D&D 5E Pact of the Blade / Bladelock, looking for thoughts

[Sword of Spirit]

I think you are exactly wrong. The Blade Pact adds some versatility to basic Warlock class, just as the other two pacts do. It's different in that it is combat versatility rather than the increased out of combat versatility given by the other two pacts. The issues raised in this thread are mainly centered around the fact that the Blade Pact does not "re-write" the class. Specifically it does not turn a Warlock into a front-line melee warrior, which is the "problem" that almost every suggestion in this thread is trying to "fix". This also shows in that for the most part the Pact Blade warlock specifically discussed in this thread is the Strength-based Black pact warlock with a Fiendish patron.

If you see the bladelock as intended to be primarily an eldritch blast user, with a backup weapon instead of the features of the other pacts, then sure, it's fine, and more power to ya. I just don't think that's how it comes off, and it's definitely not what anyone I personally know thinks it is supposed to be by looking at it.

It looks like it is intended to turn a warlock into a primarily melee combatant. But the fact of the matter is that its weapon damage is almost always inferior to eldritch blast + Agonizing Blast without heavy optimization* that includes multiclassing, feats, and/or magic items: all things that aren't supposed to be required for balance.

So if you (general you) think you are going to be wielding a rapier and be keeping up with your other warlock buddy using Agonizing Blast, you are just wrong--you aren't.

The thing is, this perennial argument is kind of silly, because the math isn't really arguable. Preference is fine, those of us who know the math just want potential players to realize that you are going to be a less effective melee combatant with bladelock than you would be as a ranged combatant with eldritch blast + Agonizing Blast unless you heavily invest in DM-approved optimization.*

*This is where that nice polearm master build comes in. If you are thinking of going "eldritch glaive" and you are allowed the optional necessary game elements, and you don't mind dumping some stats and heavily investing to get there, then yes, you can be good in melee. (Until you get to level 17, and then hex + Agonizing Blast beats even your might thews.)

 

[Mephista]

In the parlance you cited's the Blade Pact Warlock is a skirmisher, and a skirmisher is not a front line warrior.

Rangers are skirmishers, and they get medium armor. Trying to split the difference between warrior and skirmisher is just one of semantics. They're a melee weapon class, and using the term warrior for that is acceptable. Trying to say its not is just debating a definition that has nothing to do with the meat of the argument.

So, I don't think it matters. Its a front line melee person. The Fiend Blade especially is made to stand in front, take hits, and magical counter attacks (Armor of Agythis, Hellish Rebuke, Flame Shield). The Fey Blade is more of a mobility, weave in-and-out type. That's the beauty of the subclass system - you can have multiple builds depending on your choices. So, warrior, skirmisher, they are all that and more, depending on the choices you make. You can't exclude one one or the other - that misses the point.

Blade pact warlocks require a better understanding of the system more than any actual mechanical improvements.

While the warlock does require a better understanding, it DOES need mechanical improvements. You shouldn't be required to multi-class or take feats, or start with specific races, to not have a glaring flaw in the system.

So if you (general you) think you are going to be wielding a rapier and be keeping up with your other warlock buddy using Agonizing Blast, you are just wrong--you aren't.

The thing is, this perennial argument is kind of silly, because the math isn't really arguable. Preference is fine, those of us who know the math just want potential players to realize that you are going to be a less effective melee combatant with bladelock than you would be as a ranged combatant with eldritch blast + Agonizing Blast unless you heavily invest in DM-approved optimization.*

Its not even that its less effective, its that there are issues, like being forced to rely on Concentration spells for a part of the damage curse in melee (part of the design, like Ranger), being MAD, lack of good equipment options.

Its not that you are going to be a less effective melee combatant than an eldritch blaster, its that you won't be an effective melee combatant at all without at least some optimization and system mastery. That's the problem. There's a lot of investment to reach average, to be competitive with the someone else being casual.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I can't speak for others' experiences, but that perception wasn't a problem for me. I've never felt that the Warlock was anything but essentially an arcane rogue.

The number of threads, here and elsewhere, about whether the Warlock class functions, whether people are "doing it wrong," and what to do to make a Bladelock simply *work* rather than how to make it *shine*, tell me that this is sufficiently common to illustrate a problem. That you didn't have this issue is great, but does nothing for whether or not the class was poorly presented. I think much of the problem people have with the Blade pact is of a similar nature--the pact appears to enable options which it really doesn't, unless you're willing to do some pretty heavy optimization and breaking out of traditional theme (e.g. the common suggestion "use a polearm and [that one polearm feat]"--I dunno about you, but polearms are not at *all* what I think of when I think of a "Pact of the Blade").

Getting off topic here, though.

I suppose. As noted above, I don't see the topics as *that* unrelated: the Warlock class doesn't clearly identify its mechanical niche, and its fluff elements at times state, or imply, an equality with certain classes that...doesn't really exist. Many people expect the more "castery" Warlocks to be "Wizard replacements" in combat, and they just aren't. Similarly, many people expect a Pact of the Blade Warlock, who has sunk all of her invocations into being good at fighting, to be (as others have said in this thread) a "frontline fighter." Not necessarily a full-on Fighter replacement, but someone who can "keep up" with (read: be slightly, but not drastically, below) basal Fighter damage in a mechanically different way (much like how Paladins get Improved Divine Smite), and whose spells act as a very rough equivalent to Action Surge (plus, possibly, the Battlemaster maneuvers)--something potent but only infrequently used. But, again, the Blade Pact just...doesn't do that. It does a very different thing, and people are left confused and frustrated when their expectations, which SEEM to be supported by the fluff and COULD be supported by the mechanics, aren't actually borne out.

 

[Ashrym]

While the warlock does require a better understanding, it DOES need mechanical improvements. You shouldn't be required to multi-class or take feats, or start with specific races, to not have a glaring flaw in the system.

Without feats or multiclassing the blade warlock is still ahead until that 3rd blast and then similar until the 4th blast. The way to compete at that 4th blast is by using poisons because those can be applied to the weapons and not the blasts. This also might not appeal to everyone, but it's an already existing game mechanic that puts weapons ahead for warlocks.

It's actually easier to be a better spellcaster on the bladepact warlock at that point because the character literally has nothing to spend ASI's on but ability scores because feats no longer compete with that ability score increase as an option. In my earlier sample build, that would swap WIS with DEX on the base score and apply the one feat to a DEX bonus for best AC possible on the build, and increase the CHA from 16 to 18 for 1 lower AC and 1 higher DC.

It also means it's not possible for the agonizing blaster to take a feat that avoids attacking with disadvantage or allowing the use of a spell for opportunity attacks or adding a bonus action attack from crossbow expertise.

In all cases, poisons become the great equalizer and the warlock can learn the skill to harvest his or her own over poison, or spend gold on at least basic poison. TWF is usually the better fighting style so that a bonus action attack still exists for the blade pact even without as many bonuses applied. I can post that math if you like and you can see that the AC, CON, and damage are there while solid spell casting ability remains.

 

[yakuba]

I suppose. As noted above, I don't see the topics as *that* unrelated: the Warlock class doesn't clearly identify its mechanical niche, and its fluff elements at times state, or imply, an equality with certain classes that...doesn't really exist. Many people expect the more "castery" Warlocks to be "Wizard replacements" in combat, and they just aren't. Similarly, many people expect a Pact of the Blade Warlock, who has sunk all of her invocations into being good at fighting, to be (as others have said in this thread) a "frontline fighter." Not necessarily a full-on Fighter replacement, but someone who can "keep up" with (read: be slightly, but not drastically, below) basal Fighter damage in a mechanically different way (much like how Paladins get Improved Divine Smite), and whose spells act as a very rough equivalent to Action Surge (plus, possibly, the Battlemaster maneuvers)--something potent but only infrequently used. But, again, the Blade Pact just...doesn't do that. It does a very different thing, and people are left confused and frustrated when their expectations, which SEEM to be supported by the fluff and COULD be supported by the mechanics, aren't actually borne out.

Are saying that the entire class is just poorly conceived and executed, or that it is poorly explained in print?

 

[Mephista]

Are saying that the entire class is just poorly conceived and executed, or that it is poorly explained in print?

The warlock has never been a wizard replacement; the Sorcerer, has of 4e, has shifted away from that role as well. However, there are some who've come to expect that any "arcane caster" MUST be a wizard replacement. Even now, when we're clearly seeing divine-caster influences starting to show on them in 5e.

Its not quite the fault of the print or explanations, given that, in the past, the classes HAVE been grouped that way. 3e Complete Arcane books, 4e Arcane Power Source, 2e class groupings. So, the "wizard replacement" idea has precedent that I feel has been abandoned in 5e.

That said, the warlock class DOES have a lot of issues with it. Pact magic is not easy to grasp or understand. Chain is confusing, given the half-familiar, half-beastmaster nature that doesn't scale. People see "oh, I can summon any martial weapon!" and don't realize the warlock class, as a whole, is meant to be DEX-based. There are influences of the 3e warlock eldritch blaster, the 4e AEDU caster, the 3e and 4e hexblades and binders (3e binder showing up as a Vestige Patron). It goes up to level 9 spells, which makes people assume its like other classes that go up to level 9. Its heavily reliant on short rests, even, so that the frequency of rests determines all your choices.

So, no. The warlock class is not explained well. Its too different mechanically, and plays vastly different than a class would expect.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The action / bonus action is gone because the warlock or wizard was required to us one or the other to cast expeditious retreat.

He doesn't have that action or bonus action to use again that round. Expeditious retreat allows for dash as a bonus action on subsequent rounds at the additional cost of concentration. So no hex, for example.

It's not just on subsequent rounds. It works on the casting round too. Expeditious Retreat says, "when you cast this spell, and then as a bonus action on each of your turns until the spell ends, you can take the Dash action." There is no "lost round" on which you cannot attack while Dashing.

Hex and Expeditious Retreat don't compete. When Expeditious Retreat applies, it has a more favorable impact on your loss ratio than Hex does. Hex is for situations where you aren't playing the range game: e.g. when the paladin comes into play to block a chokepoint, possibly while Dodging.

 

[yakuba]

Its not quite the fault of the print or explanations, ...

So, no. The warlock class is not explained well. Its too different mechanically, and plays vastly different than a class would expect.

You seem to have taken both sides of that particular argument. That said, a lot of what you said makes sense. But the question that flows from your analysis is: Should there not be a caster class that uses a completely different paradigm, or at least one that has not been widely used before (i.e: spell points)? Your final line tends to argue that making this kind of a 'different' warlock class was a mistake in and of itself. Would it have been better if these mechanics had been attached to a class not called 'Warlock' so that there wouldn't be some much historical baggage and expectations for the class to fail to meet?

 

[Dausuul]

First of all, I see no reason to cut eldritch blast damage. EB is fine, as long as you aren't doing stupid Sorlock tricks. The focus should be on bringing the bladelock up to par, not nerfing the regular warlock whose power level is fine where it is.

I would say that Pact of the Blade should grant the following additional benefits:

1. Medium armor and shield proficiency.
2. You can have two pact weapons as long as they're both one-handed. (In other words, you can dual wield pact weapons. A Dex dual wielder will typically want to use Two-Weapon Fighting and two rapiers. Warlocks aren't proficient with rapiers, so you're relying on your automatic pact weapon proficiency; dual pact weapons means you can dual wield rapiers.)

That should bring the Pact of the Blade up to a decently effective level.

 

[Ashrym]

It's not just on subsequent rounds. It works on the casting round too. Expeditious Retreat says, "when you cast this spell, and then as a bonus action on each of your turns until the spell ends, you can take the Dash action." There is no "lost round" on which you cannot attack while Dashing.

You only have one bonus action or action per turn. If you use your action to cast expeditious retreat you have a bonus action to use it but no action with which to attack. Expeditious retreat can be cast as a bonus action. If expeditious retreat is cast as a bonus action then the regular action for the attack is there but the caster no longer has a bonus action left with which to dash because it's been used. That's the loss on the casting round. It exists because of the number of allowed actions and bonus actions per turn. There is always only one bonus action per turn so it cannot be taken twice.

Hex and Expeditious Retreat don't compete. When Expeditious Retreat applies, it has a more favorable impact on your loss ratio than Hex does. Hex is for situations where you aren't playing the range game: e.g. when the paladin comes into play to block a chokepoint, possibly while Dodging.

Expeditious retreat competes with all concentration spells because it requires concentration. Using it precludes and ends any other concentration spell. That means the 8 hr hex that would have lasted all day just cost more spell slots, but I don't consider it really a given anyway. Lost is lost. The blade warlock doesn't need to give up concentration or spell slots to cast expeditious retreat either way.