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

[Scribe]

However, what matters here is that Warlocks do not deserve a 3rd attack if the Barbarian, Monk, Paladin, or Ranger don't get it. They should not better at melee than a Barbarian. Period. Even if they are cheaters... I mean warlocks.

3rd MELEE attack. The key distinction apparently.

Otherwise, thats really it. In no world should a Warlock be better in Melee, than dedicated Melee Classes, without meaningful sacrifices elsewhere.

 

[Remathilis]

3rd MELEE attack. The key distinction apparently.

Otherwise, thats really it. In no world should a Warlock be better in Melee, than dedicated Melee Classes, without meaningful sacrifices elsewhere.

Never mind that they can out damage an EB caster with a magical longbow as well.

 

[Charlaquin]

Because being a ranged blasty mage is a visible, appropriately thematic limit that matters. Without other abilities/feats, they have disadvantage when making ranged attacks when adjacent to an enemy. If they take Pact of the Blade, they can stand their ground like warriors can.

Well that’s at least an argument for a distinction, thanks for that. However, I would say that warlocks have never (in 5e) been restricted to being ranged blasty mages. The whole reason Pact of the Blade exists is to allow them to wield magical weapons. And Pact of the Blade doesn’t really give them any special ability to stand their ground. They’re still lightly armored and squishy.

However, what matters here is that Warlocks do not deserve a 3rd attack if the Barbarian, Monk, Paladin, or Ranger don't get it. They should not better at melee than a Barbarian. Period. Even if they are cheaters... I mean warlocks.

I agree that they shouldn’t be better in melee than a Barbarian. I disagree that a third attack automatically makes them so. Barbarians have a lot going for them as melee combatants that warlocks don’t - rage, reckless attack, d12 hit dice, medium armor (or unarmored defense), shields if they want them… They’re still better in melee than a straight bladelock. Can a bladelock invest in certain invocations, feats, and spells that will result in them being better in melee than Barbarians? Maybe, and if so, yeah, some of those invocations, feats, and spells probably need toning down.

Also, I don’t think there’s any clearer sign of the imbalance between casters and martials than people suddenly declaring the Warlock better than the barbarian because it can do the same thing with a pact weapon it has always been able to do with a cantrip. Mayhaps cantrips are a little too good compared to weapon attacks then, hmm?

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes, and that's what we're supposed to be providing feedback on. This combo is too powerful.

It’s actually explicitly not what we’re supposed to be providing feedback on. The surveys clearly state that they’re looking to gauge interest, not to evaluate balance, which they will take care of via internal playtesting.

Which is what we're discussing. Three WEAPON attacks with any weapon they want, with whatever mastery property they want, mixed with any current feat and spell combos, alongside their current EB AND Pact Magic/Mystic Arcanum, is too much, too potent, and too easy to abuse.

That is an entirely different claim than the one I objected to, which was that level 9 spells, 3 attacks (you absolutely did not specify melee or weapon attacks, I’ll quote it again if you want me to), and the best cantrip were the problem.

Swing and miss.

Nah dude. That was what you claimed, and that claim was what I objected to. I’m not letting you get away with shifting the goalposts here, if you want to retract that claim you made, then sure, we can talk about certain ability combos being too powerful. But that’s not what you said initially and it’s not what I objected to.

 

[Mistwell]

It’s actually explicitly not what we’re supposed to be providing feedback on. The surveys clearly state that they’re looking to gauge interest, not to evaluate balance, which they will take care of via internal playtesting.

Where are you getting that from? They do adjust power, but they do not explicitly say we're not supposed to provide feedback on power levels. It does not say just provide feedback on interest, and I am looking at the text this moment as I type this. It just says play with the material and provide feedback. "If we make this material official, it will be refined based on your feedback, and then it will appear in a D&D book." That sounds like explicitly NOT just "interest" but is instead "ways you want to see this refined."

 

[Charlaquin]

Where are you getting that from? They do adjust power, but they do not explicitly say we're not supposed to provide feedback on power levels. It does not say just provide feedback on interest, and I am looking at the text this moment as I type this. It just says play with the material and provide feedback. "If we make this material official, it will be refined based on your feedback, and then it will appear in a D&D book." That sounds like explicitly NOT just "interest" but is instead "ways you want to see this refined."

I’m referring to this from the sidebar at the beginning of each UA:

Power Level. The character options you read here might be more or less powerful than options in the 2014 Player’s Handbook. If a design survives playtesting, we adjust its power to the desirable level before publication. This means an option could be more or less powerful in its final form.

But you’re correct, it doesn’t explicitly say not to provide feedback based on power level, so I did overstate my case. I would still say that the implication here is that feedback based on power level is not particularly useful.

 

[Remathilis]

Nah dude. That was what you claimed, and that claim was what I objected to. I’m not letting you get away with shifting the goalposts here, if you want to retract that claim you made, then sure, we can talk about certain ability combos being too powerful. But that’s not what you said initially and it’s not what I objected to.

How about I leave you to argue with the strawman you constructed in your head since you apparently know what I'm thinking better than I do...

... You're not a GOOlock, are you?

 

[mellored]

I agree that they shouldn’t be better in melee than a Barbarian. I disagree that a third attack automatically makes them so.

I guess you could either go though every feature and add "once on your turn". (90% of the 4e errata was to add "once per turn").

Or you can NOT change Thirsting Blade from the 2014 version.

2 attacks seems easier IMO.

And Lifedrinker can scale a bit.

 

[Charlaquin]

How about I leave you to argue with the strawman you constructed in your head since you apparently know what I'm thinking better than I do...

... You're not a GOOlock, are you?

I guess I must be, cause how else would I have made you type and post the exact words the strawman I (apparently) constructed in my head was saying?

Warlock might get a third pass though while they continue to figure out how to balance a three-attack smiting class with 9th level spellcasting and the best cantrip in the game,

 

[Remathilis]

I guess I must be, cause how else would I have made you type and post the exact words the strawman I (apparently) constructed in my head was saying?

Since I reference Eldritch Blast in "the best cantrip in the game" and I reference "smiting" in the "three-attack smiting class", I can't obviously be referencing eldritch blast as the "three-attacks" since you can't smite with eldritch blast. Somehow, you have construed my sentence to read "... to figure out how to balance a class that already has three attacks via a cantrip that doesn't work with eldritch smite with 9th level spellcasting and the cantrip in the game, which I already referenced."

Swing. Miss. Strike two.