Warlock Invocations: Armor of Shadows - FIX

[DracoKnight]

So, with all the talk of Bladelocks being subpar recently, I've decided to share my big fix to patch up Bladelocks' defenses.

Armor of Shadows
While you are wearing no armor and not wielding a shield, your AC equals 10 + your Dexterity modifier + your Charisma modifier.

This accomplishes two things:

1) It lessens the feats you need to have the high AC you need to be in melee range.

2) It stops Abjurer multiclass shenanigans, abusing the fact that you can cast mage armor at will.

[Kane0]

Seems legit

[Grod_The_Giant]

I can dig it.

[CaptainSarathai]

Sounds good to me. This is the kind of stuff I was trying to discuss in the other thread; trying to fix some of the poorer design decisions in the class. It's too front-loaded, and some options are just so over-powering (not necessarily op) that there's no sense in using other options, as well as options that do become rather OP when multiclassing out (compounded by the front-loaded nature of the class)

[ClintACK]

I like it.

Of course, in the attempt to help Bladelocks, you've just helped Blastlocks even more. Since non-Bladelocks are less MAD and less pressed for Invocations.

[Gignere]

Just make it a blade only invocation.

[Quintessence]

Way to poop all over the Sorcerer's draconic ability :(


I like this change though, it could be pretty interesting in play.

[Kane0]

Sorc could just get something similar, or just a straight +1 or +2 to AC thanks to the scales.

[rollingForInit]

Way to poop all over the Sorcerer's draconic ability :(


I like this change though, it could be pretty interesting in play.

Isn't the Sorcerer's ability base AC 13 + dexterity mod?

Anyway, Monks have the same ability (10+dex+wis), and Barbarians as well (10+dex+con, I think).

[Quintessence]

Isn't the Sorcerer's ability base AC 13 + dexterity mod?

Anyway, Monks have the same ability (10+dex+wis), and Barbarians as well (10+dex+con, I think).

Yeah it is mage armor basically.

[Kryx]

At level 11 the Warlock (blastlock or bladelock) has 14 or 15 AC (12 + 2 or 3 dex) still. Whereas with your version the warlock now has 17 or 18 AC (5 charisma + 2 or 3 dex). That's a problem for a blastlock imo.

3 AC (or 3 if you compare to the old invocation) is quite a huge difference and the concept takes away from a lot of the appeal of a monk or barbarian.

Based on those two issues I'm not a fan of such a system as you've stated it.
Making it bladelock only would remove most of the AC concern. It'd still step on Monk or Barbarian toes, but is more tolerable.

[Socratov]

I like it, though a charisma caster (that is not a dragon sorc), cna now get with 2 lvls of Warlock both the best ranged spellattack in the game, keyed off their key stat AND get a better AC.

Though my favourite rangd build has not changed (it always was warlock 2/sorc18 using quicken to do 4d10+20 twice a round for 9 rounds a day before conversion of spellslots).

Maybe limit it by classlevel: you can add a charsima bonus to your AC when unarmored of up to your classlevel (I think this shoudl also be a requirement for the unarmored defences of monk and barbarian)

[Kryx]

Maybe limit it by classlevel: you can add a charsima bonus to your AC when unarmored of up to your classlevel (I think this shoudl also be a requirement for the unarmored defences of monk and barbarian)
This just makes level 1 and 2 monk and unarmored barbarian terrible choices while doing nothing to limit the 2 higher AC of a blastlock except when dipping. Dipping is a side concern. Even on a straight blastlock +2 AC is a large boost.

[Socratov]

This just makes level 1 and 2 monk and unarmored barbarian terrible choices while doing nothing to limit the 2 higher AC of a blastlock except when dipping. Dipping is a side concern. Even on a straight blastlock +2 AC is a large boost.

No it doesnt, Right now a 2 lvl dip for the invocation gives 13+dex, by comparison, the new invocation with the lvl limit gives 10 + min(classlevel|chamod) +dex or up to 12+dex.

Now the blastlock could go and max dex, but has little reason to do so: only AC and possible dex skills might be affected (if the warlock gest those from race of background since out of the box they get none), those ASI's could also be used for feats (like Crossbow master or Spellsniper) that are of use, or to boost CON or WIS (and/or get Resillient Wis and/or Resillient Dex).

Out of the box AC (and dex saves) is the only reason for a warlock to take dex ASI. If the warlock uses a finesse weapon dex becomes more interesting.

[Kryx]

You seem to have missed my point. There is no max dex involved - this is a very standard build.
Warlock level 8 who started with +2 to +3 dex and +3 cha. It invested its 2 ASIs into Charisma. It now has +5 cha and +2 or +3 dex:

Armor: 12(studded)+2-3(dex) = 14-15 AC
Mage Armor (invocation): 13(mage armor)+2-3(dex) = 15-16 AC
Armor of Shadows "fix" (invocation): 15(charisma)+2-3(dex) = 17-18 AC

That is a +3 AC bonus over no invocation and a +2 AC bonus over the previous version. Giving a blastlock easy access to 17-18 ac is a problem, plain and simple.

[Naanomi]

More power to Sorcerer/Paladin/Warlock multiclasses I guess

[CaptainSarathai]

More power to Sorcerer/Paladin/Warlock multiclasses I guess

Not really. Unarmored Defense features don't stack, and don't stack with armor.
DracSorcs already get 13+Dex for AC, and everyone else has Mage Armor on the list. Paladins can wear Plate with a Shield and Defense, for the second highest AC in the game (EKs can do that, plus cast Shield)

Plus, Warlocks still have little reason to boost both scores to 20. A BladeLock doesn't need high Cha if he's not focusing on EB-spam. BlasterLocks don't need Dex.

Set Armor of Shadows to ~5th level OR make it a BladeLock feature and put Mage Armor on the Warlock Spell list.

I've been Homebrewing a better Warlock class, which does quite a bit to fix the spiky mechanics and poor design of the current Lock. Not sure if I'm going to bother posting it or not though, after what happened in the other thread.

[Kryx]

Set Armor of Shadows to ~5th level
You've giving a standard blastlock as much armor as plate by level 8 and the possibility to get more if they really want. There is no level restriction that balances that.

[Joe the Rat]

Maybe limit it by classlevel: you can add a charsima bonus to your AC when unarmored of up to your classlevel (I think this shoudl also be a requirement for the unarmored defences of monk and barbarian)

Another option would be to make the improved version a level-limited invocation - 5th level seems like a good target. The idea here is that you would use one of your invocation swaps to trade AoS with "Cloak of Eldritch Shadows" or whatever you call it. This also lets your not-so-charismatic warlocks (Say one who is focusing Dex first) keep the 13+dex for longer.

[Socratov]

You seem to have missed my point. There is no max dex involved - this is a very standard build.
Warlock level 8 who started with +2 to +3 dex and +3 cha. It invested its 2 ASIs into Charisma. It now has +5 cha and +2 or +3 dex:

Armor: 12(studded)+2-3(dex) = 14-15 AC
Mage Armor (invocation): 13(mage armor)+2-3(dex) = 15-16 AC
Armor of Shadows "fix" (invocation): 15(charisma)+2-3(dex) = 17-18 AC

That is a +3 AC bonus over no invocation and a +2 AC bonus over the previous version. Giving a blastlock easy access to 17-18 ac is a problem, plain and simple.

Ah, I see what you mean. Well, the obvious solution is to make it only available for the blade pact (this means it's at least 3 lvls to take and you must be a blade pact warlock to take it). Bladelocks could use it and frankly for a class that has little options to run away or reliably take damage and keep laughing I think it's not so bad. It's not as if they can add a physical shield or add defensive fighting styles to add to that AC (like fighters and paladins) to go beyond 20, nor do they get shield (unless Magic Initiate, and only then 1/day)

[Kryx]

Ah, I see what you mean. Well, the obvious solution is to make it only available for the blade pact (this means it's at least 3 lvls to take and you must be a blade pact warlock to take it).
It'd be fine on a Bladelock, agreed.

Myself I'd prefer Armor proficiency as this version makes Bladelock more MAD. Str > Dex/Con/Cha. Still true for armor, but less dex is needed for more competitive AC.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Ah, I see what you mean. Well, the obvious solution is to make it only available for the blade pact (this means it's at least 3 lvls to take and you must be a blade pact warlock to take it). Bladelocks could use it and frankly for a class that has little options to run away or reliably take damage and keep laughing I think it's not so bad. It's not as if they can add a physical shield or add defensive fighting styles to add to that AC (like fighters and paladins) to go beyond 20, nor do they get shield (unless Magic Initiate, and only then 1/day)
The problem there is the invocation progression. The first level a pact-only invocation is available is 5th... which is when Bladelocks really want to get their Extra Attack. Meaning you're probably not getting it until 9th, meaning that you're spent half the game (the most commonly played part of the game at that) without your defense booster.


It'd be fine on a Bladelock, agreed.

Myself I'd prefer Armor proficiency as this version makes Bladelock more MAD. Str > Dex/Con/Cha. Still true for armor, but less dex is needed for more competitive AC.
I don't think it makes them any more MAD than before, it just pushes them more towards being Dex-based. But I tend to agree with you; I think Blade Pact granting medium armor and shield proficiency like the Valor Bard is a good simple fix.

[PeteNutButter]

The problem there is the invocation progression. The first level a pact-only invocation is available is 5th... which is when Bladelocks really want to get their Extra Attack. Meaning you're probably not getting it until 9th, meaning that you're spent half the game (the most commonly played part of the game at that) without your defense booster.

I don't think it makes them any more MAD than before, it just pushes them more towards being Dex-based. But I tend to agree with you; I think Blade Pact granting medium armor and shield proficiency like the Valor Bard is a good simple fix.

Can't warlocks swap one invocation upon every warlock level up? I'm AFB...

I think either solution works. Currently cha and str are the only stats that can't be used as either a base AC or add to AC. I don't think it's stepping on any toes at all. Rather it feels like it's missing. Bladelocks needing another invocation is pretty rough though.

Free proficiency in medium armor and maybe shields is also forcing a dex build as just having a 14 dex makes Bladelocks even more MAD if they want to go str. You'll still see more Bladelocks than not dipping first level fighter for that heavy armor and dumping dex. Effectively making the homebrew "fix" pointless.

It's tough to come up with a solution that is both balanced but also allows for a variety of builds.

[Tanarii]

It'd be fine on a Bladelock, agreed.

Myself I'd prefer Armor proficiency as this version makes Bladelock more MAD. Str > Dex/Con/Cha. Still true for armor, but less dex is needed for more competitive AC.



I don't think it makes them any more MAD than before, it just pushes them more towards being Dex-based. But I tend to agree with you; I think Blade Pact granting medium armor and shield proficiency like the Valor Bard is a good simple fix.What it does is help them compared to the old invocation if their Cha is 18+, and hurt them if it's 15 or lower. That'd definitely MAD ... I've seen plenty of Bladelock builds that don't hit Cha 16 until level 8 or later. Of course, technically they were already MAD, this just hurts their AC more on top of that.

But I wouldn't call it pushing them into Dex any more than the old invocation did. Which is to say, many people already feel pushed into it pretty hard for bladelock defense. Not me personally, but I've seen it in plenty of players.

I'd call it a minor buff to the average bladelock build, +1 AC, at lets say levels 12 or 16. Since that's probably about where most will go to Cha 18. Possibly as early as level 8, with +2 AC at level 16, on Cha focused bladelock builds. Also note this stops them from using a shield with it, which the old Invocation did not. Although if you have access to Medium Armor/Shields and intending to use the shield, you're probably not going Dex 18+ anyway.

Edit: I'm also assuming it's bladelock only. Personally I don't like it because it makes the bladelock even more Cha-required than before, and cuts out low-Cha bladelock builds. OTOH even I still don't consider that common, despite seeing Cha 14 or 15 start builds somewhat frequently, as I stated above.

[Pex]

Unarmored Defenses don't stack, but the character can use the best one. A Barbarian/Monk would use 10 + Dex + Wis/Con which ever is higher. A Dragon Sorcerer having this would use whichever gives the better AC.

[DracoKnight]

Another fix I've seen, but not used yet:

Thirsting Blade
Prerequisite: 5th level, Pact of the Blade

When you take this Invocation you can make two attacks instead of one when you take the Attack action.

Starting at 11th level, you can make three attacks when you take the Attack action.

[Naanomi]

Unarmored Defenses don't stack, but the character can use the best one. A Barbarian/Monk would use 10 + Dex + Wis/Con which ever is higher. A Dragon Sorcerer having this would use whichever gives the better AC.
Technically whichever you get first wins but that is a extremely reasonable house rule

[DracoKnight]

Technically whichever you get first wins but that is a extremely reasonable house rule

No. Under the multiclassing rules it says you choose which Unarmored Defense you use, but you only get the benefits of the one.

[Grod_The_Giant]

No. Under the multiclassing rules it says you choose which Unarmored Defense you use, but you only get the benefits of the one.
No. Under the multiclassing rules it says "If you already have the Unarmored Defense feature, you can’t gain it again from another class." By RAW, you can't get a second Unarmored Defense feature to choose between.

[Naanomi]

No. Under the multiclassing rules it says you choose which Unarmored Defense you use, but you only get the benefits of the one.
You must have a different printing than I do, PH pg 164 in the upper right 'unarmored defense: if you already have the unarmored defense feature you cannot get it again from another class'

Was it errata'd?

EDIT: shadowmonk'd!

[GandalfTheWhite]

The post about Thirsting Blade is interesting.

[DracoKnight]

No. Under the multiclassing rules it says "If you already have the Unarmored Defense feature, you can’t gain it again from another class." By RAW, you can't get a second Unarmored Defense feature to choose between.


You must have a different printing than I do, PH pg 164 in the upper right 'unarmored defense: if you already have the unarmored defense feature you cannot get it again from another class'

Was it errata'd?

EDIT: shadowmonk'd!

Never mind, I was wrong. It's been a while since I read that bit, so I got it mixed up. My bad :smalltongue:

[Requiemforlust]

The post about Thirsting Blade is interesting.

My table uses that fix. I'm a dex-based half-elven Feylock who forged a Pact of the Blade, and my third attack kicked in 4 levels ago. It's been absolutely lovely. Far from OP, but very nice.

[GandalfTheWhite]

My table uses that fix. I'm a dex-based half-elven Feylock who forged a Pact of the Blade, and my third attack kicked in 4 levels ago. It's been absolutely lovely. Far from OP, but very nice.

It seems like it would be a solid fix. :smallbiggrin:

[Socratov]

It seems like it would be a solid fix. :smallbiggrin:

Except, the bladelock now gets more attacks then any other martial character (excepting the fighter).

[Kryx]

Except, the bladelock now gets more attacks then any other martial character (excepting the fighter).
And a bladelock needs no damage help. That alteration is OP.

[Feuerphoenix]

Another fix I've seen, but not used yet:

Thirsting Blade
Prerequisite: 5th level, Pact of the Blade

When you take this Invocation you can make two attacks instead of one when you take the Attack action.

Starting at 11th level, you can make three attacks when you take the Attack action.



THIS is real madness! A casterclass with 3 attacks! This would dominate any pure paly build, even most other builds who do not include warlock!

[Socratov]

And a bladelock needs no damage help. That alteration is OP.

to-may-to, to-mah-to. (I agree). The problem with bladelock is defence, not offence (it took us only 12 pages to agree on that in the other thread :smallamused:)

And frankly, I don't see how the warlock should be able to attack twice a turn anyway with a weapon that should obviously be magical. I'd instead allow the bladelock to channel cantrips through his attacks (as opposed to iterative attacks), but that we have yet to agree on that :smallwink:.

[Kryx]

The problem with bladelock is defence, not offence.
The bladelock does great offensive damage. You could compare DPR numbers on my DPR of Classes spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=2025852255).
Other calculations have found similar numbers.

It needs no additional damage.

[Socratov]

The bladelock does great offensive damage. You could compare DPR numbers on my DPR of Classes spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=2025852255).
Other calculations have found similar numbers.

It needs no additional damage.

Yes, it's exactly what I've been saying and agreeing with (as superbly shown in the way you quoted that exact part of where I indeed stated that).

Now I think that a bladelock does not need a second (or iterative, to use a legacy term) attack and should do his particular flavour of melee in a more unique way. though before we can tackle that I think that we first need to solve the problem of the bladelock's defence, without simultaneously strenghtening the other pacts that don't need it (though might like it).

and I think that the warlock as a complete class might be better suited in a different manner (maybe more reminiscent of the 3.5 warlock but in 5e terms of casting cantrips and being more renewable. I might even work in the philosophy behind Incarnum (but in the shape of invocations). But until I have the actual class redesigned I will have to visit threads like these aimed at patching or solving only parts of the problem.

[Spiritchaser]

I see two needs:
1. Better armor, particularly for strength builds
2. Help with con saves

The frequently advocated fighter dip hits both these

I don't feel the OP does either.

I've previously suggested an invocation called armor of will that:
-Permitted charisma to be added to mage armor/light armor instead of dexterity
-Permitted Charisma to be added to con saves

I had expected that this invocation would be exclusive of agonizing blast... One or the other, not both, but I have not yet playtested it

[georgie_leech]

Ah, I see what you mean. Well, the obvious solution is to make it only available for the blade pact (this means it's at least 3 lvls to take and you must be a blade pact warlock to take it). Bladelocks could use it and frankly for a class that has little options to run away or reliably take damage and keep laughing I think it's not so bad. It's not as if they can add a physical shield or add defensive fighting styles to add to that AC (like fighters and paladins) to go beyond 20, nor do they get shield (unless Magic Initiate, and only then 1/day)


It'd be fine on a Bladelock, agreed.

Myself I'd prefer Armor proficiency as this version makes Bladelock more MAD. Str > Dex/Con/Cha. Still true for armor, but less dex is needed for more competitive AC.

What would stop a Blastlock from taking the blade pack for this invocation? Sacrificing utility for offence/defence is hardly an unheard of decision when it comes to character building.

[Kryx]

@Socratov: I misread. I thought you were implying a bladelock was a defensive character. My mistake.



What would stop a Blastlock from taking the blade pack for this invocation?
Nothing. I wouldn't allow the suggested invocation in my games. Though in my games I restrict Agonizing Blast to non-blade pact and give blade-pact some inherent buffs.

[Socratov]

What would stop a Blastlock from taking the blade pack for this invocation? Sacrificing utility for offence/defence is hardly an unheard of decision when it comes to character building.

the same reason why a wizard won't pick a fighter class: options.

Versatility is a power complete on its own. the chainlock has a completely different skillset and different set of options from a bladelock. A tomelock Has, again a different set of powers and abilities. Making the bladelock more akin to a fighter (in the sense that they are more battle focused and oriented) in the sense that they are the martial application of their class does not invalidate the other pacts. Actually giving martial competence to the bladelock will give the bladelock its purpose alongside the other boons. Tome already has a purpose: ritual casting and conversion of magic (like shillelagh for CHA). The tome boon makes a warlock more competent at magic. Chain is also clear in its purpose: scouting and control over others (invisible familliar through which you can perceive, speak and associated invocations of arresting some being else's freedom like Chains of Carceri). the chinalock is competent in using its familliar and competent in arresting some people's actions. The bladelock is intended to be the martial component, however, has only a very limited competence. By then a blastlock might be a specific version of the bladelock instead of a completely different warlock.

Back to the fighter and the wizard. Unquestionably the wizard is seen as stronger then the fighter. Not because the wizard is stronger in combat then the fighter (at least in this edition), but because the wizard has all the tools to overcome any situation: damaging spells for killing, knock to open doors, protective spells to not die, enchantments spells to make people do their bidding, and so on.

Now the warlock is closer to the wizard then it is to the fighter, but that doesn't mean that the same principle can't be applied to the class itself. I can live with a system where the bladelock is better at being in combat then its cousins the chain lock and the tomelock. I can also live with the tome and chain lock outperforming their respective cousins when given their specialist task.

[georgie_leech]

the same reason why a wizard won't pick a fighter class: options.

Versatility is a power complete on its own. the chainlock has a completely different skillset and different set of options from a bladelock. A tomelock Has, again a different set of powers and abilities. Making the bladelock more akin to a fighter (in the sense that they are more battle focused and oriented) in the sense that they are the martial application of their class does not invalidate the other pacts. Actually giving martial competence to the bladelock will give the bladelock its purpose alongside the other boons. Tome already has a purpose: ritual casting and conversion of magic (like shillelagh for CHA). The tome boon makes a warlock more competent at magic. Chain is also clear in its purpose: scouting and control over others (invisible familliar through which you can perceive, speak and associated invocations of arresting some being else's freedom like Chains of Carceri). the chinalock is competent in using its familliar and competent in arresting some people's actions. The bladelock is intended to be the martial component, however, has only a very limited competence. By then a blastlock might be a specific version of the bladelock instead of a completely different warlock.

Back to the fighter and the wizard. Unquestionably the wizard is seen as stronger then the fighter. Not because the wizard is stronger in combat then the fighter (at least in this edition), but because the wizard has all the tools to overcome any situation: damaging spells for killing, knock to open doors, protective spells to not die, enchantments spells to make people do their bidding, and so on.

Now the warlock is closer to the wizard then it is to the fighter, but that doesn't mean that the same principle can't be applied to the class itself. I can live with a system where the bladelock is better at being in combat then its cousins the chain lock and the tomelock. I can also live with the tome and chain lock outperforming their respective cousins when given their specialist task.

My point wasn't that there weren't trade offs, it was with "Making it bladelock exclusive means it won't be a buff to the already strong ranged damage capabilities of a Warlock" being inaccurate. I understood Bladelock to mean the Warlock as primary melee, but if you meant it as the general combat ability sense, whether melee or ranged, then fair enough.