy to start at 16 CHA as well, this could hypothetically free up ASI's from level 12 on for feats, CON, or secondary stats, but much like Monks and Rangers, there's really not a pressing need to take the casting stat past 16 to make the class perform well. Spell slot priority is given to Divine Smite, and secondary priority usually goes to buffs that don't depend on the casting stat. The main notable effect is that it makes it easier to get an extra +2 on Aura of Protection, but while the extra 10% to save odds is nice, it's not really paradigm shifting. Basically I agree that they're not trading away much, but imo performance-wise they're not gaining a ton either; slightly better DC that's rarely used, slightly better saves, and honestly about the same stat/feat flexibility for class performance as if they leveled STR to 20 while leaving CHA at 16. I don't think Pact of Blade needs to be nerfed because of this scenario.
To be absolutely clear - I think UA7 Blade Pact needs to be nerfed because it turns Bladelock into Fighter+ at the levels the majority of tables play at (1-14 or so), not because of any concerns I might have about Lockadin. Three attacks with one action + every Weapon Mastery in the game + bonus feats, all before subclass, should be the Fighter's territory - and they get all that alongside full spellcasting progression, cantrips, and a built-in magic weapon. All of that is just the base Warlock class on its own currently. It's way, way too much.
As for Lockadin, I agree that a lot of those will probably go 15 Str but that's not an exorbitant tradeoff; being proficient in Wis saves already, they can get away with dumping that, and still start the game with 14 Con, 10 Int/Dex, and 17 Cha. Or they can start with 16 Cha and shore up their off-stats even further.
It is a close to even swap as if they went medium armor they would want a 14 dex, when they go 15 strength they can put their 8 in dex if they want. Standard array something like 15 chr, 14 str, 13 con, 12 wis, 10 int, 8 dex. Take resilient con to bump that to 14 and protect concentration for things like bless etc. Point buy, they can drop wisdom to 10 and get the con to start at 14.
Honestly, Blade Pact swapping the weapon to CHA is a nice feather but not a game-changer. Paladins are almost inevitably going to go heavy armor, so they already need to invest in 15 STR regardless of what their attack stat is. Using point buy to start at 16 CHA as well, this could hypothetically free up ASI's from level 12 on for feats, CON, or secondary stats, but much like Monks and Rangers, there's really not a pressing need to take the casting stat past 16 to make the class perform well. Spell slot priority is given to Divine Smite, and secondary priority usually goes to buffs that don't depend on the casting stat. The main notable effect is that it makes it easier to get an extra +2 on Aura of Protection, but while the extra 10% to save odds is nice, it's not really paradigm shifting. Basically I agree that they're not trading away much, but imo performance-wise they're not gaining a ton either; slightly better DC that's rarely used, slightly better saves, and honestly about the same stat/feat flexibility for class performance as if they leveled STR to 20 while leaving CHA at 16. I don't think Pact of Blade needs to be nerfed because of this scenario.
To be absolutely clear - I think UA7 Blade Pact needs to be nerfed because it turns Bladelock into Fighter+ at the levels the majority of tables play at (1-14 or so), not because of any concerns I might have about Lockadin. Three attacks with one action + every Weapon Mastery in the game + bonus feats, all before subclass, should be the Fighter's territory - and they get all that alongside full spellcasting progression, cantrips, and a built-in magic weapon. All of that is just the base Warlock class on its own currently. It's way, way too much.
As for Lockadin, I agree that a lot of those will probably go 15 Str but that's not an exorbitant tradeoff; being proficient in Wis saves already, they can get away with dumping that, and still start the game with 14 Con, 10 Int/Dex, and 17 Cha. Or they can start with 16 Cha and shore up their off-stats even further.
It is a close to even swap as if they went medium armor they would want a 14 dex, when they go 15 strength they can put their 8 in dex if they want. Standard array something like 15 chr, 14 str, 13 con, 12 wis, 10 int, 8 dex. Take resilient con to bump that to 14 and protect concentration for things like bless etc. Point buy, they can drop wisdom to 10 and get the con to start at 14.
That works too I just hate starting with negative dex. But definitely viable, strong even.
You reminded me of one game when my party, hardcore as they are, rolled their new characters, and by that I mean they rolled for everything. Race, class, background, ability scores. Even starting hit points, despite PHB letting you take a maximum without rolling at level 1. So one fella rolls a halfling cleric, and the all the stats are abysmal. He had a 4 in Con. Already starts coming up with a story of a sickly child surviving only thanks to prayers of his parents, et cetera. Rolls starting hit points. He didn't have to. Rolls 2. With a Con modifier of -3. A moment of silence, then I (DM) proclaim: "Stillborn". I think he actually laughed to tears that time. Good times.
Haaaaaah. Heh, that's incredible. Feels like an Achievement Unlocked moment; "die before the campaign starts without your character being vetoed."
LOL, you're strawman is still just so ridiculous. Literally not one single table I have ever played at fits into any type of game or player you have ever described in these forums. I just have to wonder if you even live in the same reality as the rest of us. ... All of these players are equally valid and equally of worth to the game of D&D.
Glad you've never once run into a problem player in all your experience with the game. I've had to abandon entire circles because the players in them became so toxic. Admittedly, the most egregious ones weren't Bohemian Failure Monkeys but rather manchildren with no ability to cooperate as adults, but a problem regardless. You also completely missed the thrust of my remarks, which was that everyone badmouths and berates mechanically-minded people without ever seeming to care that going to far the other way is, frankly, even worse. Nobody ever seems to be willing to acknowledge that a certain level of mechanical competence is, in fact, a strong component of a functional, successful game. The players need to be able to overcome challenges set before them, and if an entire table's built characters so misfunctional, dysfunctional, neurotic, and psychotic that they cannot cooperate or bend their nonexistent talents to overcoming challenges? The game is way more broken than a tableful of Math Majors with extremely powerful builds. At least the Math Majors can cooperate (usually) and overcome challenges.
LOL, you're strawman is still just so ridiculous. Literally not one single table I have ever played at fits into any type of game or player you have ever described in these forums. I just have to wonder if you even live in the same reality as the rest of us. ... All of these players are equally valid and equally of worth to the game of D&D.
Glad you've never once run into a problem player in all your experience with the game. I've had to abandon entire circles because the players in them became so toxic. Admittedly, the most egregious ones weren't Bohemian Failure Monkeys but rather manchildren with no ability to cooperate as adults, but a problem regardless. You also completely missed the thrust of my remarks, which was that everyone badmouths and berates mechanically-minded people without ever seeming to care that going to far the other way is, frankly, even worse.
...Nobody ever seems to be willing to acknowledge that a certain level of mechanical competence is, in fact, a strong component of a functional, successful game. The players need to be able to overcome challenges set before them, and if an entire table's built characters so misfunctional, dysfunctional, neurotic, and psychotic that they cannot cooperate or bend their nonexistent talents to overcoming challenges? The game is way more broken than a tableful of Math Majors with extremely powerful builds. At least the Math Majors can cooperate (usually) and overcome challenges.
a certain level of mechanical competence IS a strong component of a functional, successful game. and i also agree that everyone coming together to find a plausible reason for their character to work with in the party is KEY. but #1 before all that is a dm who can adapt. having a mismatch of player powers and personalities can be difficult, not impossible. but 'difficult' is a crucible that flakes away many newer dms like impurities in the iron. players too. devs are going to want to revise into a baseline of power that paves the way for the largest number of playstyles. the baseline for official adventure encounters will not move up to meet the meme class combos (and probably not as far down to meet babies as some think). baseline power will straddle the fat part of the bell curve and mechanically competent players who are ready for the heat can talk to their dm about moving further away from the baseline. assuming those dms have been nurtured and grown by the system rather than having bounced off because of difficulty, they'll be ready for more too.
Just for the record, I never said I was against multiclassing, just that it is an issue that should also be considered along with the flexible stat for Warlocks. Both Yurei and Psyren have provided sound reasoning for why it really shouldn't be a concern for Wizard/Warlock combos, and at least I am satisfied by this.
If someone could explain why Sorlock is so evil aside from Coffeelock, I’d appreciate it. And what’s so bad about a Warlock dip on a Paladin. A dip for Paladin gives them maybe one or two extra 1st level smites a day, and Sorlock suffers the same progression setback as Wizards. The only examples of “abuse” of a dip for either comes from a Sorcerer feature which I think they’re already patching in 1D&D or a specific Warlock subclass feature for Paladins (Hex Warrior). Even if we weren’t getting a system overhaul fairly soon, one is a case of making an errata to cover the interaction, and the other is honestly just a case of live and learn on subclass features. Yes, Paladins and gish Bards can dip Warlock to be slightly less MAD. Considering how many people go on about how unfair and limiting it is that some classes are MAD in the first place, it honestly seems up for debate if that’s even really a bad thing. Is there something else I’m missing here?
Sorlock won't be so bad with the new updates to warlock's eldritch blast and hex.
What it currently has is hex tiggers every time it hits. Eldritch blast that scales on caster level rather than warlock level...so a 20th level sorlock is pumping 4 bolts per round, each triggering hex if they hit. Then the spend a sorc point and as a bonus action, quicken the spell and cast it again, for a total of 8 bolts/round and 8 potential hex taps. Then they spend their warlock slots that regen on a short rest to regen their sorc points so they don't run out. They can use their sorc slots too if they somehow manage to run out.
They can literally get the same spell combo with Magic Initiate, though. Assuming a 20th level caster wants to waste their Concentration spell on Hex and not use any of their better spells. Using the theoretical 60% accuracy, that's 8d10+40 + 8d6 for an average of 67 dpr. For their whole turn. With no additional effects more significant than possibly moving or slowing what they hit. Or they could use Disintegrate for 75 dpr as a 6th level spell, with an additional 10 dpr for each upcast level, with Heightened Spell to reduce the chance of failure, on top of leaving their concentration slot free for something like Animate Objects or Blade of Disaster.
Hex is decent on Warlocks because they tend to spend more time spamming EB or making weapon attacks than using other spells. It's really not worth it on other casters.
yes, but you can't get agonizing blast, which works out to an extra 20 damage assuming all bolts hit.
That said, with the changes, it will no longer be possible. Hex only triggers once/round IIRC and EB is a warlock only spell, that scales on warlock level. They successfully fixed the sorlock problem. Only the melee gish problem remains, and that cannot be fixed as long as warlock provides a charisma bonus to melee attacks at first level.
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.
The melee gish is not a problem, though. Bards will always be a little behind the curve on melee performance and need at least moderate DEX in any case, and I’ve already outlined the situation for paladins. Nothing about using CHA as an attack score overpowers either class. And so long as any further improvements to Blade scale on Warlock level and/or Invocation, then they have no bearing on a one or two level dip.
That said, with the changes, it will no longer be possible. Hex only triggers once/round IIRC and EB is a warlock only spell, that scales on warlock level. They successfully fixed the sorlock problem.
Just FYI, the latest Warlock playtest reverted both of these. We're back to 2014 Hex and EB as of UA7 pg.43.
The melee gish is not a problem, though. Bards will always be a little behind the curve on melee performance and need at least moderate DEX in any case, and I’ve already outlined the situation for paladins. Nothing about using CHA as an attack score overpowers either class. And so long as any further improvements to Blade scale on Warlock level and/or Invocation, then they have no bearing on a one or two level dip.
They'll want decent Con too due to lower HD, lack of proficiency in Con saves, and no bonus feats. I agree, Bardlock isn't an issue.
As mentioned, my issue with Lockadin isn't actually an issue with Lockadin, it's an issue with Blade Pact. I don't want straight-classed Warlocks to be able to easily run around in plate with halberds either.
That said, with the changes, it will no longer be possible. Hex only triggers once/round IIRC and EB is a warlock only spell, that scales on warlock level. They successfully fixed the sorlock problem.
Just FYI, the latest Warlock playtest reverted both of these. We're back to 2014 Hex and EB as of UA7 pg.43.
The melee gish is not a problem, though. Bards will always be a little behind the curve on melee performance and need at least moderate DEX in any case, and I’ve already outlined the situation for paladins. Nothing about using CHA as an attack score overpowers either class. And so long as any further improvements to Blade scale on Warlock level and/or Invocation, then they have no bearing on a one or two level dip.
They'll want decent Con too due to lower HD, lack of proficiency in Con saves, and no bonus feats. I agree, Bardlock isn't an issue.
As mentioned, my issue with Lockadin isn't actually an issue with Lockadin, it's an issue with Blade Pact. I don't want straight-classed Warlocks to be able to easily run around in plate with halberds either.
They’ve never been able to get at plate without a dip or feat, and honestly I like them having the full range of melee weapons. Helps distinguish them from the more DEX oriented arcane gish options.
Edit: And don’t forget the STR req for all the good heavy armor.
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.
We don't know where they will end up. They have said dropping a change does not mean the end result wont have that change. If enough people in the 2nd lock playtest commented on that it will likely go back to a warlock exclusive.
I don't mind the Hex one as it means you don't need to upcast it to get maximum damage now. But EB should be Warlock exclusive imo.
Actually, with pact magic upcasting is the default anyway. The playtest 5 version would therefore be a lot stronger than the 2014 one.
Not really. Things like Fey Touched or Shadow Touched are half feats that a warlock would want to pick up anyway (especially fey touched for the free misty step) and get you a free cast of another spell.
Well Hex is Enchantment, so Shadow Touched doesn't change anything here. And with Fey Touched one might very well want to pick a different spell than Hex. But even if not, one 1st lvl casting per day vs 2 lvl 3+ spellslots per SR still makes upcasting the default.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You reminded me of one game when my party, hardcore as they are, rolled their new characters, and by that I mean they rolled for everything. Race, class, background, ability scores. Even starting hit points, despite PHB letting you take a maximum without rolling at level 1. So one fella rolls a halfling cleric, and the all the stats are abysmal. He had a 4 in Con. Already starts coming up with a story of a sickly child surviving only thanks to prayers of his parents, et cetera. Rolls starting hit points. He didn't have to. Rolls 2. With a Con modifier of -3. A moment of silence, then I (DM) proclaim: "Stillborn". I think he actually laughed to tears that time. Good times.
LOL, you're strawman is still just so ridiculous. Literally not one single table I have ever played at fits into any type of game or player you have ever described in these forums. I just have to wonder if you even live in the same reality as the rest of us. Here are the types of players I have encountered:
- Comedic Relief : they don't really care about pathos, character arcs, strategy, or character builds. They want to just relax, have fun, and roll some dice and explore an fantastical world filled with fantastical things. They usually make a character with one particular gimmick (often involving puns), and mostly just go with the flow enjoying unique and peculiar NPCs, cool looking character / location art, and finding creative solutions to problems (not necessarily involving combat).
- Character-focused : they want to RP as their character, making choices and decisions based on their characters ideas, goals, and interests rather than what is necessarily in the best interests of the party or what is the most powerful. They will take unusual spells because they fit the identity of their character, make suboptimal choices that make logical sense from the character's perspective, and may be a source of intra-party friction that leads to interesting RP moments.
- Button-touchers : they want to interact with the world the DM has made, if they see a button they press it, a door they go through it, a cursed item they put it on, a weird device they stick their hand in it. They love exploration, and discovering a narrative along the way, they usually make somewhat optimized characters because they want to be able to survive their experimentation but don't want to be so optimized that nothing ever goes wrong.
- Gamers : they want to progress the game and the narrative, some are completionists and try to do all the side quests as quickly and efficiently as possible, others are narrative focused and pursue the main plot while ignoring side quests. They usually create optimized characters who can succeed at stuff and often favour utility-focused characters so that the plot progresses quickly, rather than getting bogged down / stalled because the party can't figure out how to open a door. Their character usually has a singular clear driving motivation and they expect the DM to make the overarching plot fit with that motivation. (This seems closest to what you would consider "valid D&D players").
All of these players are equally valid and equally of worth to the game of D&D.
maybe a sorc kicked my pretend dog once because i really, really don't have an informed response to "[but] do they though?" a blindspot in my bailiwick. shrug. i just feel that dipping warlock for the lasers seems cynical. like ticking the "i do enough damage" checkbox to keep the table happy. like bringing walmart cookies to the bake sale (if that's not too catty thespian of me to say) or selling picasso prints at a maker fair or turning on the 'can't fall off the course' option in mario kart. you can do those things, but your imagination and abilities aren't really reflected in the results. again, i shrug.
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!
To be absolutely clear - I think UA7 Blade Pact needs to be nerfed because it turns Bladelock into Fighter+ at the levels the majority of tables play at (1-14 or so), not because of any concerns I might have about Lockadin. Three attacks with one action + every Weapon Mastery in the game + bonus feats, all before subclass, should be the Fighter's territory - and they get all that alongside full spellcasting progression, cantrips, and a built-in magic weapon. All of that is just the base Warlock class on its own currently. It's way, way too much.
As for Lockadin, I agree that a lot of those will probably go 15 Str but that's not an exorbitant tradeoff; being proficient in Wis saves already, they can get away with dumping that, and still start the game with 14 Con, 10 Int/Dex, and 17 Cha. Or they can start with 16 Cha and shore up their off-stats even further.
I wasn’t saying it gives them no additional stat flexibility, just less. Been a while since I looked at the UA, so I can’t speak to what tuning Blade as a whole needs, I just don’t think they gain so much from using CHA as an attack stat that they need to be blocked from using polearms in conjunction with it.
I think polearm bladelocks should be possible, but personally I would want that to be the Hexblade's niche - much like a longbow/longsword monk is the Kensei's niche.
As things currently stand, Hexblade is completely useless now.
It is a close to even swap as if they went medium armor they would want a 14 dex, when they go 15 strength they can put their 8 in dex if they want. Standard array something like 15 chr, 14 str, 13 con, 12 wis, 10 int, 8 dex. Take resilient con to bump that to 14 and protect concentration for things like bless etc. Point buy, they can drop wisdom to 10 and get the con to start at 14.
That works too I just hate starting with negative dex. But definitely viable, strong even.
Haaaaaah. Heh, that's incredible. Feels like an Achievement Unlocked moment; "die before the campaign starts without your character being vetoed."
Glad you've never once run into a problem player in all your experience with the game. I've had to abandon entire circles because the players in them became so toxic. Admittedly, the most egregious ones weren't Bohemian Failure Monkeys but rather manchildren with no ability to cooperate as adults, but a problem regardless. You also completely missed the thrust of my remarks, which was that everyone badmouths and berates mechanically-minded people without ever seeming to care that going to far the other way is, frankly, even worse. Nobody ever seems to be willing to acknowledge that a certain level of mechanical competence is, in fact, a strong component of a functional, successful game. The players need to be able to overcome challenges set before them, and if an entire table's built characters so misfunctional, dysfunctional, neurotic, and psychotic that they cannot cooperate or bend their nonexistent talents to overcoming challenges? The game is way more broken than a tableful of Math Majors with extremely powerful builds. At least the Math Majors can cooperate (usually) and overcome challenges.
Please do not contact or message me.
a certain level of mechanical competence IS a strong component of a functional, successful game. and i also agree that everyone coming together to find a plausible reason for their character to work with in the party is KEY. but #1 before all that is a dm who can adapt. having a mismatch of player powers and personalities can be difficult, not impossible. but 'difficult' is a crucible that flakes away many newer dms like impurities in the iron. players too. devs are going to want to revise into a baseline of power that paves the way for the largest number of playstyles. the baseline for official adventure encounters will not move up to meet the meme class combos (and probably not as far down to meet babies as some think). baseline power will straddle the fat part of the bell curve and mechanically competent players who are ready for the heat can talk to their dm about moving further away from the baseline. assuming those dms have been nurtured and grown by the system rather than having bounced off because of difficulty, they'll be ready for more too.
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!
yes, but you can't get agonizing blast, which works out to an extra 20 damage assuming all bolts hit.
That said, with the changes, it will no longer be possible. Hex only triggers once/round IIRC and EB is a warlock only spell, that scales on warlock level. They successfully fixed the sorlock problem. Only the melee gish problem remains, and that cannot be fixed as long as warlock provides a charisma bonus to melee attacks at first level.
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
The melee gish is not a problem, though. Bards will always be a little behind the curve on melee performance and need at least moderate DEX in any case, and I’ve already outlined the situation for paladins. Nothing about using CHA as an attack score overpowers either class. And so long as any further improvements to Blade scale on Warlock level and/or Invocation, then they have no bearing on a one or two level dip.
Just FYI, the latest Warlock playtest reverted both of these. We're back to 2014 Hex and EB as of UA7 pg.43.
They'll want decent Con too due to lower HD, lack of proficiency in Con saves, and no bonus feats. I agree, Bardlock isn't an issue.
As mentioned, my issue with Lockadin isn't actually an issue with Lockadin, it's an issue with Blade Pact. I don't want straight-classed Warlocks to be able to easily run around in plate with halberds either.
They’ve never been able to get at plate without a dip or feat, and honestly I like them having the full range of melee weapons. Helps distinguish them from the more DEX oriented arcane gish options.
Edit: And don’t forget the STR req for all the good heavy armor.
oooof I missed that. Horrid change.
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
I don't mind the Hex one as it means you don't need to upcast it to get maximum damage now. But EB should be Warlock exclusive imo.
We don't know where they will end up. They have said dropping a change does not mean the end result wont have that change. If enough people in the 2nd lock playtest commented on that it will likely go back to a warlock exclusive.
Actually, with pact magic upcasting is the default anyway. The playtest 5 version would therefore be a lot stronger than the 2014 one.
Not really. Things like Fey Touched or Shadow Touched are half feats that a warlock would want to pick up anyway (especially fey touched for the free misty step) and get you a free cast of another spell.
I can’t remember what’s supposed to go here.
Well Hex is Enchantment, so Shadow Touched doesn't change anything here. And with Fey Touched one might very well want to pick a different spell than Hex. But even if not, one 1st lvl casting per day vs 2 lvl 3+ spellslots per SR still makes upcasting the default.