Ganymede81
First Post
Whose shoulders do I need to rub to get an invocation that lets me cast Expeditious Retreat at will?
D&D 5E [poll] Warlock Satisfaction Survey
Sacrosanct
Legend
I've been incredibly satisfied with the Warlock. Went from being my favorite class in 4e to being my favorite class in 5e. On the two things that seem to vex people:
1) The warlock absolutely has the tools to be creepy anti-hero especially with the class features and spells of the fey and GOO patrons, but it seems many people feel obligated to focus on damage, rather taking advantage of the fact that EB/AB gives you enough damage that you can easily focus the rest of your build on cool stuff.
2) IMO, people dramatically overvalue the pact, which is really the least amount of added power to the class. There's great disappointment that the blade pact in particular does not essentially create a new class. The pact really only adds minor benefits to the pc vs choice of patron. I'd note how much more successful UA Hexblade patron is in validating a true melee warlock vs the blade pact. From actual experience with all three, the idea that blade pact warlock is somehow unplayably underpowered vs the book and chain options is just silly.
1) The warlock absolutely has the tools to be creepy anti-hero especially with the class features and spells of the fey and GOO patrons, but it seems many people feel obligated to focus on damage, rather taking advantage of the fact that EB/AB gives you enough damage that you can easily focus the rest of your build on cool stuff.
2) IMO, people dramatically overvalue the pact, which is really the least amount of added power to the class. There's great disappointment that the blade pact in particular does not essentially create a new class. The pact really only adds minor benefits to the pc vs choice of patron. I'd note how much more successful UA Hexblade patron is in validating a true melee warlock vs the blade pact. From actual experience with all three, the idea that blade pact warlock is somehow unplayably underpowered vs the book and chain options is just silly.
chunkosauruswrex
First Post
There's something about eldritch blast that just rubs me the wrong way. I wish they would change it somehow. I like the meachanics of pact magic, but I think that they should start with at least one more slot
Ambivalent, with opinions!
I'm largely uninterested/disinterested in the warlock (for various reasons), but I wish the concept was refined/matured/polished in such a way as to make room for a proper/formal "witch." -- That's just me.
First you need to define what a "proper" witch is.
Satan's mistress with a third nipple and a black cat familiar that nurses on their blood?
Wiccan priestess who communes with the goddess for their abilities?
Hag with a coven and a cauldron they can scry through?
Female version of a hedge wizard who is skilled with herbs and potions?
Depending on how you define them, they could be a new pact (Pact of the Cauldron?), they could be a warlock with a specific patron, or it could be a new class altogether, with multiple sub-classes.
mrpopstar
Sparkly Dude
By "formal/proper" I meant "stands alone as its own class" (as opposed to being subclass of warlock or wizard).
The "mistress of patron" bit has been spoken for via the warlock.
The "priestess who communes" bit has been spoken for via the druid.
The "hag with coven" and "hedge wizard" bits have potential, but there needs to be more in terms of unique story.
I find the warlock to be too broad a concept, and the sorcerer to be too narrow a concept. Let's refine those in terms of the game's story first.
(The witch, for me, is a want, not a need.)
Jefe Bergenstein
Legend
It's because Blade Pact is basically a trap. Tome of Secrets and Chain give decent utility boosts out of the gate. Pact of the Blade gives you a ribbon ability then invites you to throw good resources after bad chasing it down the rabbit hole of mediocre melee competency, when you'd be better off just eldritch blasting.
It would be like if eldritch knights could trade away the fighter's extra attacks to get a paltry few more spells. It's the sucker/masochist's option.
I mean, it's not unplayable, because 5E bent over backwards to make the baseline of combat super easy, so all but the most ineptly built character can fail forwards, particularly with a party. That doesnt excuse the poor design of this pact though.
Couldn't disagree more. All three pacts offer a very meagre benefit which only becomes more useful if you invest in it via invocations. There's nothing really special about 3 cantrips, or the find familiar spell.
Additionally, your working under the assumption that flexibility, in terms of being competent at both range and melee, is worthless. The pact doesn't invalidate EB/AB, it just gives you another option when ranged combat isn't optimal. IME this happens a fair amount of the time, i.e. most of the combats when the party is facing more 1.5X combatants, and there are no barriers or bottlenecks.
Similar Threads
