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

[Scribe]

Why wouldn’t it be? If it’s ok for them to do at range, it should be ok for them to do in melee. If it’s not ok for them to do in melee, it shouldn’t be ok for them to do at range. Either 3 attacks is ok for a caster to have, or it isn’t.

We disagree at an absolutely fundamental level, I actually struggle to accept you find no issue with this statement.

 

[Charlaquin]

So where is the barbarian's third attack? The paladin's and the ranger's? The monks? Each of them pays a deep price for it (berserker frenzy, twf, flurry of blows/discipline points) where the warlock costs one invocation to get three attacks.

If anything, you're making a good argument that eldritch blast needs reworking. The fact even with agonizing blast applying to any cantrip it's still the superior choice should say something.

At least that would be an internally consistent argument. I would disagree with it, because being the magic-flavored fighter is supposed to be the 5e warlock’s thing. But I’d accept it as consistent, while still questioning why it wasn’t seen as a problem over the past 10 years it’s been available.

 

[Charlaquin]

We disagree at an absolutely fundamental level, I actually struggle to accept you find no issue with this statement.

Melee is worse than ranged! Why on earth would anything that’s ok at range not be ok in melee?

 

[Scribe]

Melee is worse than ranged! Why on earth would anything that’s ok at range not be ok in melee?

I dont know that I really have time but my breakfast is heating up so...

This really speaks to how I look at game design in a system of asymmetrical systems/classes/components.

Lets accept (as I agree) Melee is worse than ranged. This is for a number of reasons that we dont need to quibble over. So, if Melee is 'worse' than ranged, how is it balanced? By making it do significant, if not Best in Class, damage when they can.

This is generally accomplished by giving melee weapons a lot of damage, and by giving Melee classes the opportunity to make more attacks.

This is pretty much the core feature of 'melee classes' vs non-melee classes.

Now when we look at various abilities and attributes, its pretty easy to see with how simple 5e is, that at a given point of abstraction, everything could be seen as a 'spell'. You are doing this yourself with the misleading "They already attack 3 times." statement. They dont. They have AN attack (Cantrip) which gains an additional beam, at various points.

Why? Well because Wizards felt that a class that leaned primarily on 1 Action (EB) could not keep up with the other Casters that have more spells. This is logical. The other class that leans on primarily 1 Action (Fighter) gets additional attacks, as a way to keep up. So there is some semblance of logic there.

EB is not 3 Attacks however, its 1 Cantrip, with 3 Beams.

Now where this falls off the rails, is in the granting of 3 Melee Attacks. This is different.

Melee Attacks, is a niche, a space, a role. There are classes which have no rank 9 spells, have no Cantrip blasting 3 separate targets, and do not have this all functioning off of the 'face stat' of Charisma. I mean honestly look at it with some kind of objectivity, and the Warlock is now trampling into all these other classes spaces and niches.

So you have Spells, Rank 9, Cantrips (Best in Class), operate on a single Stat that is also the Social stat, and 3 Attacks in Melee, when other DEDICATED MELEE classes do not?

And you honestly cannot see the issue?

 

[Gorck]

At the risk of putting my head on the chopping block, I’ll admit that I made the following suggestions in the survey:

THIRSTING BLADE- remove the level 11 attack. Limit it to just 2 attacks like the Barbarian, Monk, Paladin, and Ranger.

ELDRITCH BLAST- drop it down from a d10 to a d8, so it’s no longer the hands down best cantrip.

 

[Zubatcarteira]

In my experience, Eldritch Blast has the nice and reliable damage, but not as good as the Sharpshooter archers for ranged. Would be nice to see how they compare now that the -5 +10 is gone.

 

[Scribe]

It is amusing that there is 'balanced with the melee classes' then 'balance within casters' and then "ME WARLOCK".

 

[Charlaquin]

I dont know that I really have time but my breakfast is heating up so...

This really speaks to how I look at game design in a system of asymmetrical systems/classes/components.

Lets accept (as I agree) Melee is worse than ranged. This is for a number of reasons that we dont need to quibble over. So, if Melee is 'worse' than ranged, how is it balanced? By making it do significant, if not Best in Class, damage when they can.

This is generally accomplished by giving melee weapons a lot of damage, and by giving Melee classes the opportunity to make more attacks.

This is pretty much the core feature of 'melee classes' vs non-melee classes.

I mean, that certainty could be a way to design melee vs ranged classes. That’s not how 5e does it though. In 5e, ranged attacks deal comparable damage to melee attacks, and characters who make multiple attacks per turn can attack an equal number of times whether with melee or ranged attacks. Is that a poor design choice? Maybe, but again, if you have a problem with it, you should have done since 2015 cause this has been the case the whole time.

Now when we look at various abilities and attributes, its pretty easy to see with how simple 5e is, that at a given point of abstraction, everything could be seen as a 'spell'. You are doing this yourself with the misleading "They already attack 3 times." statement. They dont. They have AN attack (Cantrip) which gains an additional beam, at various points.

And the effect of the spell is to make an attack for each beam. So yes, they can literally make three attacks per turn.

Why? Well because Wizards felt that a class that leaned primarily on 1 Action (EB) could not keep up with the other Casters that have more spells. This is logical. The other class that leans on primarily 1 Action (Fighter) gets additional attacks, as a way to keep up. So there is some semblance of logic there.

EB is not 3 Attacks however, its 1 Cantrip, with 3 Beams.

And each beam is an attack roll. This is indisputable, they do make 3 attacks.

Now where this falls off the rails, is in the granting of 3 Melee Attacks. This is different.

Melee Attacks, is a niche, a space, a role. There are classes which have no rank 9 spells, have no Cantrip blasting 3 separate targets, and do not have this all functioning off of the 'face stat' of Charisma. I mean honestly look at it with some kind of objectivity, and the Warlock is now trampling into all these other classes spaces and niches.

So you have Spells, Rank 9, Cantrips (Best in Class), operate on a single Stat that is also the Social stat, and 3 Attacks in Melee, when other DEDICATED MELEE classes do not?

And you honestly cannot see the issue?

Because simply making the attacks in melee instead of at range does not significantly change them. Maybe in another game, where ranged attacks were actually balanced differently than melee attacks are, this would be a strong argument. But not in 5e.

 

[Scribe]

All of which is fine enough @Charlaquin but this?

So you have Spells, Rank 9, Cantrips (Best in Class), operate on a single Stat that is also the Social stat, and 3 Attacks in Melee, when other DEDICATED MELEE classes do not?

And you honestly cannot see the issue?

 

[Charlaquin]

All of which is fine enough @Charlaquin but this?

So you have Spells, Rank 9, Cantrips (Best in Class), operate on a single Stat that is also the Social stat, and 3 Attacks in Melee, when other DEDICATED MELEE classes do not?

And you honestly cannot see the issue?

Again, if it’s an issue, it should be an issue whether the attacks are melee or ranged. I would disagree that they’re an issue in melee, because of the other limitations of the class. But at least be consistent in your critique. If having one 9th level spell you can use once per day and being able to make 3 attacks is too much, it should be too much whether those attacks are made with a melee weapon or with a ranged cantrip.