D&D 5E Blade Pact Warlocks and Conventional Wisdom

[ccs]

If you go chain, you probably want to go with telepathy with Impy pal.

"But it is my new D and D goal to unshackle myself from expectations."
Weren't those your exact words from up in post #184? So why are you assuming we chainlocks will likely pick that option?

 

[ccs]

5e is full of "options" that would work better as permanent features (think about ranger and hunter's mark, for example). Looking at the warlock design, I find it hard to believe that the designers expected it to be level with other primary damage dealers in the game without eldritch blast.

They probably didn't.
But by not baking EB into the base chassis beyond it just being one of the cantrips you could choose, they demonstrate that they're smarter than most people who post about 5e warlocks.

Warlocks are like any other class. If you want to focus on dealing damage? Pick those options. If you don't? Pick something else.

 

[Corwin]

5e is full of "options" that would work better as permanent features (think about ranger and hunter's mark, for example).

"Better"...IYO.

BTW, rangers can manage to function just fine even if they never prepare/cast hunter's mark. I can't imagine that's a shocking or controversial statement.

Looking at the warlock design, I find it hard to believe that the designers expected it to be level with other primary damage dealers in the game without eldritch blast.

Found you problem. The idea that somehow all warlocks need to "be level with other primary damage dealers in the game". I couldn't find any such decree in the books. I also like how you also assumed warlocks are in some kind of imaginary category of "other primary damage dealers". No, that did not go unnoticed. No, that's not actually a thing.

 

[Corwin]

I see statements like that, and I wonder if I played a completely different game when I thought I was playing 4e, or if others did. IME, 4e did that just as well as 5e does, if not better. We literally just made the concept, and played it how we wanted, and it worked out fine and was fun. Every time.

I loved 4e and played the heck out of it for years. Such a fun system. I'm not sure what you are implying. Are you saying they are largely the same? With similar play processes and expectations? I sure don't.

I've played, and enjoyed, so many different TTRPG systems over the decades. They all have different strengths and weaknesses. Different feels. Different play expectations. I like them all, largely because of those differences. But I don't pretend 4e and 5e approach tabletop play in the same way. That would be naive.

 

[yakuba]

5e is full of "options" that would work better as permanent features (think about ranger and hunter's mark, for example). Looking at the warlock design, I find it hard to believe that the designers expected it to be level with other primary damage dealers in the game without eldritch blast.

IMO it wasn't designed to hang with primary damage dealers. There are so many strong non-damage combat options and pure out of combat options, compared to a barbarian or fighter. I've always seen it more like the thief. There is a schtick That maintains you combat damage relevance, but short ofserious damage optimization, you're not playing with the big boys.

 

[Warpiglet]

"But it is my new D and D goal to unshackle myself from expectations."
Weren't those your exact words from up in post #184? So why are you assuming we chainlocks will likely pick that option?

Its a work in progress.

Also, I am straining against expectations. I cannot assume most others are.

 

[Warpiglet]

"But it is my new D and D goal to unshackle myself from expectations."
Weren't those your exact words from up in post #184? So why are you assuming we chainlocks will likely pick that option?

I should clarify too. I assume this is the expectation and many will go along with it. If they do, they are merely matching a one invocation assumptions for a one (blade pact) invocation assumption. Hence the blade pact is not less viable because they take thirsting blade any more than another warlock is less viable for taking book of shadows invocation or whatever.

I am heartened if some people are bucking expectations. I struggle with it...the worry I will regret gimping my character or be in a no "take back" position with the only vehicle for play I have at the time.

If I really let myself go, I am going to take weapon master with a pact of the tome warlock...

 

[Corwin]

If I really let myself go, I am going to take weapon master with a pact of the tome warlock...

Foolish mortal! Why waste your time taking weapon master, just to use a longsword, when you could have just been an elf!!!

 

[Warpiglet]

Foolish mortal! Why waste your time taking weapon master, just to use a longsword, when you could have just been an elf!!!

Because Damnit! I did not picture an elf for this character! Suboptimal imagination strikes again!

But you are right... I won't linger on that thought too long or I am back to square one!

I think I would still live...maybe...if we play smart! OK if we don't do anything totally stupid...

 

[Caliban]

Foolish mortal! Why waste your time taking weapon master, just to use a longsword, when you could have just been an elf!!!

Or a dwarf - proficient with battleaxe and warhammer.