Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Remathilis" data-source="post: 9138970" data-attributes="member: 7635">You and [USER=6779196]@Charlaquin[/USER] both have used this argument and I feel it's a tad disingenuous. Their three attacks is with one cantrip, and that's how they chose to scale the damage of said cantrip. Comparing it to fire bolt, who also gets d10 extra damage at the same levels, but instead of as a separate attack, gets it as a rider to its one attack roll. It's the difference between a monks flurry of blows vs a rogue's sneak attack. In theory, that should balance as while firebolt is all or nothing (and big on a crit) EB has more chances to hit in low accuracy options. Of course, EB shines with AB adding +Cha all rolls (vs adding it to the one single fire bolt) but in theory the warlock has weaker casting to anyone else using fire bolt, so it evened out. Bladelocks get three attacks with their one weapon. The first issue is that said weapon has more variety than a d10 cantrip. Greatsword and other high damage weapons are an option. Second, a warlock can benefit from a variety of magical weapons that do far better than a pact keeper rod can do. They can also benefit from feats that enhance weapon attacks if they qualify for them. They can benefit from spells that are cast at a higher level than other gish types like paladin or artificer. And they can get a lot better control options via mastery than repelling blast. And even if all of that is somehow nullified (such as a foe you can't reach in melee) you STILL have the best cantrip in the game in your back pocket. There is no competition between EB and blade, you can have both! Honestly, EB needed to be knocked down a peg, not bladelock buffed to the point it's outclassing martials. EB should have worked like 3.5: one big blast per round that did sneak attack level damage at range, not multiple beams with Cha mod added. But too late now I guess.</blockquote>

Verification