D&D (2024) I like the new Warlock

[Chaosmancer]

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?

But you aren't getting the same damage and better range. Longbows are d8, Edritch Blast is d10. Longbow is 150 ft, Eldritch Blast is 120 ft, which is technically shorter, but really that difference rarely comes up.

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.

Two things.

1) Why should magic be more powerful than melee, just to make up for magic weapons? Especially since magical items for spellcasters exist?

2) Magic items for spellcasters exist.

I know someone said earlier that magical weapons are more common than Pact Rods.... but that is in part because weapon users are more common than warlocks. And even a pact of the blade warlock wants a Pact Rod, because it increases spell DC's and gives back a spell slot.

And while we could assume that a Pact Blade warlock gets a magical +1 sword that gives them equal damage to the EB using PAct of the Tome Warlock... we could also find that a Pact Blade Warlock got a magical vicious sword that only does extra damage on a crit and the Pact of the Tome got a Pact Rod that gives them +1 attack and saves as well as restores a spell slot. After all, the DMG tells us that the Rod is uncommon, while the vicious weapon is rare, so the PAct Blade warlock is getting the more powerful item... right? It would actually be more fair to give the Tomelock the +2 Pact Rod.


Finally... magic items should be rewards. Magic items should make you more powerful than expected. Players shouldn't be in this situation where the math of the game is balanced assuming one type of character gets magic items and the other doesn't, because that isn't how things work in practice.

 

[Mephista]

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.

Ranger was one of the first classes, and they flat out said they realized that TWFing with Hunter Mark on Ranger was too strong and were planning to bring it down a bit on the video. Druid doesn't really use Hunter Mark, so no reason to consider it there.

 

[Mephista]

Two things.

1) Why should magic be more powerful than melee, just to make up for magic weapons? Especially since magical items for spellcasters exist?

2) Magic items for spellcasters exist.

Magic items for spellcasters generally don't improve the damage of their spells. Instead, they tend to come with charges and prepackaged spells, increasing the spells-per-day they can cast. Which... doesn't really affect Eldritch Blast.

What generally happens when a warlocks gets, say, a Staff of Fire, the warlock often uses the staff in the beginning of combat to alter the shape of the field, then swaps to their blade or EB. Which leaves us with the post-spell EB vs Blade Pact comparison again. Nothing has changed about the comparison of magic weapon versus Eldritch Blast conversation.

Magic items that do effect spell damage do so via increased accuracy / higher DCs. Like the pact rod that only warlocks can attune. This rod makes spells more accurate in a similar way to +X weapons, but they never directly add that +X to the damage of their spells.

Ideally, it shouldn't matter. But the reality is that, for many tables, it does. With the way that the warlock plays, it very much has a noticeable effect in game.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Why would I want a thrown weapon when I can just use EB for ranged attacks?

I see no rule against using a shield, so shield and rapier is just as good as it’s ever been.

I think we will see TWF opened up.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Magic items for spellcasters generally don't improve the damage of their spells. Instead, they tend to come with charges and prepackaged spells, increasing the spells-per-day they can cast. Which... doesn't really affect Eldritch Blast.

What generally happens when a warlocks gets, say, a Staff of Fire, the warlock often uses the staff in the beginning of combat to alter the shape of the field, then swaps to their blade or EB. Which leaves us with the post-spell EB vs Blade Pact comparison again. Nothing has changed about the comparison of magic weapon versus Eldritch Blast conversation.

Magic items that do effect spell damage do so via increased accuracy / higher DCs. Like the pact rod that only warlocks can attune. This rod makes spells more accurate in a similar way to +X weapons, but they never directly add that +X to the damage of their spells.

Ideally, it shouldn't matter. But the reality is that, for many tables, it does. With the way that the warlock plays, it very much has a noticeable effect in game.

So what? Because it is theoritically possible that Tomelocks are only going to get items that increase their accuracy and increase their spell dc, while Pact blade locks might get a magic weapon that increases their damage, it is fine that Eldritch Blast is more powerful?

Sure, a staff of fire just allows the Warlock a free cast of Wall of Fire for zero resources and then they go and pull out their weapon or start blasting. So we are right back where we were, with a powerful, ranged option that out-damages the melee option and offers much lower risk of being hit, while also giving a potential to reactivate and continously improve the damage of the wall of fire by pushing enemies into it without needing to be close to it yourself.

And that is balanced because a Bladelock might be given a +2 weapon that gives them an edge of the damage of Eldritch Blast?

Again, all I'm asking to close the distance is the ability to use heavy weapons. It won't even change that much. High level, when you get four beams? Eldritch blast does 42 average damage without hex, but with agonizing blast. Give a Bladelock a greatsword and they max out at 31 average damage with lifedrinker and no hex. Heck, give them a +3 Greatsword and that only goes up to 37. There is really no risk here to balance. It would just make it seem more even.

Spoiler: If you want accuracy DPR instead

0.6x10.5x4 = 25.2 Eldritch blast plus agonizing blast

0.75x15.5x2 = 23.25 +3 Greatsword plus Lifedrinker

You would need a +3 Greatsword that also does an extra d6 damage to start to get better than Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast damage. And that is true even when you account for accuracy.

 

[Mephista]

So what? Because it is theoritically possible that Tomelocks are only going to get items that increase their accuracy and increase their spell dc, while Pact blade locks might get a magic weapon that increases their damage, it is fine that Eldritch Blast is more powerful?

Nope. If you go back to my first post on the matter, you'll see that I'm more considering that we should remove magic items entirely from the issue. Not just in a theoretical sense, but a mechanical one as well. Its distorting the matter.

Why would I want a thrown weapon when I can just use EB for ranged attacks?

I see no rule against using a shield, so shield and rapier is just as good as it’s ever been.

I think we will see TWF opened up.

You want a thrown weapon because its nearly as strong as EB + AB, but saves you an Invocation, which makes it a superior option.

Warlocks don't start with shields, which means they need to burn feats or MC into it, which is far from a given. TWF won't open up, because that makes the warlock unacceptably MAD. You get ONE pact weapon. Not two. That means you'd need Charisma/Wisdom AND Dexterity to TWF.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You want a thrown weapon because its nearly as strong as EB + AB, but saves you an Invocation, which makes it a superior option.

It’s inferior in many ways to just EB sans invocation, from not bypassing resistance, to the enormous range difference, to later levels being nowhere close to as much damage due to EB scaling.

Warlocks don't start with shields, which means they need to burn feats or MC into it, which is far from a given.

Also not exactly rare.

TWF won't open up, because that makes the warlock unacceptably MAD.

You know it’s a playtest, right?

You get ONE pact weapon. Not two. That means you'd need Charisma/Wisdom AND Dexterity to TWF.

For now. And you need Dex anyway, for AC.

Anyway I’m absolutely certain that a significant number of people will complain in the survey that half the warrior types by weapon are excluded from blade pact usage, and the restrictions are going to change.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I've got to say I'm liking the new warlock as its own class. Just not as a warlock.

If only there were options for an arcane half caster without having to ruin one of the PHB 12....

 

[Chaosmancer]

Nope. If you go back to my first post on the matter, you'll see that I'm more considering that we should remove magic items entirely from the issue. Not just in a theoretical sense, but a mechanical one as well. Its distorting the matter.

Well... I already wasn't considering them as part of the equation, so unless you are saying you want to remove magic items from the game entirely, I'm not sure what your point here is.

You want a thrown weapon because its nearly as strong as EB + AB, but saves you an Invocation, which makes it a superior option.

No? You are completely ignoring range here. EB has a range of 120 ft. The FARTHEST you can attack with a thrown weapon without disadvantage is the javelin, at 30 ft. An enemy you are in range of for that can reach you without even dashing, meanwhile at the furthest distance of Eldritch Blast, only the fastest possible creatures can reach you, and even most of them need to dash. That has a huge impact.

And that 30 ft comes with a 1d6 die, 2 pts of damage less than the d10 of EB, that is not "nearly as strong" even in the slightest. To get d8's you need to reduce your range to 20 ft, quite literally six times shorter than EB. Which is in no way "superior".

Warlocks don't start with shields, which means they need to burn feats or MC into it, which is far from a given. TWF won't open up, because that makes the warlock unacceptably MAD. You get ONE pact weapon. Not two. That means you'd need Charisma/Wisdom AND Dexterity to TWF.

I don't know what not having a shield or not being able to TWF has anything to do with this. In fact, if anything, this bolsters my point. None of the 1-handed weapons are balanced to be used without a shield or dual-wielding. The style they are best suited for are the heavy weapons that I want to open up to them

 

[Mistwell]

So there is a "They butchered the Warlock" thread which is plenty active. I made the "I like the new Warlock" thread and...it's essentially been taken over by the same users who were driving the "They butchered the Warlock" thread.

Look, I get this isn't a plus thread and everyone is free to disagree. But it kinda seems like threadcrapping at this point, right?