• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

D&D (2024) I like the new Warlock

Then I'm talking about how the tomblock gets cha to eb damage at lvl 5, so that would be tier2. But the blade lock does get his at lvl 1.

Well.. there is no reason the Tomelock can't get their's at level 2, then at level 5 swap it for something else.

And, while the bladelock does get their's at level 1... 8 - 10 hp, in melee at level 1 compared to being at range? With how short level 1 is, that is potentially a good trade.

I'm thinking tomblocks get eb upgrades, bladelocks get weapon based upgrades and chains get pet upgrades. Then you give those options as invocations that other builds pay to get.

Currently each pact only has a single invocation, and I'm not against letting them take it. Though I don't think the tomelock should get EB upgrades for free, because both them and the chainlock use EB.

I do still think the 6-9th lvl MAs need to be free as part of the base class.

Agreed
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Pact of the Blade should probably also allow bladelocks to take warrior feats like rangers and paladins can. When playing around building a bladelock it is pretty frustrating that you can't take any of the good weapon feats without multiclassing. At the very least there should be an invocation that lets you take a warrior feat.
I sort of wonder about this, how many people are going to ignore the class groupings. I know I'll be dropping it instantly, as I don't feel it adds anything to the game, which will open up all feats to all classes.
 

That really is the simplest and cleanest way to do it.

I think it could work to allow your pact blade to be any melee weapon and the damage is 1d10 or the original damage, if it is higher. Then let the warlock attack with their casting stat only if the weapon has finesse or light. That way a warlock could use a heavy two handed weapon but to do so they need to invest in strength. I like the idea of using your casting stat for attacks, but I am kind of hesitant to let them use heavy weapons with it.
I can see where you’re coming from there. I wish they’d make Strength matter in some way so we don’t need to jump these hoops.
Pact of the Blade should probably also allow bladelocks to take warrior feats like rangers and paladins can. When playing around building a bladelock it is pretty frustrating that you can't take any of the good weapon feats without multiclassing. At the very least there should be an invocation that lets you take a warrior feat.
Yeah, I gotta agree.

Although, you’d have to include language that using Hideous Blow counts as if you took the attack action and attacked with a weapon.
 

I sort of wonder about this, how many people are going to ignore the class groupings. I know I'll be dropping it instantly, as I don't feel it adds anything to the game, which will open up all feats to all classes.
I didn't have a have a problem when they first mentioned it, but once I actually started trying to build characters I found it way to restricted. I like the idea of splitting up feats in to different groups for organizational purposes, just not the restrictions. It would actually speed up and simply character creation a lot. It is so much easier to pick a feat if all of the ones you are most likely to take are all together on the same page so you can directly compare them. If you know you want a feet to boost your weapon damage its so much easier if you don't have to hunt and peck through the whole list, that may be 5 or 10 pages.

If they are going to keep the restrictions in place there need to be a way to gain access to a feat group with out multiclassing. A feat would probably be the best way to do it. Have it give a +1 stat increase from a choice of 3, lets you count as a member of the class when selecting feats, and something else, maybe a first level feat?
 

I sort of wonder about this, how many people are going to ignore the class groupings. I know I'll be dropping it instantly, as I don't feel it adds anything to the game, which will open up all feats to all classes.
Probably not a huge deal to do that at home: the main benefit is allowing the designers to make Feats that are good for some Classes but might be traps for others. Or make Subclasses that can work for multiple Classes, like a Weapon Master that could be a Fighter, Barbarian or Monk.
 

We've seen Hunter's Mark, not only was it not changed, Rangers can do it without concentration now, and at higher levels the damage of it increased.

Compared to hex, they are absolutely no longer mirrors, and there was nothing wrong with them being mirrors.
We haven't actually seen Hunter's Mark though. The Ranger playtest just referenced the one in the 2014 PHB. It wouldn't surprise me if the 1D&D version ends up being once per turn like Hex is.

Anyway, as long as they keep the "no concentration" rule for Hunter's Mark then it's going to be very strong for Rangers, even if it's only does damage once per turn.
 

Anytime I see one build that is really good, and another build that should be equal, but can only get there with magic items and feats, I see a problem.

Bladelocks should not require feats and magical items to be equal to just using eldritch blast (especially since most weapon feats that increase damage are currently useless for them, since they can't use heavy weapons. Which is about the only fix needed to bring the damages back in line)
Hm. While this is true to an extent, would we be saying the same thing if Pact Blade made as many attacks as Eldritch Blast?

Like, lets pretend for a moment that Pact Blade gave you a longbow and extra attacks at 11 and 17 instead of Lifedrinker. Same damage, better range. Would people suddenly not be saying that E.B. wasn't worth taking, because you could have a magic item that massively improved your accuracy and damage over eldritch blast?

Most tables do give out items. So, the overwhelming majority of Blade Pacts will have magical damage, even if its just in the form of a +1 sword. Its worth considering that the availability of magic items innately and irrevocably imbalances any comparison between the two options. Couple that with the fact that your pact weapon might actually be a sentient weapon that serves as your patron... maybe the fundamental problem that needs to be addressed is Pact Blades' relationship to magic items before we can actually balance it with EB.
 

We haven't actually seen Hunter's Mark though. The Ranger playtest just referenced the one in the 2014 PHB. It wouldn't surprise me if the 1D&D version ends up being once per turn like Hex is.

Anyway, as long as they keep the "no concentration" rule for Hunter's Mark then it's going to be very strong for Rangers, even if it's only does damage once per turn.

It would be pretty shocking to me, since we've gotten both of the classes that use the Primal Spell list, and they hadn't changed that spell yet. Especially since it was so key to the Ranger.

If I had to make a guess, they will argue that the rider of disadvantage on ability checks, which I've never seen actually matter in practice, is why they changed Hex.
 

Maybe if warlocks get 1 invocation per level, then with Arcanum they can pick up the slack of halfcaster part.
They you can spend 9 out of 20 invocations on Arcanum and be very close to full caster.
 

That really is the simplest and cleanest way to do it.

I think it could work to allow your pact blade to be any melee weapon and the damage is 1d10 or the original damage, if it is higher. Then let the warlock attack with their casting stat only if the weapon has finesse or light. That way a warlock could use a heavy two handed weapon but to do so they need to invest in strength. I like the idea of using your casting stat for attacks, but I am kind of hesitant to let them use heavy weapons with it.

Pact of the Blade should probably also allow bladelocks to take warrior feats like rangers and paladins can. When playing around building a bladelock it is pretty frustrating that you can't take any of the good weapon feats without multiclassing. At the very least there should be an invocation that lets you take a warrior feat.
It is a nice way to go about it. I've done similar and it works nicely.

That said... its worth talking about the fighting styles. Like... its not worth taking Fighting Styles or the Weapon Mastery feats, as they don't raise your casting stat. That said? Adding in a Fighting Style as part of the Blade Pact cantrip? That could help bridge the gap in power between using EB and a blade. On the other hand, would we see FS other than Duelist or Defensive taken?

Like... the single best weapon for Pact Weapon options given all the restrictions (assuming no FS/WM, multiclassing or feats) is the trident (d8, thrown, versatile) - same base damage as longsword, plus ranged option. You can't take Heavy, Finesse and Light are meaningless, which realistically leaves Thrown, Reach and Versatile as proprieties you would want on a melee weapon, and it must be melee. With the TWF/Heavy/melee weapon restrictions in place, you can't realistically use the Archery, Protection (no shield), or Two Weapon Fighting Styles with a base warlock. That leaves Great Weapon Fighting, Defensive and Duelist as the only current options, and trident is still best weapon for all possible weapons currently available for these FS. GWF is kinda bad for trident (0.8 avg dmg boost). Duelist can't be used with Versatile it seems, so its effective +1 damage boost. Those are your options for fighting style: +1AC, +1dmg, +0.8dmg.

We could add Weapon Mastery, which would definitely make more than a few more meaningful weapon options. And Pally/Ranger seem like they're getting them. Now, I'm opposed to this on general principle - let the actual Warrior group keep something nice for themselves. Paladins and Rangers should not keep taking the things that make Fighters mechanically distinct; plus, if the paladin really wanted to deal more damage or Topple someone... they literally have smite spells that do that already. And if I'm opposed to Pally/Ranger, I'm going to oppose every other non-martial as well - spells for extra control are a thing after all. But lets put aside my personal objections and pretend that you get a Weapon Mastery for use with your pact blade automatically.

Mastery Properties include Cleave, Flex, Graze, Nick, Push, Sap, Slow, Topple and Vex. Now, given the Heavy, Light restrictions, that immediately eliminates Cleave, Graze and Nick from consideration. Push and Slow (and pull, currently not a WM option) are curiously already invocations you can put on E.B. Flex is really only good on someone with a shield (or maybe with TWFing feats? but not warlock) which the warlock doesn't get by default; given the rules, I'm not convinced that warlocks can't swap between using a trident two handed and one handed plus a focus at whim. That leaves Sap, Topple, and Vex as something -new- to add on.

Anyways, that effectively adds Flail/Morningstar (sap), Rapier (vex), whip (slow) or greatclub (push) as possible weapons if you really want those Masteries. Trident, once again showing its superior ability as a weapon, has Topple. I can't help but feel Topple is superior to Sap, Slow and Vex combined, though with a size restriction. Which makes me feel that the Trident is going to be the weapon of choice for pretty much every Pact Weapon, with a potential great club user for those that want a melee Repelling Blast.

If both the presence and absence of Fighting Styles and Weapon Masteries is pushing the Blade Pact towards the same weapon over and over... that defeats the purpose of adding FS and WM. Might as well just go for a straight damage boost in other ways that are more thematically appropriate.

In terms of other weapon feats... there's Charger, Great Weapon Master, Polearm Master, Sentinel, Sharpshooter, Shield Master, Skulker. It should be noted that all these increase Dex or Str, and not the mental stats that Pact Weapon uses, which lowers their appeal immensely. PAM and SS flat out require restricted weapons. GWM has one feature that you could use (cleave on crit, death), but not the attribute or other ability, which makes it really unappealing. Shield Master requires a feat or MC to get shield first; viable if Lightly Armored survives, but I'm doubtful. Even if you did, Shield Bash is Strength based, a dump stat for warlocks. Skulker... I can't see it being used by anyone without Cunning Action. Charger and Sentinel both work (if you don't mind the off-attribute). Charger is kind of nice when combined with greatclub's Push.

Its kind of ironic, in a way. Hexblade was a fix for Pact Blade, and used CHA to attack to fix some of the MAD issues. Now? We can run Hex/Armor of Agathys and any other spells that don't need CHA. Lifedrinker no longer needs CHA. Using a spellcasting stat means that we don't benefit from a large part of weapon mastery feats or cause or main stat to lag behind, and renders most weapon options meaningless.

We've come full circle.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top