D&D 5E Eldritch Blast Mulitclass Clarification

[Eejit]

It's fine, though personally I'd have made the Agonising Blast Invocation progress with Class Level.

 

[spectacle]

Eldritch Blast might have been better as a warlock class feature rather than a cantrip. It would stop the 2 level Warlock dip and also remove the need for the Agonizing Blast invocation tax. On the other hand Eldritch Blast is hardly game breaking, and losing 2 levels of progression in your primary class is a pretty high price.

It is only the sorlock and his metamagic trick to cast Eldritch Blast twice per turn that's really potentially troublesome.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...the Agonizing Blast invocation tax.

There is no such tax as Agonizing Blast is not necessary in order to have your eldritch blast do enough damage to be worth using (even without the Agonizing Blast invocation, eldritch blast is the overall best damage-dealing cantrip).

 

[spectacle]

There is no such tax as Agonizing Blast is not necessary in order to have your eldritch blast do enough damage to be worth using (even without the Agonizing Blast invocation, eldritch blast is the overall best damage-dealing cantrip).

We're looking at about twice the average damage per beam with agonizing blast compared to without. Without AB the warlock is below mediocre in combat compared to other casters. (Except for bladelocks, who have their own taxes)

Of course, if being good at combat isn't important in your campaign, then you can skip AB and go for one of the cooler invocations

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

We're looking at about twice the average damage per beam with agonizing blast compared to without.

Which is irrelevant in determining if it is a "tax" or not.

Without AB the warlock is below mediocre in combat compared to other casters.

That is false in my experience, but then my experience is that casters of all classes typically use 1 or less spell slots per combat and rely almost entirely on their cantrips besides that, and I wouldn't be surprised if your experience differs.

Of course, if being good at combat isn't important in your campaign, then you can skip AB and go for one of the cooler invocations

Again, whether you have Agonizing Blast or not is not the determining factor in whether or not you are "good at combat," since "good at combat" and "the best your class can be at combat" are not the same thing.

 

[spectacle]

Please don't break up posts you are replying to like that, it makes it very hard to follow the discussion.

It does sound like you have some very different combat experiences than I do I still maintain that if you choose not to take AB as a warlock you are willfully throwing away one of the class' signature abilities and greatest strengths, and that AB was designed to allow the warlock to perform well in combat despite his limited number of spell slots. Agonizing Blast gives the Warlock his baseline performance, I don't know how you can consider that not to be a tax. Do you disagree with the concept of a "tax" in the first place?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Please don't break up posts you are replying to like that, it makes it very hard to follow the discussion.

It does sound like you have some very different combat experiences than I do I still maintain that if you choose not to take AB as a warlock you are willfully throwing away one of the class' signature abilities and greatest strengths, and that AB was designed to allow the warlock to perform well in combat despite his limited number of spell slots. Agonizing Blast gives the Warlock his baseline performance, I don't know how you can consider that not to be a tax. Do you disagree with the concept of a "tax" in the first place?

I find that breaking up posts to reply to individual points, like one would do while in a conversation, makes it easier to understand the context of a reply, as well as making it just plain easier to read because it is sectioned off into Point>Counterpoint pieces instead of just being one long rambling set of paragraphs which quickly lose any sense of frame of reference because the reader gets a few paragraphs deep and no longer has their own statements which are being replied to fresh in their mind.

As for my disagreement, it is not with the concept of a "tax" in the first place. It is that I disagree that the warlock's "baseline performance" is with Agonizing Blast, rather than without. Yes, not taking it is willfully not being the strongest combat warlock. But strongest is not the baseline; strong enough is, and a warlock meets that baseline just by taking eldritch blast. (For clarity, there are also other ways to meet the baseline even while not taking eldritch blast.)

 

[Noctem]

I find that breaking up posts to reply to individual points, like one would do while in a conversation, makes it easier to understand the context of a reply, as well as making it just plain easier to read because it is sectioned off into Point>Counterpoint pieces instead of just being one long rambling set of paragraphs which quickly lose any sense of frame of reference because the reader gets a few paragraphs deep and no longer has their own statements which are being replied to fresh in their mind.

As for my disagreement, it is not with the concept of a "tax" in the first place. It is that I disagree that the warlock's "baseline performance" is with Agonizing Blast, rather than without. Yes, not taking it is willfully not being the strongest combat warlock. But strongest is not the baseline; strong enough is, and a warlock meets that baseline just by taking eldritch blast. (For clarity, there are also other ways to meet the baseline even while not taking eldritch blast.)

However, it can also serve to twist the context of the quoted text and change the meaning of the overall structure. Not that I think you would do that, but that's a major problem of breaking up posts like that.

 

[spectacle]

I find that the point<->counterpoint type of discussion tends to ramble out of control once you're a few replies deep, and it also encourages a nit-picky style of discussion rather than coherent arguments, so it's not somerhing I support. Not saying that you're doing any of this mind you

I just don't find that an eldritch blasting warlock without AB does enough consistent damage to meaningfully affect combat. Consistency is part of the issue, with no ability modifier added to damage you will often roll low and fail to kill even a Kobold. If the baseline is eldritch blast without AB, then effectively doubling the damage output of that baseline sounds a bit overpowered, doesn't it?

And Agonizing Blast doesn't make you the Strongest warlock in combat. For that you add Hex as often as you can, and maybe Repelling Blast etc.

 

[ZickZak]

We play at level 10 and we dont level. One of my group wants to be able to Wild Shape and be a caster, so he has 8 levels to divide amongst Warlock / Sorcerer / Wizard. Now we wont ever level up, so in this case the EB dip makes sense, at least he says so. And with hex it puts his damage on pair with others quite easily.