Fixing BladeLocks via Balancing

[CaptainSarathai]

So. There's a lot of discussion about how filthily bad a BladeLock is, compared to just standing back and slinging away Eldritch Blast all day. Having tooled around with optimizing both builds, I think that there are some things which simply need to be addressed, however, these things are not inherent issues with the BladeLock; they're balance issues with the BlastLock.

First, stop kidding yourself. A properly-built, optimized, single class BladeLock looks a certain way. People talk about a lack of hitpoints, and lack of AC.
A BladeLock is not a 'Gish' - a BladeLock is a BladeLock. It fights like a Rogue. You do not hear these complaints about Rogues. If you want to stand up front like a tank/bruiser, you do not play a Warlock or a Rogue. You have flexibility and other roles that the Fighters and Paladins in the party can't fill. Don't try to do your job, plus their job and then complain that you don't do either very well.


Skills: Dex > Con > Cha
Patron: Fiend
Pact: Blade (duh)

Cantrips: Booming Blade and/or Green Flame Blade, Eldritch Blast, non-SCAG Locks take Blade Ward or True Strike in place of SCAG stuff

Spells: Hex, Armor of Agathys

Invocations: Armor of Shadows, and Fiendish Vigor or Devil's Sight, Thirsting Blade at 5th

Feat at 4th: Warcaster (with SCAG) or Resilient:Con

You want to get Charisma to 20, but it's a secondary concern until Lv12. If Eldritch Blast is not your primary means of dealing damage, then don't sink resources into it. Still take it - it's the best ranged option you've got, but don't treat it like you're relying on it unless you actually plan to.
Dex is most important, as it's your AC and Attack/Damage stat. For someone without a shield, AC16 at L2 with a point-buy 16 in Dex and Armor of Shadows is not bad. You can reach a max of 18 here, without the disadvantages of Medium/Heavy Armor. Only a DragSorc can do that with a single stat focus and not use slots.
Con is next most important, for maintaining your spells when getting smacked around, and giving you HP. People say that Locks have too few HP. Lies. On average, the difference between D8 and D10 is 1HP/level - good enough for Fighters, yeah? Fiend gives TempHP, Armor of Agathys is HP and Damage, and Fiendish Vigor is also TempHP as needed - more access to TempHP than anyone else

So where are we going wrong? Why is it better to hang back and just blast? Even (and especially) factoring in Multiclassing, BlastLock just seems better. Why? What needs rebalanced??


Doesnt Hex seem a bit ridiculous, to you? Compare it to Hunter's Mark, the next closest spell in the game:
HM only works on weapon attacks, and does not grant Disadvantage to Checks. It just makes it easier to find the target if you... don't kill it with extra damage attacks?
Otherwise, they're identical spells. Hex clearly has the upper hand.
People have already discussed only applying the bonus Hex damage to a single beam from EB. That fixes it. Simply saying that it triggers
when you cast a Spell, or make a Weapon Attack, increase the damage by +d6
Now, casting 1 spell (Eldritch Blast) deals 1d6 extra damage, but making 2 weapon attacks deals +2d6.
Alternatively, since the Disadvantage effect is so powerful, you could simply rule that Hex deals it's damage on the first hit per turn. Then, it will only ever do +d6 damage.


The most powerful thing about Eldritch Blast is what happens when you Multiclass with it. 2 levels of Warlock gives you the best ranged attack in the game, on par with a Fighter, for any class who has the Cha score to hit with it.
This is also true of various other Cantrips. Scaling by Character Level is just stupid. The scaling is meant to keep at-will Cantrips, on par with at-will Attacks, but if a Fighter doesn't take 17 levels of Fighter - he doesn't get 4 attacks. Why should a Warlock2 build with Eldritch Blast?
Scale it by Class Level. If you are Warlock5, cool, you get 2 shots with EB. If not, then you get 1 shot. Too bad.
If you get the cantrip from elsewhere, like Magic Initiate or Elf Magic, and it's not tied to a Class, then you never benefit from "up casting it" - exactly like a Level1 spell from MI


Only works on weapons. At my table, this extended to only work on Crossbows, but YMMV. It's just silly to take Touch-range spells and render them totally worthless in favor of just point-blank someone with Eldritch Blast or similar. Nope - give those suckers the Disadvantage they were written for


It just makes sense. This does nothing for single-class Warlocks, as they aren't proficient in Shields or Martial Weapons - OffHand fighting is nearly worthless to them.
It does, however, provide a great deal of help to MultiClass BladeLocks. Enough to offset MetaMagic Quicken EBs? Maybe, actually. Now a BladeLock who's gone Fighter can wear Heavy Armor and carry a sword&shield or a great weapon and not have to worry about components and/or Warcaster. If an Eldritch Knight can do it...


Allow BladeLocks to summon 2 weapons with the 'Light' property, as opposed to a single weapon. This is mainly to offset the fact that a BladeLock's prime ability: Life Drinker, only applies to a weapon rather than to attacks, making it almost mandatory for optimized Bladelocks to attempt to get the PAM feat into their build - which are traditionally Strength-Only weapons.
If this feels "too good," then give them the option to take this ability as an Invocation similar to Thirsting Blade.


Currently, there are 3 invocations which specifically reference use of Eldritch Blast. There is the 1 Tome Pact, and 2 each for Chains and Blade. To help balance out the opportunity to run melee-oriented Warlocks, I suggest:

Eldritch Weapon
prerequisite: 5th level
You learn the Shillelagh cantrip. It does not count towards your number of Warlock Cantrips, and uses Charisma as the spellcasting ability.
(Alternatively, just add Shillelagh to the Warlock Spell List)

Baleful Gaze
prerequisite: Pact of the Blade
When a creature within 5ft of you targets you with an attack, you may use your Reaction to impose Disadvantage on all attacks made against you by the attacker, until the start of your next turn. You may do this a number of times per Short or Long Rest, equal to your Charisma modifier (minimum 1).
(Basically the Shield spell, but granted more times since Warlocks lack enough spell-slots to cast it frequently. Increased usage is offset by being a single-target effect)

In my opinion, these changes, taken in whole or in part, would go a long way towards making the BladeLock a viable choice for the class, without relying on Multiclassing.

[Spiritchaser]

I'd caution against anything that reduces the overall effectiveness of the blastlock. I have a blastlock running side by side with a wizard, which is common im sure. Since the two players of thinking of are related and... Competative... and given what a wizard can do, a blastlock needs the power that comes from hex, eldrich blast and agonizing blast.

Do they need it as early as they get it?

I don't think they necessarily do, but they need the power.

I'm in the process of letting Bladelocks use charisma as their attack stat (similar to shileighly... However you spell that) and I'm adding an invocation for armor... Not sure if it'll work for MC, probably not but so far it's ok for Single class and it lets a bladelock be the strong bladelock they want to be without dipping fighter first, which is all kinds of wrong to my mind

[CaptainSarathai]

Hmm... so, maybe make Agonizing Blast something that unlocks at a higher level?
I have a Wizard alongside my Warlock right now, and presently I'm at L4. If I throw Agonizing EBs, I feel like I'm doing more damage than she is with anything except breaking out spell-slots. And that's where the Warlock gets it's strength; Nova damage? Nope. Just solid damage, all day long.

[Jjj111]

I don't think bladelocks need fixed. They're super versatile. Read this: https://amp.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/32n767/why_would_i_take_pact_of_the_blade_as_a_warlock/cqctb8y

[odigity]

I don't think bladelocks need fixed. They're super versatile. Read this: https://amp.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/32n767/why_would_i_take_pact_of_the_blade_as_a_warlock/cqctb8y

The first comment seems to be the longest / most-detailed. Let's analyze it:


Take it from me, kid, Blade-locks are fantastic swiss-army knives. Blade-locks aren't about front-loading damage or being the tankiest son-of-a-bitch around; we are all about being second best at everything. ('Cept healing, o' course, but why bother? Lick your wounds when the enemies lie at your feet. You know, like a man does.)

Sure, I can Eldritch Blast all day long till the cows come home. Do you know how boring that **** is? How... unsportsmanlike? If you don't think so, then let the glory of the Blade-pact pass you by- it wasn't meant for you anyway.

I agree, repetitive is boring, and boring is bad.


Me, on the other hand, I've got everything I need. Don't get me wrong, Eldritch Blast has its place in my repertoire. Just blast incoming enemies to soften them up a bit for my allies and I. I prefer Repelling Blast over Agonizing Blast, though- sometimes its just more useful to knock some goblins around, y'know? Hordes o' the buggers swarming your wizard? Repel the little gremlins off 'im, give 'im some room to maneuver. Fighter overextended into their ranks (again, the overconfident prick)? Knock a few of them out of the way to give her a path out o' there. Way more useful then tacking on a little extra pain.

Goblins have 7hp. An average EB beam does 5.5hp, almost enough to kill them. Why in the world would you want to reduce a goblin to 1.5hp and push them back 10' rather than just kill them? This whole paragraph was stupid.


That's where my trusty maul comes in! Bringing pain in dependable damage averages. Trustworthy like a good dog, hits like a strong ox.

Wait a minute - trusty, dependable, and "averages" are all synonyms for boring. I thought the point of Bladelock was to be not-boring?


But should the situation ever call for a different tack, just reform that funny li'l shadowstuff into whatever weapon I need! Resistant to bludgeoning damage? Now I've got a greatsword! Resistant to slashing damage? Spear it is! Whatever I need, whenever I need it.

So your big trick is being able to switch to another of the three mundane damage types? Even though most monsters are either resistant to all or none? And even though the real martials can just, you know, carry a second weapon?


Speaking of needs, you know what I don't need? A spellbook, like that nancy-pants wizard who is useless without it. Or prayers to some hoity-toity, self-involved know-it-all "god" to give me what he/she/it deems me worthy of. I signed a piece of parchment in blood, and from that moment on everything I get I earn. I make a mistake? Act out against my beliefs in a moment of moral quandry? You think an archfiend gives a ****? My power isn't dependent on other people or things. That's called self-sufficiency. You'd be good to learn it!

Maybe if you had a spellbook or deity you could acquire some real power.


Oh? What "powers" do I have, you ask? I am given strength for every foe that falls before me. I can see in darkness no one else can. I encase myself in armor so cold, it bites back. I can leap like a cricket on a spring wind, whenever the need suits me. I can "step" 30ft through a puff of smoke in an instant. I can do just about anything I need to, whenever it is needed. And I can restore my power every few hours, rather than once per day.

Yes, Warlock is a fun grab-bag of tricks for other classes to dip into. We all knew that already.


Why should you take a Blade-Pact, y'ask? You take a Blade Pact to be the humble bad-ass of your party. The guy that does most of the grunt work, for none of the credit, because you can do it and it needs doing. You won't do the most damage, you can't take the most damage, and you won't know the most spells. But you, and you alone can cover every single gap in your measly team.

You aren't the back-up. You're the cavalry. You aren't the squeamish holy-man. You're the devil incarnate. You aren't the bookish old man. You're the spell-slinging, hammer-toting warrior.

You are the WARLOCK.

This is extremely generic rhetoric that can apply to most support classes, and in this case seems like an excuse for not being great at anything. (At least the Bard is truly great at being a support class...)

PS-I have no personal experience with Bladelocks, and thus don't really have an actual informed opinion of how they play, or how they compare to other classes. However, I like my analysis intelligent, concise, concrete, and to the point. That reddit comment sucked my chocolate salty balls.

[Jjj111]

I thought the point of Bladelock was to be not-boring?

Did I miss where wizards said that was the point? I think the point was to give warlocks a melee option. A warlock, by nature, is a caster. Do you expect the damage output to be similar to martial classes?

There are more and less powerful subclasses for each class. I think pact of the tome is the strongest pact from a min max perspective.
Pact of the chain gets a cool familiar but I would rate it inferior to bladelocks due to requiring the attack action of the warlock. We see the same thing in other classes. Thief vs swashbuckler or land Druid vs moon Druid. People pick subclasses based on what they enjoy playing. It would be nigh impossible and, honestly uninteresting, to have all classes and their subclasses be the exact same strength.

[Gastronomie]

I've been using Fighter 1 / Bladelock X STR GWM builds for some time. Speaking from personal experience, I can say for sure that they work just as well as pure Fighters in terms of being tanky frontline warriors. It is disappointing how they have little room for originality (almost all good STR Bladelock builds are identical), but built right they're good at both of their jobs, and they make good gishes. This isn't any logic or theorycrafting - it's something I now accept as a fact, because it just was that good when I used it.

This page (http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/49851/optimal-dragonborn-warlock-for-dpr-ac-with-blade-pact-and-fiend-patron/50327#50327) has some insight on 1/X Bladelocks, though I prefer using Variant Human over Dragonborn, and this page says nothing about Fiendish Vigor.

(If the point is to make pure Bladelocks good, I suspect it'd be difficult... too much can make Fighter 1 builds too good.)

I don't like the idea of weakening Blastlocks (Hex) to make Bladelocks stronger in comparison in the first place. It's not like Blastlocks are broken either. It's true that Eldritch Blast (and all the cantrips) should scale by class level though, and yeah, there should have been an invocation that allows you to summon two Pact Weapons.

[odigity]

The first comment seems to be the longest / most-detailed. Let's analyze it:
...
I thought the point of Bladelock was to be not-boring?


Did I miss where wizards said that was the point? I think the point was to give warlocks a melee option.

You are very confused. I was responding to a comment from the reddit thread *you* linked to, not responding to Wizards of the Coast. And my comment was specifically a reference to a claim made by the author of the comment I was responding to.

I don't know why you're getting upset.

[Specter]

I'm sure you don't want this comment after all this hard work, but isn't it easier to fix Agonizing Blast (half cha to damage, taking it at later levels, etc.) rather than the bladelock?

[Gastronomie]

I'm sure you don't want this comment after all this hard work, but isn't it easier to fix Agonizing Blast (half cha to damage, taking it at later levels, etc.) rather than the bladelock?I don't get it, why does everyone want to nerf Blastlocks? Why? It's not like they're the most broken class or anything.

And Sorcerer X / Warlock 2 is overrated IMO. (Even if it was strong, you can just alter all the damaging cantrips to say "scales by class level" and it's fine.)

[Spiritchaser]

I'd argue that the Warlock HAS to do more than the wizard... Because of the wizard's great versitility.

[DivisibleByZero]

I'm confused.
I thought ask the discussion about how "filthily bad" the bladelock is all ended a year or two ago when all of the theorycrafters who were calling them trash finally tried them out and found out how wrong they were.
At least, that's what it seemed like.
And I understood it.

This thread confuses me. No one says that any longer, so the opening line is false and the thread has no point.

[odigity]

I'm confused.
I thought ask the discussion about how "filthily bad" the bladelock is all ended a year or two ago when all of the theorycrafters who were calling them trash finally tried them out and found out how wrong they were.
At least, that's what it seemed like.
And I understood it.

This thread confuses me. No one says that any longer, so the opening line is false and the thread has no point.

I have no well-formed personal opinion on the matter, but it seems like CaptainSarathai put a lot of effort into producing a well-written, well-organized post full of specific critiques and suggestions.

You find nothing in there worth considering, discussing, or refuting?

[Specter]

I don't get it, why does everyone want to nerf Blastlocks? Why? It's not like they're the most broken class or anything.

And Sorcerer X / Warlock 2 is overrated IMO. (Even if it was strong, you can just alter all the damaging cantrips to say "scales by class level" and it's fine.)

It's not about the class in itself, because single-classed Warlocks don't break games. It's that any CHA-based character with 2 Warlock levels will deal better ranged damage than... you know, most things. Yes, that includes Fighters and Rangers and Wizards.

If anything needs to change, it's the easiest parts to big damage, not the opposite. A bladelock takes 12 levels to add CHA to damage, why should ANY OTHER WARLOCK be different?

[Gastronomie]

It's not about the class in itself, because single-classed Warlocks don't break games. It's that any CHA-based character with 2 Warlock levels will deal better ranged damage than... you know, most things. Yes, that includes Fighters and Rangers and Wizards.

If anything needs to change, it's the easiest parts to big damage, not the opposite. A bladelock takes 12 levels to add CHA to damage, why should ANY OTHER WARLOCK be different?I still don't think Sorclocks and Bardlocks are really powerful enough to break the game. They lack behind 2 levels in main caster progression, and that's not a price you can ignore.

Also, why did you include Wizards in the list of things a Warlock 2 dip surpasses in DPR? Wizards have terrible DPR from the start, and rightfully so. If they had good DPR they'd be absolutely broken.

Fighters also have Sharpshooter, so I think their DPR is higher.

If there's anything bad about 2/X CHA casters it's that some people don't put heavy thought into character lore on how he made the pact, but that's a player problem, not a system problem. The Stormwind Fallacy is a fallacy after all.

[Strill]

A BladeLock is not a 'Gish' - a BladeLock is a BladeLock. It fights like a Rogue. You do not hear these complaints about Rogues. If you want to stand up front like a tank/bruiser, you do not play a Warlock or a Rogue. You have flexibility and other roles that the Fighters and Paladins in the party can't fill. Don't try to do your job, plus their job and then complain that you don't do either very well.What in the world are you talking about? A Rogue gets Cunning Action, Evasion, and Uncanny Dodge as their defensive options. What does a Bladelock get for defense that would be in any way similar to those?

[Lollerabe]

Divisible I think one of OPs complaints is how necessary a 1 lvl fighter dip is for bladelocks - which is true, they shouldn't have to dip to run smooth.

[Jjj111]

Divisible I think one of OPs complaints is how necessary a 1 lvl fighter dip is for bladelocks - which is true, they shouldn't have to dip to run smooth.

In order to play a casting class as a melee class requires a multi class dip to be super effective? I don't see the problem here.

[Lollerabe]

Mja I see your point, I just think they could have made armor prof available through invocations at least.

[Kryx]

Divisible I think one of OPs complaints is how necessary a 1 lvl fighter dip is for bladelocks - which is true, they shouldn't have to dip to run smooth.
This can be solved by giving the bladelock medium armor at 3rd level.
Additionally the bladelock is fine on DPR, but has to invest everything to get that DPR. I suggest giving Extra attack at 5th and lifedrinker for free at 8th level.

OP comments:
Regarding hex, cantrips, and crossbow expert: Blastlocks are well within the expected DPR. It's a bit unfortunate that they're so one dimensional, but making them less powerful just makes the class an awful choice - it doesn't help diversify the class. Crossbow expert could go without much problem. Scaling cantrips by class level to prevent the dipping seems a bit extreme. I'd instead either require 4th level for agonizing blast or talk to your players to not just dip out of the weak classes (Warlock, Sorc).
I would definitely not remove Hex. I would actually suggest making hex cast once per short rest without expending a spell slot as a class feature as warlocks can be incredibly limited with their spell slots - a bit too much and this helps solve that.

Pact Weapon as Arcane focus: 100% yes.

Paired Weapons: TWF is already quite good for a bladelock once you fix TWF on its own. In my houserules for example a bladelock does 95% of fighter GWM DPR. I wouldn't recommend boosting TWF for bladelocks. (math (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=2025852255))

[Lollerabe]

Seems legit, I mean the fighter 1 / fiend blade 6 at my table is doing work, and he's a giant noob who has no clue as to action economy and spell usage.
But if he hadn't had that fighter level? Nah, at the very least he would have had to go Mdwarf (thus foregoing the sweet lvl 1 PAM) spread out his stats thinner and rely more heavily on porcupine strats with AoA and hellish rebuke chewing through his spell slots.

[DivisibleByZero]

I have no well-formed personal opinion on the matter, but it seems like CaptainSarathai put a lot of effort into producing a well-written, well-organized post full of specific critiques and suggestions.

You find nothing in there worth considering, discussing, or refuting?

I find the opening statement to be misleading, exaggerated, and arguably just plain false.
I find the actual suggestions to be unnecessary.

Warlock is a 9th level caster. One of his features, if chosen, offers a viable melee option when single classed that gets more than viable with a martial dip.
There is nothing to fix because it isn't broken in the first place.

[Spiritchaser]

My problem with the whole viable melee option is that the existing ranged option is generally superior given similar investment.

Also a melee fighter needs to have the mobility tools to be hit and run, or have the durability to stand on the front line, or have such potent melee damage/melee debuffs that its worth the risk or the extra party support to be there. Bladelocks really need a fighter dip to get there.

My problem with "just dip fighter"? Why do I have to explain to a new player, or heck, even an experienced one that yes, they can be a bladelock, but the rules won't let them be what they want to be efficiently without starting as something else.

There is nothing wrong with a full caster being an effective melee fighter, and do their damage up close instead of at range, provided they don't eclipse anyone. If fighters don't do enough damage without GWM to compete (Edit: and by compete, I mean be similar all round contributors to optimized blast/bladelocks), then perhaps the discussion should lie there.

In terms of "nerfing" blastlock? I wouldn't, much... maybe I'd break agonizing blast into 2 invocations, the first allows 1 application per round, the second is only available at higher level, and allows unlimited applications per round. This makes the Warlock 2/Warlock 3 dip less of an issue, and makes a bladelock less likely to be fully proficient.

[Kryx]

My problem with the whole viable melee option is that the existing ranged option is generally superior given similar investment.
This is the core of the issue. One option is not as effective as another. Some would be fine with that, others aren't. Sure, bladelock can survive, but it isn't competitive with blastlock by RAW. And by "not competitive" I mean the amount of investment to get a bladelock to be competitive is far greater than that for melee.

People shouldn't be admonished for wanting more viable character options.

[DivisibleByZero]

This is the core of the issue. One option is not as effective as another. Some would be fine with that, others aren't. Sure, bladelock can survive, but it isn't competitive with blastlock by RAW. And by "not competitive" I mean the amount of investment to get a bladelock to be competitive is far greater than that for melee.

People shouldn't be admonished for wanting more viable character options.

I wasn't admonishing, I was sharing my opinion.
As far as one option being more effective, I once again disagree.
Not only is a bladelock just as effective as a blastlock by the numbers through 16 levels (and only *slightly* less so after that from 17 on), but he is also a blastlock himself as well.

[Kryx]

Not only is a bladelock just as effective as a blastlock by the numbers through 16 levels (and only *slightly* less so after that from 17 on)
Perhaps you missed what I wrote above. I agree that a bladelock can be as viable if he dips 1 fighter, spends his spells on things like Armor of Agathys, investes all ASIs into str/dex cha and 1 martial feat, and takes multiple invocations to compete.
Whereas a blastlock only invests in cha and 1 invocation. Therein lies the problem.


he is also a blastlock himself as well.
Comparing viability between 2 options does not mean "you can select that other option". Cmon...

[Spiritchaser]

Let's be clear: I don't think anyone here is suggesting more direct damage (please sing out of I'm wrong)

Just that accessing similar damage should require similar investment.

This means considering the feat/ASI/invocation/MC demands of both paths

Blastlock is probably too low, bladelock is certainly too high.

[Gastronomie]

I'm being extremely tempted to create a thread about whether Warlock 2 is a really bad thing for the game, because I strictly believe it's not based on personal experience, but I also have the bad feeling it will become one of those 50-page-long argument threads that I really don't like reading, so I'm not going to.


I wasn't admonishing, I was sharing my opinion.
As far as one option being more effective, I once again disagree.
Not only is a bladelock just as effective as a blastlock by the numbers through 16 levels (and only *slightly* less so after that from 17 on), but he is also a blastlock himself as well.Actually I think Bladelocks are best after getting their level 9 spells, since Foresight makes them wonderful.

[Kryx]

bladelock is certainly too high.
Thoughts on what I posted above?


This can be solved by giving the bladelock medium armor at 3rd level.
*snip* I suggest giving Extra attack at 5th and lifedrinker for free at 8th level.
Perhaps medium armor and Life Drinker for free and keep extra attack an invocation at which point both builds have an invocation cost (Agonizing Blast and Thirsting Blade).

[Lollerabe]

And heavy armor would still be through an ASI then? I like the changes but id still dip F1 myself for con saves and armor profs, defense fstyle doesn't hurt either

[Jjj111]

This is the core of the issue. One option is not as effective as another. Some would be fine with that, others aren't. Sure, bladelock can survive, but it isn't competitive with blastlock by RAW. And by "not competitive" I mean the amount of investment to get a bladelock to be competitive is far greater than that for melee.

People shouldn't be admonished for wanting more viable character options.

That's the thing, it's not "not viable" just because it can't do as much damage per round as a blastlock.

You're taking a character that's a caster with a low hit die, and you don't expect to have to invest a little more strategy/tweaking for it to "be competitive" with other melee options?


My problem with the whole viable melee option is that the existing ranged option is generally superior given similar investment.

Also a melee fighter needs to have the mobility tools to be hit and run, or have the durability to stand on the front line, or have such potent melee damage/melee debuffs that its worth the risk or the extra party support to be there. Bladelocks really need a fighter dip to get there.

My problem with "just dip fighter"? Why do I have to explain to a new player, or heck, even an experienced one that yes, they can be a bladelock, but the rules won't let them be what they want to be efficiently without starting as something else.



But how is it not efficient? Because you're not doing as much damage as blasting? That's what the class is. The pact of the blade just allows for the opportunity to fight in melee. It's a conscious choice by the player to do so. Players make interesting decisions in combat all the time that don't equate to the maximum damage output. It's fun and interesting to do so. And if the warlock is without a focus or component pouch, he can't still someone a weapon and fight. He's always strapped with his weapon.

I honestly think this all just boils down to people wanting every option to be as good as the next. That's just not possible. Especially when playing a gish. A truly epic gish is going to outshine everyone. If you make a pact of the blade even better in melee combat, he would not only be great in melee, but also do some of the most consistent at-will blasting and still be up-casting all of his spells to the highest slot he has.

[DivisibleByZero]

I really should just put this in my sig.


Found it. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?416058-Interesting-Bladelock-Idea/page4&p=19293947#post19293947)


Bladelocks are nowhere near as terrible as you make them out to be. As a matter of fact, it is hands down the strongest Pact choice, by a wide margin.


Chainlocks have a fantastic familiar. This can be useful for scouting, and RP, and all sorts of different out of combat situations.
Familiars in combat are going to be extremely DM dependent. I have heard many people claim that an invisible familiar can Help an ally to grant advantage on attack rolls, by saying mean things and poking enemies in the butt (that's a quote, not me being obtuse). If your DM would allow this, then go for it, but don't count on it. If your DM doesn't allow invisible cretures slinging insults to grant advantage then your familiar is going to get killed if he's in melee range. Very quickly. And very frequently.
Pact of the Chain makes you a regular blaster warlock that has some extra out of combat utility due to an amazing familiar.

Tomelocks can have a couple extra cantrips and great ritual casting.
Their extra cantrips are basically useless in combat, because Eldritch Blast will almost undoubtedly be better. So their extra cantrip choices are useful for out of combat situations. They have amazing ritual casting, but rituals are not used in combat as they take too long, so those are also useful for out of combat situations.
So Pact of the Tome makes you a regular blaster warlock that has some extra out of combat utility in the form of extra cantrips and lots of rituals.

While the other two Pacts focus more on out of combat utility via various means, the Bladelock is a bit different. The Bladelock focuses on adding more combat options, by granting proficiency in any melee weapon you want when you manifest your pact blade, and offering ways to improve your melee aptitude.
So Pact of the Blade makes you a regular blaster warlock that has a viable melee option in combat, which is something that you cannot get from another Pact.

Tthe Ritual Caster feat gives both wizard rituals (a big part of the Tomelock's schtick) and a familiar (a big part of the Chainlock's schtick). So if he wants to, with a single feat a Bladelock can gain a large portion of the other two Pacts' benefits while retaining his own. So not only does a Bladelock have something that the other Pacts cannot get in the form of reliable and competitive melee damage, but he can also get a large portion of their tricks as well.

So for a combat oriented warlock, there is really only one option, and that option is Pact of the Blade.


I have heard many people complain that Bladelocks require more invocations than other types of warlocks. This is simply untrue.

If you choose Pact of the Tome, you are useless without taking Book of Ancient Secrets (available at level three).
That's an invocation tax.

If you choose Pact of the Chain, but do not take Voice of the Chain Master (available at level three), you would literally be better off using Pact of the Tome or the Ritual Caster feat to get your familiar. Not only that, but Chains of Carceri (available at level 15) is free, slotless CC against many outsiders, and you'd be a fool not to take it unless you know for certain that these enemies will not be prevalent in the campaign.
That's two invocation taxes.

If you choose Pact of the Blade, you will take Thirsting Blade (available at level five) and Lifedrinker (available at level 12) to keep your melee damage up to par.
That's two invocation taxes.

So the Chainlock and the Bladelock each have two invocation taxes, while the Tomelock has one.
Not much difference there at all.

Every single warlock that wants to focus on dealing damage will take Agonizing Blast. There's one invocation spoken for right away, for every warlock, no matter your Pact choice, likely right at level two. People like to claim that Bladelocks won't have the same EB that another warlock has, but let me ask you, what are you spending your invocations on prior to level five? Agonizing Blast is one of them.
Every single warlock that wants to offer a little at-will CC will take Repelling Blast. Tomelocks and Chainlocks will likely take this to keep enemies away, while the Bladelock may not because he doesn't mind being in melee.

This means we probably have three invocations spoken for already for the Tomelock: Book of Ancient Secrets, Agonizing Blast, and Repelling Blast.
This means we probably have four invocations spoken for already for the Chainlock: Voice of the Chain Master, Chains of Carceri, Agonizing Blast, and Repelling Blast.
This means we probably have three invocations spoken for already for the Bladelock: Thirsting Blade, Lifedrinker, and Agonizing Blast. Without Repelling, he has three invocation taxes, just like the Tomelock. If he wants, he can take Repelling, bringing the total to four just like the probable Chainlock build.

So tell me, why does everyone think that Bladelocks have some harsh invocation tax? They have no more of an invocation tax than any other warlock has. Saying that they do is simply untrue.


As I have already shown, Bladelocks will have just as good of an EB as any other warlock. They don't suddenly lose the ability to choose EB as a cantrip and its accompanying invocations by taking this Pact, although that's what some people would have you believe.
They may take a little bit longer to get their Charisma to max 20, but that's almost a non-issue in actual play. In actual play, a + or - 1 for a few levels isn't going to ruin your character like some would have you believe.

So let's look at some comparisons, shall we?
We'll make the Chainlock and Tomelock (hereafter named Blastlocks) start with a 16 Cha, raising it at levels 4 and 8, to 18 and 20 respectively.
The Bladelock will begin with a 16 in both Dex and Cha, raising Dex at levels 4 and 12, and Cha at levels 8 and 16. This will leave the Bladelock with a Cha score two points lower than the Blastlock's for a couple of levels here and there.
Zero feats, zero fighting styles, zero house rules, just straight up comparisons that literally any warlock in any game can reasonably expect.
We'll assign +1 weapons at levels 3 and 8 (I was going to do 3 and 6, but that left only the Bladelock at that level, so I postponed it for ease of use), +2 weapons at levels 8 and 11, and +3 weapons at levels 13 and 16. Remember, you only need to find a single finesse weapon. The other weapon can literally be anything, as your Pact allows you to create the weapon in any form you choose.
Blastlocks have no way to increase their EB's damage (only attack and save DCs), so we'll just give them a magical rod to aid in attack rolls at levels 3, 8, and 13.
The levels chosen for the magic items (3, 8, 13 for main, and 8, 11, 16 for off hand) are a bit arbitrary, but seem reasonable.
I will not give the Bladelock a magic rod, so his EB will be at a lower attack bonus. Although swapping weapons was described by the designers as something that should simply be able to happen, which means any time he wanted to swap he should be able to without a problem. But I'll be nice and simply not give him one.

Level 1 Blastlock and Bladelock EB: hex, 16 CHA, +5 vs AC 15
5% crit chance for 2d10+2d6 damage = 0.85
55% normal chance for 1d10+1d6 damage = 4.95
Damage = 5.8

Level 1 Bladelock TWF: 2 reg sSwords, hex, 16 DEX, +5 vs AC 15
5% crit chance for 4d6+3 damage = 0.85
5% crit chance for 4d6 damage = 0.7
55% normal chance for 2d6+3 damage = 5.5
55% normal chance for 2d6 damage = 3.85
Damage = 10.9 / 6.35 without bonus action

TWF Bladelock is the clear winner at level 1, even without the use of his bonus action.

************************************************** ***************************

Level 2 Blastlock and Bladelock EB: hex, 16 CHA, +5 vs AC 15
5% crit chance for 2d10+2d6+3 damage = 1
55% normal chance for 1d10+1d6+3 damage = 6.6
Damage = 7.6

Bladelock TWF remains at 10.9 / 6.35 without bonus action

TWF Bladelock is still the clear winner with his bonus action, and is only 1 pt behind without it.

************************************************** ***************************

Level 3 Blastlock EB: +1 rod, hex, 16 CHA, +6 vs AC 15
5% crit chance for 2d10+2d6+3 damage = 1
60% normal chance for 1d10+1d6+3 damage = 7.2
Damage = 8.2

Level 3 Bladelock TWF: +1 pact sSword, reg sSword, hex, 16 DEX, +6 and +5 vs AC 15
5% crit chance for 4d6+4 damage = 0.9
5% crit chance for 4d6 damage = 0.7
60% normal chance for 2d6+4 damage = 6.6
55% normal chance for 2d6 damage = 3.85
Damage = 12.05 / 7.5 without bonus action

Bladelock EB remains at 7.6

TWF Bladelock is 4 pts ahead with his bonus action, and less than 1 pt behind without it.
Bladelock's EB is only 1 pt behind the Blastlock's.

************************************************** ***************************

Level 4 Blastlock EB: +1 rod, 18 CHA, +7 vs AC 15
5% crit chance for 2d10+2d6+4 damage = 1.05
65% normal chance for 1d10+1d6+4 damage = 8.45
Damage = 9.5

Level 4 Bladelock TWF: +1 pact sSword, reg sSword, hex, 18 DEX, +7 and +6 vs AC 15
5% crit chance for 4d6+5 damage = 0.95
5% crit chance for 4d6 damage = 0.7
65% normal chance for 2d6+5 damage = 7.8
60% normal chance for 2d6 damage = 4.2
Damage = 13.65 / 8.75 without bonus action

Bladelock EB remains at 7.6

TWF Bladelock is 4 pts ahead with his bonus action, and is only 1 pt behind without it.
Bladelock's EB is only 2 pts behind the Blastlock's.

************************************************** ***************************

Level 5 Blastlock EB: 2nd blast: +1 rod, hex, 18 CHA, +8 vs AC 16
5% crit chance for 2d10+2d6+4 damage = 1.05(*2) = 2.1
65% normal chance for 1d10+1d6+4 damage = 8.45(*2) = 16.9
Damage = 19

Level 5 Bladelock TWF: extra attack: +1 pact sSword, reg sSword, hex, 18 DEX, +8 and +7 vs AC 16
5% crit chance for 4d6+5 damage = 0.95(*2) = 1.9
5% crit chance for 4d6 damage = 0.7
65% normal chance for 2d6+5 damage = 7.2(*2) = 14.4
60% normal chance for 2d6 damage = 4.2
Damage = 21.2 / 16.3 without bonus action

Level 5 Bladelock EB: 2nd blast: hex, 16 CHA, +6 vs AC 16
5% crit chance for 2d10+2d6+3 damage = 1(*2) = 2
55% normal chance for 1d10+1d6+3 damage = 6.6(*2) = 13.2
Damage = 15.2

TWF Bladelock is 2 pts ahead with his bonus action, and is 3 pts behind without it.
Bladelock's EB is 4 pts behind the Blastlock's.

************************************************** ***************************

Level 8 Blastlock EB: +2 rod, hex, 20 CHA, +10 vs AC 16
5% crit chance for 2d10+2d6+5 damage = 1.1(2) = 2.2
75% normal chance for 1d10+1d6+5 damage = 10.5(*2) = 21
Damage = 23.2

Level 8 Bladelock TWF: +2 pact sSword, +1 sSword, hex, 18 DEX, +9 and +8 vs AC 16
5% crit chance for 4d6+6 damage = 1(*2) = 2
5% crit chance for 4d6+1 damage = 0.75
70% normal chance for 2d6+6 damage = 9.1(*2) = 18.2
65% normal chance for 2d6+1 damage = 5.2
Damage = 26.15 / 20.2 without bonus action

Level 8 Bladelock EB: hex, 18 CHA, +7 vs AC 16
5% crit chance for 2d10+2d6+4 damage = 1.05(*2) = 2.1
60% normal chance for 1d10+1d6+4 damage = 7.8(*2) = 15.6
Damage = 17.7

TWF Bladelock is 3 pts ahead with his bonus action, and is 3 pts behind without it.
Bladelock's EB is 3 pts behind the Blastlock's.

************************************************** ***************************

Level 11 Blastlock EB: 3rd blast, +2 rod, hex, 20 CHA, +11 vs AC 17
5% crit chance for 2d10+2d6+5 damage = 1.1(*3) = 3.3
75% normal chance for 1d10+1d6+5 damage = 10.5(*3) = 31.5
Damage = 34.8

Level 11 Bladelock TWF: +2 pact sSword, +2 sSword, hex, 18 DEX, +10 vs AC 17
5% crit chance for 4d6+6 damage = 1(*2) = 2
5% crit chance for 4d6+2 damage = 0.8
70% normal chance for 2d6+6 damage = 9.1(*2) = 18.2
70% normal chance for 2d6+2 damage = 6.3
Damage = 27.3 / 20.2 without bonus action

Level 11 Blastlock EB: 3rd blast, hex, 18 CHA, +8 vs AC 17
5% crit chance for 2d10+2d6+5 damage = 1.1(*3) = 3.3
60% normal chance for 1d10+1d6+5 damage = 8.4(*3) = 25.2
Damage = 28.5

Level 12 Bladelock TWF: +2 pact sSword, +2 sSword, hex, 20 DEX, 18 CHA, +11 vs AC 17
5% crit chance for 4d6+11 damage = 1.25(*2) = 2.5
5% crit chance for 4d6+2 damage = 0.8
75% normal chance for 2d6+11 damage = 13.5(*2) = 27
75% normal chance for 2d6+2 damage = 6.75
Damage = 37.05 / 29.5 without bonus action

At level 11 the Blastlock pulls ahead with his third blast, and at level 12 the Bladelock catches up again with Lifedrinker. I grouped all of these together.
TWF Bladelock is 2 pts ahead with his bonus action, and is 5 pts behind without it.
Bladelock's EB is 6 pts behind the Blastlock's.

************************************************** ***************************

Level 13 Blastlock EB: +3 rod, hex, 20 CHA, +13 vs AC 17
5% crit chance for 2d10+2d6+5 damage = 1.1(*3) = 3.3
85% normal chance for 1d10+1d6+5 damage = 11.9(*3) = 35.7
Damage = 39

Level 13 Bladelock TWF: +3 pact sSword, +2 sSword, hex, 20 DEX, 18 CHA, +13 and +12 vs AC 17
5% crit chance for 4d6+12 damage = 1.3(*2) = 2.6
5% crit chance for 4d6+2 damage = 0.8
85% normal chance for 2d6+12 damage = 16.15(*2) = 32.3
80% normal chance for 2d6+2 damage = 7.2
Damage = 42.9 / 34.9 without bonus action

Bladelock EB remains at 28.5

TWF Bladelock is 3 pts ahead with his bonus action, and is 4 pts behind without it.
Bladelock's EB is 10 pts behind the Blastlock's.

************************************************** ***************************

Level 16 Blastlock EB: +3 rod, hex, 20 CHA, +13 vs AC 18
5% crit chance for 2d10+2d6+5 damage = 1.1(*3) = 3.3
80% normal chance for 1d10+1d6+5 damage = 11.2(*3) = 33.6
Damage = 36.9

Level 16 Bladelock TWF: +3 pact sSword, +3 sSword, hex, 20 DEX, 20 CHA, +13 vs AC 18
5% crit chance for 4d6+13 damage = 1.35(*2) = 2.7
5% crit chance for 4d6+3 damage = 0.85
80% normal chance for 2d6+13 damage = 16(*2) = 32
80% normal chance for 2d6+3 damage = 8
Damage = 43.55 / 34.7 without bonus action

Level 16 Bladelock EB: hex, 20 CHA, +10 vs AC 18
5% crit chance for 2d10+2d6+5 damage = 1.1(*3) = 3.3
65% normal chance for 1d10+1d6+5 damage = 9.1(*3) = 27.3
Damage = 30.6

TWF Bladelock is 7 pts ahead with his bonus action, and is 2 pts behind without it.
Bladelock's EB is 7 pts behind the Blastlock's.

************************************************** ***************************

Level 17 Blastlock EB: 4th blast, +3 rod, hex, 20 CHA, +14 vs AC 19
5% crit chance for 2d10+2d6+5 damage = 1.1(*4) = 4.4
80% normal chance for 1d10+1d6+5 damage = 11.2(*4) = 44.8
Damage = 49.2

Bladelock TWF remains at 43.55 / 34.7 without bonus action

Level 17 Bladelock EB: 4th blast, hex, 20 CHA, +11 vs AC 19
5% crit chance for 2d10+2d6+5 damage = 1.1(*4) = 4.4
65% normal chance for 1d10+1d6+5 damage = 9.1(*4) = 36.4
Damage = 40.8

And at level 17 the TWF Bladelock finally falls behind, by 5 pts with his bonus action, and by a significant 14 pts behind without it.
Most campaigns don't even go this far, so it is very possible that you may never see a time when your Bladelock's melee damage falls behind that of a Blastlock's EB.
Bladelock's EB is 8 pts behind the Blastlock's.

As you can see, the Bladelock's melee damage stays competitive with, or better than, the Blastlock's EB all the way through level 16. At level 17, the Blastlock pulls ahead by about 5 points.
And this entire time, the Bladelock still has a good EB himself if he wants or needs it.
And remember, I didn't give the Bladelock a magic rod. If he also has one, like the Blastlock, his EB is slightly lower between levels 4-15 due to -1 to hit comparatively because of a slightly lower Cha during those levels. But that -1 to hit doesn't change things very much. Beyond that, at levels 1-3 and 16+ he would have an identical EB to the Blastlock if he also had a rod, and will only be a tiny bit behind (by a couple of points at most) during levels 4-15.

So, in summary:
No, Bladelocks do not have any crazy invocation tax.
No, Bladelocks do not suffer from damage issues.
What Bladelocks do is offer you a second combat option in melee, and that option is fully functional and viable.
The Bladelock can spend a feat to get many of the same goodies as warlocks with other Pacts, while getting something that the Other Pacts have no way to get in a melee option that rivals a Fighter through 19 levels of play.
Why some of you think this is an inferior Pact is beyond me. It is hands down the most powerful Pact available.

edit:
The fact that the SCAG cantrip are available to warlocks now means that any Warlock can have a viable melee option right out of the gate if he wants it. But it still isn't as good as a Bladelock's melee ability.

And that's with a single classed bladelock using what is widely considered to be the absolute worst way to fight in melee (Dex based TWF with zero styles or feats to accompany it).
Bladelock is not broken and does not need to be fixed.

[Jjj111]

I really should just put this in my sig.



And that's with a single classed bladelock using what is widely considered to be the absolute worst way to fight in melee (Dex based TWF with zero styles or feats to accompany it).
Bladelock is not broken and does not need to be fixed.

Ah! That's the second thread I was looking for. Thanks for digging this up!

[Kryx]

You've failed to cover the dip cost, the ASI cost, and have only addressed the Invocation cost. And the invocation cost is rather incorrect. The tome lock and chain lock both need 1 invocation for DPR. The Bladelock needs 2 plus a dip plus ASI.

Though as you've rightfully pointed out the chain and tome lock have far more versatility options in addition to their DPR which with 1 invocation is equal to the full investment of a bladelock.

[DivisibleByZero]

You've failed to cover the dip cost, the ASI cost, and have only addressed the Invocation cost. And the invocation cost is rather incorrect. The tome lock and chain lock both need 1 invocation for DPR. The Bladelock needs 2 plus a dip plus ASI.

What dip cost are you referring to? My example is single classed (and stated as such multiple times, I might add).
A dip is helpful, but as I have proven it is by no means mandatory.

ASI cost? Covered in the text.
Invocation cost? Covered in the text. But done in a realistic manner. Instead of just covering dpr cost I cover build cost, which is a much better way to compare the three.

[Socratov]

Just a question: what prevents your pact weapon from being an Arcane Focus?

If it's about the investment of gp into the focus, make it a ritualL you do a ritual that involves buying an AF which you grind to dust/burn/dissolve in X, during which you burn incense etc. to, as it were, 'consume' the AF. There: you bought it and through story stuff you made it your own.

Other options are a glove as AF, bracer, bracelet, arm band, necklace, tiara, what have you. Just make sure it's something you wear and cast spells through. Though I agree that a pact weapon should make sense as an AF: it's something you receive from your patron after all. Maybe it's so obvious that the devs didn't bother spelling it out.

As for nerfing. I'd hesitate nerfing anything. Unless it's actually broken, nerfing will not serve any purpose and only restrict play (which might kill the fun at the table, especially when already in play). Instead of nerfing, rather try buffing to bring them up to snuff. This pretty much guarantees a player's fun (unless he likes crippled and dependant characters, but then the problem wouldn't exit, right?), without killing someone else's.

As for the bladelock: what is needs is a decent way to stay alive that's inherent to the bladelock and not dependant on a specific patron.

-OR-

A way to either have the switch hitting power of a rogue/paladin (maybe at a resource cost), but not quite as great (locks are 9th lvl casters after all).

It's not like the bladelock needs a lot, mind you, but it could use some support. it's not even about the shillelagh effect: it's about being martial. I'd say that dual wielding pact weapons should be an option, as is summoning them like a pair.

How about the following:


Pact of the Blade
You can use your action to create any number of pact weapons in your empty hands. You can choose the forms that these melee weapons takes each time you create it (see chapter 5 for weapon options). You are proficient with it while you wield it. These weapons counts as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage. Your pact weapons disappear if it is more than 5 feet away from you for 1 minute or more. They also disappear if you use this feature again, if you dismiss the weapons (no action required), or if you die.
You can transform a magic weapon into your pact weapon by performing a special ritual while you hold the weapon. You perform the ritual over the course of 1 hour, which can be done during a short rest. You can then dismiss the weapon, shunting it into an extradimensional space, and it appears whenever you create your pact weapon thereafter. You can’t affect an artifact or a sentient weapon in this way. The weapon ceases being your pact weapon if you die, if you perform the 1-hour ritual on a different weapon, or if you use a 1-hour ritual to break your bond to it. The weapon appears at your feet if it is in the extradimensional space when the bond breaks. You can, along a magic pact weapon, summon another pact weapon as normal as long as you can hold it during the summoning.

this means that you can dual wield (or multi wield if you have more arms beyond the standard two), but you can only make one magic weapon into your pact weapon (to dissuade people from using shenanigans).

In addition there wil be a new invocation:



Invocation, pact of the blade feature, minimum 3rd lvl

Iron in Blood
When you select this invocation you can gain the benefits from one fighting style from the fighting style list available to the Fighter. At each long or short rest you can exchange the style for a different one.


This invocation makes sure you can use your weapon a little better then the next patsy caster to hold a sword.

But we're not done yet:



Invocation, pact of the blade feature, minimum 7th lvl

Memory of Steel
When you select this invocation you can gain the non ability increasing benefits from one of the following feats:
Pole arm Master
Great Weapon Master
Dual Wielding
[insert more martial feats]

The feat chosen may be exchanged for a different one at every long or short rest. The selection of this invocation bars the warlock from taking any feat on the list presented here. Any feats taken presented above are invalidated and the character cannot benefit from those feats.


This way the bladelock can really change things up and compete. The increased adaptability in fighting style and feats allows someone to be the switch hitter it deserves to be. There is a hefty tax: the path takes up 4(!) invocations (including extra attack and Lifedrinker) to really get off and really takes dedication but is also definitely worth it.

It also creates a niche: where another martial character might either get extra attacks or damage through other means and might specialise in a certain style of weapon, the bladelock can take whatever scrap is left behind and hit home with it.

[Spiritchaser]

I really should just put this in my sig.



And that's with a single classed bladelock using what is widely considered to be the absolute worst way to fight in melee (Dex based TWF with zero styles or feats to accompany it).
Bladelock is not broken and does not need to be fixed.

Thanks for this link, however, I think there are some considerations missing:

1. The invocation cost for a bladelock is to match damage with a blastlock. The I
Invocation cost for other pacts is for additional power that is not available to a bladelock

2. TWF requires a consideration of components and casting. With a strength lock this could be a staff, but with a sex build this requires either a spellblade type focus sword, which is in the hands of the DM (for what it's worth, I'd allow it, and based on some replies I've had about the topic on this forum, I'm not alone, but it's not RAW) or warcaster, or a habit of dropping swords...

3. Any damage comparison that presumes a magic weapon in the way this one does, must be categorized as situationally valid for only campaigns with +x weapons.

4. For similar survival between a blastlock and a bladelock, one needs, not equal durability... One needs greater durability. This could be mobility, health, damage avoidance... Whatever.

[DivisibleByZero]

Thanks for this link, however, I think there are some considerations missing:

You focused on minutiae and sailed right past the point.
An agonizing eldritch blast is widely agreed to be one of the best sources of at will damage in the game.
A simple single classed bladelock, with no special rules, no fighting styles, no feats, following fairly reasonable advances with items, and using the *worst* melee style, not only keeps up with that AgEB, but in some cases passes it through 16 levels of play.
And people that read some forum posts by some white room theorycrafting haters then drank the kool-aid and call them "filthily bad"

They are not bad.
They are not broken.
They do not need fixing.

Toss medium armor onto bladelock at level 3 if you want to, and call it a day.

[Kryx]

A simple single classed bladelock, with no special rules, no fighting styles, no feats, following fairly reasonable advances with items, and using the *worst* melee style, not only keeps up with that AgEB, but in some cases passes it through 16 levels of play.
You just continue to strawman the argument.... The discussion is about cost of features and durability, not damage potential.

We got it, you think it's balanced. My experience and cost of features required to fulfill the melee role disagrees. So instead of trying to force everyone to view the game as you do how about you let us discuss possible solutions for the problems that we are experiencing with the class option.
There are a good many posts that I don't quite agree with, but at a certain point you have to let people discuss.


---------------



You're taking a character that's a caster with a low hit die, and you don't expect to have to invest a little more strategy/tweaking for it to "be competitive" with other melee options?
I expect an option for a class to be a competitive choice. I shouldn't have to multiclass or fix the design of the class option f it can't be made competitive in and of its own merits.
Now, before I'm strawmanned once again: I expect the bladelock to be able to have a similar investment to reach the damage potential that EB so easily does.
Since a Bladelock is engaged in melee I also expect it to have mitigating options like every other melee class has (resistance, armor, uncanny dodge, bladesinging, etc etc etc). Armor of Agathys helps, but doesn't cover the whole bit and consumes a lot of resources.
I don't expect that the class must multiclass to effectively fulfill the role of a melee combatant.

The options I suggested above remove align the resource cost with EB and make it much more competitive, though it still probably falls short.

[odigity]

I really should just put this in my sig.

Or petition a Warlock guide author to include it.

[Socratov]

You focused on minutiae and sailed right past the point.
An agonizing eldritch blast is widely agreed to be one of the best sources of at will damage in the game.
A simple single classed bladelock, with no special rules, no fighting styles, no feats, following fairly reasonable advances with items, and using the *worst* melee style, not only keeps up with that AgEB, but in some cases passes it through 16 levels of play.
And people that read some forum posts by some white room theorycrafting haters then drank the kool-aid and call them "filthily bad"

They are not bad.
They are not broken.
They do not need fixing.

Toss medium armor onto bladelock at level 3 if you want to, and call it a day.
(bolding mine)

Oh come off it, they are not on par with 3,5's Truenamer and OA Samurai (though even the samurai can work when you're calling yourself SchneekyTheLost), however, that still does not make them a decent melee combatant. Their ability to survive (as is) is bad (and no, medium armor won't fix that, heavy armour and shield will give a decent chance though, especially considering the very low HP) as they have no reliable mobility like the rogue, nor a reliable way to mitigate damage beyond AoA (which costs a precious resource) or taking small bites out of damage (fiendish vigor, but takes a specific patron to work, and specific enemies).

And sure with the feats they can do things fighters etc. can do as well, but, that takes investment. Lots of investment. So either the class gets its melee deficiencies built into the class, or they get the opportunity to follow suit and diversify. For that they need some fixing. A class should be designed to work on itself and not be expected to work once you multiclass (the fighter 1 dip) , and then with exactly one patron. That is not a choice, that is a dead end.

[Jjj111]

You just continue to strawman the argument.... The discussion is about cost of features and durability, not damage potential.



You want to add a durability feature to an already strong class? That will make bladelock the only choice because you will be able to be one of the strongest blasters in the game AND now you get this added durability you're talking about.

The cost of features is obviously going to be high when you're taking a caster (which has a casting stat) and a low hit die. This makes you super MAD, making it ASI starved. But that's true for other gish-like options.



I expect an option for a class to be a competitive choice. I shouldn't have to multiclass or fix the design of the class option f it can't be made competitive in and of its own merits.
Now, before I'm strawmanned once again: I expect the bladelock to be able to have a similar investment to reach the damage potential that EB so easily does.
Since a Bladelock is engaged in melee I also expect it to have mitigating options like every other melee class has (resistance, armor, uncanny dodge, bladesinging, etc etc etc). Armor of Agathys helps, but doesn't cover the whole bit and consumes a lot of resources.
I don't expect that the class must multiclass to effectively fulfill the role of a melee combatant.

The options I suggested above remove align the resource cost with EB and make it much more competitive, though it still probably falls short.

Agonizing Eldritch Blasts are some of the most consistent damage in the game. It's one reasons why 2 level warlock dips are so strong. And you want bladelocks to have comparable damage to that? It would make warlocks the strongest class. They would be 9th level casters that have some of the best at will damage both at range and melee. For goodness sake, at least bladesingers are limited to when they're bladesinging.

It IS competitive. It doesn't need fixed. It's a fine subclass as-is.

[Kryx]

Agonizing Eldritch Blasts are some of the most consistent damage in the game. It's one reasons why 2 level warlock dips are so strong. And you want bladelocks to have comparable damage to that? It would make warlocks the strongest class. They would be 9th level casters that have some of the best at will damage both at range and melee. For goodness sake, at least bladesingers are limited to when they're bladesinging.
I am not suggesting that the current Bladelock damage should change. Once again, people stop strawmanning the argument.
Their current damage is A-Ok, they just need less investment and durability as pointed out by myself and Socratov.



It IS competitive. It doesn't need fixed. It's a fine subclass as-is.
In our opinion the bladelock is not fine. We fully understand your opinion and yet several of us disagree. Please let us discuss this without you imposing how we should view the game.



Their ability to survive (as is) is bad (and no, medium armor won't fix that, heavy armour and shield will give a decent chance though, especially considering the very low HP) as they have no reliable mobility like the rogue, nor a reliable way to mitigate damage beyond AoA (which costs a precious resource) or taking small bites out of damage (fiendish vigor, but takes a specific patron to work, and specific enemies).

And sure with the feats they can do things fighters etc. can do as well, but, that takes investment. Lots of investment. So either the class gets its melee deficiencies built into the class, or they get the opportunity to follow suit and diversify. For that they need some fixing. A class should be designed to work on itself and not be expected to work once you multiclass (the fighter 1 dip) , and then with exactly one patron. That is not a choice, that is a dead end.
Agreed! This is a really great critique of the class. Did you have any idea in mind to fix some of the problems?

[Socratov]

You want to add a durability feature to an already strong class? That will make bladelock the only choice because you will be able to be one of the strongest blasters in the game AND now you get this added durability you're talking about.

The cost of features is obviously going to be high when you're taking a caster (which has a casting stat) and a low hit die. This makes you super MAD, making it ASI starved. But that's true for other gish-like options.



Agonizing Eldritch Blasts are some of the most consistent damage in the game. It's one reasons why 2 level warlock dips are so strong. And you want bladelocks to have comparable damage to that? It would make warlocks the strongest class. They would be 9th level casters that have some of the best at will damage both at range and melee. For goodness sake, at least bladesingers are limited to when they're bladesinging.

It IS competitive. It doesn't need fixed. It's a fine subclass as-is.

Except that the subclass in question gives a trap option that becomes worthwile when you start your career in a different class. That is not a contemplative choice, it's a trap. It's a feature that requires you to branch out in a specific manner to be of service to you or risk cutting short your adventuring career.

[DivisibleByZero]

You just continue to strawman the argument.... The discussion is about cost of features and durability, not damage potential.
<snip>

I expect an option for a class to be a competitive choice. I shouldn't have to multiclass or fix the design of the class option f it can't be made competitive in and of its own merits.
Now, before I'm strawmanned once again: I expect the bladelock to be able to have a similar investment to reach the damage potential that EB so easily does.

You cannot compare Pact of the Blade (a character option) to Eldritch Blast (that every Warlock can choose).
You have to compare Blade to Chain and Tome.
You're trying to compare character resource cost for a virtual subclass on one hand against character resource cost for a common class feature on the other.
You can't do that and expect equal results.

That's why total Invocation taxes on the builds are the correct way to compare them, as I did in the post I linked.
It's apples to oranges your way.
If you want apples to apples, read my way again.

[Kryx]

Yup, this is my experience with all of our conversations. I do not care to discuss any topic with you based on those experiences.
I'm asking you kindly to stop imposing your view of the class and to let us discuss.

[DivisibleByZero]

Yup, this is my experience with all of our conversations. I do not care to discuss any topic with you based on those experiences.
I'm asking you kindly to stop imposing your view of the class and to let us discuss.

Fine.
Then discuss it.
Discuss how a bladelock also has AgEB. Discuss how a bladelock has a Pact choice.
Discuss how you are trying to compare your one feature (AgEB) against my two features (AgEB and Pact).
Discuss how you for some unknown reason think that comparing one feature against two features should have equivalent resource costs.

You cannot compare Pact to EB as a general feature that every Warlock gets. That's apples to oranges.
You have to compare Pact to Pact. That's apples to apples.
That's the only fair way to do it if resource costs are the topic at hand.

[MrStabby]

I have played a couple of bladelocks, one with other class dips and one without. Both were fine and viable and needed no changes.

Not that every post here has done it, but some seem to once again have fallen to the fallacy that higher damage means better options. Just because some scalar quantity is the easiest thing to compare doesn't mean it is the most appropriate. This is just intellectually lazy.

I also agree that comparing bladelocks to blastlocks is silly. Bladelocks can be blastlocks as well, just blastlocks who have the versatility to take a couple of rounds in melee where appropriate. If you treat them as primary casters with a couple more tricks, rather than combat being the sole focus of a build then they work out very well.

[Strill]

Warlock is a 9th level caster. One of his features, if chosen, offers a viable melee option when single classed that gets more than viable with a martial dip.
There is nothing to fix because it isn't broken in the first place.
The game is designed so that single-classed characters have everything they need to function in their particular niche. That's why all martial classes get weapon and armor proficiencies, and martial classes with lighter armor proficiencies get extra defensive options. Bladelocks, on the other hand, don't have those things. In order to function in melee they have to multiclass for armor proficiencies - a basic melee prerequisite. That contradicts the game's design goal that single-classed characters should have all the prerequisites for their niche without having to multiclass.

It's a matter of design consistency.


You're taking a character that's a caster with a low hit die, and you don't expect to have to invest a little more strategy/tweaking for it to "be competitive" with other melee options? No I don't. The game was designed to discourage multiclassing and eliminate the need for it. A class that requires "strategy/tweaking" to "be competitive" is a flawed class under 5e design.

[Jjj111]

I have played a couple of bladelocks, one with other class dips and one without. Both were fine and viable and needed no changes.

Not that every post here has done it, but some seem to once again have fallen to the fallacy that higher damage means better options. Just because some scalar quantity is the easiest thing to compare doesn't mean it is the most appropriate. This is just intellectually lazy.

I also agree that comparing bladelocks to blastlocks is silly. Bladelocks can be blastlocks as well, just blastlocks who have the versatility to take a couple of rounds in melee where appropriate. If you treat them as primary casters with a couple more tricks, rather than combat being the sole focus of a build then they work out very well.

Glad to have another informed opinion in here.

[Erys]

Not all blastlocks are bladelocks; but all bladelocks can be blastlocks.

[Spiritchaser]

Not all blastlocks are bladelocks; but all bladelocks can be blastlocks.

Without the tome or familiar, and short some invocations, yes.

[DivisibleByZero]

Without the tome or familiar, and short some invocations, yes.

The second post on this page. I suggest you read it again.

[tkuremento]

You focused on minutiae and sailed right past the point.
An agonizing eldritch blast is widely agreed to be one of the best sources of at will damage in the game.
A simple single classed bladelock, with no special rules, no fighting styles, no feats, following fairly reasonable advances with items, and using the *worst* melee style, not only keeps up with that AgEB, but in some cases passes it through 16 levels of play.
And people that read some forum posts by some white room theorycrafting haters then drank the kool-aid and call them "filthily bad"

They are not bad.
They are not broken.
They do not need fixing.

Toss medium armor onto bladelock at level 3 if you want to, and call it a day.


You just continue to strawman the argument.... The discussion is about cost of features and durability, not damage potential.

We got it, you think it's balanced. My experience and cost of features required to fulfill the melee role disagrees. So instead of trying to force everyone to view the game as you do how about you let us discuss possible solutions for the problems that we are experiencing with the class option.
There are a good many posts that I don't quite agree with, but at a certain point you have to let people discuss.


---------------



I expect an option for a class to be a competitive choice. I shouldn't have to multiclass or fix the design of the class option f it can't be made competitive in and of its own merits.
Now, before I'm strawmanned once again: I expect the bladelock to be able to have a similar investment to reach the damage potential that EB so easily does.
Since a Bladelock is engaged in melee I also expect it to have mitigating options like every other melee class has (resistance, armor, uncanny dodge, bladesinging, etc etc etc). Armor of Agathys helps, but doesn't cover the whole bit and consumes a lot of resources.
I don't expect that the class must multiclass to effectively fulfill the role of a melee combatant.

The options I suggested above remove align the resource cost with EB and make it much more competitive, though it still probably falls short.

I think what DivisibleByZero meant is that technically in the book, multiclassing and feats are OPTIONAL RULES and even if feats are allowed, multiclassing might not be and we have to consider all possible outcomes from all possible variables of what may and may not be allowed. As such a single-class Warlock with Blade Pact seems to be missing a bit for proper melee combat that dipping solves but probably shouldn't require dipping.

[Jjj111]

I think what DivisibleByZero meant is that technically in the book, multiclassing and feats are OPTIONAL RULES and even if feats are allowed, multiclassing might not be and we have to consider all possible outcomes from all possible variables of what may and may not be allowed. As such a single-class Warlock with Blade Pact seems to be missing a bit for proper melee combat that dipping solves but probably shouldn't require dipping.

No, DivisibleByZero thinks the opposite. And I agree with him. We think it's just fine. The bladelock is practically the same in damage as the tomelock and chain lock when blasting and still has an awesome added ability of being able to mix it up in melee when he wants. Sure, he isn't as durable as a raging barbarian, but he's a 9th level caster for goodness sake.

[Strill]

No, DivisibleByZero thinks the opposite. And I agree with him. We think it's just fine. The bladelock is practically the same in damage as the tomelock and chain lock when blasting and still has an awesome added ability of being able to mix it up in melee when he wants. Sure, he isn't as durable as a raging barbarian, but he's a 9th level caster for goodness sake.

You have to look at more than just combat strength. Bladelock is the melee caster with the worst defense, but the majority of the problems with the Bladelock are in regards to a lack of customization and utility, not lack of power.

The bladelock, if they want to melee, is obliged to spend at least 2 invocations to keep their damage up. A blastlock on the other hand requires only 1 invocation for damage. The bladelock, as their Pact, gets only a melee weapon and gets none of the powerful exploration and utility abilities that a tomelock or a chainlock would gain access to.

Therefore, I would say that regardless of how powerful you think the Bladelock is in combat, they should get at least one of those melee damage invocations for free, and should also get some other exclusive utility or exploration abilities as either invocation options or built into the pact. This would not affect their combat strength. It would just give them more ways to customize their character, and to be useful out of combat.

[DivisibleByZero]

See my post above regarding apples and oranges.

[Strill]

See my post above regarding apples and oranges.

I am comparing blade to chain and tome. Pact of the Blade Warlocks are bladelocks and require at least 2 invocations to keep their damage up. Pact of the Tome and Pact of the Chain Warlocks are blastlocks, and require at least 1 invocation to keep their damage up.

[MrStabby]

You have to look at more than just combat strength. Bladelock is the melee caster with the worst defense, but the majority of the problems with the Bladelock are in regards to a lack of customization and utility, not lack of power.


I think this is your problem. You think the bladelock is a melee character, rather than a caster who can pull out a sword if they get cornered. Having the tools to respond to unexpected circumstances when they arise doesn't mean the class should seek them out.

As to a lack of customisation - kind of agree slightly. The single melee pact weapon and the requirement it be used to get a second attack is an issue that can limit certain weapon combinations.

[DivisibleByZero]

I am comparing blade to chain and tome. Pact of the Blade Warlocks are bladelocks and require at least 2 invocations to keep their damage up. Pact of the Tome and Pact of the Chain Warlocks are blastlocks, and require at least 1 invocation to keep their damage up.

Is not about comparing to keep damage up. It's about comparing all invocations likely taken by the average build.
For Tome, that's 3. For Chain, that's 3 or 4. For Blade, that's 3 or 4.
They're as close to equal as it can possibly get, and yet people somehow seem to think that Bladelocks have some heinous invocation tax.
It simply isn't true.

[Strill]

I think this is your problem. You think the bladelock is a melee character, rather than a caster who can pull out a sword if they get cornered. Having the tools to respond to unexpected circumstances when they arise doesn't mean the class should seek them out.That sounds like an incredibly killjoy attitude to have.

Bladesinger: "I'm a champion of the elves whose sword rings out in song as I strike down my enemies."

War Cleric: "I am the chosen of Tyr. I am the first into the fray to smite the corrupt."

Bladelock: "I signed my soul to Abyzou and in return she gave me this sword of power...but I don't really use it that often. It's mostly for show since I generally try to keep away from the front lines. But if someone sneaks up on me boy they'll get what's coming to them let me tell you."

[Gastronomie]

That sounds like an incredibly killjoy attitude to have.

Bladesinger: "I'm one of the chosen elven warriors whose sword strikes ring out in song as I strike down my enemies."

War Cleric: "I am the chosen of Tyr. I am the first into the fray to smite the corrupt."

Bladelock: "I signed my soul to Abyzou and in return she gave me this sword of power...but I don't really use it that often. It's mostly for show since I generally try to keep away from the front lines. But if someone sneaks up on my boy they're in for a whallop let me tell you."I think the core Pact of the Blade and the related invocations are really badly designed for this reason. However, while badly designed, it's not weak in terms of power level IMO.

If there's to be a tweak, it should be done to fix the "bad design", not the "effectiveness of the class" itself.

[tkuremento]

Toss medium armor onto bladelock at level 3 if you want to, and call it a day.


No, DivisibleByZero thinks the opposite. And I agree with him. We think it's just fine. The bladelock is practically the same in damage as the tomelock and chain lock when blasting and still has an awesome added ability of being able to mix it up in melee when he wants. Sure, he isn't as durable as a raging barbarian, but he's a 9th level caster for goodness sake.

I was saying they need one other little thing, look at the last little bit DivisibleByZero said in that post. That is all I mean as well.

[DivisibleByZero]

I was saying they need one other little thing, look at the last little bit DivisibleByZero said in that post. That is all I mean as well.

I said "If you want"
I never said I thought it was needed.

[Spiritchaser]

The second post on this page. I suggest you read it again.

Perhaps I should reword my reply, I felt clear at the time, in context of what I'd just read, but probably it wasn't:

A bladelock functioning as a blastlock does have an invocation tax: they have the deadweight of the invocations they need to be a bladelock, which are not functioning for them as a blastlock

A bladelock that chooses strength does have a more significant tax, but that doesn't seem to be the primary example on this part of the thread.

A bladelock does function without the benefits of the other pacts.

So yes, a bladelock can be a blastlock, but as I said (too briefly to be clear) short the invocations to be a blastlock, and short the advantages of a tome, or short an annoying, but undeniably useful familiar.


Again, I'd take issue with the damage analysis on the basis that it presumes magical weapons, which have a damage bonus for the bladelock, not the blastlock, but I have to admit, I'm not qualified to comment on what fraction of games would make them available and what fraction would not.

[CaptainSarathai]

I tried to reply directly via quote to as much as possible, but this thread apparently struck a nerve? So that's cool, at least I'm "trending." Anyway:

1) I'm not implying that you necessarily use all of these fixes at once. These are just options.

2) I'm not demanding that we nerf Eldritch Blast damage altogether, for everyone. I'm simply saying that it is far to easy to optimize, and it seems wrong that it's the only source of that kind of at-will damage that can be gained via a dip - let alone a mere 2 level dip.

2.5) I'm not calling for the outright removal of Hex. I'm simply pointing out that its interaction with EB is unfair. Similar spells and features only add to either weapon hits, or to a single hit/spell. +D6 to damage from Hex is equivalent to a 16-18 Attack Stat or Agonizing Blast. AB+Hex combined will deal more damage per attack than a Greatsword or Axe (without GWF or GWM), or a non-sharpshooter Heavy Crossbow (which would also need CE to maintain the same attack advancement). This is all gained with 1-2 levels in Warlock, and multiclassing as no effect on it's availability (Pact Magic means you don't even lose Spell Slots for casting Hex compared to a straight 'Lock). That brings us back to the fact that it's perhaps unbalanced (more damage than anything bar a Feat requirement) and also the EB optimization is too front-loaded.

3) My position has been - and remains - that BladeLock is not necessarily suboptimal in outright damage. Rather, you must optimize BladePact if you want it to keep up in damage with a simple BlastLock - which comes are the price of having more options free to take enjoyable choices. This is doubly true when you consider that a BlastLock needs only CrossBow Expert to be as effective in Melee as the optimized BladeLock.

I'm not looking at this through the eyes of a pure and total optimization. If we were, the situation would be even more dire, thanks to Sorcerer multiclassing. Rather, I'm looking at this as someone who has seen players make the mistake of thinking that BladeLock will offer a particular type of playstyle (which is sugfested in the class's "fluff") and then being disappointed to find that they are either gimped, or are totally ignoring this ability in favor of just throwing yet another Eldritch Blast or having to spend the rest of the campaign taking a very strict set of options in order to remain competitive. This is especially frustrating considering how much the subclass relies on a 1st level taken in another class entirely. You don't pick BladeLock at level 3; you pick it at level 1 and are then offset permanently 1 level behind progression for what's an otherwise average class option.

It occurred to me that the simplest way to fix BladeLock would be to modify 'Thirsting Blade' to give additional instances of Extra Attack at Warlock11, and Warlock17.


Divisible I think one of OPs complaints is how necessary a 1 lvl fighter dip is for bladelocks - which is true, they shouldn't have to dip to run smooth.
Yes. I'm talking straight-classed Warlocks. Get into dipping, and you end up talking about Lock2+/Sorc3+ and that goes so totally off the rails thanks to EB scaling and Metamagic...


In order to play a casting class as a melee class requires a multi class dip to be super effective? I don't see the problem here.
Warlocks get 2 slots. They're not a casting class to compete with Sorcs or Wizards. Yes, I know they get those slots per Short Rest, but they also use those slots to throw Lv1 spells. Also, they never get 9th level slots. They can cast a 9th level spell, but they can never "up-cast" to a 9th level slot.
Warlocks rely entirely upon nothing but Eldritch Blast, or, if you want to switch things up, Blade Pact.


This can be solved by giving the bladelock medium armor at 3rd level.
Additionally the bladelock is fine on DPR, but has to invest everything to get that DPR. I suggest giving Extra attack at 5th and lifedrinker for free at 8th level.
...
I'd instead either require 4th level for agonizing blast or talk to your players to not just dip out of the weak classes (Warlock, Sorc).
I would definitely not remove Hex. I would actually suggest making hex cast once per short rest without expending a spell slot as a class feature as warlocks can be incredibly limited with their spell slots - a bit too much and this helps solve that.
...
Paired Weapons: TWF is already quite good for a bladelock once you fix TWF on its own. In my houserules for example a bladelock does 95% of fighter GWM DPR. I wouldn't recommend boosting TWF for bladelocks. (math (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=2025852255))
Curious about your house rule to TWF.
Medium Armor at 3rd isn't terrible, but you're better off with Armor of Shadows, and medium armor still requires enough Dex to make going into Str-weapons a bit MAD when you consider that you still want Charisma for most stuff.
I agree that giving an automatic Extra Attack at 5th or even 6th would be fair.
I wouldn't get rid of Hex altogether, just apply it less frequently. That or, bend your suggestion somewhat and make it an Invocation to allow it cast an extra time per short rest.


I find the opening statement to be misleading, exaggerated, and arguably just plain false.
I find the actual suggestions to be unnecessary.

Warlock is a 9th level caster. One of his features, if chosen, offers a viable melee option when single classed that gets more than viable with a martial dip.
There is nothing to fix because it isn't broken in the first place.


Let's be clear: I don't think anyone here is suggesting more direct damage (please sing out of I'm wrong)

Just that accessing similar damage should require similar investment.

This means considering the feat/ASI/invocation/MC demands of both paths

Blastlock is probably too low, bladelock is certainly too high.
Yes.
This is the point of my OP. The BlastLock needs to have more investment and "go online" at a slightly later level. When everyone is snagging 2 levels in Lock and then dipping out, it becomes clear that EB-abuse is too front-loaded. The BladeLock is weak by comparison because it takes a full progression (and a slightly too intensive one) to do the same damage a 2-level dip would do.


I really should just put this in my sig.
...
And that's with a single classed bladelock using what is widely considered to be the absolute worst way to fight in melee (Dex based TWF with zero styles or feats to accompany it).
Bladelock is not broken and does not need to be fixed.
So, the other Pacts give more utility out of combat (and in, if you use Familiars for Advantage, and/or pick up Shillelagh, Shocking Grasp, and Sacred Flame as your 3 cantrips)
BladePact is mostly just there to give a melee option in combat
And taking a Feat with a BladeLock allows it to keep pace with EldritchBlast spam.
So why not just take CrossBow Expert and cast EB into melee?
One feat, and the whole argument falls apart.
This is why I suggested limiting CE as one possible fix.


Just a question: what prevents your pact weapon from being an Arcane Focus?
...
As for nerfing. I'd hesitate nerfing anything. Unless it's actually broken, nerfing will not serve any purpose and only restrict play (which might kill the fun at the table, especially when already in play). Instead of nerfing, rather try buffing to bring them up to snuff. This pretty much guarantees a player's fun (unless he likes crippled and dependant characters, but then the problem wouldn't exit, right?), without killing someone else's.

As for the bladelock: what is needs is a decent way to stay alive that's inherent to the bladelock and not dependant on a specific patron.
-OR-
A way to either have the switch hitting power of a rogue/paladin (maybe at a resource cost), but not quite as great (locks are 9th lvl casters after all).

It's not like the bladelock needs a lot, mind you, but it could use some support. it's not even about the shillelagh effect: it's about being martial. I'd say that dual wielding pact weapons should be an option, as is summoning them like a pair.

How about the following:
Invocations snipped

In regards to AF Weapons - Focii as spelled out by the PHB are just orbs, staffs, amulets, and "trinkets" which can be handheld. Only EKs have a direct "this weapon is a focus" effect. Yes, the DM could rule that you can have a non-standard focus like a glove or the commonly-requested tattoo, BUT I think that opens the door to exploitation. The DM would also have to approve any of my homebrew, but that's why I spelled out that weapons should be considered at the very bare-minimum.

Those Invocations would work, but not giving a built-in improvement just means that you're increasing the Invocation tax compared to the other Pacts or EB builds.

I'm not necessarily calling for an outright or massive nerf of EB. I just think that the fact that any Warlock player looking for damage looks right at throwing EB over and over again "robs the class of diversity" (to quote you). Whenever I see an option constantly utilized at my table as if by default (Half Elf, Vuman, GWM&PAM/SS&CE, DefenseStyle) it makes me raise an eyebrow and poke my nose in. Is it because that option is broken in itself, or because all other options are just too weak?
An example is Vuman vs Human - Vuman is not broken by any means, but Human is practically worthless by comparison, so if you want to see "regular Human" used more often, it needs an improvement somewhere.
Eldritch Blast spam is not broken, but the fact that it's totally superior to any other Warlock option means they need some help, and the fact that lots of Cha-casters want that 2lvl dip into Lock means that it's perhaps a bit too easy to exploit.


You want to add a durability feature to an already strong class? That will make bladelock the only choice because you will be able to be one of the strongest blasters in the game AND now you get this added durability you're talking about.

The cost of features is obviously going to be high when you're taking a caster (which has a casting stat) and a low hit die. This makes you super MAD, making it ASI starved. But that's true for other gish-like options.

Agonizing Eldritch Blasts are some of the most consistent damage in the game. It's one reasons why 2 level warlock dips are so strong. And you want bladelocks to have comparable damage to that? It would make warlocks the strongest class. They would be 9th level casters that have some of the best at will damage both at range and melee. For goodness sake, at least bladesingers are limited to when they're bladesinging.

It IS competitive. It doesn't need fixed. It's a fine subclass as-is.

Adding durability should ONLY be available to BladeLocks, and only to keep them from being forced into a level-dip of Fighter just to be effective. If a person who is just relying on AEB wants to go Blade just for durability then they're shooting themself in the foot somewhat simply for not taking a Pact they'd gain full advantage of.

As for Warlocks having a crazy high consistent damage at range - yeah, and again, they're only Crossbow Expert away from doing it in close, as well.

As for being as MAD and ASI starved as any other Gish-type class:
The only other truly Gish-esque class in the PHB is the Eldritch Knight, who gets Heavy Armor and therefore has no need to go Dex for durability, can put strength into max damage weapons without having to rely on feats or can take TWF style and get their weapon as a focus so that they don't need Warcaster and gets the Fighter ASI progression, 3 instances of Extra Attack as a free feature, and has Con Save proficiency, and a D10 hit die. And just for kicks their spell list has more defense and buff spells than the Warlock. Not to mention they can all of this with Archery Style and SharpShooter if they want ranged options and feel Dexy

If you compare a Warlock to a Paladin, you have the same problem, in that Spell Slots are not really the forte of either class except as a mean to buff themselves a bit in a fight, but the Pally is far less MAD and again, has better defenses and attacks at less opportunity-cost.

Even compared to a War/Tempest Cleric, the Lock is inferior as a Spell-focused Gish. The Clerics get 9th level slots as a full caster, also have Heavy Armor Proficiency to prevent Dex reliance, and have the ability to get Bonus-Action attacks similarly to an EK, something which requires a Sorcerer dip for Locks to emulate, and which stalls out their ability to get the Cha-to-damage which keeps BladeLock competitive with EB (although, as pointed out, it does nothing to slow EB progression, and Metamagic makes EB even more superior to BladePact).

But I don't mind the Warlock not having great defenses. Like I said in the OP, I see them as being more like a Rogue - a character that does lots of damage but doesn't "hold the line" like a Fighter or Paladin. I think that if optimized purely for combat (via BladeLock) then they should be "glass cannons" like the 4e Striker role, and similarly to the Rogue now. They already have access to better defenses and HP resources than the Rogue, so they don't quite need to be as nimble, but I think it's balanced.


That's why total Invocation taxes on the builds are the correct way to compare them, as I did in the post I linked.
It's apples to oranges your way.
If you want apples to apples, read my way again.
Btw: 2 first level ritual spells is hardly worth Book of Secrets on the TomeLock, unless you don't have another ritual caster, and your DM is pretty good about making other Rituals available to buy. Tome is worth far more for the 3 cantrips from any combination of lists, cast as Cha spells.

It's about more than Invocations though. What's a Warlock to do for Armor? If he takes Blade, he should get as much use of it in combat as the other Pacts get use outside of combat. So he's in melee more often than a Blaster. If he just wanted a melee option: CrossBow Expert.

So he needs armor. Only option? Armor of Shadows and/or ASIs to Dex

He's gonna take more hits. He needs HP and Concentration. Options? Resilient and/or Warcaster feat, and ASI to Con

He needs to hit with his weapon. Only option: ASIs to Dex or Strength

Incidentally, that last option makes any TomePact Lock with access to SCAG cantrips nearly as good as a BladeLock in combat, because they can get Shillelagh and now use Charisma to Hit/Damage with all of their attacks.
My current build is a SorcLock. It does more damage than a straight BladeLock, either by Quickened Eldritch Blast, or by using Shillelagh + SCAG cantrips + Elemental Affinity + Quicken (SCAG or EB) and Haste or Hex as my concentration.

[Malifice]

Hmm... so, maybe make Agonizing Blast something that unlocks at a higher level?
I have a Wizard alongside my Warlock right now, and presently I'm at L4. If I throw Agonizing EBs, I feel like I'm doing more damage than she is with anything except breaking out spell-slots. And that's where the Warlock gets it's strength; Nova damage? Nope. Just solid damage, all day long.

Dude, Fighter 3/ Fiend Bladelock 17 is perfectly viable. And a melee monster. And a supreme tank. With 9th level spells.

[CaptainSarathai]

Dude, Fighter 3/ Fiend Bladelock 17 is perfectly viable. And a melee monster. And a supreme tank. With 9th level spells.
Dude, a single-classed BladeLock still sucks.
And
Dude, Sorcerer3/Warlock17
(or better, Warlock2/Sorcerer18, or TomeLock3/Sorcerer17)
is totally a thing which exists.

And why are you taking 3 levels in Fighter? You get everything you want from 2 levels, or just 1 level. But sure, you're a Champion, for max damage. Let's compare:

All get 4ASIs, on a point-buy chassis with 3 16s.

Fighter3: Str20, Cha16, PAM, GWM, Full Plate for AC18, with a Halberd and Hex up for -
2d10+1d4+3d6+54 = 80.4
(with Improved Crit factored)
I did not factor To Hit chances, but remember +0 on these attacks.

Sorcerer 3: Dex20, Cha20, Armor of Shadows for AC18, with Agonizing EB, Hex, and Quickened MetaMagic for -
8d10+8d6+40 = 115.6
Adding the Crossbow Expert feat to do this point-blank, reduces your AC to 17, or your total damage to 107.6.

Sorcerer17: Dex20, Cha20, Draconic Resilience for AC18, Elemental Affinity Lightning and Booming Blade with Shillelagh from TomeLock*, Haste, Twinned Spell/Quickened Spell for -
Booming Blade + Quickened Booming Blade + Haste Attack
9d8+25 = 67.5*
Plus another 8d8 if the target moves.
*If your DM allows UA material, you could take Undying Light Patron, and use GFB and Elemental Affinity: Fire, for an extra +10 to that damage, and an additional 6d8+10 (46) to a secondary target
Twinned Booming Blade + Quickened Booming Blade + Haste Attack
13d8+35 = 96.4*
Plus potential for another 12d8 (54) damage if the target moves.

*If your DM treats Green Flame Blade as a single-target spell and allows it to be Twinned, you can take Elemental Affinity: Flame, and Undying Light Warlock for an additional +15 to that damage (but some damage is split between 2 targets). Instead of +54 if the target moves, you would deal an additional 9d8+15 (55.5) to secondary targets.
*could also use a BladeLock's Rapier, but you gain 2 additional cantrips from TomeLock

Adding in Agonizing Blast also lets you do the same damage at range as the Sorc3 EB damage above.

Seriously, RAW BladePact sucks.

I'm currently playing the DragSorcTomelock with the SCAG cantrips. The last Warlock I played, I went nuts with UA, and ran a Favored Soul Sorc17/DyingLight Lock2/Fighter1
I was running around in Full Plate and a Shield, throwing +Cha fire spells and Eldritch Blasts, with 15Str, 16Con, 20Cha, Warcaster and Crossbow Expertise.
The DM said that the easiest way to fight my character would be to just hit the player (me) with a chair.

[Malifice]

Dude, a single-classed BladeLock still sucks.

No they dont.


Dude, Sorcerer3/Warlock17
(or better, Warlock2/Sorcerer18, or TomeLock3/Sorcerer17)
is totally a thing which exists.

Zero relevance to a Bladelock.


And why are you taking 3 levels in Fighter? You get everything you want from 2 levels, or just 1 level. But sure, you're a Champion, for max damage. Let's compare:

3 levels for Superiority dice and manouvers. If you're taking two levels, you might as well take three. Warlock capstone is crappy, and there is nothing in Warlock for levels 18-20 that you care about giving up, or cant get elsewhere.

All get 4ASIs, on a point-buy chassis with 3 16s.


Fighter3: Str20, Cha16, PAM, GWM, Full Plate for AC18, with a Halberd and Hex up for -
2d10+1d4+3d6+54 = 80.4
(with Improved Crit factored)
I did not factor To Hit chances, but remember +0 on these attacks.

What a ridiculously narrow way of looking at the class. The main advantage of being a Bladelock [fiend] is your awesome tanking ability and the fact you'll have more opportunities to use your constantly regenerating Temp HP and Hellish Rebuke.

Lets look at a mid level Fiend Warlock 12, Fighter (BM) 3. (15th level PC). Vuman with HAM, WC and GWM, defence F/S, riposte, precise attack and tripping strike as his manouvers. Spells of note are Hellish rebuke, Hex, mirror image, Fireball, Greenflame blade, Counterspell.

He took Fighter at 1st (Con saves and heavy armor). Thirsting blade and Lifedrinker are his main invocations of note. Cha 18 and Str 16.

Every single short rest:

1 x Action surge
1 x Second wind [heal of 1d10+3]
1 x Dark ones own luck [+1d10 to a save or check]
4 x Sup dice [d8]
3 x 5th level spell slots (Hex cast early in the day, lasts all day at this level)

He also has a 6th level slot per long rest, milks 16 HP when he drops a creature, halves incoming damage thanks to resistance and has DR 3/-. gains power attack plus cleave options, can cast a spell as an AoO and cast with hands full. Plus has all the utlity of at will invocations.

He casts Hex and relies on Warcaster and Con saves to maintain it all day long. Lasts 24 hours at this level. Every time he drops any creature he milks 16 Temporary HP. Incoming damage is halved and reduced by 3 (before coming off his temp HP). He also can also spam either Riposte or Hellish rebuke (for more off turn damage).

He attacks 2-5 times (plus a possible reaction attack) dealing 3d6+17 damage.

Even on rounds he's only getting 2 attacks, he deals a sum of 6d6+34 damage (more with a magic weapon and superioriy dice in play, or with a third attack via GWM), and has a constant replenishing buffer of 16 Temp HP (reducing damage back by 3) AND resistance to one damage type.

Nova strike? [Fireball] action surge [fireball]. Or [attack twice] action surge [attack twice] bonus action attack again via GWM [spamming 4 x sup dice and + Hex on each attack, and a 5th level Hellish rebuke when struck in return, or a riposte if missed].

He can do it all day long. He's only ever a single short rest away from a full recharge.

Soon Hurl through Hell comes online for an ever better Nova. And forcecage. And true Polymorph. And 4 spells/ short rest. And even more temp HP on a kill.

[Lollerabe]

Malifice my man read the thread - no one ever disputed rather the bm/fiendblade works - it does, and very very well at that. What OP Kryx and others are finding troublesome is the almost mandatory fighter dips in order to make bladelocks feasible.
Look at a non fighter dipping blade lock (str based) they more or less suck, they got what light armor prof? So a fighter 1 dip nets them plate prof and defense style ? They can't compete and that's the complaint
Edit: Well the complaint is that the fighter dip becomes mandatory in order for bladelocks to work, not that they can't compete in certain areas with a mutliclassed Bladelock - multiclassing should add some power boon in exchange of others.

[MrStabby]

Malifice my man read the thread - no one ever disputed rather the bm/fiendblade works - it does, and very very well at that. What OP Kryx and others are finding troublesome is the almost mandatory fighter dips in order to make bladelocks feasible.
Look at a non fighter dipping blade lock (str based) they more or less suck, they got what light armor prof? So a fighter 1 dip nets them plate prof and defense style ? They can't compete and that's the complaint

I think there are two ways of thinking about what you play. One is that you play a character, which mechanically is represented by building blocks - each of which is a level in a class. Here the question is is the element of a bladelock good enough (for whatever definition of good). The other view is to see people play classes, and multiclassing being an aberration.

If the former, then this isn't even an issue. Your character's mechanical building blocks are mixed - so what. If the latter and you are playing a class then possibly its worth looking at.


Certainly there is no evidence that fighter dips are needed to make a bladelock feasible, any more than there is evidence that a fighter dip is needed to make an abjuration wizard feasible. Certainly a fighter dip can make the character more robust in melee, but this just isn't needed.

[Lollerabe]

I get your point stabby and I think it's valid but I disagree a bit with the premis.
Bladelocks should be a viable option for a pure lock just like berserker should be for a barb and 5 elements for a monk (not saying they are completely similar). However without the fighter dip a Bladelock is strictly speaking a poormans blast lock - same hp, same armorclass (maybe even less due to MADness) and LESS dpr but with a higher opportunity cost, that doesn't make sense.
I very much agree that they shouldn't be as powerful in melee as a multiclass fighter/lock otherwise multiclassing doesn't make any sense.
They should however not be forced into dipping just to operate - which many feel like the currently are.

[Spiritchaser]

Bladelock: "I signed my soul to Abyzou and in return she gave me this sword of power...but I don't really use it that often. It's mostly for show since I generally try to keep away from the front lines. But if someone sneaks up on me boy they'll get what's coming to them let me tell you."

I think this is brilliant, and pretty much sums up my feelings on my issue...

No I didn't say thoughts...

Maybe the fundamental dichotomy here is players who want bladelock to be a strong melee fighter in its own right, and those who want bladelock to be a Warlock who is also able to pinch hit in melee

I think a tomelock with shileighly can already cover option b, but there isn't any natural law about where along the spectrum a bladelock "has to be"

Just some players desires.

[CaptainSarathai]

Malifice my man read the thread - no one ever disputed rather the bm/fiendblade works - it does, and very very well at that. What OP Kryx and others are finding troublesome is the almost mandatory fighter dips in order to make bladelocks feasible.
Look at a non fighter dipping blade lock (str based) they more or less suck, they got what light armor prof? So a fighter 1 dip nets them plate prof and defense style ? They can't compete and that's the complaint
This.


SNIP
I'll bite. I'll build a 15th level character. Admittedly, I lose a 9th level slot that you'd get at 20th level. The alternative is losing the tricky-to-proc TempHP, but I want to stay as fundamentally similar to your build as possible.

Fighter2/DracSorc3/TomeLock10

VuMan
HAM, CE, WC
Invocs: Agonizing Blast, Sign of Ill Omen
MetaM: Quickened Spell, Twinned Spell
ElemAf: Lightning
Str15, Con16, Cha16

Every Short Rest:
1 x Action surge
1 x Second wind [heal of 1d10+2]
1 x Dark ones own luck [+1d10 to a save or check]
2 x 5th level spell slots (You missed that Bestow Curse at this level lasts 8hrs and doesn't require Con to maintain)

Long Rest:
4 x 1st level slots
2 x 2nd level slots
3 x Sorcery Points (2nd level slot - can sac Lock slots for points, slots persist through short rests)

He gets his 6th level spell next level, but sadly, it's not a Slot that I can up-cast into. He milks 13 HP when he drops a creature, halves incoming damage thanks to resistance to one damage type and has DR 3/-. He can cast a spell as an AoO and cast with hands full. Plus has all the utlity of at will invocations.

He casts twice per turn for 3 turns before having to regen Sorc Points for:
6d10+6d6+18 = 74 damage (compared to your 56.05)
This goes up by 6d8 with Bestow Curse (+28.35), compared to 2d8 (9) on your build.
Plus possible Reactions with either Booming Blade or Eldritch Blast.

Alternatively, he can Quicken BladeWard to effectively maintain at the cost of a Bonus Action for 3-turn intervals and have actual damage resistance on par with a raging Barbarian.


Nova strike? [Fireball] action surge [fireball].
Assuming you didn't already blow the slots on Hellish Rebuke. Or more than 1 of any other spell.
My Nova Strike? [Fireball], action surge: [Fireball], Quicken Spell: [Scorching Ray]

Or just triple-tap Eldritch Blast and dump 153.5 damage onto a single target or 9 people.


Or [attack twice] action surge [attack twice] bonus action attack again via GWM [spamming 4 x sup dice and + Hex on each attack, and a 5th level Hellish rebuke when struck in return, or a riposte if missed].
Bonus action assuming you kill a target. If we're talking pure, max damage under similar conditions (if you get a bonus for a kill, it's fair to assume I can be engaged with 2 enemies)
Twin Spell: [Booming Blade]
Action Surge: Twin Spell: [Booming Blade]
Quicken Spell: Eldritch Blast
(this burns 0 spell slots, and uses 3 sorcery points)

Also, to be silly, he can technically Twin-Spell a 3rd level Witch Bolt onto two targets and just keep concentrating for 6d12 damage per round (split between 2 targets).

Functionally, he can do this just about all day, and will always have at least 6 sorcery points per Short Rest.
That said, he's better off stopping at Lock12 and good the rest of the way for Sorc6 as it gives him room to sac/gain 4th level slots, as well as 4/3/3 1st/2nd/3rd himself, and Elemental Affinity.

Staying Lock would mean Hurl through Hell online for an ever better Nova. He'll get ForceCage the same time you'd get True Polymorph. He'll never hit 4 spell slots though, so I am giving up a bit of the late-level stuff for more low-end power.

Did I win?

[CaptainSarathai]

I think there are two ways of thinking about what you play. One is that you play a character, which mechanically is represented by building blocks - each of which is a level in a class. Here the question is is the element of a bladelock good enough (for whatever definition of good). The other view is to see people play classes, and multiclassing being an aberration.

If the former, then this isn't even an issue. Your character's mechanical building blocks are mixed - so what. If the latter and you are playing a class then possibly its worth looking at.


Certainly there is no evidence that fighter dips are needed to make a bladelock feasible, any more than there is evidence that a fighter dip is needed to make an abjuration wizard feasible. Certainly a fighter dip can make the character more robust in melee, but this just isn't needed.

I don't have a problem at all with multiclassing. I have yet to finish a campaign with a single-classed character (I don't play Druids or Wizards though). I always take at least 1 dip somewhere.
The only reason that I'm focused on a single-class Warlock, is because I think that considering multiclasses just muddies the water. Especially when you figure that Warlock is most often the "dip" to another primary class like Bard, Sorcerer, Paladin, even Barbarian.

Fighter Locks are solid, and pretty awesome on the table. But you have to consider that they're taking all the negatives of any BladeLock (MAD, high Invocation and Feat taxes) plus fewer ASIs and slowing the overall progress of the class.
The only thing that doesn't slow down? Eldritch Blast.
That's what almost makes that first level or two of Fighter a trap. An optimized, straight-cut BladeLock can keep pace with a BlastLock up to 17th level, when the gap really widens. Taking a level in Fighter just for Armor and proficiencies, or 3 levels for BM, means that from 5th to 8th level, EB is out damaging your melee option. Then again from 11th to 15th, and then again from 17 on.
Nearly everything but the Nova in your build, can be done without the Mastery dice, by a single-class BladeLock. Perhaps not GWM, not without being seriously MAD and probably having crap AC or Con, but it's pretty close and hits 3 levels ahead.

I'm playing a fairly "newbie" table right now, and although MC was allowed, many are choosing not to take it because they want to just run a straight character first and not get into "advanced stuff." If one of them had picked a BladeLock, there's a good chance that they would come out way below any other "average class," unless they did what BladeLocks are "supposed to do" and just kept their sword for accidents and stuff.

Which brings me to...


Maybe the fundamental dichotomy here is players who want bladelock to be a strong melee fighter in its own right, and those who want bladelock to be a Warlock who is also able to pinch hit in melee

I think a tomelock with shileighly can already cover option b, but there isn't any natural law about where along the spectrum a bladelock "has to be"

Exactly. A TomeLock has got your melee needs covered at the most basic. Heck, with the SCAG cantrips in play, you can go Dex for AC and just use a Dagger for your BB delivery system. Or use a Familiar for Advantage (roughly a +5) and don't worry about not having a huge To Hit bonus.

So a BladeLock should have a reason to get up there and clunk around in melee. And maybe it's not the Warlock's fault at all. Sure, "built in" Thirsting Blade would be nice. But none of the other Pacts get anything at higher levels, so I guess that's "fair," if a bit screwed-up.
Maybe the problem is that with GWM and PAM rolling around, and the way they are avoiding TWF - Dex melee is just a terrible option without serious mechanics to back it up, and the Pacts and Invocations just don't back that up for any Warlock Patron or Pact.

I've seen this borne out, too. I've built enough characters, read enough guides, seen enough players at my tables to see the patterns in classes, feats, and features taken, to know that certain things are coming up more often than they probably should. And that either means squishing those options down (like Sharpshooter and PAM) or bringing the other options up, like BladeLock and Rangers. Even Wizards realized the Ranger was being under-played, but the easiest fix was to just rewrite the class rather than try to rebalance Light/Finesse fighting.

[Socratov]

I tried to reply directly via quote to as much as possible, but this thread apparently struck a nerve? So that's cool, at least I'm "trending." Anyway:

1) I'm not implying that you necessarily use all of these fixes at once. These are just options.

2) I'm not demanding that we nerf Eldritch Blast damage altogether, for everyone. I'm simply saying that it is far to easy to optimize, and it seems wrong that it's the only source of that kind of at-will damage that can be gained via a dip - let alone a mere 2 level dip.

2.5) I'm not calling for the outright removal of Hex. I'm simply pointing out that its interaction with EB is unfair. Similar spells and features only add to either weapon hits, or to a single hit/spell. +D6 to damage from Hex is equivalent to a 16-18 Attack Stat or Agonizing Blast. AB+Hex combined will deal more damage per attack than a Greatsword or Axe (without GWF or GWM), or a non-sharpshooter Heavy Crossbow (which would also need CE to maintain the same attack advancement). This is all gained with 1-2 levels in Warlock, and multiclassing as no effect on it's availability (Pact Magic means you don't even lose Spell Slots for casting Hex compared to a straight 'Lock). That brings us back to the fact that it's perhaps unbalanced (more damage than anything bar a Feat requirement) and also the EB optimization is too front-loaded.

3) My position has been - and remains - that BladeLock is not necessarily suboptimal in outright damage. Rather, you must optimize BladePact if you want it to keep up in damage with a simple BlastLock - which comes are the price of having more options free to take enjoyable choices. This is doubly true when you consider that a BlastLock needs only CrossBow Expert to be as effective in Melee as the optimized BladeLock.

I'm not looking at this through the eyes of a pure and total optimization. If we were, the situation would be even more dire, thanks to Sorcerer multiclassing. Rather, I'm looking at this as someone who has seen players make the mistake of thinking that BladeLock will offer a particular type of playstyle (which is sugfested in the class's "fluff") and then being disappointed to find that they are either gimped, or are totally ignoring this ability in favor of just throwing yet another Eldritch Blast or having to spend the rest of the campaign taking a very strict set of options in order to remain competitive. This is especially frustrating considering how much the subclass relies on a 1st level taken in another class entirely. You don't pick BladeLock at level 3; you pick it at level 1 and are then offset permanently 1 level behind progression for what's an otherwise average class option.

It occurred to me that the simplest way to fix BladeLock would be to modify 'Thirsting Blade' to give additional instances of Extra Attack at Warlock11, and Warlock17.


Yes. I'm talking straight-classed Warlocks. Get into dipping, and you end up talking about Lock2+/Sorc3+ and that goes so totally off the rails thanks to EB scaling and Metamagic...


Warlocks get 2 slots. They're not a casting class to compete with Sorcs or Wizards. Yes, I know they get those slots per Short Rest, but they also use those slots to throw Lv1 spells. Also, they never get 9th level slots. They can cast a 9th level spell, but they can never "up-cast" to a 9th level slot.
Warlocks rely entirely upon nothing but Eldritch Blast, or, if you want to switch things up, Blade Pact.


Curious about your house rule to TWF.
Medium Armor at 3rd isn't terrible, but you're better off with Armor of Shadows, and medium armor still requires enough Dex to make going into Str-weapons a bit MAD when you consider that you still want Charisma for most stuff.
I agree that giving an automatic Extra Attack at 5th or even 6th would be fair.
I wouldn't get rid of Hex altogether, just apply it less frequently. That or, bend your suggestion somewhat and make it an Invocation to allow it cast an extra time per short rest.




Yes.
This is the point of my OP. The BlastLock needs to have more investment and "go online" at a slightly later level. When everyone is snagging 2 levels in Lock and then dipping out, it becomes clear that EB-abuse is too front-loaded. The BladeLock is weak by comparison because it takes a full progression (and a slightly too intensive one) to do the same damage a 2-level dip would do.


So, the other Pacts give more utility out of combat (and in, if you use Familiars for Advantage, and/or pick up Shillelagh, Shocking Grasp, and Sacred Flame as your 3 cantrips)
BladePact is mostly just there to give a melee option in combat
And taking a Feat with a BladeLock allows it to keep pace with EldritchBlast spam.
So why not just take CrossBow Expert and cast EB into melee?
One feat, and the whole argument falls apart.
This is why I suggested limiting CE as one possible fix.


In regards to AF Weapons - Focii as spelled out by the PHB are just orbs, staffs, amulets, and "trinkets" which can be handheld. Only EKs have a direct "this weapon is a focus" effect. Yes, the DM could rule that you can have a non-standard focus like a glove or the commonly-requested tattoo, BUT I think that opens the door to exploitation. The DM would also have to approve any of my homebrew, but that's why I spelled out that weapons should be considered at the very bare-minimum.

Those Invocations would work, but not giving a built-in improvement just means that you're increasing the Invocation tax compared to the other Pacts or EB builds.

I'm not necessarily calling for an outright or massive nerf of EB. I just think that the fact that any Warlock player looking for damage looks right at throwing EB over and over again "robs the class of diversity" (to quote you). Whenever I see an option constantly utilized at my table as if by default (Half Elf, Vuman, GWM&PAM/SS&CE, DefenseStyle) it makes me raise an eyebrow and poke my nose in. Is it because that option is broken in itself, or because all other options are just too weak?
An example is Vuman vs Human - Vuman is not broken by any means, but Human is practically worthless by comparison, so if you want to see "regular Human" used more often, it needs an improvement somewhere.
Eldritch Blast spam is not broken, but the fact that it's totally superior to any other Warlock option means they need some help, and the fact that lots of Cha-casters want that 2lvl dip into Lock means that it's perhaps a bit too easy to exploit.



Adding durability should ONLY be available to BladeLocks, and only to keep them from being forced into a level-dip of Fighter just to be effective. If a person who is just relying on AEB wants to go Blade just for durability then they're shooting themself in the foot somewhat simply for not taking a Pact they'd gain full advantage of.

As for Warlocks having a crazy high consistent damage at range - yeah, and again, they're only Crossbow Expert away from doing it in close, as well.

As for being as MAD and ASI starved as any other Gish-type class:
The only other truly Gish-esque class in the PHB is the Eldritch Knight, who gets Heavy Armor and therefore has no need to go Dex for durability, can put strength into max damage weapons without having to rely on feats or can take TWF style and get their weapon as a focus so that they don't need Warcaster and gets the Fighter ASI progression, 3 instances of Extra Attack as a free feature, and has Con Save proficiency, and a D10 hit die. And just for kicks their spell list has more defense and buff spells than the Warlock. Not to mention they can all of this with Archery Style and SharpShooter if they want ranged options and feel Dexy

If you compare a Warlock to a Paladin, you have the same problem, in that Spell Slots are not really the forte of either class except as a mean to buff themselves a bit in a fight, but the Pally is far less MAD and again, has better defenses and attacks at less opportunity-cost.

Even compared to a War/Tempest Cleric, the Lock is inferior as a Spell-focused Gish. The Clerics get 9th level slots as a full caster, also have Heavy Armor Proficiency to prevent Dex reliance, and have the ability to get Bonus-Action attacks similarly to an EK, something which requires a Sorcerer dip for Locks to emulate, and which stalls out their ability to get the Cha-to-damage which keeps BladeLock competitive with EB (although, as pointed out, it does nothing to slow EB progression, and Metamagic makes EB even more superior to BladePact).

But I don't mind the Warlock not having great defenses. Like I said in the OP, I see them as being more like a Rogue - a character that does lots of damage but doesn't "hold the line" like a Fighter or Paladin. I think that if optimized purely for combat (via BladeLock) then they should be "glass cannons" like the 4e Striker role, and similarly to the Rogue now. They already have access to better defenses and HP resources than the Rogue, so they don't quite need to be as nimble, but I think it's balanced.


Btw: 2 first level ritual spells is hardly worth Book of Secrets on the TomeLock, unless you don't have another ritual caster, and your DM is pretty good about making other Rituals available to buy. Tome is worth far more for the 3 cantrips from any combination of lists, cast as Cha spells.

It's about more than Invocations though. What's a Warlock to do for Armor? If he takes Blade, he should get as much use of it in combat as the other Pacts get use outside of combat. So he's in melee more often than a Blaster. If he just wanted a melee option: CrossBow Expert.

So he needs armor. Only option? Armor of Shadows and/or ASIs to Dex

He's gonna take more hits. He needs HP and Concentration. Options? Resilient and/or Warcaster feat, and ASI to Con

He needs to hit with his weapon. Only option: ASIs to Dex or Strength

Incidentally, that last option makes any TomePact Lock with access to SCAG cantrips nearly as good as a BladeLock in combat, because they can get Shillelagh and now use Charisma to Hit/Damage with all of their attacks.
My current build is a SorcLock. It does more damage than a straight BladeLock, either by Quickened Eldritch Blast, or by using Shillelagh + SCAG cantrips + Elemental Affinity + Quicken (SCAG or EB) and Haste or Hex as my concentration.

generally some good points,

though I disagree on the defensive options for the singel classed warlock: all cost either a (or more) spell(s), and an invocation. Sure at low levels the temp hp will hol dup, but with 18 AC, very few options to dart in and out like arogue (misty step, but that won't last for more then 3 turns for every long or short rest, but better give up on your hex dmg). No shield proficiency, no shield spell (or get it for 1/day though magic initiate), just up to 50 temp hp, which at high level is gone in an instant and can't be replenished (since getting new temp hp loses the previous instance of it and AoA ends when the temp HP disappears). So, the bladelock has no real way to enter and exit combat like the rogue, nor a way to hold the line and survive like the paladin or fighter. This would all be no problem if the bladelock could use its melee weapons in other ways, but no, it must be melee (unless you bind a magic bow, which you can't generate from your shadowstuff), and once the weapon is 5' away from the bladelock it disappears into thin air. This creates a trap of versatility: it seems you can do whatever you want, but to do it effectively you need to do the same as a fighter, with less ASI's and needing 3 stats (at least): dex (for finesse weapons to hit+AC), Con (to make sure that measly Hp of yours gets anything close to able to take a hit) and Cha (so you can actually benefit from Lifedrinker and have your spells actually do something offensively if you need them to). And onlyif you count invocations are the pactsboons equal: onc eyou count other investments, the pact loses out: chain and tome need only CHA to do combat and use their tricks, pact needs at least 2, preferably 3 abilities to stay alive. Then when feats come up, tome and chain can benefit greatly from Spell Sniper and Crossbow Master, for pact to be relevant and good at their weapon, they need at least the feat corresponding to their chosen weapon. This, however, will shoehorn them into a specific fighting and/or weapon style and take away their stunning versatility (hence my floating feat invocation which bars you from taking/benefitting any other martial feat, and the style invocation. Sure it raises the invocation cost, but it decreases the feat pressure which allows the bladelock to raise its ASI's instead.

But if that's too rough, why not redesign the class instead: warlocks are all about channeling the power of their patronand much of a cantrip caster. Why not drop the extra atack invocation, and allow the bladelock to shannel his spells through his blade instead?

Drop thisrting blade for the following invocation:


Channeling Edge

Prerequisites: Pact of the Blade feature, at least 5 warlock levels

When you gain this invocation you can channel spell effects through a melee attack. You resolve the melee attack as normal and add the effects of the spell you cast through this feature. The Spell, when targeting multiple targets or using multiple attack rolls, will require only the attack roll of the melee attack.

effects that would apply to the spell when cast, will apply to the channeled spell, except for the Sorcerer's Metamagic features Quicken Spell and Twin Spell.



And change the Lifedrinker invocation as follows:



Lifebarrier

Prerequisite: 12th level, Pact of the Blade feature

When you hit a creature with your pact w eapon , the
creature takes extra necrotic dam age equal to your
Charisma modifier (minimum 1).

In addition, if you know the Armour of Shadows invocation, dealing this necrotic damage will increase your AC by +2 until the start of your next turn.


So, you can channel spells for fun (EB, Firebolt or if you can steal it: Vicious Mockery for the disadvantage), and if you hit with Lifedrinker, you gain Ac as if you hold a shield as well, in exchange for the 5 dmg you stand to lose dealing because you lose your extra attack feature.

[Kryx]

Bladelocks should be a viable option for a pure lock just like berserker should be for a barb and 5 elements for a monk (not saying they are completely similar). However without the fighter dip a Bladelock is strictly speaking a poormans blast lock - same hp, same armorclass (maybe even less due to MADness) and LESS dpr but with a higher opportunity cost, that doesn't make sense.
This is exactly the problem that has been pointed out several times now. Plain and simply a bladelock cannot fulfill his martial with some utility spells role anywhere near as well as a blastlock can fulfill his ranged damage with some utility spells role.

But as I've tried to stress over the last few posts it's really not worth anyone's time to try to convince people. Some people don't think a bladelock should be changed no matter what.
To actually get something useful other than arguing out of this thread we should focus on how to change the bladelock for those who are not satisfied with the current version

[Gastronomie]

But as I've tried to stress over the last few posts it's really not worth anyone's time to try to convince people. Some people don't think a bladelock should be changed no matter what.
To actually get something useful other than arguing out of this thread we should focus on how to change the bladelock for those who are not satisfied with the current versionYou have a point there.

I don't think Bladelocks need that much tweaking, and I agree with most of what DivisibleByZero has said in this thread. However, if a certain number of people have the need for a tweaked version, it should be nonetheless created. Whether people want it or not is more important than whether or not it's really required to make them viable.

[DivisibleByZero]

You have a point there.

I don't think Bladelocks need that much tweaking, and I agree with most of what DivisibleByZero has said in this thread. However, if a certain number of people have the need for a tweaked version, it should be nonetheless created. Whether people want it or not is more important than whether or not it's really required to make them viable.

I'm just trying to get people to make reasonable and fair comparisons to judge whether any change is desired.
Apples to apples shows that resource costs are equivalent.
Apples to oranges makes those costs seem uneven.

Damage is on par. Resource costs are on par. Survivability is the only thing that (*arguably*) needs tweaking.

[Gastronomie]

I'm just trying to get people to make reasonable and fair comparisons to judge whether any change is desired.
Apples to apples shows that resource costs are equivalent.
Apples to oranges makes those costs seem uneven.

Damage is on par. Resource costs are on par. Survivability is the only thing that (*arguably*) needs tweaking.I know, I think your argument is reasonable. But when it comes to creating products, what's important isn't whether it's right or wrong, it's more about whether people want it or not. Even if 70% of the people think Bladelocks are fine as they are, if 30% want it, creating a new option that will satisfy that 30% would not hurt at all.

[Talionis]

If it were me I'd focus on fixing the problem with an Invocation or spell or both. Spells and Invocations can be added in later editions without errata. They don't change everyone else's characters or the game as it exists. Invocations and Spells also can be easy to limit to just Bladelocks and give them level requirements.

I think Bladelock could use some small tweaking myself. I'm in the middle of playing my second Warlock. I've played a Fighter 3/Warlock x build and it was fun it worked pretty well. I'm playing a 6 Barbarian/Tomelock now. Armor was a big problem and starting in Fighter for Armor and Con Saves helped a lot. I also felt like Armor of Agathys, False Life, and Fiendish Temporary Hitpoints are nice sources of extra HP, but they also don't allow you to take Inspiring Leader for any good personal benefit are a pretty good resource sink. They don't stack so they don't always play nice. And I'm okay with that type of resource management, but its tough when that feels like your primary gimmick and it doesn't always work reliably.

I think you are valid that the real problem is that its really pretty hard to out pace Crossbow Expert Agonizing Eldritch Blast with Bladelock. Damage I think is the problem because Warlock can play like a Rogue and survive moving in and out of melee, but its very hard to justify putting resources into melee if you are generally a lot better at ranged damage.

If it were me, I would focus on answers that don't nerf anyone else. I totally agree that Agonizing Blast should've had a level requirement on it. But it doesn't so don't take away other peoples toys. That alone makes Warlock a really great dip class and what done is done.

Suggested Fixes:


Eldritch Blades being Arcane Focus should just be errata'd no body would complain with that. Maybe the cleanest way to fix this would be to add Daggers that can serve as Arcane Focuses to the game (then the Eldritch Blade could be one of those).

Two weapon fighting is up for debate and I'd suggest that be an invocation. That by itself maybe enough damage help.

I'd suggest a fourth or fifth level spell that allows real hitpoints to be gained via attacks from only your Eldritch Blade. I actually use my Vampiric Touch on my Bladelock and I always felt terrible that I had a weapon in my hand and am gimping my damage to do it. Bladelock would then be the only class with ability to turn weapon damage into actual hitpoints but I think it could be a good thematic feature. You wouldn't want to do 1:1 but a ratio of even 1:4 would probably be very nice at helping a Bladelock feel less squishy, have multiple layers of defense that is fairly different from other classes.

Another Invocation I would consider is something that allows a Warlock to avoid taking the Warcaster & Resilient Constitution feat. Maybe it just provides proficiency with Constitution Saves. (This would help a lot because we will be a bit more MAD than most casters). It could also be limited to just Bladelocks to make the others take the feat tax.

But I would quit whining about Invocation Tax on Bladelocks. To me it makes sense that the classes are pretty well balanced as they are Warlocks should have to invest heavily to make themselves decent in melee, they are still casters. I would do the same about ASI, they are as MAD as you'd expect a melee caster to be.


Just focus on spells and invocations that can easily be added into new editions (or home brew) because they can focus just on Bladelock without changing balance between other classes. I also like the feel that Bladelocks want badly to waste a turn or two to power up their melee by casting buff spells is a big drawback, that should be rewarded and its a great play style.

[georgie_leech]

Okay, there's something I'm clearly not getting here. IME, Warlocks that pick Chain or Tome don't suddenly drastically change how they operate when they get those Pacts; they keep behaving as Warlocks that have a couple of new tricks. What about Blade leads people to want it to drastically change playstyle?

[Strill]

Okay, there's something I'm clearly not getting here. IME, Warlocks that pick Chain or Tome don't suddenly drastically change how they operate when they get those Pacts; they keep behaving as Warlocks that have a couple of new tricks. What about Blade leads people to want it to drastically change playstyle?

The fact that it gets a melee weapon with dps on par with martials and blastlocks.

[Kryx]

If it were me I'd focus on fixing the problem with an Invocation or spell or both.
The whole core of the issue is resource cost to get the value. Adding additional resource cost would be a negative, not a positive, but we can get to that in your point 5.


Damage I think is the problem because Warlock can play like a Rogue and survive moving in and out of melee, but its very hard to justify putting resources into melee if you are generally a lot better at ranged damage.
Blacklock damage is totally not a problem, even compared to EB. See:
http://i.imgur.com/NgFkoA1.png
Math on my spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=1952512856).

The issue is the cost to get there - all ASIs invested in ability scores or a feat and multiple invocations vs 2 ASIs and 1 invocation for EB.


If it were me, I would focus on answers that don't nerf anyone else. I totally agree that Agonizing Blast should've had a level requirement on it.
Agreed that EB shouldn't be touched. If anything it'd be nice to have some cantrip diversity, but that would be a different task



1. Eldritch Blades being Arcane Focus
Agreed, same with EK Weapon bond.


2. Two weapon fighting is up for debate and I'd suggest that be an invocation. That by itself maybe enough damage help.
TWF Bladelock needs no help. By my numbers TWF compared to GWM for other classes has TWF around 72-80% of the damage of GWM. For Bladelock it's 88%.

TWF should be fixed on its own if you are so inclined (I'd suggest you do, but that's not this thread).


5. But I would quit whining about Invocation Tax on Bladelocks.
Resource cost and durability are the only problems with the class. The items you've suggested don't attempt to solve those. :(


I think a combination of some armor proficiency and/or armor of shadows would help the armor side. Baking some temp hp system like Dark One's Blessing into the bladelock option would also help. I'm not sure we get entirely get rid of the allure of a fighter 1 dip, but I'm not sure we should. The same desire exists for melee bards as well.

[Lollerabe]

George is that a serious question ? Cause I cannot currently fathom how one could read the entire thread post for post and ask that question.

[CaptainSarathai]

But if that's too rough, why not redesign the class instead: warlocks are all about channeling the power of their patronand much of a cantrip caster. Why not drop the extra atack invocation, and allow the bladelock to shannel his spells through his blade instead?

Drop thisrting blade for the following invocation:



And change the Lifedrinker invocation as follows:

I actually like those changes. My knee-jerk was that letting someone cast Eldritch Blast through a sword was a bit OP, but I realized that it's basically the CE feat as a class feature.
I think though, that rather than the second feat stacking onto AC, it should go onto TempHp, and should be practically identical to the Fiend Pact ability, except be stackable with any current HP. That, or provide a Resistance or damage reduction or something.
I feel like it's an unwritten but clearly intentional design choice that Warlocks are meant to absorb hits. They don't get great AC, but they get tempHP to offset this (in a perfect world) and the use spells like Armor of Agathys and Hellish Rebuke to translate hits into damage to enemies. It makes them almost like a Barbarian; if you hit them, they hit you back harder.


I think the core Pact of the Blade and the related invocations are really badly designed for this reason. However, while badly designed, it's not weak in terms of power level IMO.

If there's to be a tweak, it should be done to fix the "bad design", not the "effectiveness of the class" itself.

I think it's the Invocation Scaling, combined with this being the only class with Eldritch Blast and Hex, which is problematic considering it's the premiere ranged cantrip in the game already, and Agonizing Blast and Hex just makes it better.

What if we changed the early level progression of Warlocks?

One thing which bothered me with BladePact is that Warlocks are terrible in melee until 3rd level, then suddenly you can summon swords, and then 2 levels later you're getting Extra Attack. It just seems crazy.
So what if you chose your Pact first, and then your Patron at 3rd level? Treat it similarly to the Paladin - they are initiates, testing the waters of their faith, and then at 3rd level they truly get locked into it. The same could be true of Warlocks; they spend 2 levels being tempted further down the rabbit hole, and at 3rd level they're given that final chance to duck out before their soul is lost forever.

This gives you your Blade first, so you can establish yourself as a melee-oriented party-member from Session1. Or you'd get your 3 Cantrips (roughly equivalent to a Sorcerer now, woo-hoo) or Familiar. All things that other L1 characters would reasonably have.
At 3rd you get your Patron, which grants the TempHP steal, Telepathy, or Fey Presence. The more powerful stuff that most classes are getting around Lv3 anyway.

I would also grant Invocations at 1st, but Spell Slots at 2nd. I'd push Agonizing Blast back to 5. That's the same time that DracSorcs get their Elemental Affinity, a roughly analogous feature. That, or I'd make Eldritch Blast and Agonizing Blast both class features rather than taking up a Cantrip and Invocation on a "tax".
I also suggest dropping Life Drinker to 11th, which is the same time Fighters get Attack 3 and EB gets its 3rd Bolt.

I'd make Armor Shadows read as "10+Dex+Cha" as well. This allows Fighter ACs without necessarily going Fighter at L1.

I'd also give Warlocks half the Sorcerer Progression of spell slots.
Hear me out!
As it stands, Warlocks get their slots back on a Short Rest, and that's fine. But they only get 2 slots for most of their careers. They are always starving for slots. The DMG calls for 3 fights between rests. That's less than 1 casting per fight. And sure, you can upcast Hex to make it last longer than a fight, but the fact remains - nobody wants to cast AoA or Hellish Rebuke if it means they may not get to pop Hex later. This is troublesome, because as alluded earlier - Warlocks rely on those spells to keep them in the fight, and need to be able to throw more low-level spells.
From experience playing a SorLock, if you want Locks to do more than cast EB or swing a sword, you need to give them the fuel.
Obviously, recovering slots per Short Rest is tough. But that's why I suggest half the level progression of a Sorcerer. With a Short Rest midday, and a long or short rest for night, thats as many spells per day as a regular caster. In other words:

Lv1 = 0-1x 1st
Lv2 = 2x 1st
Lv3 = 2x 1st, 1x 2nd
Lv4 = 2x 1st, 2x 2nd
Lv5 = " 1x 3rd
Lv6 = " 2x 3rd
Lv7 = "
Lv8 = " 1x 4th
Lv9 = "
L10 = 2x 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 1x 5th
L11 = Mystic Arcanum (6th)
...
L13 = Mystic Arcanum (7th)
...
L15 = Mystic Arcanum (8th)
...
L17 = Mystic Arcanum (9th)
L18 = 2x 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th
...
L20 Eldritch Master

[Kryx]

why not redesign the class instead: warlocks are all about channeling the power of their patronand much of a cantrip caster. Why not drop the extra atack invocation, and allow the bladelock to shannel his spells through his blade instead?
Channeling cantrips through attacks is really EK's schtick. The bladelock could do the same thing, but it takes away from the current feeling of hitting things hard with your big sword....

This seems like a natural idea, but not sure if it's the right one..

[User_Undefined]

Here's some changes my group made for my bladelock.


Pact weapon uses charisma for attack and damage.
Thirsting Blade is folded into the Blade Pact progression. I said at 6th, but the DM let me have it at 5th.
Armor of Shadows becomes AC=10+Dex+Cha. Admittedly, this has become less useful ever since I got +1 studded leather.
Lifedrinker now deals 1d4 extra damage and refills any current temp HP by the same amount, up to max.
Added a new Blade-only Invocation that lets me choose a non-ranged Fighting Style after a short rest. I've pretty much kept it stuck on Mariner for the extra movement options.


I'm also allowed to form the pact weapon for free at the start of a fight, but that's because we missed that it takes an action. So now, it's once for free and then it takes an action if I want to reform it.

[georgie_leech]

George is that a serious question ? Cause I cannot currently fathom how one could read the entire thread post for post and ask that question.

I get that people do, I'm just not sure I see why. Like, I don't see posts about making Chainlocks have their primary contribution through their familiar only.

[Talionis]

Kryex, do you have a problem with the number of invocations that a Bladelock has to take? Because I thought my idea to get Constitution Proficiency through an invocation was a good idea. It basically frees up a feat for an invocation.

I like the idea of a Bladelock being able to use his invocations to make him better at melee. Its a resource, but its the one I think you have more flexibility with. Yes, you get less of the social/scouting invocations, but that's what tradeoffs are for. Getting more resilence and higher melee damage should make you have less resources than other Warlocks.

I am really hoping that more invocations and warlock spells that interact in melee would be printed and it would fix the problems for Bladelock.

[BigONotation]

Resource cost and durability are the only problems with the class.

It cannot be said better. Thirsting Blade should be a 5th level Bladelock feature, not an invocation.

[georgie_leech]

It cannot be said better. Thirsting Blade should be a 5th level Bladelock feature, not an invocation.

So what features should the Chain and Tome pacts get at level 5, if you're adding features?

[DivisibleByZero]

It cannot be said better.

Except for the fact that it isn't true.
Resource costs are no higher than they are for Chain or Tome.
Durability is arguable, as the Warlock has things like Armor of Shadows, Hellish Rebuke, Armor of Agythis, tempHP from patron, mirror image, vampiric touch, etc. The list goes on.

[Jjj111]

Except for the fact that it isn't true.
Resource costs are no higher than they are for Chain or Tome.
Durability is arguable, as the Warlock has things like Armor of Shadows, Hellish Rebuke, Armor of Agythis, tempHP from patron, mirror image, vampiric touch, etc. The list goes on.

Get out with your logic. It's obviously not welcome here.

[CaptainSarathai]

Here's some changes my group made for my bladelock.


Pact weapon uses charisma for attack and damage.
Thirsting Blade is folded into the Blade Pact progression. I said at 6th, but the DM let me have it at 5th.
Armor of Shadows becomes AC=10+Dex+Cha. Admittedly, this has become less useful ever since I got +1 studded leather.
Lifedrinker now deals 1d4 extra damage and refills any current temp HP by the same amount, up to max.
Added a new Blade-only Invocation that lets me choose a non-ranged Fighting Style after a short rest. I've pretty much kept it stuck on Mariner for the extra movement options.


I'm also allowed to form the pact weapon for free at the start of a fight, but that's because we missed that it takes an action. So now, it's once for free and then it takes an action if I want to reform it.
I like this, it's a lot of what i already suggested. Free reform on Blade is kinda shady, if only because you can always draw+attack as a single action, and just summon your blade in the morning to wear on your belt.


Kryex, do you have a problem with the number of invocations that a Bladelock has to take? Because I thought my idea to get Constitution Proficiency through an invocation was a good idea. It basically frees up a feat for an invocation.

I like the idea of a Bladelock being able to use his invocations to make him better at melee. Its a resource, but its the one I think you have more flexibility with. Yes, you get less of the social/scouting invocations, but that's what tradeoffs are for. Getting more resilence and higher melee damage should make you have less resources than other Warlocks.
He/we are taking issue with the number of Invocs required.
To stay competitive with Agonizing Eldritch Blast at 1 Invocation, 2 ASIs and maybe a Feat,
the BladeLock needs 2 Invocations, 4ASIs, and at least 1 Feat.

The BladeLock is already trading options: melee optimization, in exchange for out-of-combat abilities. For the two ASIs for Blade, you can get either Chains of Carceri and Voice of the Chain Master, or you can snag Book of Secrets and make yourself a poor-man's version of both other options.

[Jjj111]

Here's some changes my group made for my bladelock.


Pact weapon uses charisma for attack and damage.
Thirsting Blade is folded into the Blade Pact progression. I said at 6th, but the DM let me have it at 5th.
Armor of Shadows becomes AC=10+Dex+Cha. Admittedly, this has become less useful ever since I got +1 studded leather.
Lifedrinker now deals 1d4 extra damage and refills any current temp HP by the same amount, up to max.
Added a new Blade-only Invocation that lets me choose a non-ranged Fighting Style after a short rest. I've pretty much kept it stuck on Mariner for the extra movement options.


I'm also allowed to form the pact weapon for free at the start of a fight, but that's because we missed that it takes an action. So now, it's once for free and then it takes an action if I want to reform it.
I hope the other players at your table get equally overpowered options. With hex and a great sword, which lasts 8 hours, you're doing 6d6 + 2*cha every turn at level 5 and at least 16 AC. With your temp hp, mirror image, great AC (and no stealth disadvantage) you're better than almost all the martial classes AND you can do great damage from range with EB AND your sword is considered magical unlike those of your compadres AND you still have stuff like fireball, fly, invisibility. You're character is broken. Oh, AND you have a fighting style. ffs...

This isn't so different to what a normal bladelock can do, but he has to invest, which he should. His casting stat should suffer if he wants to be a melee god. But with your changes, you get the best of both worlds.

[User_Undefined]

I like this, it's a lot of what i already suggested. Free reform on Blade is kinda shady, if only because you can always draw+attack as a single action, and just summon your blade in the morning to wear on your belt.

Like I said, the only reason it's allowed is because it took us several levels before we noticed it takes an action to form. Typically, my character walks around with nothing more than a dagger on his belt and forms the weapon as the fight starts depending on what we're fighting or where we are. Some examples are forming a maul when we were rushed by a horde of skeletons, a glaive when we were dungeon crawling through a tomb, or a trident when we had an underwater adventure. If I want to change its form mid-fight after I've summoned it, I have to spend an action to do it.

[Socratov]

I actually like those changes. My knee-jerk was that letting someone cast Eldritch Blast through a sword was a bit OP, but I realized that it's basically the CE feat as a class feature.
I think though, that rather than the second feat stacking onto AC, it should go onto TempHp, and should be practically identical to the Fiend Pact ability, except be stackable with any current HP. That, or provide a Resistance or damage reduction or something.
I feel like it's an unwritten but clearly intentional design choice that Warlocks are meant to absorb hits. They don't get great AC, but they get tempHP to offset this (in a perfect world) and the use spells like Armor of Agathys and Hellish Rebuke to translate hits into damage to enemies. It makes them almost like a Barbarian; if you hit them, they hit you back harder.



I think it's the Invocation Scaling, combined with this being the only class with Eldritch Blast and Hex, which is problematic considering it's the premiere ranged cantrip in the game already, and Agonizing Blast and Hex just makes it better.

What if we changed the early level progression of Warlocks?

One thing which bothered me with BladePact is that Warlocks are terrible in melee until 3rd level, then suddenly you can summon swords, and then 2 levels later you're getting Extra Attack. It just seems crazy.
So what if you chose your Pact first, and then your Patron at 3rd level? Treat it similarly to the Paladin - they are initiates, testing the waters of their faith, and then at 3rd level they truly get locked into it. The same could be true of Warlocks; they spend 2 levels being tempted further down the rabbit hole, and at 3rd level they're given that final chance to duck out before their soul is lost forever.

This gives you your Blade first, so you can establish yourself as a melee-oriented party-member from Session1. Or you'd get your 3 Cantrips (roughly equivalent to a Sorcerer now, woo-hoo) or Familiar. All things that other L1 characters would reasonably have.
At 3rd you get your Patron, which grants the TempHP steal, Telepathy, or Fey Presence. The more powerful stuff that most classes are getting around Lv3 anyway.

I would also grant Invocations at 1st, but Spell Slots at 2nd. I'd push Agonizing Blast back to 5. That's the same time that DracSorcs get their Elemental Affinity, a roughly analogous feature. That, or I'd make Eldritch Blast and Agonizing Blast both class features rather than taking up a Cantrip and Invocation on a "tax".
I also suggest dropping Life Drinker to 11th, which is the same time Fighters get Attack 3 and EB gets its 3rd Bolt.

I'd make Armor Shadows read as "10+Dex+Cha" as well. This allows Fighter ACs without necessarily going Fighter at L1.

I'd also give Warlocks half the Sorcerer Progression of spell slots.
Hear me out!
As it stands, Warlocks get their slots back on a Short Rest, and that's fine. But they only get 2 slots for most of their careers. They are always starving for slots. The DMG calls for 3 fights between rests. That's less than 1 casting per fight. And sure, you can upcast Hex to make it last longer than a fight, but the fact remains - nobody wants to cast AoA or Hellish Rebuke if it means they may not get to pop Hex later. This is troublesome, because as alluded earlier - Warlocks rely on those spells to keep them in the fight, and need to be able to throw more low-level spells.
From experience playing a SorLock, if you want Locks to do more than cast EB or swing a sword, you need to give them the fuel.
Obviously, recovering slots per Short Rest is tough. But that's why I suggest half the level progression of a Sorcerer. With a Short Rest midday, and a long or short rest for night, thats as many spells per day as a regular caster. In other words:

Lv1 = 0-1x 1st
Lv2 = 2x 1st
Lv3 = 2x 1st, 1x 2nd
Lv4 = 2x 1st, 2x 2nd
Lv5 = " 1x 3rd
Lv6 = " 2x 3rd
Lv7 = "
Lv8 = " 1x 4th
Lv9 = "
L10 = 2x 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 1x 5th
L11 = Mystic Arcanum (6th)
...
L13 = Mystic Arcanum (7th)
...
L15 = Mystic Arcanum (8th)
...
L17 = Mystic Arcanum (9th)
L18 = 2x 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th
...
L20 Eldritch Master
Thanks, one thing though, if you get lifedrinker to add temp hp, let the temp hp actually be enough to absorb (for one thing, to make tanking like a moon druid be feasible), and change AoA to mean Any temp Hp instead of just the temp HP granted by AoA, and have it end at the end of the warlock's turn. Otherwise all it takes is one turn for an enemy to deal a coupel of hits or cast a spell and the spellslot is wasted.

Channeling cantrips through attacks is really EK's schtick. The bladelock could do the same thing, but it takes away from the current feeling of hitting things hard with your big sword....

This seems like a natural idea, but not sure if it's the right one..

It's not uncommon for classes to share aspects. Besides, it's not as if it's the only feature an EK gets. The EK also gets to attack 4 times in an attack action, wear plate armour, use a shield and be generally untouchable through castings of Shield. For my fix the warlock would lose its extra attack (that's where the balancing comes from damage wise IMO).

[User_Undefined]

I hope the other players at your table get equally overpowered options. With hex and a great sword, which lasts 8 hours, you're doing 6d6 + 2*cha every turn at level 5 and at least 16 AC. With your temp hp, mirror image, great AC (and no stealth disadvantage) you're better than almost all the martial classes AND you can do great damage from range with EB AND your sword is considered magical unlike those of your compadres AND you still have stuff like fireball, fly, invisibility. You're character is broken. Oh, AND you have a fighting style. ffs...

This isn't so different to what a normal bladelock can do, but he has to invest, which he should. His casting stat should suffer if he wants to be a melee god. But with your changes, you get the best of both worlds.

I've only made a greatsword once or twice. Usually I make a glaive so I can hit from reach while the ranger, barbarian, and fighter get close. I use hex more for the check penalty (like when we knocked a stone throne on top of a frost giant. Hexed his strength and used EB to keep his minions away from the Fighter.) If I don't need reach, I make a longsword for the versatility. I haven't cast mirror image even though I know it because I only have two slots and we've taken a grand total of about 5 short rests the entire campaign. Stealth hasn't really come up except for when we snuck into a drug den and the barbarian opened with a charge and yelling "SNEAKING MISSION!!" which we all laughed at and ran with. Don't have fly or invisibility because there has yet to be a scenario where it's really needed. We're all level 11, so we all have magic weapons anyway except for the sorcerer, but he's a sorcerer. While I could get the great weapon fighting style, mariner is much better for me because of the climb and swim speed.

[Strill]

So what features should the Chain and Tome pacts get at level 5, if you're adding features?

None, because that change is meant to even the invocation cost between chain and tome. Chainlocks and Tomelocks use Eldritch Blast as their primary attack, and the only invocation they need only take with it to keep their damage up is Agonizing Blast. Bladelocks, on the other hand, require two invocations to keep their damage up. Giving them one of these invocations for free means that both styles require only one invocation for damage.


Except for the fact that it isn't true.
Resource costs are no higher than they are for Chain or Tome.
Durability is arguable, as the Warlock has things like Armor of Shadows, Hellish Rebuke, Armor of Agythis, tempHP from patron, mirror image, vampiric touch, etc. The list goes on.

You just contradicted yourself in two sentences. You say that resource costs are the same, and then suggest that the bladelock should spend extra resources on defense in the form of spell slots, which the tomelock or chainlock would not need to spend.

[Talionis]

I'm sorry, I disagree. I don't mind paying more for Bladelock, but I do want them to feel like they are good at melee and that there is a genuine reason for them to be in melee. The graph before showed that the damage was on par, but it didn't really show a huge reward for putting yourself into the fray in melee range... Now spells like Armor of Agathys does give you some good reasons to be in melee range, but again I'm now running a Barb/Tomelock so I see the value in just taking Crossbow Feat to be able to ranged attack in melee range without penalty and then still getting use out of Eldritch Blast.

[georgie_leech]

None, because that change is meant to even the invocation cost between chain and tome. Chainlocks and Tomelocks use Eldritch Blast as their primary attack, and the only invocation they need only take with it to keep their damage up is Agonizing Blast. Bladelocks, on the other hand, require two invocations to keep their damage up. Giving them one of these invocations for free means that both styles require only one invocation for damage.


I must be missing the part where Bladelocks are mandated to use their pact weapon as their primary attack. Last I checked, Bladelocks out of the box can do the same kinds of damage with EB as the others, with the added flexibility of having a weapon handy when ranged spells aren't a good choice. I read the ability as providing an option, not as the designated "DPS Mains choose this." Like, if I make a Tavern Brawler Barbarian because I like the image of a ferocious warrior who can use anything on hand to kill his foes, I recognise that just swinging a Greatsword is usually more effective in terms of straight numbers, what with those getting more support and all.

To use an analogy, it seems like trying to make single-classed Bladelocks into a melee primary build is a bit like pushing a round peg into a square hole. It's easy if you can accept the peg/numbers being smaller than the default (in this case, by just not taking Agonizing Blast). If you want the Ranged Damage too, you need to spend resources on melee too, to bring the new option up to par with the enhanced Ranged option.

EDIT: Let me try to explain how I see the pacts:

Pact of the Chain: You are a ranged spellcaster with a familiar

Pact of the Tome: You are a ranged spellcaster that can cast rituals.

Pact of the Blade: You are a ranged spellcaster that has a magical weapon that can't be stolen from them.

In all cases you are a Warlock first, Pact Whatever second. So it doesn't seem unreasonable to me for it to cost more resources to bring the Pact Whatever option up to Primary Action status.

[Jjj111]

I must be missing the part where Bladelocks are mandated to use their pact weapon as their primary attack. Last I checked, Bladelocks out of the box can do the same kinds of damage with EB as the others, with the added flexibility of having a weapon handy when ranged spells aren't a good choice. I read the ability as providing an option, not as the designated "DPS Mains choose this." Like, if I make a Tavern Brawler Barbarian because I like the image of a ferocious warrior who can use anything on hand to kill his foes, I recognise that just swinging a Greatsword is usually more effective in terms of straight numbers, what with those getting more support and all.

To use an analogy, it seems like trying to make single-classed Bladelocks into a melee primary build is a bit like pushing a round peg into a square hole. It's easy if you can accept the peg/numbers being smaller than the default (in this case, by just not taking Agonizing Blast). If you want the Ranged Damage too, you need to spend resources on melee too, to bring the new option up to par with the enhanced Ranged option.

Yes. All of this. Those in the thread that want to buff the bladelock are expecting to add really strong melee-type abilities to a caster, essentially making a character who is amazing at both things with no cost for doing so.

[Socratov]

Yes. All of this. Those in the thread that want to buff the bladelock are expecting to add really strong melee-type abilities to a caster, essentially making a character who is amazing at both things with no cost for doing so.

The chainlock gets to be an amazing scout and get great benefits involving localised casting. The tomelock gets great ritual casting, on top of (for a warlock) great diversification of cantrips. It's not a question of each pactboon giving a minor benefit: it's the fact that tome and chain give something that enriches the warlock without much risk, it's that the bladelock get to use a cool feature, but need to invest a lot of resources and risks to actually use it. The investment of risk is exactly why melee is as rewarding as it is and why bow and arrow is not as effective as melee in terms of damage.

[georgie_leech]

The investment of risk is exactly why melee is as rewarding as it is and why bow and arrow is not as effective as melee in terms of damage.

In theory. With equal investment, Ranged is generally on par with Melee in this edition, barring slight differences in damage dice and how often cover is a factor.

[Sianthus]

Here's some changes my group made for my bladelock.


Pact weapon uses charisma for attack and damage.
Thirsting Blade is folded into the Blade Pact progression. I said at 6th, but the DM let me have it at 5th.
Armor of Shadows becomes AC=10+Dex+Cha. Admittedly, this has become less useful ever since I got +1 studded leather.
Lifedrinker now deals 1d4 extra damage and refills any current temp HP by the same amount, up to max.
Added a new Blade-only Invocation that lets me choose a non-ranged Fighting Style after a short rest. I've pretty much kept it stuck on Mariner for the extra movement options.


I'm also allowed to form the pact weapon for free at the start of a fight, but that's because we missed that it takes an action. So now, it's once for free and then it takes an action if I want to reform it.

I'm gonna foreground my thoughts by saying that I play a bladelock (favourite class archetype) and I'd love any boosts to them. So you can be sure i'm not shooting these down (if any) because I don't feel they should get special snowflake status :D.

1. That's a little much. Only Druids get to use their spellcasting stat for melee and they still need shillelagh for that. I think a little MAD is a good balance actually. It's a complex style after all.
2. That sounds good, both 5th or 6th.
3. Limited use later yes, but also quite interesting. If you have the first that makes it less important, since you're able to focus on dex a little less.
4. Damn. That sounds really nice and I want ii for my bladelock. But also might be too strong maybe? 2d4 constant regen every turn if you just hit sounds crazy good to me.
a. What if you don't have temp HP? Does it just give you temp hp in that case or just fizzle out with no benefits?
b. Stacking. RAW say can't stack different source of temp hp, so your mileage may vary here. If it stacks with Dark One's Blessing, okay that's possibly okay. But it would be really ridiculous if it stacks with Armor of Agathys or Fire Shield (I still want it ugh so strong).

5. Fighting style for invocation sounds nice. Good exchange of benefits.

6. My DM allows the start of round free summon too :) It would be unecessary book keeping otherwise imo. I think it'd be much more engaging it was just a bonus action to summon it though. Makes for more engaging (cooler) fights. You can throw it at a flyer, summon it back, then stab someone next to you. Little things like that :D

[Talionis]

I must be missing the part where Bladelocks are mandated to use their pact weapon as their primary attack. Last I checked, Bladelocks out of the box can do the same kinds of damage with EB as the others, with the added flexibility of having a weapon handy when ranged spells aren't a good choice. I read the ability as providing an option, not as the designated "DPS Mains choose this." Like, if I make a Tavern Brawler Barbarian because I like the image of a ferocious warrior who can use anything on hand to kill his foes, I recognise that just swinging a Greatsword is usually more effective in terms of straight numbers, what with those getting more support and all.

To use an analogy, it seems like trying to make single-classed Bladelocks into a melee primary build is a bit like pushing a round peg into a square hole. It's easy if you can accept the peg/numbers being smaller than the default (in this case, by just not taking Agonizing Blast). If you want the Ranged Damage too, you need to spend resources on melee too, to bring the new option up to par with the enhanced Ranged option.

I will say that you are putting out a very narrow reason to be a Bladelock. If the melee weapon isn't your primary weapon you are proablably better off just going Tomelock Shillelagh and investing a lot resources for your "backup" attack. That much I agree with the Bladelock needs a buff crowd.

Bladelocks seem to not be good enough at melee to really have a reason to exist. They are a very cool thematic archetype, but lack a mechanical reason for existance. Eldritch Blast is so good that it is pretty much better to just take the Crossbow feat and be done with it, get what you can out of either Tomelock or Chainlock.

Now that being said if they bolster the Bladelock a little, I wouldn't expect that to come for free. I'd be happy to tie up a lot of my noncombat invocations to make my melee attacks make more sense. Fighters don't get a lot of social magical powers so tying up my invocations isn't a big deal to me.

I'll go a step further, its easy for Warlocks to pick up a couple versetile spells to help in noncombat, so that a Bladelock doesn't have to feel dead out of combat, but the whole point of a Bladelock should be that he's traded a lot of his flexibility to be melee relevant.

I'm just mad that the Bladelock doesn't feel melee relevant, it doesn't feel like its doing near enough damage or safe enough in melee to warrant the investment in resources. <-- This is what makes me think there is a real design mistake in the class here. Why is a Bladelock in melee? If the answer is that its his backup attack that answer does not seem to me to be good enough.

[georgie_leech]

I will say that you are putting out a very narrow reason to be a Bladelock. If the melee weapon isn't your primary weapon you are proablably better off just going Tomelock Shillelagh and investing a lot resources for your "backup" attack. That much I agree with the Bladelock needs a buff crowd.

Bladelocks seem to not be good enough at melee to really have a reason to exist. They are a very cool thematic archetype, but lack a mechanical reason for existance. Eldritch Blast is so good that it is pretty much better to just take the Crossbow feat and be done with it, get what you can out of either Tomelock or Chainlock.

Now that being said if they bolster the Bladelock a little, I wouldn't expect that to come for free. I'd be happy to tie up a lot of my noncombat invocations to make my melee attacks make more sense. Fighters don't get a lot of social magical powers so tying up my invocations isn't a big deal to me.

I'll go a step further, its easy for Warlocks to pick up a couple versetile spells to help in noncombat, so that a Bladelock doesn't have to feel dead out of combat, but the whole point of a Bladelock should be that he's traded a lot of his flexibility to be melee relevant.

I'm just mad that the Bladelock doesn't feel melee relevant, it doesn't feel like its doing near enough damage or safe enough in melee to warrant the investment in resources. <-- This is what makes me think there is a real design mistake in the class here. Why is a Bladelock in melee? If the answer is that its his backup attack that answer does not seem to me to be good enough.

Fair enough. So it seems like people want Pact of the Blade to be the option that trades versatility for power?

[Talionis]

In theory. With equal investment, Ranged is generally on par with Melee in this edition, barring slight differences in damage dice and how often cover is a factor.

Damage doesn't tend to be coming from the other end. Many attackers won't have ranged attacks so ranged is advantaged there if it can hurt soemthing and the foe can't hurt them back. If you are in melee, then you tend to be clumped up there and Area of Effect spells will hit you harder because its harder for you to spread out away from the damage.

Why would anyone want to be in melee if damage between melee and ranged is the same if they have the option to be in ranged?

[Strill]

I must be missing the part where Bladelocks are mandated to use their pact weapon as their primary attack. Last I checked, Bladelocks out of the box can do the same kinds of damage with EB as the others, with the added flexibility of having a weapon handy when ranged spells aren't a good choice. I read the ability as providing an option, not as the designated "DPS Mains choose this." Whether they're mandated or not is completely irrelevant. The question is whether they can, and whether the costs are comparable to the alternatives. Yes, a bladelock can spend yet another invocation to get Agonizing Blast as well. This simply exacerbates the problem of them needing to spend too many resources.


Like, if I make a Tavern Brawler Barbarian because I like the image of a ferocious warrior who can use anything on hand to kill his foes, I recognise that just swinging a Greatsword is usually more effective in terms of straight numbers, what with those getting more support and all. Tavern Brawler is a feat. Feats may or may not be optimal on any given character. Pact of the Blade is a class feature. If a class feature is not viable for a single-classed character, then that class feature is broken.


To use an analogy, it seems like trying to make single-classed Bladelocks into a melee primary build is a bit like pushing a round peg into a square hole. That is called being a killjoy (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21308395&postcount=61).

If Pact of the Blade were not intended to give Warlocks the option of a primary melee build, it would not give them DPS on par with one. If you think that Warlocks should not have primary melee builds, then there shouldn't be a Pact of the Blade. Also, removing Pact of the Blade wouldn't even make a difference mechanically because you can already make a melee warlock with Eldritch Blast + Crossbow Expert.

[Kryx]

I'm honestly dismayed that you two (Jjj111 and Zero) are unable to let people discuss a topic without tens of posts now trying to force your view.

This is incredibly childish. I, and I'm sure others, have no interest in having this debate for the 100th time. We've all been playing this game for a while - we don't need you to tell us how we're experiencing it or how "overpowered" we're making an option. I could spend all day talking about how underpowered or overpowered the options in the PHB that you're keeping, but at the end of the day it's your game and I'm not going to repeatedly tell you how to run your game, especially if you directly asked me to stop. Multiple times now.

Please stop trying to tell us how to run our game.

[Jjj111]

Bladelocks seem to not be good enough at melee to really have a reason to exist.

Really? Lots of people in this thread who have played them think they are fine.



I'm just mad that the Bladelock doesn't feel melee relevant, it doesn't feel like its doing near enough damage or safe enough in melee to warrant the investment in resources. <-- This is what makes me think there is a real design mistake in the class here. Why is a Bladelock in melee? If the answer is that its his backup attack that answer does not seem to me to be good enough.

At level 3, when it comes online, assuming you have hex up, you can do 3d6 + STR per turn with a great sword. Or if you're dual wielding your pact short sword with another short sword you can do 4d6 + 2*DEX per turn. How is this not enough damage?

[Strill]

Fair enough. So it seems like people want Pact of the Blade to be the option that trades versatility for power?

I don't think so. It's not a matter of having more power. I just want a Pact of the Blade with damage on-par with Eldritch Blast, enough defense to be in melee, and some kind of utility or exploration perks like the other pacts have. Most importantly, I want these things without having to spend far far more resources than an Eldritch Blast-based character would.

[Talionis]

Fair enough. So it seems like people want Pact of the Blade to be the option that trades versatility for power?

I don't think a lot of people here are willing to trade versatility, but I would agree that's what I think should happen. You trade some of your versatility in order to have enough power, either damage or resistance to damage to be in melee.

Armor of Agathys is good enough that its almost a good reason to be in melee range. Making it last long enough and lasting long enough yourself in melee could be a good reason. I actually think this is what Bladelocks are supposed to do in melee, but I think it wasn't done well. In practice my Armor leaves me pretty quickly and I end up trying to pull myself out of melee and shoot Eldritch Blasts.

Not saying Temporary Hit Points should stack, but of they did stack and Armor of Agathys read as long as the spell is in effect and you have Temporary Hit Points then I could see that being enough reason to be in melee. Maybe a mid level Bladelock invocation that granted resistances would be helpful to making this work better?

[Talionis]

Really? Lots of people in this thread who have played them think they are fine.



At level 3, when it comes online, assuming you have hex up, you can do 3d6 + STR per turn with a great sword. Or if you're dual wielding your pact short sword with another short sword you can do 4d6 + 2*DEX per turn. How is this not enough damage?

You can do about the same amount of damage with Eldritch Blast and be safer, and not have to invest in Dex.

[Jjj111]

You can do about the same amount of damage with Eldritch Blast and be safer, and not have to invest in Dex.

Which is the same logic that says everyone should be using greatsword if they are strength builds and rapiers if they are finesse builds. But that's not d&d. There are many times that the flavor aspect gets chosen over the min-maxed option. Sure, you could back up and blast, but if that's not what your character is about, then he wouldn't do that.

[DivisibleByZero]

Please stop trying to tell us how to run our game.

We're discussing the topic at hand, which, as I recall, you actually asked us to do.
That's what we're doing.
Just because you don't agree doesn't mean that we aren't allowed to continue discussing it.
If everyone agrees, then there isn't a discussion to be had, is there?
So who is the one that's really being childish here?

[georgie_leech]

Tavern Brawler is a feat. Feats may or may not be optimal on any given character. Pact of the Blade is a class feature. If a class feature is not viable for a single-classed character, then that class feature is broken.

A Bladelock is perfectly viable, but no one builds a character around a single class feature. A Barbarian is more than Rage; they get abilities that synergise with it, features that add to it, and unrelated features to make a well rounded a character. A Cleric does not build solely around Casting spells, nor do Druids or even Wizards. a Paladin is more than his ability to Smite. Likewise, a Warlock, even a Bladelock, is more than her Pact choice.




If Pact of the Blade were not intended to give Warlocks the option of a primary melee build, it would not give them DPS on par with one. If you think that Warlocks should not have primary melee builds, then there shouldn't be a Pact of the Blade. Also, removing Pact of the Blade wouldn't even make a difference mechanically because you can already make a melee warlock with Eldritch Blast + Crossbow Expert.

Early on, they do roughly comparable damage, but as you level, it doesn't. I look at that and see it not providing a primary melee option, but a back up. You look at it as failing to keep up with Ranged and so failing as a primary Melee option. If you want it to keep up, you have the resources to do so.

----------------

Incidentally, been mulling around different ways to make Bladelocks "Melee Primary" without just making them Eldritch Knights and without making it the superior choice in all circumstances (see above, re: single not-subclass choices are not meant to completely change how classes function). What do people think about, instead of Thirsting Blade:

Eldritch Blade Channeling
You know the Booming Blade, Greenflame Blade, and Lightning Lure cantrips, and you can only cast them using your Pact weapon if gained through this feature. When you cast any of the above cantrips using your Pact Weapon, it deals Force damage instead of the normal damage types of the cantrips.

[Kryx]

I don't think a lot of people here are willing to trade versatility, but I would agree that's what I think should happen.
Blastlocks do not trade their versatility for the damage they can safely output from range.

[Strill]

There are many times that the flavor aspect gets chosen over the min-maxed option.

Then the flavor option is in need of a rebalance to be in line with the min-max option, which is what this thread is for.

[Jjj111]

Then the flavor option is in need of a rebalance to be in line with the min-max option, which is what this thread is for.

Well then we should buff hand axes, daggers, darts, clubs, half the subclasses, half the spells, etc.

Everything doesn't have to be equal in power. The game is designed to have fun and interesting choices and their trade offs.

Edit: and I should clarify, I don't think that it needs buffed. I think it's stronger than pact of the chain

[Talionis]

Blastlocks do not trade their versatility for the damage they can safely output from range.

No they don't but if you add enough defense to be in melee and damage to make it worth being in Melee, Armor of Agathys almost does this. You've added a lot to the character and created Superman. He's tougher than the Blastlock and now he does more damage than a blastlock. Mind you if you take an invocation you can blast as well as a Blastlock and you still want to have all your invocations freed up?

Seems like you want too much. Balance wise it's hard for Warlocks because they have such a great ability to blast for cheap that the Bladelock mechanically can't trade that for some Melee improvements.

Honestly I'd be happy with an invocation at level fourteen that let me cast Stone Skin at will without the material component for Bladelocks only. It would improve Armor of Agathys a lot and make my large investment in melee feats and ASIs more worth it.

I agree Bladelocks need something just not as big as a lot of people have posted in this thread.

[DivisibleByZero]

I don't think a lot of people here are willing to trade versatility, but I would agree that's what I think should happen.

Blastlocks do not trade their versatility for the damage they can safely output from range.

No one loses any versatility.
Chain and Tome offer out of combat versatility.
Blade offers combat versatility.

[User_Undefined]

I'm gonna foreground my thoughts by saying that I play a bladelock (favourite class archetype) and I'd love any boosts to them. So you can be sure i'm not shooting these down (if any) because I don't feel they should get special snowflake status :D.

1. That's a little much. Only Druids get to use their spellcasting stat for melee and they still need shillelagh for that. I think a little MAD is a good balance actually. It's a complex style after all.
2. That sounds good, both 5th or 6th.
3. Limited use later yes, but also quite interesting. If you have the first that makes it less important, since you're able to focus on dex a little less.
4. Damn. That sounds really nice and I want ii for my bladelock. But also might be too strong maybe? 2d4 constant regen every turn if you just hit sounds crazy good to me.
a. What if you don't have temp HP? Does it just give you temp hp in that case or just fizzle out with no benefits?
b. Stacking. RAW say can't stack different source of temp hp, so your mileage may vary here. If it stacks with Dark One's Blessing, okay that's possibly okay. But it would be really ridiculous if it stacks with Armor of Agathys or Fire Shield (I still want it ugh so strong).

5. Fighting style for invocation sounds nice. Good exchange of benefits.

6. My DM allows the start of round free summon too :) It would be unecessary book keeping otherwise imo. I think it'd be much more engaging it was just a bonus action to summon it though. Makes for more engaging (cooler) fights. You can throw it at a flyer, summon it back, then stab someone next to you. Little things like that :D

1. Possibly, but even with using charisma to hit, I'm still a point or two behind the martials who have magic weapons. As an aside, something I'm debating is if you bond with an existing weapon, you have to use the stat you'd normally use. Charisma is for the bare bones pact weapon.
4. We're only level 11, so it hasn't even had the chance to come up yet. Both myself and the DM accept that it may change after play. The current idea is that if you have no temp hp, you don't gain anything other than an extra d4 damage. The stacking is part of the reason that it may change. Even stacking with AoA, how much damage does an average attack do at 12th level? If you hit both times and max the roll, refilling 8 temp hp is still going to be a net loss.

[Strill]

A Bladelock is perfectly viable, but no one builds a character around a single class feature. A Barbarian is more than Rage; they get abilities that synergise with it, features that add to it, and unrelated features to make a well rounded a character. A Cleric does not build solely around Casting spells, nor do Druids or even Wizards. a Paladin is more than his ability to Smite. Likewise, a Warlock, even a Bladelock, is more than her Pact choice.So you're saying that a Bladelock must spend even more invocations and feats in order to be a well-rounded character, where all these other classes get all the things they need to be effective built-in. That sounds like a problem to me.


Early on, they do roughly comparable damage, but as you level, it doesn't. I look at that and see it not providing a primary melee option, but a back up. You look at it as failing to keep up with Ranged and so failing as a primary Melee option. If you want it to keep up, you have the resources to do so.Why bother spending all these feats and invocations on keeping the pact weapon's damage up when I could take Eldritch Blast + Crossbow Expert and just use Eldritch Blast in melee?

Tell me, from a game design perspective, what does spending invocations to keep your pact relevant accomplish? How does that give the player interesting choices? What does it add to the game? Why is attacking in melee so valuable that it should have such a prohibitive cost?

I say it offers no interesting option. The player already has a large sunk cost from choosing the Pact itself. In order to justify that choice, they're obligated to take the Blade pact invocations, or else let the pact weapon fall into obsolescence and irrelevance, which is disappointing and frustrating for the player. In other words, if you plan to use your Pact Weapon, and you want it to be better than the Greenflame Blade you could've gotten from Pact of the Tome, you're obligated to keep taking invocations and feats. The net result is you end up with a mechanically weaker version of the Crossbow Expert feat that costs you two invocations and all your feats. That's not acceptable. Being able to attack in melee is nowhere near powerful enough to justify that.

Furthermore, this flies against the design principles displayed elsewhere in 5e. When you choose an option with other classes, it remains viable throughout the game, or can be traded for a new option later. Fighters don't have to spend feats to get their extra attacks. Beastmaster Rangers do not have to invest extra feats just to keep their pet's damage up. Cantrips do not require you to invest levels in a particular class to keep their damage scaling. Sorcerers can trade out an old spell for a new one when they level up. Clerics get their domain's choice of either Divine Strike or Potent Spellcasting to keep their melee or cantrip damage up.


Well then we should buff hand axes, daggers, darts, clubs, half the subclasses, half the spells, etc. The game is balanced well enough that we don't need to buff half the subclasses, but as far as weapons and spells go, you're absolutely right. There are plenty of weapons and spells that are completely eclipsed by other weapons and spells, which need to be buffed.

Daggers and darts are not among the weapons that need a buff, since they each have unique advantages that other simple weapons do not.

[DracoKnight]

The only fix my group has made to the bladelock is making their blade a bonus action to summon.

[Spiritchaser]

You focused on minutiae and sailed right past the point.
An agonizing eldritch blast is widely agreed to be one of the best sources of at will damage in the game.
A simple single classed bladelock, with no special rules, no fighting styles, no feats, following fairly reasonable advances with items, and using the *worst* melee style, not only keeps up with that AgEB, but in some cases passes it through 16 levels of play.
And people that read some forum posts by some white room theorycrafting haters then drank the kool-aid and call them "filthily bad"

They are not bad.
They are not broken.
They do not need fixing.

Toss medium armor onto bladelock at level 3 if you want to, and call it a day.


The numerical treatment makes some significant assumptions about magic weapons that limit the validity of the analysis. I also think the hit chance needs a check... But it's common to both so whatever.

I'd say the math shows that up to a point, balance concerns with regards to damage can be addressed with sufficiently powerful magic weapons, and that after that point, a belt of giant strength would be required.

Depending on the nature of the campaign, may not be so useful.

[Strill]

People have put up a list of the stuff Bladelocks are missing, but they're overlooking the fact that Blastlocks get Repelling Blast, while Bladelocks get nothing comparable. Therefore, to put Bladelocks on par with repelling blast, I'd like to propose an invocation for Bladelocks. Tell me if you think it's overpowered.

Impossible Angle
Once per turn when you attack with your pact weapon, you may increase your reach to 15 ft for that attack. If you hit, your target is teleported 10 ft towards you in a straight line.

[Kryx]

Well then we should buff hand axes, daggers, darts, clubs, half the subclasses, half the spells, etc.
I'm right there with you. We can discuss those items in another thread with you like. I've already done the spells part, but would love to hear some suggestions how to buff hand axes, darts, clubs, and the other weak subclasses like College of Valor.

More player options is a great thing.


Impossible Angle
Once per turn when you attack with your pact weapon, you may increase your reach to 15 ft for that attack. If you hit, your target is teleported 10 ft towards you in a straight line.
I think that is a good option that is better balanced than Repelling Blast (which I'd suggest also be once per turn).

[Sianthus]

1. Possibly, but even with using charisma to hit, I'm still a point or two behind the martials who have magic weapons. As an aside, something I'm debating is if you bond with an existing weapon, you have to use the stat you'd normally use. Charisma is for the bare bones pact weapon.
4. We're only level 11, so it hasn't even had the chance to come up yet. Both myself and the DM accept that it may change after play. The current idea is that if you have no temp hp, you don't gain anything other than an extra d4 damage. The stacking is part of the reason that it may change. Even stacking with AoA, how much damage does an average attack do at 12th level? If you hit both times and max the roll, refilling 8 temp hp is still going to be a net loss.

1. A level or 2 behind martials yes, but you're still a kickass caster :) I like the idea of adding that aside.

2. It wasn't the weapon damage I was worried about actually. The additional
1d4 is fine. It's the recharging of AoA or Fire Shield. Since you refilling the spell's temp hp makes them last longer and do more damage than they're supposed to. I'm not sure by how much, but it's just something to consider :)

[Tanarii]

Fair enough. So it seems like people want Pact of the Blade to be the option that trades versatility for power?
I don't think so. It's not a matter of having more power. I just want a Pact of the Blade with damage on-par with Eldritch Blast, enough defense to be in melee, and some kind of utility or exploration perks like the other pacts have. Most importantly, I want these things without having to spend far far more resources than an Eldritch Blast-based character would.
That sounds like a whole bunch of more power to me. You want to be good enough to dish it out AND hang in melee, without spending any more resources than a EB character would ... when you don't have to give up a single thing about being a ranged character, except access to different pact. That's a LOT of power to be asking for, and you don't want to trade anything for it.

Edit: To be clear, I consider "improved OA & melee attack, plus weapon can't be taken away from you and is magical" to be perfectly balanced with "3 cantrips from any class" and "improved familiar".

Edit2: To be fair, I consider the 5e balance between ranged & melee attackers to be that ranged characters are less survivable. So in get where people who want bladelocks to be more survivable are coming from. The problem is, if you want to maintain that balance, you have to give up your ranged capabilities. Or you have to remain a skirmisher, mix and match melee and don't hang around in melee. Bladelocks fall into the latter category, since they don't give up anything significant in ranged capabilities.

[Spiritchaser]

This isn't really a specific answer to anything, just boy skying, but this seems to be a reasonable place for it.

What would people think of an invocation that debuffed the target's to hit if you succeeded in making an attack with your pact weapon?

Just a short duration, even just a round, but of a significant magnitude.

It would give a bladelock a reason to be in melee.

[Talionis]

This isn't really a specific answer to anything, just boy skying, but this seems to be a reasonable place for it.

What would people think of an invocation that debuffed the target's to hit if you succeeded in making an attack with your pact weapon?

Just a short duration, even just a round, but of a significant magnitude.

It would give a bladelock a reason to be in melee.
I like it except for it probably needs to make them do half damage so it works with Armor of Agathys and Fire Shield desires to be hit but not hit hard. But this is the type of theme for Warlock Hexblade ish guy that is supposed to be about debuffing opponents.

It's better than my simple suggestion of granting Stone Skin at 14. It's less good so it could also come online earlier. Might be fun for the half damage to last two rounds.

[Citan]

Here's some changes my group made for my bladelock.


Pact weapon uses charisma for attack and damage.
Thirsting Blade is folded into the Blade Pact progression. I said at 6th, but the DM let me have it at 5th.
Armor of Shadows becomes AC=10+Dex+Cha. Admittedly, this has become less useful ever since I got +1 studded leather.
Lifedrinker now deals 1d4 extra damage and refills any current temp HP by the same amount, up to max.
Added a new Blade-only Invocation that lets me choose a non-ranged Fighting Style after a short rest. I've pretty much kept it stuck on Mariner for the extra movement options.


I'm also allowed to form the pact weapon for free at the start of a fight, but that's because we missed that it takes an action. So now, it's once for free and then it takes an action if I want to reform it.
Hi!
While I think many people proposed interesting ideas, some of which very nice, this is really the proposition that wins me.
- difficulty to be reliable at low level? Check (CHA for attack)
- no invocation to get Extra Attac? Check (although it breaks parity with other Pacts, seems really the best option).
- difficulty to survive at low level? Check (Armor of Shadows revisited) Although I would have proposed Armor of Blades (see below)
- thematic synergy with other Warlock abilities? check (Lifedrinker revamp, although I find it difficult to articulate with Armor of Agathys or Fiend, at least in this current formulation).

I think the extra bonus of Fighting Style is just too much though, considering everything else that has already been given (making Bladelock SAD, removing the Thirsting Blade invocation, giving a better AC).

Armor of Blades: as a bonus action, Warlock divides his pact blade into thousands of tiny, sharp pieces that surround and circle around him, slicing all coming too close: until the start of his next turn, every creature making a melee attack against him suffers 1d6 piercing damage, unless it is using a reach weapon. Damage increases to 2d6 when Warlock reaches 11th level.
>>> Seems more thematic to me while as useful as balanced because while it can deal quite a few HP damage (making it great to keep swarms at bay) it...
- will be of very little use against powerful enemies
- means Warlock does not wield his weapon in hands until the start of next turn, so no opportunity attack (unless he uses a mundane weapon or Warcaster feat).




Armor of Agathys is good enough that its almost a good reason to be in melee range. Making it last long enough and lasting long enough yourself in melee could be a good reason. I actually think this is what Bladelocks are supposed to do in melee, but I think it wasn't done well. In practice my Armor leaves me pretty quickly and I end up trying to pull myself out of melee and shoot Eldritch Blasts.

Not saying Temporary Hit Points should stack, but of they did stack and Armor of Agathys read as long as the spell is in effect and you have Temporary Hit Points then I could see that being enough reason to be in melee. Maybe a mid level Bladelock invocation that granted resistances would be helpful to making this work better?
I think you nailed it. So I'd suggest, instead of Lifedrinker variant above, making actually an Invocation "on" the Armor of Agathys, exclusive to Blade Pact, and make it 8th level required or something, so it can help get more of Armor of Agathys as one of the two slots Warlock has and give a smooth sense of progression "as a Bladelock" between Extra Attack and Lifedrinker.

"Armor of Cold Blood (or "Agathys Siphon"): once per turn when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack while under the effect of Armor of Agathys spell, its temporary hit points are refilled by an amount equal to your Charisma modifier".

[Strill]

That sounds like a whole bunch of more power to me. You want to be good enough to dish it out AND hang in melee, without spending any more resources than a EB character would ... when you don't have to give up a single thing about being a ranged character, except access to different pact. That's a LOT of power to be asking for, and you don't want to trade anything for it.So you're saying that Crossbow Expert is overpowered?

"improved OA & melee attack, The improved OA doesn't come into play until 11th level unless you're willing to forego an arcane focus. The melee attack ability could be much more easily acquired via Crossbow Expert, and would let you use Repelling Blast in melee too.

plus weapon can't be taken away from you and is magical" Eldritch Blast already cannot be taken away from you, and is magical. This is not an advantage, it's a prerequisite for parity with Eldritch Blast.

perfectly balanced with "3 cantrips from any class" and "improved familiar".Those are not the primary benefits of those pacts. The primary benefits are their exclusive invocations, which provide more than a feat's worth of utility. For example, Chainlock gets to spy through their familiar from any distance, effectively giving them Arcane Eye at-will. Tomelock gets all ritual spells.

Edit2: To be fair, I consider the 5e balance between ranged & melee attackers to be that ranged characters are less survivable. So in get where people who want bladelocks to be more survivable are coming from. The problem is, if you want to maintain that balance, you have to give up your ranged capabilities. Or you have to remain a skirmisher, mix and match melee and don't hang around in melee. Bladelocks fall into the latter category, since they don't give up anything significant in ranged capabilities.I think Bladelocks should need one invocation for damage, and one invocation for some combat utility comparable to Repelling Blast (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21310698&postcount=128). Maybe you could include some other Blade Pact invocation that parallels Eldritch Spear. Investing in those invocations over Agonizing Blast or Repelling Blast means you are incentivized to focus on melee over range. Alternatively, investing in both melee and ranged invocations means you miss out on all the other interesting invocations you could've taken instead.

[Pex]

People have put up a list of the stuff Bladelocks are missing, but they're overlooking the fact that Blastlocks get Repelling Blast, while Bladelocks get nothing comparable. Therefore, to put Bladelocks on par with repelling blast, I'd like to propose an invocation for Bladelocks. Tell me if you think it's overpowered.

Impossible Angle
Once per turn when you attack with your pact weapon, you may increase your reach to 15 ft for that attack. If you hit, your target is teleported 10 ft towards you in a straight line.

"Teleported" might have verisimilitude baggage. The effect could be fine, but the flavor text of how it's achieved might rub people the wrong way. Since Lightning Lure exists you can use its language as a base or perhaps just use it and make the damage force damage.

[DivisibleByZero]

So you're saying that Crossbow Expert is overpowered?
The improved OA doesn't come into play until 11th level unless you're willing to forego an arcane focus. The melee attack ability could be much more easily acquired via Crossbow Expert, and would let you use Repelling Blast in melee too.
Eldritch Blast already cannot be taken away from you, and is magical. This is not an advantage, it's a prerequisite for parity with Eldritch Blast.
Those are not the primary benefits of those pacts. The primary benefits are their exclusive invocations, which provide more than a feat's worth of utility. For example, Chainlock gets to spy through their familiar from any distance, effectively giving them Arcane Eye at-will. Tomelock gets all ritual spells.
I think Bladelocks should need one invocation for damage, and one invocation for some combat utility comparable to Repelling Blast (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21310698&postcount=128). Maybe you could include some other Blade Pact invocation that parallels Eldritch Spear. Investing in those invocations over Agonizing Blast or Repelling Blast means you are incentivized to focus on melee over range. Alternatively, investing in both melee and ranged invocations means you miss out on all the other interesting invocations you could've taken instead.

Ridiculously hypocritical.
On one hand you're saying that Chain and Tome should absolutely take their respective invocations because that's their primary purpose.
On the other hand you're saying that a bladelock who does it can't take something more interesting.
So when Tome gets a feature and needs an invocation to make it decent, that's fine.
When Chain gets a feature and needs an invocation to make it decent, and another for a combat benefit, that's also fine.
When Blade gets a feature and spends two invocations on improving it over time, that's absolutely the worst design imaginable.
That argument is full of fail.

And thank you for expressing exactly why I have been repeating that you have to compare pact to pact as apples to apples.
Apparently you understand exactly what I'm saying, you just refuse to admit it.

[Talionis]

I will say this Bladelocks are very different from Tomelock and Chainlock. I think it takes more put yourself in melee range. It's a more damaging place to be. It changes you from a blaster to a melee. You just need more to be in melee. You can't do melee well even as a skirmisher without a lot of investment.

I think it's reasonable to make a Bladelock make itself very narrow by Warlock standards to achieve competence at melee but it should be able to be competent. I wish there was a good way to gimp Bladelock blasting to balance out benefits to make a Bladelock feel competent. But since that isn't easy to do I would suggest being okay with a invocation tax. Because no character should be good at everything.

I would define competent as having a real reason to be in melee for strategic reason the majority of the time and survive under normal circumstances.

[Bugado25]

I just read the whole thread and have a few points to add.

1: Some of the calculations presented in the thread for DPR ain't reliable because:

a) You are not taking into consideration that you need to use your 1st turn bonus action for Hex. That means no TWF or Polearm Master in 1st round, so you need to add at least 2 turns to see the damage. And if the 1st target dies, another bonus action is wasted to trade targets

b) Most importantly, i don't know how you plan to keep concentration in hex while in melee without Con prof or War caster. Hex won't last enough for you to actually use your bonus action TWF attack, unless your DM decides not to attack you. Your armor class is not good enough to avoid geting hit realiably and there is a good chance that you will fail the con save with your small bonus

c) A single class strenght based bladelock is simply not viable. You would need high values in Str(for damage), Dex(for AC), Con(for HP and concentration) and Cha(for casting and Lifedrinker). Unless you roll stats, is impossible to focus in 4 different ability scores. You would at the very least have a low AC or HP and con saves, what would make extremelly hard to keep Hex, and without hex, your damage would be lower than a blastlock.

d)This is a minor one. In some comments someone said about a warlock dual wielding shortswords. Warlocks are not proficient in shortswords, so the option for TWF is pact shortsword+ dagger

Here are some numbers based on these points: For Armor class i will use the DMG guidelines, what means that you will hit with an 8 or more if your attack ability is being improved with every ASI.

LV 3
Bladelock TWF
2d6+3=10×12(hits from 8 to 19)=120+17(crit)= 137/20 = 6.85/attack(short sword plus hex)
1d4+1d6= 6x12=72+12=84/20=4.2/attack (dagger plus hex)
1st turn: 1 shortsword attack + hex (10 damage)
2nd turn: 1 shortsword+ 1 dagger (16 damage)
Total: 2 shortswords(6.85+6.85)+ 1 dagger (4,2) = 17.9

Blastlock
1d10+1d6+3=12×12=144+21=165/20=8.25/attack
1st turn: EB+Hex
2nd turn: EB
Total=2 EB attacks(8.25x2=16.5)

So, from 3rd to 5th level, if you somehow keeps your Hex and attacks the same target for at least 2 rounds, the bladelock damage will be better.

LV 5
Bladelock
2d6+4=11×12=132+18=150/20=7.5/attack
1d4+1d6= 4.2/attack
1st turn: 2 sword attacks+hex
2nd turn: 2 sword attacks+dagger
Total:4x7.5=30+4,2=34,2

Blastlock
1d10+1d6+4=13×12=156+22=178/20=8.9/attack
1st turn: EBx2+Hex
2nd turn: EBx2
Total=8.9×4=35.4

The Blastlock is ahead by a small margin, that would dissapear if there were a 3rd round (6x8.9=53.4 and 7.5x6+4.2x2=53.4).
So the bladelock would need at least 3 rounds to keep up with damage, and a 4th to go ahead. Again without altering targets and having a much harder time holding Hex.

LV 12
Bladelock
2d6+5(Str)+4(Cha)=16×12=192+23=215/20=10.75/attack
1d4+1d6= 4.2/attack

Turns=Same as before
4x10.75=43+4.2=47.2
Damage on every turn after that=25.7

Blastlock
1d10+1d6+5=14x12=168+23=191/20=9.55
Turns=Same as before
6x9.55=57.3
Damage on every turn after that=28.65

Now, the bladelock will never again keep up with the blastlock, even considering that you have lifedrinker and you keep hex. It would become even worst at 17, as the bladelock would have no bonus, and the blaslock would get another attack.

[DivisibleByZero]

If you actually read the numbers you would see that they are calculated both with and without the bonus action included.
And if your DM wants to be a tool and say that you are simultaneously proficient with the short sword in one hand while not proficient with the short sword in your other hand, then you go to a Dagger for that other hand and lose less than 1pt of damage per round on average.

[Jjj111]

stuff

The damage difference you note is still minimal. At level 17 it's gets pretty significant but no one is saying that the bladelock can crank out a lot more damage than a blastlock. We don't think it should be able to. Blastlocks do good damage when compared to other classes. Bladelocks can do similar damage in melee AND they retain the ability to step back and blast.

[Talionis]

Good to see numbers.

I think Armor of Agathys helps to recover the difference in damage and give a Bladelock the damage reason to be in melee.

The trick then would be more important to help a Bladelock keep up his/her Amor of Agathys.

So suggestions like an invocation that causes foes hit with Eldritch Blade do half damage for the next round and a second invocation that allows Warlock to be proficient in Constitution saves. Would fix the defense problems, be balanced trading an available invocation resource.

It's a minimal patch that's pretty good at making a Bladelock viable with a proper cost.

[Tanarii]

So you're saying that Crossbow Expert is overpowered?Yes.


The improved OA doesn't come into play until 11th level unless you're willing to forego an arcane focus. The melee attack ability could be much more easily acquired via Crossbow Expert, and would let you use Repelling Blast in melee too.
Eldritch Blast already cannot be taken away from you, and is magical. This is not an advantage, it's a prerequisite for parity with Eldritch Blast.Improved OA comes into play immediately at level 3. It's only +2 to +3 damage for a non-magic weapon, depending on if you're Dex or Str, but it's still an improvement.


Those are not the primary benefits of those pacts. The primary benefits are their exclusive invocations, which provide more than a feat's worth of utility. For example, Chainlock gets to spy through their familiar from any distance, effectively giving them Arcane Eye at-will. Tomelock gets all ritual spells.
I think Bladelocks should need one invocation for damage, and one invocation for some combat utility comparable to Repelling Blast (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21310698&postcount=128). Maybe you could include some other Blade Pact invocation that parallels Eldritch Spear. Investing in those invocations over Agonizing Blast or Repelling Blast means you are incentivized to focus on melee over range. Alternatively, investing in both melee and ranged invocations means you miss out on all the other interesting invocations you could've taken instead.I agree, invocations cost to access alternate Pact buff ups is totally a fair comparison. As long as you compare apples to apples. Extra attack to the first tome/chain invocation. Bonus to EB damage vs bonus to melee damage, although there's some crossover with the extra attack invocation vs agonizing. Adding new equivalents (at an invocation each) to repelling or spear.

Adding an alternate equivalent to the first tome/chain invocation that adds something other than damage might have been a better route for them to go. Something that added versatility instead of extra attack. Then the 2 attacks invocation would become the equivalent of agonizing, the 'extra damage' invocation. Instead they made it two different ways to boost to damage.

[CaptainSarathai]

If you add enough defense to be in melee and damage to make it worth being in Melee, Armor of Agathys almost does this. You've added a lot to the character and created Superman. He's tougher than the Blastlock and now he does more damage than a blastlock. Mind you if you take an invocation you can blast as well as a Blastlock and you still want to have all your invocations freed up?

Seems like you want too much. Balance wise it's hard for Warlocks because they have such a great ability to blast for cheap that the Bladelock mechanically can't trade that for some Melee improvements.


I wish there was a good way to gimp Bladelock blasting to balance out benefits to make a Bladelock feel competent. But since that isn't easy to do I would suggest being okay with a invocation tax. Because no character should be good at everything.

Then the flavor option is in need of a rebalance to be in line with the min-max option, which is what this thread is for.

Well then we should buff hand axes, daggers, darts, clubs, half the subclasses, half the spells, etc.


I'm right there with you. We can discuss those items in another thread with you like. I've already done the spells part, but would love to hear some suggestions how to buff hand axes, darts, clubs, and the other weak subclasses like College of Valor.

YES
I've also suggested fixes for GWM, PAM, CE, SS, DW&TWF - all things which help balance the game.
Let's be real here, GWM+PAM and CE+SS are both exploitative crock that gets pulled into any optimized build. Because of this, Dex-based or Sword'n'board builds can't keep up.

The fact that Eldritch Blast does more damage (without Hex) than any Ranged option without these Feats is ridiculous. The fact that it does damage comparable to a longsword fighter (without Hex) is ridiculous.
When Hex is added (BlastLock has no other use for its bonus action) then the damage is roughly equivalent to a Greatsword Fighter if that Fighter could swing from 30' away.
The fact that ANY class can do this with a 2-level dip and enough Charisma is ridiculous.

So when people say that letting a BladeLock do EB levels of damage is too powerful,
I don't want them to do EB damage!
That is why in the OP, I made suggestions to curb Eldritch Blast.
But then everyone said that it was wrong to curb EB. So the only option to making a BladeLock as useful as a BlastLock, is to essentially give them Crossbow Expert and let them cast in melee.

And everyone in the thread says,
"Oh, but Blade is already close enough to Eldritch Blast damage, it doesn't need a buff"
And then go on to say
"Ranged is always better than the melee option"
So EB is fair?! A cantrip that deals more damage from 30' away, with 2ASIs and 1/8 Invocations, not relying on any Class Features... than anything but a single-classed Fighter with 2ASIs, his only Fighting Style, and 2 Feats.

If you take Hex away from Agonizing Eldritch Blast, you're left with a Fighter's Heavy Crossbow and Crossbow Expert. So:
Cantrip + 2ASIs + 1 Invocation
better than
Single-class + 2ASIs + 1 Feat
You could remove Agonizing Blast entirely, and it would still be fair

The problem isn't that a BladeLock doesn't do enough damage - it's that Eldritch Blast does more. When you go single class, all the way out to Level12, what's your reward?



LV 12
Bladelock
2d6+5(Str)+4(Cha)=16×12=192+23=215/20=10.75/attack
1d4+1d6= 4.2/attack

Turns=Same as before
4x10.75=43+4.2=47.2
Damage on every turn after that=25.7

Blastlock
1d10+1d6+5=14x12=168+23=191/20=9.55
Turns=Same as before
6x9.55=57.3
Damage on every turn after that=28.65

Now, the bladelock will never again keep up with the blastlock, even considering that you have lifedrinker and you keep hex. It would become even worst at 17, as the bladelock would have no bonus, and the blaslock would get another attack.
THIS!

Any idiot who snagged a 2-level dip in your class can do more damage with Eldritch Blast. You get what is generally assumed to be BladePact's "12th level ability" just in time for EB-spam to leave you in the dust for the rest of the game.

Mechanically, Melee has been a solid alternative for your class, all game. You've been mixing it up around the edges of the fight, trading the Fighter's strong defenses for the ability to deal his amount of damage on every turn. Using thematic abilities like Hellish Rebuke and Armor of Agathys to make it worth being in the cut-and-thrust of melee.
Then, at about the same time that AoA starts dwindling in effectiveness, the melee option you've been investing Invocations, ASIs, and probably Feats into, and levelling faithfully all game, becomes worthless compared to just standing beside the Wizard and "I cast Eldritch Blast. Cool. I do it again. Cool. I do it again. Cool..."


To add insult to injury, any of the times that you were putting ASIs into Dex, or a Feat into Dual Wielder or PoleArm Master, you could have picked up Crossbow Expert and made Charisma your primary Attack Stat and just used Eldritch Blast the whole time - freeing up 2 Invocations along the way...

Tome and Chain gain out-of-combat versatility, Blade gains combat versatility.
Nobody gives up anything
...and since you aren't using your Blade for anything except maybe delivering Warcaster Booming Blade OAs, you can just use a Dagger. Sure, you're Dex built, you could use a Rapier - but why not go Tome Pact for Shillelagh and have a Cha-based D8 instead?

Tome would also get Vine Whip to pull enemies toward you for that combo, and Shocking Grasp for those times you need to get away without provoking.
You can get a Familiar with one of those freed invocations, plus some other Rituals, but they're for out of combat, so who cares?

Speaking of Familiars, if you don't really care about using Booming Blade and don't need a melee attack at all, you can get a Familiar from Pact of the Chain. One of the best Familiars in the game, really. It comes with Magic Resistance, you can cast touch spells through it, and everyone knows Familiars can be used to grant advantage in combat - you might not even need Crossbow Expert any more! They can do some cool out of combat stuff too, especially with the two Invocations you freed up, but who cares?


No. Pact Magic and Mystic Arcanum is [I]not the same as a full progression.

Firstly, for most of their career, a Warlock on has 2-3 spell slots per short rest. Yes, they're cast at max level. Yes, they get them back. But at 11th level, they have 1/5th the number of slots a Sorcerer has, and the Sorcerer has more Level1 slots alone.
If you think a BladeLock (or any Warlock for that matter) is casting powerful, levelled spells, you've clearly never played one, or your DM gives you more than even the DM number of recommended Short Rests.
Before 11th level, a BladeLock doesn't even have enough slots to cast Armor of Agathys once per combat. Of the slots any Warlock does get, one will always go to Hex, to maintain damage.
A Sorcerer or Wizard can cast cantrips all day and then unload 15 spells onto the BBEG in the boss fight. A Warlock on every has 2-3, 4 if they go to level 17+ and they need those slots as part of their strategy.
Giving Warlocks a regular Caster progression actually makes them more powerful, hence the common multiclassing.

Secondly, there's a big difference between Mystic Arcanum's 9th level Spell and an actual Spell Slot.
At 17th level, the Warlock has the same number of 6-9 castings per day as any other Full Caster, except they only know one spell at that level, and they can only cast that spell in the "slot".
This is why Armor of Agathys lags behind for Warlocks. It's balanced to improve by levels, so that it's not OP if a 9th level caster gets it and up-casts it. But Warlocks never get more than 25 TempHP from it, because they can't cast "up" into those slots or use them to cast anything except the spell on the tin.

This reinforces my opinion that BladeLock should (and was intended to) be a viable alternative to Eldritch Blasting as a primary attack option. Because Warlocks don't use their levelled spells as an attack option like other "true casters" do. Their main means of attack is Eldritch Blast or -if you take the option- their Pact Blade.

[brainface]

The only fix my group has made to the bladelock is making their blade a bonus action to summon.

This, this is the most irritating thing about blade pact. You can call a blade out of thin air, awesomely, but you really need to still just keep it in a scabbard so you're not spending the first round of combat pulling an axe out of a hat.

[DracoKnight]

This, this is the most irritating thing about blade pact. You can call a blade out of thin air, awesomely, but you really need to still just keep it in a scabbard so you're not spending the first round of combat pulling an axe out of a hat.

Which is why we changed it to a bonus action :smallbiggrin:

[Strill]

"Teleported" might have verisimilitude baggage. The effect could be fine, but the flavor text of how it's achieved might rub people the wrong way. Since Lightning Lure exists you can use its language as a base or perhaps just use it and make the damage force damage.

I meant for it to be "teleported". Since it's a Warlock ability, I imagined it as involving incomprehensible alien geometries (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AlienGeometries) that blur distance and defy perspective, whose aftermath somehow leaves the defender at a different spot than where he started. That's why I called it "Impossible Angle".


Ridiculously hypocritical.
On one hand you're saying that Chain and Tome should absolutely take their respective invocations because that's their primary purpose.
On the other hand you're saying that a bladelock who does it can't take something more interesting. Yep. That's because a Tomelock and Chainlock get big increases to versatility and utility that the others can't get without extreme investment, if at all. On the other hand, beyond aesthetics and semantics, everything a melee Bladelock gets from their pact, a Tomelock or Chainlock can get with less investment.

[Socratov]

You know, the more I read this thread the more I'm actually convince that the Warlock class as a whole just suffers from bad design.

For melee it's incoherent, at times powerful, but incredibly shaky. The defensive capabilities are bad (temp hp is not enough to withstand hits, neither is the ac 18 - with max investment in dex- nor does the warlock have the mobility options of a rogue), but it has great ranged potential.

For Rangedc it's almost overpowered, so much so that warlock 2 is the easiest way to get a fantastic ranged attack that can measure itself with archery martials, yet get hte option to fire twice (or thrice) and then are back to slinging cantrips, though can do so after every rest opportunity.

In an attempt to balance the class out it's given its own list of feats (read: invocations) of which they can select quite a number. They can get the ritual casting of a wizard for more versatility, or get the extra help and casting potential of a ranger through pact of the chain wchih is awesome since it's invisible and you can percieve through their senses. Also it doubles as an extra casting point of origin, further developing the warlock's versatility. It just doesn't grow along with you like the ranger's companion.

Oh and by the way, those pseudo feats I mentioned> Beucase it's apparently hard to make up a decent spell list you get some offered for a pseudo feat if you want them. I get the feeling that a complete redesign of the warlock might not be such a bad idea after all.

[Spiritchaser]

I think I mentioned this earlier but I didnt fully develop it.


I don't think it's hard to limit eb and agonizing blast.

1. Change agonizing blast such that the damage bonus applies only once per turn
2. Create a second invocation at level... Lets say 12?... Which allows it to apply 4 times or even unlimited times per turn, prerequisites: agonizing blast and either pact of the tome or pact of the chain.

Blastlocks get the at will damage they need to keep ahead of wizards who so badly outshine them for versitility.

Bladelocks lose power at range such that they have more head room for power in melee

[DivisibleByZero]

No. Pact Magic and Mystic Arcanum is not the same as a full progression.

Firstly, for most of their career, a Warlock on has 2-3 spell slots per short rest. Yes, they're cast at max level. Yes, they get them back. But at 11th level, they have 1/5th the number of slots a Sorcerer has, and the Sorcerer has more Level1 slots alone.
If you think a BladeLock (or any Warlock for that matter) is casting powerful, levelled spells, you've clearly never played one, or your DM gives you more than even the DM number of recommended Short Rests.
Before 11th level, a BladeLock doesn't even have enough slots to cast Armor of Agathys once per combat. Of the slots any Warlock does get, one will always go to Hex, to maintain damage.
A Sorcerer or Wizard can cast cantrips all day and then unload 15 spells onto the BBEG in the boss fight. A Warlock on every has 2-3, 4 if they go to level 17+ and they need those slots as part of their strategy.
Giving Warlocks a regular Caster progression actually makes them more powerful, hence the common multiclassing.

Secondly, there's a big difference between Mystic Arcanum's 9th level Spell and an actual Spell Slot.
At 17th level, the Warlock has the same number of 6-9 castings per day as any other Full Caster, except they only know one spell at that level, and they can only cast that spell in the "slot".
This is why Armor of Agathys lags behind for Warlocks. It's balanced to improve by levels, so that it's not OP if a 9th level caster gets it and up-casts it. But Warlocks never get more than 25 TempHP from it, because they can't cast "up" into those slots or use them to cast anything except the spell on the tin.

This reinforces my opinion that BladeLock should (and was intended to) be a viable alternative to Eldritch Blasting as a primary attack option. Because Warlocks don't use their levelled spells as an attack option like other "true casters" do. Their main means of attack is Eldritch Blast or -if you take the option- their Pact Blade.

Wrong.
100% completely and utterly wrong.

Do the math.
A warlock uses the spell point variant, but can only create slots of the highest level available.
Do the math.
Consider an average of 2.5 short rests and do the math.
That's it.
That's all it is.
Spell points with a caveat that only the highest level slot available can be created.
The REASON that he only gets 2 slots before 11th is because giving him a 3rd before then breaks the spell point calculation.
The levels where Warlocks gain new spell slots were not arbitrarily chosen. They were chosen following a logical method based on a full caster's spell point progression.
Mathematics proves that no matter your personal feelings on Pact Magic and Mystic Arcana, a Warlock is absolutely a full caster.
If he takes an invocation that allows slotless casting (Misty Visions , Armor of Shadows, Fiendish Vigor, etc) he actually becomes the most powerful caster in the game.

[Talionis]

I won't argue that Eldritch Blast is a little OP, but I think Warlock was balanced around that OP. Which leads to some serious holes in design. The unique Warlock spell slots beg for good cantrips.

Maybe a melee warlock cantrip along the lines of EB could help. A generic Shillelagh that works with Eldritch Blade? . Possibly, the can trip casts as a bonus action, summons your Eldritch Blade, replaces Strength or Dex to hit and damage with Charisma and hit causes those hot to do half damage til Warlocks next turn. Only works with Eldritch Blade so other classes can't get it and use it. It's more powerful than Eldritch Blast but only for Bladelocks.

Also no question that Agonizing Blast should have a level requirement of probably 12 to match thirsting blade and it should've been obvious that Ranged was more powerful than blade. I felt awful as a bard dipping two warlock levels but it was effective but it got repetitive.

I'm weary to nerf Eldritch Blast even though I agree with all your issues. Simply because it's a major feature of Warlock and it would require a total rework. That's a lot of work and a lot of opportunities for doing something broken. It's why I try to recommend small changes that are just invocations or spells.

[Bugado25]

If you actually read the numbers you would see that they are calculated both with and without the bonus action included.
And if your DM wants to be a tool and say that you are simultaneously proficient with the short sword in one hand while not proficient with the short sword in your other hand, then you go to a Dagger for that other hand and lose less than 1pt of damage per round on average.

I really did not read the numbers, just saw the table Kryx posted and did some calculations of my own. The spreadsheet he posted is impossible to look from my phone.

Yes, changing from a shortsword to a dagger in your off hand is pretty insignificant in terms of damage change, but by RAW you can't dual wield shortswords.(2d6=7×12=84+14=98/20=4.9/attack)

I went back in the thread and found your calculations. You should not assume the that magic items are available for balance calculations because that varies wildly between game tables. Having magic items the Bladelock performs a little better, because +X weapons add to damage and to hit while the rod of the pact keeper adds to hit and to spell DCs(that aren't taken in consideration in this calculation) and the bladelock has 2 items relevant to the situation while the blastlock only has one.

There is a minor error in your calculations. If i understood it correctly, you added the 20 twice in two different ways. Once as a critical hit and again as a normal hit. For example at Blastlock 11th.

Target AC 17
To hit: +11. you need at least a 6.
What you did was:
15 results makes me hit(from 6 to 20) so 15/20=75%. But then you got another 5% out of nowhere and added it as a critical hit. Thats the same as considering a 80% chance to hit.

What you should have done is:
From 6 to 19 i have normal hits so 14/20=70%. And then add the 5% chance of the critical hit.

[Citan]

YES
The fact that Eldritch Blast does more damage (without Hex) than any Ranged option without these Feats is ridiculous. The fact that it does damage comparable to a longsword fighter (without Hex) is ridiculous.

No. Pact Magic and Mystic Arcanum is not the same as a full progression.

Firstly, for most of their career, a Warlock on has 2-3 spell slots per short rest. Yes, they're cast at max level. Yes, they get them back. But at 11th level, they have 1/5th the number of slots a Sorcerer has, and the Sorcerer has more Level1 slots alone.
If you think a BladeLock (or any Warlock for that matter) is casting powerful, levelled spells, you've clearly never played one, or your DM gives you more than even the DM number of recommended Short Rests.
Before 11th level, a BladeLock doesn't even have enough slots to cast Armor of Agathys once per combat. Of the slots any Warlock does get, one will always go to Hex, to maintain damage.
A Sorcerer or Wizard can cast cantrips all day and then unload 15 spells onto the BBEG in the boss fight. A Warlock on every has 2-3, 4 if they go to level 17+ and they need those slots as part of their strategy.
Giving Warlocks a regular Caster progression actually makes them more powerful, hence the common multiclassing.

Secondly, there's a big difference between Mystic Arcanum's 9th level Spell and an actual Spell Slot.
At 17th level, the Warlock has the same number of 6-9 castings per day as any other Full Caster, except they only know one spell at that level, and they can only cast that spell in the "slot".
This is why Armor of Agathys lags behind for Warlocks. It's balanced to improve by levels, so that it's not OP if a 9th level caster gets it and up-casts it. But Warlocks never get more than 25 TempHP from it, because they can't cast "up" into those slots or use them to cast anything except the spell on the tin.

This reinforces my opinion that BladeLock should (and was intended to) be a viable alternative to Eldritch Blasting as a primary attack option. Because Warlocks don't use their levelled spells as an attack option like other "true casters" do. Their main means of attack is Eldritch Blast or -if you take the option- their Pact Blade.
1. On the bolded part
Max Eldricht Blast with Agonizing, without Hex, does (1d10+5)*4. At a fixed 120 range without invocations, twice the range with invocation.
So it's exactly the same as a Fighter using Heavy Crossbow, with similar or worse range (because cantrips don't get "long range"). Or slightly better than a Longbow, but with a very limited range.
How is that ridiculous? That's exactly part of the concept which makes the Warlock a sustained damage dealer, although on a magic basis.
And that is compensated (as everyone whines about in general about Warlock) by lesser Hit Points, lesser defense etc.

So, it is better than a Ranger's Extra Attack (+Horde Breaker) assuming everything hits, in terms of damage, but will always be behind in terms of range unless you invest heavily in it (Invocation + Spell Sniper).
How is that ridiculous? Ranger gets better mobility, armor, hit dice, a +2 to hit with Archery, the ability to use magical weapons and ammunitions...

So, it is lesser than a Rogue's Sneak Attack at higher levels (1d8+5+10d10) with lesser range, although the Rogue does have to hit. But again can benefit from magical weapons.

There is really nothing ridiculous about Agonizing Blast damage, apart from the fact that it just requires a lvl 2 investment to get the whole benefit. THAT could (should?) be changed imo.

As for the spoiled part...
Just wow. Such an accumulation of factually wrong statements and DM guidelines's ignorance, just to "try to be right", is really baffling.

"But at 11th level, they have 1/5th the number of slots a Sorcerer has, and the Sorcerer has more Level1 slots alone."
Wow. If your DM does not follow guidelines at all, the problem lies with the DM, not the class. Considering you get at least 2 short rests in any normal day, Warlock would get 3*3 (starting + short rest) 9 5th level spells, compared to 16 (only 2*5th) for a Sorcerer. 9/14 =/= 1/5 in the current state of mathematics.

Before 11th level, a BladeLock doesn't even have enough slots to cast Armor of Agathys once per combat.
Well, as I like to recall, unless you are in a specifically urgent situation, you could just as for people to make the long rest last 9 hours. You wake up after 8 hours, cast Hex on a pet or something, take a short rest, you're set. You now get your 2*3 slots for the day with short rests. Guidelines go for 6 encounters. You're set!

A Sorcerer or Wizard can cast cantrips all day
And the Warlock couldn't because...?
If you don't like having only 2-3 cantrips, you could just take Tome to get more cantrips, or Magic Initiate. But since Eldricht Blast is so overpowered, why would a Warlock want anything else (besides a weapon cantrip for melee emergencies)?

At 17th level, the Warlock has the same number of 6-9 castings per day as any other Full Caster, except they only know one spell at that level, and they can only cast that spell in the "slot".
Agreed with you that the "one spell known only" is a bit annoying, but it is still very consistant with the whole "focused magic granted by a higher power" idea of a Warlock. Why would a Patron distribute known spells like candy, especially such powerful spells?
If one of my player was that much bothered though by this, i would be happy to craft a specific quest by his Patron that has another spell (but no slot) as a reward.

This is why Armor of Agathys lags behind for Warlocks. But Warlocks never get more than 25 TempHP from it, because they can't cast "up" into those slots or use them to cast anything except the spell on the tin.
Specifically because you get only one cast per long rest for 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th level, seems a very unefficient way to me to upcast AoA with those. Especially when you get so many great spells to use in it.
I mean, if you really find yourself surrounded or facing one powerful enemy, by the time you get these slots, it's not 5/10/15 more THP which will really make a difference. You will still lose it in 1-2 turns.
AoA is not supposed to be a great shield that allows you to go crazy into hostile crowds. Just a cushion that you have to preserve by being careful. So making it last is first a question of being smart about it.

Also, I find very funny that you complain you get only 1 spell known for higher slots, then complain you can't use them to upcast AoA. If your only wish is to upcast it, why then even bother learning those? XD

[DivisibleByZero]

I really did not read the numbers, just saw the table Kryx posted and did some calculations of my own. The spreadsheet he posted is impossible to look from my phone.



Oh, you were referring to his.
If you want to actually see the numbers, check the second post on page 2. The graph that he has pretty much mirror the results I got when I did mine (showing the way that I got them), so I didn't look to deeply at how he got his.


Ridiculously hypocritical.
<snip>.

Yep.
<snip>

Glad to see that you at least admit it

[Talionis]

I propose this spell as the "Fix" for Bladelocks:

Cursed Pact Weapon
Necromancy Cantrip

Casting Time: 1 bonus action
Range: Touch
Components: V, S
Duration: 1 Minute

Your Pact Weapon immediately is summoned to your hand in the form it was last summoned and is imbued with additional necrotic power. For the duration, you can use your spellcasting ability instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls of melee attacks using that weapon. Each target that takes damage from this weapon reduces all their damage rolls by half until your next round.

The spell ends if you cast it again or if you let go of the weapon.
__________________________________________________ ________

Its effectively Shillelagh with damage reduction curse tacked onto it. It doesn't receive the D8 damage property that Shillelagh does, but it doesn't really need it since Pact Weapon can be any type of weapon. It doesn't change the damage output for a Bladelock, but gives him or her a debuffing/controlling feel in melee range. It definitely gives the Warlock a reason to be in melee and the benefit is not solely just for the Warlock, since the foe might attack others or use and AoE attack. It synergizes well with Armor of Agathys which is part of a melee Warlock's damage equation, much like Spiritual Weapon is part of the damage equation for clerics. It helps a Bladelock be less MAD, but still gives very good reason for a Bladelock to seek out higher Dex because it would help him win initiative and be able to put the Curse Pact Weapon debuff on opponents before they make their first attack.

This is reducing damage output not resistance. It potentially could have stacking problems (be too good) with other characters that have access to resistances. It could also potentially have problems putting out of balance multiclass Warlocks who get access to resistance. But it won't eliminate the Fiend Patron's grant of resistances or the resistances granted by the Fire Shield spell, which might prove overpowered or might prove fun and balanced.

Its more effective against single targets and much weaker against multiple opponents. Its less effective against targets with higher AC since you'll miss more often and take full damage. It leaves you vulnerable to attacks from range where you cannot get to the target to debuff it. In whole, it promotes a play style of a character running in relatively low armor, hoping to hit each round to reduce the damage he'll take, but fully expecting to take some damage and in the process give damage back.

This is a spell and cantrip, a resource people should find acceptable trade in power. Its not substantially more powerful than Shillelagh, but its more powerful, but its bascially limited to just Bladelocks since they are the only class with the ability to summon a Pact Weapon.

This casts with a bonus action, but fixes the full action to summon a Pact Weapon action economy with the minor setback that you can't just pick whatever form you want for your pact weapon at instant speed, you just have to use its last form, which at some point with Magical Weapons that's what you'll do 99% of the time anyway. So its a tiny but real drawback of using the spell to quick summon your weapon.

If you don't want PAM, or other feats in your game, great just don't use the Feat option or house rule the specific feats out of your particular games. For me, I just wish that there were more feats like PAM so that every weapon type could have its own special niche and damage buff carved out, and maybe over time Wizards will provide that. Because I don't think PAM throws things off too much I think it was designed and balanced into the game, I just hate that incentivizes using the same weapons for every character.

There are still holes and weaknesses, but I think this is the tweak that Bladelock needs to feel like a real archetype.

[Lollerabe]

I'm not a fan of making bladelocks SAD, you are walking into 'the full benefits of GWM/PAM while being dex based' territory - a place you should never go Simba.

Besides that the debuff should only apply to attacks made against you, otherwise it's really broken and any party of 3+ players should have a bladelock just to nullify basically every hard hitting creature.

[Tanarii]

You know, the more I read this thread the more I'm actually convince that the Warlock class as a whole just suffers from bad design. lol Warlocks are one of the best designed classes in 5e. Even bladelocks hold together well. The only issue with them is they can become a little one-dimensional, since many times people end up picking the same builds and trying to force them into melee a lot. For example, I see a lot of Infernal Pact, Pact of the Blade, Armor of Shadows, Fiendish Vigor, Armor of Agathys warlocks. Nothing wrong with that, but sometimes players just need to have it pointed out that being a bladelock doesn't mean they must spend all of their time in melee.



As for the spoiled part...
Just wow. Such an accumulation of factually wrong statements and DM guidelines's ignorance, just to "try to be right", is really baffling. Agreed. Anyone with so many basic misunderstandings of how the warlock spell casting is balanced against other full spell casters via the Short Rest mechanic and the recommended adventuring day guidelines has no business trying to revise the class.

[Talionis]

I'm not a fan of making bladelocks SAD, you are walking into 'the full benefits of GWM/PAM while being dex based' territory - a place you should never go Simba.

Besides that the debuff should only apply to attacks made against you, otherwise it's really broken and any party of 3+ players should have a bladelock just to nullify basically every hard hitting creature.

I disagree, I think it helps you tank. Foes will have to target you to get you off the field first.

I also think being SAD is an overstatment. You'll need Constitution to handle being in melee and to make your Constitution Saves. Dex helps with a lot of things that would be important, initiative, AC, etc. I also think you want to hit most of the time since missing is a big damage bump.

But the mechanic works just fine in my eyes if you remove the replacing "to Hit" and Damage. I'm not heavily vested in the too hit coming off Charisma and it might be too similar to Shillelagh and take some of Tomelocks territory by doing that.

I propose this spell as the "Fix" for Bladelocks:

Cursed Pact Weapon
Necromancy Cantrip

Casting Time: 1 bonus action
Range: Touch
Components: V, S
Duration: 1 Minute

Your Pact Weapon immediately is summoned to your hand in the form it was last summoned and is imbued with additional necrotic power. For the duration, each target that takes damage from this weapon reduces all their damage rolls by half until your next round.

The spell ends if you cast it again or if you let go of the weapon.
__________________________________________________ ________

[georgie_leech]

Wait, so your goal of Pact of the Blade is to be a caster with strong ranged and melee capabilities that is also a tank? :smallconfused:

[Socratov]

lol Warlocks are one of the best designed classes in 5e. Even bladelocks hold together well. The only issue with them is they can become a little one-dimensional, since many times people end up picking the same builds and trying to force them into melee a lot. For example, I see a lot of Infernal Pact, Pact of the Blade, Armor of Shadows, Fiendish Vigor, Armor of Agathys warlocks. Nothing wrong with that, but sometimes players just need to have it pointed out that being a bladelock doesn't mean they must spend all of their time in melee.
snip

Huh, that would be like saying that a valor bard doesn't need to use a weapon and that they can do without: true but why the bloody fornication did you pick valor bard over lore bard?

What you, at least that's how it comes across to me, are saying is: "Hey, we give you a cool feature, and you can actually use it well if you, like, invest everything you have in it in a very specific way, but you could also not use it, and follow the other features, but, you know, without those features. Juuuust saying that's fine too."

Pleae ntoe that this is not a personal attack, evne if I kinda hear Handsome Jack's voice in the back of my head typing this.

Edit: I just noticed how rewarding 2 lvls of warlock can be when taking them later sicne they mention lvl and not classlvl. So if you take fighter 5/warlock 2 you can select sculptor of flesh scine you are lvl 7 at that moment. I don't know wether or not that is intentional...

[Lollerabe]

I mean you can play test it if you want.

A 50% debuff to damage on all hits with no save and that's every time the lock hits you? Sounds super broken to me, do you realize how much that ability nerfs like 80% of the MM?

[georgie_leech]

Edit: I just noticed how rewarding 2 lvls of warlock can be when taking them later sicne they mention lvl and not classlvl. So if you take fighter 5/warlock 2 you can select sculptor of flesh scine you are lvl 7 at that moment. I don't know wether or not that is intentional...

Unlike the cantrips, the Invocations are in the Warlock class itself, which means it depends on class level, not character level.

[Talionis]

Wait, so your goal of Pact of the Blade is to be a caster with strong ranged and melee capabilities that is also a tank? :smallconfused:

If you want a character to have a reason to be in melee range and survive in melee range this does it. How often do you have a single bad guy in a fight? Tanking is a by product of the way you are staying alive in a fight. In most instances two creatures are hitting each other in melee range not hitting the whole group, so it effectively is most often works out to be just the damage to the Bladelock. The tanking feature is really minor but maybe it makes them avoid you.

Mostly it works out to resistance to everything that works 2/3 of the time (which is how often you hit on average). But it will usually be less than that because you will often have things attacking you that you can't hit either because you don't have enough attacks to hit every target close to you or the things hitting you are beyond your range.

[Tanarii]

Huh, that would be like saying that a valor bard doesn't need to use a weapon and that they can do without: true but why the bloody fornication did you pick valor bard over lore bard?Because when you are in melee, you can do more damage. And in the case of a valor bard, have more AC/can cap Dex at 14.

There's one important different between a bard college and a pact boon though: The first is a sub-class. The second isn't. If you want to compare a valor bard to warlock, you need to compare it to Fey, Fiend, or Old One. Not to Tome/Chain/Blade. Apples to Apples.

(Edit: in other words, valor bards get added toughness of Lore Bards. For Warlocks, that comes from the equivalent in Patron Choice: Infernal, followed by Fey, with Old One adding the least.)


What you, at least that's how it comes across to me, are saying is: "Hey, we give you a cool feature, and you can actually use it well if you, like, invest everything you have in it in a very specific way, but you could also not use it, and follow the other features, but, you know, without those features. Juuuust saying that's fine too."I can't do anything about what is, in my view, your mistaken impression of what the basic feature (ie the Pact Boon) is for.


Pleae ntoe that this is not a personal attack, evne if I kinda hear Handsome Jack's voice in the back of my head typing this.Noted. And I wasn't taking anything you said as a personal attack or derogatory. It might help that I have no idea who Handsome Jack is. :smallbiggrin:


Edit: I just noticed how rewarding 2 lvls of warlock can be when taking them later sicne they mention lvl and not classlvl. So if you take fighter 5/warlock 2 you can select sculptor of flesh scine you are lvl 7 at that moment. I don't know wether or not that is intentional...I'm not a fan of multiclassing in 5e, nor do I particularly worry about it when considering class balance. IMO multiclassing is an optional rule precisely because it can break things in so many ways. Ditto feats.

[Socratov]

Unlike the cantrips, the Invocations are in the Warlock class itself, which means it depends on class level, not character level.
the prereqs say 'Xth lvl' not 'Xth Warlock lvl' or 'Xth class level'. Exactly the same level for counting when counting levels for the imrpovement of cantrips.

Though I agree that reading it such is a bad idea: it should be considered only for character that are a Xth lvl warlock. By RAW, though, one could make a case for it. However ridiculous that would make things.

Because when you are in melee, you can do more damage. And in the case of a valor bard, have more AC/can cap Dex at 14.

There's one important different between a bard college and a pact boon though: The first is a sub-class. The second isn't. If you want to compare a valor bard to warlock, you need to compare it to Fey, Fiend, or Old One. Not to Tome/Chain/Blade. Apples to Apples.

(Edit: in other words, valor bards get added toughness of Lore Bards. For Warlocks, that comes from the equivalent in Patron Choice: Infernal, followed by Fey, with Old One adding the least.)
I think that for melee to be attractive, it should be easier to do more damage then in ranged. Else the point of going melee is moot. Not only is ranged less risky, but the range itself makes for a great tactical advantage.

And I think that in the course of subclasses, that the pact boon is more of a differentiator then the patron choice: it's a feature that has more impact on your capabilities as a character then the patron

I can't do anything about what is, in my view, your mistaken impression of what the basic feature (ie the Pact Boon) is for.

Noted. And I wasn't taking anything you said as a personal attack or derogatory. It might help that I have no idea who Handsome Jack is. :smallbiggrin:
please, play Borderlands 2, it's not expensive (on Steam), runs on about any system (yes, mac and linux too, even xbox and ps4) and is one of the best examples of dark, sarcastic humour and ridiculousness in gaming out there. My favourite videogame series to date. I like TES, but a the end of the day, Borderlands is like CAH in videogame form with guns. Lots of guns.

In BL2 Handsome Jack is a psychotic villain who has a near infinite amount of money a mean streak the size of his ego, which could span multiple galaxies. He constantly taunts you to just stop and quit and how fantastic he is. At one point he even asks you to kill yourself, which you can do by only losing a few bucks (since his company is the one that resurrects you when you do.

I'm not a fan of multiclassing in 5e, nor do I particularly worry about it when considering class balance. IMO multiclassing is an optional rule precisely because it can break things in so many ways. Ditto feats.
To each his own. I like feats and I like the idea of what multiclassing can do for concepts. Personally I haven't used it in games since I have a few concepts that are pure classed that I want to play before I'll start mixing it up (if I ever will, since my gaming group might be looking at other games that give access to other settings, if only Shadowrun could come up with a system that was simple like 5e, that'd be nice). But hey I digress.

[Tanarii]

I think that for melee to be attractive, it should be easier to do more damage then in ranged. Else the point of going melee is moot. Not only is ranged less risky, but the range itself makes for a great tactical advantage.I can't disagree with that, but 5e doesn't seem to hold that assumption. Ranged is often equal or more damaging than melee. The trade-off is that ranged character classes are typically (but not always) less tough. Of course, this seems to break down in the particular case of ranged Fighters, but when the basic premise of the game is that ranged characters are equally or more effective offensively as melee characters, there are going to be some problems. (Edit: Also, in terms of verisimilitude, as opposed to balance, ranged *should* be more damaging but weak on defense. That's the classic IRL way it works.)

And making the Warlock powerful offensively in melee AND defensively in melee, which also retaining a strong ranged offense, runs into the same problem as an Dex archer fighter: You aren't giving up anything and you're gaining everything.


And I think that in the course of subclasses, that the pact boon is more of a differentiator then the patron choice: it's a feature that has more impact on your capabilities as a character then the patronDepends on how much you back it up with invocations. But Patron is the one that does what subclasses do: gives you new features at several different levels as you advance.

(Edit: and it also depends on how much you focus on your patron spells. As a thought experiment, try making a warlock that exclusively selects patron spells at each known spell gained, plus Hex at level 1. They will be significantly different in how they play.)


To each his own. I like feats and I like the idea of what multiclassing can do for concepts. Personally I haven't used it in games since I have a few concepts that are pure classed that I want to play before I'll start mixing it up (if I ever will, since my gaming group might be looking at other games that give access to other settings, if only Shadowrun could come up with a system that was simple like 5e, that'd be nice). But hey I digress.I'm not saying people shouldn't play with feats or multiclassing. I play PCs both ways. For DMing, My main grognard-revival campaign is featless/mc-less, but I run one-shots with feats/MCs semi-regularly. And based on that, if you include them in your game you need to think about their impact and where they break the game. Otherwise you end up with official play, where all sorts of broken things happen because optional rules were allowed in full.

[Millstone85]

the prereqs say 'Xth lvl' not 'Xth Warlock lvl' or 'Xth class level'. Exactly the same level for counting when counting levels for the imrpovement of cantrips.

Though I agree that reading it such is a bad idea: it should be considered only for character that are a Xth lvl warlock. By RAW, though, one could make a case for it. However ridiculous that would make things.Actually, the RAW is clear on this.
If an eldritch invocation has prerequisites, you must meet them to learn it. You can learn the invocation at the same time that you meet its prerequisites. A level prerequisite refers to your level in this class.That wasn't in the original printing of the PHB, though.

[georgie_leech]

That wasn't in the original printing of the PHB, though.

Indeed. Sorry, I forgot it wasn't originally there, mostly because you can see why they added that :smalltongue:

[CaptainSarathai]

There is really nothing ridiculous about Agonizing Blast damage, apart from the fact that it just requires a lvl 2 investment to get the whole benefit. THAT could (should?) be changed imo.
Right. I agree that there needs to be a deeper level requirement. As it stands, any of the classes you mentioned could (with decent Cha bonuses) dip 2 levels into Lock and be just as good at Blasting as a single-class Warlock. When that is what the character seems to be 100% built around, it feels kind of stupid to let anyone with a pretty face do it as well or better.
For example, you could go Eldritch Knight and dump Int for Cha, and use non-stat spells (Hex, AoA, Shield, etc) with your slots, and you're better at being a BladeLock than the actual BladeLock. The only difference is the Rest mechanic on regaining slots. Which...


As for the spoiled part...
Just wow. Such an accumulation of factually wrong statements and DM guidelines's ignorance, just to "try to be right", is really baffling.

Agreed. Anyone with so many basic misunderstandings of how the warlock spell casting is balanced against other full spell casters via the Short Rest mechanic and the recommended adventuring day guidelines has no business trying to revise the class.
So, do you guys play Warlocks at a table, or do you just make all of your attacks here?

D&D assumes 6-8 fights per day, and 2 short rests. So, reasonably:
Wake Up
2-3 fights
Rest
2-3 fights
Rest
2 fights
Sleep

So was I really that wrong in saying that you get about 1 slot per fight? Warlocks don't get a 3rd slot until 11th level, so even if you rest after every 2 fights, you're still getting a slot per encounter.


Before 11th level, a BladeLock doesn't even have enough slots to cast Armor of Agathys once per combat.
Well, as I like to recall, unless you are in a specifically urgent situation, you could just as for people to make the long rest last 9 hours. You wake up after 8 hours, cast Hex on a pet or something, take a short rest, you're set. You now get your 2*3 slots for the day with short rests. Guidelines go for 6 encounters. You're set!
Target has to drop to 0hp in order to move Hex. So it's less a "pet" and more a "sacrificial lamb," and moves the action economy of Hex to a full-round per encounter since it takes an Action to kill shot your frog or whatever.
Not to mention it's gamey as hell, and I wouldn't allow it as a DM.
Maybe it needs clarification from MM or SA, but every table I've played at - either through AL, DMing my own campaigns, or playing in others - the ruling has been that Hex must be moved to a new target on the Warlock's next turn after the previous target dies, or else it immediately stops.
So for 6-8 fights, keeping hex up for 8hrs means you need to have access to 6-8 sacrificial frogs per day, and not lose concentration.

The Warlock is built so that his primary feature revolves around the Short Rest. Most classes gain something when they rest, but it's not something as important as literally your entire spell casting ability. It comes together to make the Warlock feel like the fat kid on a hiking trip-

Warlock: Hey, uh, guys. [pant] Hold up a sec. We've [pant] [pant] We've been fighting goblins and wolves and stuff just... like all day, I need a break.
Rogue: Dude, are you kidding? It was 2 fights. You only cast like, 2 spells man!
Fighter: Look, we're all a little tired. Gods know I'd like my Action Surge back, but if we don't get up this hill by nightfall...
Warlock: I know guys, but my blood-sugar's reeeeal low, and if I don't take a break and get a snack or something, I don't think I'm gonna be able to cast any more spells.
Uh, hey, Sorcerer - since you're not doing anything right now, do you think maybe you could go find me some frogs? I need 'em for my Hex, and I'm all out.
Guys? No, wait, where are you going?! Guys! C'mon, don't leave me here!!


A Sorcerer or Wizard can cast cantrips all day
And the Warlock couldn't because...?
Don't just take half of what I said, to make yourself sound 'right'.
A Warlock can and does cast cantrips all day. The difference between the two is that a Sorcerer then had some 14 slots to throw against the boss. The Warlock has 3.


"But at 11th level, they have 1/5th the number of slots a Sorcerer has, and the Sorcerer has more Level1 slots alone."
Wow. If your DM does not follow guidelines at all, the problem lies with the DM, not the class. Considering you get at least 2 short rests in any normal day, Warlock would get 3*3 (starting + short rest) 9 5th level spells, compared to 16 (only 2*5th) for a Sorcerer. 9/14 =/= 1/5 in the current state of mathematics.
But look at the Warlock Spell List. Most of what they have are non-damage spells, and a lot of what they have doesn't really need to be "up cast". What does it matter if you cast Darkness at L2 or L5? Longer durations are great, but in practice you usually only want the spell for that moment or that encounter, you don't really need/want some of that stuff to linger, and Warlocks a notable for their ability to make Con checks without investment.
Consider something like CounterSpell. A Warlock can stop higher level spells, but only 2-3 times. If you throw low-level stuff at him, he has to let it through, or waste a 5th level Counter on something a Sorcerer could stop with a 3rd level slot.

Unless you feel like resting a LOT, a Warlock cannot be your primary caster any more-so than a Paladin or Ranger. They're very good at providing high-level support to the party Cleric, Wizard, or Sorcerer, but that's about it. They simply don't have enough slots to burn. They live by the mantra "the only kill is overkill."





This is why Armor of Agathys lags behind for Warlocks. But Warlocks never get more than 25 TempHP from it, because they can't cast "up" into those slots or use them to cast anything except the spell on the tin.
Specifically because you get only one cast per long rest for 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th level, seems a very unefficient way to me to upcast AoA with those. Especially when you get so many great spells to use in it.
I mean, if you really find yourself surrounded or facing one powerful enemy, by the time you get these slots, it's not 5/10/15 more THP which will really make a difference. You will still lose it in 1-2 turns.
AoA is not supposed to be a great shield that allows you to go crazy into hostile crowds. Just a cushion that you have to preserve by being careful. So making it last is first a question of being smart about it.

Also, I find very funny that you complain you get only 1 spell known for higher slots, then complain you can't use them to upcast AoA. If your only wish is to upcast it, why then even bother learning those? XD

AoA at 9th is just an example. The point was that, compared to a true Full Caster, the Warlock has much less flexibility in their high level stuff. They stop at 5th. Lots of mid-range stuff throughout the day (assuming you rest) but less small stuff, and less flexible big stuff.
I used AoA as an example, because a lot of people are claiming that AoA makes a BladeLock viable by giving him a wealth of TempHP, but just like you pointed out - at high levels, even up casting into 9th isn't going to help much, which is fine because it's not even an option.

And what's adding salt to the wound is that you can do that by going Sorcerer18, Warlock2 or even going 3 levels in Warlock for BladePact (and then Favored Soul on Sorc for armor and attacks).

Really, unless you're resting a lot, just about anything a Warlock does can be done better by another class, even single-classed. Because the Warlock is built around Eldritch Blast as a class, there's really no need to go past lv2 as a Warlock.
The closest comparison to a "built on a gimmick" class I can think of, is the way that Paladins are built around Smites. But they still have meaningful choices - choosing a weapon, a fighting style, and their Oaths have actual benefits. They all get Aura at 6, and Lay On Hands healing stacks by level, so there's more reason to stick out the class. Warlock get tempHP by level if you go with a particular Patron, but otherwise, nobody really cares if you drop out. And thematically, you'd think Warlock would be the most rewarded class for never dipping out or abandoning their Pact.

[Strill]

Glad to see that you at least admit it
And it seems you're still dense enough to not understand why.

[Socratov]

I can't disagree with that, but 5e doesn't seem to hold that assumption. Ranged is often equal or more damaging than melee. The trade-off is that ranged character classes are typically (but not always) less tough. Of course, this seems to break down in the particular case of ranged Fighters, but when the basic premise of the game is that ranged characters are equally or more effective offensively as melee characters, there are going to be some problems. (Edit: Also, in terms of verisimilitude, as opposed to balance, ranged *should* be more damaging but weak on defense. That's the classic IRL way it works.)

And making the Warlock powerful offensively in melee AND defensively in melee, which also retaining a strong ranged offense, runs into the same problem as an Dex archer fighter: You aren't giving up anything and you're gaining everything.
Wel, then what would you do to make pact of the blade viable? As it is it's a trap: you can do it, but don't expect to live long as you have no way to really stay using your feature. Maybe dip rogue for cunning action. But that would, again, require a variant rule to make a feature work even though it should work as a single class. That's not balance, that's shoddy design.

Depends on how much you back it up with invocations. But Patron is the one that does what subclasses do: gives you new features at several different levels as you advance. it may be so technically, but it is of less consequence then the pact boon (which, too, dictates what you get at what level in terms of accessible invocations at higher levels).


(Edit: and it also depends on how much you focus on your patron spells. As a thought experiment, try making a warlock that exclusively selects patron spells at each known spell gained, plus Hex at level 1. They will be significantly different in how they play.)
they will indeed, though that'd be like saying a wizard can, once chosen a discipline, can only learn spells of his chosen discipline. ditto for clerics and domain spells. Then they too will all feel very distinct.

I'm not saying people shouldn't play with feats or multiclassing. I play PCs both ways. For DMing, My main grognard-revival campaign is featless/mc-less, but I run one-shots with feats/MCs semi-regularly. And based on that, if you include them in your game you need to think about their impact and where they break the game. Otherwise you end up with official play, where all sorts of broken things happen because optional rules were allowed in full.
Well, to be honest, I think 5e's brokenness is hardly severe. Seeing how I invested quite some attention and thought into 3.5 where broken really breaks down reality and the game bringing it to a full stop. compared to that the more enthusiastic features and oopsies in 5e are child's play. Unfair, most certainly, but broken? No. I have yet to see something that breaks down play like a Dal Qor Planar Shephard does, or does damage like the Idiot Crusader.

That wasn't in the original printing of the PHB, though.
Ah, good catch, and good sense.

[Tanarii]

Wel, then what would you do to make pact of the blade viable? As it is it's a trap: you can do it, but don't expect to live long as you have no way to really stay using your feature. Maybe dip rogue for cunning action. But that would, again, require a variant rule to make a feature work even though it should work as a single class. That's not balance, that's shoddy design.It's entirely viable. It is not a trap. The game table isn't a white room, and blade works fine for single-class builds. Bladelocks don't die any more than other skirmishers played to their strengths.


it may be so technically, but it is of less consequence then the pact boon (which, too, dictates what you get at what level in terms of accessible invocations at higher levels).

they will indeed, though that'd be like saying a wizard can, once chosen a discipline, can only learn spells of his chosen discipline. ditto for clerics and domain spells. Then they too will all feel very distinct.Those two things are particularly funny. My edit about the thought experiment of selecting only spells from the Patron was supposed to highlight how considering the invocations to be part of the boon is not the correct way to view them. They are additional options opened up by the Boon, just as the additional spells are options opened up by the Patron.


Well, to be honest, I think 5e's brokenness is hardly severe. Seeing how I invested quite some attention and thought into 3.5 where broken really breaks down reality and the game bringing it to a full stop. compared to that the more enthusiastic features and oopsies in 5e are child's play. Unfair, most certainly, but broken? No. I have yet to see something that breaks down play like a Dal Qor Planar Shephard does, or does damage like the Idiot Crusader.That's a fair point. I'm considering 5e's balance internally to itself. You're right, even it's most broken aspects of various standard and optional rules aren't that broken.

[DivisibleByZero]

And it seems you're still dense enough to not understand why.

I'm the dense one?

You freely admit, in a thread about balance, that your criteria for judging and comparing resource costs between Pacts is hypocritical, which means you are biased and compare them unfairly. You freely admit this.... in a thread about BALANCE .... And I'm the one that's being dense?

[DracoKnight]

Edit: I just noticed how rewarding 2 lvls of warlock can be when taking them later sicne they mention lvl and not classlvl. So if you take fighter 5/warlock 2 you can select sculptor of flesh scine you are lvl 7 at that moment. I don't know wether or not that is intentional...

Errata and Sage Advice: Level is changed to Warlock Level.

[Strill]

I'm the dense one?

You freely admit, in a thread about balance, that your criteria for judging and comparing resource costs between Pacts is hypocritical, which means you are biased and compare them unfairly. You freely admit this.... in a thread about BALANCE .... And I'm the one that's being dense?

Yep. You're the dense one because you still don't even understand what I said, as evidenced by this post. In fact, I strongly suspect you're just being stubborn and didn't even read it.


It's entirely viable. It is not a trap. The game table isn't a white room, and blade works fine for single-class builds. Bladelocks don't die any more than other skirmishers played to their strengths.

Bladelock has the single weakest defense of any melee character. What "other skirmishers" are you comparing it to?

[georgie_leech]

Yep. You're the dense one because you still don't even understand what I said, as evidenced by this post. In fact, I strongly suspect you're just being stubborn and didn't even read it.



Bladelock has the single weakest defense of any melee character. What "other skirmishers" are you comparing it to?

Rogues, Monks, and Rangers have similar AC's and slightly more HP, while warlocks have easier access to Temp HP (aside from long death monks).

Incidentally, besides personal satisfaction, I'm not sure there's anything to be gained in not simply repeating your point.

[Tanarii]

Bladelock has the single weakest defense of any melee character. What "other skirmishers" are you comparing it to?I said other skirmishers played to their strengths. Not "because bladelocks have defenses similar to other skirmishers".

And I'm curious what build you're using as a baseline for "single weakest defense of any melee character", since warlock builds in general (and bladelock builds in particular) vary drastically depending on Pact, Spells and Invocations chosen.

And then, of course, there's the point that bladelocks aren't melee characters. IMO this is the basic error so many people are regularly making in this thread. That's like calling a Ranger, a Rogue, a Cleric, a Druid or a Bard (either kind) a melee character. Or a bladesinger for that matter. Bladelocks are arcane full casters with a splash of melee combat capabilities, with the ability to focus more on enhancing that splash if they so choose via Pact, Invocations & Spells.

[Strill]

Rogues, Monks, and Rangers have similar AC's and slightly more HP, while warlocks have easier access to Temp HP (aside from long death monks).Rogues have Cunning Action, Uncanny Dodge, and Evasion. Rangers have medium armor and optionally shields or Defense style. Monks have huge movement speed bonuses, Unarmored Defense, Patient Defense, Deflect Missiles, and most importantly Stunning Strike.

Warlocks, on the other hand, have only the ability to use their spell slots for temporary HP when they could be using to cast a spell to incapacitate or kill all the enemies in the whole encounter.


I said other skirmishers played to their strengths. Not "because bladelocks have defenses similar to other skirmishers".

And I'm curious what build you're using as a baseline for "single weakest defense of any melee character", since warlock builds in general (and bladelock builds in particular) vary drastically depending on Pact, Spells and Invocations chosen.I never said they should have similar defenses. I say they have the weakest defenses because they have NO defenses, unless they choose either Fiend Patron, or waste their spell slots on temporary HP, when they could be trivializing the whole encounter instead.

Every other melee character, spellcaster or otherwise, has some sort of defenses to keep them in melee. Rangers get medium armor, and have the option of shields or Defense style. Rogues get Cunning Action, Uncanny Dodge, Evasion, an extra feat, and have only 2 primary ability scores, both of which boost defense. Melee Clerics get heavy armor. Melee (moon) Druids get extra HP bars. Melee (Valor) Bards get Medium armor, shields, and Combat Inspiration. Bladesingers get enormous AC buffs. Blade pact warlocks, on the other hand, simply don't get anything.


And then, of course, there's the point that bladelocks aren't melee characters. IMO this is the basic error so many people are regularly making in this thread. That's like calling a Ranger, a Rogue, a Cleric, a Druid or a Bard (either kind) a melee character. Or a bladesinger for that matter. Bladelocks are arcane full casters with a splash of melee combat capabilities, with the ability to focus more on enhancing that splash if they so choose via Pact, Invocations & Spells.All of the classes you mentioned can fight in melee with little difficulty. I don't know what distinction you're trying to make. If you're trying to say that Bladelocks are better off choosing fiend pact than any of the others, then I'd say that Pact of the Blade is a badly designed class feature.

[Tanarii]

I never said they should have similar defenses. I say they have the weakest defenses because they have NO defenses, unless they choose either Fiend Patron, or waste their spell slots on temporary HP, when they could be trivializing the whole encounter instead.No, you didn't. And neither did I. That's my point. Your counterpoint that they have the weakest defenses of any melee character doesn't make any sense, since I didn't say that.


Every other melee character, spellcaster or otherwise, has some sort of defenses to keep them in melee. Rangers get medium armor, and have the option of shields or Defense style. Rogues get Cunning Action, Uncanny Dodge, Evasion, an extra feat, and have only 2 primary ability scores, both of which boost defense. Melee Clerics get heavy armor. Melee (moon) Druids get extra HP bars. Melee (Valor) Bards get Medium armor, shields, and Combat Inspiration. Bladesingers get enormous AC buffs. Blade pact warlocks, on the other hand, simply don't get anything.

All of the classes you mentioned can fight in melee with little difficulty. I don't know what distinction you're trying to make. If you're trying to say that Bladelocks are better off choosing fiend pact than any of the others, then I'd say that Pact of the Blade is a badly designed class feature.You're the one continuing to make an artificial distinction that doesn't exist, and then lump bladelocks in with it.

[Pex]

I can't disagree with that, but 5e doesn't seem to hold that assumption. Ranged is often equal or more damaging than melee. The trade-off is that ranged character classes are typically (but not always) less tough. Of course, this seems to break down in the particular case of ranged Fighters, but when the basic premise of the game is that ranged characters are equally or more effective offensively as melee characters, there are going to be some problems. (Edit: Also, in terms of verisimilitude, as opposed to balance, ranged *should* be more damaging but weak on defense. That's the classic IRL way it works.)


A complaint in previous editions was that barring spellcasting, range was inferior to melee. Melee damage outpaced range damage for little cost, one or two feats and weapon choice, while range needed many feats and multiclassing just to get on par. Making range as good as melee with equivalence in cost is an on purpose design choice. I find that one of the good things I like about 5E.

[Tanarii]

A complaint in previous editions was that barring spellcasting, range was inferior to melee. Melee damage outpaced range damage for little cost, one or two feats and weapon choice, while range needed many feats and multiclassing just to get on par. Making range as good as melee with equivalence in cost is an on purpose design choice. I find that one of the good things I like about 5E.I don't think it's a problem, as long as there is a tradeoff somewhere. Unless you want one or the other to be dominant.

The problem is when people want a strong ranged class to get both strong melee offense and strong melee defense ON TOP OF already having a strong ranged offense.

[Strill]

No, you didn't. And neither did I. That's my point. Your counterpoint that they have the weakest defenses of any melee character doesn't make any sense, since I didn't say that.
What counterpoint? I said in the first place (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21314351&postcount=175) that Bladelocks have the worst defense of any melee character.


You're the one continuing to make an artificial distinction that doesn't exist, and then lump bladelocks in with it.5e was designed so that you don't need to min-max to get a functional character. Unlike 3e where you had to sift through tons of sourcebooks and combine classes to get the most out of your character, 5e's wanted to set a minimum baseline standard for character power so that you can't go wrong by picking a single-classed character. To that end, a single-classed 5e character should get everything they need to do what they do by default.

Bladelocks do not get the defense they need to be in melee when they choose Blade Pact. They have to choose feats and invocations and patrons with melee in mind. That means that the bladelock is a failure under 5e's design since a non-min-maxing player can make a garbage character. For example, consider a Bladelock who choosees their patron and spells and invocations totally un-optimally. They have only light armor and nothing else for defense. How are they supposed to fight in melee with their pact weapon?

Now consider a War Cleric who doesn't choose their Feats optimally. They have no problem being in melee. They've got heavy armor. They start with a shield, and can switch to it if they need to. Same goes for a Rogue or a Ranger or a Bladesinger or a Valor Bard. They've all got defensive abilities built into either their class or their melee subclass that let them go out on the front lines.

[Talionis]

This could be the disconnect. People expect and want a melee viable Bladelock I think some of them are silly and want a Batman Wizard, but another portion just want a melee viable fighter. They would be willing to give up power to get a decent Melee fighter that casts to make his melee good. They and I want a class that has a purpose to being in Melee range. Warlocks make poor skirmishes with no mechanics to help that.

Some people think Warlock is a caster that carries a sword. You take the sword as a feature but it's just there to look good. The pact weapon is just your backup for for for. Well you really don't need a backup weapon. I guess it provides style. So you burn through your Atmor of Agathys really fairly quickly and run away from melee and fall back on your Eldritch blast. You could take two or three feats and get your Pact Weapon damage to just slightly over EB damage or you could just use EB and crossbow feat and do almost as much damage.

I like the middle ground here and would love to see new spells and or invocations that make melee combat more viable and interesting and purposeful for Bladelocks. Spells need to be really good for Warlocks because if it's not a cantrip you can expect to cast what one per combat? Two per short rest with two encounters per short rest?

[georgie_leech]

What counterpoint? I said in the first place (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21314351&postcount=175) that Bladelocks have the worst defense of any melee character.

5e was designed so that you don't need to min-max to get a functional character. Unlike 3e where you had to sift through tons of sourcebooks and combine classes to get the most out of your character, 5e's wanted to set a minimum baseline standard for character power so that you can't go wrong by picking a single-classed character. To that end, a single-classed 5e character should get everything they need to do what they do by default.

Bladelocks do not get the defense they need to be in melee when they choose Blade Pact. They have to choose feats and invocations and patrons with melee in mind. That means that the bladelock is a failure under 5e's design since a non-min-maxing player can make a garbage character. For example, consider a Bladelock who choosees their patron and spells and invocations totally un-optimally. They have only light armor and nothing else for defense. How are they supposed to fight in melee with their pact weapon?

Now consider a War Cleric who doesn't choose their spells or Feats optimally. They have no problem being in melee. They've got heavy armor. They start with a shield, and can switch to it if they need to. Same goes for a Rogue or a Ranger or a Bladesinger or a Valor Bard. They've all got defensive abilities built into either their class or their melee subclass that let them go out on the front lines.

So your complaint is that without taking a subclass that gives defensive benefits, a character that doesn't have to be in melee shouldn't be in melee?

There's a distinction between a character being viable, and playing them intelligently. A Warlock with Pact of the Blade and nothing else absolutely should not be in Melee, because they are not a melee character, and having a fancy weapon doesn't change that. Just like a Land Druid can totally turn into a bear and go into melee, but that needs to be a back up option and not their primary strategy.

Cunning Action is not sufficient to let Rogues be in melee. They need their Sneak Attacks, Armor, Dexterity, Evasion, and Uncanny Dodge. They get all of these out of the box because they are designed to function in Melee. A Pact of the Blade is not sufficient to let Warlocks be in Melee. They need a good source of durability, something to improve AC, and something to improve melee damage. They do not get these out of the box, because the Warlock is not designed to function in melee. Compare Ranged Barbarians or Paladins (doable, suboptimal), melee Land Druids (doable, suboptimal) or skill-focused Fighters (doable, suboptimal).

[BigONotation]

So your complaint is that without taking a subclass that gives defensive benefits, a character that doesn't have to be in melee shouldn't be in melee?

There's a distinction between a character being viable, and playing them intelligently. A Warlock with Pact of the Blade and nothing else absolutely should not be in Melee, because they are not a melee character, and having a fancy weapon doesn't change that. Just like a Land Druid can totally turn into a bear and go into melee, but that needs to be a back up option and not their primary strategy.

Cunning Action is not sufficient to let Rogues be in melee. They need their Sneak Attacks, Armor, Dexterity, Evasion, and Uncanny Dodge. They get all of these out of the box because they are designed to function in Melee. A Pact of the Blade is not sufficient to let Warlocks be in Melee. They need a good source of durability, something to improve AC, and something to improve melee damage. They do not get these out of the box, because the Warlock is not designed to function in melee. Compare Ranged Barbarians or Paladins (doable, suboptimal), melee Land Druids (doable, suboptimal) or skill-focused Fighters (doable, suboptimal).

Using your argument, Bladesingers and Valor Bards shouldn't melee, because full casters aren't given the tools to do so, got it. I think you and a few others understand the spirit of what this thread was originally about (making Bladelocks melee competent by changing them) and like arguing your own paradigm so much that the original effort of the thread is subsumed by attempts to shout the other side down.

[Tanarii]

What counterpoint? I said in the first place (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21314351&postcount=175) that Bladelocks have the worst defense of any melee character.And you said it in response to my comment:


It's entirely viable. It is not a trap. The game table isn't a white room, and blade works fine for single-class builds. Bladelocks don't die any more than other skirmishers played to their strengths.Bladelock has the single weakest defense of any melee character. What "other skirmishers" are you comparing it to?
Again, I repeat my point: I never said that "bladelocks don't die any more than other skirmishers because they have comparable defenses". I said they don't die any more any more than other skirmishers played to their strengths. So your comment that they have the weakest defenses is not a valid counter point to mine in any way, despite being directly after a quote of something I said. It's a non-sequitur.


5e was designed so that you don't need to min-max to get a functional character. Unlike 3e where you had to sift through tons of sourcebooks and combine classes to get the most out of your character, 5e's wanted to set a minimum baseline standard for character power so that you can't go wrong by picking a single-classed character. To that end, a single-classed 5e character should get everything they need to do what they do by default.That is correct. And bladelocks are functional without min-maxing.


Bladelocks do not get the defense they need to be in melee when they choose Blade Pact. They have to choose feats and invocations and patrons with melee in mind. That means that the bladelock is a failure under 5e's design since a non-min-maxing player can make a garbage character. For example, consider a Bladelock who choosees their patron and spells and invocations totally un-optimally. They have only light armor and nothing else for defense. How are they supposed to fight in melee with their pact weapon?You continue to think of bladelocks as a melee primary character. Why is that?

[Xetheral]

For me, the question of the mechanical value of the Pact of the Blade is less a question of balance, and more a question of “Does it meet my needs?” The short answer to that is no, it doesn’t. For the long answer, I’ll have to go into a little detail about what I’d want to use the Pact for:

Other than the obscure case of bonding a ranged magic weapon (see April 2016 Sage Advice), the benefits of the pact are exclusively related to melee combat. You can spend an action to summon a melee weapon that counts as magical, you get proficiency with the weapon you summon, and if you spend invocations you can get (pseudo) Extra Attack at 5th level and charisma-mod to damage at 12th.

So the only reason to take Pact of the Blade is if I want to increase a character’s melee capabilities. There are exactly two mechanical situations where I’d want to do that: covering a character’s weakness, or emphasizing a character’s strength. Let’s look at those cases individually:

If I’m just trying to cover a weakness, Pact of the Tome with Shillelagh and Booming Blade works just as well as dex-based Blade Pact builds, and roughly two-thirds as well as str-based Blade Pact builds, even after Thirsting Blade comes online. If that wasn’t good enough, both Tome and Chain Pacts could take Crossbow Expert to provide an even more damaging backup melee option via Eldritch Blast. And, I’d get the noncombat benefits of the other Pacts. So I don’t see Blade Pact as efficiently providing a backup melee option. The only melee benefit I can’t duplicate with the other pacts is the use of a reach weapon, but in any situation where I’d want to use a reach weapon, I’m almost by definition not stuck in melee, and could just use Eldritch Blast instead (there are some exceptions for crowded battlefields with lots of soft cover).

If instead I’m looking at taking Blade Pact to emphasize a strength in melee combat, I’m basically trying to build a gish. As several posters in this thread have been quick to claim, single-classed Bladelocks don’t make good melee characters. (See Tanarii here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21314536&postcount=177) “And then, of course, there's the point that bladelocks aren't melee characters. IMO this is the basic error so many people are regularly making in this thread.” and see GeorgieLeech here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21314738&postcount=184) “A Warlock with Pact of the Blade and nothing else absolutely should not be in Melee, because they are not a melee character, and having a fancy weapon doesn't change that.”) If they’re right, and I think they are, then the Blade Pact by itself simply isn’t useful for trying to build a melee-focused character.

Sure, by splashing other classes and spending plenty of ASIs and feats and magic items on boosting melee, one can make one hell of a melee-focused Blade Pact warlock. But even then, the melee option isn’t going to be that much better than the character’s ranged option via Eldritch Blast, meaning you’ve spent lots of resources for a relatively small marginal gain. (And if you multiclass enough to get Extra Attack from another class, such as Bard or Paladin or (if using UA) Sorcerer, Tome Pact can still do the job better.)

So in any of the cases where I might want to use Blade Pact, other options either work better or else have much more favorable returns on investment. That’s why the Pact of the Blade doesn’t meet my needs.

[Tanarii]

If instead I’m looking at taking Blade Pact to emphasize a strength in melee combat, I’m basically trying to build a gish. As several posters in this thread have been quick to claim, single-classed Bladelocks don’t make good melee characters. (See Tanarii here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21314536&postcount=177) “And then, of course, there's the point that bladelocks aren't melee characters. IMO this is the basic error so many people are regularly making in this thread.” and see GeorgieLeech here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21314738&postcount=184) “A Warlock with Pact of the Blade and nothing else absolutely should not be in Melee, because they are not a melee character, and having a fancy weapon doesn't change that.”) If they’re right, and I think they are, then the Blade Pact by itself simply isn’t useful for trying to build a melee-focused character.I notice people try to do the same thing with Bladesinger a lot too. They take something that shores up a weak-spot, that splashes some melee capability of some kind, then try to view it as something designed to turn it into a strength, then complain when it doesn't work. From the other direction, people love to do the same with EKs in terms of magic.

If you want a true GISH hybrid, then IMO yeah you're gonna have to multiclass.

[georgie_leech]

Using your argument, Bladesingers and Valor Bards shouldn't melee, because full casters aren't given the tools to do so, got it. I think you and a few others understand the spirit of what this thread was originally about (making Bladelocks melee competent by changing them) and like arguing your own paradigm so much that the original effort of the thread is subsumed by attempts to shout the other side down.

Bladesigners have increased AC and saves, an extra attack that doesn't cost additional character resources, and easier access in greater quantities to one of the better defensive spells in the game, and gain more features the prevent MADness earlier. Valor Bards gain access to medium armor and shields, an extra attack that doesn't cost extra character resources, and have native access to healing magic. Remarkably, a character choice that has multiple features has more features that support melee than a choice that involves one.

Xerthal brings up a good point though. I think it's fair to want a melee subclass for Warlocks, and I absolutely think Pact of the Blade should be a good choice for such a subclass, in the same way that BM Fighters that want to be ranged should take Maneuvers that work on ranged attacks instead of just melee ones. I think looking for it in the Pact choice is the wrong direction though, because although it's an obvious difference between Warlocks, it isn't the subclass. Patron covers that. And since most seem in agreement that although Fiend is closest, they aren't a melee subclass.

Now I'm kind of inspired to write up a melee subclass for Warlocks. Expect a Titan Patron or something in the nearish future.

[Xetheral]

I notice people try to do the same thing with Bladesinger a lot too. They take something that shores up a weak-spot, that splashes some melee capability of some kind, then try to view it as something designed to turn it into a strength, then complain when it doesn't work. From the other direction, people love to do the same with EKs in terms of magic.

If you want a true GISH hybrid, then IMO yeah you're gonna have to multiclass.

(Emphasis added.) In my opinion, that the Pact doesn't do what some posters want it to do means that the Pact doesn't meet those posters' needs. That's a legitimate complaint about the Pact, not a sign that their complaints are unwarranted.

I'm not trying to imply that every option needs to meet everyone's needs, only that when an option doesn't meet the needs of some portion of the fanbase, that's a drawback. (And when a topic comes up repeatedly, like this one does, it's evidently a sizable portion.)

[Talionis]

Maybe that's the answer Bladelock is supposed to multiclass. Otherwise they can just reduce there Wisdom and Intelligence each to six because it's the only reason someone would choose to be a Bladelock.

[Strill]

So your complaint is that without taking a subclass that gives defensive benefits, a character that doesn't have to be in melee shouldn't be in melee?

There's a distinction between a character being viable, and playing them intelligently. A Warlock with Pact of the Blade and nothing else absolutely should not be in Melee, because they are not a melee character, and having a fancy weapon doesn't change that. Just like a Land Druid can totally turn into a bear and go into melee, but that needs to be a back up option and not their primary strategy.

Cunning Action is not sufficient to let Rogues be in melee. They need their Sneak Attacks, Armor, Dexterity, Evasion, and Uncanny Dodge. They get all of these out of the box because they are designed to function in Melee. A Pact of the Blade is not sufficient to let Warlocks be in Melee. They need a good source of durability, something to improve AC, and something to improve melee damage. They do not get these out of the box, because the Warlock is not designed to function in melee. Compare Ranged Barbarians or Paladins (doable, suboptimal), melee Land Druids (doable, suboptimal) or skill-focused Fighters (doable, suboptimal).

It doesn't matter whether or not you have to be in melee. By choosing Pact of the Blade, you're saying you want to be in melee. Under 5e design principles, that should be enough to let you be in melee effectively. If you have to min-max to be an effective Bladelock in melee, then the class's design is flawed and needs to be changed...which is what this thread was started for in the first place. Can we get to step 1 of fixing this problem now?


Just like a Land Druid can totally turn into a bear and go into melee, but that needs to be a back up option and not their primary strategy.This is a good example. By choosing Circle of the Land over Circle of the Moon, the Druid has indicated that he is not very interested in using Wild Shape in combat. He could've chosen the explicitly named "Combat Wild Shape" feature, but chose not to. Key to this example is the fact that this is the only choice he is given in this regard, and he declined it. From a game design perspective, that clearly indicates that he does not care much for having a primary melee combat option. A Circle of the Moon Druid, however, HAS indicated that he wants to use Wild Shape in combat, and can do so as a primary strategy with no additional min-maxing required.

Imagine if there were an option for a Druid to choose half of Combat Wild Shape, such that they only gain the ability to shapeshift into powerful forms, but their HP were unchanged while in animal form. Then later, the player must make an additional choice to get the rest of the class feature. If this were the case, the Druid would be a poorly designed class because the player is given the option to choose a melee-oriented feature without the necessary defensive prerequisites. If a class feature gives you a melee option, and you choose it, it should come with all the prerequisites built in.


And you said it in response to my comment:

Again, I repeat my point: I never said that "bladelocks don't die any more than other skirmishers because they have comparable defenses". I said they don't die any more any more than other skirmishers played to their strengths.Well I think they do die more than other skirmishers played to their strengths. I think that because they have the worst defense of any class. I say they have the worst defense of any class, because every other class with melee-oriented class features has defensive class features built-in to help them survive, while the bladelock does not. If a Bladelock's defensive class features are not built-in, but must be min-maxed for, then the Blade Pact class feature does not follow 5e's design principles, and needs to be redesigned.


That is correct. And bladelocks are functional without min-maxing.Functional using melee as their primary attack, without using Eldritch Blast at all?


You continue to think of bladelocks as a melee primary character. Why is that?
Because they choose a major class feature centered around melee, and under 5e design, that should be enough to make the character effective in melee. In the same way, a War Cleric has chosen a domain centered around melee, and is given the heavy armor and Divine Strike they need to be effective in melee.

If choosing a melee-centered class feature is not enough to make you effective in melee, then the class feature is badly designed and needs to be changed.


Maybe that's the answer Bladelock is supposed to multiclass. Otherwise they can just reduce there Wisdom and Intelligence each to six because it's the only reason someone would choose to be a Bladelock.

Again, that's another violation of 5e's design principles. Single-classed characters should never feel as though they need to multiclass to be good at what they do.

[odigity]

I think you and a few others understand the spirit of what this thread was originally about (making Bladelocks melee competent by changing them) and like arguing your own paradigm so much that the original effort of the thread is subsumed by attempts to shout the other side down.

This.

I really hate when stubborn people actively harm a thread by intentionally prioritizing arguing (repetitively and pedantically) over communication. They actually actively avoid understanding so that they can continue arguing the same points over and over...

[Talionis]

I propose this spell as the "Fix" for Bladelocks:

Cursed Pact Weapon
Necromancy Cantrip

Casting Time: 1 bonus action
Range: Touch
Components: V, S
Duration: 1 Minute

Your Pact Weapon immediately is summoned to your hand in the form it was last summoned and is imbued with additional necrotic power. For the duration, you can use your spellcasting ability instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls of melee attacks using that weapon. Each target that takes damage from this weapon reduces all their damage rolls by half until your next round.

The spell ends if you cast it again or if you let go of the weapon.
__________________________________________________ ________

Its effectively Shillelagh with damage reduction curse tacked onto it. It doesn't receive the D8 damage property that Shillelagh does, but it doesn't really need it since Pact Weapon can be any type of weapon. It doesn't change the damage output for a Bladelock, but gives him or her a debuffing/controlling feel in melee range. It definitely gives the Warlock a reason to be in melee and the benefit is not solely just for the Warlock, since the foe might attack others or use and AoE attack. It synergizes well with Armor of Agathys which is part of a melee Warlock's damage equation, much like Spiritual Weapon is part of the damage equation for clerics. It helps a Bladelock be less MAD, but still gives very good reason for a Bladelock to seek out higher Dex because it would help him win initiative and be able to put the Curse Pact Weapon debuff on opponents before they make their first attack.

This is reducing damage output not resistance. It potentially could have stacking problems (be too good) with other characters that have access to resistances. It could also potentially have problems putting out of balance multiclass Warlocks who get access to resistance. But it won't eliminate the Fiend Patron's grant of resistances or the resistances granted by the Fire Shield spell, which might prove overpowered or might prove fun and balanced.

Its more effective against single targets and much weaker against multiple opponents. Its less effective against targets with higher AC since you'll miss more often and take full damage. It leaves you vulnerable to attacks from range where you cannot get to the target to debuff it. In whole, it promotes a play style of a character running in relatively low armor, hoping to hit each round to reduce the damage he'll take, but fully expecting to take some damage and in the process give damage back.

This is a spell and cantrip, a resource people should find acceptable trade in power. Its not substantially more powerful than Shillelagh, but its more powerful, but its bascially limited to just Bladelocks since they are the only class with the ability to summon a Pact Weapon.

This casts with a bonus action, but fixes the full action to summon a Pact Weapon action economy with the minor setback that you can't just pick whatever form you want for your pact weapon at instant speed, you just have to use its last form, which at some point with Magical Weapons that's what you'll do 99% of the time anyway. So its a tiny but real drawback of using the spell to quick summon your weapon.

If you don't want PAM, or other feats in your game, great just don't use the Feat option or house rule the specific feats out of your particular games. For me, I just wish that there were more feats like PAM so that every weapon type could have its own special niche and damage buff carved out, and maybe over time Wizards will provide that. Because I don't think PAM throws things off too much I think it was designed and balanced into the game, I just hate that incentivizes using the same weapons for every character.

There are still holes and weaknesses, but I think this is the tweak that Bladelock needs to feel like a real archetype.

Would this or the variant without the to hit with Charisma be more balanced as a fifth level spell.

[georgie_leech]

I maintain that expecting a single choice of class feature, rather than a subclass, should not be enough to completely change how a class runs or behaves. So to that end, as mentioned upthread, the Titan Pact!


Your Patron is a Titan, a member of a primordial race of stone sealed away in a prison demiplane after they attempted to overthrow the gods. As the seals on their prison weaken, their influence spreads, and they seek to escape and resume their rebellion by exerting their strength through those they empower. Whether they are quasi-divine beings in their own right, or merely incredibly powerful elementals, is a subject of some debate among scholars. What is known is that they possess immense brute force, a portion of which they bestow on those that make contact.

Expanded Spell List
The Titan lets you choose from an expanded list of spells whenever you learn a warlock spell. The following spells are added to the warlock spell list for you. In addition, whenever such a spell deals Necrotic or Radiant damage, it instead deal Thunder or Force damage, your choice.
1st Level: Inflict Wounds, Shield
2nd Level: Enlarge/Reduce, Magic Weapon
3rd Level: Elemental Weapon, Slow
4th Level: Conjure Minor Elementals, Stoneskin
5th Level: Destructive Wave, Wall of Stone

Crushing Strength
Titans are beings of stone and might, and expect their followers to follow their example. You may not learn the Eldritch Blast cantrip, but instead may select the Furious Slam (see below) cantrip instead. In addition, your skin is supernaturally toughened by your titanic benefactor. While wearing no armor, Light Armor, or under are under the effects of the Mage Armor spell, you gain half your proficiency modifier +1 to your AC, rounded down.

Immovable Object
Starting at 6th level, you can call upon your patron to shield you from harm. When you are hit by an attack, you can use your reaction to gain resistance against piercing, slashing, or bludgeoning damage until the end of your next turn. While you have this resistance, you can ignore forced movement if you choose. Once you use this feature, you cannot use it again until you finish a short or long rest.

Unstoppable Force
Starting at 10th level, you have advantage on all Strength checks to break objects. In addition, when making a Strength Check you may instead use your Charisma modifier (if it is greater) in place of your Strength Modifier as your patron grants you a portion of its might.

Titanic Blow
Starting at 14th level, when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack you can use this feature to strike with the incredible power of your patron. The target of the attack takes an additional 10d10 Force damage, is pushed 50 feet, and is knocked prone. If the target makes a successful Strength Save against your Warlock Spell DC, they are pushed half as far and remain standing. You cannot use this feature again until you finish a long rest.


Furious Slam
Evocation Cantrip
Casting Time: 1 Action
Range: see text
Components: V, M (A melee weapon)
Duration: Instantaneous
As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within your reach, otherwise the spell fails. On a hit, the target suffers the attack's normal effects, and supernatural force blows the target back. The target is pushed 10 feet or is knocked prone. If you choose to knock the creature prone the target can make Strength Saving Throw against your Spell Save DC to remain standing. In addition, the target takes force damage equal to your spellcasting ability modifier.
The effects of this spell increase at higher levels. At 5th level, the distance the target is pushed increase to 15 feet, and the extra damage increases to 1d10 + your spellcasting modifier. At 11th level, you may make a second attack with the same effect (resolve all attacks before pushing any creatures). At 17th level, the distance pushed increases to 20 feet, and the extra damage increases to 2d8 + your spellcasting modifier.
SPECIAL: This cantrip is not usable without the Otherworldly Patron: The Titan class feature. In addition, if you use a magic weapon or your weapon counts as magic for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage, you may deal Force Damage instead of the normal damage type of the weapon.



My design goals for this subclass were to encourage the Warlock to be in melee by sacrificing the usual Ranged Power a Warlock possesses. I attempted to keep it in line with other Warlock themes; that is, squishy but dangerous. However, melee is undeniably riskier than ranged, so they gain a limited ability to no-sell attacks at higher levels. Rather than the tankier classes which can wade into combat absorbing loads of punishment, or the skirmishers that use mobility to dart in and out, I wanted to focus on forcing enemies away, which is a design space not really occupied at present.

Thoughts? Comments? Concerns?

[Tanarii]

(Emphasis added.) In my opinion, that the Pact doesn't do what some posters want it to do means that the Pact doesn't meet those posters' needs. That's a legitimate complaint about the Pact, not a sign that their complaints are unwarranted.

I'm not trying to imply that every option needs to meet everyone's needs, only that when an option doesn't meet the needs of some portion of the fanbase, that's a drawback. (And when a topic comes up repeatedly, like this one does, it's evidently a sizable portion.)But if the needs people want it to retain the ability to be effective SR arcane spellcaster & ranged attacker (which the bladelock does) and add in powerful melee staying power, then they're asking to gain a hell of a lot without giving up much. You can already gain further melee staying power by selection of Patron, Invocations and Spells ... at which point you're trading something off. Or by multiclassing, which is again a trade off. That's fair.


Well I think they do die more than other skirmishers played to their strengths.Based on what? White room analysis? My comment was based on play experience, both as a player and a DM. Sure, that's anecdotal, but from what I've seen they aren't particularly less fragile when played to their strengths. And how strong they are in melee depends on how much they've invested in melee capability, both offensive and defensive.


Functional using melee as their primary attack, without using Eldritch Blast at all?Of course not. If that's what you want, why are you playing a warlock?


Because they choose a major class feature centered around melee, and under 5e design, that should be enough to make the character effective in melee. In the same way, a War Cleric has chosen a domain centered around melee, and is given the heavy armor and Divine Strike they need to be effective in melee.IMO, you have unrealistic expectations for what the Pact Boon should provide without additional investment backing it up.


If choosing a melee-centered class feature is not enough to make you effective in melee, then the class feature is badly designed and needs to be changed.I'd agree with this statement if the alternative power gains were equivalent. They aren't.


Again, that's another violation of 5e's design principles. Single-classed characters should never feel as though they need to multiclass to be good at what they do.
They are good enough to do what they are designed to do, for the investment cost.

Edit: fixed quote tags

[Strill]

Based on what? White room analysis?Based on the fact that they literally have only light armor as their only built-in defense, and absolutely nothing else. That is universally less than every other melee-focused character. They have no advantages.


My comment was based on play experience, both as a player and a DM. Sure, that's anecdotal, but from what I've seen they aren't particularly less fragile when played to their strengths. And how strong they are in melee depends on how much they've invested in melee capability, both offensive and defensive.And what are their "strengths"? Not using their Pact weapon? Sitting back and using Eldritch Blast instead?


Of course not. If that's what you want, why are you playing a warlock? Because there is a Pact of the Blade class option which encourages you to fight with a melee weapon, and since this is 5e, it should simply work, out of the box, without me having to min-max at all.


IMO, you have unrealistic expectations for what the Pact Boon should provide without additional investment backing it up.It has nothing to do with my expectations. It has to do with 5e's design philosophy. If Pact of the Blade can't provide an appropriate amount of defense for a melee character, it shouldn't exist in the first place. Every class option you pick should simply work, as-is, without you having to choose anything else to make it work properly.


I'd agree with this statement if the alternative power gains were equivalent. They aren't.I'd rate Pact of the Tome as being worth about 3 feats. 1 Feat for 3 cantrips, 1 Feat for Ritual Caster: Wizard, and 1 Feat for Ritual Caster: Cleric. Pact of the Chain is incomparable, because it gives features no other class can get. With that power level, if a few points of AC and some kind of melee defensive ability is too much to ask for, then I don't know what to tell you.


They are good enough to do what they are designed to do, for the investment cost.A player shouldn't have to worry if the class feature they're picking isn't fully functional, and they shouldn't have to concern themselves about whether the game balance required that class feature to be half-assed. They should simply be able to choose that class feature and have it just work. If a class feature that makes a spellcaster into a melee character doesn't give them the appropriate defense, then it's a bad class feature. Deciding the cost of a feature is the designer's problem, not the player's, and if the designer can't fit the needed melee prerequisites into an appropriate cost, then they should just eliminate the feature entirely.


I maintain that expecting a single choice of class feature, rather than a subclass, should not be enough to completely change how a class runs or behaves. So to that end, as mentioned upthread, the Titan Pact!

Thoughts? Comments? Concerns?

I appreciate the effort, but if you're going to tie melee ability to Patron, then you also need to remove Pact of the Blade as a Pact option, since choosing Pact of the Blade without the appropriate patron is a trap option.

[DivisibleByZero]

I appreciate the effort, but if you're going to tie melee ability to Patron, then you also need to remove Pact of the Blade as a Pact option, since choosing Pact of the Blade without the appropriate patron is a trap option.

The point that you're missing here is that Pact of the Blade is a signle choice that a warlock makes.
Saying that the entire Pact and all of its related invocations need to be changed to suit your needs is like telling us that you are disappointed in Whirlwind Attack and we should therefore completly redesign the Hunter archetype.

It's a single choice. It doesn't redefine the Warlock. If you don't like it, don't choose it.
Patron is your subclass. Your Pact Boon is a small gift that your Patron offers you. Small being the key word there.
If you want to make that small gift better, you need to spend resources to make that small gift better.
That small gift does not and will not completely and fundamentally change "How you Warlock," and some of us just don't understand why some of you expect it to.

[Strill]

The point that you're missing here is that Pact of the Blade is a signle choice that a warlock makes.
Saying that the entire Pact and all of its related invocations need to be changed to suit your needs is like telling us that you are disappointed in Whirlwind Attack and we should therefore completly redesign the Hunter archetype.

It's a single choice. It doesn't redefine the Warlock. If you don't like it, don't choose it.
Patron is your subclass. Pact is a small gift that your Patron offers you. Small being the key word there.
If you want to make that small gift better, you need to spend resources to make that small gift better.
That small gift does not and will not completely and fundamentally change "How you Warlock," and some of us just don't understand why some of you expect it to.

I'm not stating my personal opinions. I'm describing 5e's design philosophy. If you offer a melee option that's not powerful enough to make melee an effective primary option, then it's a trap option and is not in line with 5e design principles. A player should be able to effectively use any class feature they choose, without needing prerequisites. They should never be required to min-max to be effective at what their class does. Their choices should simply work, out of the box, and using them should produce an effective character, regardless of what they picked.

When you add these "small" choices that don't work on their own or without min-maxing, you bring back the convoluted nature of 3.5e that the devs specifically chose to avoid.

[Jjj111]

I'm not stating my personal opinions. I'm describing 5e's design philosophy. If you offer a melee option that's not powerful enough to make melee an effective primary option, then it's a trap option and is not in line with 5e design principles. A player should be able to effectively use any class feature they choose, without needing prerequisites. They should never be required to min-max to be effective at what their class does. Their choices should simply work, out of the box, and using them should produce an effective character, regardless of what they picked.

When you add these "small" choices that don't work on their own or without min-maxing, you bring back the convoluted nature of 3.5e that the devs specifically chose to avoid.

But what does effective mean? There are lots of different options that are more and less powerful in the PHB. Players can look at the pros and cons of an option and then decide whether to take it or not. Choosing Drow makes you less effective in daylight, but that's a choice you make.

[DivisibleByZero]

I'm not stating my personal opinions. I'm describing 5e's design philosophy. If you offer a melee option that's not powerful enough to make melee an effective primary option, then it's a trap option and is not in line with 5e design principles. A player should be able to effectively use any class feature they choose, without needing prerequisites. They should never be required to min-max to be effective at what their class does. Their choices should simply work, out of the box, and using them should produce an effective character, regardless of what they picked.

When you add these "small" choices that don't work on their own or without min-maxing, you bring back the convoluted nature of 3.5e that the devs specifically chose to avoid.

So then we need to "fix" cleric, too?
Because many domains have melee option in the form of +1d8 to attacks, but it isn't a primary option because they don't even get extra attack.
Or wizards then? They get weapon proficiencies. But it isn't a primary option.
So I guess that only only melee classes should even get melee weapon proficiencies, right?

Just because a class has an option or a feature doesn't mean that it absolutely MUST be powerful enough to become their primary option.
You are under the incorrect assumption that this is true and is a design philosophy of 5e, but it isn't.
If it were, then every single Domain that gets +1d8 to weapon attacks would also get extra attack. But none of them do. Not a single one. So your assumption about the design philosophy within the class design of 5e is incorrect, and therein lies the the root of the problem that you have with Blade Pact.

Again, your choice of a small gift in the form of a Pact Boon does not and will not completely and fundamentally change "the way that you Warlock." If you want to do that, you'll need to multiclass.
Pact Boon is a 3rd level choice. Not a subclass.
A Hunter Ranger that chooses Horde Breaker is not fundamentally different from one that makes a different choice.

[nilshai]

It's a single choice. It doesn't redefine the Warlock. If you don't like it, don't choose it.
Patron is your subclass. Your Pact Boon is a small gift that your Patron offers you. Small being the key word there.

I'm 100% with you. Warlocks are not supposed to go into melee and therefor do not get any tools for it. The designers might have overlooked giving Blade Pact one of AC, HP, a better Melee Attack, Con Saves, damage mitigation, or skirmish options, but not all.

It is clear to me, that there is no easy Melee Warlock. There is only the Eldritch Blast Warlock. And that this is was fully intended.

Blade Pact is supposed to give you some minor option when forced into melee, which it does.
As this Pact of the Blade has the same insignificant impact of the other two pacts.

[georgie_leech]

I appreciate the effort, but if you're going to tie melee ability to Patron, then you also need to remove Pact of the Blade as a Pact option, since choosing Pact of the Blade without the appropriate patron is a trap option.

As others have pointed out, that's the point. Pact of the Blade is not subclass. Patron is. Knowing the shield spell is not enough to make a wizard half way competent in melee. A ranger that chooses Colossus Slayer over Horde Breaker doesn't immediately become pigeonholed into fighting huge creatures. Likewise, a warlock pact boon doesn't completely redefine the character. I am trying to answer the call for a Melee Warlock that works out of the box the way literally every other class gets their new focuses: subclass. So I ask, is it that you want a Melee-capable Warlock? Or do you want a massive power buff to Pact of the Blade?

Incidentally, while Pact of the Blade is the obvious choice for a Titan Warlock, I specifically wrote it so it isn't mandatory. A Bladelock gets access to better weapons and a built it 'magic' weapon to take advantage of the Furious Smash special, but regular warlocks can still use a quarterstaff for the other features, and they get access to Magic Weapon at the same level if they want, at the cost of a spell known. Thus, Blade gives them more tactical and strategic flexibility, as they have an extra spell known and a free concentration slot over the other Pacts, but the different pacts aren't traps for the new Patron.

[Spiritchaser]

Blade Pact is supposed to give you some minor option when forced into melee, which it does.
As this Pact of the Blade has the same insignificant impact of the other two pacts.

While having this opinion is obviously valid, there are now 7 pages of discussion indicating that quite a few others have a differing opinion.

I don't see why the two need to be exclusive.

[BigONotation]

I'm not stating my personal opinions. I'm describing 5e's design philosophy. If you offer a melee option that's not powerful enough to make melee an effective primary option, then it's a trap option and is not in line with 5e design principles. A player should be able to effectively use any class feature they choose, without needing prerequisites. They should never be required to min-max to be effective at what their class does. Their choices should simply work, out of the box, and using them should produce an effective character, regardless of what they picked.

When you add these "small" choices that don't work on their own or without min-maxing, you bring back the convoluted nature of 3.5e that the devs specifically chose to avoid.

100% agree.

You know why everyone who plays a Pact of the Blade Warlock takes up a level of Fighter? Because the design of the Pact is wrong and you need it to shore up their weakness so they can do what they were poorly designed to.

[DivisibleByZero]

100% agree.

You know why everyone who plays a Pact of the Blade Warlock takes up a level of Fighter? Because the design of the Pact is wrong and you need it to shore up their weakness so they can do what they were poorly designed to.

The thing is though, Warlock wasn't designed to do that.
A minor gift from your Patron (which is a level 3 choice available to any and all Warlocks) doesn't suddenly change that.

Its: here's a small token in honor of you having held up your end of our agreement. (just like a decent familiar or a few cantrips)
It is not: here's a huge boon to suddenly make you something that you aren't.
That people think it is, is frankly, ridiculous.

You can then choose... CHOOSE... to improve it over time of you like... Just like Chain and Tome can choose to if they like.

Maybe that's what you wanted Bladelock to be designed for, but that isn't what it was designed for. And that's because Warlock as a whole wasn't designed for it. One tiny choice made at level 3 which was designed as a small boon isn't going to change that.

He had the right idea above, because a subclass/Patron might change that, but a Pact Boon isn't going to do it. I don't particularly care for what was presented, but at least he was on the right track.

[georgie_leech]

He had the right idea above, because a subclass/Patron might change that, but a Pact Boon isn't going to do it. I don't particularly care for what was presented, but at least he was on the right track.

Assuming this was directed at me, any particular comments or concerns? Or more of a general 'Warlocks shouldn't be in melee' thing? I can't really use the latter to improve anything about it. :smalltongue:

[DivisibleByZero]

Assuming this was directed at me, any particular comments or concerns? :

The only thing I thought was okay Immovable Object.
I didn't like the cantrip offered, I didn't like that it restricted EB, I didn't like the half prof to AC thing, I didn't like that the higher ability was limited to certain weapons, etc.
But like I said, at least you have the right idea by making it a Patron/subclass, because that's the right way to do it if you're trying to turn a warlock into an actual gish.

I think something like a primordial patron that focuses on physical aspects and defense would be appropriate, and I'd give him an expanded spell list to accentuate that he is more martial than his counterparts.

[Blue Lantern]

While having this opinion is obviously valid, there are now 7 pages of discussion indicating that quite a few others have a differing opinion.

I don't see why the two need to be exclusive.

Because obviously there is only one true way of playing D&D.

As for the discussion at hand, personally I was thinking of giving pact of the blade warlock proficiency with medium armour, the possibility to summon or bond up to two weapon and changing the Lifedrinker invocation to add 1d6, 1d8 or Warlock lvl /4 necrotic damage instead of the CHA mod and reduce the level prerequisite at lvl 7.

This way it will reduce the bladelock dependency to CHA, thus removing the MADness of the archetype, and will make eldritch blast less palatable.

And before people start jumping the gun, I realise it may not be the perfect mathematical solution, but I am not interested in fixing min maxing, and prefer to keep change simple.

[Jjj111]

100% agree.

You know why everyone who plays a Pact of the Blade Warlock takes up a level of Fighter? Because the design of the Pact is wrong and you need it to shore up their weakness so they can do what they were poorly designed to.

How can you say what the intent of the designers was?

[Tanarii]

Based on the fact that they literally have only light armor as their only built-in defense, and absolutely nothing else. That is universally less than every other melee-focused character. They have no advantages.Okay, so whiteroom analysis. Fair enough.


And what are their "strengths"? Not using their Pact weapon? Sitting back and using Eldritch Blast instead?Depends what they put into it. If they don't back up Pact of the Blade with a single Invocation or melee-oriented defensive spell, then their strength is they have slightly better damage on an OA or melee attack, can't be disarmed or lose their weapon, can go armed without appearing to be armed, and overcome resistance to non-magic weapon.


Because there is a Pact of the Blade class option which encourages you to fight with a melee weapon, and since this is 5e, it should simply work, out of the box, without me having to min-max at all.

It has nothing to do with my expectations. It has to do with 5e's design philosophy. If Pact of the Blade can't provide an appropriate amount of defense for a melee character, it shouldn't exist in the first place. Every class option you pick should simply work, as-is, without you having to choose anything else to make it work properly.Prove that it your claims have anything to do with 5e design philosophy. Until you show me otherwise, I'm going to keep ignoring that claim, because it's just your personal opinion with nothing to back it up.


I'd rate Pact of the Tome as being worth about 3 feats. 1 Feat for 3 cantrips, 1 Feat for Ritual Caster: Wizard, and 1 Feat for Ritual Caster: Cleric. Pact of the Chain is incomparable, because it gives features no other class can get. With that power level, if a few points of AC and some kind of melee defensive ability is too much to ask for, then I don't know what to tell you.This explains your problem, other than projecting your personal opinions as "5e design philosophy". You are expecting too much out of the Pact Boons, because you are MASSIVELY overestimating the value of Tome & Chain.

[Jjj111]

Because obviously there is only one true way of playing D&D.

As for the discussion at hand, personally I was thinking of giving pact of the blade warlock proficiency with medium armour, the possibility to summon or bond up to two weapon and changing the Lifedrinker invocation to add 1d6, 1d8 or Warlock lvl /4 necrotic damage instead of the CHA mod and reduce the level prerequisite at lvl 7.

This way it will reduce the bladelock dependency to CHA, thus removing the MADness of the archetype, and will make eldritch blast less palatable.

And before people start jumping the gun, I realise it may not be the perfect mathematical solution, but I am not interested in fixing min maxing, and prefer to keep change simple.
So at level 7, you would give a great sword bladelock medium armor proficiency and let them do 8d6 + 2*STR (34 average) damage per turn (4d6 x2 great sword attacks + 2d6 hex + 2d6 lifedrinker)?

Hahaha. That's an INSANE amount of at-will damage for any character to do at level 7, let alone a caster. I'm more and more convinced that the people in this thread wanting to make bladelock be a melee character are just wanting to play some massively overpowered gish who is amazing in melee and an amazing caster.

[Socratov]

I'm 100% with you. Warlocks are not supposed to go into melee and therefor do not get any tools for it. The designers might have overlooked giving Blade Pact one of AC, HP, a better Melee Attack, Con Saves, damage mitigation, or skirmish options, but not all.

It is clear to me, that there is no easy Melee Warlock. There is only the Eldritch Blast Warlock. And that this is was fully intended.

Blade Pact is supposed to give you some minor option when forced into melee, which it does.
As this Pact of the Blade has the same insignificant impact of the other two pacts.

I disagree on the pactboons being insignificant.

Let's go through them, shall we?

Pact of the Tome is the pact that gives you a spellbook with 3 cantrips from any class, cast as if it was a warlock cantrip all along. This even allows for the getting of Shilleilagh, but instead of using Wis, it uses Cha! You can quite literally pick anything you want here. It's like 1.5 Magic Initiates, and you can use any class list and not be bound by their casting stat! That is not insignificant. But wait, there is more! If you take the Book of Ancient Secrets Invocation, you get The Wizard's version of ritual casting and spellbook scribing (well, for rituals that is). This, too is a very significant ability. What's more, you can do this if you encounter the spell, no talk about copying scorlls into you rritual book, but any spell you encounter with the ritual tag can be copied as long as you get the time and have the inks to inscribe it (2 hours per spell lvl and 50 gp of inks per spell lvl).

Hardly insignificant, extremely useful.

Pact of the Chain gives a familliar (most with at will invisbility and fly speed) which are excellent scouts and excellent helpers since they don't suffer the automatons waiting on input like the primary ranger's companion had (except for attacks) since the familliars possess intelligence. Oh, and you can cast any spell you can cast through your familliar taking the familliar as origin point. No need for spellsniper or anything, just take 2 positions which igve clear view on everyone and boom, any cover's gone. But wait, there is more. Pick Voice of the Chain Master and you can now percieve thorugh their eyes (directly scouting), communicate long distance and even communicate through your familliar with whoever it is they are near. It's like the wizard demiplane thingie sending out clones: you can interact with the world and be at a very safe spot anywhere. Oh, and if you pick that and get chains of carcieri you can disable fiends, angels, elementals etc. at will. No additional costs.

In summa: find familliar, with great familliar options, added options for beast sense on your familliar, alsways on and the option to get at will hold mosnter on any celestial, fiend or elemental. You only need to short or long rest if you want to use it again on the same creature. Please tell me how this is insignificant beucase all I see is something extremely strong and useful.

Now for pact of the blade: you get a melee (!)weapon you can summon from a dimensional pocket, the weapon will count as magic for the purposes of damage reduction. You will be proficient with anything you summon from that pocket (useful!). If you find magic weapons you can make them your dimensional pocket weapon, yes even magic bows (but not regular bows!), bu tno more then one! Oh, and it will take one action to draw the weapon, no drawing and attacking, no it takes a full action to summon it. You can get an extra attack with Thirsting blade (but it only works for you dimensional pocket weapon), and at lvl 12 you may choose Lifedrinker to add your charisma modfier as necrotic damage on your dimensional pocket weapon attacks. Oh, but you don't get any additional defensive options. You stay exactly as fragile as your tome and chain brethren.

Now tell me how the boons are equally insignigicant. Because I see neither the insignificance, nor the equality between boons.

[georgie_leech]

The only thing I thought was okay Immovable Object.
I didn't like the cantrip offered,

What about it didn't you like? The nonstandard progression?


I didn't like that it restricted EB,

Frankly, Warlocks are already one of the most powerful Ranged characters in the game, as part of their base class, on top of being a caster. Leaving them unrestricted access to EB leads to the 3.5 Druid problem, where a single class was the best at everything. The other idea I toyed with was leaving them access to it, but turning off the Patron benefits for a round-ish after doing so. Thoughts?


I didn't like the half prof to AC thing,

Warlocks are already one of the more fragile classes; to survive in melee, they needed something to increase their chances of surviving being a target for more enemies, and Temp HP is the Fiendlock's thing. I thought about having it be CHA to AC, but my concern was making a Warlock 1 dip so ridiculously strong for CHA casters like the Bard or Sorcerer that it was essentially mandatory from an optimisation perspective. After all, you can have a character that doesn't want a stronger Ranged attack, but everyone needs AC. I considered having it function only with Mage Armor active, but then it doesn't function until the next level when Warlocks can get that invocation, and it makes that invocation mandatory. To have it function like a Monk's bonus makes the Warlock MADder than ever.

If I were to have it be a CHA bonus, it could be limited by Warlock level; "this bonus may not exceed your number of levels in the Warlock class," or some such. Thoughts?


I didn't like that the higher ability was limited to certain weapons, etc.

The intent was that this wasn't just a light tap, but a full on baseball bat-style swing for the fences that blows opponents away. The weapons it works with all are heavy, or have a way to swing them two handed. Do you have any thoughts as to how I can word it to keep that aspect, while opening it up to more weapons?


I think something like a primordial patron that focuses on physical aspects and defense would be appropriate, and I'd give him an expanded spell list to accentuate that he is more martial than his counterparts.

I mean, he does have an expanded spell list. 2 available for the first 5 spell levels, just like the other patrons, most of which work at short range or enhance attacks, and the latter have a couple of more elemental power themes to them.

[Blue Lantern]

So at level 7, you would give a great sword bladelock medium armor proficiency and let them do 8d6 + 2*STR (34 average) damage per turn (4d6 x2 great sword attacks + 2d6 hex + 2d6 lifedrinker)?

Hahaha. That's an INSANE amount of at-will damage for any character to do at level 7, let alone a caster. I'm more and more convinced that the people in this thread wanting to make bladelock be a melee character are just wanting to play some massively overpowered gish who is amazing in melee and an amazing caster.

That's a good point, probably I should keep the Lifedrinker prerequisite as it is, I'm still in the thinking stage. In any case if they are using Hex is not really at will, and it means they are not using their limited spell slot on defensive options, and considering there are only so many stats they can raise, there will be a trade off between melee damage, casting and survivability.

[DivisibleByZero]

What about it didn't you like? The nonstandard progression?
Just didn't care for it. I don't like the idea of creating spells that only a single subclass get access to.


Frankly, Warlocks are already one of the most powerful Ranged characters in the game,
<snip>
Thoughts?
EB is the Warlock's thing. I see no reason to take it away from this particular subclass for the same (but inverse) reasons that I don't care for the cantrip.


Warlocks are already one of the more fragile classes; to survive in melee, they needed something to increase their chances of surviving <snip>
Thoughts?
Media armor and shields. Done. They already have a bunch of defensive spells/invocations available. Why do you have to make it complicated?


The intent was that this wasn't just a light tap, but a full on baseball bat-style swing for the fences that blows opponents away.
<snip>
But it's a power fueled by his Patron, so restricting weapons feels punitive. That's the kind of thing that should be reserved for feats and fighting styles. Even the Barbarian has no such restrictions.


I mean, he does have an expanded spell list.
I originally wrote that I would not give him any expanded spell last at all, but then I realized that it would then punish Tome or Chain, so I changed it.
The list would be purely physically offensive (magic weapon was a good choice) or defensive (stoneskin was a good choice), with no utility and no deviation from that pattern.
Maybe only one extra spell per level to accentuate that point.

I'd do something like, just spitballing here, but something like:

Level 1: prof with medium armor and shields, prof with one martial weapon, one free cantrip chosen from GFB/BB/Shillalegh
Expanded spells: 1st shield, 2nd magic weapon, 3rd elemental weapon, 4th stoneskin, 5th (dunno off hand, I'm afb)

The rest was alright if you remove the weapon restrictions.

[georgie_leech]

Just didn't care for it. I don't like the idea of creating spells that only a single subclass get access to.

Would it be better if it was just the Furious Smash Action, rather than a Cantrip?



EB is the Warlock's thing. I see no reason to take it away from this particular subclass for the same (but inverse) reasons that I don't care for the cantrip.

Do you see a way to have the Melee Warlock not also have strong Casting and Ranged options then?


Media armor and shields. Done. They already have a bunch of defensive spells/invocations available. Why do you have to make it complicated?

Mostly because I tunneled hard on the idea of the Patron supernaturally enhancing their toughness. Also, that wielding a BFStick seemed appropriate for a patron based on strength, so shields are a non-solution. Medium armor is a good idea though.


But it's a power fueled by his Patron, so restricting weapons feels punitive. That's the kind of thing that should be reserved for feats and fighting styles. Even the Barbarian has no such restrictions.

I suppose given that he's already tapping people for patron-fueled Force damage with Inflict Wounds, that makes sense. Done.


I originally wrote that I would not give him any expanded spell last at all, but then I realized that it would then punish Tome or Chain, so I changed it.
The list would be purely physically offensive (magic weapon was a good choice) or defensive (stoneskin was a good choice), with no utility and no deviation from that pattern.
Maybe only one extra spell per level to accentuate that point.

I'd do something like, just spitballing here, but something like:

Level 1: prof with medium armor and shields, prof with one martial weapon, one free cantrip chosen from GFB/BB/Shillalegh
Expanded spells: 1st shield, 2nd magic weapon, 3rd elemental weapon, 4th stoneskin, 5th (dunno off hand, I'm afb)


With this one, I didn't see much reason to break the "Patron's provide two new spell choices for spell levels 1-5" pattern. Also, if you're just doing one spell, I still say Destructive Wave. Striking the ground with your weapon for AoE thunder damage and knocking stuff away seems rather thematic :smalltongue:

[DivisibleByZero]

Would it be better if it was just the Furious Smash Action, rather than a Cantrip?
Meh


Do you see a way to have the Melee Warlock not also have strong Casting and Ranged options then?
The Warlock is a full caster. Not much you can do to temper it.
Also, see below (about powering down)


Mostly because I tunneled hard on the idea of the Patron supernaturally enhancing their toughness. Also, that wielding a BFStick seemed appropriate for a patron based on strength, so shields are a non-solution. Medium armor is a good idea though.
And you tunneled your way right past anyone that doesn't want to wield a two handed weapon. And you did so for no reason other than the idea that you arbitrarily picked in your head.


With this one, I didn't see much reason to break the "Patron's provide two new spell choices for spell levels 1-5" pattern. Also, if you're just doing one spell, I still say Destructive Wave. Striking the ground with your weapon for AoE thunder damage and knocking stuff away seems rather thematic :smalltongue:
The reason to break that pattern is because this patron is much more combat heavy than the others. It becomes the default choice for many warlocks unless you deincentivize it somehow. Reducing the expanded spell list is the way to both do that, and to accentuate that he's not *quite* as focused on casting as his brethren.

I said that the other abilities were okay, but honestly I'd power all of them down, because Warlock as a class is already front loaded and this subclass would exacerbate that, so making the later levels a bit weaker would help to keep it from becoming the go-to option.

[Strill]

So then we need to "fix" cleric, too?
Because many domains have melee option in the form of +1d8 to attacks, but it isn't a primary option because they don't even get extra attack.
Or wizards then? They get weapon proficiencies. But it isn't a primary option.
So I guess that only only melee classes should even get melee weapon proficiencies, right? Melee is a primary option for clerics because it's their strongest at-will attack. Similarly for Wizards, weapons are not their strongest at-will attack, so are not primary.

Just because a class has an option or a feature doesn't mean that it absolutely MUST be powerful enough to become their primary option.You've got it backwards. If a class has a feature that is strong enough to be their primary option, it MUST be viable to use.

You are under the incorrect assumption that this is true and is a design philosophy of 5e, but it isn't.
If it were, then every single Domain that gets +1d8 to weapon attacks would also get extra attack. But none of them do. Not a single one. So your assumption about the design philosophy within the class design of 5e is incorrect, and therein lies the the root of the problem that you have with Blade Pact.It's true because every domain that gets +1d8 to attacks, also gets heavy armor to support being in melee.


Do you see a way to have the Melee Warlock not also have strong Casting and Ranged options then?Easy. Require one invocation for increased damage, and another invocation for some special effect, in the vein of Repelling Blast. If someone wants to spend 4 invocations to get both melee and ranged, then they're sacrificing heavily from all the other cool invocations they could've gotten.

[georgie_leech]

It's true because every domain that gets +1d8 to attacks, also gets heavy armor to support being in melee.

Quibble, Trickery Clerics do not get Heavy Armor but get 1-2 d8 Poison Damage on weapon attacks.

[Millstone85]

What's more, you can do this if you encounter the spell, no talk about copying scorlls into you rritual book, but any spell you encounter with the ritual tag can be copied as long as you get the time and have the inks to inscribe it (2 hours per spell lvl and 50 gp of inks per spell lvl).Are you saying that the warlock could act as a blue mage? I believe a ritual still has to be found in written form before it can be copied. Sorry if that's not what you meant.


you can cast any spell you can cast through your familliar taking the familliar as origin point. No need for spellsniper or anything, just take 2 positions which igve clear view on everyone and boom, any cover's gone.The spell must have a range of touch, so this plan doesn't work.


at will hold mosnter on any celestial, fiend or elemental. You only need to short or long rest if you want to use it again on the same creature.Only on a long rest.

[nilshai]

Pact of the Tome is the pact that gives you a spellbook with 3 cantrips from any class, cast as if it was a warlock cantrip all along. This even allows for the getting of Shilleilagh, but instead of using Wis, it uses Cha!

I'm not impressed by the ability of using weaker attack cantrips. Shillelagh is outdamaged by Eldritch Blast at Level 5 while in melee and deals 2 more damage than a mundane melee weapon before that for two levels, all while you try avoiding to get in melee in the first place.
Some situational, noncombat Spell's is what you get for an Invocation, that probably can be replicated for free by other casters in your group.


Pact of the Chain gives a familliar (most with at will invisbility and fly speed) which are excellent scouts and excellent helpers since they don't suffer the automatons waiting on input like the primary ranger's companion had (except for attacks) since the familliars possess intelligence.

What you get is a scout that can be detected and/or killed by every enemy it passes by. It is better to have you familiar die instead of yourself while scouting, but again i'm not impressed. In addition to that, knowing what enemies are in the next 2 rooms doesn't kill them, it doesn't change initiative order. Your scouting might even alert them to your presence.
You cast what Spells exactly from you familiar? Hex, Armor of Agathys, Darkness, or Fireball?

You might get all kinds of cool from these abilities, if you don't play by the exact rules, but i wouldn't talk about rules, if i ignored them anyways.
I can only repeat myself: insignificant.

[Citan]

I'm not impressed by the ability of using weaker attack cantrips. Shillelagh is outdamaged by Eldritch Blast at Level 5 while in melee and deals 2 more damage than a mundane melee weapon before that for two levels, all while you try avoiding to get in melee in the first place.
Some situational, noncombat Spell's is what you get for an Invocation, that probably can be replicated for free by other casters in your group.

While Socratov may be a tad overenthusiast about it, it seems yourself are severely underestimating Tome, just for cantrips aspect (so I won't talk about Rituals ^^).

1. Shillelagh: while it seems a bit weak because Warlock usually want to build DEX for Mage Armor, it does allows one to bump CHA first, so it builds up to more damage. Also, it makes more use of quarterstaffs as arcane focus, and gives Tome Warlock a good way to use Polearm Master while keeping DEX at a good level. It also makes for a magical weapon, which is a very strong benefit when you get it (only EK gets it as soon, and Monk at 5).

2. Guidance: no need to present this I presume. ;)

3. Ray of Frost: good cold-themed spell, attack with movement debuff (in case you don't take Repelling Blast or it is not usable properly).

4. Thorn Whip: seems strange you would want to get an enemy closer to you, but it could be useful in a gish with a multiclass that builds a protector role. ;)

5. Vicious Mockery: since you have the best at-will "pure" damage, why not take one that can help friends? ;)

6. Message, Produce Flame, Sacred Flame, Spare the Dying, Mold Earth, Control Flames, etc...

7. Or other good cantrips that are on Warlock list but you already burned your two first on Eldricht Blast and Mage Hand or so...
Chill Touch, Produce Flame, Create Bonfire, Control Flames, Gust, Thunderclap, Shape Water...

Sure, most of your turns, you will use Eldricht Blast. But Warlocks gets few cantrips. This allows you to build more versatility on your mundane turns or out of fights.



What you get is a scout that can be detected and/or killed by every enemy it passes by. It is better to have you familiar die instead of yourself while scouting, but again i'm not impressed. In addition to that, knowing what enemies are in the next 2 rooms doesn't kill them, it doesn't change initiative order. Your scouting might even alert them to your presence.
You cast what Spells exactly from you familiar? Hex, Armor of Agathys, Darkness, or Fireball?

You might get all kinds of cool from these abilities, if you don't play by the exact rules, but i wouldn't talk about rules, if i ignored them anyways.
I can only repeat myself: insignificant.
Why would your INVISIBLE familiar be detected or killed by every enemy it passes by? Invisible + Stealth + careful movement should allow it to go by in most cases. And contrarily to a normal familiar, you don't require any action to perceive through its senses, nor do you lose your own sense, and you can talk through it. So many possibilities here... ;)
You could also cast Shocking Grasp (taken from Magic Initiate) from your familiar while you are safely hidden.
(Agreed though that Warlock severely lacks "touch spell" options, wonder if this was deliberate but it hurts a bit).

And FREE Hold Monster at high level can be awesome in most campaigns (the one reason I would stick with Warlock at least up to 15th level).

[Millstone85]

And contrarily to a normal familiar, you don't require any action to perceive through its senses, nor do you lose your own senseJeremy Crawford disagrees. (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/03/20/voice-of-the-chain-master-familiar/)
Q: Does seeing through your familiar's senses with Voice of the Chain Master use an action?
A: Voice of the Chain Master enhances the find familiar spell, which otherwise works as written for the warlock.Also here. (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/04/11/can-voice-of-chain-master-perceive-what-is-happening-during-warlock-sleep/)
Q: If one had Voice of chain master (or a Homunculus) are they still able to perceive what it does while they sleep?
A: Voice of the Chain Master extends the range of the link w/ a familiar, but you still take an action to use it.

[nilshai]

And FREE Hold Monster at high level can be awesome in most campaigns (the one reason I would stick with Warlock at least up to 15th level).

This is what represents the stuff your Warlock get's with pacts best: too late game and/or too situational, not impressive.

[Talionis]

What is the point of the thread? Do we really think we will get Ranger treatment for a subclass? Do we want a new Patron?

It's a popular subclass and it's a bit of a trap subclass too. Someone keeps saying the pacts aren't that great and that's pretty much true, but Blade is the worst pact and it is this attractive nuisance where people think they are getting a Gish and instead they get a Gimp.

I would love for someone to outline how they think a pure Bladelock is supposed to work. As far as I can tell the pact creates a pretty sword and there is no good way to use it so it's a waste.

What people expect is the opposite of Eldritch Knight. The more magical end with same kinds of trade off.

[georgie_leech]

What is the point of the thread? Do we really think we will get Ranger treatment for a subclass? Do we want a new Patron?

It's a popular subclass and it's a bit of a trap subclass too. Someone keeps saying the pacts aren't that great and that's pretty much true, but Blade is the worst pact and it is this attractive nuisance where people think they are getting a Gish and instead they get a Gimp.

I would love for someone to outline how they think a pure Bladelock is supposed to work. As far as I can tell the pact creates a pretty sword and there is no good way to use it so it's a waste.

What people expect is the opposite of Eldritch Knight. The more magical end with same kinds of trade off.

Pact is not the Warlock Subclass.

[Tanarii]

It's a popular subclass and it's a bit of a trap subclass too. Someone keeps saying the pacts aren't that great and that's pretty much true, but Blade is the worst pact and it is this attractive nuisance where people think they are getting a Gish and instead they get a Gimp.It's not a trap. It's not even close to the worst pact. Other than shocking grasp, there aren't any cantrips a Warlock needs. Tome is by far the weakest until it's backed up by an invocation. And even then it's YMMV depending on what kind of campaign your DM runs, both in how useful rituals are and how likely you are to find rituals. And of course whether you already have any ritual casters in the party.


I would love for someone to outline how they think a pure Bladelock is supposed to work. As far as I can tell the pact creates a pretty sword and there is no good way to use it so it's a waste.Quick and dirty way to stack everything possible and do more than just fine? Str, then Con/Cha, Dex 4th (ie 12). Mage Armor at will. False Life at will. Dark One's Blessing. Armor of Agathys pre-encounter, summon Greatsword or Glaive pre-encounter, Hex when the fight begins.

That's an extreme version if you feel like dumping all your resources into Melee first, of course. I've some players that do that. Other bladelocks play a little more balanced, and don't drive straight in to the thick of things, target intelligently around the edges where they won't get surrounded easily.

(I'm assuming dungeon here so that you can move into melee fairly quickly. Otherwise you might as well EB.)

Edit:

Pact is not the Warlock Subclass.No kidding. I think one of the problems is people like to call them bladelock, tomelock and chainlock. As opposed to by their subclasses: Fiendlock, Feylock and ... uh, Goolock? lol

[DivisibleByZero]

Melee is a primary option for clerics because it's their strongest at-will attack.

No, it isn't.
Sacred Flame is their strongest at will attack overall, even with +1d8 factored in. Sure, there are a few levels where weapons are better, but that's true of every cantrip.

Edit :
And so then, by your definition, a Bladelock's melee damage needs to surpass that of his EB in order to become primary?
So you think that the class with the absolute best at will ranged damage in the game also needs a melee option that's even better than that, while also maintaining that he needs better defenses as well? And you suggest this in a thread about balance?

You're out of your mind.

[odigity]

I think one of the problems is people like to call them bladelock, tomelock and chainlock. As opposed to by their subclasses: Fiendlock, Feylock and ... uh, Goolock? lol

Do you know why? Because Patron is literally the least important / valued part of the Warlock class.

Granted, this is a subjective evaluation based on some reason, some intuition, some gameplay, and lots of reading of these forums, but of the different pieces of Warlock:


Spells (especially EB & Hex)
Short-Rest Slots
Invocations
Pact Boon
Patron


I would say that people discuss / emphasize / get excited about Patron least of the five components.

Fact is most of the Patron abilities suck -- especially GOO, but even the Fiend abilities suck unless you melee, and this whole thread is full of explanations of why that's a bad idea. The expanded spell lists are a very minor perk, given that they're only added to your spell list, not your spells *known*. (Boy was the a slap in the face the first time I realized that.)

So, it might be technically or philosophically true that the choice of Patron is the closest analog within the Warlock class to the Archetypes found in other classes, but in practice, they are by far the least significant part of the package.

And that's part of the problem, I think.

[Millstone85]

No kidding. I think one of the problems is people like to call them bladelock, tomelock and chainlock. As opposed to by their subclasses: Fiendlock, Feylock and ... uh, Goolock? lolWell, thematically, the most important feature of a warlock is the pact they made. So of course Pact of the Chain, Pact of the Blade and Pact of the Tome feel important.

Even that is not right, though. The general feature is called Pact Boon and is described as a gift of your patron for going this far with your pact. The options should have been called Boon of the Chain, Boon of the Blade and Boon of the Tome.

Back in fourth edition, we had Infernal Pact, Fey Pact and Star Pact (hence the Lovecraftian warlock getting another funny nickname: "starlock"). That was the pact you made.

[Strill]

No, it isn't.
Sacred Flame is their strongest at will attack overall, even with +1d8 factored in. Sure, there are a few levels where weapons are better, but that's true of every cantrip.First, AC is generally easier to hit than saving throws because a +0 Saving throw bonus is as hard to hit as 14 AC. Second, how in the world do you figure that Sacred Flame is stronger?

With 16 Strength:

A level 5 War Cleric gets 2d6 + STR = (10). Sacred flame deals 2d8 (9).
A level 8 War Cleric gets 2d6 + STR + 1d8 = (14.5). Sacred flame deals 2d8 (9).
A level 11 War Cleric gets 2d6 + STR + 1d8 = (14.5). Sacred flame deals 3d8 (13.5).
A level 14 War Cleric gets 2d6 + STR + 2d8 = (19). Sacred flame deals 3d8 (13.5).
A level 17 War Cleric gets 2d6 + STR + 2d8 = (19). Sacred flame deals 4d8 (18).

Attacking is stronger at every level.


Edit :
And so then, by your definition, a Bladelock's melee damage needs to surpass that of his EB in order to become primary?
So you think that the class with the absolute best at will ranged damage in the game also needs a melee option that's even better than that, while also maintaining that he needs better defenses as well? And you suggest this in a thread about balance? You're pulling facts out of your ass. A fighter with Sharpshooter has much better at-will ranged damage.

I place very little value on redundant class features. Having multiple ways to use your action to simply deal damage is a very minor advantage. Having an inferior redundant way to deal damage is not an advantage at all. If a Bladelock's melee damage can't at least match Eldritch Blast, then it shouldn't be something the player chooses. Either give it to them by default, or remove it.

[odigity]

Even that is not right, though. The general feature is called Pact Boon and is described as a gift of your patron for going this far with your pact. The options should have been called Boon of the Chain, Boon of the Blade and Boon of the Tome.

Yes.

(This space intentionally left blank.)

[Talionis]

What is a Bladelock supposed to do with his blade? It's pointless.

Now I don't think the bonus needs to be more offense. My idea was a a curse that reduced damage if things hit by the pact weapon. If that's too much?

What I've kept saying is they need a much better reason to be in melee range.

[Regulas]

Here I'll put it in this way more as an overarching comment on Warlocks then anything:

Warlock mechanics moreso then other classes (I find at least out of the games I've played) are extremely DM dependant and I think might be the main reason opinion is so divisive on them.

For example (my own biggest class complaint with the class) spellcasting is great but I've rarely encountered campaigns (with several different DM's) where you actually feature many short rests. More often then not we are continuing or there's a space for a long rest, and this is often due to story pacing and session duration as much as anything meaning it's not easy to fix (unless we are on a dungeon grind the only time short rests are more common). However if your get enough rests in your campaign the spellcasting might seem fantastic to you.

Or Bladelocks can be quite squishy, however odds are if this isn't an issue for you then it's because your DM doesn't make it a problem, maybe he divides attackers up more or avoids killing blows etc. etc. (in contrast to my last campaign where not dying had more to do with a lot of extremely good roles then anything).

The main issue with Warlock from a design perspective is that it's cluttered with too many different things at once, and honestly I think it should be redesigned with either spell-casting or invocations entirely removed to allow them to fill out the other features better.



On to Bladelock fix :
I've always felt the simplest solutions here are either to make pact weapon use Cha (more ideal), or to give medium armour proficiency for free (less ideal). Neither solves everything but it helps out enough to make it acceptable.


Personal sidebar: I generally loath multiclassing when done solely for the sake of min/maxing and not because it's needed for a character concept.

[Strill]

Personal sidebar: I generally loath multiclassing when done solely for the sake of min/maxing and not because it's needed for a character concept.

I kind of agree, but it depends on the class and the amount of baggage the class brings with it. Taking a level of Fighter has no story baggage to go along with it, but going Sorlock brings with it a lot of backstory that needs explaining.

[Talionis]

Personal sidebar: I generally loath multiclassing when done solely for the sake of min/maxing and not because it's needed for a character concept.

This is a fine and dandy but it means different things to different people and play groups. Sounds like you have a pretty tough playgroup and for tougher play groups you need to min max. And min maxing isn't as silly for role play as it sounds. Characters would try to combine different forms of training to gain power. Players want power and min max but characters would desire to do the same thing.

Min maxing in my experience is a problem when characters aren't of similar power levels. In 3.5 it was obvious and power levels between classes was far more disperate.

We have a much smaller spread of power levels. Which maybe why this thread seems so passionate on both sides.

But having the Blade anywhere as a choose for Warlocks is totally a trap. Players will expect it to work and have a purpose for using their pact weapon in a way that feels meaningful to combat.

Gishes are a popular trope. It will attract players to it like a moth to a flame. It can and should be balanced but there should be room for a purposeful Caster in melee.

[Citan]

Fact is most of the Patron abilities suck -- especially GOO, but even the Fiend abilities suck unless you melee, and this whole thread is full of explanations of why that's a bad idea. The expanded spell lists are a very minor perk, given that they're only added to your spell list, not your spells *known*. (Boy was the a slap in the face the first time I realized that.)
Agreed on the fact that expanded spells would better be known outright than simply added to spell list.

Strongly disagree on "Patron Abilities suck" though.
GOO's Telepathy is great for when you want to be silent when communicating with partners for whatever reason, or contacting a creature while staying hidden (like, a prisoner you are supposed to make evade)... Entropic Ward is sadly a short-rest ability, but can help avoid a powerful attack. Thought Shield is situational, but situationnally good. Create Thrall is a very powerful feature when played right.

Archfey grants you short-rest 1 turn AOE frighten/charm (absolutely wonderful at low level), short-rest invisible teleport, "countercharm" and short-rest powerful charm.

Fiend's lvl 1 ability works equally well if you are not in melee, mind you (you trigger the benefit also when killing with Eldricht Blast. And the THP are always useful. Are you aware that enemies also get ranged attacks and spells?). Then gives you a short-rest "oh ****" ability to avoid a powerful attack/effect or succeed on a difficult check. Then gives you changeable resistance to one-type (so as long as you had the slightest of intelligence, getting information on what you encounter next, you get a significant defense boost). And a no-save 10d10 psychic damage per long-rest.

HOW are all these sucking? I'm more under the impression that players saying "it sucks" actually just disregard them at first view and then forget about its, never trying to really use them...

[Xetheral]

This explains your problem, other than projecting your personal opinions as "5e design philosophy". You are expecting too much out of the Pact Boons, because you are MASSIVELY overestimating the value of Tome & Chain.

From a qualitative standpoint, Chain (permanent, invisible, flying scout) and Tome (cha as melee stat) are good enough to build a character around, even without taking any invocations. Blade is not.

Sure, that doesn't mean the pacts are necessarily imbalanced, but I think it goes a long way towards explaining why many posters value Chain and Tome so much more highly than they value Blade.

[Jerrykhor]

I don't like the idea of a warlock wielding martial weapons, and I am glad that I didnt roll a bladelock. I noticed I seldom get hit, and never went down to 0 hp. The frontliners do go down more often, due to the DM's love for multi-attacking monsters. If I were a bladelock, I'd be dead more often, that's for sure. The DM doesn't specifically aim anyone, but he usually targets the frontliners first, which makes sense because they are usually the nearest. Being melee requires good defense, something a warlock doesn't have much of, or requires sacrificing offensive spells for defensive ones. I feel that the 120 ft range of EB is better defense than any defensive spell. An enemy with 30ft speed will need 2 turns just to dash to you (assuming you don't move).

My main concern is that the Pact of the Blade doesn't give enough benefits. Someone said we are overestimating the value of Tome and Chain, but the opportunity costs of the Blade is high (which is what you could have gained if you took Tome or Chain instead of Blade). You have to give up the utility of more cantrips+ritual casting, or a useful scouting tool, for a different fighting style. You're not better, just different, but the opportunity cost is a huge, and your fighting style more risky with mediocre returns. Overall, its a net loss.

[Kryx]

Looking back at 4e and 3.X the Warlock has no ability to contend in melee. I'd be fine with removing the Pact of the Blade from Warlock actually as then there is no perception that a Warlock should be able to contend in melee.

[Sianthus]

You know, guys and gals, we've been through this argument a million times whether or not Bladelock should be modified and buffed, the designer intent etcetcetera. It's never going to get anywhere.

What's clear here is that OP wants a change. And some other people want it too. Quite a lot of them in fact.

So how about we focus on developing actual modifications that everyone (who wants them) is satisfied with? Instead of say, comparing this class to that, or claiming they don't need modifications. We're brainstorming here. And one rule of brainstorming is to keep offering suggestions and alternatives instead of shooting everything down from the get-go :)

Or just ignore what I say and carry on. That works too X#

[Socratov]

Looking back at 4e and 3.X the Warlock has no ability to contend in melee. I'd be fine with removing the Pact of the Blade from Warlock actually as then there is no perception that a Warlock should be able to contend in melee.

I could live with that: either make it an honest option, or remove it all together.

[Kryx]

I could live with that: either make it an honest option, or remove it all together.
Yup, my thoughts as well.

[Millstone85]

Create Thrall is a very powerful feature when played right.I think you can use it to:

a) Protect yourself from a powerful enemy. Depending on your DM, that enemy may or may not still be able to damage you with AoE. Also, they can still attack your allies and have their allies attack you.

or

b) Keep a telepathic link with a distant ally. A hotline to a knowledgeable or influential NPC sounds very nice. Or you can make splitting the party less hazardous.

However, if Pact of the Blade is not the gish option it sounds like it should be, imagine the disappointment when a feature called Create Thrall doesn't let you control someone in any significant way. No, you are not going to sneak up on a sleeping king just to gain advantage on social checks with him, it is not worth the risk.

[Strill]

I could live with that: either make it an honest option, or remove it all together.

I absolutely agree.

[Tanarii]

I could live with that: either make it an honest option, or remove it all together.It's already an honest option.

[Kryx]

It's already an honest option.
Half of the thread disagrees. You're welcome to leave it unchanged in your game, but it's quite obvious that many people aren't satisfied with it.

[Talionis]

By a show of hands, how many people thought that Pact of the Blade was the Fifth Edition version of a Hexblade? I guess that's rhetorical, but I honestly thought that. The Hex spell is almost a class feature. Warlock has access to a lot of curse like spells. It gets double attacks like other melee classes. It's not like there is BAB to tell you who fights where.

[georgie_leech]

I could live with that: either make it an honest option, or remove it all together.


Yup, my thoughts as well.


I absolutely agree.


Half of the thread disagrees. You're welcome to leave it unchanged in your game, but it's quite obvious that many people aren't satisfied with it.

I attempted to address the call for a melee warlock by making a melee focused subclass here. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?503557-Fixing-BladeLocks-via-Balancing&p=21315291&viewfull=1#post21315291) Feedback would be appreciated.