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.
It seems it would just be easier to make the pact invocations all have the prerequisite of being a second level warlock. Then it would be ineligible for the Eldritch Adept feat and require at least a dip of two levels, which might make people think twice. Some might complain that they can't build around CHA from first level, but in general first level really does not last very long, and it might only be the difference between +2 and +3 for the ability modifier at that point.
It seems it would just be easier to make the pact invocations all have the prerequisite of being a second level warlock. Then it would be ineligible for the Eldritch Adept feat and require at least a dip of two levels, which might make people think twice. Some might complain that they can't build around CHA from first level, but in general first level really does not last very long, and it might only be the difference between +2 and +3 for the ability modifier at that point.
I think not being able to benefit from your main stat for several levels is simply bad design, and very un fun.
Here's how I would make Pact of the Blade, specifically, less dippable.
For one, instead of allowing the Warlock to create any martial or simple weapon they want with the feature right at level 1, limit it to not be compatible with heavy or two-handed weapons until higher levels (say, level 3). In that same vein, also move the ability to convert found magic weapons into your Pact Weapon until level 3 as well. So it won't completely remove single level dips, but it at least allows anyone who wants to play as a melee-focused Warlock can still attack with CHA from level 1, but a Paladin can't take a single level dip, conjure a glaive and output d12 damage with CHA from that point on.
The same way all class features/exclusive spells/etc should be done: scale effects based on levels within that class and add restrictions to some effects. For pact if the blade the restriction could be something like requiring the character to only use weapons and armor available to a warlock, or requiring the character to have a warlock level equal to or greater than any other class levels you have (your patron doesn't take kindly to your lack of focus).
What if... Pact of the Blade didn't conjure an -actual- weapon, but instead a weapon-shaped manifestation of eldritch power, that dealt (damage dice) on melee hit? Same scaling as UA monks, maybe? Wouldn't truly bother a warlock who planned on staying in their class, but less of an advantage for weekend warlocks? (Still good, though. Just not a must-pick)
Ooor have PotB merely allow the use of Eldritch Blast in melee without penalties, cosmetically shaped in whatever form the warlock so desire? (Along with EB also being a class feature rather than a cantrip?)
OR! Have the bonus scale off of your highest pact slot level? Moar eldritch powah? Moar blade!
Oooor-
No. That's all my popcorn thoughts at the moment. Yay! I contributed. Maybe? Yes?
Curious why warlocks have to be bad because paladins would occasionally like to be less MAD in a system that savagely penalizes anything MAD?
Perhaps the answer to "how do we make multiclassing warlock bad/undesirable?" is "make the awful Six Sacred Score D&D stat system less awful" rather than just straight up making warlocks worse?
It seems it would just be easier to make the pact invocations all have the prerequisite of being a second level warlock. Then it would be ineligible for the Eldritch Adept feat and require at least a dip of two levels, which might make people think twice. Some might complain that they can't build around CHA from first level, but in general first level really does not last very long, and it might only be the difference between +2 and +3 for the ability modifier at that point.
I think not being able to benefit from your main stat for several levels is simply bad design, and very un fun.
Sorry, but where do you get several levels from? I am saying make them wait to second level, which is one level. Also, since the Warlock is a spellcaster with cantrips based on their casting ability, as well as first level spells, their main stat does still give them benefits for those couple of encounters to get up to 300 experience points. That is usually at most one or two sessions, and many groups do not even start at first level.
Curious why warlocks have to be bad because paladins would occasionally like to be less MAD in a system that savagely penalizes anything MAD?
Perhaps the answer to "how do we make multiclassing warlock bad/undesirable?" is "make the awful Six Sacred Score D&D stat system less awful" rather than just straight up making warlocks worse?
I think that's an interesting point... instead of figuring out how to make Warlock less valuable for a single-level dip, why not just make dipping unnecessary?
I think that Paladin is the most straightforward example... the "Hexadin" combo in 5e is already so common that we have a word for any paladin subclass that dips into warlock for just that one specific subclass. But... what if we just gave Paladins the option to attack using CHA baked right into the class? Maybe it could be a new fighting style... just a fighting style feat that lets you attack with CHA, WIS, or INT, maybe with some additional restrictions.
I don't think Warlock being attractive to dip is inherently problematic. Warlock is supposed to be the easy route to gain magical power, the caster that would appeal most to dabblers who don't have the capacity for study or piety and lack a powerful bloodline/legacy; being something other classes can and would dip actually fits with that fantasy/identity perfectly.
Rather, the issue I see is that you get too much power for dipping a level or two Warlock currently. Casters dipping it get the best damaging cantrip in the game, which autoscales to all 4 lasers and 4x Cha with just two levels of Warlock; and for martials/gishes, Blade Pact gives you Cha to attack and Mastery with any weapon under the sun with just one level. And you can easily grab both. It's too much frontloading of power.
All they really need to do is:
Revert Eldritch Blast to only scale with Warlock level. Keep Agonizing Blast working with any cantrip as the multiclass-warlock option.
Blade Pact should only work with some weapons natively (e.g. Simple and 1H Martial weapons.) If you want a Warlock with Cha to attack with any weapon as well as its Mastery, that should be Hexblade's niche.
well, along with some additional minor restriction (like those mentioned by crayonshinchuck or Halcyonesse), perhaps, restoring what the UA5 has, they can choose the spellcasting characteristic (Charisma and intelligence only.), and as an additional cost for that flexibility, is that to multiclass with a warlock, the warlock requirement increases to 16 in the chosen casting characteristic, instead of 13 (or that any requirement increases to 15/16 when considering the warlock). That wouldn't prevent multiclassing, especially if they already share that spellcasting stat, but it will reduce some combinations a bit.
In a video, they said that Pact of the Chain and Talisman were 2nd rate pacts, so those should be the ones with no perquisite. Pact of the Tome and Blade should be level 3+. That would eliminate 1 Level dips into warlock.
But I feel like certain Warlock subclasses just can't be played without some multiclassing. I am currently playing a Cleric/Celestial Warlock and I am the main party healer. Under the Playtest 6 and 7, everything about my character got better. I had only ever planed to take at most 6 Cleric levels to have 1st-3rd level spell slots plus Pact Magic and Mystic Arcanum. With the Cleric Playtest, I would not take more than 5 levels of Cleric because I get the 2 Channel Divinities I would have gotten from level 6. I would end up with five 1st level Spell Slots (from Pact of the Tome), three 2nd level slots, and two 3rd level slots.
Even if they did make Warlock a half or 1/3 caster in addition to Pact Magic, I don't see the 9th level Mystic Arcanum or extra Invocations being worth not multiclassing another full caster for extra low level spell slots. Maybe if there were more worthwhile high level invocations or 8th and 9th level Mystic Arcanum spells it would be worth making the class a half + Pact and staying to level 20.
And Eldritch Knight Fighter would have 5th level spell slots for upcasting with 5 levels of Wizard, but they would lose an extra attack and the ability to replace attacks with spells so there is a reason to stay Fighter for 20 levels. I don't see Warlock having that same feeling right now and I am not sure what they would do about that.
Curious why warlocks have to be bad because paladins would occasionally like to be less MAD in a system that savagely penalizes anything MAD?
Perhaps the answer to "how do we make multiclassing warlock bad/undesirable?" is "make the awful Six Sacred Score D&D stat system less awful" rather than just straight up making warlocks worse?
I think that's an interesting point... instead of figuring out how to make Warlock less valuable for a single-level dip, why not just make dipping unnecessary?
I think that Paladin is the most straightforward example... the "Hexadin" combo in 5e is already so common that we have a word for any paladin subclass that dips into warlock for just that one specific subclass. But... what if we just gave Paladins the option to attack using CHA baked right into the class? Maybe it could be a new fighting style... just a fighting style feat that lets you attack with CHA, WIS, or INT, maybe with some additional restrictions.
That might be fine mechanically (assuming Aura of Protection gets a nerf), but flavor-wise that's a no-go. You're telling me the definitive "knight in shining armor" class can't wear shining armor, can't use Heavy weapons (including lances), and has no muscles? Giving the option for MADness alongside the option for SADness wouldn't fix it, because that just means choosing the more flavorful option would be shooting yourself in the foot. Flavor and mechanics shouldn't be so opposed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Curious why warlocks have to be bad because paladins would occasionally like to be less MAD in a system that savagely penalizes anything MAD?
Perhaps the answer to "how do we make multiclassing warlock bad/undesirable?" is "make the awful Six Sacred Score D&D stat system less awful" rather than just straight up making warlocks worse?
I think that's an interesting point... instead of figuring out how to make Warlock less valuable for a single-level dip, why not just make dipping unnecessary?
I think that Paladin is the most straightforward example... the "Hexadin" combo in 5e is already so common that we have a word for any paladin subclass that dips into warlock for just that one specific subclass. But... what if we just gave Paladins the option to attack using CHA baked right into the class? Maybe it could be a new fighting style... just a fighting style feat that lets you attack with CHA, WIS, or INT, maybe with some additional restrictions.
That might be fine mechanically (assuming Aura of Protection gets a nerf), but flavor-wise that's a no-go. You're telling me the definitive "knight in shining armor" class can't wear shining armor, can't use Heavy weapons (including lances), and has no muscles? Giving the option for MADness alongside the option for SADness wouldn't fix it, because that just means choosing the more flavorful option would be shooting yourself in the foot. Flavor and mechanics shouldn't be so opposed.
Honestly, I kind of like that this would open up to different varieties of play. I actually think it's a good thing that this more easily justifies creating a Paladin who isn't necessarily a big dumb guy in heavy armor. A player could prioritize being more quick and mobile, with more spellcasting. I even like the idea that choosing a fighting style to attack with CHA also locks you out of other fighting styles... so there's a trade-off where the Paladin who chooses to still be actually physically strong and prioritizes a fighting style that feeds into that will still out-perform the CHA-based Paladin in basic physical attacks. It's a tactical decision and I think it's a good thing that the two of them aren't 100% equal.
Curious why warlocks have to be bad because paladins would occasionally like to be less MAD in a system that savagely penalizes anything MAD?
Perhaps the answer to "how do we make multiclassing warlock bad/undesirable?" is "make the awful Six Sacred Score D&D stat system less awful" rather than just straight up making warlocks worse?
That's a really good point, Yurei!
I suppose there are some evergreen concepts in D&D that just aren't scrutinised anymore, like the six core attributes, AC, saving throws, alignment (ugh!), or levels. Are they all performing as intended, all these iterations later?
I guess a part of it is also in the perception of what a "good stat" is. Like, if you give your class a 14 in their primary attribute, you will get... looks from around the table. Because, as the game math ... uh... mathes (this is a verb now, hush), you'll end up not being able to perform your class role very reliably if you don't maximise that prime stat. Which causes the MAD situation - you can't maximise ALL of the stats needed, so you end up with an unoptimised spread. Or make compromises that may make you regret going for that path at all.
Now, I haven't done any actual number-crunching analyses of success chances of various stat intervals versus level-appropriate challenges (nor will I, that sounds exhausting!), but what would happen if the DC dial was turned down a notch, to lessen the burden on stats, and in turn the... uhm... "encounter endurance scale" was extended to make up for a higher degree of individually successful actions? Wow, okay, that sentence went on for far longer than it needed to. Still, I regret nothing. (I was going to make a period-based pun, but I just kept padding it out.)
So, lemme have a peek into your brainplaces, Yurei: how WOULD the Six Sacred Score model be adjusted to better support a variety of character concepts? :)
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.
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!
In a video, they said that Pact of the Chain and Talisman were 2nd rate pacts, so those should be the ones with no perquisite. Pact of the Tome and Blade should be level 3+. That would eliminate 1 Level dips into warlock.
To reiterate, I don't think "eliminate warlock dips" should be the goal. Dipping Warlock should be up there with dipping Fighter; it's just that you get too much currently for doing so.
As for level requirements, Tome is actually fine. Blade is the one that is too powerful at level 1, but the solution there is to tone down Blade, rather than nerf both or all of them.
Regarding Yurei's point, I completely agree that the current stat/ASI system heavily punishes being MAD. Caring about two stats not only stunts your growth, it means you'll have to delay or even forego feats that more SAD builds get to grab much sooner. Paladins dipping Warlock to swing their sword with Cha is not inherently an issue, the issue is that there's too little reason currently to not do that.
Curious why warlocks have to be bad because paladins would occasionally like to be less MAD in a system that savagely penalizes anything MAD?
Perhaps the answer to "how do we make multiclassing warlock bad/undesirable?" is "make the awful Six Sacred Score D&D stat system less awful" rather than just straight up making warlocks worse?
I think that's an interesting point... instead of figuring out how to make Warlock less valuable for a single-level dip, why not just make dipping unnecessary?
I think that Paladin is the most straightforward example... the "Hexadin" combo in 5e is already so common that we have a word for any paladin subclass that dips into warlock for just that one specific subclass. But... what if we just gave Paladins the option to attack using CHA baked right into the class? Maybe it could be a new fighting style... just a fighting style feat that lets you attack with CHA, WIS, or INT, maybe with some additional restrictions.
That doesn't eliminate the fact that Hexadins also have short rest slots to burn for Divine Smite, which is the other half of the package.
That's true, but I think it's not necessarily a bad thing that Paladins have the option of multi-classing if only to get extra slots for divine smite. But I think that, for many players, the extra features of the Hexblade aren't really important... they're dipping for that CHA-based attacking, and anything that comes with that is just gravy. I think a lot of players would happily forego the other benefits of a Warlock dip if they could stay single-class and just CHA attacks on their own.
In a video, they said that Pact of the Chain and Talisman were 2nd rate pacts, so those should be the ones with no perquisite. Pact of the Tome and Blade should be level 3+. That would eliminate 1 Level dips into warlock.
To reiterate, I don't think "eliminate warlock dips" should be the goal. Dipping Warlock should be up there with dipping Fighter; it's just that you get too much currently for doing so.
As for level requirements, Tome is actually fine. Blade is the one that is too powerful at level 1, but the solution there is to tone down Blade, rather than nerf both or all of them.
Regarding Yurei's point, I completely agree that the current stat/ASI system heavily punishes being MAD. Caring about two stats not only stunts your growth, it means you'll have to delay or even forego feats that more SAD builds get to grab much sooner. Paladins dipping Warlock to swing their sword with Cha is not inherently an issue, the issue is that there's too little reason currently to not do that.
Maybe the issue isn't the MAD nature of some hybrid classes which are supposed to be a bit more flexible and reach their total power budget by being pretty good an a couple of things vs great at one thing like a SAD class would be. Maybe the issue is the way the pact is built, and instead of allowing you to use CHA to attack it should allow you to use STR/DEX to channel pact spells through your weapon...
Curious why warlocks have to be bad because paladins would occasionally like to be less MAD in a system that savagely penalizes anything MAD?
Perhaps the answer to "how do we make multiclassing warlock bad/undesirable?" is "make the awful Six Sacred Score D&D stat system less awful" rather than just straight up making warlocks worse?
I think that's an interesting point... instead of figuring out how to make Warlock less valuable for a single-level dip, why not just make dipping unnecessary?
I think that Paladin is the most straightforward example... the "Hexadin" combo in 5e is already so common that we have a word for any paladin subclass that dips into warlock for just that one specific subclass. But... what if we just gave Paladins the option to attack using CHA baked right into the class? Maybe it could be a new fighting style... just a fighting style feat that lets you attack with CHA, WIS, or INT, maybe with some additional restrictions.
That might be fine mechanically (assuming Aura of Protection gets a nerf), but flavor-wise that's a no-go. You're telling me the definitive "knight in shining armor" class can't wear shining armor, can't use Heavy weapons (including lances), and has no muscles? Giving the option for MADness alongside the option for SADness wouldn't fix it, because that just means choosing the more flavorful option would be shooting yourself in the foot. Flavor and mechanics shouldn't be so opposed.
Honestly, I kind of like that this would open up to different varieties of play. I actually think it's a good thing that this more easily justifies creating a Paladin who isn't necessarily a big dumb guy in heavy armor. A player could prioritize being more quick and mobile, with more spellcasting. I even like the idea that choosing a fighting style to attack with CHA also locks you out of other fighting styles... so there's a trade-off where the Paladin who chooses to still be actually physically strong and prioritizes a fighting style that feeds into that will still out-perform the CHA-based Paladin in basic physical attacks. It's a tactical decision and I think it's a good thing that the two of them aren't 100% equal
It's not a tactical decision, it's a no-brainer. You can't possibly say that the 1.3 damage per hit you get from Great Weapon Fighting matches up against the opportunity for SADness.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Wow do we make Warlocks less dippable?
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.
It seems it would just be easier to make the pact invocations all have the prerequisite of being a second level warlock. Then it would be ineligible for the Eldritch Adept feat and require at least a dip of two levels, which might make people think twice. Some might complain that they can't build around CHA from first level, but in general first level really does not last very long, and it might only be the difference between +2 and +3 for the ability modifier at that point.
I think not being able to benefit from your main stat for several levels is simply bad design, and very un fun.
Here's how I would make Pact of the Blade, specifically, less dippable.
For one, instead of allowing the Warlock to create any martial or simple weapon they want with the feature right at level 1, limit it to not be compatible with heavy or two-handed weapons until higher levels (say, level 3). In that same vein, also move the ability to convert found magic weapons into your Pact Weapon until level 3 as well. So it won't completely remove single level dips, but it at least allows anyone who wants to play as a melee-focused Warlock can still attack with CHA from level 1, but a Paladin can't take a single level dip, conjure a glaive and output d12 damage with CHA from that point on.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
The same way all class features/exclusive spells/etc should be done: scale effects based on levels within that class and add restrictions to some effects. For pact if the blade the restriction could be something like requiring the character to only use weapons and armor available to a warlock, or requiring the character to have a warlock level equal to or greater than any other class levels you have (your patron doesn't take kindly to your lack of focus).
Brainstorming time!
What if... Pact of the Blade didn't conjure an -actual- weapon, but instead a weapon-shaped manifestation of eldritch power, that dealt (damage dice) on melee hit? Same scaling as UA monks, maybe? Wouldn't truly bother a warlock who planned on staying in their class, but less of an advantage for weekend warlocks? (Still good, though. Just not a must-pick)
Ooor have PotB merely allow the use of Eldritch Blast in melee without penalties, cosmetically shaped in whatever form the warlock so desire? (Along with EB also being a class feature rather than a cantrip?)
OR! Have the bonus scale off of your highest pact slot level? Moar eldritch powah? Moar blade!
Oooor-
No. That's all my popcorn thoughts at the moment. Yay! I contributed. Maybe? Yes?
Curious why warlocks have to be bad because paladins would occasionally like to be less MAD in a system that savagely penalizes anything MAD?
Perhaps the answer to "how do we make multiclassing warlock bad/undesirable?" is "make the awful Six Sacred Score D&D stat system less awful" rather than just straight up making warlocks worse?
Please do not contact or message me.
Sorry, but where do you get several levels from? I am saying make them wait to second level, which is one level. Also, since the Warlock is a spellcaster with cantrips based on their casting ability, as well as first level spells, their main stat does still give them benefits for those couple of encounters to get up to 300 experience points. That is usually at most one or two sessions, and many groups do not even start at first level.
I think that's an interesting point... instead of figuring out how to make Warlock less valuable for a single-level dip, why not just make dipping unnecessary?
I think that Paladin is the most straightforward example... the "Hexadin" combo in 5e is already so common that we have a word for any paladin subclass that dips into warlock for just that one specific subclass. But... what if we just gave Paladins the option to attack using CHA baked right into the class? Maybe it could be a new fighting style... just a fighting style feat that lets you attack with CHA, WIS, or INT, maybe with some additional restrictions.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
I don't think Warlock being attractive to dip is inherently problematic. Warlock is supposed to be the easy route to gain magical power, the caster that would appeal most to dabblers who don't have the capacity for study or piety and lack a powerful bloodline/legacy; being something other classes can and would dip actually fits with that fantasy/identity perfectly.
Rather, the issue I see is that you get too much power for dipping a level or two Warlock currently. Casters dipping it get the best damaging cantrip in the game, which autoscales to all 4 lasers and 4x Cha with just two levels of Warlock; and for martials/gishes, Blade Pact gives you Cha to attack and Mastery with any weapon under the sun with just one level. And you can easily grab both. It's too much frontloading of power.
All they really need to do is:
well, along with some additional minor restriction (like those mentioned by crayonshinchuck or Halcyonesse), perhaps, restoring what the UA5 has, they can choose the spellcasting characteristic (Charisma and intelligence only.), and as an additional cost for that flexibility, is that to multiclass with a warlock, the warlock requirement increases to 16 in the chosen casting characteristic, instead of 13 (or that any requirement increases to 15/16 when considering the warlock). That wouldn't prevent multiclassing, especially if they already share that spellcasting stat, but it will reduce some combinations a bit.
In a video, they said that Pact of the Chain and Talisman were 2nd rate pacts, so those should be the ones with no perquisite. Pact of the Tome and Blade should be level 3+. That would eliminate 1 Level dips into warlock.
But I feel like certain Warlock subclasses just can't be played without some multiclassing. I am currently playing a Cleric/Celestial Warlock and I am the main party healer. Under the Playtest 6 and 7, everything about my character got better. I had only ever planed to take at most 6 Cleric levels to have 1st-3rd level spell slots plus Pact Magic and Mystic Arcanum. With the Cleric Playtest, I would not take more than 5 levels of Cleric because I get the 2 Channel Divinities I would have gotten from level 6. I would end up with five 1st level Spell Slots (from Pact of the Tome), three 2nd level slots, and two 3rd level slots.
Even if they did make Warlock a half or 1/3 caster in addition to Pact Magic, I don't see the 9th level Mystic Arcanum or extra Invocations being worth not multiclassing another full caster for extra low level spell slots. Maybe if there were more worthwhile high level invocations or 8th and 9th level Mystic Arcanum spells it would be worth making the class a half + Pact and staying to level 20.
And Eldritch Knight Fighter would have 5th level spell slots for upcasting with 5 levels of Wizard, but they would lose an extra attack and the ability to replace attacks with spells so there is a reason to stay Fighter for 20 levels. I don't see Warlock having that same feeling right now and I am not sure what they would do about that.
That might be fine mechanically (assuming Aura of Protection gets a nerf), but flavor-wise that's a no-go. You're telling me the definitive "knight in shining armor" class can't wear shining armor, can't use Heavy weapons (including lances), and has no muscles? Giving the option for MADness alongside the option for SADness wouldn't fix it, because that just means choosing the more flavorful option would be shooting yourself in the foot. Flavor and mechanics shouldn't be so opposed.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Honestly, I kind of like that this would open up to different varieties of play. I actually think it's a good thing that this more easily justifies creating a Paladin who isn't necessarily a big dumb guy in heavy armor. A player could prioritize being more quick and mobile, with more spellcasting. I even like the idea that choosing a fighting style to attack with CHA also locks you out of other fighting styles... so there's a trade-off where the Paladin who chooses to still be actually physically strong and prioritizes a fighting style that feeds into that will still out-perform the CHA-based Paladin in basic physical attacks. It's a tactical decision and I think it's a good thing that the two of them aren't 100% equal.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
That's a really good point, Yurei!
I suppose there are some evergreen concepts in D&D that just aren't scrutinised anymore, like the six core attributes, AC, saving throws, alignment (ugh!), or levels. Are they all performing as intended, all these iterations later?
I guess a part of it is also in the perception of what a "good stat" is. Like, if you give your class a 14 in their primary attribute, you will get... looks from around the table. Because, as the game math ... uh... mathes (this is a verb now, hush), you'll end up not being able to perform your class role very reliably if you don't maximise that prime stat. Which causes the MAD situation - you can't maximise ALL of the stats needed, so you end up with an unoptimised spread. Or make compromises that may make you regret going for that path at all.
Now, I haven't done any actual number-crunching analyses of success chances of various stat intervals versus level-appropriate challenges (nor will I, that sounds exhausting!), but what would happen if the DC dial was turned down a notch, to lessen the burden on stats, and in turn the... uhm... "encounter endurance scale" was extended to make up for a higher degree of individually successful actions?
Wow, okay, that sentence went on for far longer than it needed to. Still, I regret nothing. (I was going to make a period-based pun, but I just kept padding it out.)
So, lemme have a peek into your brainplaces, Yurei: how WOULD the Six Sacred Score model be adjusted to better support a variety of character concepts? :)
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.
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 reiterate, I don't think "eliminate warlock dips" should be the goal. Dipping Warlock should be up there with dipping Fighter; it's just that you get too much currently for doing so.
As for level requirements, Tome is actually fine. Blade is the one that is too powerful at level 1, but the solution there is to tone down Blade, rather than nerf both or all of them.
Regarding Yurei's point, I completely agree that the current stat/ASI system heavily punishes being MAD. Caring about two stats not only stunts your growth, it means you'll have to delay or even forego feats that more SAD builds get to grab much sooner. Paladins dipping Warlock to swing their sword with Cha is not inherently an issue, the issue is that there's too little reason currently to not do that.
That's true, but I think it's not necessarily a bad thing that Paladins have the option of multi-classing if only to get extra slots for divine smite. But I think that, for many players, the extra features of the Hexblade aren't really important... they're dipping for that CHA-based attacking, and anything that comes with that is just gravy. I think a lot of players would happily forego the other benefits of a Warlock dip if they could stay single-class and just CHA attacks on their own.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Maybe the issue isn't the MAD nature of some hybrid classes which are supposed to be a bit more flexible and reach their total power budget by being pretty good an a couple of things vs great at one thing like a SAD class would be. Maybe the issue is the way the pact is built, and instead of allowing you to use CHA to attack it should allow you to use STR/DEX to channel pact spells through your weapon...
It's not a tactical decision, it's a no-brainer. You can't possibly say that the 1.3 damage per hit you get from Great Weapon Fighting matches up against the opportunity for SADness.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)