D&D (2024) The new warlock (Packet 7)

[Charlaquin]

Yes I know. If EB is the focus of the class, sure let that be their strength.

To also have as many melee attacks or more than dedicated melee classes? And still get the top level spells, and still have caster level flexibility?

Yeah casters were too good already. Throwing more wood on the fire very much is a bridge too far.

How is this even a question?

It isn’t more wood on the fire though. It’s the same amount of wood that’s been on the fire since 2014. That’s my whole point.

EDIT: I also think “caster level flexibility” is being used pretty liberally here. Warlocks’ spell structure and spell list limits their flexibility significantly compared to other casters.

 

[Remathilis]

No reason it couldn’t be. Just putting a new, nerfed version of Spirit Shroud into the new PHB would be a very direct, effective way to fix this problem (again, if playtesting does find it to be a problem).

Backwards compatibility!

Amazing how that's important until its not...

 

[Charlaquin]

Backwards compatibility!

Amazing how that's important until its not...

?? Backwards compatibility is why I suggest adding a revised version of Spirit Shroud in the new PHB, rather than dismissing Spirit Shroud as irrelevant legacy content.

Also, I don’t consider backwards compatibility important. I’d have been happy to see an entire new edition, and I haven’t been quiet about it. But, that ship sailed long ago.

 

[Stalker0]

There simply isn't a lot of space (or any space) to make Blade Pact both better than EB+AB and not overly strong, because EB+AB is such a strong baseline for so little investment.

lets keep in mind that the bladelock already gets a lot outside of the damage buffs, the biggest one is access to all masteries. so that already gives them a number of control options that the EB+AB either doesn't have or has to take more invocations for.

aka the bladelock doesn't have to be a damage king to compete with EB, there are alternatives.

 

[Remathilis]

?? Backwards compatibility is why I suggest adding a revised version of Spirit Shroud in the new PHB, rather than dismissing Spirit Shroud as irrelevant legacy content.

Also, I don’t consider backwards compatibility important. I’d have been happy to see an entire new edition, and I haven’t been quiet about it. But, that ship sailed long ago.

I am annoyed though that the "experimental, untuned and potentially broken" material presented in the UA is somehow deemed fine, but the previously published, not overly powerful except in niche situations material presented two years ago without cries to nerf it all of a sudden became public enemy #1 once the warlock got a new toy.

The problem is the bladelock, NOT spirit shroud!

 

[Stalker0]

It isn’t more wood on the fire though. It’s the same amount of wood that’s been on the fire since 2014. That’s my whole point.

which candidly has been proven wrong in several posts now. There are lots of "new wood" to the warlock that is not in 2014. We can argue how relevant each piece is, but you cannot deny they exist....we have proven they do.

 

[Scribe]

It isn’t more wood on the fire though. It’s the same amount of wood that’s been on the fire since 2014. That’s my whole point.

EDIT: I also think “caster level flexibility” is being used pretty liberally here. Warlocks’ spell structure and spell list limits their flexibility significantly compared to other casters.

Lets accept, as it was in the 2014 Release, that EB is the 'class feature'. This is fine. Warlocks get powerful spells, but few of them, but its balanced around Short Rest, so without EB, they would be pretty bad right? Thats their 'balance'.

They are still casters. They are still as or more powerful, and to then ON TOP, given them more Melee attacks than some dedicated melee classes?

Why?! I still havent even seen a defense for this. Its power on top of power, and its trampling on the space, and role of other classes.

Its simply flawed, unless "its fine for Warlocks to be S tier above everyone else in all area's of the game" is fine. Not a take I would particularly go for, but fine.

 

[Stalker0]

The problem is the bladelock, NOT spirit shroud!

Eh, at the end of the day, the baseline bladelock damage without riders is nice but not super impressive. We have to respect this is a combination of several factors, the bladelock itself, spirit shroud, thirsting blade, and eldritch smite (while crit based abilities are often a small part of a DPR build, in this case eldritch smite really does add a LOT of DPR to the build, as the crit damage is incredibly high).

So you can take your pick on which elements need to be addressed, but hitting any of them would impact the overall build.

 

[Charlaquin]

I am annoyed though that the "experimental, untuned and potentially broken" material presented in the UA is somehow deemed fine, but the previously published, not overly powerful except in niche situations material presented two years ago without cries to nerf it all of a sudden became public enemy #1 once the warlock got a new toy.

The problem is the bladelock, NOT spirit shroud!

Spirit Shroud was always a clumsy attempt to fix the fact that the bladelock was severely underpowered, without actually changing the bladelock. Now they are actually (considering) changing the bladelock, it’s not surprising that the previous kludge fix wouldn’t play well with the new properly-fixed bladelock. Since getting rid of the previous kludge-fix entirely isn’t an option, nerfing it seems like the most reasonable course of action.

 

[Stalker0]

Why?! I still havent even seen a defense for this. Its power on top of power, and its trampling on the space, and role of other classes.

This I do agree with. Regardless of power, the 3rd and 4th attacks has long been a fighter only area, its part of their class features. So the idea that any other class gets to meddle in that space is concerning to me.