Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8287045" data-attributes="member: 6790260">The only problems I have with this proposal--which I support, to be clear--are that it unfortunately implies some combinatoric explosion, and that it's going to be a lot harder to balance the class as a result.That is, we had 3 pacts and 3 patrons to start with. That means 9 unique features from day 1. Every time you add a new patron, you need to add as many features as there are existing pacts, and vice-versa. Even if we only consider the official 5e pacts and patrons thus far, that's 7 patrons and 4 pacts for a total of 28 unique features. If we add in the Star Chain pact and (say) 3 of the UA patrons just to represent the rolling &quot;this is an idea we have, it might not happen,&quot; you're looking at 50 distinct features overall. Any time anyone wants to draft a homebrew pact, it'll need at least 7 extra patron-unique features, and any time you make a patron it needs at least 4 pact-unique features.And as the number of these features rises, the possibility of some of them being (or becoming) garbage or overpowered rises.Again, I don't say this because I oppose it, exactly the reverse in fact. Instead, I say it because if you want to go about this, you'll want to set down rules in advance for how potent and/or far-reaching these features are permitted to be. If we're using the Hexblade/Blade Pact interaction, this is something that can be build-defining, but which isn't necessarily a huge power boost. That is, the difference between a longsword and a greatsword is 1d8+CHA vs. 2d6+CHA, a difference of only 2.5 average damage.The trickier part is going to be making sure that the things you introduce are reasonable, but not weak.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8287045, member: 6790260"] The only problems I have with this proposal--which I support, to be clear--are that it unfortunately implies some combinatoric explosion, and that it's going to be a lot harder to balance the class as a result. That is, we had 3 pacts and 3 patrons to start with. That means [B]9 unique features[/B] from day 1. Every time you add a new patron, you need to add as many features as there are existing pacts, and vice-versa. Even if we only consider the [I]official[/I] 5e pacts and patrons thus far, that's 7 patrons and 4 pacts for a total of 28 unique features. If we add in the Star Chain pact and (say) 3 of the UA patrons just to represent the rolling "this is an idea we have, it might not happen," you're looking at [I]50[/I] distinct features overall. Any time anyone wants to draft a homebrew pact, it'll need [I]at least[/I] 7 extra patron-unique features, and any time you make a patron it needs at least 4 pact-unique features. And as the number of these features rises, the possibility of some of them being (or becoming) garbage or overpowered rises. Again, I don't say this because I oppose it, exactly the reverse in fact. Instead, I say it because [I]if[/I] you want to go about this, you'll want to set down rules in advance for how potent and/or far-reaching these features are permitted to be. If we're using the Hexblade/Blade Pact interaction, this is something that can be build-defining, but which isn't [I]necessarily[/I] a huge power boost. That is, the difference between a longsword and a greatsword is 1d8+CHA vs. 2d6+CHA, a difference of only 2.5 average damage. The trickier part is going to be making sure that the things you introduce are reasonable, but not weak. [/QUOTE]

Verification