3PP Release New 3PP Release: Manual of Adventurous Resources: Battlemages!

[WanderingMystic]

Hi timespike,

A few suggestions/comments if I may regarding Warlock in MoAR Battlemages v1.2:

Armor and shield proficiency:

• I'm surprised that the Martialist Archetype doesn't have medium armor proficiency, was that intentional?
• For the Knight of Ancient Mysteries eldritch invocation, I would suggest to change the prerequisite on this to "medium armor proficiency and martial weapon proficiency" to make it a bit more generic.
• There's also the broader issue of weapon + shield Warlocks spellcasting. For that, I'd suggest having an eldritch invocation along these lines: Patron's Shield: You gain proficiency in shields and can emblazon the symbol of your patron on your shield to use it as a spellcasting focus. (An emblem costs 5gp per p.327 of the Adventurer's Guide.) The latter permits you to cast spells with V,M and V,S,M components while wielding weapon and an emblazoned shield. A DC 15 Arcana check can be used to identify the emblem displayed for a patron, unless they are particularly rare, in which case a DC 15 check would indicate the type of patron at least (e.g., Aberration, Diabolic, or Fey).

Exertion pool for maneuvers:

• The Dread Knight archetype for Warlock uses spell points for exertion pool. That's consistent with how it is done for Herald. I think that makes sense for the Martialist Archetype too, otherwise you can do a one level dip into Warlock and get that exertion pool equal to twice your proficiency bonus.
• Secrets of the Sword eldritch invocation granting one free use per long rest of the two 1st degree maneuvers learned seems a bit weak. I suggest instead to increase the exertion pool by 2, recovered whenever you finish a short or long rest.
  • In particular, adding to the exertion pool allows the character to activate some other maneuver instead, and exertion generally is recovered on a short rest from what I've read.
  • And note that this suggested alternative is similar but weaker than the Martial Scholar feat in two key ways: (1) Martial Scholar increases the exertion pool by 3, and (2) Martial Scholar allows learning maneuvers above 1st degree, if you already know some maneuvers.

Given how Warlock and there spell points work if you make the change you are suggesting then they can use more maneuvers more often than a fighter or Adept which is wrong. Also remember that taking the feat to gain amnuvwrs or any class that gives you maneuvers gives you the exertion pool so it is quite easy to gain, the ability to burn spell points or spell slots for maneuvers is quite powerful.

 

[Tessarael]

Given how Warlock and there spell points work if you make the change you are suggesting then they can use more maneuvers more often than a fighter or Adept which is wrong. Also remember that taking the feat to gain maneuvers or any class that gives you maneuvers gives you the exertion pool so it is quite easy to gain, the ability to burn spell points or spell slots for maneuvers is quite powerful.

Regarding them getting too much exertion from spell points, perhaps it should be 2 spell points for one exertion level. That would give them 1 exertion point at Warlock level 1, 7 exertion points at Warlock level 9, and 15 exertion points at level 20; but if the Warlock spends spell points in that manner, then they are out of spell points to cast spells which would be more effective typically.

The Martial Scholar feat gives an exertion pool of 3, if you have none. It does not give 2x proficiency bonus if you have none. You are correct that a level dip into Fighter will give exertion points of 2x proficiency bonus. For the other martial classes you'd need two levels to get that, which significantly delays gain of Warlock powers. A one level dip into Warlock with the Martialist archetype should not give exertion points of 2x proficiency bonus - maybe 1x proficiency bonus might be reasonable, but I'm still dubious about that - I think it is better to tie it to spell points, to avoid that.

 

[Pedantic]

Regarding them getting too much exertion from spell points, perhaps it should be 2 spell points for one exertion level. That would give them 1 exertion point at Warlock level 1, 7 exertion points at Warlock level 9, and 15 exertion points at level 20; but if the Warlock spends spell points in that manner, then they are out of spell points to cast spells which would be more effective typically.

The Martial Scholar feat gives an exertion pool of 3, if you have none. It does not give 2x proficiency bonus if you have none. You are correct that a level dip into Fighter will give exertion points of 2x proficiency bonus. For the other martial classes you'd need two levels to get that, which significantly delays gain of Warlock powers. A one level dip into Warlock with the Martialist archetype should not give exertion points of 2x proficiency bonus - maybe 1x proficiency bonus might be reasonable, but I'm still dubious about that - I think it is better to tie it to spell points, to avoid that.

Is that a huge problem, given the limitations on maneuvers known and maneuver level? I mean, a dip in fighter does the same thing.

 

[Tessarael]

Is that a huge problem, given the limitations on maneuvers known and maneuver level? I mean, a dip in fighter does the same thing.

It is intended for Fighter based on other recent discussion. However, Warlock is a spellcasting class, not a warrior class. It's good to give Warlock gish (warrior/mage) options but you want some economy trade-off to this.

As an example of the potential issue, giving a Martialist Warlock an exertion pool of 2x proficiency bonus at Warlock level 1 makes Paladin/Warlock a significantly stronger multi-class option. That's something that they intentionally weakened a little in A5E. It is fine to have Paladin and Warlock complement each other, but it should be by Warlock providing more of an arcane bent.

 

[WanderingMystic]

It is intended for Fighter based on other recent discussion. However, Warlock is a spellcasting class, not a warrior class. It's good to give Warlock gish (warrior/mage) options but you want some economy trade-off to this.

As an example of the potential issue, giving a Martialist Warlock an exertion pool of 2x proficiency bonus at Warlock level 1 makes Paladin/Warlock a significantly stronger multi-class option. That's something that they intentionally weakened a little in A5E. It is fine to have Paladin and Warlock complement each other, but it should be by Warlock providing more of an arcane bent.

The problem with the paladin/warlock was smite with a warlocks spells that refreshed on a short rest. Since the smite mechanic no longer works like that it is not a problem.

Every spell casting class he made in the book grants you prof bonus x2 exertion points instead of the herald mechanics of burning spell slots it is simple, it makes sense and it is in keeping with how the ranger can get spell slot in their archetype and not have to spend exertion points to cast spells.

Herald is an outlier and the Dread Knight was made specifically to be a Herald themed warlock not just a martial warlock which is why they went in that direction with them.

 

[Tessarael]

Fair enough. From a design mechanic viewpoint, the approach then is that:

• Everyone gets 2x proficiency bonus exertion points if they have combat maneuvers, with a few exceptions.
• Some classes get more exertion points as they advance.
• Access to higher level maneuvers is determined by class level.
• Multi-classed characters use the Adventurer's Guide page 378 rule to determine this: add up class levels for those with access to maneuvers, and use the table from the class with the greatest access to maneuvers.

I'd argue that just as there are classes with 1/2 (Herald) or 1/3 (Arcane Trickster, Eldritch Knight, Wildborn Ranger) spellcasting progression, it would make sense for there also to be classes or archetypes for spellcasters with 1/2 or 1/3 combat maneuver access progression.

 

[Pedantic]

Fair enough. From a design mechanic viewpoint, the approach then is that:

• Everyone gets 2x proficiency bonus exertion points if they have combat maneuvers, with a few exceptions.
• Some classes get more exertion points as they advance.
• Access to higher level maneuvers is determined by class level.
• Multi-classed characters use the Adventurer's Guide page 378 rule to determine this: add up class levels for those with access to maneuvers, and use the table from the class with the greatest access to maneuvers.

I'd argue that just as there are classes with 1/2 (Herald) or 1/3 (Arcane Trickster, Eldritch Knight, Wildborn Ranger) spellcasting progression, it would make sense for there also to be classes or archetypes for spellcasters with 1/2 or 1/3 combat maneuver access progression.

I think that makes sense, but the limitation on maneuver access is intended to be maneuvers known/level of maneuver, not exertion points.

Honestly, the action economy cost of swapping between maneuvers/spells is probably plenty to handle this anyway. Maneuvers in general (outside of a few stances) don't really have non-combat applications, so I don't think they need to compete with spells.

 

[WanderingMystic]

I agree that they should be a 1/3 maneuver progression and that maybe gaining access to 4th level maneuvers is to much for an arcetype to grant but I that pbx2 is the best way of handling exertion.

 

[Tessarael]

Honestly, the action economy cost of swapping between maneuvers/spells is probably plenty to handle this anyway. Maneuvers in general (outside of a few stances) don't really have non-combat applications, so I don't think they need to compete with spells.

Many spells are combat-oriented. Yes, there are utility spells available too. But there needs to be some sort of economy for combat powers, i.e., for maneuvers and combat spells. In general, you would expect some trade-off between the two. Typically, a full caster doesn't get combat maneuver access, or to do so spends a feat or similar to get limited access.

 

[Pedantic]

Many spells are combat-oriented. Yes, there are utility spells available too. But there needs to be some sort of economy for combat powers, i.e., for maneuvers and combat spells. In general, you would expect some trade-off between the two. Typically, a full caster doesn't get combat maneuver access, or to do so spends a feat or similar to get limited access.

No, no, that's my point! In combat you have a sharply limited number of actions, usually somewhere between 3-5. Maneuvers compete with spells for those action slots, but they don't serve much purpose outside of combat, whereas spells do have out of combat utility. Because they're competing with spells for in-combat actions, you're not actually increasing the warlock's effective output significantly, even with a larger resource pool (unless perhaps they really focus on BA/Reaction maneuvers...which is honestly interesting enough that I think it's fine).