D&D 5E Blade Pact Warlocks and Conventional Wisdom

[TallIan]

Snip

But back to the blade for a moment. If you give them medium armor, and both weapon invocations for free, that just brings them up to par.

That is why I like the idea if the "invocation tax" for getting them up to par. If they are brought up to par with a free bump then their options (the now free invocations) lift them above par.

eg giving them med armour and thirsting blade as their invocation choices makes them viable in combat and the warlock spells and patron abilities make them equal but different.

Equally a warlock that takes the eldritch blast invocations would be a good ranged character with the warlock spells and patron abilities make them equal but different to a ranger*.

If you give the warlock med armour and thirsting blade for free they now have the ability to take the eldritch blast invocations making them better at fighting than a ranger* and better at shooting than the fighter and still has the warlock spells and patron abilities.

*assuming a range build ranger

The only real problem I see with the blade 'lock is that you are forced to go DEX build because you have no access to armour without using optional rules (MCing and feats)

 

[Zardnaar]

Do people still try the Polearm Master/Warcaster/Eldritch Blast combo or do they use the designers twitter suggestions on it (or did not know about the combo).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

No, but other tanking classes have actual abilities that punish enemies for choosing to attack someone else. I'd say this is the basic principle of tanking: if you cannot punish enemies for attacking someone else, then you're not tanking, you just have high chances of surviving.

All fighter tanks have easily available options to force opponents to attack them or suffer, this warlock has none. In fact, it would have to trust other characters to not deal more damage than it does (not a lot of hope, since even Irda's build could be doing more damage by eldritch blasting), or to manage to stay out of range from their opponents.

Booming Blade punishes the enemy for moving, thus for moving away from you. Pretty easy to use that to keep them on you.

Anyway, the only issue with the Blade-lock is that it get's a ribbon as a class feature and expects to catch up with invocations, while the other pacts' invocations are extras.

Folding at least one of the Blade invocations into the boon, and/or letting them summon the weapon (and thus also change weapons) as a bonus action, might put them on par with Tome-locks.

But worrying as much as you seem to be about strict mechanical optimization isn't really an accurate view of the game, IMO. "Sub-optimal builds" tend to work just fine, in the actual game.

Arthur the Blade-lock is fine. He should probably take Booming Blade and GFB, and a custom cantrip that more directly punishes the target for targeting any other character before your next turn would certainly help the game, in general, and make a swordmage more directly translatable into 5e, but it's not necessary.

Especially since he'll have the Charisma to taunt and challenge enemies into attacking him. Because, ya know, it's not a board game or video game.

On a side note, the game could really use about half a dozen or so new weapon based cantrips. Including some that are a bonus action used when you make an attack, or get a boost when used by someone with the Extra Attack class feature.

Also, bonus action cantrips that boost your next attack, would be nice, for added flexibility.

And some cantrips that boost mobility and defense, for goodness sake.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I would posit that most of the UA Hexblade features/invocations could be cannibalized into general/blade'lock only invocations that would go a long way towards fixing the blade'lock.

If we also get a "revised variant" that brings the base boon up to the same level as the other boons, instead of being practically a ribbon, sure.

Just let the Blade pact attack with Cha, and summon weapon as a bonus action. Maybe get a fighting style.

 

[User_Undefined]

Just let the Blade pact attack with Cha, and summon weapon as a bonus action. Maybe get a fighting style.

These are things my group does with a few additions.

• Only the base Pact Blade uses CHA. If you stumble upon a flametongue, you'd have to use strength. (This was made before the Warlock UA and the +1/2/3 invocations, so I'm wondering if it should be changed.)
• The first summon in combat is free, any afterward cost an action. (We missed the action cost until much later, and the image of the warlock suddenly having a weapon burst into his hands as he attacks is cool.)
• We've added an invocation that lets you pick a fighting style. (Mariner was chosen for the extra movement options, both of which have come up)
• Thirsting Blade has been folded into the Blade pact, but not Lifedrinker.
• Armor of Shadows sets your AC to 10+DEX+CHA, but looks menacing to the point that many townsfolk probably won't want to deal with you while it's up. You should also probably beware of any militant Good paladins and clerics. (Though the warlock traded this out after he found +1 studded leather, so it's kinda moot at this point.)
• Lifedrinker doesn't add CHA to damage, but 1d4. If you currently have temp HP, which shouldn't be hard for a bladelock, you restore the same amount as you rolled, up to the source's maximum. (This may be too powerful, but we're only level 11 right now, so we'll be testing it with the knowledge that it could change.)

 

[Tersival]

This thread has been exceptionally interesting. I've always been in the camp thinking pact blades were relatively gimped or at least lacking compared to other pacts. Especially if one is contemplating anything other than fiend pact.

"Warlock" feels like it should be associated with dangerous, scary powers but compared to other pacts, seeing a RAW pact blade warlock summon their pact weapon seems like it would be more reassuring than intimidating.

For what its worth I favor the following house rules:

All warlocks receive one “Pact Invocation” for free. This invocation must have a prerequisite matching their subclass, and the warlock must meet any other listed prerequisotes. E.g. A tome pact warlock may choose Book of Ancient Secrets and receive the benefits immediately as it has no other prerequisites, but if a blade pact warlock chooses Lifedrinker, they will gain no benefit until level 12 as this level is also a prerequisite.

Pact of the Blade:
(1) the Warlock’s pact weapon can be stowed or retrieved from its extra dimensional space as a bonus action and the Warlock may draw on their pact to wield the weapon using their Charisma bonus instead of the typical ability for that weapon type, such as Strength or Dexterity.
(2) Eldritch Blade cantrip – the warlock can transform their pact weapon into a manifestation of the same energy as Eldritch Blasts, receiving the same damage dice and number of attacks as Eldritch Blasts, replacing the pact weapon’s normal damage dice, and magical effects if any, but using the pact weapon’s reach.

 

[Warpiglet]

Everyone's ideas have been interesting. I may play a tome pact warlock in the future. However, some of the arguments favoring them for melee warriors suggests they are "cheaper" to get to effectiveness.

I don't know that I agree. Nearly 2/3 of the free if not all the free cantrips would be needed for melee cantrips. To get something more (rituals) would require an invocation. We are less mad perhaps than a pure blade pact warlock but he sacrifices are just as costly in invocations and features.

 

[Leo Giorni Nocchi]

Booming Blade punishes the enemy for moving, thus for moving away from you. Pretty easy to use that to keep them on you.

Anyway, the only issue with the Blade-lock is that it get's a ribbon as a class feature and expects to catch up with invocations, while the other pacts' invocations are extras.

Folding at least one of the Blade invocations into the boon, and/or letting them summon the weapon (and thus also change weapons) as a bonus action, might put them on par with Tome-locks.

But worrying as much as you seem to be about strict mechanical optimization isn't really an accurate view of the game, IMO. "Sub-optimal builds" tend to work just fine, in the actual game.

Arthur the Blade-lock is fine. He should probably take Booming Blade and GFB, and a custom cantrip that more directly punishes the target for targeting any other character before your next turn would certainly help the game, in general, and make a swordmage more directly translatable into 5e, but it's not necessary.

Especially since he'll have the Charisma to taunt and challenge enemies into attacking him. Because, ya know, it's not a board game or video game.

On a side note, the game could really use about half a dozen or so new weapon based cantrips. Including some that are a bonus action used when you make an attack, or get a boost when used by someone with the Extra Attack class feature.

Also, bonus action cantrips that boost your next attack, would be nice, for added flexibility.

And some cantrips that boost mobility and defense, for goodness sake.

The Blade Lock's problem is quite simple: "It's always better to Eldritch Blast".

Even you if choose this suboptimal option and get you charisma bonus or whatever, on your turn, if you're not engaged in melee combat, it's better to Eldritch Blast! You can get a taunt/mobility bonus/god's blessing or even the numbers of the lottery as a class feature and you'll still Eldritch Blast on your turn!

So if you want to "fix" the Blade Lock (and I'm using quotation marks because I'm not saying it needs to be fixed) you have give him a better attack option than Eldritch Blast.

 

[Warpiglet]

The Blade Lock's problem is quite simple: "It's always better to Eldritch Blast".

Even you if choose this suboptimal option and get you charisma bonus or whatever, on your turn, if you're not engaged in melee combat, it's better to Eldritch Blast! You can get a taunt/mobility bonus/god's blessing or even the numbers of the lottery as a class feature and you'll still Eldritch Blast on your turn!

So if you want to "fix" the Blade Lock (and I'm using quotation marks because I'm not saying it needs to be fixed) you have give him a better attack option than Eldritch Blast.

I realize it is efficient and easy to spam EB. I am not convinced it is lots better. Two swipes with a greatsword and great weapon master can be potent, particularly if/when you get a third swipe. Lifedrinker and thirsting blade are respectable and not at disadvantage when enemies are near as EB is.

It only take one invocation for two swipes.

But my whole thesis is that it may be outdone by EB (not by much if any by my estimation) but if it is, it is not enough to make the character a liability (at all).

The solution for warlocks interested in melee has been tome pact warlock. However, this would suck up most if not all of the free cantrips for less effective fighting (which is still good enough). If you want rituals, you will use an
Invocation and you have more versatility but less punch.

Again, I know some want to optimize, but I still argue that blade pact is less gimped than many assert if they get any armor.

For fun I want to take a time pact who uses all cantrips, wears armor and will take warcaster....

 

[LapBandit]

It's interesting they choose to allow some full casters (valor bard, Bladesinger, etc) to get more than one attack without expending resources, yet make others pay for it like the warlock and even more limited war cleric.