Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6621710" data-attributes="member: 6790260">The number of threads, here and elsewhere, about whether the Warlock class functions, whether people are &quot;doing it wrong,&quot; and what to do to make a Bladelock simply *work* rather than how to make it *shine*, tell me that this is sufficiently common to illustrate a problem. That you didn't have this issue is great, but does nothing for whether or not the class was poorly presented. I think much of the problem people have with the Blade pact is of a similar nature--the pact appears to enable options which it really doesn't, unless you're willing to do some pretty heavy optimization and breaking out of traditional theme (e.g. the common suggestion &quot;use a polearm and [that one polearm feat]&quot;--I dunno about you, but polearms are not at *all* what I think of when I think of a &quot;Pact of the Blade&quot;).I suppose. As noted above, I don't see the topics as *that* unrelated: the Warlock class doesn't clearly identify its mechanical niche, and its fluff elements at times state, or imply, an equality with certain classes that...doesn't really exist. Many people expect the more &quot;castery&quot; Warlocks to be &quot;Wizard replacements&quot; in combat, and they just aren't. Similarly, many people expect a Pact of the Blade Warlock, who has sunk all of her invocations into being good at fighting, to be (as others have said in this thread) a &quot;frontline fighter.&quot; Not necessarily a full-on Fighter replacement, but someone who can &quot;keep up&quot; with (read: be slightly, but not drastically, below) basal Fighter damage in a mechanically different way (much like how Paladins get Improved Divine Smite), and whose spells act as a very rough equivalent to Action Surge (plus, possibly, the Battlemaster maneuvers)--something potent but only infrequently used. But, again, the Blade Pact just...doesn't do that. It does a very different thing, and people are left confused and frustrated when their expectations, which SEEM to be supported by the fluff and COULD be supported by the mechanics, aren't actually borne out.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 6621710, member: 6790260"] The number of threads, here and elsewhere, about whether the Warlock class functions, whether people are "doing it wrong," and what to do to make a Bladelock simply *work* rather than how to make it *shine*, tell me that this is sufficiently common to illustrate a problem. That you didn't have this issue is great, but does nothing for whether or not the class was poorly presented. I think much of the problem people have with the Blade pact is of a similar nature--the pact appears to enable options which it really doesn't, unless you're willing to do some pretty heavy optimization and breaking out of traditional theme (e.g. the common suggestion "use a polearm and [that one polearm feat]"--I dunno about you, but polearms are not at *all* what I think of when I think of a "Pact of the Blade"). I suppose. As noted above, I don't see the topics as *that* unrelated: the Warlock class doesn't clearly identify its mechanical niche, and its fluff elements at times state, or imply, an equality with certain classes that...doesn't really exist. Many people expect the more "castery" Warlocks to be "Wizard replacements" in combat, and they just aren't. Similarly, many people expect a Pact of the Blade Warlock, who has sunk all of her invocations into being good at fighting, to be (as others have said in this thread) a "frontline fighter." Not necessarily a full-on Fighter replacement, but someone who can "keep up" with (read: be slightly, but not drastically, below) basal Fighter damage in a mechanically different way (much like how Paladins get Improved Divine Smite), and whose spells act as a very rough equivalent to Action Surge (plus, possibly, the Battlemaster maneuvers)--something potent but only infrequently used. But, again, the Blade Pact just...doesn't do that. It does a very different thing, and people are left confused and frustrated when their expectations, which SEEM to be supported by the fluff and COULD be supported by the mechanics, aren't actually borne out. [/QUOTE]

Verification