Level Up (A5E) Pact of the Blade past level 5

[JerichoPenumbra]

Personally I prefer it this way, I really dislike 5.5e's approach of making everything a spell.
With the same rationale otherwise also the herald's smites would be just another spell, etc etc. Instead of having generic spells with ad hoc synergies with the class casting them (not good for future portability), I think it's better to roll them into core class features

Main reason that I don't quite like it as class feature is that many old items and feats that helped give bonuses or at least were useable with EB no longer function due to their wording specifying spells cast rather than spell attacks, as well as having a degree anti-synergy with a class like Marshal. While it should be easy enough to houserule common sense interpretations so that o5e stuff that worked with it before works again, or have EB be treated as "weapon" attack for the Ray, Scythe, and Whip or as a cantrip for Disturbance for classes that give other classes actions of some kind, I know that not everyone has a group that won't be stringent with rules wording. Or to put it plainly, try to have wording that allows for future compatibility (tough, I know) and maintains backwards compatibility (which is supposedly one of the selling points they try to do with a5e)

 

[Boldo]

So... here's the rub:

You should probably not be making Thirsting Blade attacks as a Pact of the Blade Warlock unless you're inside an antimagic field.

Wouldn't Thirsting Blade explicitly shut down from being in an antimagic field? Unlike Secrets of Arcana, Invocations are expressly described as magical. The summoned blade may/probably avoids this since the pact boons aren't explicitly marked as magical.

On that subject, Versatile Blast is an invocation, so is knowing alternative blast forms (beyond your first) suppressed wherever magic's dead as well?

 

[Boldo]

This was a strangely delayed doublepost.

 

[Steampunkette]

Wouldn't Thirsting Blade explicitly shut down from being in an antimagic field? Unlike Secrets of Arcana, Invocations are expressly described as magical. The summoned blade may/probably avoids this since the pact boons aren't explicitly marked as magical.

On that subject, Versatile Blast is an invocation, so is knowing alternative blast forms (beyond your first) suppressed wherever magic's dead as well?

"The gifts of your patron are manyfold—not only can you channel their magic to work spells, but you can also siphon away talents, tricks, and reality-defying essence to perform other impressive magical feats."

There are three separate clauses, here. Talents, Tricks, and the Essence to perform Magical Feats. I would argue that "Eldritch Warrior", for example, would be a talent rather than a magical feat. Otherwise you would lose Medium Armor and Shield proficiency while within an anti-magic field.

Similarly, if I were in a Beholder's Antimagic eye cone and my Frog Fang Familiar was behind the Beholder, the familiar would still be able to take two attacks instead of one even though I'm the one with the invocation tied to the familiar.

 

[Boldo]

Isn't it rather the other way around? As I understand it, the statement is that whether it's from siphoning talents, tricks, or reality-defining essence, the result is your warlock learning to perform these 'magical feats'.
I am indeed worried about losing Armor & Shield proficiency in an antimagic, dead magic or 'unravelling' zone.

 

[Steampunkette]

Isn't it rather the other way around? As I understand it, the statement is that whether it's from siphoning talents, tricks, or reality-defining essence, the result is your warlock learning to perform these 'magical feats'.
I am indeed worried about losing Armor & Shield proficiency in an antimagic, dead magic or 'unravelling' zone.

Talents, Tricks, and Feats are the words that match in the sentence structure is why it reads to me as both nonmagical and magical depending on the individual invocation. The first two (Talents/Tricks) are unqualified, while the Feats clause is heavily qualified as being especially, and specifically, magical.

Take "Thief of Five Fates" as an example. You learn the Bane spell from gaining the invocation. Do you "Unlearn" that spell within an antimagic field and "Relearn" the spell when you leave? Or are you aware of -how- to cast it, but unable to, because of the antimagic field?

It just makes more sense, to me, that invocations may have a magical source (Patron) but be magical or nonmagical on an individual basis.

 

[Boldo]

In terms of what makes sense and what it should do, I couldn't agree more. That said I'm a bit worried about the wording (if it wasn't for that one word, "magical"...) for that reason. If that little bit was removed, then all the spellcasting or teleporting invocations would be self-contained (and suppressed) in this regard, while armor proficiency, versatile blast, etc would be safe and clear.

The wording was a major issue in the original 5th edition, where the text was a bit more explicit about them being magical, leading to precisely that sort of strange nonsensical interaction. Suppressing Beguiling Influence's proficiencies could be viewed as reasonable there, but what happened with Improved Pact Weapon's shortbow form?