-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Share Your Thoughts On My Warlock Houserules
- Thread starter Justin Fike
- Start date
Justin Fike
First Post
Thanks for the great feedback. I agree that the added invocations are the most questionable things on this list. I included it because I wanted to enable all three styles of combat. From a flavor perspective I really like enabling Warlocks to do so with their magic, kind in keeping with the 4e Swordmage, but practically speaking I think I agree that 1) Getting a fighting style is too much, and 2) The invocations are probably overkill. Ironically my Warlock player hasn't picked any of them anyway, so I can't really speak to play testing.
If someone does decide to use these, at this point I'd recommend not including the new invocations unless your group is already a very high power level as a whole.
Thanks to everyone for the replies. I'm working on a fix for Way of Elements Monk which I'll post at some point.
If someone does decide to use these, at this point I'd recommend not including the new invocations unless your group is already a very high power level as a whole.
Thanks to everyone for the replies. I'm working on a fix for Way of Elements Monk which I'll post at some point.
Justin Fike
First Post
Ha, yes the changes definitely fall in the buff category, but I think that's warranted. So far the Warlock still isn't nearly as versatile or consistent a caster as the Sorcerer in our group, but at least she is able to do a few additional things that reflect her pact choice during a session. It seems pretty clear that WotC wanted Warlocks to be more of a "magic archer with a few tricks", but everything about them says they're supposed to be "caster like". As the DM I've not ever felt like she's been running over encounters, and I loved it when she cast a clutch Stinking Cloud stave off what was starting to look like a party wipe a while ago. When was the last time you saw any Warlock cast stinking cloud?
In our game "Warlocks" have glowing brands on their body that represent the pacts they have made. Each brand is one inch square per "spell slot". Slot one brand is one inch by one inch, slot three is three inches by three inches. Each time a brand is used there is a cumulative chance that the being granting the power will be able to enter the "warlocks" plane of existence and have "fun".
This is our representation of the "cost" of making a deal. How would your players feel if the warlock having cast a spell granted by a balor several times suddenly had the balor appear somewhere nearby?
This is our representation of the "cost" of making a deal. How would your players feel if the warlock having cast a spell granted by a balor several times suddenly had the balor appear somewhere nearby?
I like where you're going with this, but some stuff might be a little overpowered. Here's what I like and dislike.
Patron Spells: I like that you added the Patrons spells like every other class does. I don't think warlocks need the extra spell slot though. The reason is why is, warlocks spells are already an unlimited resource, granted they are limited by how many you can use in a fight, they always get them back. Let's not forget, as you level up, the warlock will be getting magic items. Staves, robes, and wands add tremendously to a warlocks arsenal. Also the Rod of the Pact Keeper gives him a spell slot back.
Invocations: with the 1/day spells, again I feel the extra slots are not needed, if you do that, someone is just going to start stacking them for extra slots. Keep in mind that when they created the warlock, they want to create a caster whose spells was an unlimited resource. The invocation spells are supposed to be big spells that are actually limited. I think they could've added a couple more cast at will spells though. But remember, there are a lot of warlock friendly races that also have racial spells.
Now your meat and potatoes Pact of the Blade:
What I like:
Medium Armor at 3rd
The 2 invocations although, I think those should last until the start of the next turn, and shouldn't be you can only have one or the other.
What I don't like:
Making multi-attack automatic. While I see where you're going with this, I find it to be unnecessary.
I don't think warlocks need CHA to replace STR & DEX. It's a balancing issue, because all of the other hybrid classes still have to balance their stats, warlocks need to do the same. Besides, they get Life drinker at lvl 12.
I don't think you should ban agonizing blast from PotB warlocks, it maybe highly suggested, but ultimately it should be the player's choice on how they build their character.
Warlocks should not get a fighting style. Fighting styles are 5e version weapon specialization. Only1 the warrior classes have it, and only they should get it.
While EKs fighters with some magical ability, bladelocks are casters with some fighting ability. They have different roles. While the EK is good on the front, the bladelock should be in the back protecting the casters, or behind the warrior's taking out the trash like rogues.
Sent from my SM-T813 using Tapatalk
Patron Spells: I like that you added the Patrons spells like every other class does. I don't think warlocks need the extra spell slot though. The reason is why is, warlocks spells are already an unlimited resource, granted they are limited by how many you can use in a fight, they always get them back. Let's not forget, as you level up, the warlock will be getting magic items. Staves, robes, and wands add tremendously to a warlocks arsenal. Also the Rod of the Pact Keeper gives him a spell slot back.
Invocations: with the 1/day spells, again I feel the extra slots are not needed, if you do that, someone is just going to start stacking them for extra slots. Keep in mind that when they created the warlock, they want to create a caster whose spells was an unlimited resource. The invocation spells are supposed to be big spells that are actually limited. I think they could've added a couple more cast at will spells though. But remember, there are a lot of warlock friendly races that also have racial spells.
Now your meat and potatoes Pact of the Blade:
What I like:
Medium Armor at 3rd
The 2 invocations although, I think those should last until the start of the next turn, and shouldn't be you can only have one or the other.
What I don't like:
Making multi-attack automatic. While I see where you're going with this, I find it to be unnecessary.
I don't think warlocks need CHA to replace STR & DEX. It's a balancing issue, because all of the other hybrid classes still have to balance their stats, warlocks need to do the same. Besides, they get Life drinker at lvl 12.
I don't think you should ban agonizing blast from PotB warlocks, it maybe highly suggested, but ultimately it should be the player's choice on how they build their character.
Warlocks should not get a fighting style. Fighting styles are 5e version weapon specialization. Only1 the warrior classes have it, and only they should get it.
While EKs fighters with some magical ability, bladelocks are casters with some fighting ability. They have different roles. While the EK is good on the front, the bladelock should be in the back protecting the casters, or behind the warrior's taking out the trash like rogues.
Sent from my SM-T813 using Tapatalk
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
First things first, excellent job [MENTION=6867586]Justin Fike[/MENTION] leading with your goals. Rare, and lets us knwo what you are trying to do and we can evaluate with that in mind (regardless if we had happened to spot your issue ourselves). It also tells us what you don't intend to cover.
Patron spells automatically known and a once per long-rest slot dedicated for them. I like this. Yes, it's a buff, especially in number of spells known, but I think it's a flavorful one and not overly powerful. If asked to tone it down a notch you could make one spell on the list is free, which also gives more room for different warlocks of the same pact to play differently. Actually, I think I like that - you get one patron spell per level as a bonus spell known, but if you have Pact of the Tome you get both.
Invocations for free once per day - I don't have enough Warlock experience to say. I've seen this proposed elsewhere as a fix which makes me think it's reasonable but I really have no practical experience to offer an opinion.
I strongly dislike CHR to attack and damage. It makes warlock very single ability score. In some ways getting Shillelagh to align casting and weapons to a single ability is already something sought out, and that is limited in weapon choices. This would work for any and just makes it too easy. Also makes Warlock 3 a nice cherry-pick for paladins and bards.
Extra attack at 6th. The SCAG cantrips somewhat fill this role already. It's the right level like valor bard. I'm okay. For thematic, can we limit it to just with your pact weapon?
On the flip side, the new Eldritch Strike feat is the bonus attack action from Polearm Master but better because you don't need to use the Attack action. And you can get a fighting style like Duelist. So at 6th between extra attack and spending invocations we're looking at three attacks (with the last one doing 1d4+Chr). That's sizable. It may be making them too martial, since they are also getting their spells advancing and such.
I think I would be more comfortable if they could be (after spending invocations) a reasonable melee combatant plus their casting if staying single classed and needed to multiclass to REALLY focus on weapon combat. And this makes bladelocks as good with weapons as martial classes without any reduction of their casting.
Patron spells automatically known and a once per long-rest slot dedicated for them. I like this. Yes, it's a buff, especially in number of spells known, but I think it's a flavorful one and not overly powerful. If asked to tone it down a notch you could make one spell on the list is free, which also gives more room for different warlocks of the same pact to play differently. Actually, I think I like that - you get one patron spell per level as a bonus spell known, but if you have Pact of the Tome you get both.
Invocations for free once per day - I don't have enough Warlock experience to say. I've seen this proposed elsewhere as a fix which makes me think it's reasonable but I really have no practical experience to offer an opinion.
I strongly dislike CHR to attack and damage. It makes warlock very single ability score. In some ways getting Shillelagh to align casting and weapons to a single ability is already something sought out, and that is limited in weapon choices. This would work for any and just makes it too easy. Also makes Warlock 3 a nice cherry-pick for paladins and bards.
Extra attack at 6th. The SCAG cantrips somewhat fill this role already. It's the right level like valor bard. I'm okay. For thematic, can we limit it to just with your pact weapon?
On the flip side, the new Eldritch Strike feat is the bonus attack action from Polearm Master but better because you don't need to use the Attack action. And you can get a fighting style like Duelist. So at 6th between extra attack and spending invocations we're looking at three attacks (with the last one doing 1d4+Chr). That's sizable. It may be making them too martial, since they are also getting their spells advancing and such.
I think I would be more comfortable if they could be (after spending invocations) a reasonable melee combatant plus their casting if staying single classed and needed to multiclass to REALLY focus on weapon combat. And this makes bladelocks as good with weapons as martial classes without any reduction of their casting.
Last edited:
kilpatds
Explorer
I don't like "attacking on Cha" very much. The MAD aspect is, IMHO, important to the flavor of the class.
I personally think Extra Attack should just be a 5th level rider on the Pact-of-the-blade feature. That should not cost an invocation ... nor do I understand why it's pushed out to 6 for Valor Bards and Bladesingers. But since it is, no issue either way.
I agree the "1/day, use a slot to cast a save-or-suck" invocations are terrible. But I'm not sure hat the fix is. I'm curious to know if anyone in your game takes them, but 1 game is a small datapoint to figure out if that's solving the balance problems. As a player, I much preferred the at-will nifty-spell invocations. My biggest issue is that I just don't understand the balance point between "Sure, you can cast 2 5th level spells every short rest ... but only if none of them are Save-or-Sucks."
Eldritch Strike needs a much tighter definition. What type is the damage? Was that attack a weapon attack? Is it an off-hand attack? Maybe another line of flavor text would help, but I also think you need to type the damage explicitly. "As a bonus action, you form a weapon you are proficient with that has the off-hand keyword, and attack with it. The weapon's damage is reduced to 1d4 if it is higher." for example.
Are you doing anything with weapon proficiencies?
I personally think Extra Attack should just be a 5th level rider on the Pact-of-the-blade feature. That should not cost an invocation ... nor do I understand why it's pushed out to 6 for Valor Bards and Bladesingers. But since it is, no issue either way.
I agree the "1/day, use a slot to cast a save-or-suck" invocations are terrible. But I'm not sure hat the fix is. I'm curious to know if anyone in your game takes them, but 1 game is a small datapoint to figure out if that's solving the balance problems. As a player, I much preferred the at-will nifty-spell invocations. My biggest issue is that I just don't understand the balance point between "Sure, you can cast 2 5th level spells every short rest ... but only if none of them are Save-or-Sucks."
Eldritch Strike needs a much tighter definition. What type is the damage? Was that attack a weapon attack? Is it an off-hand attack? Maybe another line of flavor text would help, but I also think you need to type the damage explicitly. "As a bonus action, you form a weapon you are proficient with that has the off-hand keyword, and attack with it. The weapon's damage is reduced to 1d4 if it is higher." for example.
Are you doing anything with weapon proficiencies?
From a roleplaying standpoint, this is a terrible idea. It will actually make a warlock an unplayable character class. Just think about it, Devils and Demons which are very hard to summon into the world, found a way to cheat the system by granting power to mortals, they will be able to open a fate and enter unfettered? 2 things will happen, one, warlocks would be put to death as soon as they are discovered, and two, the world would be conquered by one of the demon lords thst entered the world and summoned its army.
Sent from my SM-T813 using Tapatalk
Similar Threads
