Level Up (A5E) Warlock Archetype Curse scaling & Herald multiclassing

[W'rkncacnter]

You said to ignore it, but the Fighter level dip for Herald is really strong. It adds 2x proficiency bonus to your exertion pool, 3 maneuvers, and you can add your ability damage modifier to off-hand attacks if you want that two-weapon fighting build.

don't forget the most broken part of the ferald build: fighter maneuver degree scaling.

 

[Tessarael]

It's all within A5e (AG only) so Hexblade is out (that class is just way too front loaded).
Fighter is a strong pick but I wanted to discuss the merits of Warlock (Spellbinder) and whether there was a better option (other than fighter1). Rushing Herald 6th makes sense.

Divine Smites are really good but they require a long rest. It appears that the Spellbinders Curse could give the Herald a lot of mileage given that it is a short rest feature. Even without the curse, the spellpoints to cast Protection every short rest is the equivalent of three (3) 1st level spell slots per long rest.

Is this worth an ASI/Feat/Feature latter on? I'm not sure but taking it at 8th seems good.

How often are you casting Protection from Evil and Good? How often are you fighting aberrations, celestials, elementals, fey, fiends, and undead, or needing to avoid charm, frighten, or possession? In those circumstances, yes, it is a good spell. But while I've had access to that spell with different spell casters, I almost never memorize it. I'd be inclined to have a spell scroll of it handy for when I need it, but I don't think it is that important a spell. I'd argue that Bless, Divine Favor, and Shield of Faith are more effective typically.

There is that economy issue between combat maneuvers and spell slots for the Herald, as they don't get exertion points. I think this is much better solved with the 2x proficiency bonus exertion points from Fighter with the one level dip, when you get to the point where you want to multi-class. As W'rkncacnter mentioned, there is a big boost in combat maneuver progression with that level dip in Fighter, if you do it at Herald 7/Fighter 1, then you're actually getting two 3rd level Combat Maneuvers at character level 8, which is really nice. So I think this does provide strong justification for the one level dip into Fighter.

If you're using point buy for ability scores, by multi-classing at level 8, you're deferring getting to 20 in your primary ability score by a level. And otherwise at the next level after with single-classed Herald level 9, you're getting two 3rd level spell slots, where you can add Charisma modifier to an ally's saving throw or ability check once per short rest. So I'm doubtful that the one level dip into Warlock is worth what you're missing out on.

 

[Anonymous3]

A fighter1 dip is a "no-brainer" here, if you looking for increased power. This is why I said I didn't want to engage with it. I have been to level 15 twice in my years of playing DnD so thinking past this level requires more energy. I'll pass on that challenge for now and consider level 10 only. Apologies, I should have been upfront as it would have narrowed the discussion a little.

That said, Lend Faith (9th) is good - better than Warlock dip? I'm not sure. The Herald/Fighter MC can produce various combinations that I hadn't considered before. For instance, if you're trying to get access to more Maneuvers then you'll want more fighter; more spells then more Herald. It could be argued that higher degree maneuvers are worth the loss in Herald - I'm seeing it this way. After Herald6 it is hard for me to stay in the class just because of how many "goodies" I can get dipping out - Maneuvers are just a lot of fun. Additionally, you can get access to more power via Brute but then you're trading exertion for more damage at the cost of not using Maneuvers. If that is the case, then is there a better way to gain more damage?

In O5e the only time I ever saw Divine Favor get cast was when someone else put up Bless. If the Herald is "responsible" for the latter, then I thought perhaps the level one Warlock dip was worth it. This felt more worthwhile for a TWF Herald. Regarding, PfGaE, I think that frightened and charm have come up often. In fights where we were unlucky, frightened TPK'd us twice - in two different campaigns. Very anecdotal though.

 

[Anonymous3]

Ok, so I went and created five combinations using Herald/Fighter/Warlock so that I could discriminate real differences between them and determine whether the Warlock dip was significant. Figuring out how to do this was a challenge because I didn't know if focusing on the caster side of a Herald was more important than it's martial aspects. This is a little more challenging in A5e because Herald slots can be converted into exertion. Ultimately, I found that Heralds fit into the "fighter" chassis more than a "spellcaster" chassis. This means that although spell progression is important it is not as important to the Herald as a full caster. More important are abilities that support the Herald as a fighter. Spells, features or abilities that support this idea will be chosen over ones that support being a spellcaster.

To make the comparison simpler I did the following:

• Converted all spell slots into exertion*
• Considered a single day of combat (long and short abilities combined; additional short rests just boost exertion and damage out so it is meaningful here)
• Dual wielded (four attacks; wanted to maximise 1d4 Spellbinder's Curse damage)
• All attacks hit
• Critical hit chance ignored
• Technical Fighting Style (+2 dmg)
• Maneuver Specialization (2 exertion; multiple attacks; +2 dmg; -1 exertion)
• Used the Lean Into It Combat Maneuver (1 exertion cost in this setup)
• Weapon damage ignored - focus is be bonus damage from features.

I chose Lean into It (LII) in this basic analysis but it could be any Maneuver that benefits from Maneuver Specialization that promotes damage. Choosing 2 exertion vs a 3 exertion maneuver made a big difference. Here is the summary:

	(A) Hrld9/Ftr1	(B) Hrld7/Ftr3	(C) Hrld6/Ftr4	(D) Hrld6/Ftr3/Wrlk1	(E) Hrld8/Ftr1/Wrlk1
Damage features	20 LII Attacks	28 LII Attacks	25 LII Attacks	24 LII Attacks	9 LII Attacks
LII damage	160	448	400	384	112
Smite damage	48	32	32	32	32
Wrlk Curse	0	0	0	80	80
ASI +2 Strength	40	0	50	0	28
Total	248	480	482	496	252
% of baseline	100%	193.55%	194.35%	200%	101.61%

Build A is the baseline to beat, and together with C are the only builds that have two (2) ASI - ASI are a big deal and often worth trading out for a little less damage if you're winning elsewhere. Build A has the most spell slots and I consider using the 3rd level slots for Spirit Guardians* instead of exertion but did not net more damage. I'm also not sold on Spirit Guardians as we move in Tier 2 play. Comparing build A vs B, for instance, you have way more exertion but no specialization means your maneuvers costs twice as much which translates into reduced overall damage.

Your experience shows that a Warlock dip doesn't make sense for overall damage (build E). The real damage changer is Maneuver Specialization (build B, C, D) where it a there is a big jump in damage over baseline. If you want to eek out every bit of damage then build D nets the highest but at the cost - the biggest being an ASI (If you took +2 strength on build C would increase it's damage by 100 which would be it around 150% over baseline. Additionally, the Warlock dip becomes a stronger pick if your game provides for at least one short rest which I did not facture into these numbers.

 

[Anonymous3]

Why you do this to me tables? why.
EDIT: I fixed it but damn.
EDIT: Found calculation errors. Fixed.
EDIT: Was adding Maneuver Specialization damage (+2) to build A and E accidently. Numbers are drastically different now.

 

[Anonymous3]

Interestingly enough, when I used more costly maneuvers (3 exertion) the more Herald spell slots become important in keeping up the the exertion demand. This means that the gap between the baseline (Herald9/Ftr1) and other combinations shrinks with the rising cost of of maneuvers. I was not expecting to see that and can't really figure out why that is happening - math.

 

[Tessarael]

If you have a level in Fighter, you get 2x proficiency bonus exertion points per short rest.

Comparing vs. a level 8 Herald, a level 9 Herald does have two extra 3rd level spell slots, the equivalent of 2x 2x 3 = 12 exertion points per long rest. Given 2 short rests per long rest, that's the equivalent of 4 extra exertion points per short rest.

Now comparing Herald 8/Fighter 1 vs. Herald 9 for exertion points per short rest, the former has 8 vs. 2 for the latter. So, the single-level Fighter dip provides more exertion points for combat maneuvers.

---

In my opinion, this indicates a problem in the multi-classing or Herald mechanics. Maybe Herald should have been implemented instead with using exertion points to cast spells, with 2x proficiency bonus exertion points, instead of getting spell slots.

A level 9 Herald has 4x 1st + 3x 2nd + 2x 3rd spell slots, equivalent of 16 exertion points per long rest, or ~5 per short rest by the A5E rules as written. I would implement it something like this:

• They get 2x proficiency bonus exertion per short rest, like Fighter and other classes, instead of getting spell slots.
• 2 exertion points to cast a level 1 spell. Available from Herald level 1, as normal.
• 3 exertion points to cast a level 2 spell. Available from Herald level 5, as normal.
• 5 exertion points to cast a level 3 spell. Available from Herald level 9, as normal.

At level 9 with 8 exertion points, they can cast 1x 3rd level spell and 1x 2nd level spell after each short rest; or 2x 2nd level + 1x 1st level; or 4x 1st level. This is about right, maybe slightly low vs. the standard Herald class. Also, hit dice can be expended to recover 1d4 exertion (per LUA5E page 457), which I would allow for activating combat maneuvers, but I think this would be too good if allowed for spell casting.

 

[Anonymous3]

Comparing vs. a level 8 Herald, a level 9 Herald does have two extra 3rd level spell slots, the equivalent of +6 exertion points per long rest. Given 2 short rests per long rest, that's the equivalent of 2 extra exertion points per short rest.

Now comparing Herald 8/Fighter 1 vs. Herald 9 for exertion points per short rest, the former has 8 vs. 2 for the latter. So, the single-level Fighter dip provides a lot more exertion points for combat maneuvers.

I might be mistaken but if you're converting two(2) 3rd level Herald spell slots that would be +12 exertion.

I left the comparison between short and long rests out because every table is different. I have been playing with 5e and now A5e for seven and one years respectively and have hardly ever had a short rest. I think short rest allow sustain; long rest allow for nova potential - yet to see this nova though.

In my opinion, this indicates a problem in the multi-classing or Herald mechanics.

I'm not sure about reworking the MC mechanics of Herald as I haven't seen it get overpowered or broken. One of the of the mechanisms that stops this, is the action economy - regardless of how much power (exertion) you have in the battery, you cannot use it all in a single turn. Perhaps the Brute Archetype can achieve this but I still consider this an edge case which I don't think we should be working around. Especially at Tier 1 & 2 play when trying to use Brute Strength is near impossible - Lean Into It was chosen every time because it helped the Berserker if the prone condition landed.

We have a Herald/Fighter at our table who wanted to have fun with maneuvers more often and thought that the short rests would allow this. Sadly we had a single short rest the entire campaign and it was at a point where he only had 2 exertion. There are two (2) warlocks in the campaign so there is incentive to have short rests but it just hasn't made sense for the campaign.

We are now at level 8 and having kept track of damage throughout the campaign here is the distribution:

1. Berserker: 33% (it's highest was 46%) - uses Dangerous Strike via feat.
2. Diabolist: 21%
3. Spellbinder: 18%
4. Druid: 17%
5. Herald/Fighter: 11%

Extra attack came late with the MC so this really has affected their damage output. Now that Extra Attack is available we'll see if that changes things a little. No frontliner can compete with the Berserker. The amount of damage this class can dish out and take is madness. They just stand and bang.

All super anecdotal but it's early days for us.

 

[Tessarael]

I might be mistaken but if you're converting two(2) 3rd level Herald spell slots that would be +12 exertion.

Correct. I missed that the exertion points are 2x spell slot level. Sorry about that. I will correct my post.

When we're playing, we do use our short rests, both to recover HP and for PCs such as martial types and Warlock to recover their class abilities on a short rest. Less of an issue for spell casters that only recover spell slots on a long rest.

 

[Anonymous3]

In my opinion, this indicates a problem in the multi-classing or Herald mechanics.

I was thinking about a simpler way to handle this that includes minor changes to the original wording (emphasis mine):

1. "Instead, at the start of each of your turns you can expend [one] spell slot of 1st-level or higher to gain exertion points that go into a temporary exertion pool which lasts until you start your next turn.
2. Temporary Exertion cannot stack - in line with Temporary Hit Points. This means that the Herald now has to spend the exertion that they have just created before converting another spell or they must lose what they haven't spent.
3. "You gain 2 exertion points for a 1st-level spell slot, and [ one (1) ] more for each spell slot level above 1st**.

The impact of the third point is summarized below:

Level	Herald Temp. Exertion	Herald NEW Temp. Exertion*	Fighter x 3 Short Rests	Herald19/Ftr1
1	4	4	12	4/9
5	16	14	21	14/18
9	29	25	30	25/24
13	46	34	39	34/30
17	72	50	48	50/36
20	82	56	48	56/36

Columns 2 and 3 are calculated by converting all spell slots available to the Herald at each level (Column 1). The Fighter Reserves feature is included in the calculations in Column 4. I think this brings both classes line with each other at a numbers level. The Fighter and its Archetypes gain features that reduce exertion cost so overall they will be on par. The MC has both pools of exertion available and even with the suggested changes seems like a lot. However, I think between how the action economy works and the changes I have suggested it will bring the MC in line.