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

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

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.

You're misreading the spell. It doesn't cost a bonus action to Dash on the round when you cast it. I'll quote the spell text again:

"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"

The bonus action cost is only on subsequent rounds. (BTW, you can't by RAW cast a bonus action spell using your regular action, the way you suggest. That's a reasonable house rule but it shouldn't be assumed. I'm sure you knew that but I'm pointing it out JFTR.)

 

[Ashrym]

Hmmm... You are correct and I did misunderstand that portion of the spell. It's still costing a lot of spell slots and concentration, however, and, in my experience, the higher level I get the more important that concentration becomes as more concentration spells become available. It's another reason I don't consider hex a given.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Hmmm... You are correct and I did misunderstand that portion of the spell. It's still costing a lot of spell slots and concentration, however, and, in my experience, the higher level I get the more important that concentration becomes as more concentration spells become available. It's another reason I don't consider hex a given.

I don't consider a Hex a given either, because in my experience it often isn't worth one of a warlock's few limited slots plus concentration that he might need for more important things like Faerie Fire/Everard's Black Tentacles/Hypnotic Pattern (for bardlocks)/Expeditious Retreat. It does tend to be better for multiclassed warlocks who have two separate spell slot/point economies, but it's still a fairly dinky effect, +30% personal damage at medium-close range (90 feet). I see only see it in action against big dumb hordes of HP sacks, not against serious threats.

Anyway, HTH on Expeditious Retreat. I hope that encourages you to upgrade it in your estimation (and perhaps upgrade your estimate of ranged strategies in general)--having a bonus action Dash on tap instantly is an order of magnitude more useful than having a delayed-action Dash on tap, in kind of the same way that having instant resistance to energy on tap via Absorb Elements is useful. Spells with a good action economy are top-shelf in 5E.

 

[Mephista]

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?

Well, in my opinion, misunderstandings arise from issues on both sides - rarely is one side purely at fault.

I don't think that making the warlock class a different kind of caster is a mistake. I think the problem is that its too complex - the writers tried to merge not only fiendish, fey, star, and future patrons like vestige, possible invoker, and sorcerer-king, then cross it with the hexblade and a not-quite-developed 4e style binder in addition to a hybrid of the 3e and 4e warlock. Frankly, the problem is that we end up with mixing several iterations of classes renowned for being "different" into one complex class. The problem is the complexity with all the moving parts.

When you get right down to it, the warlock is just a bunch of choices you make at every level. Pick patron. Pick spells. Pick Pact Form. Pick Invocations. That's hard to balance. What would work for one build could very well be overpowered in another.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

Breaking this down into three distinct answers, because I don't group them quite as you have here.

1: Poorly conceived? No, I don't think the Warlock is a poor concept. I think it's a great concept. I'm not particularly sold on the "massively short-rest dependent" concept, same goes for the Battlemaster, but I've been persuaded that the Invocations actually pull a lot of weight.

2: Poorly executed? Well, yes, but a lot of that is personal (see above about short rests).

3: Poorly explained? Absolutely. I consider the Warlock emblematic of an unfortunate 3.x trait that 5e inherited, namely "needless obscurantism." It may be accidental, it may be intentional--I neither know nor care. The class is obscure, the fluff expectations aren't actually borne out by the mechanics, and it doesn't clearly identify where its powers lie (Invocations are the meat of the class, the short-rest spell slots are for special occasions, the different Pacts aren't nearly as impactful on their own as you'd think, etc.)

Also, I agree pretty much unequivocally with [MENTION=6786252]Mephista[/MENTION]'s post (immediately before this one). The 5e Warlock is trying to serve three or four different masters simultaneously, while keeping a foundation open for future masters as well.

I'm honestly not sure how to fix the issue either. 4e made it work with multiple pacts and multiple patrons because baseline subclass features could be super meaty in that edition (and could be both subtractive and addative). With 5e, subclasses are too light and baselines are too heavy; without very careful management I'm not sure how one could have made all the different possibilities shake out correctly. Though there's always the (IMO not particularly great) excuse that "experienced" players should just start at level 3.

 

[yakuba]

1: Poorly conceived? No, I don't think the Warlock is a poor concept. I think it's a great concept. I'm not particularly sold on the "massively short-rest dependent" concept, same goes for the Battlemaster, but I've been persuaded that the Invocations actually pull a lot of weight.

Yes, I think this a strongly influenced by personal taste. I prefer the tradeoff of less leveled spells in exchange for more meaningful 'always available' abilities via invocations, but most people likely feel the opposite.

3: Poorly explained? Absolutely. I consider the Warlock emblematic of an unfortunate 3.x trait that 5e inherited, namely "needless obscurantism." It may be accidental, it may be intentional--I neither know nor care. The class is obscure, the fluff expectations aren't actually borne out by the mechanics, and it doesn't clearly identify where its powers lie (Invocations are the meat of the class, the short-rest spell slots are for special occasions, the different Pacts aren't nearly as impactful on their own as you'd think, etc.)

Also, I agree pretty much unequivocally with @Mephista's post (immediately before this one). The 5e Warlock is trying to serve three or four different masters simultaneously, while keeping a foundation open for future masters as well.

I'm honestly not sure how to fix the issue either. 4e made it work with multiple pacts and multiple patrons because baseline subclass features could be super meaty in that edition (and could be both subtractive and addative). With 5e, subclasses are too light and baselines are too heavy; without very careful manag

I think the issue is not that they try too hard, but that they don't try and that it is not apparent. As you say both the Patrons are light flavoring (not in the fluff sense) on top of the basic class mechanics (which is 5e's modus operandi after all). The Pact options are even lighter and lower impact than the Patrons (as I see it). But it's pretty clear from this and other threads that people are expecting the pacts to provide a powerful reworking of the class, essentially into somewhat full versions of what were the separate Warlock subclasses in 4e (or possibly 3e, but I know nothing of that).

It probably would have been better (for most people) to simply not have Pact options. I'm glad they are there, but I think I can see the perspective most others hold.

 

[Mephista]

Yes, I think this a strongly influenced by personal taste. I prefer the tradeoff of less leveled spells in exchange for more meaningful 'always available' abilities via invocations, but most people likely feel the opposite.

This goes back to my "mix of 3e and 4e class" thing I mentioned. In a game with fewer short rests, the warlock plays more like their 3e counterpart, where at will Invocations and cantrips are king. In a heavy short rest campaign, we switch to a 4e style game with the AEDU system.

There's a lot of fiddly dials on the class for high customization, and which ones you want to turn aren't obvious.

I think the issue is not that they try too hard, but that they don't try and that it is not apparent. As you say both the Patrons are light flavoring (not in the fluff sense) on top of the basic class mechanics (which is 5e's modus operandi after all). The Pact options are even lighter and lower impact than the Patrons (as I see it). But it's pretty clear from this and other threads that people are expecting the pacts to provide a powerful reworking of the class, essentially into somewhat full versions of what were the separate Warlock subclasses in 4e (or possibly 3e, but I know nothing of that).

It probably would have been better (for most people) to simply not have Pact options. I'm glad they are there, but I think I can see the perspective most others hold.

Wellllll.... I personally disagree on the pact form bit - I actually think its meant to have a higher impact on the class than Patron. Book is your standard, original flavor warlock who's devoted to spellcasting. Blade is the new hexblade, a curse-based spellsword. Chain is... well, like I said before, the 4e binder never really got its own niche worked out well - part summoner, part just messing around with monster positioning, part random spells... and I think that lack of definition shows in the pact form. Much like the Sorcerer is still struggling to show its own identity in 5e.

 

[77IM]

My own personal house rule:

When attacking with your pact blade, you use Charisma instead of the usual ability score.

I love this. I love this so much that the last time I tried making a bladelock, I wound up making a tomelock with shillelagh instead.

 

[procproc]

Y'know, one idea for fixing Fiend Pact that I haven't heard kicked around at all is: instead of just offering armor proficiency, providing DR while wearing light or no armor.

I've been playing a Ftr 1/Warlock X through Phandelver, and the benefit of Heavy Armor Master (DR 3 vs. weapons) coupled with the temporary hp I have access to as a warlock has been kind of ridiculous. It has great synergy with the warlock "tanking mechanic" of gaining temporary hp, it's not something the other warrior classes use as their mechanic so it's not stepping on their toes, but it's still a supported mechanic in 5e.

The biggest problem I see is that it doesn't do anything to make Str Bladelocks more viable as compared to Dex Bladelocks. Maybe make the ability provide DR equal to half the character's Str bonus? That way Dex Bladelocks end up with higher AC, but Str Bladelocks get DR to compensate. I don't really like the "half of your ability score modifier" mechanic, but it seems like it actually works here.

 

[yakuba]

Wellllll.... I personally disagree on the pact form bit - I actually think its meant to have a higher impact on the class than Patron. Book is your standard, original flavor warlock who's devoted to spellcasting. Blade is the new hexblade, a curse-based spellsword. Chain is... well, like I said before, the 4e binder never really got its own niche worked out well - part summoner, part just messing around with monster positioning, part random spells... and I think that lack of definition shows in the pact form. Much like the Sorcerer is still struggling to show its own identity in 5e.

I think exactly this is the pain point for a lot of people:
The class gives you your proficiencies, cantrips, spell slots, a big spell list, Arcanuum and Invocations.

Your pact gives a 10 new spell options and 4 class features at 3rd, 6th, 10th and 14th level.

If you stop right there you have a solid 5e facsimile of the 4e PHB Warlock class. Now the Pacts:

Chain gives a the best familiar in the game and the opportunity to invest making that familiar a little better and at very high level invest in one nice but situational control power. That's all it does. Nor is there any flavor text that promises more. But it does hint at a Binder and that hint creates a huge mental illusion as to what's actually being offered here

Tome give a few more cantrips and the opportunity to invest in Ritual Casting without a feat. (I want to note here that the 4e Warlock does not have ritual casting unless you invest a feat). Again, that's all that's on the table

Finally Blade you get pseudo-weapon proficiency and a summoned pact weapon plus the opportunity to invest in doing more damage with said pact weapon at higher levels. Again, that's all that's there. It hints at a hexblade, but a hexblade that is 80% hex and 20% blade.

I think its hard to really look at these feature sets (as they actually are, not as they might be) and say that the intention was for them to be more important than the choice of Patron, or for them to totally change how the class would play.

The pacts are smaller than the class feature and smaller than the Patron features, but because they hint at things from previous editions that were entire classes in and of themselves, they project this mental illusion and bring about all of this cognitive dissonance which players are currently experiencing.

To be clear, I'm not saying this was the best way to design the class. Hindsight is telling us it almost certainly was not. I'm just stating what the class is.